http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.se/2014/02/the-geopolitics-of-ukrainian-conflict.html
Thursday, February 20, 2014
The geopolitics of the Ukrainian conflict: back to basics
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.
The Saker
