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  Not only did the Ukraine inherit a lot of very heavy and outdated Soviet industry, it has been completely unable to use any of it to begin a truly local production of goods and services.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

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

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.

The US cannot start a major war in Ukraine

By Nikolai Starikov
Translated by Val from Osa

http://www.vz.ru/opinions/2014/12/25/722171.html

How long the West is willing to pay for the crumbling economy of Ukraine without guarantees of the beginning of its war with Russia? The Western strategy rule says: lost control over the territory - create the Antithesis.

It is possible to understand what is happening in Ukraine, it is much more difficult to evaluate and forecast the development of events. Whatever the case, it is necessary to consistently follow one rule: set emotions aside. Blood, death and destruction are the most serious emotional blows, but if you follow your emotions, neither proper assessment nor correct forecast will result.

Therefore, as hard it can be, set emotions aside. To assess the geopolitical game (and this is what we are looking at) we need only the head. Only conscious manipulators want you to think with your heart (and vote with your heart - as for Yeltsin in 1996).

The United States and the West are facing of the strongest crises in its history. The strength and depth of the problem are compounded by the fact that ... the West has won. It incorporated practically all of Europe, crushed, to varying degrees, the whole world with a few exceptions.

Therein lies the problem – all its life the West lived by robbery. Now those who can be robbed are fewer and fewer, and those with whom it is necessary to share the "stolen goods", that is the standard of living that rests on unrestricted dollar emissions, are more and more. Hence the huge national debt. In the United States it is 18 trillion dollars, but such debts, and even worse ratios of the national debt to GDP, exist in all so-called developed countries.

What solution the US and its closest allies are looking for in this situation? It is now evident to everyone. The solution is war. Chaos. But this chaos and this war must lead to a "controlled collapse".

As a result the US must eliminate two threats to its power - China and Russia. Ideally, make them clash with each other. To do this the US need to change regime in one of these countries. Obviously, the Americans think that the regime change in Russia is an easier task.

The question is how to achieve this? Orange technologies did not work in 2011, Putin became president again.

What the West does when it loses in any territory is most important for understanding the events in Ukraine.

When we talk about a Western loss we mean the failure of its plans and loss of control over a certain area, full or partial.

What do the Western strategists do in such a situation?

1949. Britain is "kicked out" of India. Before leaving the British set up the Anti-India - a new state of Pakistan. Tensions, military conflicts between the new states ensue. In short, many opportunities for the Anglo-Saxons.

Again in 1949. As a result of the civil war in China, pro-Soviet Mao Zedong wins. The US lose control over China. What do they do? Create the Anti-China -Taiwan. Evacuate there the army of Chiang Kai-shek under the protection of the US Navy. Tensions, the permanent possibility of war between China and the Anti-China ensue. Tiananmen Square, 1989, Beijing - who can tell the "desperate" mainland Chinese from the agents of the Taiwanese special services?

Attention please. In the geopolitical game to grant a diplomatic recognition is to follow the current 'national' interests, and nothing more. First, the United States recognizes Taiwan as China. For those who do not know: until 1973 the representative of Taiwan at the United Nations was seated as the representative of China. But later Washington changes its position, recognizes Beijing and ceases to recognize Taipei. At the same time it strongly supports Taiwan and prevents the reunification of the two "Chinas"

Let's not stray far into history. The rule of the permanent Anglo-Saxon Western strategy states: lost control over the territory - create Antithesis.

In 2011 the West loses control of Russia - not completely yet, but its plans to deny Putin another presidential term fail. The dismantling of the fifth column begins, Russia strongly defends its interests in the world.

What is the West to do? Create Antithesis. That is the Anti-Russia.

And the Anglo-Saxons start creating it, the soil is prepared in Ukraine. Propaganda starts in 1991 and even earlier, militants are trained, money is allocated, the elite is bought and well fed.

According to the US plans, Yanukovych should be removed during the elections in 2015. Remove him in such a way as to launch anti-Russian hysteria and begin to create the Anti-Russia from Ukraine. Circumstances force an earlier start, but according to the main rule: not the peaceful departure of Yanukovych is required, but a bloody overthrow in order to blame Russia.

