Will NATO annex Ukraine?

by Pepe Escobar

Anyone who believes Washington is deeply enamored of ‘democracy’ in Ukraine must hit eBay, where Saddam Hussein’s WMDs have been found, and are on sale to the highest bidder.

Or pay attention to the non-denial denials of the Obama administration, which swears on a daily basis there’s no ‘proxy war’ or Cold War redux in Ukraine.

In a nutshell; Washington’s bipartisan Ukraine policy has always been anti-Moscow. That implies regime change whenever necessary. As the European Union (EU), geopolitically, is nothing but an annex to NATO, what matters is NATO extending its borders to the Ukraine. Or at least Western Ukraine – which would be a valuable consolation prize.

This is a purely military-centric game – the logic of the whole mechanism ultimately decided in Washington, not in Brussels. It’s about NATO expansion, not ‘democracy’. When neo-con State Department functionary Victoria Nuland had her 15 seconds of fame recently, what she actually meant was “We’re NATO, F**k the EU.” No wonder there will be an urgent NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, centered on Ukraine.

No one will ever read that in US corporate media – or in academia for that matter. Harvard Professor Francis Boyle talking to Voice of Russia, or Princeton’s Stephen Cohen in a recent article for the Nation, are glaring exceptions.

Every informed analyst knows the mastermind of this ‘policy’, since the 1970s, is Zbigniew ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Brzezinski. Dr. Zbig was US President Barack Obama’s mentor at Columbia and is the Talleyrand of the Obama administration’s foreign policy machine.

He may have softened up a notch recently, arguing that although the US must remain the supreme power across Eurasia, Russia and Turkey must be seduced by the West. Yet his historic Russophobia was never diluted.

‘Saint’ Yulia is back

As we’re now on the road (again) of regime change in Ukraine, that seems not such a lousy deal for only $5 billion - the amount volunteered by neo-con Nuland herself. Compare it to other lavish Bush-Obama continuum foreign adventures, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria. Yet expect major bumps ahead.

Most arguably progressive, as well as some rabidly right wing, Google generation denizens in Western Ukraine and in Kiev seem to entertain the notion that the country, under regime change, will be accepted as an EU member, they will get an EU passport, and will find a good job in Europe, just as Polish plumbers and Romanian restaurant managers did.

Well, not really. If only they could board an EasyJet and see with their own eyes what’s going on, job market-wise, in southern Europe or in London for that matter, now terrified of a horde of Eastern Europeans seizing English jobs.

As for the ultra-nationalists and frankly neo-fascists – totally anti-EU - the only thing they care about is to get rid of the Russian Bear’s embrace. And then what?

In the West’s ardor for ‘democracy’ it’s so easy to forget that Western Ukrainian fascists were aligned with Hitler against the USSR. It’s their descendants that have been in the forefront of the hardcore violence last week. And Right Sector still insists they will continue to ‘protest’. In this sense they may not be Washington’s preferred puppets; they are just momentarily useful patsies.

As for former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko – now elevated in the West to the status of a blonde Mother Teresa – she has called the Maidan (Independence) Square protesters “liberators.” They may soon liberate themselves from her – after highly corrupt ‘Saint’ Yulia runs for president next May.

The Ukraine that works - in the east and south – is made up of historic Russian provinces, think Kharkov, the Black Sea, Crimea. The country’s GDP is roughly $157 billion. That’s one fifth of Turkey (which may become the new Pakistan). As it is, Ukraine holds no economic value whatsoever to the West (even less if it becomes the new Syria). The only ‘positive’ would be NATO’s warped strategic advance.

Anyone who believes a mired-in-crisis EU will buy Ukraine out of is economic mess could once again bid for Saddam’s WMDs on eBay. Or imagine the US Congress handing out $15 billion for Ukraine to smooth out its foreign debt, not to mention reducing the price of imported gas – just like Moscow did last December.

