Does the Obama administration want the coup installed government of Ukraine to initiate military action against their citizens in the Eastern Ukraine? That's an important question, one that blogger, The Saker, seeks to answer. His blog, The Vineyard of the Saker, has rocketed in popularity going from 1,000 hits a day to 20,000 a day since the start of the crisis. His analysis takes us to depths that are not even hinted at in the New York Times and other U.S. media. The comments section has also become a robust forum for debate and elaboration.
The corporate media coverage of the crisis in the Ukraine is in perfect lockstep with the Obama administration and its neoconservative operatives and supporters. The so-called left wing of the Democratic Party refuses to unfurl its antiwar banners, choosing instead to make this situation a battle of personalities - Obama versus Putin. It is very difficult to find good analysis, particularly from a Russian point of view. The Saker offers an alternative to the corporate pablum they serve up for us, as thought we're interested. The latest is a matter of war and peace, literally.
Listening to [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov today I came to the conclusion that the regime in Kiev was indeed about to try to attack the eastern Ukraine. It's not only Lavrov, the Russian Internet is on "red alert" and chock-full of rumors and speculation about an imminent attack. This begs a number of questions:
1) Why would the junta in Kiev so overtly renege on the Geneva agreement?
2) Why would it attack when the chances of success are very small?
3) Why would they attack know that Russia would almost certainly intervene?
4) Why is the US clearly behind that strategy?
I have a hypothesis which I would like to submit to your attention.
First, the junta in Kiev is reneging on the Geneva agreement simply because it cannot abide by its terms. Remember, the junta is composed of a few politicians handpicked by the US and a few Ukrainian oligarchs. They do have money, but no power. How could they possibly impose anything in the well-armed and determined freaks of the Right Sector?
Second, the eastern Ukraine is lost no matter what. So the junta in Kiev have to pick on of the following options:
a) Let the eastern Ukraine leave by means of referendum and do nothing about it.
b) Let the eastern Ukraine leave but only after some violence.
c) Let the eastern Ukraine leave following a Russian military intervention.
Clearly, option 'a' is by far the worst. Option 'b' is so-so, but option 'c' is very nice. Think of it: this option will make it look like Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine and that the people there had no say about it. It will also make the rest of the Ukraine rally around the flag. The economic disaster will be blamed on Russia and the Presidential election of May 25th can be canceled due to the Russian "threat". Not only that, but a war - no matter how silly - is the *perfect* pretext to introduce martial law which can be used to crack down on the Right Sector or anybody expressing views the junta does not like. That is an old trick - trigger a war and people will rally around the regime in power. Create a panic, and people will forget the real issues.
As for the USA - it also knows that the Eastern Ukraine is gone. With Crimea and Eastern Ukraine gone - the Ukraine has exactly *zero* value to the Empire, to why not simply use it as a way to create a new Cold War, something which would be much more sexy that the Global War on Terror or the really old War on Drugs. After all, if Russia is forced to intervene militarily NATO will have to send reinforcements to "protect" countries like Poland or Latvia just in case Putin decides to invade all of the EU.
Bottom line - the freaks in power in Kiev and the USA *know* that the eastern Ukraine is lost for them, and the purpose of the imminent attack is not to "win" against the Russian-speaking rebels or, even less so, to "win" against the Russian military, it is to trigger enough violence to force Russia to intervene. In other words, since the East is lost anyways, it is much better to lose it to the "invading Russian hordes" than to lose it to the local civilian population.
So the purpose of the next attack will not be to win, but to lose. That the Ukrainian military can still do.
Two things can happen to foil this plan:
1) The Ukrainian military might refuse to obey such clearly criminal orders (and becoming a target of the Russian military might help some officers make the correct "purely moral" choice).
2) The local resistance might be strong enough to draw out such an operation and have to come to a grinding halt.
Ideally, a combination of both.
1 | 2