The events in Ukraine look different when seen from Moscow rather than from other European capitals. European TV channels show spirited faces of young people from Maidan and aggressive riot police attacking the demonstrators. Russian TV shows militants from the opposition attacking police, ruined buildings, and piles of garbage in the streets. These are two dimensions of one reality, but each side sees only one.

There is a widespread view in the West that Vladimir Putin is afraid of what is happening in Ukraine because it can serve as an example for the Russian opposition. This is a very simplified view. The Russian president draws parallels between developments in Kiev and the situation in Russia, but he sees them as confirmation that he is right.



In his view, unrest must be suppressed before it turns into a huge fire. Unrest produces nothing but chaos. A weak state drives itself into a trap. Once a state falters, external forces will charge through the breach and start shattering it until it falls. The West is destructive. It is either unable to understand the complexity of the situation and acts in a primitive way, designating "good" and "bad" players, or it deliberately destroys undesirable systems. The result is always the same - things get worse. The desire to limit Russian influence and hinder Moscow's initiatives is the invariable imperative of the Western policy.

This is probably how Putin sees the Ukrainian crisis, as well as other local crises of recent years, for example, in the Middle East. He does not sympathise with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who evokes unpleasant memories. In 2004, Putin was personally involved in attempts to help Yanukovych become president. He came to Ukraine to support him and suffered a big defeat. He views the Ukrainian leadership as unreliable and slippery.

However, as in the case of Syria, it is not a personal matter. Yanukovych is a legitimate president of a sovereign state. If external forces are allowed to legitimise him, let alone remove him from power, this would violate the basic principle of international relations. Therefore, Moscow will not deny Yanukovych (and Syria's Bashar al-Assad) its support - although it is well aware of his weaknesses, the fragility of the situation, and the risk of his removal from power.

Moscow believes that regime change would thrust Ukraine into anarchy and that it may collapse as a state in the end. It considers the Ukrainian political class, regardless of its political views, irresponsible and unprofessional. Ukrainian "peacetime" politics is reduced to endless intrigues of oligarchic groups, which have no idea about strategy.


For the past 20-plus years, the Ukrainian elite has failed to build a capable and firm state, although after the Soviet Union's break-up, Ukraine was considered perhaps the most promising country among the post-Soviet states.

However, the rule of the "Orange" coalition in 2005-2010 was an example of utter incompetence. There is no reason to believe that another "pro-Western" government will be more effective, especially considering the leaders of the protests. They do not control the turmoil of the riot, but are only trying to keep up with it.

Russia believes that the continuation of anarchy will lead to the fragmentation of Ukraine. The country acquired its present borders partly by accident: Stalin expanded the Soviet empire by annexing Western Ukraine; Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

The nation has not become a unified whole, and attempts to shake the status quo and force Ukraine to make a final choice in favour of the EU or Russia deepen the division. The west of the country has a clear identity, but it does not have an economy of its own. The east has an economic base, but it lacks a distinct identity.

Today Moscow is not seeking the collapse of Ukraine and is taking no special steps in this direction. But if the internal conflict escalates, Russia may opt to establish closer contacts with pro-Russian regions in eastern and south-eastern Ukraine. Russia is confident that the West's interference and unilateral support for the opposition brings such a scenario closer.

Putin fears chaos. The main driving force behind his policy towards Ukraine will be not a desire for expansion, but a desire to reduce the risk of chaos spilling into Russia. To this end, anything goes - both defensive and offensive means.

Source: BBC-Ukraine, as viewed from Moscow

The current wave of protests and riots in Ukraine are labelled «Made in Germany», «Made in EU» and «Made in America. The big news agencies of the West and all large authorised media are trying to convince the public that the demonstrations in Kiev are spontaneous manifestations of the Ukrainian people, fighting, allegedly, for democracy and for the rule of law.

In reality though, this is part of an orchestrated, well planned and executed fight for purely geopolitical and strategic issues. The goal is to "reduce the Russian influence and to draw the Ukraine to the sovereignty of Germany, the European Union and NATO.

Nine years ago, the Orange Revolution was organized with enormous political and financial support from the U.S. government and "known" American NGOs, such as the “Open Society Institute” of the Jewish billionaire George Soros. The protests were prompted by reports from several domestic and foreign election monitors as well as the widespread public perception that the results of the run-off vote of 21 November 2004 between leading candidates “Viktor Yushchenko” and “Viktor Yanukovych” were rigged by the authorities in favour of the latter. Those forces were able then to cancel the results of the presidential elections and enforce the pro-Western “Viktor Yushchenko” as head of state, until the 2010 elections, when the people brought back to power the pro-Russian politician “Viktor Yanukovich”.