Say hello to my Iskander 
 
The multi-billion dollar question now is what Russian President Vladimir Putin will do. One must feel tempted to detect roars of laughter in the Kremlin corridors.

For starters, Putin will decide whether or not Moscow will buy $2 billion in Ukrainian eurobonds after there’s a new government in Kiev, as Gazeta.ru reported. Kiev will get absolutely nothing from Moscow until it’s clear the new regime will play ball, in the interests of holding the country together.

‘Saint’ Yulia, by the way, was originally thrown in jail because of a gas deal that was negotiated on Moscow’s high price terms. Back to hard facts: Ukraine cannot survive without Russian gas, and the Ukrainian industry cannot survive without the Russian market. One can mix all shades of Orange, Tangerine, Campari or Tequila Sunrise revolution, and throw in the requisite IMF ‘structural adjustment’ correction – these facts are not going to change. And forget about the EU ‘buying Ukrainian’.

The Western Orangeade gang – from masters to servants – may still bet on civil war, Syria-style. Anarchy looms – provoked by the neo-fascists. It’s up to Ukrainians to reject it. A sound solution would a referendum. Get the people to choose a confederation, a partition (there will be blood) or keeping the status quo.

Here’s a very possible scenario. Eastern and southern Ukraine become part of Russia again; Moscow would arguably accept it. Western Ukraine is plundered, disaster capitalism-style, by the Western corporate-financial mafia – while nobody gets a single EU passport. As for NATO, they get their bases, ‘annexing’ Ukraine, but also get myriads of hyper-accurate Russian Iskander missiles locked in their new abode. So much for Washington’s ‘strategic advance’.

Sochi Olympics end in a huge success for Russia and Putin

Yes, today the Sochi Olympics ended in a huge success for Russia and President Putin.  And no, I don't mean the medal count (even though it was a total triumph for Russian athletes: 33 medals, including 13 gold, 11 silver and 9 bronze).  I mean the fact that no terrorist attack succeed in disrupting these games and that even though the list of sophisticated and determined forces wanting an attack to spoil these games was probably longer than in any other Olympic games (just remember the Saudi threats!).  Over the past couple of week I have tried to be cautiously hopeful, but I was still very *very* concerned as the sheer size of this event (88 nations, a record, 40'000 people at the opening ceremony with 3'000 participants, 98 events over 15 disciplines in 7 sports, and 2'800 athletes and 2 million visitors made these the largest Winter Olympics to date): a total security nightmare, especially in southern Russia, right between the Caucasus and the Ukraine.  And yet, nothing, nothing at all happened.  Two "rioting pussies" got whipped by a Cossack security patrol, while the German athletes sported a "rainbow" uniform.  Oh, and the western media in a pathetic display of sour grapes did all it could to denigrate and ridicule the event.  No biggie here.

What really matters is that this success shows something which we could only speculated about before, but which now can be considered a proven fact: the Russian security services are back at the top level of their capabilities.  The kind of long-term, sustained, multi-agency effort needed to secure an event of this magnitude is a formidable test for any country, especially one with such a long list of extremely dangerous foes.  Following 20+ years of total, absolute, and sustained systemic collapse and following 14 years of immense efforts to turn the situation around, the Kremlin is clearly again in full control of Russia and its borders.  Though this will only make Putin even more hated in the West, I personally am allowing myself a long awaited sigh of relief.  At a time when the Ukraine has plunged into a hellish nightmare which now threatens entire European continent (I will write about that tomorrow), I am personally immensely relieved to know that the Kremlin does have the means to protect the Russian people from the darkness which has now engulfed the Ukraine.

There is never a good time to face a demon of the power and viciousness of the one which has been set free in the Ukraine, but at least Russia is as prepared as can be to deal with this new threat.

The Saker

PS: thank you all for your good wishes.  I have had a fantastic week-end spent with good friends, good food and good rest, and - barring any unforeseen events - I will return to the nightmare in the Ukraine tomorrow.

