Music video: "Ukraine - red code"

Sergey Lavrov gives interview in English to "Russia Today"

The thing which everybody seems to be missing

Okay, I decided to squeeze in one more post before taking time off for Holy Paskha, this is well worth it.

Some of you have asked about China's role in all this, in what the real interests of the USA are, how the EU is positioning itself and what Russia does or does not want.  And, somehow, bogged down by the minutiae of the unfolding events I managed to never mention something which Putin, Lavrov and many other top Russian politicians have repeatedly said:

What is happening today before our eyes is the end of one international system and the birth of a qualitatively different one.

Interestingly, Putin has declared that for him the point of no return was reached when the USA and its allies at the UNSC and NATO clearly and grossly twisted the intention of the UNSC on Libya and "upgraded" what should have been a "no fly" zone to a free-fire zone to attack and bomb Libya [of course, it was pretty darn clear to Putin that the "all necessary means to protect civilians" of the resolution was an open ended invitation for the AngloZionists to "interpret" it in any way they wanted; now his says that Russia was "lied to" in order to not blame Medvedev for walking into a 10 foot wide hole.  But that is irrelevant here].  Putin says that from then on he had acquired the conviction that the West could not be negotiated with and had to be simply stopped.  Then Syria happened: for the first time since the end of WWII the USA had decided to do something and was stopped by an outside power in the most humiliating way possible.

The Russian stance on Syria was an overt challenge to US world hegemony.  It was clearly understood as such in Washington and now, following the crisis in the Ukraine, the Russians have openly admitted this.

So this is the real stake of the civil war in the Ukraine: for the USA it is to punish Russia for daring to challenge the world hegemon; for Russia it is to unseat this hegemon and replace him by a multi-polar international system in which sovereign countries act within the bounds of international law.  You could say that even though most of the Security Council is vehemently opposed to that, Russia is trying to show to the world that the USA does not own the UN and that it only represents 1/5th of the P5 and 1/15th of the UNSC.

The West has slouched into a position of total submission to the USA and its domination tools over Europe: the EU and NATO.  The central Europeans have even volunteered to become a US protectorate, a territory to house US missile systems and secret CIA prisons.

With the exception of Iran and Syria, the Arab and Muslim world has sold out, some to the USA, others to Saudi Arabia, most to both at the same time.  Latin America tries hard, but is still heavily dependent on the USA while Africa just wants to survive the best it can.  As for Asia, some parts are as sold out as Europe (Japan, Korea), others are trying to keep a low profile, while China is clearly quietly standing behind Russia but in an externally undeniable way even though China stands to benefit more than any other country on the planet from a change in the international order.

The Russians would have much preferred to wait, to buy time, but the US determination to punish it for daring to oppose it on Syria literally forced them to fold and surrender or openly accept the US challenge and stand firm.

I will repeat that again and again - Putin had no other choice.

And now that this is all in the open, you can be absolutely sure that Russia is not playing to return to the status quo ante.  With an amazing candidness both Putin and Lavrov have openly spelled out their goal on Russian TV (Lavrov on the show "Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev" and Putin on during his 4 hours long Q&A yesterday).

So this is the Russian end-goal: to unseat the USA from its role as a world hegemon.  And that goal implies a much longer, bigger and more sustained effort that just force the freaks in Kiev to the negotiating table.  Among other things, this goal implies that Russia must:

1) Force the Europeans to fully realize the outrageous price they are paying for being the obedient and silent vassals of the USA and slowly drive a wedge between the USA and Europe.
2) Force the USA to admit that it does not have the military might to punish or, even less so, "regime change" anybody they don't like.
3) Encourage China and other Asian powers to openly stand with Russia in demanding that international law be adhered to by the West.
4) Gradually replace the dollar with other currencies in international trade and thereby slow down the financing of the US debts by the rest of the planet.
5) Create the conditions for Latin America and Africa to be able to make choices about its future and replace the current monopoly enjoyed by the West in setting the terms of North-South relations.
6) Present another civilizational model which openly reject the current Western paradigm of a society run by small and arrogant minorities.
7) Challenge the current liberal and capitalist economic order embodied in the Washington Consensus and replace it by a model of social and international solidarity (call it "21 century socialism" if you want).

All of the above can be summed up in one word: re-sovereignization.

Since he got elected, Putin mentioned many times the need for a re-sovereignization of Russia.  The Ukrainian crisis has forced him reveal the real end goal of his agenda: to re-sovereignize the entire planet.

This is a tall order and it will take many years, possibly decades, to achieve this goal, though my personal feeling is that the total incompetence and infinite arrogance of of the 1%ers plutocrats which rules over the western world will continue to accelerate that process.

The big question now is this: can the AngloZionist Empire follow the example of the Soviet Empire and collapse without triggering a massive bloodbath on its way down?

There will be violence, for sure, as has been with the former Soviet Union.  But if we can avoid a global conflagration or even a large scale massive war then that would have to be considered as success because it is when they collapse that empires become the most dangerous and unpredictable.

I hope that the above answers many of the questions which have been posted here.

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker

PS: I just got this amazing video of a woman stopping a APC in Kramatorsk with her bare hands.  I guess she could be seen as a symbol of what Russia wants to do with the AngloZionist Empire:

 

Excellent statement of Russia's rep at the UNSC (dubbed in English) (UPDATED with transcript)

TRANSCRIPT: (thanks to "OP"!!)

(After Ukrainian representative’s statement)

Thank you, Ms. Chairman.

Today many words, many statements were sounded but the first impression I would like to share with my colleagues is that they do not look at the watch. Now it is a half past nine p.m. and it means that it is about a half to four a.m. now in Ukraine. In a couple of hours, the morning of April 14 will come there. Actually, this is the time when according to a criminal order by Mr. Turchinov the Ukrainian Army should be used to suppress protest manifestations.

Many unfair statements were sounded, but of course, the one who outdid everybody and actually himself was my Ukrainian colleague. He prosecuted Russia in terrorism. Why haven’t you prosecuted those who terrorized your government during several months until February 21? Who actually fought the militia forces, who burned police officers alive, shot them and those who protested with themselves together against the government and appeared to be their allies. You didn’t call them terrorists for some reason, and even released them from responsibility for their criminal actions they were doing for several months.

Again, unfortunately several ridiculous prosecutions were sounded to Russia. They said that Russia wants to destabilize the Ukraine, even tries to suffocate it. However, why haven’t you answered our call to start a dialogue about how to help the Ukraine to struggle through a crisis when it just started? Why were you inciting to continue this confrontation? Why have it happened so late that Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland said EU actually needs to talk to Russia about economic prospective of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova in case of their association with EU? By the way, I have not heard anybody supported this call in Brussels. We were reproached in “suffocation of Ukraine” even when we just refused to deliver our natural gas to Ukraine for free. Let see what will be an answer of EU Ministers on President Putin’s letter about how can we work together on pulling the Ukraine out of economical quagmire on April 14. However, Washington who actually have not been an addressee of this letter has already straightened the Europe calling this letter “an economical blackmail”. Let us see if there is any sovereignty remained for EU, is it able to make rational decisions to save the crisis or not.

During the whole crisis in Ukraine Russia voted not for an exhalation and destabilization of the country – this is not what we are interested in, because it is our important economic and political partner and a very close country for us in many ways – but against this destabilization. And we are not guilty in this situation we are observing now. Mr. Fernandes Taranka said that UN’s representatives began to observe actions that people of southeast of the Ukraine started to do capturing some administrative buildings. By the way here they, of course, used experience of Maidan and Kiev where administrative buildings were captured during months. However, our Western partners called it (Maidan – tr.) “a piece of democracy” for some reason. But they don’t endorse the same tactics when Southeastern people do it. It was on April 6 and 1, 5 months have passed since February 21 when President Yanukovich had been overthrown and an agreement had been signed what should have been able to prevent an exhalation. From the very beginning the one thing we were saying was that we should implement this agreement. Maybe we should gather a Constitutional Assembly, to make some decisive gesture to Southeast of the Ukraine, Were these gestures made? Well, finally Mr. Yatsenyuk came (to Southeast – tr.), said something and left, and the next day Mr. Turchinov makes a speech and says that he is not agree with Yatsenyuk. It turns out that they prefer to use a force.