In November 2013 Yanukovych dismissed the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union for a new debt rescue deal with Russia and closer relations between the two countries. A decision that led to the outbreak of mass protests centred on “Maidan (Independence) Square” in Kiev, termed Euromaidan. Whether these are “spontaneous” demonstrations, are obviously shown by the illustrious names and party formations that organize them.

One party is Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) of the long imprisoned “Yulia Tymoshenko”, led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The second is the Udar (Punch), led by a permanent resident of Germany, ex boxer “Vitali Klitschko”, with close relations to the Christian Democratic Union of Merkel and the Foundation Conrad Adenauer, who even publicly advertises on its website that organises seminars for the political education for members of Udar. The third party is the fascist Svoboda (Freedom) party of the notorious neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok, which actually uses as his emblem a variant of the Nazi swastika. It is brother of both parties, the French “Front National (FN)” of Le Pen, and the “Golden Dawn” right extreme Greek party whose most MP’s are in prison to be followed by the rest soon, 18 in total, for their criminal actions. Although the "Greeks" are fascists but are "kittens" in front, the extreme fanatics and ideological partners of “Svoboda”.

These three pro-German leaders, Yatsenyuk, the Klitschko and Tyahnybok, appear frequently in joint press conferences. At the same time, leading European and American politicians express with hypocrisy of thousand Pharisees, solidarity with the protesters and their anger at the brutality of the Ukrainian police, while at the same time tacitly supporting police brutality and merciless beating of those who oppose the austerity policies of E. E. in Athens, Madrid and elsewhere.


Even the U.S. State Secretary, John Kerry, was quick to implicate the government of Ukraine to "hear the voice of the people", while the German counterpart, Guido Westerwelle and the Ambassador of Germany come to be actively involved in anti-government demonstrations in early December. An insolent act, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and diplomatic practice, a Member State of the European Union. Even NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanded from the Ukrainian government to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and assembly. And all this, while at the same time the German government is opening a new case against the neo-fascist "National Democratic Party" of Germany, defends the right of the Ukrainian fascists marching with guns and taking part in violence.

What is it that prompted the U.S. and the European Union with Germany leading the way to resurrect their historic ties with the pro-Hitler Ukrainian Waffen SS and adopt an openly and blatant interference in the internal affairs of an independent state, a member of the UN?

It all started with the decision of the Ukrainian government to not sign the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU. An agreement, if finally signed, will sever Ukraine from its main trading partner (Russia), with which industry and transport routes of the country are inextricably linked. At the same time, the abolition of customs duties on European products would also mean bankruptcy for many Ukrainian industries.

The terms of the agreement, which includes the introduction of EU rules would dramatically deregulate the labour market, since requires the privatisation of state enterprises under the pretext of reducing public debt, with serious social consequences, similar to the austerity programs of EU imposed on Greece, Romania and southern Europe. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has already refused to the Ukraine credit assistance because the government refuses to raise the price of gas by 40%, a move that will inevitably lead to the death of many unemployed and pensioners would be unable to pay their bills for heating. It will transform the country into a giant "slave" pool for the German and European companies, which could produce at lower rates than the wages in China. At the same time, the natural resources of the country, the vast and fertile hinterland and the domestic market of 46 million inhabitants, is making Ukraine a delicious treat for the German and European companies.

Germany, the EU and the U.S. seek not only the economic strangulation of the country, but at the same time attempting to reap the benefits of geopolitical changes against Russian influence in Eastern Europe. The integration of Ukraine into the EU will dramatically isolate Russia and crushes the Eurasian Union comprising of Russia and Ukraine. Don’t lose sight of the fact that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Crimea.


On this background we have to investigate the underlying causes for the EU and the German government to patronise and use the demonstrations in Kiev to destabilize the government of Ukraine. In the same geopolitical strategic chessboard playing and the American government, which systematically expands its military presence in Asia to encircle China and to undermine its influence in the region.

The attack against Ukraine raises serious historical questions. In two world wars, Germany attempted to place Ukraine under its control, using the bodies of their indigenous collaborators (Ukrainian Waffen SS). Partners using the same today. The audacity of the current German government carries enormous risks. The increasing international tensions can quickly turn into a generalized, global armed conflict.