Personal announcement - I will try to take a few days off

Dear friends,

I am frankly exhausted by the last few days in which I have used all my (so-called) "free time" to parse through the immense stream of often contradictory information coming out of the Ukraine while trying to make sense of it all.  I really would need a few days to take care of personal and family issues which I have neglected.  So for the next couple of days, and unless something really big happens, I will take some time off from blogging and answering emails and I hope to be back with a fresher head on Monday morning.
In the meanwhile, please feel free to use the comments section under my latest post as a "free for all" to discuss any ideas you want, to exchange views, to convey information - whatever.  Please remember that there is no such thing as "off-topic" on this blog :-)
I thank you all for the information you have been sending me and for your kind words of encouragement.

Kind regards,

The Saker

Deconstructing Yanukovich's treason (and Yulia on her way to freedom!)

So it is done. Yanukovich has fully capitulated. He has signed a deal with the insurgents which, according to the BBC, includes the following provisions:

• The 2004 constitution will be restored within 48 hours, and a national unity government will be formed within 10 days
• Constitutional reform balancing the powers of president, government and parliament will be started immediately and completed by September
• A presidential election will be held after the new constitution is adopted but no later than December 2014 and new electoral laws will be passed
• An investigation into recent acts of violence will be conducted under joint monitoring from the authorities, the opposition and the Council of Europe
• The authorities will not impose a state of emergency and both the authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence
• Illegal weapons will be handed over to interior ministry bodies

 What does really mean in plain, simple, English?

The so-called "return to the 2004 Constitution" really means that the President has handed over the control of all the police and security forces to the Parliament.  Hence, from a legal point of view, he has handed over to the insurgents the legal command over the Berkut riot cops who were beaten up, burned, maimed, tortured and killed by these very same insurgents, but under orders from Yanukovich not to use lethal force.  In the light of this absolute monstrosity, I can only applaud the foresight and wisdom of the governors of Kharkov and Crimea who have called back their local Berkut forces.

The so-called "national unity government" means that the insurgents will get to run the country but without having to bear the full responsibility for the economic, political and social disaster the Ukraine is going to be plunged into.

As for the so-called "investigation into recent acts of violence" it will clear all the insurgents and terrorists from any accusations of wrongdoing and put all the blame on the policemen who tried to maintain law and order and protect the Presidency.

This is bound to go down in history as one of the biggest acts of national treason in modern times.

Needless to say, the real leaders of insurgency, the so-called 'Right Block', have rejected the accord and have promised to continue their 'resistance' until complete regime-change.

This latest development really turns a page. The experiment of a Ukraine as a unitary state has clearly failed and, short of a miracle, a civil war followed by a breakup of the country in two or more parts is now inevitable.  Kiev has fallen and the new "Eastern Front" has now moved roughly 400km to the east.  A long conflict is about to begin.

The Saker

PS: I have just learned that the insurgent-controlled Parliament has voted to free Timoshenko.  Good!  I hope that they give her cell to Yanukovich now, as he is infinitely more deserving of it than she ever was.

High level consultations between Russia and Crimea while Kharkov authorities prepare for the worst

Russian news sources are reporting the President Putin has chaired a meeting of the Security Council of Russia, the highest national security advisory board to the Russian President tasked with coordinating national security policies.  The SCR heard a report by the Chairman of the State Duma, Sergei Naryshkin, and the Chairwoman of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko, about their consultations with Vladimir Konstantinov, the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. I expect that this type of "consultations" with leaders of the eastern and southern Ukraine (the areas in blue on the map) will become more frequent

as the situation worsens in the rest of the country.

Yesterday, the governor of the region of Kharkov, Mikhail Dobkin, gave a long press-conference in which he outlined the measures taken by this region in response to the developments in Kiev.  Among other things, he declared that:

1) He had ordered the recall of the local Berkut forces from Kiev because he could not order them to go into combat against snipers without carrying their firearms.