What is happening today in Ukraine is nothing more than the creation of the Anti-Russia. Propaganda, hate, readiness to destroy and kill on the part of the nationalists and some deceived common citizens.

Where do the US go with that? To war between Ukraine and Russia. On the "initiative" of Ukraine. When? When they pump up the Ukrainian army, equip it, create it, and prepare it. It will take about five years. After that the US will try to pit the two parts of the same nation against each other, set Ukraine against Russia. Occasion - Crimea.

Were the Crimea not reunited with Russia, it would still remain an excuse. Basing the Russian army in Crimea, pro-Russian population living there would give a lot of opportunities for the organization of conflicts and provocations. Therefore, regardless of the actions of Putin and the people of Crimea the Western plan would remain the same.

What can stop the development of this terrible scenario of sliding into a major war between brothers?

Support of those in Ukraine itself who do not agree with this turn of events.

The West creates the Anti-Russia, Russia must help and support the Anti-anti-Russia.

When in the Southeast of Ukraine the people who do not agree with the Kiev's coup rose up, few had a clear idea that they were “blocking the road” of such a terrible scenario. The presence of the Anti-anti-Russia as a part of a federalized Ukraine, refusing either to arm for the West, nor to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for it, blocked the Western plans to unleash the Ukrainian-Russian war. Remember the end of the spring of 2014?

Moscow's insistent calls for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, for federalization, for negotiations. Moscow needs a unified Ukraine, where the pro-Russian part of the society will "tie" the hands of the militants and bought politicians, and will not allow to draw the whole Ukrainian people into the war.

The West needs not the peace, not the prosperity of Ukraine. It needs a militarized state with an aggressive ideology in the form of hatred directed against Russia.

Kiev begins aggressive actions against Donbass. Immediately the propaganda about the "terrorists" and the Russian military starts. Military actions, conducted with cruelty to civilians, give the West two possibilities:

- To win by military means and then start the planned collapse of the economy of Ukraine as the beginning of its preparation for war with Russia. The well fed do not want to fight. The West can blame Russia for the difficulties and hardships, whereas the military service provides an income, albeit a tiny one;

- To draw Russia into war, forcing her to send troops into Ukraine. The defeat of the Ukrainian armed forces does not matter for the West. It wants not the victory but the war itself.

And the more Ukrainian citizens will die in the fratricidal war, the better for the West – the rebellious Slavic nation eliminates itself. As a result of the war in Ukraine the West will try to repeat 1917 and "overthrow the bloody Kremlin regime." All of it in order to take the course toward preparation of the war between Russia and China.

And then a problem happened. Neither military success nor the military invasion by Russia and its participation in the civil conflict was achieved.

And then what? That's what.

The existence of the DNR and LNR as Anti-anti-Russia is the key to inability of the West to start a war between Ukraine and Russia.

The cannonball on its leg does not let the United States to push Kiev toward this Great War with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of victims.

That is why Moscow is helping Donbass in every way possible that is why Sergei Lavrov says that we are for the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

That is why Russia does not recognize the DNR and LNR as independent states. To recognize them, to let them secede means to launch countdown for war with Ukraine. In this scenario the Western plan kicks in: there is Russia, there is Anti-Russia, and there is Novorossia. Anti-anti-Russia is no more. In case of incorporation of Donbass into Russia, those in Washington will stand up and give a standing ovation. This is it: the war becomes practically inevitable. The image of Russia as the enemy is created by Russia itself.

In today's situation the Russian tactics in Ukraine are the only correct ones. US must pay to support 40 million people, Russia must help 3 million people in the Donbass and 1.5 million refugees. Moscow constantly insists on negotiations, not allowing the aggressor being shaped by the west to "remove the weight" from its leg, not allowing DNR and LNR to be defeated militarily.

How long will the West be willing to pay for the crumbling economy of Ukraine without guarantees to begin its war with Russia? These guys do nothing without a reason, they do not throw money away. Even to the militants in Chechnya in the 90's they gave no dollars, instead they gave them clichés for printing fake dollars.

