In order for us to be able to define the actual motivations behind the so-called ‘democratic revolution’ of February 22, 2014 in Ukraine, we will need to begin this report by mentioning the financial crisis of 2008-2009. The reason for this is quite apparent – this crisis exposed the sheer weakness of the U.S. Dollar, as the world’s main ‘reserve currency’. Consequently, this prompted more and more corporate and private investors throughout the world to consider twice, before acquiring the so-called ‘U.S. treasuries’.
Yet, selling these ‘treasuries’ is the main mean for the U.S. to ensure more or less stable functioning of its economy, as it allows this country to service (at least partially) its enormous budget-deficit of $514 billion (Sahadi par. 1). What it means is that, ever since 2010, the country’s policy-makers realized that it represents the matter of a crucial importance for the U.S. to restore the investment-appeal of its currency – something that could be done by the mean of setting the ‘spots of instability’ all over the world.
The logic behind this is simple – in times of instability, investors are being naturally driven to acquire the currency of what happened to be the most military potent country. This explains the inner causes of the so-called ‘orange’ revolutions that took place in Tunis, Libya, Egypt and Syria – these revolutions were nothing but the extrapolations of the American policy of a ‘controlled chaos’ having been put to practice (Washington par. 11).
Nevertheless, as the U.S. pursued to sow the seeds of chaos in the Middle East and Africa, it was causing Russia and China to grow increasingly discontent this state of affairs. This is the reason why Russia adopted an active stance, while defending Syria from the planned aggression by America in 2013 – something that brought the U.S. policy-makers to realize that, from this time on; the very existence of Russia poses a great threat to the geopolitical interests of America.
The decision was made to apply a much more active effort into undermining the Russia’s military and economic might. The America’s first objective, in this respect, was making sure that, despite the considerations of sanity, Ukraine signs an association agreement with the E.U. – thus, becoming withdrawn from what has been traditionally considered the Russia’s geopolitical domain.
This explains why it is specifically in the aftermath of Yanukocvich’s decision to postpone signing of this agreement, that the Ukraine’s capital of Kiev saw the most populous anti-governmental mass-rallies ever since 2004.
What later became to be known as the ‘democratic revolution’ was nothing else but the U.S. and E.U.’s personal revenge on the President, as the result of his lack of ‘reasonableness’. The American top-governmental officials never even tried hiding the fact that the American NGO’s in this country were solely responsible for financing the ‘people’s peaceful protest’ (SCG par. 4).
On February 21, the mentioned ‘peaceful protests’ turned into a full-scale war on the streets of Kiev – all thanks to the Neo-Nazi organizations ‘Right Sector’ and ‘Svoboda’, acting to promote the U.S. geopolitical agenda in the region (Blumenthal par. 7). Consequently, President Yanukovich ended up deposed in the clearly anti-constitutional manner.
After all, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, there are only three preconditions for a currently acting President to be removed from the office – his death, his mentally incapacitating illness or his impeachment. What it means is that, contrary to what Western mass media are trying to make people to believe, the Ukrainian ‘democratic revolution’ of 2014, was nothing but the CIA-sponsored anti-constitutional coup, carried out by fascists.
The fact that, after having deposed Yanukovish, the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis realized themselves being the part of the newly formed ‘revolutionary’ government, was exactly the reason why on March 16, 2014, the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted in favor of joining Russia (Adesnik par. 1, Parry par. 6). Apparently, these people did not want to be treated by the Neo-Nazis in today’s Ukraine in the same way that their ancestors used to be treated by the Germans, during the course of the WW2.
While living up to its obligation to defend Russians, regardless of whether they happened to reside on this planet, Russia did not have any other choice but to send its troops to the Crimea, in order to prevent Crimeans from facing the prospect of being ‘ethnically cleansed’. This move, on the part of Russia, also signified the triumph of a historical justice. After all, even though that for the duration of last 23 years, Crimea was the part of Ukraine de jure, it never ceased being Russian, de facto (Jackson par. 3).
The peninsula’s Russian town of Sevastopol was founded in 1783 – way before the word ‘Ukraine’ started to make first appearances on the world map. The U.S., of course, did not appreciate this eventual development, while calling it the ‘violation of the international law’, on the part of Russia. In return, Americans were reminded the 2008 separation of Kosovo from Serbia, which was thoroughly supported by the U.S. (Milanovic par. 5).
Americans were also reminded that, along with America, Russia is the only world country that possesses the so-called ‘nuclear tirade’ – land-based nuclear rockets, submarine-based nuclear rockets and bombers, capable of delivering a nuclear punch to just about any part of the world. In light of this, Americans were asked to subdue their anti-Russian rhetoric.
