Events that led up to Russia annexing the Crimea

Just a reminder of the events that led up to Russia annexing the Crimea. The threat of war in Ukraine was growing. As the unelected government in Kiev declares itself unable to control the rebellion in the country’s east, John Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The US and the European Union step up sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing it of destabilizing Ukraine. The White House is reported to be set on a new cold war policy with the aim of turning Russia into a “pariah state”.

That might be more explicable if what is going on in eastern Ukraine now were not the mirror image of what took place in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it was armed protesters in Maidan Square seizing government buildings and demanding a change of government and constitution. US and European leaders championed the “masked militants” and denounced the elected government for its crackdown, just as they now back the unelected government’s use of force against rebels occupying police stations and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk and Donetsk.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate – sent directly to you “America is with you,” Senator John McCain told demonstrators then, standing shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the far-right Svoboda party as the US ambassador haggled with the state department over who would make up the new Ukrainian government.

When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia’s most neuralgic and politically divided neighbor.

Putin bit back, taking a leaf out of the US street-protest playbook – even though, as in Kiev, the protests that spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine evidently have mass support. But what had been a glorious cry for freedom in Kiev became infiltration and insatiable aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk.

After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage. So Putin is now routinely compared to Hitler, while the role of the fascistic right on the streets and in the new Ukrainian regime has been airbrushed out of most reporting as Putinist propaganda.

So you don’t hear much about the Ukrainian government’s veneration of wartime Nazi collaborators and pogromists, or the arson attacks on the homes and offices of elected communist leaders, or the integration of the extreme Right Sector into the national guard, while the anti-semitism and white supremacism of the government’s ultra-nationalists is assiduously played down, and false identifications of Russian special forces are relayed as fact.

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the West’s attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defense structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin’s absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line was drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

But the dangers are also multiplying. Ukraine has shown itself to be barely a functioning state: the former government was unable to clear Maidan, and the Western-backed regime is “helpless” against the protests in the Soviet-nostalgic industrial east. For all the talk about the paramilitary “green men” (who turn out to be overwhelmingly Ukrainian), the rebellion also has strong social and democratic demands: who would argue against a referendum on autonomy and elected governors?

Meanwhile, the US and its European allies impose sanctions and dictate terms to Russia and its proteges in Kiev, encouraging the military crackdown on protesters after visits from Joe Biden and the CIA director, John Brennan. But by what right is the US involved at all, incorporating under its strategic umbrella a state that has never been a member of Nato, and whose last elected government came to power on a platform of explicit neutrality? It has none, of course – which is why the Ukraine crisis is seen in such a different light across most of the world. There may be few global takers for Putin’s oligarchic conservatism and nationalism, but Russia’s counterweight to US imperial expansion is welcomed, from China to Brazil.

In fact, one outcome of the crisis is likely to be a closer alliance between China and Russia, as the US continues its anti-Chinese “pivot” to Asia. And despite growing violence, the cost in lives of Russia’s arms-length involvement in Ukraine has so far been minimal compared with any significant western intervention you care to think of for decades.

The risk of civil war is nevertheless growing and with it the chances of outside powers being drawn into the conflict. Barack Obama has already sent token forces to eastern Europe and is under pressure, both from Republicans and Nato hawks such as Poland, to send many more. Both US and British troops are due to take part in Nato military exercises in Ukraine this summer.

The US and EU have already overplayed their hand in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor the western powers may want to intervene directly, and the Ukrainian prime minister’s conjuring up of a third world war presumably isn’t authorized by his Washington sponsors. But a century after 1914, the risk of unintended consequences should be obvious enough – as the threat of a return of big-power conflict grows. Pressure for a negotiated end to the crisis is essential.

By Seumas Milne.

So, for our politician to stand up and boldface lie about us having no role in Putin taking the Crimea is downright laughable, they depend upon your not remembering. Remeber this picture from the Orange Revolution.

The point of the above post is not to say Russia is a great place or that Putin is a good man, rather to point out that Russia was pushed by the West, EU, and NATO to take the Crimea if they wanted to keep their only deepwater port. The Crimea was a part of Russia until I think it was Boris Nikolayevich Chernousov under the USSR, decided to put it under Ukraine authority, it did not matter much then, but when the USSR broke up the port, Russia’s only deep water port, the Crimea became very important to Russa.

Things do not happen in a vacuum, all event have precursors that led to what happened, and these events will lead to other events, and I am hoping that an atomic war is not one of them. For now, that is between Trump and Putin.

 

May God Bless Us All.

Advertisements
Published in: on July 17, 2018 at 15:21  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Trump: Draining The Swamp

Trump continues with his swamp draining. If you still don’t understand how our CIA under Obama’s directive orchestrated the Orange Revolution driving a duly democratically elected President out of power in Ukraine, forcing him to take refuge in Russia in fear for his life, you just don’t bother checking into the truth of the matter. It was the CIA/NATO Regime change in Ukraine that led Russia to support the Russians living in the Crimea to revolt against Ukraine and break away. Russia’s only deep water port is in the Crimea, and they were not about to let it go to NATO without a fight.

In retaliation for Russia taking back their port Obama put economic sanction on them. I hate Communism as much as I do Islam, but there is no good guy bad guy in Ukraine, there is interests at play. Obama wanted to let Qatar build a pipeline through Syria to Turkey to sell their natural gas to the Europeans. Assad and Putin are allies, so to protect Russia’s natural gas market in Europe he said no. As a result Obama and Hillary exported their created civil war in Libya, which they started because Gadhafi was going to sell his oil for gold not the petrodollar, to Syria.

I wrote this three years back in 6/28/2014:

Today I am going to discuss Libya and why the powers that be decided that Moammar Gadhafi had to go, and tie it to other recent events. It was not, as we were led to be because he was killing and peaceful demonstrates.  We read lots of headlines like this, “Libya protests: More than 100 killed as army fires on unarmed demonstrator” , but you did not read many like this, “Gaddafi under siege: Two CIA-backed groups, an al-Qaeda-linked LIFG on top of power stakes” from The Asian Tribune, or this “CIA & MI6 in Libya: U.S.-British covert operations exposed”  where it says this:

“The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate news sources are now openly admitting that the opposition forces fighting the Libyan government are supported and coordinated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI6 with in-country special forces.”

Connecting The Dots: Gadhafi, Benghazi, Syria, ISIS, Qatar, Turkey, Russian, and the Ukraine

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was overseeing the collection of weapons that we had giving our mercenary, virtually all the so-called rebels were from outside of Libya, and putting them on a ship to Turkey to are another set of mercenary when he got killed. Qatar spent billions of dollars in their attempt to dispose of Assad in order to build their pipeline, they are sitting on one of the world’s largest supply of natural gus, but can only ship it by sea.

Russia, in appreciation of Syria’s not allowing the pipeline being built to undercut its main export product that Obama’s sanctions could not touch, started giving military support. It was Obama’s mercenary from which ISIS was spawned.

Published in: on February 5, 2017 at 06:43  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,