Self-financing - is the principle of the Anglo-Saxon politics, in extreme cases a refund within a short period of time. A striking example: the Bolsheviks paying with Russia's gold through Swedish banks and the subsequent concessions, today's Libyan "freedom fighters" with the oil dollars leaving Libya for unknown destinations.

Time is of great importance today. The bet of the West – to organize a new Maidan in Russia, now that the path to war in Ukraine was blocked by the courage and determination of the DNR and LNR militia fighters. The bet of Russia – wait till the West loses its interest in Ukraine because of high costs without any tangible benefits.

Washington's desire to get “at least something" leads to the pressure on Europe and the paradoxical desire of the Europeans not to allow the construction of the "South Stream".

Paradox? No paradox. Washington wants to use the instability of Ukraine at least for a possibility of gas blackmail of Moscow. And Europe.

That is the essence of current and past events in Ukraine.

And the last thing I want to say in this regard.

Few in today's Ukraine understand what a tremendous role the courage of the Donbass residents plays in today's world politics. They are rescuing the entire Russian world today. And the paradox, they save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens.

The same children that today are "jumping" in Ukrainian schools, whose parents collect money for ATO, support the Kiev authorities, in case of defeat Donbass, in a very short period of time they will become gun fodder, according to the US plan.

That's what all of us need to remember, regardless of our current citizenship.

A look in the long distance: who will have to pay for "Ukraine v2"?

I just wanted to mention here a topic which is not often discussed in the western press but which does pop-up with some regularity in the Russian press.  Let's set aside the current events and ask ourselves the following question:

Sooner or later there will be some kind of state in what used to be the Ukraine until 2014.  The Crimea is gone forever to Russia, that is certain.  A "People's Republic of Donetsk" all alone like some kind of Lichtenstein but stuck between Russia and Banderastan is most unlikely.  Even a "People's Republic of the Donbass" or a "Novorossia" composed of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions would have a very hard time surviving as an independent state.  I think that we can assume that the Donbass will either have to join Russia or, at the very least, the Eurasian Union (Rus, Kaz, Bel, Arm, etc.) or some kind of loose Ukrainian confederation.  The latter is, of course, only possible if the USA gives up on its delusion of maintaining a neo-Nazi and russophobic Banderastan and accepts some kind of sovereign but civilized "Ukraine" in its place.  Right now there are no signs that anybody in Washington is ready to accept that.  But whatever the USA does or does not want, there is one thing which is sure: all the successor states of the original Ukraine will need HUGE amounts of foreign financial aid.  We are not talking just about providing a few billions in loan guarantees to a clique of corrupt oligarchs, but about fully re-building a more or less modern country almost from scratch.  This is a huge program which will take at least a decade and will require immense resources.  It will have to be implemented in an highly volatile environment, with massive poverty and corruption, with violence prevalent and possibly with a serious terrorism problem.  The political instability of such a environment is guaranteed.  So in the light of this - if you were the EU or Russia - would you want to be responsible for more or less of that territory?

Think about it: whoever will end up "owning" (if not de-jure then de-facto) most of this new "Ukraine v2" will also own most of its problems.  The EU plan in this regard is crystal clear: the EU wants to own it all and let Russia pay for it all.  Unsurprisingly Russia does not agree.  The Americans have it even better: they simply don't ask this question, don't think about this issue and have no plans to own anything if by "owning" we mean "paying for".  This is completely immature and plain silly.  Denying this problem will not make it magically disappear.

Now here is the beauty of it all, at least seen from the Russian point of view:

Russia has already reunited the only part of the Ukraine it really "wanted": Crimea.  From a purely egoistic and self-centered point of view, Russia could built a huge wall all along its border with the Ukraine and declare "to hell with it all" and let all the other actors (Ukrainians, EU, US) deal with that.  I am kidding, of course, but as a thought-experiment, this is a useful one.  Ask yourself: what would happen if Russia did exactly that.  Let's assume that Russian public opinion would not be up in arms against such a decision (in reality it would!) and let's just also assume that the (imaginary) "United People's Republic of Donetsk and Luganks" would be fine with that (it's only a though experiment - so indulge me in some unrealistic speculations here, okay?).  Let's even assume that Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhie, Nikolaev and other cities and regions stop protesting or resisting.  All Russia would do is turn off the gas spigot (unless it is paid for in advance), get out the popcorn and beer and watch the reports from the Ukraine.  What do you think would happen?

