Back   OpEd News
Font
PageWidth
Original Content at
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Crimea-River---The-West-by-John-Little-Crimea_Disaster_International_NATO-140325-530.html
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

March 25, 2014

Crimea River – The West Wets Its Pants Over the Ukraine

By John Little

The real story about the current "disaster" in the Ukraine.

::::::::

NATO expansion
NATO expansion
(Image by John Little)
  Details   DMCA

Recent developments in Eastern Europe have brought the world to the brink of a major crisis, one that has the potential to destabilize countries around the world. Let's be clear, however, about the origin and the importance of these events.

The beginning did not occur in Crimea, nor in the coup d'etat in Ukraine, which saw the ouster of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych at the end of February of 2014. The start of this conundrum goes back to November 21, 2013, when Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov stated that the conditions that finally blocked the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement signing deal were proposals by the International Monetary Fund in the form of a loan that would require big budget cuts and a 40% increase in gas bills, disproportionately impacting poor people across the country.

At the same time, a projected major drop in trade with the other CIS countries (Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) was obviously going to leave the Ukrainian economy in even worse condition. The Ukrainian government wanted to bring all the major parties together to discuss this before signing. According to David M. Herszenhorn of the New York Times,  "At virtually the same time [of the announcement by the Prime Minister], President Viktor F. Yanukovich, who was on a visit to Vienna, issued a statement saying, "Ukraine has been and will continue to pursue the path to European integration .'"

Let's also remember that the protests, called "Euromaidan" (or Eurosquare in English) by those who started them in that square, began just hours after Prime Minister Azarov made his pronouncement. In other words, thousands of the opposition were waiting for just such a statement to be made so that they could begin their active and violent protests. These were definitely not people who just started discussing the issue after that day's events.

Today, we have a growing international crisis that risks to escalate tensions between major world players. Military conflict between these powers is one outcome that would easily result from hotheaded and stupid decisions by either the far right in the US and/or Europe or the ultranationalists in Russia. Fox News is actively pushing for war, a result that could definitely end human life as we know it.

A LITTLE HISTORY

To understand what it is to be called "Ukrainian," we need a quick refresher course.

"Your tongue will take you to Kiev" was a proverb started in the 10th   century at the height of Kiev's (the current capital of Ukraine) regional dominance, when the territory was known as Kiev Rus. It lasted for about 300 years and eventually became Belarus, Ukraine and, yes, even Russia.

It became known as Cossack Hetmanate in the 17thcentury. According to Wikipedia, "The founder of the state, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, declared himself as the ruler of the Rus' state to the Polish representative Adam Kysil in February 1649. He also called the Hetmanate as [a] Russian state in his letter to the Tsar on February 17, 1654" The Hetmanate used Polish currency, and Polish as an administrative language and a language of command." Over the next few centuries, this region would become a smorgasbord of different names, different sizes and borders, and different allegiances.

When Russia left WWI to eventually become the Soviet Union, it didn't stop fighting. Poland decided that the internal affairs of its neighbor were the perfect opportunity to start its own land grab. By the time the Treaty of Riga was signed between the two nations on March 18, 1921, Poland owned the western part of what now is Ukraine and the Soviet Union owned the eastern part along with Crimea.

It was only with the Declaration of the Creation of the USSR on December 22, 1922, that the actual region known as Ukraine was born. In 1939, thanks to Hitler and Stalin's pact, the western part of Ukraine was taken away from Poland. In 1954, Khrushchev added Crimea to the republic. With the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, Ukraine finally became its own country.

UKRAINE'S IMPORTANCE TODAY

At the beginning of the Cold War, the US and Western Europe created NATO as a military first-strike capability against any possible Soviet attack even though no Soviet attack was ever planned or executed. As a counter measure, a year later the Soviet Union and its friendly countries started the Warsaw Pact. This military standoff would define much of the Cold War for the next four decades.

The 1990s would change everything. Goodbye Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Hello over two dozen new nations. Now, the fear that Russia felt at the beginning of the 20th century would return. It was once again directly exposed to Western European nations and their inherent expansive desires. What's worse, they now had a military wing that dwarfed whatever Austria-Hungary or Germany ever possessed. Even Napoleon's army, which steamed into Moscow in the 19th century, had nothing on this new super force called NATO. Adding the world's only superpower, the US, only tipped the scales even farther away from Russia.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO's original raison d'etre has ceased to exist. The nonexistent Soviet threat from post-WWII has become non sequitur. Nevertheless, NATO not only continues to exist, it continues to expand, but only in the direction of Russia.

The West tried to assuage Russia, promising to never place nukes or standing armies in any new member states, but what Russia really wanted were assurances that NATO would never seek to incorporate any former Soviet Republics into its organization. The Russia-NATO Founding Act, though passed by both sides on May 27, 1997, fell a bit short in this regard. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has grown by 13 new countries. Bush tried to incorporate Georgia in 2008. Today, it's Ukraine's turn to at the center of the tug of war.

