August 30th Transcarpathia and Transnistria SITREP by "Y"

Transcarpathia

29 Jul. NATO has sponsored a project involving Romanian and Ukrainian scientists to monitor river pollution on the Tisza river. This is a major source of drinking water for the region and passes through Uzhhord. This is a major town situated close to the border with Romania. This strikes me as an opportunity to insert SIS types into the region under NGO/environmentalist cover.

5 Aug. The head of the region, deputy Valeriy Lunchenko claimed there were a few dozen citizens of the Russian Federation inciting the local people to protest against mobilisation. Lunchenko claimed that mobilisation is not forced and all moblised persons are volunteers.

7 Aug. Reports of the protesters acting against mass military mobilisation in the Transcarpathia region are turning into a full scale uprising. Local residents are blocking the roads, stopping trains and are taking over the control of places of strategic importance. The town of Mukachevo is at the heart of the rebellion. Protesters have also taken actions in the Mukachevo region: villages of Chervenovo, Domboki and Strabichevo, in the Beregove region: villages of Gat and Muzhievo and four towns in the Hustsky region

19 Aug. 1500 Ukrainian troops sent to Transcarpathia to control possible separatist action forming a second front. The effect of this has been exacerbated by the arrival of a similar number of trained volunteers in the east.

20 Aug. More than 100 activists from Irshava district rallied near the Transcarpathian Regional Administration. One of their main demands was to enforce the district council decision whereby two-thirds of the deputies passed a motion of no confidence in the head of Irshava District State Administration, a member of the Svoboda party Vasyl Svichkar.

24 Aug. Kiev passes decree intended to popularize signs of Ukrainian patriotism and to prohibit the use of the coat of arms, flag and anthem of undemocratic regimes. In particular, totalitarian, self-proclaimed quasi-state formations, terrorist, separatist organizations or groups. This is obviously aimed at Novorossian symbology.

25 Aug. Migration Service of Ukraine acts in Transcarpathia to identify illegally residing foreign & stateless persons.

26 Aug. Transcarpathians from western Ukraine will join the resisistance in the International Rusyn Battalion of Lugansk Republic.

27 Aug. Reports from Delatyn that the 5th Battalion of the Carpathian defence force has deserted from from the front in the south east. This video shows a battle-scarred convoy en route presumably back to Transcarpathia.

Transnistria

10 Jul. An article in the New York times mentions that Strelkov, described as a former intelligence agent, fought in the post-Soviet conflicts in Transnistria, Serbia and Chechnya. I like their further description - "Mr. Strelkov, a native Muscovite whose real name is Igor Girkin, is a figure as mysterious as he is fearsome". Can we look forward to him reappearing in Transnistria in the near future? If the Novorossia story is ever filmed, will there be a rejuvenated Sean Connery playing his part saying "My name is Strelkov.... Igor Strelkov" in a soft Scottish-Russian accent? Stay tuned.

27 Jul. Ukraine starts construction of a large ditch 3.5 m wide and 2-3 m deep, along the whole border with Transnistria. The intent is to stop the movement of heavy military equipment and the movement of contraband goods. The US Senate adopted Resolution SR 500 in support of the territorial integrity of Moldova and the condemnation of Russian economic pressure on Moldova. It also calls for the EU to deepen political and economic integration with Moldova. Once more, the EU becomes the fall guy for US foreign policy with respect to Russia.

3 Aug. Reports of concern in Transnistria that Ukraine will attack Tiraspol, the capitol, in order to draw Russia into the conflict, being framed as the aggressor.

11 Aug. Transnistria anounces that it is not preparing to attack anyone, but it is ready to repel any aggression against it.

20 Aug. Transnistria's government just announced it was mobilizing its military from 21 August.

21 Aug. Transnistria mobilizes its army. All employees of state agencies will undergo combat training. Russian official visits region.

22 Aug. Following his meeting with Transnistria's leadership, the Russian vice-premier Dmitriy Rogozin noted that even at this very difficult time Russia will continue supporting its compatriots.

26 Aug. More American soldiers are spotted at a bar in Moldova. Keep in mind the military build up in Transnistria. Moldova proposes introducing legislation making it a criminal offence to promote 'separatism' and 'extremism'.

28 Aug. Ukraine has increased the scope of its existing regulations preventing the passage of Russian males aged 18-60 across the border with Transnistria to include children, women and elderly people.

Background:

The Wiki links (with obvious caveats) Transcarpathia, Zakarpatia oblast and Transnistria form a starting point. Given the complex ethography, history and politics of both regions, there are multiple interpretations of events, which must be borne in mind. Anonther source is the blog Springtime of Nations in which the author looks at the emergence of small states throughout the world, including seccession movements in the US. The interpetation of both regions seems to come from a conventional US/Western perspective, especially regarding foreign policy. He also considers the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which is another proxy for US/Russia conflict.

Update on the Ukrainian refugees by Auslander

Dear friends,

I have been asked by Auslander to pass on the following information to the readers of this blog, especially those who have donated money to help Ukrainian refugees.

The Saker
-------
Here is the cost at current exchange rate dollar to ruble and dollar to griven:

Housing Per day:
7 bed room with in room full bathroom, shower, sink, toilet.
per person per day R 455 = $13.00
(New room, TV and kettle for tea water. Includes all needs for bath including towels, soap, wash pads. Includes sheets, blankets and pillows. Communal new washing machine for laundry.)

Meals. 3 meals per day, breakfast, lunch and dinner.
per person per day R 471 = $13.45
(Served in Church cafeteria. Milk, tea, coffee, fruits, salad, soup, potatoes, meat, fish, fresh baked bread depending on meal. Children under 15, all they can eat. Adults, very healthy portions.)

Total room and board per person per day. R 926 = $26.45
Cost of evacuation per person including babies in arms. (In Ukrainian Hrivna) G 625 = $52.08
With more intensive fighting cost has gone up over 25%.
It is possible this cost will go up again.

Initial medical and dental examination. We will pay for these.

Extra money will be spent per person depending on what personal needs they have, such as clothing, shoes/sandals, simple toys for children, needed medicines, etc.

Please do not ask how we get these refugees out or where they are from. We must keep those details secret until after the war. When the fighting is over many of these details will be told. Some will not be public ever. Certain operations concerning evacuation by volunteers, their names, their locations, can not be told. The Nazis have very long memories and no matter how victorious we are some will survive and take their revenge.

Please also remember many of these evacuees are arriving with little more than the clothes on their backs.

We will, as possible, provide a very few photos of at least some of the evacuees. Photos will be taken at St. Nicholas Church. 

Many thanks to all,

Auslander

Auslander reports about the Ukrainian refugees situation in Crimea

Auslander reports from Crimea:

Today after Church we went to a facility that is housing some of the children and women from Slavyansk. The group consisted of Father and his wife, a senior Navy officer and his wife and we two. The officer had informed the facility of the time of our arrival and who was in the group.

I will not give the name or location of the facility beyond it is one of very many old Soviet holiday sights lining the Krim coast from north of Kerch on the east coast all the way around the peninsula to above Yevpatoria on the west coast. This facility, like many of them, was renovated in the last few years and is quite nice and clean as a whistle. The evacuees housed there are not crowded together by any stretch of the imagination and there will be more evacuees housed there in the next few days.

Security is tight and I'll leave it at that. The beach is beautiful, sand and very clean, the water shallow out to about 50 m from the gentle surf. As with almost all of these facilities there are extensive athletic grounds including a regulation football field. Nature trails are extant in the facility also. By the by, there are no sharks in the Black Sea and no tide, ergo swimming is safe for the children.