Exactly.

Absolute and total chaos.  It's either that or the US/EU would have to come up with a way to not only put a semi-legitimate AND very effective regime in power, but also to pay a bill ranging anywhere form 30 to 100 billion dollars (depending on how much of the problem you want to address immediately).  Now look at the same problem from the Russian point of view:

Either the US/EU agree incur huge costs which will severely damage their economies (and they cannot afford that) or

The EU and US begin an ugly fight over "who pays what and under what terms", and

The EU is hit by a series of shocks as a result of the Ukrainian chaos (illegal immigration, crime, political disputes), and

NATO will be seen as either ineffective/incompetent/useless at best, and as reckless and irresponsible at worst.

So no matter what, the AngloZionist Empire will suffer massive consequences for is crazy notion of letting a huge country like the Ukraine explode right in the middle of the European continent.

To be honest, I am quite certain that Russia does not want that outcome at all.  First, the Russian public opinion is extremely worked-up about having fellow Russians attacked by a mix of neo-Nazis and Jewish oligarchs and it would never accept putting up any kind of wall or abandon the Russian-speaking Ukrainians.  Second, as I mentioned before, Donetsk and Lugansk along cannot be viable in isolation.  Finally, I am not at all so sure that only these two regions will decide to hold a referendum, especially after the economic crisis really hits.

Ideally Russia wants a lose Ukrainian Confederation.  This confederation would have to be thoroughly de-Nazified and would probably have to join the economic union with Russia and its partners (if only to benefit from Russian financial aid).  Russia would also want the US and EU to pitch in its "fair share" of financial and technical support to gradually re-built "Ukraine v2", especially considering that these two entities are responsible for breaking up "Ukraine v1" in the first place.  Needless to say, "Ukraine v2" would not be Banderastan and it would not join NATO.

As a side note, it would be really smart for the new Ukrainian leadership of this "Ukraine v2" to declare itself not only neutral but also totally demilitarized.  Seriously, what is the point of having a military when stuck right in between NATO and Russia?  Provide more targets? 

As a (former and "recovering") military analyst I can tell you that by far the best defense against foreign agression for Ukraine would be:

1) the size of its territory (geographical defense)
2) being completely demilitarized (political defense)
3) being officially neutral (legal defense)
4) being in between two rival blocks (military defense by means of "other side")

That does not require a single Hrivna of financing, looks extremely progressive, would get a standing ovation from all its neighbors and would provide the perfect "buffer" to reassure both NATO and Russia.  And just imagine the amount of money saved which the "Ukraine v2" could use for far more urgent and contructive needs!

Alas, that would also require a vision which is far beyond what the current freaks in power can even begin to contemplate.

As I have mentioned it in the past, the USA's entire Ukrainian policy is based on a fallacy cooked up by Zbigniew Brzezinski and parroted by Hillary Clinton:  Brzezinski believes that Russia cannot be a superpower without the Ukraine and Hillary believes that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.  They are both completely wrong, of course: Russia is already a superpower (it has now defeated the US/EU/NATO alliance in both Syria and the Ukraine) and Putin does not want to rebuild the USSR at all.  I wonder if there is anybody in the US polity which understands who much these conceptual mistakes will end up costing the USA.  By listening to these two hateful maniacs (this is really what Zbig and Hillary are!) the USA has completely mismanaged every step of its crucial relationship with both the EU and Russia.

In the case of rump-Ukraine more is not better, more is worse; less is better.  The less Russia will have to manage and pay for the reconstruction of the Ukraine the better off Russia will be.  From the EU's point of view, however, the more Russia takes over of the Ukraine, the better for the EU.  This is even better from the US point of view because from the US point of view the more the US/EU "own" the Ukraine, the more they will have to pay for it and the more the transatlantic alliance will come under stress.  So, paradoxically, it would be in the best interests of the USA to have Russia take over all of the Ukraine.  Sounds crazy?  Maybe, but that is still a fact.