Because in Eastern Ukraine, the overwhelming majority of citizens are ethnic Russians, it does not make much of a surprise that, after having seen the peaceful absorption of Crimea by Russia, they started to demand the same to be done in their own regions. After all, these people are absolutely alienated from the dubious virtues of a Nazi-collaborationism, which in the ‘revolution’s’ aftermath became integrated into the country’s ideology of statehood.
Therefore, just as it was the case with their Russian brethren from Crimea, Eastern Ukrainian Russians did not have much of a choice either, except for getting themselves armed, in order to be able to oppose the illegitimate government in Kiev.
What is rather peculiar, in this respect, is that even though Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine acted in exactly the same way, as the Neo-Nazi ‘fighters for democracy’ did in Kiev only two months earlier, the U.S. Department of State proclaims these rebels to be ‘separatists’ and ‘terrorists’. This once again suggests that the America’s commitment to the ideals of democracy is utterly hypocritical.
As of today, the Ukrainian illegitimate government strives to suppress the people’s uprising in Eastern Ukraine military, while ordering troops to shoot in their civilian co-citizens, who refuse to pledge allegiance to the self-proclaimed ‘rulers’ in Kiev. However, the continuous existence of the ‘revolutionary’ government in Kiev appears to be the matter of maybe another month or two.
This government is rapidly losing the remains of its dubious authority – something that can be easily illustrated by the fact that, as time goes on, more and more Ukrainian military units, sent to the East to ‘restore order’, end up defecting to the side of the rebels (Reynolds par. 16).
Therefore, predicting what will happen next in Ukraine does not represent much of a challenge – once Ukrainian Nazis decide to ‘cleanse’ the Ukraine’s South-East of Russians, Russia will move its troops into Ukraine and the legitimate President Yanukovich will be restored back to his office within the matter of a day. This will constitute the America’s yet another major defeat (after Syria) in the arena of international politics (Woods par. 29).
Timeline
November 24, 2013 – The mass-rally of the supporters for signing an association agreement with the E.U., held in Kiev.
November 30, 2013 – The first violent confrontation between police and protesters.
December 1, 2013 – The capture of a number of governmental buildings in Kiev by nationalists from Western Ukraine.
December 22, 2013 – Two protesters reported killed by police.
February 19, 2014 – The capture of three weapons-arsenals in Western Ukraine.
February 21, 2014 – Signing of a cease-fire treaty between President Yanukovich, the representatives of the E.U. (acting as the treaty’s guarantors) and the ‘opposition’, represented by Yatsenyuk and Klitchko.
February 22, 2014 – Military coup, organized by the ‘opposition’ and the CIA, resulting in Yanukovich’s deposition.
March 16, 2014 – Independence-referendum in Crimea, during the course of which, 96.7% of the peninsula’s residents voted in favor of allowing of what used to be known as the ‘Autonomous Republic of Crimea’ (within Ukraine) to become the part of Russia.
April 7, 2014 – The Proclamation of Independence by Donetsk People’s Republic in Eastern Ukraine.
April 17, 2014 – The negation-talks between Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the US in Genève, during the course of which it was decided that Ukraine moves its troops out of the rebellious areas and disarms the maradeuring gangs of the armed Neo-Nazis, who even today continue to act as if law simply does not apply to them.
Works Cited
Adesnik, David. How Russia Rigged Crimean Referendum. 2014 Forbes. Web.
Blumenthal, Max. Is the U.S. Backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? 2014. Web.
Jackson, Patrick. Ukraine Crisis: A Guide to Russia’s Vision of Crimea. 2014. BBC Europe. Web.
Milanovic, Marko. Crimea, Kosovo, Hobgoblins and Hypocrisy. 2014. Balkan Insight. Web.
Parry, Robert. Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Imperative. 2014. Consortiumnews. Web.
Reynolds, James. Ukraine Crisis: Military Vehicles ‘Seized’ in Kramatorsk. 2014. BBC Europe. Web.
Sahadi, Jeanne. Deficit Continues to Drop Sharply – CBO. 2014. CNN Money. Web.
SCG. Washington’s Role in the Ukrainian Coup & How it May Spin Out of Control. 2014. SCGNEWS. Web.
Washington, Ellis. Obama’s Use of Controlled Chaos. 2009. WND Commentary. Web.
Woods, Alan. Russia.,Ukraine and the West: Will There be War? 2014. In Defense of Marxism. Web.