So You Want to Know What's Really Going On in the Ukraine?

 Please feel free to post and copy this information:

 http://vineyardsaker.blogspot

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.