So here is the truth: the Ukraine is not a prize at all - it is a huge burden.

That is a truth which no politician can openly state, of course.

Checkmate on all boards

But we can, and should.  Because if we keep that truism clear in our minds, we can then see why Russia's victory in this massive confrontation with the united powers of the US/EU/NATO is so total.  Can you guess?

Because no matter what, Russia will have the option to chose how much of the Ukrainian burden it is willing to shoulder whereas the West will have to take whatever Russia does not want.  Yep, that's right.  Just remember the thought experiment we just did above.  Russia could, in theory, refuse to take up any further burden and declare "ain't my problem, sorry" and there is nothing the US/EU/NATO could do about it (not to mention that such a Russians stance would completely deflate the stupid canard about Russia being ready to invade the Baltics, Poland or any other EU country).

In a sane world ruled by non-delusional people the real priority of western politicians would be to cuddle, beg, plead, threaten and trick Russia into taking over as much of the Ukraine as possible - the whole thing if possible.  Let Russia deal with the neo-Nazis, let Russia pay Ukrainian pensions and salaries, let Russia rebuilt the entire economy, let Russia waste its energy and resources on this ungrateful and truly Herculean task.  If Russia agreed to take over the full Ukraine NATO could even re-heat its "Russian threat" canard and justify its existence.

Luckily, however, as long as Putin is in power Russia will never agree to anything like it.  Time is on Russia's side and the worst the situation of the Ukraine becomes, the weaker the US/EU/NATO block is, the stronger the Russian bargaining position becomes.

So while Russia cannot remain indifferent and while Russians cannot cynically get some popcorn and beer and watch it all go to hell, Russia will continue to play a very low-key game: Russia will stick to its principled position, it will refuse to be a party to any ludicrous solution, and it will condemn the crazy and neo-Nazi policies of the freaks currently in power in  Kiev.

Other than that, Russia will simply wait for western leaders to wake up from their current delusional hallucinations and get serious about solving a problem which is first and foremost their problem which they created and they will have to pay for solving.

The Saker

From Tlaxcala: Ukraine, Russia and the world: Five Questions to 3 Authors

Translations available: Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Português 