By the way there were very worrying notes during a number of our consultations with our Western colleagues. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, as you know, has conversations over the phone with US State Secretary John Kerry almost every day. Every time Kerry shows he understands our confusion and that he tries to do something speaking to Kiev to help them with understanding Southeast’s needs and worries about its autonomy and language rights. But suddenly one of his Deputies makes a speech in the Congress and says “We know that this conversation will have no result but we need to spare time somehow”. To spare time. So, maybe there is a Turchinov’s “army-using” scenario in somebody’s head in Washington? Then let’s stop blaming Russia that we’re seeking for destabilization.

The US representative mentioned that Vice President Biden will come to Ukraine, as I remember, on April 21st. But why should he wait for that day? Let him take a receiver right now and call Mr. Turchinov as he called President Yanukovich several times before February 21. Let him tell Mr. Turchinov the same he told Mr. Yanukovich. And according to VP’s press-service he said “Don’t use a force, in the name of God! Take away your police forces from Kiev’s center”. This is what Mr. Biden said. And what now – the USA will approve this criminal order about using an army? Why when people were going to assault the Ukrainian President’s apartments they called not to use force and now in present situation they have an opposite point of view, supporting Turchinov’s order? So please, Ms. Power, ask VP Biden to call Mr. Turchinov right now because in several hours events could take an irreversible turn.

Some colleagues said about that meeting which as had been announced should take place on April 17 with hope. Indeed, we were searching for any formats of dialogue - during several months and especially after February 21 - which could pull the crisis and we agreed for a meeting of Foreign Minister of Russia, US State Secretary, the High Representative of EU Ms. Ashton and acting Foreign Minister of the Ukraine. We hoped that this meeting may cause a wide political dialogue in the Ukraine, show a political way out of crisis. But do you really think we will be sort out papers while the Ukrainian army will start military actions? Of course an opportunity for such a meeting will be totally disturbed.

So please, let us forget any speculations, prosecutions, searching for Russian ghosts in different corners of the Ukraine and concentrate on what we can do – now I’m looking in direction of my Western colleagues – to prevent reckless actions of Kiev’s government which now released as this criminal order by Mr. Turchinov, to prevent bringing It into life. It will have the toughest consequences for people of the Ukraine and we must avoid it.

Thank you.

(After remarks of Ukrainian and US representatives)

Thank you.

I will not speak long now. I will tell only two things. Firstly, Yuriy Anatolievich, you call your people “bandits” too easy. Too easy. Those who represent “The Right Sector” and those who says today that they need to kill people – those are not bandits, you mean, those are, obviously “political elite” in Kiev now. And those who are protesting now in the East – they cannot act without help of Russia, of course (irony – tr.). Really, how could they understand that things that are been doing by Kiev’s government now is bad without a prompt from Russia? Of course, they cannot understand it. Miners are working there and some radicals are telling that they will come and set there a new order. They will not understand it by themselves, yeah? Only Russian agents may come and explain them that the things are bad. They will listen to it and will agree within seconds, of course. Whole their life experience and understanding a situation in their own country mean nothing, right? Why do you approach so easily to the situation?

Well and what about what American colleague, Mrs. Power, said. She hasn’t shown her attitude to this order to use an army in Eastern Ukraine. I still hope that after today’s discussion as Ukrainian colleague called on some of our Western colleagues will take their receivers, call their bosses and say them to impose their influence on Kiev and not to kindle the green light, because Kiev’s government does nothing without their approval. And our purpose should be to solve problems by a dialogue, not by a military confrontation.

Thank You.

What is Putin really saying to the EU - negotiate or else...

Earlier today I posted the letter Putin sent to the heads of state of the 18 countries which purchase gas from Russia, but I did not have the time to write a commentary about it, so I am doing in now.

In my opinion, Russia is responding the the imminent attack by the neo-Nazis in the eastern Ukraine and to the PACE decision to basically slap Russia in the face.  What Putin is doing is introducing the first among several weapons Russia has in reserve: energy and money.  He basically tells the West "you either sit down, eat your stupid PACE resolution, and come negotiate with us, or you will be in a great deal of pain very soon".  Under the pretext of negotiating for gas, he is forcing Europe to negotiate for the future of the Ukrainian economy and that, in turn, means negotiating for the political future of the Europe.  Brought down to is core message Putin just told the EU: agree to the Federalization of the Ukraine or lose 30% of your energy supplies.  The corollary message is: there is a price to pay for being the USA's bitch.

The EU needs to be *VERY* careful now as Russia is clearly poised to respond to a major crisis: Putin has told his government that all supplies from the Ukraine are likely to stop.  This there are two levels to this message: one minor one, in which he tells the Russian MIC that it has to prepare to produce indigenously what they got for cheap in the past from the Ukraine.  Everybody noticed that, but that is not the important part.  The important part is that he basically told the Ukrainians "expect a total severance of all contracts and agreements between what is left of your industry and us".  Basically, this might as well be a death sentence for the last and only sector of the Ukrainian economy which was profitable.  Putin will observe what happens over the next couple of days (crackdown or not) and he will observe what comes form the West (negotiations or not).  But unless the freaks in Kiev and the clowns in the West very rapidly take him seriously and finally come to the negotiating table, Putin will shut down what is left of the Ukrainian economy.  This will trigger an immediate panic of the rating agencies and markets and the Ukraine will default.

At this point I do expect a very forceful reaction of western bankers and economists who will, I am quite sure, understand the message very well, and they will probably put a great deal of pressure on the political leaders in the EU and even the USA which can think of itself safe from a crisis in Europe, but if you look at how heavily the USA is invested in Europe, you will see that this is not so.  There is also a very real risk of a domino effect on the rest of the EU if any of its weakest members - the so called PIGS - hits the wall.  France too is essentially bankrupt, so the risk form a Russian action on gas is really serious for all the western economies.


Make no mistake: triggering an economic crisis in Europe is not at all in Russia's best interest.  In fact, this would be very bad for Russia, but if that is what it takes you can count on the Russians doing it.  Right now, the West's position on the Ukraine is simple: no negotiations whatsoever and total support for the Nazis in power.  That is just not something Russia can accept short of committing national suicide.  By taking this maximalist and, frankly, insane stance the West has pushed the proverbial "Russian bear" into a corner and the only option this bear now sees is to fight his way out with his claws and fangs.  I can't think of a dumber policy to have towards any free animal, nevermind a bear.

The Saker

Sometimes AngloZionist propaganda is so stupid as to be funny

Check out this great article by AP: AP Interview: US troops may be sent to E Europe.  Looks nice and official - here is a US 4 star general who has been tasked by EU ministers to come up with a plan to "protect" NATO member countries from the "Russian threat" which he estimates at 40'000 men.  To look more credible, the good general makes some "military sounding" statements:

"What we see there is a force of about 40,000, I would characterize it as a combined arms army. In other words, this is an army that has all of the provisioning and enablers that it needs to accomplish military objectives if given them (...) The Russians' assets include fixed and rotary wing aircraft, artillery, field hospitals, communications and jamming gear."

So far so good.  And then comes the masterpiece:

The general adds that however the Russian contingent might ultimately be used, it's "ready to go essentially at command. We talk about inside of 12 hours".  WOW!  Scary stuff.

One problem with that:

The good general does not seem to realize that there is no such thing in the Russian military as a "12 hours readiness".

Let me explain.

For an imperialistic naval power, a 12 hours readiness or even a 24, 36 or 48 hour readiness is extremely high.  That the time needed to get in 82nd Airborne ready to go, and that is quite good enough for the USA whose own territory is only threatened by illegal immigrants from Mexico and bad drivers from Canada.  12 hours is really fast only when what you want to do is to invade some small country - preferably an island with no military - or if you just want to go and kill some Brown people somewhere, just to show how scary and powerful you are.

