Ukraine Crisis: A New Page In The Old Playbook Of US-NATO Hegemony
Introduction
The predominant rhetoric about 2014 Ukraine crisis oscillate on blaming Russian aggression, be it in Western media or academia. The argument here is, that Vladimir Putin acting as a new tsar perpetuating the long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire by annexing Crimea. After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage. Putin was 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. Even though, we saw some very high profile politicians and government officials of US very actively participated in the demonstrations in Ukraine back in 2013-14, still the common wisdom in West like to play around the ‘Russian aggression” embellishment. But if we look objectively to the events that took place, we would see that the grim realities were otherwise. 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 defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. We can see that the adamant project of US-NATO turning Ukraine a western stronghold on Russia’s backyard was one of the main reasons (if not the main) behind the Ukraine crisis in 2014. Along with some other very real contemporary economic and political reasons, this paper will look at some historical elements to try to establish the argument that, the Ukraine crisis of 2014 was not completely derived from the sudden uprising of people but there is geopolitics and a history of 70 years of meddling in Ukraine by the US.
Background of The Crisis
The Ukrainian crisis is not a unique national phenomenon. For a number of reasons, Ukraine has been a “weak link” and has become the first victim of the collapse of the economic model based on the rule of the dollar as the world reserve currency and on the stimulation through credit of consumer demand as a mechanism of economic growth. Ukraine’s economy has been among the most vulnerable in the context of the global crisis, and this has resulted in a split within the ruling class and in a fierce political struggle that has been visible now for several months. The economy of Ukrainian capitalism acquired its form in the course of the collapse of the Soviet economic complex, the privatization of socially owned property, and integration into the world market. These processes had the effect of degrading the economic structure of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which in terms of economic development had ranked 10th in the world. Ukraine in Soviet times had a complex, developed economy in which a leading role was played by machine building and the production of goods with a high degree of added value. Integration into the world market led to the collapse of the high-technology sectors. While the economy of the USSR was oriented toward satisfying the needs of production and personal consumption within the country, and developed in a more or less complex and rounded fashion, Ukraine’s capitalist economy is ‘formatted’ in line with the demands of the world division of labour. The main victim of this process has been knowledge-intensive production – machine building, light industry, output of machine tools, instruments and radio-electronics, and the production of turbines, aircraft and automobiles.
Once complex production had been destroyed, the role played by the export-oriented raw materials sector and by sectors with a low degree of added value took on a catastrophically high level of importance. The owners of enterprises in these sectors formed a layer within the oligarchy that has controlled the bulk of the country’s economy throughout almost the entire period of “independence”. This layer, oriented toward the production of raw materials for export, has ruthlessly exploited the productive potential inherited from the USSR. As a result of its economic position, the Ukrainian oligarchy has not only been uninterested in developing the country’s internal market, but in many cases has also taken a predatory attitude to its own productive assets, preferring to export capital to offshore havens instead of using it to develop production. A total of more than $165 billion has been taken out of Ukraine and invested offshore. The model of the peripheral export economy had a “cannibal” character, and was based on consuming the inheritance from the Soviet Union. Even before the onset of the global economic crisis, ferrous metallurgy – the “locomotive” of Ukraine’s peripheral economy, providing 40-50 per cent of exports – showed “obvious structural weaknesses: outmoded technologies, high labor intensity (producing a ton of steel in Ukraine required 52.8 work hours, compared with 38.1 in Russia and 16.8 in Germany), high energy consumption and dependence on foreign (mainly Russian) energy sources. So long as prices were high these weaknesses were not of decisive importance, but any worsening of the conjuncture made them a serious threat.
Starting of the Euromaidan
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets. Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union. At that point EU began to offer, former countries allied with Soviet Union, that were not yet in NATO what they called Partnership Agreement. It was an advantageous trading relations with Europe. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. It was in late November 2013. Russian foreign minister Lavrov objected on that offer immediately. In this backdrop, we have to remember that, Ukraine’s trade with Russia at that time was 40% and 3-4 million Ukrainians who worked and still work in Russia, who send their remittance to support their families. Living aside all the other historical, cultural and social aspects, the very economic relation was intimate. Yanukovych’s decision sparked a wave of protests called the 'Euromaidan' movement. In the meantime, Vladimir Putin throws President Yanukovych an economic lifeline, agreeing to buy $15bn of Ukrainian debt and reduce the price of Russian gas supplies by about a third. But the blood of river was flowing in Kiev. A period of relative calm in the anti-government demonstrations in Kiev ended abruptly on 18 February 2014, when protesters and police clashed. At least 82 people were killed over the next few days, including 13 policemen; more than 1,100 people were injured. At that point, three EU foreign ministers (Germany, France and Poland) came to Kiev, seen that there could be a civil war at the very heart of Europe, brokered an agreement between Yanukovych and the leaders of the opposition, that agreed that Yanukovych can run for the election and that the presidential election could be a chance for the opposition to be elected democratically. And the presidential election would move up. But the next day, Yanukovych was forced to flee the country. It is reported that, Obama and Putin had a phone conversation about the agreement. And they actually agreed upon the agreement. Although none of these two countries were the part of the agreement, they had representative there. So, the chance to avoid that followed next, the Crimea, Donbass civil war, was lost in 24 hours with Yanukovych forced to flee.