The housing facilities on sight are excellent, again clean almost to an extreme with substantial food preparation areas and a more than adequate dining area. The kitchen is spotless and as usual the staff are local women for the cooking and serving and in house cleaning. Local men do the grounds maintenance and cleaning. An efficient administration is in place and the usual on sight medical support has excellent rooms and modern equipment. Bath and toilet facilities are also spotless and modern, segregated to men at one end of the hallways and women at the other. All toiletries are provided as are soap, towels and washing pads in abundance. No photos are allowed.

The Evacuees
 
The number of evacuees at the facility are let's just say over 100. No men came from Slavyansk with this group. The ages of the group range from two almost brand new babies to late teenagers with a relatively small percentage of adult women, a few the mothers of some of the younger children and of course the mothers of the two babies. All will have a medical examination starting tomorrow.

The adult women are holding up well. All are distraught to one extent or another but all are functioning well with the children. We met with two groups of the women in private and their distress was quite visible when out of sight of the children. They are all very thankful to Russia for taking the children from harm's way. The evacuees run the gamut from upper middle class to quite poor.

Children are children. They are quite different here than in The West even though some of them try to mimic what they see on TV and the Internet from the west. It is in the eyes of the teenagers, especially the girls, where you can see the worry and fear just below the surface. The teenaged girls are working with the children, relatives or not, alongside of the adult women. The boys, some are worried, most are angry at the events in and around Slavyansk and their inability to do something about them. The boys are, after all, young men and the will to protect their families and their homes is already ingrained in them. There is adequate staff to assist the women with the children and keep the teenagers in line.

It is in the young children, the under 10 year olds, that the innocence yet reality comes through as you talk to them. After all, here is a group of children and teenagers who have seen far more than they should have at their tender ages and suddenly they are in another country in a heavily guarded facility and here are strangers including a foreigner in their midst. Some of the teenagers and younger children speak some English and more than one teenager was quite fluent in English, one so fluent she relieved my wife from translating for a while. Some of the children's comments, through the translators:

"It was hot that night, we had the windows open. The sounds were loud. There was a very loud noise on a car in front of our building. There was hail hitting our flat. There was fire outside, I could see it on the wall. My window was broken. My mother was afraid. My father was angry." 9 year old girl.

"A bomb fell near our flat. It was a small one, not the big ones. The sound is different. I am not afraid of the little ones but cats are afraid. We know when the little ones are coming because the cats run away. We hide when they run away." 7 year old girl.

"My neighbor's dog was killed that night. My neighbor, she cries all the time now. My mother said I have to leave home." 10 year old boy.

She looked at the scars on my arm and touched them, then pulled up my left shirt sleeve and looked. How she knew I don't know, the tattoo is 5cm above blousing level as per regs. "You are foreign." "Yes." "You are soldier." "I was." "Did you come here to kill me?" Asked matter of fact. Mother of God. How do you answer that? "No, I am not here to hurt you, I am here to help you and to keep you safe" in my very poor Russian. 10 year old girl. My teenaged translator dissolved in to tears. The child comforted her.

"I want to kill all those fascist pedarasti. My mother is afraid. My father is fighting. My father said I could not come with him, I don't know why. I am a man." 15 year old boy.

"I miss my boyfriend. He could not come, there was no more room on the bus. He kissed my before I got on the bus, right in front of my mother. I love him. I miss my mother. I want to go home." 14 year old girl.

"I miss my mother. I miss my father. I want to go home. Mother said I can't come home soon." 12 year old girl.

"They killed my neighbor. He was a kind man, he never hurt anyone. I was the first one to him after he fell off his bicycle. There was a lot of blood. He was dead. His wife was screaming. He took me fishing." 15 year old boy.

"It is so quiet here. There is no noise at all. I wish my mother and father were here with me. My mother likes to swim." 6 year old boy.

After we spoke to the women and children we spoke to the administrator. She assured us the children and women had everything they needed. The officer's wife asked about bathing suits for the children and dolls for the young girls.

We then had lunch with the evacuees. Lunch was excellent with plenty of food for the children, as much food, juice and milk as they wanted, fresh baked bread from the kitchen, gallons of tea for the adults. After lunch Father and I went to the only private shop in the facility, down by the beach. It sells bathing suits, shorts, sun tan oil, sun hats and other sundries for the beach. After we looked at the prices Father had a talk with the owner and an understanding was made. The children and women will get what they need for the beach at no charge to them. Father and I will split the bill and the prices will be normal market, not as marked. Father's assistant and the officer's wife will tomorrow get enough dolls for the young girls. All will be identical and will be delivered to the facility before dinner tomorrow by the officer's wife and other officer wives. Father and I will split that bill also along with the officer. I got to watch Father, though. He's pretty quick with a ruble....

When we returned the child who asked if I was there to kill her was my wife's shadow. On seeing me she ran to me. Got me a big hug and a smooch right on the cheek. I looked at my wife, she looked at me and we smiled grimly. If worse comes to worse for this child we will take her. We pray it won't come to that. She cried when we left. I told her we would be back in 2 days to see her and the other children. I asked her if she likes dogs. She said yes.

As of 15:54 today, 01 June 2014, no more evacuees are allowed to leave Slavyansk or Donetsk City. Ukraine Armed Forces have blockaded all the roads and rail lines out of both cities. No one is allowed in or out. There will be not be more children coming to this facility.

Donations are not needed at this time: all is being taken care of by Mother and locally.  Under no circumstances should anybody send money to charities here or in Ukeland. There are a couple that are legitimate but there's a lot of scams out there already. Figures, and totally disgusting.  

Auslander

Are the US elites finally coming back to their senses?

I won't even bother to discuss the topic of US and EU sanctions against Russia as this is only utter nonsense aimed at appeasing a few lobbies and proving to the general public that western leaders are "tough".  Let's, however, look at two interesting developments:

1) Obama has declared that the US will not go to war over the Ukraine.  As usual, Obama tightly wrapped the key words in a lot of nonsensical political hot air, but he did state the following: 

"We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine. What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong international correlation that sends a clear message".  In other words - there is no military option.  Speaking about Putin Obama also said: "His strategic decisions are in no way based on whether he thought that we might go to war over this".  In other words, Putin is not bluffing and he does not fear us".  Good.  Somebody (Dempsey?) finally talked some sense into this man.

2) A former US ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, John Matlock, wrote an editorial for Time magazine in which he shows a surprising amount of basic common sense (illustrating yet again my thesis that the quality of US diplomats today is infinitely worse than what it used to be 20 years ago).  I recommend that you read the full editorial - just to get a sense of the man - but I want to quote what I believe is the key section of the editorial:

Though they may be difficult for all relevant parties to accept, the premises of a solution to the Ukrainian mess are clear: 1) The new constitution should provide for a federal structure of government giving at least as many rights to its provinces as American states have; 2) The Russian language must be given equal status with Ukrainian; and 3) There must be guarantees that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO, or any other military alliance that excludes Russia. 