But for a land power like Russia, 12 hours readiness is absolutely unacceptable, much less so for units supposedly on high alert and ready to invade the Ukraine.  How long would it take for a US/NATO missile or bomber to get to the nearest Russian base or deployed unit?  You take that time and it will give you an idea of what "high readiness" means to the Russian military.  It is counted in minutes, not hours, and most definitely not 12 hours.

It appears that the US general spinning this fairy tale tried to make is sound real scary and thus he came up with what he believes in a fantastically high degree of readiness for the Russian forces: 12 hours.  What he clearly did not realize, is that by Russian standards a military force with a 12 hour readiness is essentially on holidays and at the lowest possible level of readiness.

Furthermore, it might be a good time to remind everybody that the US intelligence did not see the Russian military move in 2008 (during the 08.08.08 war) and neither did it see the "Polite Armed Men in Green" move into Crimea.  So much for the most bloated intelligence community on the planet...

Lastly, a "combined arms army" is definitely not the adequate tool to use if the Russians wanted to invade the Ukraine simply because the Ukrainian military simply does not have the kind of force one would attack with a combined arms army.  To deal with the Ukie military a much lighter and mobile force of mechanized infantry and a few battalion tactical groups would be plenty.  Frankly, some Interior Troops (police forces) such as the SOBR and the ODON would be much better suited as they are used to deal with criminal and paramilitary thugs like the Right Sector.

A US 4-star general really should know better.  I am embarrassed for him.

The Saker

Revolutionary regime in Kiev moves in to crush the rebellion in the East

According to RT, police forces loyal to the revolutionary regime in Kiev have attacked the Russian speakers in Kharkov:

According to the Regnum news agency the insurgents have moved "special units" to deal with the situation in Lugansk, Kharkov and Donetsk.

It appears that a full-scale crackdown will happen in the eastern Ukraine overnight.  A lot will depend on the outcome of these clashes.

Stay tuned.

The Saker

Sergei Lavrov: It's not Russia that is destabilising Ukraine

by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for The Guardian

The west has been needlessly whipping up tension – if we don't co-operate soon, chaos may take hold

The profound and pervasive crisis in Ukraine is a matter of grave concern for Russia. We understand perfectly well the position of a country which became independent just over 20 years ago and still faces complex tasks in constructing a sovereign state. Among them is the search for a balance of interests among its various regions, the peoples of which have different historical and cultural roots, speak different languages and have different perspectives on their past and present, and their country's future place in the world.

Sergei Lavrov

Given these circumstances, the role of external forces should have been to help Ukrainians protect the foundations of civil peace and sustainable development, which are still fragile. Russia has done more than any other country to support the independent Ukrainian state, including for many years subsidising its economy through low energy prices. Last November, at the outset of the current crisis, we supported Kiev's wish for urgent consultations between Ukraine, Russia and the EU to discuss harmonising the integration process. Brussels flatly rejected it. This stand reflected the unproductive and dangerous line the EU and US have been taking for a long time. They have been trying to compel Ukraine to make a painful choice between east and west, further aggravating internal differences.

Ukraine's realities notwithstanding, massive support was provided to political movements promoting western influence, and it was done in direct breach of the Ukrainian constitution. This is what happened in 2004, when President Viktor Yushchenko won an unconstitutional third round of elections introduced under EU pressure. This time round, power in Kiev was seized undemocratically, through violent street protests conducted with the direct participation of ministers and other officials from the US and EU countries.

Assertions that Russia has undermined efforts to strengthen partnerships on the European continent do not correspond to the facts. On the contrary, our country has steadily promoted a system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic area. We proposed signing a treaty to that effect, and advocated the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific which would also be open to post-Soviet countries.

In the meantime, western states, despite their repeated assurances to the contrary, have carried out successive waves of Nato enlargement, moved the alliance's military infrastructure eastward and begun to implement antimissile defence plans. The EU's Eastern Partnership programme is designed to bind the so-called focus states tightly to itself, shutting down the possibility of co-operation with Russia. Attempts by those who staged the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and of Mayotte from the Comoros to question the free will of Crimeans cannot be viewed as anything but a flagrant display of double standards. No less troubling is the pretence of not noticing that the main danger for the future of Ukraine is the spread of chaos by extremists and neo-Nazis.

Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine. We are firmly convinced that this can be achieved through, among other steps: real constitutional reform, which would ensure the legitimate rights of all Ukrainian regions and respond to demands from its south-eastern region to make Russian the state's second official language; firm guarantees on Ukraine's non-aligned status to be enshrined in its laws, thus ensuring its role as a connecting link in an indivisible European security architecture; and urgent measures to halt activity by illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups.

We are not imposing anything on anyone, we just see that if it is not done, Ukraine will continue to spiral into crisis with unpredictable consequences. We stand ready to join international efforts aimed at achieving these goals. We support the appeal by foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland to implement the 21 February agreement. Their proposal – to hold Russia-EU talks with the participation of Ukraine and other Eastern Partnership states about the consequences of EU association agreements – corresponds to our position.The world of today is not a junior school where teachers assign punishments at will. Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 1 April do not match demands for a de-escalation. De-escalation should begin with rhetoric. It is time to stop the groundless whipping-up of tension, and to return to serious common work.

A new Cold War has begun - let us embrace it with relief!

Considering the relative lull which seems to be taking place in the Ukraine, this might be a good time to look at the impact which the dramatic developments in the Ukraine have had upon the internal political scene in Russia and what that, in turn, could mean for the international (dis)order.  In order to do that, I would like to begin by a short summary of a thesis which I have already mentioned in the past (for a discussion please see here, here, here and here):

Setting the Russian part of the stage

First, some bullet-style reminders on topics previously covered on this blog: 

1. There is no real Parliamentary opposition in Russia.  Oh, not at all because "Putin is a dictator" or because "Russia is not a democracy", but simply because Putin has brilliantly managed to either co-opt or defang any opposition.  How? By using his personal authority and charisma to promote an agenda which the other parties could not openly oppose.  Formally, opposition parties do, of course, still exist, but they completely lack credibility.  This might eventually change with the new Law on Political Parties.
2. The only "hard" opposition to Putin in modern Russia are the various openly pro-US individuals (Nemtov, Novodvorskaia, etc) and their associated movements and parties.  At best, they represent something in the range of 5% (max!) of the population.
3. Putin did a "judo move" on his real opponents (more about them later) by using the strongly "presidential Constitution" adopted in 1993 to basically concentrate all the power in his hands.
4. The *real* "opposition" to Putin and his project can only be found *inside* the Kremlin, the "United Russia" party and some influential figures.  I refer to this real opposition as the "Atlantic Integrationists" (AI) because their key aim is to integrate Russia into the AngloZionist worldwide power structure.
5. The *real* power base of Putin is in the Russian people themselves who support him personally, the All-Russian People's Front, and in the group which I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (ES) whose primary aims is to develop a new, multi-polar, world order, to to break free from the current AngloZionist controlled international financial system, to re-orient as much of the former USSR as possible towards an integration with the East, and to develop of the Russian North.

If I wanted to simplify things further, I would say that in 1999 the AI and the ES jointly made the push to put Putin into power to replace Eltsin.  The AI (roughly representing the interests of big money and big business) wanted a rather gray and dull bureaucrat like Putin (or so they thought!) to assure continuity and not rock the boat too much after Eltsin's departure.  The ES (roughly representing the interests of a certain elite of the former KGB, especially, its First Chief Directorate) and Putin himself, brilliantly used the power given to him by the 1993 Constitution (adopted under Eltsin and the AI!) to slowly but surely change the course of Russia from a total submission to, and colonization by, the USA to a process which Putin and his supporters call "sovereignization" i.e. national liberation.  A long tug-of-war ensued, mainly behind the scenes, but with regular visible flare-ups such as the open clash between Putin and Medvedev on Iran and Libya or the sacking of Kudrin by Medvedev (the two had been set on a collision course by Putin, of course).  As a last over-simplification I would say that Medvedev represents the Atlantic Integrationists and Putin the Eurasian Sovereignists.

