Yanukovych was then the President of Ukraine, and he was blessed by the Obama presidency; he was the first to send him a congratulatory letter, which denied Tymoshenko a new “third round” of elections. Probably, this blessing was arranged with certain conditions, in any case, Yanukovych pursued a policy of “euro-association” of Ukraine until the last days before the Vilnius summit, and the US State Department, and the American embassy in Kiev, had no significant claims to it.
The Western press wrote then about Putin’s strange calm: he cannot fail to understand the global consequences of such a “Euro-Association of Ukraine” for Russia!
The response of Moscow was unexpected and also made indirectly through Yanukovych: at the last moment - a few days before the summit in Vilnius! - he suddenly began to doubt the nuances of the “Euro-Association”, an already agreed document, and flatly refused to sign it in Vilnius, despite the most convincing requests from all of Europe. Insightful Western observers immediately realized that this was Moscow’s counterstrike, and accused of derailing the “Euro-Association” of Ukraine Putin.
Some Russian observers pointed out that Yanukovych’s “sudden insight” is not convincing that this is more likely a way to live to Vilnius, “otherwise there would have been some kind of tragic accident”. We will go further, and finish this thought: if President Yushchenko was called a CIA agent, or his wife, a CIA agent, then Yanukovych may well be a secret Kremlin agent, or "agent of influence." Otherwise, it is very difficult to explain his behavior in Vilnius, he will have to resort to fantasies that he was a sincere, convinced and last supporter of a truly “united and normal Ukraine” in Ukraine. True, he became the last president of "united Ukraine".
The fact that the failure of Vilnius in Europe was a reciprocal "course of Moscow", says Yanukovych’s prompt conclusion of the Moscow Agreement, on very favorable economic conditions for Ukraine, and strategically advantageous for Moscow.
Washington’s response to Vilnius was immediate. The European Commissioners (Fule) immediately transparently hinted that they would have to sign the “Euro-Association” of Ukraine with its other President. NGOs and NGOs in Kiev, under the leadership of the American embassy, are launching a “student Euromaidan”. He quickly became radicalized and proceeded from the requirements of the “Euro-Association” to the demand for the resignation of President Yanukovych “for all his mortal sins,” which are suddenly revealed in an incredible amount.
Yanukovych demonstrates intransigence, and then the US Embassy connects armed Bandera neo-Nazi formations Yarosh to the coup d'etat prepared by CIA agent Nalyvaychenko in advance (Euromaidan changes flags to Bandera red-black). Western media shamelessly lying about the "peaceful demonstrations" taking place in Kiev, the US State Department is harassing Yanukovych’s actions with its Ukrainian network of agents, and the "peaceful protest" of armed militants overthrows February of the lawfully elected President of Ukraine.
It is known that Putin refused to give Yanukovych a request for the provision of troops, it was unrealistic, but he saves Yanukovych from inevitable reprisals, and, perhaps, his agent from disclosing important information, and provides him with asylum in Rostov.
Removing Yanukovych, Washington more than “returned the position”, having received all of Ukraine at its disposal: the remnants of the puppet neo-Nazi Verkhovna Rada under its complete control. By the way, after this, the very need for a “euro-association” of Ukraine disappears, therefore, today it turns into a profanation, and they talk about it for the sake of “saving face”.
In order to disavow a coup and get "free hand" on the territory of Ukraine, Washington is talking about a "revolution" in Ukraine. However, the revolution, as well as the coup, is a gap in the legitimacy of state power. Moscow took advantage of this circumstance for the retaliatory move, not recognizing the Bandera regime in Ukraine as legitimate.
Moscow responds with “Crimea” to Washington’s capture of Kiev. The “Russian Spring” in Crimea, with the “polite” support of Russia, is turning into an alternative “revolution”, the Supreme Council of Crimea is holding a referendum, which takes historical decision to return to Russia. From a legal point of view, it is much stronger than the "Kiev revolution", because it was carried out in response to it. And historically and in fairness ... Crimea was donated by Khrushchev, not Russia, to Ukraine in honor of the 300th anniversary of reunification, therefore, if Bandera Ukraine decided to "disconnect" from Russia, then the gifts must be returned.