US Involvement
From the start of the crisis, we have seen various high profiled US government officials and different party members taking part in the political protests in Ukraine. Senator John McCain told demonstrators, “America is with you”, 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. The White House is reported to be set on a new cold war policy with the aim of turning Russia into a 'pariah state'. Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych's toppling that it was 'a day for the history books.' As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. We cannot even imagine what would be the reaction of US if some Russian officials would take part in political protest in Mexico. The utter criminality of Washington’s drive to install a pliant regime in Kiev sharply emerges in Nuland and Pyatt’s discussion of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the neo-fascist All-Ukrainian Union (Svoboda) party. Nuland describes Tyahnybok as one of the “big three” within the opposition leadership. The State Department operative goes on to tell Pyatt that “what Yatsenyuk needs after he is installed in office is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside — he needs to be talking to them four times a week.” These remarks confirm that there is no confusion whatsoever within the Obama administration that it is working in partnership with fascist movements in Ukraine.
Sniper Attack
This particular event was probably the most important part that not only escalated further events very quickly but also shaped the future (at least immediate) political reality of Ukraine. The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars.
But now we all know what was the truth. In December 2015, Oriental Review published the research paper of Prof. Ivan Katchanovski from Ottawa University at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association in San Francisco, September 3-6, 2015. This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre. The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protestors. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts in mass media and social media in different countries (some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings.
This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings.
It is no less than an act of war against Ukraine. There’s absolutely no doubt that this sniper shooting on both civillians and police, was a very carefully engineered intelligence operation. This kind of act is part of the toolbox of the US intelligence apparatus. It goes back to well known operation called “Operation North Woods” in the 1960s, which was, however, never implemented; but was a covert operation which was under the auspices of joint chief of staff at the time was to start killing Cuban people in the Miami community and then blaming it on the Cuban government as cooked up pretext to intervene militarily in Cuba. This sorts of operations are directly drawn from US intelligence sketchbook. In this context we can remember former CENTCOM Commander General Tommy Franks. “A terrorist, massive , casualty-producing event will occur somewhere in the Western world…..that causes our population to question our own constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event”. The term “massive casualty-producing event” is a military concept which means, as described by General Franks, that it will invariably result in a campaign of fear and intimidation, “creating a useful wave of indignation”. In turn, politicians in high office will use the tragic loss of life as a justification for the implementation of sweeping police state measures, which would result in the repeal of civil liberties and installation of a de facto totalitarian regime. As history as our witness, US has implemented this concept extensively in different countries. The sniper fire in Euromaidan was part of this military doctrine.
One of the “academic” grand narrative was formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the geopolitical expert who has been very influential on US foreign policy for last 40 years. Ukraine is a war that Washington must win to maintain its position as the world’s only superpower. As he sees it, the US must establish outposts throughout Eurasia to diminish Russia’s influence, control China, and capitalize off the new century’s fastest growing region. Here’s how Brzezinski sums it up in Foreign Affairs in an article titled “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”: “America’s emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative…Eurasia is home to most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world’s most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy… Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa…
What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.” Brzezinski is telling US policymakers that if they want to rule the world, they’ve got to take over Eurasia. That’s pretty clear. It’s the Great Game all over again and Ukraine is one of the biggest trophies, which is why the US has allied itself to all kinds crackpot, rightwing groups that are stirring up trouble in Kiev. It’s because Washington will stop at nothing to achieve its objectives. Of course, there’s nothing new about any of this. The US frequently supports violent, far-right organizations if their interests coincide. If we go back in history, we will see that the CIA worked with Neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists in Ukraine for decades, starting right after the 2nd World War. Declassified CIA documents talk about Project Aerodynamic in 1950s and ’60s that recruited Ukrainian nationalists including Nazis and war criminals such as Mykola Lebed who was accused of killing tens of thousands of Poles and Jews to work against the USSR.
NED or National Endowment of Democracy is a US taxpayer-funded group that specializes in regime change. It’s chief, Carl Gershman, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in 2013 (just before the protests) that “Ukraine is the biggest prize.” Michael McFaul, US Ambassador to Russia (2012–2014) — wrote an op-ed in WaPo in 2004 where he asked, “Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine?” Then he answered it, “Yes.” Why did McFaul write the article? Because in 2004, Soros and other NGOs fomented the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Basically, the election was won by a pro-Russia guy. So people protested and demanded a new election. Then, a month later, the pro-US guy won the new election with 52% of the votes. To our surprise, that guy was actually none other than Yanukovych. Victoria Nuland also admitted during a speech in 2014 that the US had spent $5 BILLION since the 1990s to spread “democracy” in Ukraine.
In the light of the above circumstances, we can see a clear pattern of perpetuating US-NATO hegemony, and that also by any means, whatever it takes. In Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, the philosopher delivered his summarization of the writings of Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas thusly, “Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.” American foreign policy is determined in much the same fashion. Valuable objects are desired. Noble justifications are manufactured. Trusting populations are deceived. War is made. Empires do their special pleading on a global scale. For instance, the U.S. and its allies know precisely how they want to portray the Ukrainian conflict to their deluded Western populations. They need only apply the false flags and fashion the nefarious motives — like so many brush strokes — to the canvas of geopolitics.
Conclusion
