Hi, I am a citizen of the European Union (non-native English, so bear with me on the language front) and I have been watching this whole thing
develop. As a child I grew up with an immense fear of the Soviet Union, a terror which was constantly cultivated by television and newspapers.
I think the events in Ukraine are not to provoke WWIII, it is much more complicated.
The basis of the conflict goes back to 2013, when the then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich was looking for financial aid in order to prevent his
country from defaulting. The only parties who were willing to help were Russia and the IMF.
The IMF offered a loan of 15 billion dollars, but wanted to force Yanukovych to implement radical austerity measures that were going to cripple the
economy and hit the citizens very hard. Elections were coming up and Yanukovych refused, because he feared this was going to cost him his seat in
Yanukovich asked Putin for help. Putin offered him the same amount plus a 33 percent reduction in the price of gas (and an action plan to boost the
Ukranian economy, a joint interest of the two countries as their economies are very closely connected). They sign the deal.
Then a leaked conversation surfaces in which the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt
discuss their preference for Yats (Yatsunyek) as the preferred guy in power.
‘I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience’.
Nuland’s reaction to the leaked tape: ‘I am obviously not going to comment on private diplomatic conversations, other than to say it was pretty
impressive trade craft (espionage). The audio was extremely clear.’
Yatsenyuk is a millionaire former banker who served as economy minister, foreign minister and parliamentary speaker before Yanukovych took office in
Then, the pro-EU demontrations in Kiev turned violent. Snipers shot protesters and riot police. About 100 people died, 1000 got injured. Yanukovych,
the pro-Russian President got blamed for the shootings and fled / got ousted.
A pro-EU government takes over. Former banker Yatsenyuk gets put in place as the guy who has to implement the IMF agenda. Many believe he is setting
the country up for ruin as he is determined to go the ‘Greek way’ (using people’s pension funds and private savings. lowering wages whilst
upping taxes, which will only lead to increased poverty and more destabilization in a country that is already struggling with ethic tensions and
Putin sends troops to Crimea to protect the only Russian harbour that does not get frozen over in winter. I think the US must have seen this coming,
also given the history of Crimea, which has been Russian for ages.
WikiLeaks actually confirms this.
Then another leaked conversation appeared, this time between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet.
During the conversation, Paet quoted a woman named Olga – who the Russian media identified her as Olga Bogomolets, a doctor – blaming snipers from
the opposition shooting the protesters.
"What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among
policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides," Paet said.
"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's
really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
"So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet says.
Here is a transcript and the actual audio of the bugged call
Estonia has confirmed the authenticity of the leaked phone call.
In my opinion, there was a coup d’etat in Ukraine. This of course gets denied by most Western main stream media, who call it a 'liberation' in
true propaganda fashion. Follow the money and you will see that Western forces were behind this bloodshed and the bloodshed that will likely follow,
with the IMF (in cohorts with the EU) as the main financial beneficiaries. Look at what is happening in Venezuela and you will see exactly the same
Putin will not let go of his geo-political interests. Moskou saw this coming (the two leaked conversations were very likely coming from Russian
intelligence) and just grabbed their chance.
Putin won’t stop with Crimea, by the way.
Former Putin adviser Andrey Illarionov predicted that in addition to Crimea, his ex-boss intends to annex other major cities in Ukraine, including
Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Odessa.
I don’t think this is a false flag to provoke WWIII, if that happens it will just be a side effect of the greed of IMF and the EU.
13-3-2014 by StealthWombat because: link
edit on 13-3-2014 by StealthWombat because: link
edit on 13-3-2014 by
StealthWombat because: link
edit on 13-3-2014 by StealthWombat because: link
Ukraine had a lawfully elected government that wasn't helping the country, so people protested.
Instead of changing government behavior in response to the protests by its People, the government changed the Constitution and OUTLAWED protests!
This begot even MORE protests, which begot even MORE government heavy handedness.
Ultimately, the people of Ukraine (whether they were urged-on by outsiders or not) revolted, resulting in the use of violence, which caused the
downfall of the government to the point where the President actually fled the country.
Neighboring Russia called this series of events a "Coup d Etat." This was mistake #1.
A coup d'etat is defined as "the sudden deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the
military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military. A coup d'état is considered successful when the
usurpers establish their dominance."
This is NOT what took place in Ukraine. It was not a small group of the existing establishment that undertook what happened; it was the body politic
of Ukraine itself. So Russia's description of this series of events as a "Coup d' Etat" is factually wrong.
It would be more accurate to call the situation in Ukraine a "Revolution" which is defined as "A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn
around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two
types of political revolution:
Complete change from one constitution to another
Modification of an existing constitution.
Looking at what took place in Ukraine bolsters the fact it was a revolution and not a Coup. What was a primary demand of the protesters? The
RESTORATION of the earlier Constitution. That's exactly what was done after the ousted President fled the country! So based upon actual definitions,
what took place in Ukraine was a revolution and NOT a Coup.
Next, neighboring Russia decided to exercise its rights pursuant to a Treaty, and began sending thousands of troops into the Crimean region of
Ukraine, allegedly to "protect" its Black Sea naval fleet and to "protect ethnic Russians."
Their reasons really didn't matter since Russia was exercising Treaty rights. The Treaty made allowance for up to 25,000 Russian Troops. Until Russia
hit the 25,000 limit, it was within its rights.
But strange things started taking place with those Russian troops: They started rummaging around Crimea. They started pushing their way into Ukraine
military facilities and ousting the Ukrainian military from those facilities. NONE of that was within Russia's Treaty rights.
Next, Russia started deploying troops outside its bases in Crimea. That was not within Russia's Treaty Rights.
Next, Russia sank a ship in a waterway so as to physically block the entry/exit of the Ukraine navy from its home port. This too was not within
Russia's Treaty Rights.
Next, Russian troops took over border control check points. This too was not within Russia's Treaty Rights.
Now, after a week or so of all this, Russia admits it has 30,000 of its troops in Crimea. This is a direct violation of the written Treaty limit of
Amid all this chaos, the government of the Crimea declared its desire to become part of Russia. This would be akin to Massachusetts asking Britain to
send back its troops because it wants to go back to being a colony of Great Britain and besides, most of its people speak English. That crap doesn't
fly. So whatever the local Crimean government wants, is utterly irrelevant from a national level.
Here we are, weeks later, and it appears Russia is now hand-delivering ultimatums to other Ukraine military installations in Crimea, setting a
deadline for surrender. None of this is within Russia's Treaty Rights.
Russia has therefore committed a defacto invasion of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. It has initiated an illegal blockade of Ukraine naval
activities, which, in and of itself, is and act of war, and it is giving surrender ultimatums, delivered at gunpoint!
By any account, Ukraine has a valid Casus Belli, (cause for war.)
The question facing the rest of the world is simply this:
Will the world stand-up and defend the sovereign territory of one nation, from the SEIZURE OF TERRITORY by another nation?
If so, then we can call ourselves civilized. If not, then the only international law is the "law of the gun" which would make us nothing more than
Glory to Ukraine!
----------------------- (Note: Before any of you start screaming about US hypocrisy given the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, bear this fact in mind: When
the U.S. went to war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it did NOT seek to permanently seize territory; a crucial distinction with what Russia is
doing. Russia plans to make the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine, a permanent part of Russia.)