2) Local authorities are conscripting volunteers in a regional defense force tasked to support the local police forces in case of any attempts by the nationalist insurgents to penetrate into the Kharkov region.

3) A number of documents have been per-approved which could be submitted to the local population in an emergency referendum if the nationalists seize power in Kiev.

4) The regional authorities are prepared to take over the functions of the central government, if needed, and to begin self-financing the region (the Kharkov region is the richest of all the Ukrainian regions and for years its revenues were used to finance the western regions of the country).

5) The local authorities were prepared to declare a state of emergency in the region and were ready to defend it by force of arms.

Dobkin also explained why so few eastern Ukrainians were seen in Kiev's counter-demonstrations on the so-called anti-Maidan.  He said that unlike the nationalists who could count on limitless US-supplied monies to cover the huge expenditures needed to bus in a support the nationalist insurgents in Kiev, the eastern Ukrainians had to travel on their own initiative.  

All in all, I am encouraged by the latest news out of Crimea and Kharkov and I think that I am beginning to discern the strategy these regions are planning to use to deal with the nationalist takeover in Kiev.

First, they will rely on local police forces supported by local militias to protect their regions from any invasion from the West.

Second, they will take over the functions of the Central Government and self-finance themselves.

Third, they will engage in intense consultations with Russia to coordinate their actions and obtain support when needed.

And make no mistake, while apparently purely "defensive" this strategy has a very "offensive" component to it: for decades the eastern and southern Ukraine has been feeding and financing the western regions and by cutting off their financial contributions for the Central Government the eastern and southern regions are essentially de-financing the nationalist regions (which are dirt poor to begin with).  If Napoleon (or Cicero - depends on who you ask) is correct, and money is the nerve of war, then by self-financing themselves the southern and eastern regions could wage a most effective economic war on the nationalist insurgency.  And that is a strategy Russia could, and I think should, back.

Should that not be sufficient, the south and eastern Ukraine appear ready to secede and declare their independence.

The crucial aspect of this strategy is that it completely bypasses the "Yanukovich problem": instead of counting on him to do something reasonable, this strategy has a ready response to each of his possible capitulations to the nationalist insurgents ranging from taking over some functions of the Central Government to complete secession and independence.  And this is also a strategy Russia can support, and not only on a Federal Level, but also on the regional level between the western regions of Russia and the eastern regions of the Ukraine.

So far, the Crimea and the Kharkov region appear to be in good shape.  I am much more worried about the Dnepropetrovsk city and region which is much further from the Russian border and which will find itself on the frontline of any East-West conflicts.  This is a big city (over a million people) in which the nationalist insurgents probably have many local supporters.  This city and region will inevitably become *THE* key prize for which both sides will desperately fight.  This could become the "Ukrainian Sarajevo".

The Saker

Yanukovich's capitulation statement

Justice "European style" or how EU politicians have lost any sense of self-respect

The EU is really terminally degenerate.  These two pearls come off the BBC website at the same time:

EU imposes Ukraine sanctions after deadly Kiev clashes (which the EU blames entirely on the government, nevermind that 13 unarmed cops were murdered by sniper fire overnight)
Germany arrests three suspected Auschwitz guards (the three arrested men are 88, 92 and 94 and had therefore to be brought to a prison hospital)

I honestly don't know what to think about European politicians.  Are they just completely insane?  Have they lost any remaining drop of common sense?   Do they really not see how ridiculous and despicable they are?  How can they even look at themselves in the mirror and not die of shame?

Every time I hear or see any of these self-enamored pompous asses I feel like flushing a toilet and forgetting what I just saw.

Yeah, I agree with Mrs. Nuland - fuck the EU!