Ukraine, Russia and the world: Five Questions to 3 Authors

TLAXCALA ΤΛΑΞΚΑΛΑ ТЛАКСКАЛА تلاكسكالا 特拉科斯卡拉

Tlaxcala asked three authors- Dmitry Orlov, The Saker and Pepe Escobar- who have been accurately following the situation in and around Ukraine, 5 questions. Here are their answers. Tlaxcala doesn't share all their views but find them interesting enough to be shared. 1) Do you believe US (Obama) is using Ukraine to take revenge for Syria and make the EU "unfit for fight"? What would their strategic goals be? Dmitry Orlov: Obama's goal was to stage a coup d'état to replace the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime. In this he has succeeded. But I doubt that his strategies go beyond that. The Saker: The current crisis has been entirely the creation of the USA and, to a lesser degree, of the EU. The USA is locked in a Cold-War type mentality illustrated by the following two quotes. One by Hillary Clinton “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” (source) and one by Zbigniew Brzezinski: “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” (source). Thus the USA are not trying to “get” the Ukraine for NATO or for any other purpose, what they want is to deny the Ukraine to Russia in a hope of preventing the latter from becoming a new Soviet Empire. This is thus a pure zero-sum game – any Russian loss is, by definition, a success for the USA. The fact that Russia is already a superpower capable of stopping the USA (as shown in the Syrian crisis) or the fact that Russia has no desire to become another Soviet Union or even any other kind of empire (empires are costly and the Russians have no desire to become another USSR) makes no difference: the US plutocracy believes this and acts on this belief. Furthermore, the US elites have been humiliated in the Syrian crisis and they now want to show Russia and the rest of the world “who is boss”. Finally, add to this the influence of some very powerful ethnic lobbies who all share a common hatred for Russia (Jewish, Ukrainian, Polish) and you will get a policy whose sole aim is to make things as bad for Russia as possible. This is nothing new. During the war in Afghanistan the USA was willing to fully back the worst types of Wahabi terrorists only to hurt the USSR. Now the USA is giving its support to violent neo-Fascist nationalists. The sole condition for any terrorist group, no matter how evil and crazy, to get money from the CIA and is affiliates is to hate Russia. The wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo had no other purpose than “stick it to the Russians”. And if we look closer at the core of this maniacal hatred of the US elites for Russia we find that very little has changed in the West since the Middle-Ages: the western elites have always hated Russia for being Orthodox and for refusing to be conquered. Pepe Escobar: Ukraine is definitely the Obama administration's warped revenge playbook for not being allowed to bomb Syria (it was in fact saved from it, plus the horrible consequences, by Moscow). The only things that matter for Washington in Ukraine, in that order, are: 1) NATO bases. 2) Pipelineistan; US Big Oil controlling still unexplored oil and gas wealth. 3) US agro-business taking over fertile Ukrainian lands. The EU does not need and want Ukraine, because it would need to save it from bankruptcy with funds it does not have (moreover, the operation would further enrage millions of already destitute Europeans.) 2) What do you believe is Russia's (Putin's) strategic goal and the tactic ways to reach it? DO: Prevent further EU/NATO encroachment; guarantee the rights of Russian-speakers in what has for centuries been Russian territory; uphold international rule of law. Possibly avenge NATO actions against Serbia in Kosovo. The Saker: For Russia the goal is simple: survival as a nation, country and civilization. In this sense, this is not a “Putin policy” but a “Russian policy”: except for the few tiny CIA funded parties which represent no more that 1-2 percent of the Russian population, there is a consensus amongst all the major Russian political movements in support of the current Russian stance in this crisis which Russians view as an existential threat. When NATO bombed the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo Russia was ruled by a drunken western-puppet, Eltsin, and a clique of mostly Jewish oligarchs called the “semibankirshchina” (the seven bankers): Russia then was very much like the Ukraine today. But even then, most Russian people fully understood that the US rampage in the Balkans was a message to them: “watch what we can do to your allies – you are next”. This feeling was very much reinforced by the US covert war against Syria when most Russians understood that Assad was killing the exact same type of vicious Wahabi thugs in Syria which Putin had to crush in Chechnia. Many Russians at the time said “we ought to thank Assad for killing them there, so we do not have to do this here” and “if we let Assad be overthrown, we will be next”. What you hear nowadays in Russia is “it's not about the Serbs or the Syrians anymore, this time this is about us”. So for the vast majority of Russians - including Putin - the main strategic goal is simple: not let Russia become the next Bosnia, Kosovo or Syria. In other words: survival. The second strategic goal of Russia is to prevent all of the Ukraine from becoming a “Banderastan” and to protect the Russian-speaking population from being enslaved by an openly neo-Fascist and racist regime. The third strategic goal of Russia is to