Guess what?  The man is absolutely correct! For one thing, I firmly believe that Russia would support such a program if only because, contrary to what so many people seem to think, has no desire at all to incorporate the eastern Ukraine into Russia.  As I have written in the past, what Russia wants is a a) stable b) prosperous and c) non-hostile independent Ukraine on its eastern border.  Of course, what Russia will not permit is the violent imposition of a Banderastan in the Eastern Ukraine.  That is simply not going to happen.  But an independent Ukraine is not at all a bad thing for Russia, it is, in fact, clearly the solution Russia would prefer.  And just to clarify - if the sanctions adopted against Russia are just a load of bull and a PR stunt, that does not mean that Russia wants a new Cold War or that Russia benefits from tensions with the EU and US.  Peace, stability and prosperity are what Russia most needs today.  So Matlock's common sense proposals will be met with full support in the Kremlin.

However, there are two very serious obstacles to the realization of this plan now:

1) The USA with its big stupid mouth has cornered itself into a comprehensively non-constructive position and its going to be awfully  hard to make a 180 degree turn and actually cut the imperial nonsense and get to work with Russia to stabilize the situation.

2) There is utter and total chaos in most of Banderastan (nationalist controlled ex-Ukraine) and armed gangs of mobsters are terrorizing the local population and racketeering small - and even not so small - businesses.  From all the reports I read I get the feeling that there must be something in the range of several tens of thousands of armed thugs loose in Banderastan (some 20% political and 80% mobsters, some 20% mobsters and 20% political).  Somebody will have to disarm these thugs, a non-negligible amount of which will have to be killed in the process.  Both Russia and NATO could do that (well, Russia would be far better at it, but nevermind), but neither can move in for political reasons.  So I simply don't see who could do that right now.  Maybe the leftover Ukrainian military?

Alas, the crazies in the new revolutionary regime are not only not trying to rebuild a police force or a real military, they are creating a "national guard" formed mainly of thugs loyal to the revolutionary regime.

Bottom line - there are signs that some Americans a slowly waking up from their grand imperial hallucinations, but this is very, very late in the game.  Had Obama and Matlock made these statements just one month ago, that would have made a huge difference, but today?

And then there was the utterly unprofessional, rude and undiplomatic rant of Samantha Powers at the UNSC.  She actually said the following:

Russia is known for its literary greatness and what you just heard from the Russian ambassador showed more imagination than Tolstoy or Chekhov.  A thief can steal property but that does not confer the right of ownership on the thief. What Russia has done is wrong as a matter of law, wrong as a matter of history, wrong as a matter of policy and dangerous.

 To which the Russian ambassador, Vitalii Churkin, replied:

During the discussions a number of colleagues unfortunately spoke up in an excessive way and I'm especially forced to return to the statement made by the representative of the United States of America. It is simply unacceptable to listen to these insults addressed to our country. If a delegation from the United States of America expects our cooperation in the Security Council on other issues, then Madam Powers must understand this quite clearly. Thank you.

If James Baker was still running the State Department Samantha Power would have been summarily fired from her current position and sent to teach English as a foreign language to Kisangani or Juba.  Today, with Obama in the White House - this kind of attitude is simply to be expected.

Still, now that the sabre rattling appears to be in the process of being replaced by some basic form of pragmatism, I want to believe that the article by Matlock by be the first sign of reason coming back to Washington DC.  At the very least, it is encouraging to some a member of the US nomenklatura writing a sensible op-ed.

The Saker

Chairman of the JCS Dempsey on the Ukraine crisis in his own words

Thanks to anonymous, here is what Chairman Dempsey had to say in his own words.  This sounds a lot better to me than the out-of-context paraphrase of Bloomberg.

Your take?

The Saker


)

Putin's interview about the Ukraine and Crimea (must watch!)

The Ukraine, Crimea and Kaliningrad

Just a couple of short things I want to report on.

Ukraine: I always knew that Yanukovich was a coward and a totally unprincipled man.  That, and an idiot, of course.  Well, he just proved it again.  Not only did he let that old Soviet Politburo-style, semi-mummified, and thoroughly sclerotic moron McCain enter the Ukraine just to visit the "Euromaidan" crowd, he also caved in to the demands of the so-called opposition (which at this point should be called *insurgents* or *rebels*) and ended up sacking top security officials and blaming the riot police for the violence.  I have seen the footage of the violence and I can tell you that the cops showed amazing restraint in the face of what was a carefully prepared and well executed assault using heavy stones, metal bars, chains, and tear gas.  In any other country the cops would have opened fire.  Yet Yanukovich did not even have the courage to stand behind those who protect him.   Worse, he also freed all the rioters arrested for assaulting the cops.  Now, I am not a big fan of riot police in general - I see them like dogs ready to assault anybody their master(s) order them to - but in this case I have to say that they were extraordinarily restrained, really.  And yet, Yanukovich caved in a blamed them for everything.  If Yanukovich had deliberately wanted to appear weak and pathetic he could not have done a better job.  What a piece of garbage his guys is...

Euromaidan

Ukraine: I have been very critical of pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russians in the Ukraine and I have to admit that I should have made a special distinction for the Crimean Peninsula were truly interesting things are happening.  To make a long story short, the Crimean authorities have officially warned that they would not allow the pro-EU thugs to dictate the future of the Crimean Peninsula.  They have also told the population of Crimea to be ready to defend its autonomous status and future.  It appears that unlike the lukewarm and confused pro-Yanukovich demonstrators from the Eastern Ukraine who traveled to Kiev, the Crimeans are far more determined and focused.  On one hand, this is very good, but on the other, this is also very scary because if it comes to a violent standoff between the central authority (whoever will be in power in Kiev after Yanukovich) and the population of the Crimean Peninsula there is a 100% certitude that the forces of the Black Sea Fleet will get involved.  In purely military terms, the Black Sea Fleet forces can defend the Peninsula, but that would mean a de-facto war between the Ukraine and Russia.  Again, in purely military terms, Russia can easily beat the Ukraine, but the human and political costs could be horrendous, and the risks of a NATO intervention very big, especially if a crazy person like Hillary is in power in DC.  This is stuff of nightmares and may God prevent that from occurring.

Iskander-M

Russia - EU relations: several newspapers have revealed recently that Russia has already deployed its Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad.  Polish and Lithuanian politicians have expressed their concern and worry.  What did these idiots think - that Russia was jocking when it warned about a response to the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe?  Now they are all living with a crosshair painted on their thick foreheads.  Enjoy!

The Saker

Short update on the events in the Ukraine and a better option for Russia

I just wanted to update everybody on a few interesting aspects on the current crisis in the Ukraine.

The opposition:

 Vladimir Klichko, Arsenii Iatseniuk, Oleg Tsiagnibok

 

Yulia Timoshenko

The opposition is currently headed by four people: Vladimir Klichko, Arsenii Iatseniuk, Oleg Tsiagnibok and, of course, Yulia Timoshenko (in jail, of all things, for signing a gas deal with Putin).  There are a number of smaller parties also participating on the opposition movement, but these four politicians are clearly in charge.  Well, by now, all four of them have officially declared that they goal is not to get the government to reverse its decision or to renegotiate anything.  By now all four have openly and officially declared that they goal is to overthrow the current government.  This is now the official goal of the opposition: regime change.