Again, I have very much over-simplified all of the above to keep this short, but if any of this is new to you, please do go and read the four previous articles I mention above, including the comments.

Setting the Ukrainian part of the stage

Until this winter the biggest difference between Russia and the Ukraine was that in Russia Putin had basically destroyed to old oligarchy, which was US and Israeli controlled, and replaced it by a new one, which was either supportive of the Kremlin or neutral.  Putin's message to the Russian oligarchy was simple: "you can be rich, but don't compromise the welfare of the Russian nation or try to enter the political struggle".  For those who might wonder why Putin did not eliminate the Russian oligarchy as a class, I would restate here that everything which Putin did since 1999 until now was always a compromise between his ES and the still very powerful AS.  Putin could simply not directly challenge this very powerful, well-connected and wealthy group, so he had to proceed slowly and with caution, step by step.

In contrast to Russia, in the Ukraine the oligarchs realized what I would call "the Khodorkovsky Dream" - they basically bought everything: the entire economy, the totality of the mass-media, the Parliament and, of course, the Presidency.  For the past 22 years, the Ukraine has been basically enslaved by a number of oligarchs who made a simple deal with the West: you support us, and we support you.  As a result, the western leaders and the corporate media did "not notice" that all the Ukrainian politicians were corrupt to the bone, including Ianukovich and Tymoshenko, that - unlike in Russia, contrary to the AngloZionist propaganda - political disagreements in the Ukraine were often settled by assassinations, that the Ukrainian plutocracy was literally sucking the Ukraine dry of its wealth.  Eventually, even the amazingly rich Ukraine ran out of resources and wealth to pillage and the crisis became obvious for all to see.

Besides the pillaging of resources and wealth, another major "achievement" of the Ukrainian oligarchs was the total subordination of the state and its instruments to their needs: for them the state itself became and instrument of power and influence.  For example, the Ukrainian security service SBU (ex-KGB) spent all its time and resources involved in the internal power struggles between the various oligarchs and their power bases and, as a result, the SBU has not caught one single foreign spy in 22 years!  To make things worse, the SBU was basically run from the local station of the US CIA.  This wholesale destruction of the state apparatus itself played a key role in the events this winter and is still a central factor in the situation on the ground: for all practical purposes, there is no "Ukrainian state".

The Eurobureaucrats and Uncle Sam come waltzing in

It is against the background of this total collapse of the Ukraine as a state and a nation that the EU decided to make its move: it offered the Ukraine an association with the EU.  Uncle Sam loved the idea, especially since it included a political chapter to conduct the Ukraine's foreign and security policy in agreement with the EU.  This notion of a EU-run Ukraine also appealed to the USA which basically believed that the Ukraine was the key to Russia's putative imperial ambitions (see here for details).  Besides, the White House knew that if the Ukraine was run by the EU, and the EU run by the USA (which it has always been), then the Ukraine would be run from the USA.  So the West began dangling a big carrot in front of the Ukrainian people: "make a "civilizational choice" and join the EU and become rich, wealthy, happy and healthy; as for Russia - it has nothing to say in this, the Ukraine is a sovereign state".  For millions of impoverished and exploited Ukrainians, this was a dream come true: not only would they become wealthy and happy as the Europeans supposedly are (only in propaganda reports, but nevermind), they would finally get rid of the corrupted clique in power.  As for the Ukrainian oligarchs - they loved it too: they would get to continue exploiting the Ukraine and its people as long as they maintained an anti-Russian stance (which was easy enough - the Ukrainian oligarchs were literally terrified of Putin and, even more so, of the notion of a "Ukrainian Putin").

The big explosion

There is a saying which says that if your head is in the sand, your butt is in the air and, indeed, reality came back to bite the Ukrainians in the butt with exquisite vengeance: the country was broke, ruined, just weeks away from a default and the only place were money could be found to prevent the final collapse was Russia.  The Russians, however, put a condition on their help: no association agreement with the EU because Russia could not have a open market with the Ukraine while the Ukraine would open its market to EU goods and services (this was no "Machiavellian ploy" by Putin, but a basic and obvious necessity understandable to anybody with an "Economics 101" course under the belt).  At this point, Yanukovich suddenly made a 180 turn which  sincerely baffled many Ukrainians, turned to Moscow for help and all hell broke loose: outraged Ukrainians took to the street and wanted to know why their dream of prosperity was denied to them.  The USA also panicked - if Russia was allowed to rescue the Ukraine it would inevitably control it - "you paid for it, you own it" says the US logic.  So the USA threw in its biggest weapon: the "Ukrainian Taliban" aka the "Right Sector", the Freedom Party (ex Social-Nationalist Party) and its assorted neo-Nazi thugs.  The sudden appearance of bona fide Banderites and other neo-Nazis scared the Russian speakers so badly that while the freaks in the new revolutionary regime in Kiev were busying themselves with banning Russian as an official language or de-criminializing Nazi propaganda, Crimea seceded and most of the Ukraine entered a period of complete chaos and lawlessness.

We all know what happened since, so there is no need to cover it again, and we can now look at these events from the point of view of Russian internal politics and their likely global impact.

The view from Moscow

The first thing to say here is that Putin's popularity with the Russian public has soared to new heights: it currently stands at 71.6% and that even though there has been little progress on the anti-corruption front, no progress at all in the much needed reform of the judicial system and with a Russian economy going through some difficult times.  Still, regardless of many unsolved problems facing Russia - Putin is currently simply impossible to attack as he has positioned himself as the man who saved Crimea and, possible, even Russia (more about that below).

The second dramatic effect of the events in the Ukraine is that is has further polarized the Russia society.  I am not saying that this is fair, but the fact is that Russian politicians now have two choices.  They can position themselves either as:

1) True Russian patriots who support Putin, support the reintegration of Crimea, support the Russian policy of standing up to the West or,

2) Russian "liberals", who are russophobic, bought and paid for by the US, who are nothing more than a 5th column (Putin used this term), pro-capitalist, pro-NATO and even pro-Nazi (remember, the West does now openly support Nazis in the Ukraine!).

Needless to say, all the Russian politicians scrambled over each other to show that they firmly belonged to Group One.  Even Sergei Mironov, the head of the "Just Russia" Party and last "real" opposition leader inside the Duma, took the lead in helping Crimea (which got him on the US and EU sanctions list).  Those who failed to do so are now dead meat.

The most credible of them all, Alexei Navalnyi, the only opposition leader not associated with the Eltsin regime of the 1990s, wrote  an article in the NYT entitled "How to punish Putin" in which he went as far as to make a list of names the US should punish.  In the current political mood in Russia, this is nothing short of a political suicide and Navalnyi's political career is now ended.  He might as well emigrate to the London or the USA.

But the biggest result of the crisis in the Ukraine was to put Russia and the USA on an open collision course.  Seen from Russia this is what the West has done:

1)   organized an illegal armed insurgency
2)   overthrown a legitimate (if corrupt) government
3)   supported neo-Nazis
4)   put anti-Russian policies over democratic values
5)   put anti-Russian policies over the right of self-determination
6)   refused to recognize the will of the Russian people in the Crimea
7)   refused to recognized the will of the Russian-speakers in the Ukraine
8)   sanctioned Russia symbolically only because it could not do more
9)   failed to intervene militarily only because it feared Russia's military might
10) strong-armed the world at the UN to condemn Russia

Against this background - what chance do the Atlantic Integrationists to get any support for their policies?  None, of course.  Not only that, but the sanctions used by the West have made it possible for Putin to do that which he could not have done before: scare Russians away from western banks (either into off-shores or into Russian banks), create a Russian SWIFT-like inter-bank pay system, shift more efforts into exporting gas to China and the rest of Asia, reduce the Russian participation in US-run bodies such as the G8 or NATO, force Russia to deploy more powerful military capabilities on its western borders (Iskanders in Kaliningrad, Tu-22M3s in Crimea), reduce Russian tourism abroad and send it to Russian regions and last, but not least, further reduce the Russian use of the US dollar.  All this is a dream come true for economists like Glazyev or politicians like Rogozin who have lobbied hard for such measures since many years but whose advice Putin had to ignore lest the Atlantic Integrationists strike back.  But now there is even some serious talk in Russia about withdrawing from many key military treaties (strategic nuclear, conventional, nuclear verification, etc.) or even the WTO (unlikely).