achieve the first two goals, if possible, without triggering a war with US/NATO. Notice that I have listed these goals in order of priority and that if a full-scale war is threatened by the US/NATO the Kremlin will not back down from its first two strategic objectives. Make no mistakes, Russia is willing to go to war over these, Putin is not bluffing. As for the tactic chosen by Russia, it is a sophisticated one. As the expression goes “when Russia is threatened, she does not get angry, she concentrates”. This is what happening today. The essence of the Russian tactic is the following one: first, militarily protect the Crimea to allow it to break-off from the current Banderastan and thereby set a precedent and an example: While in half of regions currently controlled by the neo-Fascists the pensions are not paid at all, and while the revolutionary regime in Kiev has already indicated that it plans to slash all pensions by 50%, in Crimea all salaries and social services will be paid in full to everybody, even those who resigned rather than recognize the Crimean authorities. The folks in Banderastan are about to find out that there is more to running a country than beating unarmed cops and singing the national anthem. Then, Russia has threatened to use military force should the Banderist forces try to subdue the south (Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson) and the east (Donetsk, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Lugansk) by violence. This threat both deters the Banderists from going overboard with violence while giving the Russian-speakers somewhat of a “safety net” for their protest and civil disobedience actions. Third, the Kremlin knows that the newly created Banderastan is broke and that the US and EU will never come up with anywhere near the kind of money needed to bail it out. Not only has Russia stopped sending money to the Ukraine, but Gazprom has declared the previous agreement reached with Yanukovich has been violated by the new regime, thus the price of gas for the Ukraine will now sharply rise. Finally, the richest parts of the Ukraine are, precisely, the east and the south of the country which are now attempting not to pay taxes to the illegal regime in Kiev. And if the Banderites succeed in taking over the east, then its entire industry will instantly collapse (it fully depends on Russia). Thus time is on Russia's side and the new Banderastan is simply not viable. With no money, no energy and without the possibility to rule by terror (at least in the south and east), the new regime will inevitably collapse. Russia will only re-engage the rump-Ukraine once the neo-Fascists are gone and a civilized regime comes back to power in Kiev. PE: Number one strategic goal is to prevent NATO bases in Ukraine. Russian intel foiled a coup in Crimea that would replicate the coup in Kiev. That would lead - in the long run - to the regime changers in Kiev tearing up the Russia-Ukraine treaty in Sevastopol, thus opening the way to NATO. That's what precipitated sending the Spetsnaz to Crimea. Putin weighed the pros and cons. This is a chess move. He might lose in the West, but he wins internally (more popular than ever), he keeps Sevastopol, and if Crimea rejoins Russia, Gazprom exploits immense oil and gas deposits in the peninsula, and not US Big Oil.   G8, G7, Go away!, by Harm , Germany 3) Do you believe usual "puppets" (Germany-Saudi Arabia) of the US are trying to become independent of their masters? And has Merkel a real own politics toward Ukraine and Russia? And has Saudi Arabia a real one toward Syria, Egypt and Iraq? DO: Not sure how much of a puppet Germany is going to be. It is already much closer to Russia than anyone imagines and is quite unhappy with the US. Saudi Arabia wanted to use US forces as mercenaries in Syria; when they didn't work they became very unhappy with the US as well. The Saker: The EU is in a deep systemic crisis from which it has no possibility to recover without some dramatic changes which the EU bureaucracy categorically refuses to even contemplate. For the EU, the Ukraine was an opportunity to acquire a market for its goods and services and a chance to try to appear relevant in international affairs. Frankly, the EU needs the Ukraine to boost its much damaged image and ego, thus the vapid promises and the constant stream of EU politicians to the Maidan. And if that means supporting overt neo-Fascists and racists – so be it! The problem for the EU is that it does not have the means of its policies. Sure, Klichko is seen by some as a German puppet, but neither he, not Tiagnibok or even Yatsenuik or Timoshenko really matter. The folks that matter today in the Ukraine are the members of Dmitri Iarosh's Right Sector – the hardcore crazies, the west-Ukrainian version of the Taliban. Only they matter because they currently hold a monopoly on violence. True, Timoshenko has the support for the oligarchs and they have a lot of money, but in the short term, at least, a shotgun has more power than a suitcase with dollars. Unlike the “official opposition leaders”, the real thugs of the Maidan are fully paid for and run by the USA, hence Ms Nuland's crude but accurate assessment of the EU's role in the current crisis. Of course, some EU politicians are getting nervous, after all, having a large Banderastan in the middle of Europe is a very dangerous thing, but no European politician will ever overtly challenge the USA over its policies. In the EU, the US “is boss”, and the EU politicians all know it. The fact is that there is no “EU policy”. The