The EU:

Over the past week or so, the center of Kiev has witnessed constant flow of senior EU political figures who came to express their support for the opposition including Carl Bildt (ex Prime and Foreign Minister of Sweden), Loreta Grauziniene (chairwoman of the Lithuanian Parliament), Guido Westerwelle (German Foreign Minister and homosexual activist), Vlad Filat (ex Prime Minister of Moldova), Mikheil Saakashvili (ex Georgian President and loser of the 08.08.08 war), Jerzy Buzek (ex President of the European Parliament), Jaroslaw Kaczynski ( leader of Poland’s opposition party Law and Justice), John Baird (Canada’s Foreign Minister, no EU but still) and many others. All spoke about the *Russian* interference in the Ukraine's internal affairs :-)

The "pro-Russian" government:

In the meantime it became know that President Yanukovich put forth a number of demands which the EU would have to accept before the Ukraine would sign the association agreement including the joint modernization of the Ukrainian gas transport system and the revision of the EU's position "on the construction of economically unsound facilities for the transportation of natural gas to Europe, bypassing Ukraine".  In other words, the EU would have to stop getting gas from Russia by the North Stream and South Stream gas pipelines.  Yes, this "pro-Russian" politician demands that the EU stop directly purchasing Russian gas.  With friends like these...

The Ukraine riding to a bright future, no doubt

Let's summarize it all:

The opposition wants to overthrow the government, EU politicians are actually on the ground supporting the opposition while the putatively pro-Russian government of Yanukovich demands that the EU renege on its agreements with Russia.

As for me, I honestly wonder whether Russia would not be far better off *without* such wonderful "allies", "friends" and "brothers" as the modern Ukrainians and whether it not be a far better option for Russia to let the (already sinking) Ukrainians join the (already sinking) EU and then sit back and relax to watch the ensuing "love fest" between these two russophobic forces.

The Saker

CrossTalk: Dividing Ukraine

Yet another excellent CrossTalk show:

The gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine

written specially for the Asia Times 

 
Just as I have predicted in my last piece about the developments in the Ukraine, European politicians and Ukrainian opposition parties have gone into overdrive to attempt yet another color-coded revolution in Kiev.  The normally demure and low-key Eurobureaucrats have suddenly found it themselves to castigate Russia with irate statements about "unacceptable Russian interference" while their own diplomats actually went on stage to encourage the (illegal) demonstrations in Kiev.  As for the opposition, it used its formidable resources to bring people form all over the Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland to Kiev to organize a mass rally and, just to make sure that enough people would show up, they began the rally with a free rock concert.  Finally the united opposition parties have declared that they are creating a "united headquarters of the resistance" which will have as its first task to coordinate a Ukrainian-wide general strike.

Finally, the opposition, lead by Yulia Timoshenko from her jail, is now openly calling for the overthrow of the Yanukovich government and new elections.

Very impressive.

And what about the "pro-Russian" Yanukovich government?

Just as I have predicted, it is already prepared to "zag" following its surprise "zig" of last week.  All Yanukovich & Co. have done is to send Prime Minister Azarov to explain the latest change of mind of President Yanukovich on a TV talkshow hosted by a notorious russophobic Jewish anchor "Savik Shuster" (his real name is "Shevelis Shusteris"- he first worked for the CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, then for Russian "democratic" media outlets before joining the "Ukrainian" TV following the "Orange Revolution" in Kiev.  This true "cosmopolite" also holds Italian and Canadian citizenship, probably along with an Israeli one) where nobody listened to a word he had to say: for each economic figure Azarov mentioned in defense of his position, the nationalists responded with emotional slogans, promises of a bright tomorrow and the usual rabid anti-Russian rhetoric.   Still, Azarov explained that he had decided to show up because he hoped that at least on TV they would let him speak (that same day the opposition in the Ukrainian Parliament simply shouted Azarov down thereby successfully preventing him from taking the floor to explain the government's decision).

Yanukovich himself hinted that all that had happened was a "temporary delay" and that the Ukraine might sign after all, just a "little later", maybe in Spring.

Next, the government ordered their riot-cops to clear the Maidan square in Kiev at 4AM, which was done with the usual level of wanton violence (on both sides).  Azarov then denounced its own cops and announced that a special commission would be set up to investigate the violence and find out who was responsible (who else could it be besides him is unclear).

Finally, Yanukovich officially declared that he was "deeply outraged" by the violence and that all Ukrainians were united by, I kid you not, "our choice of our common European future".

Absolutely pathetic, if you ask me.

As for the so-called "Russian" folks of Donetsk, they organized an anti-EU/pro-Yanukovich rally were they displayed an immense sea of blue-yellow Ukrainian flags while playing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" form is 9th symphony (probably unaware that this was the official Anthem of the EU).

The contrast between two parties to this dispute could hardly be bigger, I think.  Let' compare them:

The Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists

The Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists are mad, really really mad.  They feel like just one man suddenly changed his mind, reneged on all his previous promises and suddenly single handedly stopped a process in which they had invested a huge amount of political capital.  And they are absolutely correct, this is exactly what happened.  Now the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists are exactly in the same predicament: both feel extremely weak and both fear Russia, both sides are financially bankrupt and hope that a political victory will overshadow their economic failure, both sides hate Russia and feel that it is absolutely crucial to deny Russia any possible advantage (real or imaginary) it might gain from a union with the Ukraine.  Yes, these are purely negative, hate-filled, feelings of inadequacy mixed with self-delusion about a much hoped for but forever unachievable greatness.  But negative feelings, in particular nationalistic ones, can be very powerful, as Hitler has so clearly demonstrated the entire world.

The supposedly "pro-Russian" Eastern Ukrainians

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.  Worse, this point of view reinforces, at least by implication, the key theses of the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists: that this is a sellout to Russia and that the Russians are blackmailing and interfering whereas, in reality, the blackmail was totally on the EU sides as clearly shown with the demand that Tymoshenko be freed (while Berlusconi in Europe is charged with exactly the same crime, so much for double-standards).

And what about Russia in all that?

I am beginning to fear that this will all explode into a real and very dangerous crisis for Russia.  First, I am assuming that the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will eventually prevail, and that Yanukovich will either fully complete his apparent "zag" and reverse his decision, or lose power.  One way or another the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will, I think, prevail.  There will be more joyful demonstrations, fireworks and celebrations in Kiev, along with lots of self-righteous back-slapping and high-fiving in Brussels, and then the gates of Hell will truly open for the Ukraine.  Why?

Well simply because joining one Titanic at the hip with another one will save neither.  The EU is sinking and so is the Ukraine.  Neither has any real vision of how to stop this disaster and both sides are absolutely dead-set to try to hide their bankruptcy by an increasingly strident and outright nasty political rhetoric.   Needless to say, neither empty promises nor nationalistic slogans will feed anybody and the already dying Ukrainian economy will collapse at which point the Russian priority will have to change from supporting it to protecting Russia from the chaos happening just across its 2300km long and mostly completely unprotected border with the Ukraine.  What are the risk for Russia?

The real risks for Russia

Being drawn into the inevitable chaos and violence with will flare up all over the Ukraine (including the Crimean Peninsula), stopping or, at least, safely managing a likely flow of refugees seeking physical and economic safety in Russia and protecting the Russian economy from the consequences of the collapse of Ukrainian economy.  Russia will have to do all that while keeping its hands off the developing crisis inside the Ukraine as it is absolutely certain that the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will blame Russia for it all.  The best thing Russia could do in such a situation would be to leave the Ukrainians to their private slugfest and wait for one side or the other to prevail before trying to very carefully send out a few low-key political "feelers" to see if there is somebody across the border who has finally come to his/her senses and is capable and ready to seriously begin to rebuilt the Ukraine and its inevitable partnership with Russia and the rest of the Eurasian Union.  As long as that does not happen Russia should stay out, as much as is possible.