Under this prism we explain and retreat of the Ukrainian government and by extension Russia itself. The latest developments in the agreement in principle government-opposition amnesty for political prisoners (including Tymoshenko) and formation of a national unity government and early elections, reflects the wisdom of the Russian government to avoid the worst, saving time.


The other point that you must consider is the effect of actually mass participation of the Ukrainian people in obviously methodically copied from West rallies. The answer lies in historical complaints and racial grouping of the country. Because in reality there is not a single Ukrainian homogenous group, but two compact and warring tribal sectors since ancient times trying to coexist within the geographical boundaries of their common homeland. The eastern part of Ukraine is inhabited mainly by Russians, who naturally seek a closer relationship with the 'motherland', and the western part of German tribes.

Already in ancient times the area developed in a thriving empire that stretched from the Crimea to the Caspian. The Arabs called the Bahr-Khazar (Sea of the Khazars). In the 8th century (between 786 to 809) observed a strong current Judaisation of the Khazar kingdom. King Boules 4,000 nobles adopted Judaism as the official religion of their state. On 1239 the Khazar kingdom was destroyed by the invading Mongol hordes Baloo Khan. Later, when the area was occupied by the Russians, the Khazars would follow the fate of the "wandering Jews", directed mainly in Eastern Europe. There was mixture with the Slavs and the small number of Sefarnteim Jews to create the so-called "13th tribe of Israel." The Askenazeim!

So these people remained in the area, in the eastern Ukraine portion of the Russian settlers and in its western side the indigenous tribes, those who have not followed the stream of Judaisation, but embraced with the Russians, Christianity. Racially Khazars, although historically, were recorded called Ostrogoths. The Ostrogoths (eastern Goths) listed as part of the overall race: the Gothic. The western portion of the Gothic race (the Visigoths) went to Central Europe and are essentially the ancestors of today's Germans.


This explains the idiosyncratic affinity that feel, part of the Ukrainian population (mainly in the western areas of the country) to the Germans, and the interest of the latter for Ukraine, which they perceive as racial cradle. This explains also the stance they took, large crowds of Ukrainian people, for the Nazi juggernaut during the Second World War. It also explains the great influence of the neo-Nazi party, Tyahnybok, to the western Ukrainian people and the Other pro-European parties of Ukraine.

Essentially in Ukraine there are two separate groups of people. On the one hand, the Russians, seeking a closer relationship with the 'motherland' and the other the Khazar Germans who want their disengagement from the Russian stanglegold and their attachment to the European chariot. The worst thing is that the latter are possessed by intensely racist instincts against the racially "inferior" Slavs, believing that they are part of the Aryan race.

In these very racist instincts invest the schemers from the West to play geopolitical games in the region. Certainly the criteria of the protesters are not confined to extreme racist charge that posses them, it also extends to personal selfish benefits. A few hundred euros per person, that are crumbs for the shark donors, to their impoverished "protesters", it is a serious amount to meet their selfish needs.

Nobody knows who will ultimately tip the scales in Ukraine. The game is particularly dirty with big interests behind. What is certain is the uncertainty and the prospect of coexistence among the opposing two such groups of people, within the confines of a common country.
____________________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

To understand a little more for the background of the protester's Leaders, take a look at the photos in the link and make your own conclusions!.. .or hereGO LIVE

Do you recognise the US and UK Ambassadors and the Leaders of the peaceful demonstrators?

We have been rubbing Russia up the wrong way for nearly
25 years.

It is hard to see why.

Moscow could have been our friend if we had wanted that.

We rightly viewed the old Soviet Union as a global menace to freedom.

But Russia is no such thing, just a major regional power sick of being humiliated and pushed around by ignorant outsiders.

I watched the old Soviet menace vanish on the streets of Moscow in August 1991 when a KGB putsch failed, the Communist Party was shattered in pieces, and the USSR collapsed in a cloud of rust.

Russians always believed there was an unspoken agreement that, in return for this, they would be allowed their dignity. They now believe that agreement has been broken.

What was left after 1991 was Russia, a proud and courageous people living amid the wreckage left by 74 years of Marxism and hoping to revive their ravaged country. We could have helped them.

By indulging Boris Yeltsin’s debauched reign (during which he shelled his own parliament while the West looked on complacently), we made Russian voters see Vladimir Putin as an attractive alternative.