Another major point of contention in all of this is that President Viktor F. Yanukovych was elected democratically by the Ukrainian voters. He was, and still is, the legitimate leader of Ukraine.  Following the coup d'etat supported by the West, Parliamentary Speaker Aleksandr Turchinov has been given the title of President of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine had no vote in this decision. When the candidates of the West don't win via democratic elections, the West often forces its way into power through coup d'etats a la Cuba, 1952, Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; South Vietnam, 1963; and Chile, 1973, for example. The Ukraine appears to be merely the most recent example of this.

One final point involves the West's and especially America's desire to surround Russia with weapons. President Bush tried for years to get missiles into Poland and the Czech Republic in order to "protect Europe from Iran." This idea played well in the US where knowledge of reality around the world barely exists. Unfortunately, the rest of the world knew very well that there was never any threat from Iran and that these missiles were primarily to be used to intimidate Russia using former Warsaw Pact nations. Indeed, as proof that this was the real intention, when Russia proposed such a system to be set up in Russia at a point far closer to Iran, the US was not interested.

In 2008, Georgia invaded the semiautonomous region of South Ossetia. Over a thousand people were killed. It was done to provoke Russia into a conflict with Georgia where the US would be seen as a hero for helping out the Georgian government and supplying it with weapons aimed at Moscow to "protect" the Georgians. In the US MSM, this information was forbidden. Fox News, unfortunately, interviewed a Californian family that was there at the beginning who were not told to lie for the TV. They were summarily cut off when they started praising Russian troops for saving them from the Georgian military's unprovoked attack. It became obvious there what the US and Georgia were intending and Bush eventually had to give up his military desire.

WHAT ABOUT BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS?

There are always many business implications in these types of conflicts. One early bell-weather meter has always been the world's stock markets. When major companies become skittish about world events, they get out in a hurry. Dow Jones crossed the 16,000 barrier for the first time ever on November 21, 2013, the first day of the conflict. On March 20, 2014, it was at 16,331. The Dax (Germany), the CAC (France), the Nikkei (Japan), and the FTSE (UK), all show similar growth. Clearly, the world's business community is none too shaken with these "cataclysmic" events.

Goldman Sachs is now going long on the Russian Ruble. In a recent article in Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs sees nothing but sunshine and rose buds for the Russian currency going forward (my words). Even after Putin's takeover of Crimea, Goldman says that Russia will come out of this smelling like a ... well, you get the idea.

Perhaps the largest deal that will ensure that there will be no long-term hostilities between the US and Russia is the Rosneft-Exxon exploration deal worth around $500 billion. Starting in the Kara Sea and quickly moving to Alaska, this deal will see the first Arctic drilling ever. They've cornered the first "Black Gold Rush" of the 21st century. These are the #1 and #2 largest oil companies in the world.

WHAT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS ARTICLE

The West, and especially Americans, are playing "Crimea River" (pun  intended) over the events in the Ukraine.  There is evidence pointing to a planned overthrow in the November-initiated putsch to oust President Viktor Yanukovych. The idea was to strong-arm the Ukrainians into  accepting NATO, EU, and IMF loans that would have crippled the poor and antagonized Russia. The inclusion of neo-nazi organizations into the subsequent p arliamentary mix only further heightens the strain on all sides. This will become a huge sore spot for the West going forward, trust me.

Russia, in recent years, has become very cash healthy, a lot of it in foreign reserves (read dollars).  It's a member of BRICS and has a rather nicely growing economy. If it wanted, it could conceivably join with China to make American growth slow to a crawl. It could more easily do the same to Europe, especially with its oil. In any case, American businesses are too heavily invested with Russian counterparts for any serious hostilities to ensue.

In other words, this is really much ado about nothing. The American far right wants WWIII and the use of nuclear weapons. That won't happen. The ultraconservatives in Russia want full annexation of Ukraine, Georgia, and other sore spots for Russia. That idea is equally null and void. There will be showy sanctions on both sides for a while, but billionaire companies hate for economies to tank for a long time, especially when there's a ton of money to be made. Capitalism will prevail and the extremists on both sides will move on eventually and forget the whole thing.

In the interim, enjoy the dog-and-pony show.

It is noteworthy here as well to point out that the US has NEVER attacked a nation that had nuclear capabilities. Russia is the most prominent member of that group. There is absolutely nothing to suggest any change in that basic rule.



Authors Bio:

66 year old Californian-born and bred male - I've lived in four different countries, USA, Switzerland, Mexico, Venezuela, and currently live in the Dominican Republic - speak three languages fluently, English, French, Spanish - have worked as a journalist for Empower-Sport Magazine. I am a retired Supply Chain Specialist.


Back