boneyard bill
Veteran Member
The first thing we need to get over when dealing with the events in the Ukraine is the media fairy tale that this is some kind of "democracy movement" led by a bunch of rarely-mentioned neo-Nazi street thugs. This is clearly a great power struggle involving NATO and the Russian Federation, and is simply a follow-on to a similar struggle back in 2005 which was dubbed the "Orange Revolution." That effort prevented Yanukovych from gaining power in Kiev, but it did not lead, as the US had proposed, to Ukrainian admission into NATO.
One does not spread democracy by overthrowing legally-elected governments and intimidating parliaments. The events in the Maiden was a coup d'etat in which forces friendly to the US seized power from a government friendly to Russia even though that government had been legally elected, and all the evidence strongly suggests that the US was very involved in that effort to install a premier, Yatsenyuk, whom we had hand-picked at least a month earlier.
Of course, the Russian reaction to this was predictable enough. Putin's first priority would be to secure the Russian naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea. But Putin hardly had to do anything to bring the about. Crimea was already an autonous republic within Ukraine. Unlike the eastern provinces, Crimea already had its own President and its own parliament, and it is only to be expected that the Russian majority in Crimea would act against an ursurper government in Kiev that drew its muscle from neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians who hate Russians. While it is likely that Putin instigated the Crimean secession, it seems likely that it would have happened even without him.
But it has been stated Russian policy ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union that Russia reserves the right to intervene in former Soviet republics where Russian-speaking peoples are threatened. In conversations with Obaman, Putin refused to back off from this stated claim. If Russian speaking nationals were threatened in eastern Ukraine, Russian interventions could be expected although, as far as is known, Putin never actually issued any specific threats.
Nonetheless, a serious problem arose for the Kiev government when several eastern provinces threatened to secede. After all, this whole crisis began over serious Ukrianian financial problems and those problems would only be made worse if the Kiev government couldn't collect taxes in the East.
Putin proposed a federated Ukriane in which the eastern provinces would become self-governing but Kiev could still collect a share of revenue. But Putin's proposal also called for a federated Ukraine that would be neutral in international affairs. Such a government would have to agree not to join NATO or any eastern pact as well.
Secretary of State John Kerry rejected the proposal (although one wonders why the decision was his to make in the first place). Meanwhile, the Kiev regime made preparations for securing control of eastern Ukraine. Previous efforts to assert control with the Ukrainian army had been unsuccessful because the soldiers either defected to the secessionists or ran away. The Ukrainian army would not fire on unarmed civilian protestors.
Consequently, a "national guard" was formed under the Ministry of the Interior. Significantly, the Ukrainian army refused to give up any of their weaponry to the national guard. So the guard had to be supplied elsewhere. I have not been able to find any information on who paid for these armaments. What is most significant, however, is simply the fact that, so far, the Ukrainian military seems to have remained neutral with regard to this internal power struggle in Ukriane. In the Crimean secession, the Ukrainian army and naval forces surrendered to the Crimean government without a fight.
But now the Kiev regime sent its new troops into eastern Ukraine where roughly forty unarmed protestors were driven into a building that was then set on fire. Later, more civilians were killed in Mariupol, also in eastern Ukraine. Russia labelled the Kiev regime's actions "genocide," but it took no steps toward intervention.
The question is, why would Kiev send these troops to attack unarmed Russian protestors in a move that one would expect would provoke a Russian intervention? And why DIDN'T Russia intervene? With forty thousand well-trained, well-equipped troops on the Ukrainian border it wouldn't have taken much for them to dispatch a hastily-formed Ukrianian guard estimated at a mere 14,000 strong. Meanwhile, two eastern provinces Luhangsk and Donetsk declared independence, but Putin's only response was to urge them to delay the referendum, and to propose again that Ukraine become a non-aligned federated republic. A third province, Kharkov, is expected to vote soon.
Why then, didn't Putin respond to Kiev's provocations and simply take over eastern Ukraine and claim it for Russia as they did in Crimea? I suggest that Putin didn't respond to the provocation because he understood that it was deliberate attempt to provoke a response and that such a response would be a trap.
Following the annexation of Crimea, the US sent 600 paratroopers to Poland. Fine. Poland is a NATO country. No big deal. But what if Putin were to invade Ukraine? The US could now send those 600 paratroopers and/or other NATO forces to Kiev on the grounds that we have to stop Putin from going further. The force would not have to be large. It would only serve as a "trip-wire" that wouldn't act against Russian forces in the East. But a move on Kiev would mean an attack on NATO troops. Putin would have eastern Ukraine, but now NATO would have western Ukraine.
They would then break up Ukraine with Russia taking the East and the NATO admitting the West as a full member. Such a move, of course, would put NATO troops within a couple of hundred miles of the Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. This would be a huge strategic advantage for NATO against Russia.
But Putin didn't take the bait. Far from wanting to expand Russian territory as the US media simplistically contends, Putin wants Ukraine as a non-aligned, federated buffer zone between the NATO and Russia, and he wants NATO to have to attack a non-NATO country if it hopes to get to Sevastopol.
So what can the West do now? Should they launch more attacks against unarmed, civilian protestors in the East? While the US media is portraying the massacres as somehow some kind of unfortunate accident, it appears the European press has been a good deal more thorough. Continued massacres in the East would risk splitting the alliance on this issue. It also holds the possibility of uniting the Ukrainian military against the government. If the military intervenes, it is game over for the Kiev regime.
It should be apparent to anyone, and certainly obvious to Putin, that the Kiev regime is extremely weak. Their primary support comes for Langley, Virginia. But they are also faced with enormous financial and economic difficulties. This is, in no way, a regime that can impose unpopular austerities on the population. It lacks the legitimacy, the credibility, and even the minimal power to administer the country. If it cannot collect taxes in the East, it must somehow get the East to assume a portion of the debts, but to do that, it will need to recognize their independence or cut another deal such as autonomy.
One way or another, this regime is likely to fall. It's difficult to imagine how it could survive for even a year. If that happens, Putin will have checkmated the US and the NATO powers in Ukraine by mostly doing nothing at all.
One does not spread democracy by overthrowing legally-elected governments and intimidating parliaments. The events in the Maiden was a coup d'etat in which forces friendly to the US seized power from a government friendly to Russia even though that government had been legally elected, and all the evidence strongly suggests that the US was very involved in that effort to install a premier, Yatsenyuk, whom we had hand-picked at least a month earlier.
Of course, the Russian reaction to this was predictable enough. Putin's first priority would be to secure the Russian naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea. But Putin hardly had to do anything to bring the about. Crimea was already an autonous republic within Ukraine. Unlike the eastern provinces, Crimea already had its own President and its own parliament, and it is only to be expected that the Russian majority in Crimea would act against an ursurper government in Kiev that drew its muscle from neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians who hate Russians. While it is likely that Putin instigated the Crimean secession, it seems likely that it would have happened even without him.
But it has been stated Russian policy ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union that Russia reserves the right to intervene in former Soviet republics where Russian-speaking peoples are threatened. In conversations with Obaman, Putin refused to back off from this stated claim. If Russian speaking nationals were threatened in eastern Ukraine, Russian interventions could be expected although, as far as is known, Putin never actually issued any specific threats.
Nonetheless, a serious problem arose for the Kiev government when several eastern provinces threatened to secede. After all, this whole crisis began over serious Ukrianian financial problems and those problems would only be made worse if the Kiev government couldn't collect taxes in the East.
Putin proposed a federated Ukriane in which the eastern provinces would become self-governing but Kiev could still collect a share of revenue. But Putin's proposal also called for a federated Ukraine that would be neutral in international affairs. Such a government would have to agree not to join NATO or any eastern pact as well.
Secretary of State John Kerry rejected the proposal (although one wonders why the decision was his to make in the first place). Meanwhile, the Kiev regime made preparations for securing control of eastern Ukraine. Previous efforts to assert control with the Ukrainian army had been unsuccessful because the soldiers either defected to the secessionists or ran away. The Ukrainian army would not fire on unarmed civilian protestors.
Consequently, a "national guard" was formed under the Ministry of the Interior. Significantly, the Ukrainian army refused to give up any of their weaponry to the national guard. So the guard had to be supplied elsewhere. I have not been able to find any information on who paid for these armaments. What is most significant, however, is simply the fact that, so far, the Ukrainian military seems to have remained neutral with regard to this internal power struggle in Ukriane. In the Crimean secession, the Ukrainian army and naval forces surrendered to the Crimean government without a fight.
But now the Kiev regime sent its new troops into eastern Ukraine where roughly forty unarmed protestors were driven into a building that was then set on fire. Later, more civilians were killed in Mariupol, also in eastern Ukraine. Russia labelled the Kiev regime's actions "genocide," but it took no steps toward intervention.
The question is, why would Kiev send these troops to attack unarmed Russian protestors in a move that one would expect would provoke a Russian intervention? And why DIDN'T Russia intervene? With forty thousand well-trained, well-equipped troops on the Ukrainian border it wouldn't have taken much for them to dispatch a hastily-formed Ukrianian guard estimated at a mere 14,000 strong. Meanwhile, two eastern provinces Luhangsk and Donetsk declared independence, but Putin's only response was to urge them to delay the referendum, and to propose again that Ukraine become a non-aligned federated republic. A third province, Kharkov, is expected to vote soon.
Why then, didn't Putin respond to Kiev's provocations and simply take over eastern Ukraine and claim it for Russia as they did in Crimea? I suggest that Putin didn't respond to the provocation because he understood that it was deliberate attempt to provoke a response and that such a response would be a trap.
Following the annexation of Crimea, the US sent 600 paratroopers to Poland. Fine. Poland is a NATO country. No big deal. But what if Putin were to invade Ukraine? The US could now send those 600 paratroopers and/or other NATO forces to Kiev on the grounds that we have to stop Putin from going further. The force would not have to be large. It would only serve as a "trip-wire" that wouldn't act against Russian forces in the East. But a move on Kiev would mean an attack on NATO troops. Putin would have eastern Ukraine, but now NATO would have western Ukraine.
They would then break up Ukraine with Russia taking the East and the NATO admitting the West as a full member. Such a move, of course, would put NATO troops within a couple of hundred miles of the Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. This would be a huge strategic advantage for NATO against Russia.
But Putin didn't take the bait. Far from wanting to expand Russian territory as the US media simplistically contends, Putin wants Ukraine as a non-aligned, federated buffer zone between the NATO and Russia, and he wants NATO to have to attack a non-NATO country if it hopes to get to Sevastopol.
So what can the West do now? Should they launch more attacks against unarmed, civilian protestors in the East? While the US media is portraying the massacres as somehow some kind of unfortunate accident, it appears the European press has been a good deal more thorough. Continued massacres in the East would risk splitting the alliance on this issue. It also holds the possibility of uniting the Ukrainian military against the government. If the military intervenes, it is game over for the Kiev regime.
It should be apparent to anyone, and certainly obvious to Putin, that the Kiev regime is extremely weak. Their primary support comes for Langley, Virginia. But they are also faced with enormous financial and economic difficulties. This is, in no way, a regime that can impose unpopular austerities on the population. It lacks the legitimacy, the credibility, and even the minimal power to administer the country. If it cannot collect taxes in the East, it must somehow get the East to assume a portion of the debts, but to do that, it will need to recognize their independence or cut another deal such as autonomy.
One way or another, this regime is likely to fall. It's difficult to imagine how it could survive for even a year. If that happens, Putin will have checkmated the US and the NATO powers in Ukraine by mostly doing nothing at all.
