About the events in Ukraine did not speak and did not write just lazy. But still I want to express a slightly different view. I think no one has any doubt that another orange revolution has taken place in Ukraine. In recent years, there have been quite a few of these revolutions throughout the world, and this is not the first time for Ukraine. Also, everyone knows who is the director of all such events. The United States tested technology “orange revolutions”, reaching almost 100% success in obtaining the planned result. And suddenly such a failure. America is investing big enough money in Ukrainian chaos, and Russia is receiving dividends from it. This, of course, is a great cause for joy, but inside there is some concern ... Everyone knows that in politics, especially in that part of politics pursued by the most dishonest and vile methods, the Anglo-Saxons have achieved the highest perfection in recent centuries. Maybe here all this combination was worked out in advance?
So, the beginning was commonplace. "Popular" protests against the policies of the current government. Inaction of the president. His escape. And the coming to power of those for whom all these protests were organized. What should the new government have to do if it planned to calmly govern the country? Naturally, reduce the passions. But in Ukraine there is another. Those who came to power do not seek to reconcile the parties and to solve problems. They continue to spin the flywheel of nationalism in a multiethnic state. They continue to intensify the split between the inhabitants of the country, inflating the smoldering coals of rebellion and pushing the country to civil war. In principle, it only opens the ears sticking out behind all these. The United States does not need the state of Ukraine. She needs a controlled chaos of the type worked in the countries of the Middle East.
During this period, Crimea holds a referendum and during the day is part of Russia. Everyone is jubilant, Putin's ratings are soaring to unattainable heights, and “effective managers” are rubbing their hands: after all, a new region has emerged, into which huge budgetary investments will go. And how to work with such money, these “effective managers” know perfectly well.
So, the Crimea was a very sweet piece for everyone. Someone raised his rating, someone figured out how many billions could fuck on this, and the rest simply received moral satisfaction from the courage shown by Russia for the first time in the last quarter century. In a word, the Crimea was such a tasty morsel, like cheese in a mousetrap. No, I'm not saying that the inhabitants of Crimea did not want to go to Russia. Wanted And we wanted to see them in Russia too. But who introduced the idea to hold a referendum at such an opportune time, I would be interested to know. And it’s not interesting who exactly voiced this idea, but who, standing behind him, just threw this idea, so that others would accept it as their own. Perhaps there was no such person. But ... the option remains.
So, the Russians and Crimeans rejoice. And in America and Europe they say that Russia annexed a piece of a sovereign state, taking advantage of the problems in that state. Public opinion in the world is being prepared for the fact that Russia is an aggressor. And the unprincipled aggressor.
What happens next? Southeast is in favor of autonomy. The question of autonomy goes into the proposal for separation. Passion inside Ukraine is growing. On the one hand, the government continues to pursue a policy of infringement of the Russian-speaking population, and on the other, it raises the degree of Ukrainian nationalism. After the transition of the Crimea to Russia, part of the inhabitants of the Southeast hopes for Russian assistance and therefore decides on an open tough confrontation. Is this a development for Russia? Not. And it is precisely in matters of the South-East that I am sure that the call for autonomy, and especially for separation, originally came precisely from the gray cardinals directing the "Orange Revolutions." But he found himself on the so prepared ground of the sincere desires of the inhabitants of these regions, that he immediately caused a wave.
Let's think about it. But can Russia really help the Southeast? I think no. To send troops there? But then all over the world it will be declared occupation. And here, even China "disown." Spit on everything, and still go to a conflict that could escalate into an armed conflict with NATO? Well, for this we have no strength! If for Iraq, an air group was assembled in 2560 aircraft, then it would be no less for “protecting” Ukraine. And how many Russian combat aircraft? A few hundred. Therefore, Russia cannot take any action that could lead to such a conflict. That is why the Ukrainian authorities will quietly apply the armed forces against the South-East. That is why they will continue to unleash a civil war. And that is why they exacerbate the issue with gas.
Can we stop gas supplies to Ukraine? Smug Kiselev on NTV on Sunday said: "I do not understand, my friends (obviously the same sleek snobs. - Author) do not understand, my Russian friends (I will refrain from commenting. - Author.) Also do not understand why Russia Should Ukraine supply gas to LOSS itself? "
Well, Mr. Kiselev knows these two concepts well: profit and loss. But can not understand otherwise. Turning off the gas, we will turn it off in the Southeast. For residents of the South-East, it will be like a betrayal. Many will find that profit is really the most important for Russia and that in the absence of profit we are ready to give it up. Moreover, those residents of central and western Ukraine, who are still for the union of Ukraine with Russia and fraternal relations, may also think about the correctness of their views. And it’s not easy for them when everybody around is called Russia an enemy, a state with imperial manners and a corrupt, soulless population. No, turning off the gas, we will give another trump card in the information war against our enemies.
And now let's see: what was the way out of this situation? It is in those conditions when the current government does not want peace in the country. The introduction of UN troops and observers would be normal. Both that, and another would provide the termination of "Maidan", armed clashes and other disorders, as well as the holding of the May elections. By this time, Ukrainians would have felt the lack of a budget for the payment of pensions, salaries, and the absence of any business advantages of the interim government. In addition, given that the population of the Southeast is larger than that of the West, and the residents of Central Ukraine are likely to be equally divided in their choice, the chances of choosing a pro-Russian president would be quite high. But for this, it is necessary that the composition of the UN observers and troops should be more representatives of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Belarus and even Finns and Poles, but fewer Americans, British and their vassals.
Now, in my opinion, this chance is missed. The West can prevent Russian members, since Russia, according to the West, has demonstrated its interest in Ukrainian resources and territories, and therefore, in the opinion of the West, it cannot be objective, etc., etc. And without a powerful bloc of Russia, China and fraternal neighbors, elections cannot be normal.
Thus, having received the Crimea, we gave the West a lever with which it will squeeze us out of participation in solving Ukrainian problems. And the further scenario of the Ukrainian question will go along a more rigid and unpredictable path.