The Saker

Combat footage from Kiev

First evidence of assault-rifle and sniper rifles use by government forces

This is probably yet another case of way too little and way too late, but I suppose that this is better than nothing. It is, however, still pathetic that it took 13 dead policemen killed by opposition snipers to finally convince the regime to deploy counter-sniper teams. Let's hope that Yanukovich will not condemn these guys tomorrow morning and blame the violence on them (like he did with the Berkut forces).

The geopolitics of the Ukrainian conflict: back to basics

Looking at the amazing footage coming out of not only Kiev, but also from many other cities in the Ukraine, one can get the idea that what is taking place is absolute total chaos and that nobody controls it.  This is a very mistaken impression and I think that this is a good time to look at who the actors of this conflict are and what they really want.  Only then will we be able to make sense of what is going on, who is pulling the strings behind the curtain, and what could happen next.  So let us look at the various actors one by one.

The dissatisfied Ukrainian people

There can be absolutely no doubt that a large segment of the Ukrainian population is deeply unhappy with the regime in power, Yanukovich himself, and what has been going on in the Ukraine for many years.  As I have written many times before, the Ukraine is essentially in the hands of various oligarchs, just like Russia in the 1990s, but only worse.  The vast majority the Ukrainian politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, this is true for the members of Parliament, the Presidential Administration, the regional governors, the government and, of course, of Yanukovich himself.  Collectively, these oligarchs also own the media, the courts, the police, banks and everything else.  As a direct result of that, the Ukrainian economy has been going down the tubes for years and currently is pretty much in ruins.

It should therefore surprise nobody that most Ukrainians are unhappy and what they want is prosperity, safety, the rule of law, business opportunities, the means for personal, social, professional and spiritual development.  Basically, they want what every human being wants: decent living condition.  Some of them see the EU as the best hope of achieving this goal, others see a participation in an economic union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan as a much better option.  The exact ratio really does not matter for a simple and mostly overlooked reason: the people of the Ukraine don't matter at all in this conflict, they are just pawns used by all sides.

The main Ukrainian politicians:

Well, in theory, Yanukovich, Timoshenko, Klitchko and Iatseniuk all want different things, but in reality they all have exactly the same agenda: to please their puppet-masters while making a career in politics.  The case of Tiagnibok might be a little different.  He has some very real chances of becoming a really powerful figure in the western Ukraine.  He is smart enough to realize that neither the USA nor the EU really want him around, but that he commands a much more powerful force (both politically and in terms of violent power) than any other Ukrainian politician.  Regardless, the leaders of the opposition or the pro-regime politicians are all puppets in the hands of much more powerful forces and if Tiagnibok is an exception to this rule, then he does not matter much either since his true ambitions are really local, limited to the western Ukraine.

Having rapidly looked at the locals, let us now turn to the folks that do matter:

The Ukrainian oligarchs:

Most of them believe that as long as the Ukraine maintains an anti-Russian stance the EU will let them do whatever the hell they want inside the Ukraine.  They are correct.  For them, signing an otherwise meaningless agreement with the EU is basically accepting the following deal: they become the faithful servants of their EU overlords in exchange for what the EU overlords will let them continue to pillage the Ukraine in pretty much any way they want.

There is a smaller group of oligarchs who still stands to lose more than win if the Russian-Ukrainian relations sour and if Russia introduces barriers to trade with the Ukraine (which Russia would have to do if the Ukraine signs an free trade agreement with the EU).  These oligarchs believe that more money can be made from Russia than form the EU and they are the folks who convinced Yanukovich to make his infamous "zag" from the EU towards Russia.  Thus, there is a split inside the Ukrainian oligarchy whose representatives can be found on both sides of the current struggle.