Sarajevo on the Dniepr

Right now, all the signs are that the Ukraine is going down the "Bosnian road" and that things are going to get really ugly.  The explosive brew we now see boiling in the Ukraine is exactly the same one which so viciously exploded in Bosnia: local nationalist backed by foreign imperialists who are absolutely determined to ignore any form of common sense, nevermind a negotiated solution, to achieve their ideological goals.  To most sensible and rational people my doom and gloom scenario might seem too pessimistic.  I would encourage these skeptics to take a look at this well-known Polish joke:

A Pole walking along the road happens to spy a lamp. He picks it up, and as it is covered in rust he gives it quick rub. Out comes a genie.  “I’m the genie of the lamp and I can grant you three wishes,” the genie says.   “OK,” says the Pole. “I want the Chinese Army to invade Poland.”  Odd choice, the genie thinks, but nevertheless he grants the wish, and the Chinese Army comes all the way from China, invades, and goes back home.  “Right, second wish. Maybe something more positive,” says the genie.   “No,” replies the Pole, “I want the Chinese Army to invade again.”  So the Chinese come all the way from China, lay waste to more of Poland, and then go home.  “Listen,” says the genie. “You have one last wish. I can make Poland the most beautiful and prosperous place on earth.”  “If you don’t mind, I want the Chinese army to invade one more time.”  So the Chinese army comes again, destroys what’s left of Poland, and then goes home for the last time.   “I don’t understand,” says the genie. “Why did you want the Chinese army to invade Poland three times?”.  “Well,” replies the Pole, “they had to go through Russia six times.”

This is the kind of "humor" a deep-seated inferiority complex combined with a compensatory strident nationalism can produce.  Ask anybody who has ever met a Ukrainian nationalist and he will confirm to you - they make the Polish nationalists look outright mild-mannered and sober.

Needless to say, when the Ukraine explodes the Eurobureaucrats will look the other way and lock the borders of their respective countries as best they can while the leaders of the Ukrainian nationalists parties will cut and run to the West where they will get well-paid position in academia, various think-tanks and NGOs.  As for the people of the Ukraine, they will be left to fight each other against a background of hypocritical outpouring of crocodile-tears from the so-called "international community?

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate?

I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that some individual or movement will rise up from the current chaos to prevent the Ukraine from collapsing into the "Bosnian scenario" but, unfortunately, I don't see any sign of that happening.  Ukrainian politicians - all of them - are a disgusting sight.  Ditto for the EU politicians, by the way.  At the very best they are boring, uninspiring if marginally competent.  At their habitual worst, they are pathological liars, political prostitutes and delusional imbeciles which are too illiterate and too arrogant to ever see the writing on the wall, even when it is written in big, thick, block characters.

Full disclosure here: I am by training, by trade and by character a pessimist (have you ever met an optimistic military analyst?).  For example, ever since I published my very first post on this blog I have been predicting a US/Israeli attack on Iran, and that still has not happened (worse, I still think that sooner or later the Israelis and their Neocon sayanim colleague will provoke such a US attack, if need be by a false flag operation).  So I have been wrong, very wrong, in the past and I fervently hope that I am wrong again.  Alas, I see no facts or arguments even indirectly suggesting that there is another, hopefully better, scenario for the Ukraine in the future.

Does anybody else see any?

The Saker

CrossTalk: Winning Ukraine?

As always, an excellent show again:

Ukraine's "civilizational choice" - a Pyrrhic victory for Russia?

The latest decision by the Yanukovich government to delay any decision about the possible signing of an association agreement with the European Union has been greeted by a mix of shock and outrage by the Western corporate press.  Unanimously, it was decreed that this apparent reversal by Yanukovich himself was the result of Russian blackmail, ruthless power politics and even not-so-veiled threats.  Finally, the media presented this latest development as a personal victory for Putin and a strategic victory for Russia.  In yet another triumph of form over substance western commentators offered lots of drama and hyperbole and very little explanations about what has really happened.  I propose to set aside all the ideological hype and begin with a few basic reminders.

What is "The Ukraine" really?

The Ukraine in its current borders is a completely artificial entity created by the Soviet regime whose borders have no historical basis at all.  In many ways, the Ukrainian SSR was a "mini-Soviet Union, only worse" whose population had suffered horrendously during most of the 20th century (and before).  Furthermore, it is often overlooked that during the early Bolshevik regime, the Nazi occupation, the Soviet regime after WWII and since independence after the fall of the Soviet Union the Ukraine has undergone a steady process of "West-Ukrainization": the language, political culture and even national myths historically associated with the Western Ukraine have been forced upon the rest of the country which has resulted in constant tensions between the generally pro-Western West and the generally pro-Russian East and South.  Finally, to say that the Ukrainian economy is in a deep crisis would be an understatement.  Not only did the Ukraine inherit a lot of very heavy and outdated Soviet industry, it has been completely unable to use any of it to begin a truly local production of goods and services.  The only segments of the Ukrainian economy which have done reasonably well are those providing goods and services for the much larger Russian economy.  In the process, however, these better segments have either become completely dependent upon Russian investments, or have actually been acquired by Russian companies.  None of the above, however, is enough to explain the absolute disaster which has befallen the Ukraine since its independence.  For that, we need to take a look at the Ukrainian political elites.

Who has been running the Ukraine since independence?

Formally, Presidents Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yushchenko and Yanukovich.  In reality, however, since its independence the Ukraine has been in the iron grip of Ukrainian oligarchs.  This is the single most important thing to keep in mind to understand the entire dynamic currently taking place between the EU, Russia and the Ukraine.  In Russia the Presidential regime defeated the oligarchs, in the Ukraine the oligarchs defeated the Presidential regime.  In fact, the Ukrainian oligarchs are very similar to their Russian counterparts of the Eltsin era.  The tragedy of the Ukraine is that there has been no "Ukrainian Putin" and what could have happened in Russia without Putin did actually take place in the Ukraine.

To say that the Ukrainian political elites are corrupt would be an understatement.  The reality is much worse.  All Ukrainian politicians are absolutely unprincipled political prostitutes who can be bought and sold and who have no personal values whatsoever.  None.  It is quite pathetic to read in the Western press that Yulia Tymoshenko is some kind of firebrand nationalist while Yanukovich is pro-Russian.  This is laughable!  Tymoshenko and Yanukovich and, frankly, all the rest of them (Klichko, Symonenko, etc.), are political chameleons who have changed their affiliations many times and who will gladly do so again.  And just as the Russian people were essentially manipulated, powerless and apathetic under the regime of the Eltsin's oligarchs, so are the Ukrainians today who are simply not given any decent person to vote for or support.

The Ukraine between the EU and the Russian-backed customs union

The reason why the association agreement between the EU and the Ukraine was presented by all the political parties (except the Communists) as a "civilizational choice", a "strategic decision" and an "inevitable step" is that it was highly beneficial to the Ukrainian oligarchy which is absolutely terrified of Putin and who wants to keep its current position of power at any cost.  True, a majority of Western Ukrainians want to join the EU but they never would have had the political clout and, frankly, the money to force Yanukovich and the Party of Region to initially appear to support this.  No, the real center of gravity of the pro-EU activism can be found in the Ukrainian oligarchy and its discrete but powerful "friends" in the West - the very same forces who threw their full support behind Eltsin between 1990 and 2000: the Anglo-Zionist empire and its European vassal states.  In contrast, the opposition to this association agreement with the EU was mainly found in the small to medium business circles in the Eastern Ukraine which is essentially dependent on Russia and who would have immediately collapsed into bankruptcy if Russia had reduced its investment in joint programs.   Regardless, the way the Ukrainian elites dealt with this issue made public opinion basically irrelevant.