It now has become extremely easy for Putin to fire anybody on the grounds that this person is not effectively implementing the President's decisions.  Now everybody knows that and every single Atlantic Integrationist now runs the risk of being summarily dismissed.  In truth, it must be said that Barak Obama has helped Putin immensely and that thanks for the truly insane US policy on the Ukraine the position of the (generally pro-US) Atlantic Integrationists has been undermined for many years to come.

A joke told for the first time on Russian TV by, of all people, the spokesman of the Russian Investigative Committee (a "Russian FBI" one could say), not exactly somebody noted for his humor, has become particularly popular these days.  It goes like this:

Barack Obama boycotted the Olympics and did not attend the games in Sochi - and we brilliantly won and the Olympics and Para-Olympics. Thank you, Comrade Obama!
Obama then strongly supported extremists Kiev junta - and we miraculously regained Crimea. Thank you, Comrade Obama!
Obama imposed sanctions on our oligarchs - and now their money is not in the West but in Russia. Thank you, Comrade Obama!
Now, if we may, we have more wish: we would like to win the World Soccer Cup...

Jokes aside, there is much truth to this joke - the more the USA is trying to maximize the stakes and beat back Russia, the stronger Russia becomes and the stronger Putin becomes in Russia.

As for the poor few pro-US activists left in Russia, they are truly in a desperate situation: for years they had to fight off accusations of being associated with the horrors of the Eltsin regime in the 1990s and now, to this terrible legacy, they can add the new burden of having to fight off accusations of being "pro-Banderastan".  Frankly, they all might as well all pack and leave for the West, as in Russia they are finished.

What does that mean for the rest of the world?

I have often described the covert struggle between the Atlantic Integrationists and the Eurasian Sovereignists as "internal" or "behind the scenes", which was mainly true until now.  The events in the Ukraine have now changed this and the kind of issues the "Eurasian Sovereignists" have been only alluding to in more or less oblique terms are now openly discussed on Russian TV: how to coexist with a hysterically russophobic and openly pro-Nazi West, how to decrease the Russian participation in, and dependence upon, the AngloZionist controlled international financial system, what kind of measures to take to make sure that the US and NATO will never have a viable military option, how to deal with the "internal 5th column" inside Russia so as to avoid a "Maidan in Moscow", how to deal with the kind of US-sponsored subversive organizations (such as NED, Carnegie, etc.) who still operate in Russia, how to make sure that any rabidly anti-Russian government in Kiev is not allowed to survive economically and socially, etc.  I would call that the "Nuland stance" but applied not to the EU, but to the USA.  Does that mean a new Cold War?

Yes, you betcha it does!

But I would immediately stress here that this new Cold War is entirely, 100%, the creation of the USA and that all Russia has now done is accept the new reality it is operating in.  Neither Putin nor anybody else in Russia wanted this new Cold War, but it has been unilaterally imposed upon them by the US and its EU colonies for the past 20 years or more.  Think of this: the true main reason why the US and EU are not imposing any meaningful sanctions on Russia is that they have already done so in the past and that there is nothing left to impose short of sanctions which will hurt the West as much, or even more, than Russia.  The same goes for the so-called "international image of Russia".  Has anybody forgotten all the idiotic canards systematically and mantrically promoted by the Western corporate media about Russia before the crisis in the Ukraine?  Here is a quick reminder taken from my past article on this topic:

• Berezovsky as a "persecuted" businessman
• Politkovskaya "murdered by KGB goons"
• Khodorkovsky jailed for his love of "liberty"
• Russia's "aggression" against Georgia
• The Russian "genocidal" wars against the Chechen people
• "Pussy Riot" as "prisoners of conscience"
• Litvineko "murdered by Putin"Russian homosexuals "persecuted" and "mistreated" by the state
• Magnitsky and the subsequent "Magnitsky law"
• Snowden as a "traitor hiding in Russia"
• The "stolen elections" to the Duma and the Presidency
• The "White Revolution" on the Bolotnaya square
• The "new Sakharov" - Alexei Navalnyi
• Russia's "support for Assad", the (Chemical) "Butcher of Damascus"
• The Russian constant "intervention" in Ukrainian affairs
• The "complete control" of the Kremlin over the Russian media

I would say that this list is already long enough and that nobody in Russia needs to worry that anything the Kremlin does from now on will make it worse.  Short of waging war on Russia it they did on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Libya or Syria - the USA has pretty "maxed out" its anti-Russian policies, and the fact is they don't amount to much.

So what do you call a little bit of something bad, but not enough to really hurt you.  Nietzsche would call it a power boost.  Modern medicine calls it an immunization.  The choice of words does not matter, only the actual phenomenon does: the US and EU did inflict a considerable amount of pain on Russia, but not enough to break it and, as a direct consequence of that, Russia has received a powerful "anti-AngloZionist immunization" which will make it far stronger than it was.

And that is good news for everybody.

For better or for worse, Russia is objectively the undisputed leader of the world resistance to the AngloZionist Empire.  Yes, the Chinese economy is much bigger, but China's military is not, and China is heavily dependent on Russia for energy, weapons and high-tech.  I do think that China will inevitably take the lead in the struggle against the AngoZionist Empire, but this is still not the case today: China needs more time.  Iran is most definitely the oldest and first country to dare to openly defy the AngloZionists (along with Cuba and the DPRK, but those are really weak), but Iran's ambitions are primarily regional (which, by the way, is a sign of wisdom on the part of the Iranian leadership).  As for Hezbollah it is, in my opinion, the moral leader of the worldwide Resistance, not only by its truly phenomenal military achievements, but primarily by its willingness to stand completely alone, if needed.  But being a moral beacon does not mean being able to globally challenge the Empire.  Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah form what I would call, to paraphrase Dubya,  the "Axis of Resistance to Empire" and Russia plays the key role inside this informal but strong alliance.

The other place where "it" is happening is, of course, Latin America, but the recent vote at the UN has clearly shown that Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba are the only ones who already dare openly defy the US hegemony (and the regime in Venezuela is currently fighting for its survival).  Thus, while Latin America has a huge potential, but it is far from being realized, at least at this point in time. 

Conclusion 

A New Cold war has been in the making since the very day the previous Cold War officially ended.  Thus, we can only welcome the new reality introduced by the crisis in the Ukraine: Russia has now openly accepted the US challenge and all the pretenses of some kind of US-Russian strategic partnership are long gone.  As for the EU, its role has been so shameful and disgraceful that Russia will treat it exactly as it deserves to be: a thoroughly submissive US protectorate with no policy or opinion of its own.  Now that the pretense of "partnership" is finally being dropped, we can expect a much more assertive, if not confrontational, Russia on the international scene.  Of course, I don't mean that Putin will start banging his shoe at the UN like (allegedly) Krushchev did, nor will Putin threaten to "bury" the West - Putin, Lavrov and Churkin are real statesmen and diplomats, and they will remain impeccably courteous - but you can expect many more "no" votes at the UN and many "we are so sorry" on many bilateral issues.

The big beneficiary of this new Cold War will be Iran, of course, but also China.  Not only will Iran and China probably get the weapons they have been wanting so badly (S-300 and Su-35 respectively), China will get some very sweet deals on Russian energy prices (the Chinese are definitely smart enough to use this new situation without overplaying their hand - they will do it "just right").  Syria and Hezbollah will get more money, more weapons and more political support.  Countries aspiring to eventually become members of the "Axis of Resistance to Empire" will get more financial and political aid (Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and, especially, Venezuela need all the help they can get) as will more or less pragmatic countries who did not fully sell out to the USA (the BRICS of course, but also smaller countries such as Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the others who abstained at the infamous UN vote recently).  One should also not underestimate the assistance China can render to these countries or all the benefits these countries can reap from cooperating with the other BRICS countries.

As for the EU, it will get the gas it pays for, and it will have to deal with the economic aftershocks of its involvement in the Ukrainian crisis: it will have to keep the Ukrainian economy afloat, barely above the waterline at best, and it will have to deal with the inevitable flood of economic refugees and it will have the dubious pleasure of having to deal with the thorny problem "Ukrainian Taliban" now running loose in their self-styled Banderastan.  The EU will have to deal with all that under the high auspices of a USA which barely hides its contempt for Europe or, as was the case with Nuland, does not even bother hiding it any more.  As for Uncle Sam - what he can't get, he burns down and that is what he will end up doing with the rump-Ukraine aka "Banderastan": turn it into a larger Kosovo - a big pain for all its neighbors, but a place the US military machine can use as it wishes.  Unlike Kosovo, however, rump-Ukraine will eventually fall apart, one way or another, but the fiction of a functioning state can be maintained for a long while, especially if there is a consensus in the plutocracies which run the West that form matters much more than substance and that as long as the appearance of a unitary Ukrainian state are there, all is well.  Frankly, and no offense intended to any Ukie nationalist reading this, Uncle Sam has much bigger fish to fry than to deal with the problems of a "Kosovo v2" in Central Europe.

The trends I sketched out above are, of course, just general trends.  There will be some "zigs" and some "zags" in this process, but barring some major and unforeseen event, this is where, I think, we are heading.  Sure, there will be a Presidential election held in grotesque conditions, a completely corrupted oligarch like Poroshenko will buy himself a victory, while the US-backed regime in Kiev and the "Ukrainian Taliban" settle scores and murder each other.  Russia will most likely not intervene militarily, unless the situation becomes really crazy, some form of US-Russian agreement is more likely, and the eastern Ukraine will try to find a way to make some money with Russia.  The Crimea will see an unprecedented economic boom which will attract a lot of attention in the rump-Ukraine which will be desperate to get some small portion of the financial windfall enjoyed by Crimea.  As they say "money talks".

As for Obama, he will go down in history as the worst US President ever.  Except the next one, of course.

The Saker

How the US dream of world supremacy was buried in Crimea

written specially for the Asia Times

These are official results from the referendum in Crimea:

• 96.77% voted for Crimea to join Russia
• 02.51% voted for Crimea to remain a sovereign autonomous republic inside the Ukraine
• 00.72% of the votes were declared invalid
• 83.10% of the eligible voters participated in this referendum (thus:16.9% did not vote)

As a reminder, this is the official ethnic makeup of Crimea (in 2001):

• 58.32% Russians
• 24.32% Ukrainians
• 12.10% Crimean Tatars

Okay, so what does this mean?

First and foremost, the participation was massive and the 'yes' to Russia won by a landslide.

Second, this was not a vote along ethnic lines.  When we say that are 58.32% Russians in Crimea that does not mean that all of these are eligible voters as children are not allowed to vote.  So the real figure of eligible Russian voters in Crimea is probably well under 50%.  And yet the results show that 96.77% of the eligible voters voted to join Russia.  Where did the rest of the 43.77% (more or less) come from?  It had to be from Ukrainian and Tatar voters.  Even if we assume that 100% of the Russians in Crimea were eligible voters and that they all showed up to vote and all of them voted for the 'yes' to Russia, it still leaves 35.45% of the 'yes' vote to non-Russians.  Even 100% of the Ukrainians does not fill the gap.  In other words, the so-called "Tatar boycott" of this referendum is a complete fabrication of the western media.

Now, this begs the question: why would the Crimean Tatars, who were brutally repressed and massively deported under Stalin and many of whom were seen screaming Allahu Akbar! in clashes with pro-Russian demonstrators suddenly decide to vote for Russia?  Did they suddenly change their minds?  Did the "Polite Armed Green Men" come to their houses and force them to vote at gunpoint?  Of course not.  The explanation is much simpler: in 22 years of independence the Ukraine did exactly nothing to help the Crimean Tatar people, language or culture, nevermind compensating them for their suffering.  In contrast, Russia passed a law called "Law on the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples"(here in Russian; here in a Bing machine translation) as early as 1991 which basically solves the problem for the Crimean Tatars who will get what they have always hoped for right along their brand new Russian passports.  Yes, of course, there are some Crimean-Tatars who would have preferred to remain under Ukrainian sovereignty because they believe that Russians are inherently capable of repeating the actions of Stalin at any time and that Russian nationalism is a threat to them.  I don't mean to suggest that they are smart - only that some of them do really believe that.  Some Muslim radicals want to either be part of Turkey or create their own Islamic state.  Fair enough - but they are a minority within a minority and thus, frankly, quite irrelevant.  The reality is that this entire "Crimean Tatar issue" is a canard cooked up in the West in the desperate hope to find some kind of "ethnic/religious fulcrum" to deny the legitimacy of this referendum and stir up more ethnic trouble.  The results show that this plan clearly failed.

So what is going to happen next?

The Ukraine is dead, long live Banderastan?

Some readers have objected to my use of the word "Banderastan" to describe the Ukraine.  Had they read with a little more attention they would have understood that I do not equate the Ukraine with Banderastan at all.  In fact, the Ukraine is the country which ended its existence in February 2014 and Banderastan is the new national project of the Right Sector and the Liberty Party (yes, the one whose original name was Socialist-National Party).  So what is Banderastan exactly?

Banderastan is the Ukraine which Dmitry Iarosh, Andrei Parubii or Oleg Tiagnibok want to create: a "socialist national" state whose founding principle would be "Бий жидів та москалів - Україна для українців" ("beat the Jews and the Russians - the Ukraine for the Ukrainians").  Simple and clear.  This state would have one language (Ukrainian), one ethnicity (Ukrainian), one leader (Iarosh) and one founding father (Bandera).  The long term political goal of this regime would be to "return" the "rest" of the "Ukrainian land" which now is under Polish or Russian "occupation" and to "punish" the "traitors to the Fatherland".

You can think of the "Banderites" are the Ukie version of the Taliban, but far more evil and infinitely more stupid.  Something like a Ukrainian version of the Interahamwe maybe?

One reader send me this great little video (thanks "JP"!) showing some of these Banderites and what they like to do:



Great stuff, no?

Of course, this project has exactly zero chance to succeed for a few basic reasons:

• After 22 years of oligarchic rule, the previously wealthy Ukraine is now broke. Banderastan is even in a much worse condition.
• Most Ukrainians are not "socialist-nationalists", not even in the western Ukraine.
• Every time the "Banderites" make a move, the reaction to their actions it is more and more determined.
• Many Russian-speakers and Jews are truly becoming terrified for their future (more about that later)
• The Banderites have no economic program at all.

The bottom line is simple: there is more to governning or, really, re-building a bankrupt and ruined country and nation than parading in wannabe Nazi uniforms, taking US money, fighting cops and screaming "Glory to the Ukraine!  Glory to the heroes!!".  For all practical purposes the entire Banderite project is now in free fall, regardless of the fact that western leaders stubbornly pretend not to see this.  As for western loans (US, EU, IMF) - they can only delay the inevitable.

So how did we ever get to this crazy situation?

US foreign policy is not run by diplomats, but by politicians.