The EU:

The EU is in a deep, systemic, economic, social and political crisis and it is absolutely desperate for new opportunities to rescue itself from its slow-motion collapse.  For the EU, the Ukraine is first and foremost a market to sells is goods and services.  The Ukraine is also a way to make the EU look bigger, more powerful, more relevant.  Some believe that the Ukraine can also provide cheap labor for the EU, but I don't believe that this is a major consideration for the following reasons: the EU already has way too many immigrants, and the there has already been a steady stream of Ukrainians (and Balts) leaving their country for a better life in the West.  Thus, what the EU really wants is a way to benefit from the Ukraine but without suffering too many negative consequences from any agreement.  Hence the 1500 pages of the proposed agreement with the EU.

The USA:

The goals of the USA in the Ukraine are completely different from the goals of the EU, hence the very real tensions between their diplomats so well expressed by the "fuck the EU!" of Madam Nuland.  Furthermore, and unlike the bankrupt EU, the US has spent over 5'000'000'000 dollars to achieve its goals in the Ukraine.  But so what are these goals really?

This is were it gets *really* interesting.

First, we have to go back to the crucial statement made by Hillary Clinton in early December of 2012:

“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.”

Now, it is absolutely irrelevant to argue about whether Hillary was right or wrong in her interpretation of what the Eurasian Union is supposed to become, what matters is that she, and her political masters, believe, and they really believe is that Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union.  No matter how stupid this notion is, we have to always keep in mind that this is what the likes of Hillary sincerely believe.

Next, we need to recall another crucial statement, made this time by Zbigniew Brzezinski who wrote:

Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…According to him, the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union. 

Again, it does not matter at all whether evil Zbig is right or wrong.  What matters is that Zbig and Hillary jointly provide us with the key to the current US policy in the Ukraine: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower.  For them, and unlike the Europeans, its not about "getting the Ukraine", its about "not letting the Russians get the Ukraine".  And this is absolutely crucial: from the US point of view, chaos, mayhem and even a full-scale civil war in the Ukraine is much, much, preferable to any, and I mean any, form of economic or political union between Russia and the Ukraine.  For the Americans, this is a zero-sum game: the bigger the loss for Russia, the bigger the win for the AngloZionist Empire.

Russia:

Here we have to completely switch our point of view and realize the following, no matter how counter-intuitive this might seem to be, regardless of the extreme closeness between Russian and Ukrainian languages and cultures, regardless of a long common history, regardless of the fact that both Russians and Ukrainians jointly defeated Nazi Germany, regardless of the fact that the Ukraine is a big neighbor of Russia and regardless of the fact that the two countries have close economic ties, Russia does not need the Ukraine.  Hillary and Zbig are simply plain wrong.  Furthermore, Russia has absolutely no intention of re-creating the Soviet Union or, even less so, becoming an Empire.  This is all absolute nonsense, stupid propaganda to feed to the western masses, Cold War cliches which are absolutely inapplicable to the current realities.  Furthermore, Russia is already a superpower, quite capable of challenging the EU and the USA together (as the example of the war in Syria has so dramatically illustrated).  In fact, Russia has had its most spectacular growth precisely at a time when the Ukraine was occupied by Poland (14th-17th century):

Growth of Russia by years

Why would modern Russia need the Ukraine?  The Ukrainian economy is in ruins, the country is plagued by immense social and political tensions, and there are no natural resources in the Ukraine which Russia would want.  As for the "being a superpower", the Ukraine's military is a farce, and the Russian military would have little need to the so-called "strategic depth" offered by the Ukraine: this is 19-20th century military logic, modern wars are though throughout the depth of the enemy's territory, with long-range strike weapons and Russia is quite capable of closing the Ukrainian airspace without any form of economic or political union with it.

No, what Russia needs first and foremost has stability and prosperity in the Ukraine.  Not only does a non trivial-part of the Russian economy have ties with the Ukraine, but a total collapse of such a big neighbor is bound to affect the Russian economy too (which, by the way, is pretty close to getting into a recession for the first time in a long while).  Furthermore, millions of Russians live in the Ukraine and millions of Ukrainians live in Russia.  Most Russian families have ties with the Ukraine.  So the last thing Russia wants is a civil war in which it would almost inevitably be drawn in.