A "civilizational choice" made by a small corrupt elite?

In trying to convince the Ukrainian people to support the association with the EU the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Western supporters very skillfully "framed" the issue to such a degree as to make it unrecognizable and to make it impossible for the people to express their opinion.  Think of it - if the choice between an association with the EU and a possible participation of the Ukraine into a customs union with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others was truly a "civilizational choice" - would a popular referendum not be the only proper way to make such a dramatic decision?  Yet, in reality, the decision was made by one man only: Yanukovich.  Furthermore, is it even correct to speak of a "civilizational choice"?  Most polls ask the Ukrainians if they want to join the EU, but that is not at all what is being offered to them.  What is offered to them is only an association with the EU: a deal with was also offered to countries such as Chile, South Africa or Egypt (see here for more details).  This is not at all a first step towards a membership into the EU (Turkey signed such an association in 1964 and is still waiting; does anybody believe that Chile will join the EU?).  As for the entry into a customs union with Russia, it still has to be negotiated so at this point it is impossible to know for sure what the final terms of such a union would be (though the general outline is pretty clear).  And yet, poll after poll after poll, the same question is being asked: "do you want the Ukraine to join the EU?"  Here is an example of this in Wikipedia:

So what is really at stake here?

The short answer is  that what is at stake here is the future of the Ukrainian oligarchy.  The more complex answer is that what is at stake here is what the West can gain by co-opting the Ukrainian oligarchy into its sphere of influence.  In practical terms this means that as long as the West agreed to keep the oligarchs in power it could gain many very real advantages from the Ukraine such as a market for EU goods, cheap labor, the possibility to deploy NATO forces in the Ukraine (without necessarily offering the Ukraine to join NATO) and, first and foremost, the rock-solid guarantee to be able to dictate its terms to the Ukrainian oligarchy which would have no other option than to be hyper-compliant to any Western demands.  Furthermore, the West very much sees this as a zero-sum game, what the West gets - Russia looses.  While not catastrophic by any means, the severance of the current economic ties between Russia and the Ukraine would most definitely hurt Russia, at least in the short term.   Furthermore, the West also believes that an association with the EU would prevent any further integration of Russia and the Ukraine. That is, I believe, probably true, simply because no real integration between the Ukraine and Russia is possible as long as the Ukrainian oligarchs remain in power.

The real objective of the Anglo-Zionist empire in the Ukraine

Just before Barak Obama got rid of her, Hillary Clinton made an amazingly candid admission about the Empire's real goals in Eastern Europe.  Here is what she said:

There is a move to re-Sovietise the region.  It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Simple, direct and clear.  Even the use of the expression "re-Sovietise" shows that Hillary and, frankly, most of the Western elites are still completely stuck in a Cold War paradigm in which every Russian move is necessarily an evil one and the West and Russia play a zero-sum game.  In the logic of these people, any loss for Russia is by definition a good and highly desirable outcome for the West.

What better way for the Empire is there to "slow down or prevent" any integration of Russia and the Ukraine than to offer the Ukrainian oligarchy an association deal with the EU which would cost the EU nothing and which would inevitably trigger a trade war between the Russia and the Ukraine?

Russian objectives in the Ukraine

Russian objectives in the Ukraine are pretty straightforward.   First, Russia believes that a customs union with the Ukraine would be mutually beneficial.  Second, Russia also hopes that, with time, such a mutually beneficial union would serve to deflate anti-Russian feelings (which are always stirred up by the Ukrainian political elites) and that, with time, the Ukraine could become a member of the future Eurasian Union.  Third, judging by its bitter experience with Central European countries, the Baltic States and Georgia, Russia definitely hopes to prevent the Ukraine from becoming the next colony of the Anglo-Zionist Empire in Europe.  Finally, a majority of Russians believe that the Russian and Ukrainian people are either one nation or, at least, two "brother nations" who share a common history and whose natural calling is to live in friendship and solidarity.

Are the Russian objectives in the Ukraine realistic?

Ironically, Russia faces exactly the same problem in the Ukraine as the Anglo-Zionist Empire: the Ukraine in its current borders is a completely artificial creation.  Everybody pretty much agrees that the Western Ukraine and the Eastern Ukraine have almost exclusively opposite goals. On all levels - language, economy, politics, history, culture - the western and eastern parts of the Ukraine are completely different.  The center, and the capital city of Kiev is a mix of both east and west while the south is really a unique cultural entity, different from the rest of the country and which is even more diverse than the rest of the country.  An armchair strategist might suggest that the "obvious" solution would be to break up the Ukraine into two or more parts and let each part chose, but this "solution" has two major problems: first, breaking up an artificial country is an extremely dangerous thing to do (remember Bosnia or Kosovo!) and, second, there is absolutely no way that the West and its Ukrainian nationalist puppets are ever going to accept such a "solution" (they even insist that the Crimean Peninsula must forever be considered a part of the Ukraine, even though it was only donated by Khrushchev to the Ukrainian SSR  in 1954!).

Furthermore, I believe that an even deeper analysis of the consequences of an integration of the Ukraine into Russia should be made before jumping to conclusions.  If, indeed, the Ukraine is a "big Bosnia", does it make sense for Russia to want to bring this "big Bosnia" inside its otherwise very prosperous union with Belarus, Kazakhstan and others nations to the east?  I do not argue against the argument that history clearly shows that the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and all parts of one historical/cultural body.  What I am saying is that the Ukrainian part of that body is suffering from a very dangerous form of gangrene and that I do not see how Russia and the rest of the (future) Eurasian Union could heal this member.

While some segments of the Ukrainian economy do have an interesting potential for Russia, most of it is a disaster with no chance at all for reform.  Politically, the Ukraine is a slow-motion disaster where corrupt politicians fight with each other for the chance to get money and support from the local oligarchs and their western patrons.  Socially, the Ukraine is a ticking time-bomb which must explode, sooner or later, and while Russia can continue to bail out the Ukrainian economy with loan after loan after loan, this cannot go on forever.  Finally, the western Ukraine is a Petri dish of the worst kind of Russophobic hysteria, often crossing into outright neo-Nazi propaganda, which will never accept any deal with the hated "Moskals" (Russians, or "Muscovyites" in the nationalist lexicon).

The frightening fact is that in its current configuration the Ukraine is headed for disaster no matter who prevails, Yanukovich or the opposition.   Just look at what the "liberals" and "democrats" achieved during the rule of Eltsin's oligarchs: Russia's economy completely collapsed, the country almost broke up into many small parts, Mafia dons ran the entire underground economy while Jewish oligarchs literally pillaged the wealth of Russia and relocated it abroad, while the media was busy feeding the Russian people absolute lies and nonsense.  Well, today, exactly the same type people are running the show in the Ukraine.  

The big difference

Looking back to what happened in the past 20 years or so it becomes immediately apparent why the Ukraine ended up in its current nightmare while Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan did so much better.  The answer has three words: Nazarbaev, Putin, Lukashenko.  I listed Nazarbaev first because he always was for an integration with Russia and its allies - Kazhakhstan never really wanted its independence in the first place and it was literally pushed out by Eltsin and his "democratic" allies Kravchuk and Shushkevich).  Putin only showed up on the political scene a full decade after Nazarbaev had tried to do his best to maintain a single post-Soviet country.  As for Lukashenko, he is a complex and eccentric personality who follows a rather bizarre policy towards Russia: he wants to integrate Belarus with the very market-oriented Russia while keeping Belarus and its economy and society in a "neo-Soviet" condition.  For all their differences, Nazarbaev, Putin and Lukashenko have emerged as three powerful figures who did get their local oligarchs under control and who have thereby prevented their countries from becoming Anglo-Zionist colonies.  In contrast, no real national leader has emerged in the Ukraine: every single Ukrainian politician is a joke and a puppet in the hands of private interests.

Ukraine's "civilizational choice" - a  Pyrrhic victory for Russia?

At this moment in time, the Western media is trying to present Yanukovich's decision to delay any further negotiations on the association with the EU as a huge strategic victory for Putin and Russia.  I personally disagree.  While it is true that by this decision Yanukovich has delayed the collapse of the Ukrainian economy this is only a delaying tactic, nothing in substance has changed.  Furthermore, while it is vital for the Ukraine not to sever its current economic ties with Russia, this is not true for Russia, especially in the long run.  Of course, an economic collapse of the Ukraine would be bad news for Russia too who really does not need its big neighbor to go down the "Bosnian scenario" lest Russia be pulled in, which it almost inevitably would.  But having avoided an immediate disaster in the Ukraine is hardly something I could call a "strategic victory" for Russia.  One could make the case that the best option for Russia would be to take some huge scissors, make a deep cut along the current border between Russia and the Ukraine and relocate the latter somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  This not being an option, the next best thing would be to make it possible for the Ukraine to break up into its natural components and integrate the Eastern Ukraine into the Eurasian Union.  Alas, at this moment in time, this option is as impossible as the first one.  What is then left for Russia?  What is the "least bad" option Russia can try to make the best of?  Exactly what it is doing today: try to prevent a complete collapse of the Ukrainian economy while hoping for a "Ukrainian Putin" to eventually emerge.  A "Ukrainian Putin" would be a real patriot whose first priority would be to get rid of the Ukrainian oligarchs, the second one would be to clearly indicate to the Anglo-Zionists that they are no longer welcome in their capacity as colonial overlords, and third to try to get the best deal possible for the Ukrainian people in a future Eurasian Union.  So far, there is absolutely no sign of such a figure emerging in the Ukraine.

So yes, Yanukovich's last minute change of mind is good news for the Ukraine and for Russia, but this is hardly a victory of any kind for Putin or Russia.  First, I would not put it past Yanukovich to change his mind yet again (the man has no principles or values to speak of).  Second, we already see that the Empire is going absolutely apeshit with rage over this latest development and that the US and EU will spare no efforts to orchestrate yet another revolution in Kiev.  Same thing for the Ukrainian opposition which now will get a huge influx of dollars from the West to create as much chaos as possible.  As for the Ukrainian people, they will be given no option at all other than to express their opinion in opinion polls asking the wrong question.  Finally, as long as the current Ukrainian oligarchy remains in power, there will be no reason at all to hope for any meaningful improvements in the plight of the Ukraine and its people.

The Saker

Ukrainian "democrats" fail at distrupting Black Sea Fleet deal ratification

Russia-Ukraine: breaking news

(Thanks to C. for pointing these out to me - VS)

Ukraine will receive a discount of $100 per 1,000 cu m at the natural gas price of $330 and a 30% discount on other prices, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday. Medvedev's announcement came after a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yanukovych in Kharkov in eastern Ukraine. "Discounts for Ukraine will come into effect from April this year," Yanukovych said.

Ukraine has agreed to extend the term of Russian Black Sea Fleet presence in the country's Crimea for 25 more years, the Russian president said on Wednesday. The new agreement, signed after talks between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yanukovych, also stipulates the extension for an additional five years after the term expires.
-------
Commentary: All this is excellent news. After years of NATO-sponsored folly, it does appear that Russia and the Ukraine are finally going to start to work together. Such a collaboration could be extremely beneficial for both countries, and the backlog of joint projects which needs to be revived is long (think, for example, of the AN-70). I just hope that the Ukrainians will never forget that bitter lesson: neo-Nazi nationalists and US/NATO agents have wrecked their country and set it back by at least a decade, if not more. I want to believe that the Ukrainians will not repeat that mistake again.

The Saker

PS: I just came across an interesting news item: looks like the Antonov company is now under Russian ownership!

Fading Color

by Vladimir Radyuhin for Frontline (India)

The victory of opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych in the presidential election in Ukraine marked a crushing defeat for the United States-masterminded “orange revolution” designed to weaken and isolate Russia. In the first round of the election, held on January 17, voters threw out the anti-Russian President Viktor Yushchenko, who was propelled to power by the orange revolution in 2004. Yushchenko polled a dismal 5 per cent of the votes and dropped out of the race. In the run-off on February 7, Yushchenko’s orange-ally-turned-foe, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, lost to Yanukovych by a margin of 3.5 per cent of the votes.

For Yanukovych, the victory was sweet revenge for a humiliating debacle in the previous election. For the U.S., his triumph marked the collapse of its most ambitious geopolitical project in post-Cold War Eastern Europe.

The American project got off to a dazzling start five years ago when the pro-Russian presidential candidate, then Prime Minister Yanukovych, was stripped of victory in the run-off against Yushchenko over alleged rigging of the election result. Riding the high wave of popular rejection of the corrupt oligarchic regime in post-Soviet Ukraine, Yushchenko and his firebrand ally, Yulia Tymoshenko, led tens of thousands of supporters on to the streets of the capital, Kiev, in what came to be known as the orange revolution, which was orchestrated and financed by Western governments and foundations. A rerun of the vote, ordered by the court under pressure from street protests and in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution, brought victory to Yushchenko.

Ukraine’s was the second “coloured revolution” in the former Soviet Union after the “rose revolution” in Georgia a year earlier. Washington’s plans to trigger a domino effect in the Russia-friendly regimes in the former Soviet states faltered in Kyrgyzstan. The “tulip revolution” staged in that Central Asian state in March 2005 helped topple the government but failed to change Kyrgyzstan’s pro-Moscow orientation.

Georgia and Ukraine became linchpins in the U.S. strategy of encircling Russia with pro-Western “new democracies”. Washington vigorously lobbied to grant North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) membership to both countries and used them to infuse new life into GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), the loose pro-Western grouping of the former Soviet states. GUAM was to play the double role of acting as a cordon sanitaire between Europe and Russia and as a new energy corridor to transport Caspian oil and gas to Europe by bypassing Russia.

While Georgia provided a strategic bridgehead for the U.S. in the Caucasus and a gateway to Central Asia, Ukraine was used as a battering ram to disrupt Moscow-led reintegration of post-Soviet economies and undercut Russia’s resurgence.

Yushchenko effectively turned Ukraine into a U.S. client state and a pawn in Washington’s Russia strategy as formulated by former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia,” Brzezinski had suggested.

Yushchenko, the 55-year-old former banker, drew extra inspiration for his anti-Russian course from his second wife, Katherine Chumachenko, an American of Ukrainian descent whom he married in 1999. Bruce Bartlett, a Republican conservative who had worked with Katherine Chumachenko at the State Department and in the White House, recalled: “Anyone who met Kathy quickly discovered that the liberation of the Ukraine from communist tyranny was her primary mission in life, to the exclusion of almost everything else.”

Yushchenko made NATO membership an absolute priority of his presidency, notwithstanding the fact that a mere 20 per cent of Ukrainians embraced the idea. He sought to evict the Russian Black Sea fleet from its Soviet-era main naval base in Sevastopol in Ukraine’s Crimea even though the lease agreement was to expire in 2017, and to turn the Black Sea into a NATO lake. He invited the U.S. to deploy a missile shield targeting Russia on Ukrainian territory. He personally ordered massive supplies of heavy armaments to Georgia as it prepared for war against Russia and sent Ukrainian military specialists to take part in combat operations when Georgia attacked Russian peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia in August 2008.

Yushchenko blocked Russia’s participation in modernising Ukraine’s rundown gas pipelines and provoked endless “gas wars” with Russia, disrupting the transit of Russian gas across Ukraine to Western Europe and spoiling Russia’s relations with Europeans.

Curiously, Yushchenko’s departure was met with relief, not only in Moscow but also in Brussels and Washington. His presidency was a total disaster on the domestic front. Ukraine’s democracy has degenerated into a power struggle between rival oligarchic clans masquerading as political parties. When he assumed power, he promised to root out corruption, which plagued Ukrainian business and politics. But five years hence, bribery and cronyism have only increased several fold. His bitter infighting with the “orange” princess, Yulia Tymoshenko, paralysed decision-making as Ukraine struggled to cope with an economic crisis owing to falling living standards and soaring prices.

Ukraine’s commodity-dominated economy has been shattered by the global crisis. Last year, Ukraine was the worst performing big economy in Europe. Its gross domestic product shrank by 14 per cent, even as inflation soared to 15 per cent. Ukraine is practically bankrupt. The International Monetary Fund has suspended a $16-billion lifeline it granted Ukraine last October. The country’s sovereign debt stands at $100 billion and the state coffers are empty.

Yushchenko’s presidency fossilised Ukraine’s split into pro-Russian east and south and pro-European west. The outcome of the 2010 presidential election showed that the country remains as deeply divided as it was five years ago: Yanukovych got 80 to 90 per cent of the votes in the eastern and southern provinces and Yulia Tymoshenko won just as heavily in the western province. Yushchenko’s policy of shutting down Russian schools and Russian television, squeezing out the Russian language, and glorifying Second World War Nazi collaborators was applauded in the country’s west but was rejected by ethnic Russians living in the eastern and southern regions.

The U.S’ orange project for Ukraine failed because its patently anti-Russian thrust had no chance to succeed in a country where half the population speaks Russian and which shares close economic, linguistic and religious ties with Russia. One could not hope to overcome the east-west divide in Ukraine by antagonising its Russian speakers in the east and playing up to anti-Russian nationalists in the west.

As Ukraine drifted away from Russia, it gained little from the U.S. and Europe. Expectations that the West would remunerate Yushchenko’s anti-Russian course proved illusory. NATO membership for Ukraine was firmly blocked by France and Germany, who feared a revival of Cold War divisions in Europe. The European Union, likewise, shut its doors on Ukraine as the nation with a population of 48-million is too large and too poor to be integrated into the E.U.

The West eventually turned away from Yushchenko, dismayed by his inept leadership, lack of reforms and vicious feuding with Yulia Tymoshenko. The U.S’ growing focus on securing Russian support in Afghanistan and Iran further discouraged the West from meddling in Ukraine’s election.

For its part, Russia crafted a smart win-win strategy in the presidential election. In contrast to the previous poll, when its heavy-handed support for Yanukovych backfired, this time Moscow wisely hedged its bets between the two front runners, engaging both and refusing to be too closely identified with either of them. The Kremlin’s soft-power approach was designed to ensure that whoever won the presidency would be a friend of Russia. This policy paid off. Both Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko ran on a platform of resetting good relations with Russia.

There are no illusions in Moscow that under Yanukovych Ukraine will abandon its long-term goal of integration with Europe, but there is an expectation that pragmatic interest will make it steer a more balanced course with regard to the East and the West. After all, Russian oil and gas meets 80 per cent of Ukraine’s energy needs and brings billions of dollars in transit fees. Russia accounts for a quarter of Ukraine’s foreign trade, although the share has come down since the orange revolution. Moscow is Kiev’s best hope for bailing out the crisis-hit Ukrainian economy. The Wall Street Journal described the Ukrainian election as a “geopolitical shift” that is “being magnified by Ukraine’s imminent national bankruptcy – casting Russia in the role of Abu Dhabi to Ukraine’s Dubai”.

The end of the orange regime indeed alters the balance of power in Eastern Europe. “Relations with Russia and the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States, a Russia-dominated loose alliance of former Soviet republics] will be our priority,” Yanukovych said in his first statement after winning the run-off. “Our countries are closely tied by economy, history and culture.”

Yanukovych has voiced support for the Russian proposal to set up an international consortium to manage the Ukrainian gas pipelines and has called for associate membership in the Common Economic Space union, which Russia is building with Kazakhstan and Belarus.

The Ukrainian counter-revolution puts a clear stop to NATO’s eastward expansion. Yanukovych has ruled out seeking NATO membership for Ukraine and signalled a readiness to consider the extension of the lease of the Russian Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol beyond 2017. Without Ukraine, the orange cordon sanitaire around Russia will fall apart, and GUAM, as an anti-Russian alternative to the Russia-dominated CIS, will wilt. The same fate awaits Yushchenko’s proposal to create a new transport route for Caspian oil to Europe across Ukraine, bypassing Russia. Georgia, which is still reeling under the thrashing Russia gave it in a five-day war in 2008, has lost a valuable ally.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. will accept these strategic shifts. The odds are it will not despite President Barack Obama’s policy of “reset” in relations with Russia. The U.S. may have its hands full for now in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Ukraine has never gone off its radar screens. Four months after the announcement of the “reset” in February 2009, Vice-President Joe Biden visited Ukraine and Georgia to demonstrate support for the “colour revolutions” leaders and their NATO aspirations. During a high-profile tour of Eastern Europe in October, Biden set forth what he called “not negotiable” principles in relations with Russia: the U.S. “will not tolerate” any “spheres of influence” and Russia’s “veto power” on the eastward expansion of NATO. He reiterated Washington’s commitment to the policy of regime change in the Russian neighbourhood, asking East Europe to help the U.S. “guide” former Soviet states to democracy. The U.S. has moved to re-arm and train the Georgian army, ignoring explicit Russian concerns that Georgia may be planning a new war to take revenge for its defeat in 2008.

Ahead of the election in Ukraine, Brzezinski, who is now foreign policy guru to Obama, issued a blunt anti-Russia warning to Ukrainians. In an interview to the Ukrainian service of Voice of America, he said that an “outside power” was out to “manipulate” their vote and turn their country into a “satellite” or “even a part of a larger imperial system”.

In a keynote address at Ecole Militaire in France on January 29, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed Washington’s refusal to recognise Russia’s special interests in the former Soviet state.

“We object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one country seeks to control another’s future,” she said. She also rejected Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s proposal to negotiate a new security pact for Europe, which Moscow sees as a litmus test of the West’s readiness to accept the principle of equal and indivisible security on the continent. Washington has announced plans to deploy Patriot missiles in Poland near the Russian border and missile interceptors in Romania. By symbolic coincidence, both announcements were made between the first and second rounds of the Ukrainian election.

Russian-American competition in the former Soviet space will continue. Russia’s chances of winning it will ultimately depend on its ability to build a strong economy and a democratic political system that will be more attractive to its neighbours than the West’s “orange” projects.