The Putin government is squalid, but nothing like as bad as that of China, with whom we are on good terms.


Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia’s neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed.

In recent months, the EU and the United States have been willing to wound but afraid to strike.

They have aggressively sought to detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow.

Senior American, German and EU figures have gone to Kiev to egg on the anti-Russian crowds. Imagine how you would feel if Russia’s Foreign Minister turned up at SNP rallies in Edinburgh, backing Scottish independence.

Putin’s Crimean games are a sarcastic response.

The unspoken message is: ‘You like breakaway movements and meddling in other people’s business? Try this for size.’

And now, having raised hopes we cannot fulfil, we have awakened the ancient passions of this cruel part of the world and who knows where our vainglorious folly will now lead?


... is an English journalist and author.

Thanks to the intervention from the West, Ukraine seems to be heading towards a break up with the Eastern and South parts of the country been annexed by the Russian Federation. The independent western Ukraine, probably will sign some sort of Trade agreement or Memorandum with IMF and the EU, resulting to a complete disaster. Looking back the history of IMF (International Money Fund) it is clear, wherever went to “help” all countries financially were destroyed and their natural resources plundered and stolen. The latest examples is Greece.

1. Not giving one more loan, of 13billion Euro (never to be paid), to rescue the Ukraine from the clutches of the IMF and at the same time is loading the problematic Ukraine to the back of IMF.
   
   
2. It will Increase its territory to the Black Sea and will acquire full control of sea navigation on its southern borders.
   
   
3. It will take over two thirds (2/3) of the hydrocarbons of Ukraine to manage itself. Among them, the Shale gas in North Eastern Ukraine and also control of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) in the Black Sea.
   
   
4. Russia acquires full control for half of the pipes in Ukraine, which then can direct towards Bulgaria and the South Stream, pipes.

Eventually, is it true that Putin is pissed off or it’s just rumours?

Personally, I can not find a single reason why he should be pissed off!

Putin will probably play, carefree, with his dog Akita, in the garden laughing with the stupid politicians of the West. The Westerners after the blunder they made should build a large monument in Kiev for stupidity.

Obama should have already fired his advisers. Simply they failed and because of them, the European Union and the U.S.A became international laughing stock.

The world has figured out who tried to be "clever"… and who was/is “smarter”.


Pictured above left, you see the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) of Ukraine and the possible locations of hydrocarbon deposits in that country. The blue arrows indicate the stocks that will be managed, in future, by the West and the red ones which will be managed Russia.

Let me remind you that Ukraine is composed by 55% of Ukrainians and 45% of Russians.


Another winner of what is happening in Ukraine is coincidentally China, which has bought 5% of Ukraine to plant fruit and vegetables.

The area that China has purchased is the size of Belgium (see the area with the bright orange colour on the map right).

Incidentally, this area is located on top of one of the two main sources of hydrocarbons in Ukraine.


On the map below you see the locations of the Russian pipelines, which pass through Ukraine.

If Ukraine breaks up, the pipes of the eastern part would be run by Russia, something that was trying to acquire for years, so problem solved, management in Russian hands and rent free. Simple!

Putin and the Russian Federation do not need to intervene militarily in Ukraine. All it has to happen is the Russian parts to request and run referendums for self determination that will make them autonomous.

The rest of Ukraine can then, calmly, follow its “democratic procedures” and move its way forward.

Above all it is necessary for calm and peace to return to this country and the desire of the citizens of Ukraine to be respected. All decisions must be respected by everyone. The new world that is emerging cannot be based on threats and traditional old beliefs.


The fact is that the U.S. wants to control the flow of energy to the EU and especially to Germany, which is the locomotive of the EU. This is necessary, since the development of a country depends on the cost of energy used and the amount which may access. So Germany does not want to lose any gas pipeline whether from Russia or coming from Turkey.

The U.S. wants to control everything, around the Globe and promote their plans with speed. Russia, on the other hand, grows daily its capabilities and holds a huge number of American bonds, which at any moment can dispose, as they wish, creating a huge downwards problem for the American Stock Exchange, the same applies for China.

Ukraine was a good collision place to get Russia outside the "law" and to limit its powerful influence over the EU and the U.S., something that could be also desirable by Germany … but not completely. For this reason, the Westerners organized the fall of the legitimate but corrupt government of Ukraine, of Yanukovych. They did it, however, too hastily and their plans failed to succed. Their trick was discovered!

Unfortunately for the Americans, Russia after the events in Syria, where many things went back into an "order", realised the U.S. strategy and this time was more ready. So, after the unconstitutional expulsion of Yanukovych, from his presidential position of Ukraine, Russia at zero time (hence they knew) took under its control, not only the Crimea but also all regions throughout the Eastern of Ukraine. The U.S. in turn forced Russia to withdraw from the G8 and go to the side of China! That was a huge blunder on the part of the USA.

The U.S. destroyed, in no time, plans and projects that took years to prepare. Whilst Russia was not a fellow of the U.S., at least it was a player who in the future could balance the game for the U.S. and the EU with the Asian giant.

The stupidity of Obama's advisers is really worth the prize of “Idiots of the century”!

The U.S. is on the black side of history. The right is on Russia’s side!

The stock game does not hurt Moscow as the stocks were never a benchmark for the production of a country but has always been the slaughter house for the investors from bankers.

Russia must proceed and complete the occupation of the whole of eastern Ukraine and seek to create two states (Republics), one based on Crimea where will have control and the other will be the Western Ukraine. It cannot afford to do anything different.

The smarter thing the U.S. can do, is to accept the above situation. Many times if someone insist on something it may loose much more over time. An axis of Russia and China in harmony at the end would make China the only superpower. The problem it’s not in itself but the difference in cultures and civilisation will create huge conflicts at all levels in the future.

Our media like to frame these revolutions as popular protests, the demand of oppressed people for democracy and Western institutions, shoring up the positive self image we like to entertain about ourselves in the process. Whatever local idiosyncrasies exist are subsumed under the narrative that Western style democracy, with its attendant institutions, including the market are the goal of every peoples on Earth.

Really though, when you look at these uprising and revolutions, they're not at root about some misty eyed desire for McDonalds, female emancipation and Western style democracy. Most of these nations, such as Egypt wish to develop democracy in their own fashion and apply it to their own circumstances, not simply copying ours as if one size can ever fit all.
Rather than a Western cultural fetish the central issue these movements all seem to hold in common is anger at inequality and rich elites, elites who live like parasites on the back of the public whilst using authoritarianism to prevent dissent.

It is also true that in each country hosting these exhibitions of anger we see Western companies and Western political institutions supporting the despots in a bid for stability enabling easy access to resources, wealth and profit. Across the Middle East, Western governments support/ed dictators and monsters for oil and contracts.

Its the same strategy in the former Eastern Bloc, with the likes of Georgian and Belarusian governments given free reign to do more or less what they wish as long as Western contractors can get their claws into the local resources. The Western banking system with its off-shore jurisdictions and secrecy forms the perfect web to shuttle all this wealth and information across the globe away from prying eyes, is supporting such despots in the process.

As such to make sense of all these uprisings we should use the one mode of analysis we're constantly told is irrelevant: a class based analysis.

The constant link throughout all these events from exploitation to the (often delayed) public response of protest and revolution is the fact that wealthy rich elites are increasingly in a position to influence and use society's institutions to maximise their interests whilst publics are increasingly subjected to relative and declining standards of living.
Across the globe international elites have united to extract wealth from the Earth and the people within their jurisdictions.

International political organisations such as the IMF and NATO are used to ensure Western interests are placed front and centre via policies such as trade liberalisation, whilst Western elites create alliances with the local elites governing whichever resource rich region they wish to exploit.

Western law firms, NGOs and businesses aid and assist, setting up operations, lobbying and campaigning to ensure their owner's interests are represented and given legal authority.

The majority of the Western media, owned by the vary same elites then dutifully report such endeavours in the best possible light, ensuring Western public support under the pretence of jobs, economic growth and the progress of democratic ideals via the market - as if this process is defined always and forever as a natural law.

Should the protests, uprisings and civil ever arrive, then again we see the Western media complicit in shaping public opinion to ensure the truth is distorted just enough to keep the majority of Western publics supportive of their government's stand-point, which in turn is sure to enrich whichever Western private interests are engaged in the region in question.
Across the planet we're witnessing a take-over of resources, space, wealth and social/political institutions by an extremely rich and influential global elite. Its the birthing pangs of a new, truly global society: global fascism.

Once you begin to look at all these events via a conflict based approach, i.e. Marxist class based analysis the common thread linking all these events is brought clearly into focus, which is exactly why just such an analysis is constantly disparaged and scorned.