Even in Crimea all Russia really needs is a status quo: peace, prosperity, a good tourism infrastructure to host Russian tourists, and stable basing right for the Black Sea Fleet.  For that Russia does not need to occupy or annex Crimea.  However, should the Crimean Peninsula be attacked by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Black Sea Fleet will intervene to protect the local population with which it has many family ties.   It is important to remember that the Black Sea Fleet is infinitely better trained and equipped that the Ukrainian military and that it includes a very powerful Naval Infantry force (one Brigade and one Battalion, the latter specialized in counter-terrorism operations).  It is one thing to beat up and burn riot cops and quite another to deal with battle hardened (Chechnia, Georgia) and highly trained elite forces armed to the teeth with the latest and best military equipment.

As for the big scheme of things, Russia sees its future in the North and the East, not at all in its southwest.  The Arctic, Siberia, the Far East, China and the Pacific, these are the direction towards which Russian strategists are looking for the future of Russia, not the dying and decaying EU or the ruined and unstable lands of the Ukraine!

So what is likely to happen next?

I think that the EU is most unlikely to achieve its objectives in the Ukraine for a very simple reason: the Ukrainian nationalists and the so-called "opposition" (i.e. the armed insurgency) are all bought and paid for by the US.  The EU bureaucrats can continue visiting the Ukraine and make loud statements, they really don't matter.  So its really the US vs Russia and here I have to say that the US goals is far easier to achieve that the Russian one: all the USA needs chaos, something easy to achieve and relatively cheap to finance, while Russia needs stability and prosperity and that, at the very least, means to provide is cardiac resuscitation to the basically ruined Ukrainian economy and to jump-start some kind of much needed reforms.  The latter probably cannot be done without breaking the backs of the Ukrainian oligarchs.  Does Russia have the means to achieve this?  I very much doubt it.  Not with its current signs of upcoming economic problems and not with a spineless and corrupt clown like Yanukovich in power.  So then what?

Well, if rescuing the Ukraine is not an option, then protecting Russia from the inevitable chaos and mayhem is the only option left.  That, and making darn sure that Crimea is safe.  Russia could, for instance, provide direct assistance to the eastern Ukraine, especially to region like Kharkov which are governed by competent and determined people.  Beyond that, the only option left for Russia is to hunker down and wait for either a viable force to take power in Kiev or for the Ukraine to break-up in pieces.

So what about the Ukrainian people?

I think that where I stand on this issue is clear from the above.  The EU needs them as slaves, the US needs them as pawns, and the only party which needs them prosperous is Russia.  That is simply a fact of geo-strategy.  If the Ukrainians are too stupid and too blinded by their rabid nationalism to understand that, then let them pay the price for their folly.  If they are smart enough to realize it, then let them find the courage to act on it and make it possible for Russia to help them.  If not, then at the very least I would advise them to stop hallucinating about some kind of invasion of "Moskal Spetsnaz forces" to invade and occupy the "independent Ukraine".  Moscow has better things to do and is already busy elsewhere.

The Saker

Kiev: 13 policemen killed by sniper fire

According to the very latest news, 13 policemen have been killed by sniper fire.  The insurgents are storming the Parliament which is being evacuated.  The Internal Ministry has announced that the police forces will be allowed to use firearms to defend their lives.

In Kiev stores and office buildings are being looted and set on fire.

In the meantime in Lvov and Zhitomir the local government offices have been stormed and take over by nationalist forces.  In Khmelnitski the assault has been repelled by police forces.

Yanukovich is negotiating with German, Polish and French diplomats.

The EU and the US blames the government and plans sanctions.

Yanukovich latest truce offer triggers immediate escalation of violence

Exactly as I expected, Yanukovich's "truce" offer has resulted in an immediate resumption and even escalation of violence: 35 fatalities, innumerable casualties, policemen taken hostage and sniper fire.
 
See for yourself this new footage: