A year after the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a result of a coup in Kiev, a civil war continues in Ukraine, which Poroshenko promised to win in one month. It is difficult to find another country where the West would act so irresponsibly as in Ukraine. During the year, representatives of European and American diplomacy, who initially encouraged protesters and financed provocateurs and thugs (suffice it to recall how US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland handed out biscuits on Maidan), coolly watching the civil war. It has already claimed thousands of lives in the east of the country and may result in a large-scale war in Europe if the diplomatic efforts laid down in the Minsk agreements are not undertaken.
It should be said that the absence of US representatives in the negotiations and their persistent desire to aggravate the confrontation by supplying weapons Kiev and sending its military instructors to Ukraine could lead to the expansion of hostilities and the involvement of NATO in them. All this represents a considerable danger for Europe. Obama, the Pentagon and the State Department are discussing the extent of their involvement in the war, because in reality they are already participating in it through their advisers, intelligence officers and mercenaries. Victoria Nuland, among other things, even met with the leader of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis Andrei Parubiy, who with the help of the CIA and the Polish special services AW organized riots on the Maidan, and after the coup d'état was appointed head of the National Security Council. Accustomed to manipulating facts and using unscrupulous propaganda techniques, the ruling circles of Washington and NATO, with the support of a whole army of corrupt journalists, present everything in a false light, knowing full well the experience of Yugoslavia and Iraq that human memory is weak, and one lie overlaps the other. The thing is that the fire in Ukraine acquires its own logic when you remember the wars unleashed by the United States in recent years in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Under Yanukovych, corruption flourished and flourished the country, but all the steps taken by the government of Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, with the blessing of Washington, lead to a complete catastrophe.
Ukraine, under the leadership of Poroshenko, is a grotesque country ruled by a new oligarchy that has made its fortune through crime, as well as gangsters and murderers, leaders of right-wing extremist groups who, without the slightest doubt, eliminate people they disagree with, plunderers of national wealth and simply are not entirely mentally healthy people. And this is not an exaggeration - just look at those who stroll around the Rada and various ministries: they are either armed or are accompanied by fascist thugs who are ready at any moment to get hand grenades from their pockets. Although they are divided into different factions, but at the same time, all were advanced in power thanks to the coup d'état and were taken care of by Washington. Yatsenyuk, an accomplice and partner of one of the main Ukrainian oligarchs, Igor Kolomoisky, creator and sponsor of right-wing volunteer battalions, an agent of US influence in Kiev; Poroshenko oscillates between rapprochement with Berlin and US obedience. Like all other leaders, he and Turchinov were mired in corruption and incompetence, brought down the economy, and now cry out for help to Washington and Berlin, trying to convince the whole world that the main danger for the whole world comes from Russia. It is indicative that all of them use patriotic slogans borrowed from Stepan Bandera, while forgetting about the shooting at Babi Yar and the Volyn Massacre, about the struggle of the Ukrainian people against the fascist invaders during the Second World War. At the same time, they do not disdain even the dirtiest lies, for example, handing over to Washington photos taken during the war with Georgia in 2008, as evidence of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which puts the American senator Jim Inhof in a rather awkward position.
During the year following the coup, no measures were taken to combat corruption, and it intensified in an atmosphere of uncontrollability that prevailed as a result of the war. Moreover, even the top Ukrainian leadership is involved in it. Even the Ukrainian press writes that Poroshenko’s enterprises make huge profits, and he himself resorts to lies and uses state resources for even greater personal enrichment. Thus, the Ukrainian economy, which was already in a severe crisis, turned out to be practically destroyed: many factories have become, in many enterprises wages are not paid, pensions are extremely low, and living conditions are becoming more severe. However, the government that came to power as a result of a coup d'état, understands that it may no longer present itself with such an opportunity, and is mired in theft. And war and fear make many silent.
Poroshenko acknowledged that the Ukrainian military violated the first truce, established in accordance with the Minsk agreements. Undoubtedly, he acted on the orders of the American special services, hoping for a quick defeat of the people's militia in the Donbass, but arms supplies and humanitarian aid from Russia thwarted the offensive, forcing Poroshenko to sign the second Minsk agreements. If during the Cold War, the dividing line between right and left, between supporters and opponents of the United States was quite definite, now it is more and more confused. To help the Donbas militia, volunteers (albeit few) from a number of countries went there. Among them were communists, and nationalists, and the extreme right, as well as Cossacks and advocates of Pan-Slavic solidarity, who see Russia’s elder sister, although their main slogans are primarily anti-fascist and anti-imperialist content. And in the National Guard of Ukraine, among the fighters of which there are a lot of mercenaries and fascist thugs, Nazi symbols abound.
The Russian neo-Nazi group "Restruct" supports the Ukrainian radicals from the "Right Sector", which served as the basis for the Security Service of Ukraine to accuse the FSB of introducing members of this organization (who did not cause any suspicion) to the Azov battalion created by the new Kiev authorities with the money of the oligarch Igor Kolomoisky to collect information. This is one of many examples typical of Western intelligence agencies.
For ideological reasons, part of the Russian nationalist movement, including neo-Nazis, supports the militias in the Donbas, just as the Russian right-wing radicals support the extremists of the Maidan. Groups of Chechens are fighting for those and for others, guided by opposing considerations. The Serb groups, guided by the principles of the Slavic brotherhood, which, in their opinion, are threatened by the West (they were convinced of this during the wars in the former Yugoslavia), are also fighting on the side of the militias. Even representatives of the Hungarian right wing, dreaming of the return of the Romanian and Ukrainian lands with the aim of creating Great Hungary, arrived in the Donbass. But a necessary condition for this is the division of the current territory of Ukraine. But in any case, all of the above groups make up only a small part of the Donbass militia. Some Russian groups, wanting to dissociate themselves from all the others, speak of a confrontation between imperialist Washington and Moscow. The situation becomes even more complicated due to the fact that the efforts of a number of special services, in particular the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, the German BND, the Polish Agencja Wywiadu and others, made it possible to transfer mercenaries from the Middle East to Ukraine, as well as Islamic radicals from neighboring Central Asian countries. This is actively opposed by the FSB of Russia.
If, thanks to Minsk-2, the fighting in Ukraine stopped, the information war continues. The following legend has been created for NATO admirers: Putin’s imperial aspirations, as the annexation of Crimea indicates, are aimed at creating exclusive zones of influence in Europe and have caused the most acute crisis since the collapse of the USSR. Putin is presented as an instigator of the war, it is argued that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by militias, that Russian troops crossed the border of Ukraine, stationed in the Donbas, thereby violating international law. It does not matter that none of these accusations are supported by any evidence, although it is obvious that the militias in the east of Ukraine could not have survived without Russian supplies of weapons, equipment and food. In the course of an unprecedented propaganda campaign, a lot of effort is being made to make people forget about the role of the USA and Europe in overthrowing Yanukovych, elected by the population during elections, which neither the USA nor the European Union considered illegal; the way the West encouraged the growing wave of violence perpetrated by the fascist radicals (in particular, dozens of policemen were killed by bullets) in every way possible. And at the same time, the myth of a kind of “peaceful movement”, whose sole purpose was to connect with Europe, was spread in every possible way. Until now, not a word has been said that several months before the overthrow of Yanukovych in Poland, training was organized for mercenaries and radicals, who then participated in the pogroms on the Maidan. And of course, the gradual expansion of NATO to the east of Europe, the provocative war unleashed by Georgia, the missile defense system, attempts to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and a coup in Kiev are not mentioned at all. The groundlessness of the arguments cited by Washington is obvious, as well as his hypocritical outrage at Russian help from the militia. In fact, if Putin really unleashed a conflict, then the Ukrainian crisis generally loses its meaning. Why should Moscow create it if it had good relations with the government of Yanukovych? And could Moscow, after the pro-Western coup in Kiev, leave to the mercy of the insurgent population of the south-eastern regions, which probably would have been cruelly suppressed by the new Ukrainian authorities? But American experts in the field of large-scale propaganda campaigns were able to present the coup d'état in Kiev as a “revolution of dignity”, and their Ukrainian customers every day remind about this in the press. A year after the overthrow of Yanukovich, the circumstances of the massacres committed by mysterious snipers on Maidan, which became a detonator to overthrow the government, remain unclear. Neither the Ukrainian putschists, nor the United States showed the slightest interest in investigating this crime, while the oligarchs divide trophies and lands: Igor Kolomoisky, one of the most corrupt millionaires of Ukraine, a sponsor of neo-Nazi factions, who used hired killers to carry out their plans, bribed judges for making the decisions he needed, or simply faking them if necessary, is currently the governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who is completely uninterested in the fight against corruption, investigating the case of snipers on the Maidan during the overthrow of Yanukovych and killing people in the Odessa House of Trade Unions, instead makes a lot of effort to ban the Communist Party, the only political force trying at least somehow limit the power of corrupt and oligarchs.
The United States is deciding whether to send weapons to Ukraine, which will mean even greater involvement of Washington in the war. Influential private foundations, high-ranking representatives of the Pentagon and the White House are prone to start supplying weapons, although they realize that this is why the Ukrainian army is unlikely to win the civil war and may also complicate relations with Moscow. Other circles of the American ruling elite, although they understand all the risks that a confrontation with Russia, which has a huge nuclear arsenal, can cause, are in favor of arming Kiev, convinced that a wear-out war will eventually weaken the Russian economy and, possibly, will lead to Putin’s departure from the political arena, or at least disrupt Moscow’s plans to expand the EurAsEC. And all this is happening in Washington in a situation of absurd discussions about whether it is necessary to supply “lethal” or “non-lethal” weapons, although it is obvious that any escalation of hostilities will be difficult to reverse, as it is clear that the leadership of the White House and the Pentagon aspire to weaken Russia and further bind the European Union to itself through the war in Europe. The attitudes that prevail in Washington can be judged by the statements of one of the analysts of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the largest US “laboratory of ideas” in foreign policy. Andrew C. Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at CSIS, spoke about the murdered Boris Nemtsov as a patriot and demonized Putin, stressing that the Russian President’s speech to the State Duma in April 2014 might indicate a “point of no return” in the process of turning Russia into a fascist state. " It is obvious that for those who think in this way, open military intervention in Ukraine, which could be carried out by specially selected players, mercenaries or military personnel of the most aggressive countries, such as Poland or the Baltic states, would be fully justified. At the same time, everyone can resort to arguments like the “imminent threat of attack by Russia” or pretexts similar to those that led to the American invasion of Iraq.
The strange murder of Boris Nemtsov (who played a minor role in modern Russia) may be due to the crisis in Ukraine. We can not exclude the involvement of Victoria Nuland and the most Russophobic forces of the American administration, especially in the light of the fact that Putin personally does not need the death of Nemtsov. Blaming the Russian president for all mortal sins, Washington does not want to admit its own responsibility for aggravating the international situation: it is worth recalling that Putin took control of the country in a unipolar world, demanding respect and recognition of Russia's interests. The scornful attitude towards the President of Russia is underlined, the incessant US efforts to disintegrate Russia, just as they did with the Soviet Union, caused Moscow's concern, expressed in Putin’s report at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, when George W. Bush. In his speech, the Russian president condemned the expansionism of the United States and the failure of all agreements, both written and oral, to be concluded between Moscow and Washington after the collapse of the USSR.
Since then, despite theatrical gestures like the "reset" button invented by Hillary Clinton (which did not lead to any changes in American foreign policy), the United States continued to bring its military machine closer to the Russian borders. France and Germany decided to take part in the search for a political solution to the Ukrainian crisis, but the autonomy of their actions is limited, since they have obligations as NATO members, and Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels have developed such rules of the game that all members of the alliance, including France and Germany. These countries, although with great reluctance, but still follow in the wake of the belligerent policy of the White House, have introduced economic sanctions against Russia and take part in the discussion of very dangerous plans to send weapons, even the armed forces. True, it should be noted that the negotiations on the last point are of a secret nature. Having become hostages of their own propaganda, NATO countries are unable to understand that the Ukrainian crisis erupted not as a result of some “civil protests” (paid for and largely controlled by Western countries), but as a result of the coup d’état and the change of power that followed Ukraine. openly hostile to Russia. If you behave aggressively towards everyone else, you cannot expect to be received everywhere with open arms.
Neither the European Union, nor even the United States, wants to admit that the stake on accepting Ukraine into NATO is a real provocation towards Russia. (Can anyone imagine that Mexico or Canada have entered into a military alliance against Washington?). Being completely senseless in itself, it also caused a civil war, destroyed the Ukrainian economy, created a dangerous center of war in Europe and destroyed the possibility of peaceful and friendly coexistence on the continent in the medium term.
Regardless of whether the war broke out in Ukraine as a result of some planned actions or was the unforeseen consequence of a coup d'état, responsibility for it still falls on the United States. Responsibility for the war, the fire of which caught fire as a result of the adventurist US foreign policy, is now being tried to impose on Moscow, presenting it as evidence of dangerous Russian “expansionism”. But they forget that after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO did not even think about taking a similar step. The Alliance began to rapidly approach the Russian borders, taking into its ranks eight new countries: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, and is now trying to do the same with Georgia and Ukraine. In addition, NATO military facilities are deployed in some former Soviet republics of Central Asia. Here it is the real military expansionism of the last two decades. Washington does not want to understand that security must be ensured by everyone, and advancing NATO’s military infrastructure to Russia's borders is not only a provocation, but also upsets the fragile international balance.
The altogether unsubstantiated accusations leveled against Russia by American General Philip M. Breedlove, the commander of NATO forces in Europe, or the secret visit to Kiev in January of 2015 by General James Klepper, US National Intelligence Director, among other things, a reflection of the policies of the Washington hawks. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, also support arms supplies to Kiev. The hype raised by a well-known hardliner Zbigniew Brzezinski, who claims that Russia could attack the Baltic countries, pursues the same goal: to supply weapons to Ukraine, heat the situation and provoke a war in Europe, and possibly on a world scale. This can be achieved in different ways, because the Washington hawks are not too picky about the means: not so long ago, American General Wesley Clark told TV channel, speaking about Islamic radicals, who cut off people's heads in front of the television cameras, said: "We created the Islamic state thanks funding from our allies. ”
The recent statement of the Communist Party of Ukraine, the main opposition force in the country, which is now being subjected to various kinds of persecution and persecution, ends with a meaningful appeal to Ukrainians and Europeans: say no to war and fascism! For therein lies the danger, the tumor that threatens Ukraine and Europe. Europe faces other problems that overlap the acute economic crisis and problems in the eurozone: from the unexpected refusal of Greece to pay the debt that the European Union is trying to break, to the authorities' response to the opposition movement emerging in a number of countries opposing the neoliberal principles of the European Union, although its actions yet do not differ cohesion and consistency. This should also include the strengthening of ultra-right forces, which scare not so much with their model of social organization, as with the fact that they can weaken the prevailing to date conservative associations, as well as the tricks of an unreliable British partner, acting, along with revanchist ruling circles of Poland and the Baltic countries, as an American beachhead in Europe. And finally, the terrorist threat, the creation of which was promoted by the very same US and Europe. But none of these problems poses such a danger as the war in Ukraine and the possibility of its spread to the whole continent unless serious diplomatic efforts are made in the future. The pragmatism of Angela Merkel, who contributed to the signing of the Minsk agreements, has a twofold explanation: on the one hand, she understands that Russia cannot be defeated in world war, and therefore prefers diplomatic decisions; on the other hand, although she would like to bring Moscow to its knees, it understands that there will be a victory not for Germany, but for the United States. All this makes Berlin to balance between forced submission to Washington (and NATO), its own interest in a stable Europe and the eternal vigilance towards the great Slavic country, which refuses to accept Western superiority.
For its part, the United States is seeking to weaken Russia, do not abandon plans for its dismemberment, which will allow to establish control over hydrocarbon deposits. Under such a scenario, it is not surprising that the United States does not take part in the peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis: an open war would subject Russia to severe tests, make it impossible to restore ties with the former Soviet republics and impede the modernization of its economy. And for the European Union, the continuation of the war in Ukraine is an even greater strategic helplessness and subordination to Washington. With the help of the war in Ukraine, Washington wants to drive Brussels into a very difficult situation. An open clash between Russia and the European Union in Ukraine would be a bleeding wound for the entire continent and would be the best argument for the United States to increase its power with the help of NATO, corner Russia and get ready to fight China - the great battle of the coming decades.
Rebelión publishes this article with the permission of the author through a Creative Commons license, respecting his right to publish it in other sources.