The main thing to understand about the US foreign policy is that it is basically run by people who have no experience or even understanding of diplomacy and its purposes.  It's not only Mrs Nuland and her famous "fuck the EU!" - it's also Kerry and his constant lies and zig-zags, it is Mrs Rice with her arrogant and always bellicose threats towards Russia and many other countries, finally, it is also Obama himself who combines imperial hubris with a truly phenomenal level of hypocrisy.  The very notion of negotiating anything is profoundly foreign to these Imperial leaders who strongly believe that to truly negotiate is basically a sign of weakness.  For them, the only thing which can be negotiated is the other guy's acceptance of all US terms and conditions.  And if that does not happen, the the US will basically threaten to bomb the other side into submission.  Long gone are they days of George H.W. Bush and his brilliant Secretary of State James Baker who understood how much careful diplomacy and negotiations can achieve.  The Kerry/Rice generation basically believes that they can tell everybody else want they want, and if that does not work, then brute force (whether threatened or actual) will solve the problem anyway.  This is why the US never agreed to negotiate with Gaddafi or Assad and this is why all the offers made by the Russians to find a negotiated solution were systematically rejected.

Russia offered to negotiation as far back as last fall, when the first signs of an imminent crisis began to become apparent.  Lavrov made an offer to begin trilateral negotiations  between the EU, the Ukraine and Russia.  The EU, either under US orders of simply acting on its own delusion of grandeur, contemptuously rejected that option under the pretext that the Ukraine was a sovereign nation and that therefore Russia should have no more say in its future than Paraguay or Vanuatu.  Worse, the EU pretended to believe that the Ukrainian government would sign on to 1'500 pages long text where terms and conditions of the proposed association between the EU and the Ukraine would be spelled out with no second thought about what Russia might do.  Except, of course, that it eventually became gradually clear to Azarov and Yanukovich that Russia really would have no other choice than to shut down its current borders to protect the Russian economy from a deluge of EU products which would inevitably flood the Ukraine.  When, at the last second, Yanukovich announced his notorious reversal, Russia again offered to negotiate and again this offer what rejected.  Some EU bureaucrats apparently still believed that Yanukovich would cave in at the Vilnius summit.  But he did not simply because he could not, at least not without killing the entire Ukrainian economy.  This is when the Americans suddenly literally freaked out because they understood that a 'no' to the EU, even temporary, meant a 'yes' to Russia, and probably a permanent one.  So then Uncle Sam got personally involved.

The goal, strategy and tactics of US foreign policy worldwide and the Ukraine

The overall goal of the US foreign policy worldwide is really very simple: to remain the sole superpower on the planet.  The fact that there are more and more signs which clearly point to the fact that the US is no more a real global superpower only make the achievement of this goal a higher priority.

In this context, the USA has a equally simple strategy towards Russia: do whatever it takes to prevent Russia from becoming a "new Soviet Union" or any other type of challenger to the US worldwide domination.  In practical terms, this means one thing: to do whatever it takes to break away the Ukraine from Russia.  There is, indeed, this rather bizarre notion amongst US elites that with the Ukraine Russia would be a superpower while without it it would not.  This notion is both counter-factual (Russia is already a superpower as we have seen in Syria) and illogical - Russia doe neither need not want the Ukraine which is basically a failed and wholly artificial state, run by oligarchs, with no foreseeable prospects of contributing much, if anything, to the current Russian wealth.  Frankly, and in purely realpolitik terms, the Ukraine is a headache that nobody in Russia really needs.  But nevermind that - the US elites are acting not on the basis of facts or Russian perceptions, but on the basis of their own perceptions: the Ukraine must never be allowed to fall back under Russian "domination" least Russia become a superpower again.

In tactical terms, this strategy is implemented with two simple rules:

a) any anti-Russian force, no matter how ugly or insane, gets US support
b) it's a zero sum game: anything Russia loses the USA wins and vice-versa

The ultimate prize for the US would be to get the Russian Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea and put US/NATO bases in the Ukraine, not because there would be much of a military advantage in doing so, but to prevent the Ukraine from ever becoming close to, or part of, Russia again.  Short of that, doing anything to keep an anti-Russian regime in power in Kiev is the next best option.  And if that regime comes to power in a armed insurrection - that's ok.  And if all the key positions in this regime are given to neo-Nazis, that is fine too.  None of that really matters as long as the Russians don't get the Ukraine back.

Of course, the world is much more complex that the primitive representation these ignorant and arrogant politicians have of it.  In fact, not only is the USA the sole party responsible for the current chaos in the Ukraine, it is is also solely responsible for achieving the exact polar result of what it set out to do.

How US incompetence resulted in a "patriotic domino effect" in Russia

As far back as in November of last year I wrote the following about the Russian-speaking population of the Ukraine:

They have no vision, no ideology, no identifiable future goal. All they can offer is a message which, in essence, says "we have no other choice than sell out to the rich Russians rather than to the poor European" or "all we can get from the EU is words, the Russians are offering money". True. But still extremely uninspiring, to say the least.

One month later, I added:

What are these 17 million Russians and several million of Russian oriented Ukrainians doing right now? It's their country which is driven directly over the cliff, and they are doing nothing at all. How many Russian flags did you see in the demonstrations in the eastern Ukraine, in Donetsk, or in Sevastopol? That's right - zero! Even the so-called "Russians" and "pro-Russians" are marching under the yellow-blue flags which are west Ukrainian, Galician colors. You speak of moral and spiritual issues at stake - have you ever heard the east Ukrainians raise such issues? Do they ever speak of the thousands of saints which lived in this hallowed land? Do they ever mention the millions of Russians who died freeing this land from the Poles, the Jesuits and the Jewish overseers which they imposed upon the Orthodox Christians? No, never. All the speak about is money, money and money: "we will be poor with the EU, with Russia our business will flourish" - that is their idea of spirituality. Pro-Russians in the Ukraine? Ha! Let me ask you this: when it became known that Ukrainian volunteers fought on the side of the Chechen Wahabis - did you see any protests in the Ukraine? Or when the Ukrainian government was arming Saakashvili to the teeth - did you see any protests in the Ukraine? No, never. Their version of "pro-Russian" means "we like Russian money". They are not pro-Russian, they are pro-Ruble!

What I wrong then?  Not at all: that was the sad reality then.  What really happened is that over the past few month these almost totally passive Russian population underwent a brutal "shock-therapy" which woke them up from their silent stupor induced by 22 years of Ukrainian nationalist propaganda combined and a deafening silence about them from Russia.  These previously "invisible" Russian speakers suddenly woke up.  How did that happen?

First, there was the Nazi freak show around the Maidan square in Kiev which soon escalated into an armed insurrection.  Then, when Yanukovich was finally overthrow, the new regime's very first decision was to pass a law banning the Russian language from official use and another one lifting the ban on Nazi propaganda.  Simultaneously, a string of violent attacks against "collaborators" of the Yanukovich regime soon turned into an anti-Russian terror campaign.  And for the first time the Russian-speakers really began to fear for their future: they began to rally and protest openly and vocally.

That, in turn, triggered a reassessment of the situation by many Russians in Russia who, up to this point, had accused their compatriots of passivity.  For example, on many talk shows Russian-speakers from the Ukraine who were complaining about their plight were told "we are not going to help you if you don't begin by helping yourself first; you have to speak up and take action against this new regime before we will do anything.  We cannot solve your problems for you - you have to act first.  Then we will help!".  And when the population in the East and South of the Ukraine finally took to the streets, this time not with Ukrainian flags but with Russian ones, the people in Russia took notice and began to change their outlook on the situation.