EU is the USA's bitch, and it will do whatever Uncle Sam tells it to do. Of course, EU politicians can make speeches, have something vaguely reminiscent of a personal opinion, but when push comes to shove, they are all irrelevant, and they know it. PE: Puppets are starting to think for themselves - but that need qualification. Germany and Russia - in terms of energy and investment - already have a strategic partnership; ask any relevant German captain of industry. Berlin IS fed up with Washington;  one of the meanings of Vic "F**k" the EU" outburst is that the US wanted regime change now, with their own puppet ("Yats") in place - even if helped by neo-nazis (Svoboda, Right Sector) instead of maybe later, with the inexperienced German puppet (Klitschko) in place. The House of Saud's ONLY policy is their own survival - especially now, when the succession of Abdullah is still open. That, compounded with paranoia, and irrational Wahhabi hatred of Shi'ites, informs their "strategy". They bought the Sisi junta in Egypt, a small price to pay to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood. They would love some sort of emirate in Syria - and their plans have been frustrated even with Bandar Bush deploying heavy artillery (no wonder he was replaced). And in Iraq they want regime change as well, because they see Maliki as an Iranian puppet. House of Saud is THE number one source of trouble all across the Middle East.       Igor Kolgarev, Russia 4) Back to Ukraine: Do you agree with Christopher Westdal's analysis? Ukraine should let Crimea go. But Putin shouldn’t take it. What are your comments? DO: Ukraine has no choice in the matter, and whether it will join Russia is up to Crimean people and up to Russian legislators. Putin's view is likely to revolve around what will most help his popularity with the Russians, and I would guess that absorbing Crimea will help it the most. The Saker: Westdal's analysis is fundamentally flawed because it overlooks two basic facts: first, Russia is not a dictatorship and the Crimea is sacred Russian land for which a huge number of Russians died over hundreds of years. If Putin decided to hand over the Crimea to the Banderites he would face a very ugly situation at home with an outraged public opinion. Westdal second mistake is that he believes that Russia needs a “hook” to somehow control the Ukraine. There is no “Ukraine” any more, this experiment is over, all we have now is a Banderastan in central and western Ukraine, a region that will be fought over in one manner or another in the east and south, and a Crimea which is gone forever. As for the current neo-Fascist regime in Kiev – it is not viable anyway, and Russia has plenty of other “hooks” to negotiate with any future rump-Ukraine which will succeed the current Banderastan.  Bottom line: if the Crimeans want to join Russia Putin has no option but to agree to this. PE: Essentially that's correct; Crimea is much more useful (and cheaper) to Putin inside Ukraine - with a huge degree of autonomy - than re-attached to the Russian Federation. It remains to be seen how the result of the referendum can be used/steered by the Kremlin to get "concessions" from Kiev, assuming Kiev and Moscow start talking (they will have to). What matters most to Russia is the sanctity of Sevastopol and the certainty there will be no NATO bases. I doubt Kiev can assure them in both cases. Rabe, Germany 5) What advice, basing on your experience, could you give to people fighting despotic regimes to avoid to fall in the trap of a color revolution? DO: Don't accept help from the US or the EU. Do your best to discredit the work of Western NGOs and run them out of the country as soon as possible. The Saker: Never take any empire's money or support. Never accept in your ranks anybody who is willing to get any empire's money or support. And always remember that a bad state and a bad regime are always preferable to no state and no regime. The latter means do not use violence to overthrow a regime you hate, even if it oppresses you. First, violence always generates fear and more violence. But even more importantly, violence often leads to the collapse not only of the hated regime, but also of the state itself. And when anarchy breaks loose, the most violent and ruthless gangs always come to power. When you fight against a hated oppressive regime – fight against its ideology, against its authority, show it no respect, openly make fun of it, but do not use violence and never fight against your own compatriots. Fight against ideas, not people. You can win a national liberation war against a foreign occupier, but you cannot win a civil war. Seek reconciliation, never revenge, show compassion to the “other one” and never ever ignore the voice of your own conscience. Always discriminate between right and wrong, but never between “our people” and “their people” as all humans are equally precious in the eyes of God. Give your allegiance only to God and “Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men, in whom there is no safety. “ (Psalm 145). If you keep your heart and conscience pure, then no empire will make you its puppet. PE: Keep a very informed close eye on NGOs of the NED and Freedom House kind, and how they instrumentalize any dissent to their own regime change purposes. Same for State Department maneuvers, including dodgy US ambassadors of the agitator kind. Follow the money, follow the propaganda, follow who's behind your "support". Moon Landing Of Ukraine 1973, by Tounushifan, USA Released by Tlaxcala under a Copyleft licence.