Ukraine: The Truth

[BainsBane]

34. You apparently missed the leaked documents out of the Kremlin

Moscow planned the invasion months before the fall of the government in Kiev. Yes, Russia sees Nato expansion as a threat and they see aid packages (which is what that $5 billion is, aid since Ukrainian independence) as an aggression against them because they believe they have the right to control the Ukraine. The West dropped any efforts to have the Ukraine join Nato some years ago.

However, the idea that Russian story that the US was responsible for the fall of the govt in Kiev has been entirely debunked by the Kremlin documents and Putin's own actions in declaring a national holiday for the brave Russian soldiers who took Crimea.


This leak is nearly two months old now. I don't know how you could have missed it.




Russian Newspaper publishes Kremlin strategy paper on plans to annex the Ukraine

Drawn up before the fall of the government in Kiev.

First the link to the original publication in Russian: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/67389.html

Translation of the article and document as published on a Ukrainian website:

"Novaya Gazeta" is publishing Russia’s plan for the annexation of a number of territories of Ukraine, which were drawn up when Yanukovych was still president of this country.

The document that has come into the possession of Novaya was presumably “brought in” to the Presidential Administration in the period between February 4 and February 12, 2014.

Now excerpts from the document:

2. Russia’s policy toward Ukraine must finally become pragmatic.

First, the regime of Viktor Yanukovych has gone totally bankrupt. Its political, diplomatic, financial, and information support from the Russian Federation is no longer meaningful.

Second, as a sporadic civil war in the form of urban guerrilla of the so-called “supporters of the Maidan” against the leadership of a number of the country’s eastern regions has become a fact, while the disintegration of the Ukrainian state along the line of geographical demarcation of regional alliances - “western regions plus Kyiv” and “eastern regions plus Crimea” - has become part of the political agenda, in these circumstances, Russia should in no way limit its policy toward Ukraine only to attempts to influence the political situation in Kyiv and the relationship of a systemic opposition (A. Yatsenyuk, V. Klitschko, O. Tyagnybok, P . Poroshenko, etc.) with the European Commission.

Third, in an almost complete paralysis of the central government, unable to form a responsible government even facing threats of default and of Naftogaz lacking funds to pay for Russian gas, Russia is simply obliged to get involved in the geopolitical intrigue of the European Community directed against the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

First of all, this is because otherwise our country risks losing not only the Ukrainian energy market, but also indirect control over Ukraine’s gas transportation system, which is much more dangerous. This will endanger the position of Gazprom in Central and Southern Europe, causing huge damage to our country’s economy.

3. The Constitution of Ukraine is in no case able to provide for a mechanism that could legitimately initiate the integration of Ukraine’s eastern territories and Crimea into the state-legal framework of the Russian Federation.

. . .
Current events in Kyiv convincingly show that the Yanukovych’s time in power could end at any moment. Thus, there is less and less time for an appropriate Russian response. The number of dead in riots in the capital of Ukraine is direct evidence of the inevitability of civil war and the impossibility of reaching consensus if Yanukovych remains president. In these circumstances, it seems appropriate to play along the centrifugal aspirations of the various regions of the country, with a view to initiate the accession of its eastern regions to Russia, in one form or another. Crimea and Kharkiv region should become the dominant regions for making such efforts, as there already exist reasonably large groups there that support the idea of maximum integration with Russia.

4. Of course, taking the burden of supporting Crimea and several eastern territories, Russia will be forced to take on budget expenses, which would be cumbersome in the country’s present position.

Undoubtedly, this will affect macroeconomic stability and the prospects for economic growth. However, geopolitically, the prize will be invaluable: our country will gain access to new demographic resources, highly qualified industry and transport personnel will be at its disposal. In addition, it can count on the emergence of new eastward Slavic migration flows - as opposed to the Central Asian migration trends. The industrial potential of the Eastern Ukraine, including the military-industrial sector, once included in the Russian military-industrial complex, will allow for the faster and more successful implementation of the program of rearmament of Russia’s military forces.

What is equally important, Russia’s constructive, “smoothing” participation in the highly probable disintegration of the Ukrainian state will not only give new impetus to the Kremlin’s integration project, but will also allow our country to retain control over Ukraine’s gas transportation system, as mentioned above. And at the same time, it will allow there to be significant changes in the geopolitical situation in Central and Eastern Europe, allowing Russia to regain its major role there.

5. To start the process of a “pro-Russian drift” of Crimea and eastern Ukrainian territories, events should be created beforehand that can support this process with political legitimacy and moral justification; also a PR-strategy should be built that draws attention to the forced, reactive nature of the actions of Russia and the pro-Russian political elites of southern and eastern Ukraine.

Read more on UNIAN: http://www.unian.info/politics/1048525-novaya-gazetas-kremlin-papers-article-full-text-in-english.html

The document lays out the strategy for annexation of Crimea and parts of the Eastern Ukraine, as well as Russia's clear economic and geopolitical motives--"the prize"--for doing so.

---------------------------

I continue to be stunned at how people who oppose war by the US work so hard to justify Russian war and imperial expansion. Your argument is that expansion of Nato into the Ukraine, which was dropped some time ago, and US economic assistance, justifies the death of Ukrainians at the hands of the Russian army and pro-Russian rebels. You are taking a pro-war position, using outdated information. Human life is at stake. And that you now join (you are quite late to the party) an effort to justify Russian imperial actions, Russian war and the killing of Ukrainians, is reprehensible. In fact, the Russia propagandists argument that right wingers in the Ukraine justify war sounds an awful lot like how Bush justified the Iraq invasion. Bush didn't like the Iraqi government, you don't like the Ukrainian government. Then there is the fact that the national front parties only won 1 and 1.5 percent of the vote in the last election. Whether their government is right-wing or not, they don't deserve to die and it doesn't justify Russian invasion, anymore than Russia's right-wing government would justify a US invasion of that country.