For a long list of objective reasons, Crimea was by far the most vocal part of this protest movement and it is of no surprise that the next big development took place there.  Russian intelligence services clearly detected some kind of coup about to take place and the Kremlin took the absolutely crucial decision to send in the so-called "Polite Armed Men in Green" (PAMG) normally called "Spetsnaz GRU".  What exactly the Russians detected is still unclear, but what is certain is that the manner in which the PAMGs were deployed into Crimea was not a the way a normal peacetime force is moved, but the way a special force is sent in in a wartime military operation: rapidly, under cover, with heavy fire support and on key objectives to be seized for a subsequent deployment of reinforcements.  That overnight deployment of PAMGs apparently did stop the planned coup as only a few clashes were very vaguely reported and soon forgotten.  The main effect of this move by Putin was to send a powerful message to Russian-speakers in the rest of the Ukraine: Russia will not let the new neo-Fascist regime attack and terrorize you.  What Putin had done was to extend a "psychological shield" over the Russian-speaking East and South of the Ukraine by letting the Banderites know that if they crossed the line they would be engaged and destroyed by the Russian military.  That had a huge effect and soon the protest crowd grew bigger and more determined.  As for the new regime, all it could do was to use the SBU forces to arrest some political leaders.  But beyond that, Kiev has not moved to suppress these regions by military force (at least until now).  Finally, upon seeing the sudden surge of Russian protests in the Ukraine, more and more Russians took to the streets in Russia to express their support for their compatriots in the Ukraine.  The end result of all this has been to wake up a previously semi-lethargic Russian national identity and a sense of patriotism which the Kremlin could never have even dreamed of inducing in the Russian people.

The western press is doing a truly remarkable job of trying not to notice all of this.  Western commentators and politicians are acting as if there was a way to somehow push the genie of Russian patriotism back into the bottle even though they themselves, and not the Kremlin, made him come out of the bottle in the first place.  Worse, the western propaganda still tries to represent the issue as being one about the future of the Ukraine.  It is not.  The Ukraine is now gone, dead, finished, forever relegated to the past.  The issue now is not the future of the Ukraine, but the future of the US Empire.

The tectonic faceplant of the US Empire and its policies

By its arrogance, ignorance and total intransigence the US and its EU colonies have completely redefined the terms of the issue for the Russian people.  In their immense majority when the Russian people look at what is taking place in Kiev they see a replay of the worst years of World War 2 and they are absolutely determined not to let that happen again.  When they see crowds of Ukrainian nationalists marching at night with torches and large photos of Stepan Bandera, Russians (in the Ukraine and Russia) see the rise of an evil which they had to beat down at the costs of millions killed and maimed. This is why I wrote on March 1st "make no mistake about that RUSSIA IS READY FOR WAR".  I meant that literally and I still think that this is true: the Russian people have suffered too much during WWII to let any neo-Nazi thugs terrorize their fellow Russian again.  The depth and intensity of this feeling is not something which can be understood in the EU, and even less so in the USA.  I suspect that the only place in which the vehemence of this determination could be understood is Israel.  In practical terms this means that Russia will not negotiate with any neo-Nazis which threaten the Russian speakers in the Ukraine nor will Russia yield to any western threats or sanctions.  Again, Russia, as a nation, is willing to pay the cost, whatever it might be, to choke and defeat the nasty "Banderastan" which is currently getting so much support from the US and EU.  If the Ukrainian crazies attack the Russians speakers in the East or South, Russia will intervene militarily - you can be sure of that.

There is even a more important consequence stemming from the current events.

In August of 2008, right after the Russian military defeated the US backed regime of Saakashvili during the 08.08.08 war I wrote a two-part article entitled "The real meaning of the South Ossetian war" (part one; part two) which included the following assessment:

The ugly attack by Washington's Georgian puppet on the Russian peacekeepers combined with the absolutely amazing hypocrisy of the Western media and politicians who all fully sided with the aggressor turned into something of a “last straw” for Russia. This seemingly marginal development, at least when assessed quantitatively (“what else is new?”) ended up making a huge qualitative difference: it brought up a new Russian resolve to deal with, to use a favorite Neocon expression, an existential threat represented by the Western Empire. It will take a long while for the West to realize what has really happened and the most obtuse of pundits and politicians will probably hang on to their usual self-righteous rhetoric forever, but historians will probably look back at the month of August 2008 as the moment when Russia decided to strike back at the Empire for the first time.

What has happened this Winter is very much a continuation of the 08.08.08 war: yet again Russia did not want that to happen, but the West gave it no other option than to be willing to go to war if needed to protect itself (in 08.08.08 the Kremlin fully understood that there was a risk of US/NATO involvement on the Georgian side and it had conveyed in no unclear terms to US/NATO commanders that any US/NATO force sent to the theater of operation would be attacked). Still, the chances of a UN/NATO intervention in the 08.08.08 war were relatively small, and the Empire could always pretend that it did not care.  This time around, however, Putin did not confront Saakashvili and his "operetta army", but the President of the United States and the combined power of US and NATO military forces.  For a few days, the situation appeared every bit as critical as during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the world began to fear that WWIII could begin (hence all the rumors about US/NATO military moves and the oblique or even overt threats of US politicians).  The crisis became so acute that The Independent felt that it had to write an editorial entitled "We don't want a war with Russia" which concluded with the following warning:

The Independent on Sunday is not opposed to all wars, regardless of fashionable talk of living in a “post-interventionist” world. We, like President Obama, are opposed to dumb wars. War with Russia would be a dumb war to end all dumb wars

Soon, however, it began to be clear that the US was not willing to go to war over Crimea or the Ukraine.  Predictably, in the confrontation between Barak Obama and Vladimir Putin Obama blinked first.  The referendum which the US tried so hard to prevent went ahead, and its results are an absolute disaster for the USA. There are now some pretty good signs that the USA is throwing in the towel (Moon of Alabama has two good pieces on that; see here and here) and that the West is seeking a way out.

This shows that Obama did much more than just "blink first".  This shows that when push comes to shove, Russia has enough military power and political determination to deny the US Empire one of it's most important strategic objectives: pretending to be the sole superpower.  If the collapse of the US policy on Syria was a painful embarrassment, what just took place in the Ukraine is something of an entirely different order of magnitude:  Russia slapped down the EU, NATO and the US and came on top of a confrontation in which down to the last minute the West tried to bluff its way to victory and instead only achieved a full-spectrum defeat.

Full spectrum dominance is a thing of the past, and everybody now knows it

Two things are certain now.  First, Crimea is now gone, back to Russia, and nothing will change that.  Second, the attempt to turn the Ukraine into a "Banderastan" will fail.  Though there are regular reports of Bandestastani military forces being moved towards the Donbass, I personally don't see how the regime in power in Kiev could crush the current protests in the East and South of the Ukraine. Besides, as soon as what is left on paper of the ex-Ukrainian economy officially collapses, the new regime will have much more pressing issues to deal with than protests.  At some point I expect that the USA and Russia will get together and agree to discreetly show the way out to the hardcore Bandera crazies currently in power.  Some kind of more or less civilized and neutral regime will replace the current one and some kind of more or less civilized and neutral "Ukrainian Confederation" will be created.  If the folks in power in Kiev persist and hang on to power, a good part of the east and south Ukraine will follow the example of Crimea and join Russia.  A temporary split of the Ukraine into two, like what happened in Cyprus, is also possible.  I honestly cannot imagine anybody crazy enough to provoke the Russian military to enter the eastern or southern Ukraine.  On the long term, it would be better for everybody that the Ukraine be allowed to split up into two or three different entities: one western, Latin and neo-Fascist one, one Russian one which would probably join the Eurasian Union or even become part of Russia, and possibly one independent one in the South.  But the dream of a large united Ukraine ruled by russophobic nationalists will not happen - that option is gone forever.

What is next for the AngoZionist Empire?

Externally, nothing much really.  It will be business as usual.  Neither Russia nor China will do anything reckless to provoke the USA which, just as the Russia of the 1990s, will remain a nuclear superpower and one of the major military powers on the planet with which no country will dare ignore.  But the myth of US omnipotence is now gone, forever.  Furthermore, Europe will have to bear the brunt of the consequences of having to manage the gradual transformation of Banderastan into something reasonable and non-threatening.  The EU will sink further in its economic and social crisis and some other crisis will replace the Ukraine in the news.  Externally, little will be change, but to paraphrase my conclusion about the 08.08.08 war, it will take a long while for the West to realize what has really happened and the most obtuse of pundits and politicians will probably hang on to their usual self-righteous rhetoric forever, but historians will probably look back at the month of February 2014 as the moment when Russia successfully beat back the combined power of the USA and Europe and prevailed.

The Saker