Washington, apparently, dreamed of making Crimea his unsinkable strategic aircraft carrier in the Black Sea, but now he can only bite his elbows, and he accuses Russia of “annexing Crimea”. It’s just after the own “revolutionary” annexation of the whole of Ukraine that looks somewhat ridiculous, and Washington has to replicate a propaganda cliché about the “annexation of the Crimea”, bringing the situation to an absurdity.
“Russian Spring” predictably spread to other Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine. The three-month beating and burning of the employees of the “Berkut” by neo-Nazis in Kiev changed the public consciousness in Ukraine, since they clearly told thinking people what should really be expected from the new ultranationalist government in Kiev. In the Southeast, anti-Maidans began, protests, the new government began to “click out” their activists, in the words of the fascist leader of the Right Sector, Yarosh. But the protests are supported by the "Berkut", they are only growing. Moscow leads the troops on the border into increased combat readiness, announces the possible deployment of troops into the Russian-speaking regions.
Washington is responding to this “Crimea” with a visit to Kiev from CIA director Brennan. Immediately after his visit, the. p. Turchinov announces the start of the "anti-terrorist operation" in the Donbass. In general, there is nothing unusual in this: the fascists and during the Great Patriotic War, moreover, in the same territories, declared the people's partisans "terrorists". But the Ukrainian Armed Forces do not want to fight with the people, the Dnipropetrovsk Airborne Division partially raises Russian flags and goes over to the side of the militias in Slavyansk. This was understood in Kiev: the National Guard is created from Bandera militants and youths duped by propaganda. It easily guesses "death squads" from pro-American patriots of Latin America; this Latin American experience was brought to Ukraine, perhaps, by the CIA employees, who occupy floors in the Ukrainian Security Service of Ukraine today.
On the punitive expedition of the “National Guard” in the Donbass, Moscow responds with a demonstration of “battalion exercises” of troops on the border with Ukraine, which cools several hotheads in Kiev, and binds the Ukrainian armed forces on the border. Washington is awaiting the entry of Russian troops into the Donbass, but it did not follow. It turns out that Putin was bluffing, talking about the introduction of troops to protect the Russian-speaking population? Not a fact, the Lugansk and Donetsk republics themselves are successfully opposing the neo-Nazi militants, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces as a whole takes a neutral position.
Obviously, Putin responded to Washington’s “ATO” with a demonstration of military power, but the resolution to use the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine was not canceled by the Federation Council, and the Bandera power was not recognized by Russia.
In general, the coup d'état in Kiev, or the “Bandera revolution”, launched uncontrollable processes in Ukraine. In February, 1917 of the year, British intelligence initiated a coup in Russia, a “managed” Provisional Government was created, and did anyone in the world think about how this would end in October in the summer of 1917? Now in the footsteps of the British in Russia are the Americans in Ukraine, exactly one hundred years later ...
In Russia, they know what “controlled chaos” is not from theory, but from experience, and Putin very prudently took a pause so as not to take the risk of this “chaos”. He seems to be giving this opportunity to its initiators ...
It will begin on 25 in May in a “natural”, arising from the position, a move on the part of Washington: the presidential election in Ukraine to legitimize Bandera's power. Since they are held for Western public opinion, and to justify American policy in Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada has removed all democratic conditions for their holding: nothing hinders them, even the ATO, one Turchinov’s vote will be enough to recognize them as valid.
Whether these elections will take place, or end with the new “third round”: the revolution with a shootout in Kiev, as Tymoshenko again insists, they will not change the situation in Ukraine. Elections in a divided society, chaos in the heads and in the territories will only exacerbate the general chaos in Ukraine, and it can lose all “control” from Washington, as in 1917 from London.
The retaliatory move of Moscow in this situation is quite predictable, especially given the non-recognition by Washington of the referendums in the Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk republics, the disregard of the brutal massacres by the Kiev regime of people in Odessa and Mariupol. The presidential elections in Ukraine will be qualified by Russia as a farce, along with the results. How Washington will respond to this - we will not guess ...