|
Ukraine: Poroshenko’s Hope For “Western” Help Is Deluded
This means a lot of trouble for the people in the Ukraine, east AND west:
Ukraine's new president Petro Poroshenko said his country would never give up Crimea and would not compromise on its path towards closer ties with Europe, spelling out a defiant message to Russia in his inaugural speech on Saturday. … Poroshenko stressed the need for a united Ukraine and the importance of ending the conflict that threatens to further split the country of 45 million people. He said it would not become a looser federalised state, as advocated by Russia. … Poroshenko's speech drew an ovation from guests at a ceremony attended by Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and senior EU officials.
The Saker calls the speech a declaration of war. That may well be right.
Russia will need to tighten the screws a bit. Be polite at the outside, concede in public but make sure that Kiev will feel more and more pressure through secondary channels.
I doubt that the "west" will take any real risk over Ukraine or even put up enough money to save it from ruin. In the end Ukraine will be alone facing a rather angry bear. If Poroshenko, as it seems, thinks different, he is clearly deluded.
@TovioS – There is absolutely zero chance that the US would advise PP to ditch Svoboda. In fact, I would guess that Svoboda is far and away the US favorite on the political scene, and that the US will most certainly work to expanding the popularity and reach of this party at least to stand as the weak, but major, opposition to the oligarchs. As they have already done – the Svoboda name itself fits US ideological worldview for the region, Svoboda follows better than anyone the US “politics of history” message, is most violently opposed to Russia of the parties. Right Sektor, I believe, is too much of an unpredictable quantity for the US, and in any case are not a “party” like Svoboda is (Svoboda is a real political party with a platform, TV adds, and local and presidential candidates. Right Sektor is little more than a paramilitary outfit). Anyway – if you actually think there is any chance that the US would try and eliminate them, you are sadly mistaken. Watch for them to grow under US tutelage.
About Ukraine support among the diaspora: I saw in the East Village, NYC (an area that once held a large Ukrainian population, and still retains much of the infrastructure – ethnic banks, fairs, national homes and benevolence societies), a large wall mural of images and support for Maidan, especially the deaths of the “heavenly hundred” purportedly at the hands of the government, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is even a poster: “Ukraine Freedom met with Russian war and imperialism”. It is all very sad. The fight in the Ukraine is being portrayed in the US less as an international political concern, and more as a sports match (an event Americans can really get their heads around) with teams to support unquestioningly, slogans to be screamed, and colors to be paraded. This is how this reversion to fascism and extreme nationalism plays itself out in the US and likely Canada as well. It would be interesting to look into the history of the East Village Ukrainian population – was it bred of White exiles, Banderists, Soviet-emigrees? I don’t know, but would be interesting to find out.
OT: There is a very interesting film called “Master of the Universe” by a German named Marc Bauder that I suggest people see if they have a chance. In the spirit of a film like “Fog of War” it is the soliloquy/interview with a German banker. Like McNamara in “Fog of War” he doesn’t come off as sympathetic as clearly he still doesn’t know the full effect of what his deeds have wrought and has benefitted mightily, but you do get an interesting inside view of how ego and the drive to make money from nothing destroys both an individual and a society. The interview is filmed inside a deserted office tower in Frankfurt, and sort follows him through his career. He discusses the advent of computerized trading and how it works, the Gulf War, the effect on his personality and his family, the Asian Financial Crisis, and of course the recent world crisis we are still in.
One interesting tidbit – he notes how at a certain point, it was some American bankers who brought computer trading to Germany and trained their banks in “financial innovation”. Knowing what we know about the connections between Wall Street, the CIA, and what we see now in the collapse of the EU, it is definitely opens up avenues of investigation.
Some quotes:
“The bigger the shit [a bank makes], the thicker the Corporate Social Responsibility reports it puts out.”
“There are those who have an interest in the collapse of the EU, the profit potential is enormous”
“Only a simpleton believes markets can learn… people are like lemmings… this crisis was not enough to wake people up – you hear just ‘okay, what’s next'”
“We pretend that the markets are the will of god but there is no such thing as the market. People make decisions. That’s it. If the bank executives said ‘okay, everyone who is still shorting Spain, Ireland, Greece, or Italy by next week will be fired’ it would end. Just like that.”
I have no idea how big this film is in Germany, here it is playing at a very small, non-profit theater.
Posted by: guest77 | Jun 7 2014 18:19 utc | 18
Good op-ed from Diana Johnstone, originally published in Counterpunch this link is from Chuck Spinney because he adds some extra comment. This is a ‘must read’.
http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/ukraine-why-is-us-trying-to-restart.html
She makes the point (and provides the evidence) that this was long planed by the US and EU (no doubt the medoa was set up in advance as well). Snippet:
” In September 2013, one of Ukraine’s richest oligarchs, Viktor Pinchuk, paid for an elite strategic conference on Ukraine’s future that was held in the same Palace in Yalta, Crimea, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met to decide the future of Europe in 1945. The Economist, one of the elite media reporting on what it called a “display of fierce diplomacy”, stated that: “The future of Ukraine, a country of 48m people, and of Europe was being decided in real time.” The participants included Bill and Hillary Clinton, former CIA head General David Petraeus, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, former World Bank head Robert Zoellick, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, Shimon Peres, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mario Monti, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite, and Poland’s influential foreign minister Radek Sikorski. Both President Viktor Yanukovych, deposed five months later, and his recently elected successor Petro Poroshenko were present. Former U.S. energy secretary Bill Richardson was there to talk about the shale-gas revolution which the United States hopes to use to weaken Russia by substituting fracking for Russia’s natural gas reserves. The center of discussion was the “Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement” (DCFTA) between Ukraine and the European Union, and the prospect of Ukraine’s integration with the West. The general tone was euphoria over the prospect of breaking Ukraine’s ties with Russia in favor of the West.”
Then she points out that that it was intended to create a clear win over Russia. Either it gave in and NATO got the Ukraine, and Russia kicked out of its naval bases and NATO getting them. Or, if Russia reacted, to create political (and ideally) economic isolation for it. Snippet:
Plan A for the Victoria Nuland putsch was probably to install, rapidly, a government in Kiev that would join NATO, thus formally setting the stage for the United States to take possession of Russia’s indispensable Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol in Crimea. Reincorporating Crimea into Russia was Putin’s necessary defensive move to prevent this.
But the Nuland gambit was in fact a win-win ploy. If Russia failed to defend itself, it risked losing its entire southern fleet – a total national disaster. On the other hand, if Russia reacted, as was most likely, the US thereby won a political victory that was perhaps its main objective. Putin’s totally defensive move is portrayed by the Western mainstream media, echoing political leaders, as unprovoked “Russian expansionism”, which the propaganda machine compares to Hitler grabbing Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Thus a blatant Western provocation, using Ukrainian political confusion against a fundamentally defensive Russia, has astonishingly succeeded in producing a total change in the artificial Zeitgeist produced by Western mass media.
Thirdly that this was unprovoked attack on Russia with the full and total backing of the EU and all it’s Govts. That European leaders shave shown total, self destructive servility to the US, sacrificing their national interests. Snippet:
Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the current charade is the servility of the “old” Europeans. Apparently abandoning all Europe’s accumulated wisdom, drawn from its wars and tragedies, and even oblivious to their own best interests, today’s European leaders seem ready to follow their American protectors to another D-Day … D for Doom.
Posted by: oldskeptic | Jun 8 2014 21:57 utc | 89
|