Russia. Crimea. History. Nikolay Starikov
there”, i. e. in Western banks (the Yanukovich’s case). A huge amount of compromising materials on both candidates was required (and it had been collected) in order to control them and manipulate them. Required were flaws in their biographies and in their political positions, which would hamper each of them to become a national leader and attract sympathies of the most Ukrainian people. Precisely because of this was selected Yanukovich with his “semi-criminal” juvenility, precisely because of this was selected Yushchenko with his Bandera-like rhetoric, which is absolutely not acceptable in any form for a large number of Ukrainian citizens.
Kuchma gave a green light to this cunning operation aimed at – as he believed – preserving his power. In reality, the first Maidan happened, and it put an end to his career. The Americans has brought Yushchenko to the power. And he would for four years absolutely loyally do whatever he was told to do. He would lose all his popularity and charisma, and he would be even expelled from his own political party “Our Ukraine”! The time of his reign – is the period when the Americans were preparing an attempt of an “orange-like” coup in Russia. The start of an active part of the ploy was done in December 2011 – just before the Parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation. The main aim of the American plan was to prevent the victory of Vladimir Putin at the Presidential elections of 2012. As the very last events on the global arena have shown, our American “partners” had all rationale for their desire not seeing him in the Kremlin. The accession Crimea to Russia is the most brilliant confirmation of it…
After Putin was re-elected as the Russian President, our relations with the West deteriorated. Putin always firmly but softly[10] defends the interest of his country, basing on the rule that “politics is an art of the possible”. The deterioration happened because the Russian leadership was not willing to sacrifice interests of the country just for maintaining a “good name” and for occasions, when “big guys” “clap you on shoulder”. The West is always benevolent to those who serve it. In order to support this, one can exemplify the careers of the two Ukrainian Presidents, who were equally tightly bound to the American interests. Yushchenko was safely retired with honor – he would be lecturing and breed bees. Yanukovich dared not to sign the enslaving agreement with the European Union. Therefore, he barely escaped an assassination attempt, and the next – when it failed – his favorite “toys” (the money) were arrested in the Western banks for still unclear reasons[11].
Interesting to note, that during the Yushchenko’s reign the Americans did not even demand from him to sign this treaty with the EU, which became fatal for the career of Yanukovich. Why did not they do this? Because Ukraine itself was not in the center of the American foreign agenda. The US was preparing for a fight for power in Russia. Ukraine was of some interest for them, may be as a venue for training of militants and “non-violent protesters”, who were supposed to come to Moscow as a reinforcement and pretending to be Russian citizens[12]. It must have happened, or, better, – it could have happened several times. Once – that day, when the Duma member Ilya Ponomariov, “the greatest thinker of the modern times” Navalny and Udaltsov-Tiutiukin were defending a fountain at the Pushkin Square from assaulting OMON (Special police forces). The plan was – establish a foothold here, at the Pushkin Square – the Kremlin is nearby. In case of success, “good guys” of Ukrainian origin and with the brand new Russian passports should have come up to the venue. It failed.
The USA started losing in Russia when Dmitry Medvedev agreed not to run for President for the second term, but to become the Prime Minister. The final scene of the failure of the American scenario was at Poklonnaya Gora (a Moscow City Park of the Victory situated on a hill called “mountain”) by a rally 4 February 2012 with more than 100 thousand people – this demonstration showed to everybody, that whatever “orange” scenario in Russia is doomed. The very last attempt of the Americans was the unrest at Bolotnaya square a day before the official inauguration of Vladimir Putin. The main goal of the opposition leaders was to sit and remain sited there. In case the police would refrain from any action thousands of the protesters could have remained at the square (thus occupying it) until the next day. On the contrary – active interference of OMON could have bring something that usually inspire revolutionaries of all times (and especially their curators from abroad) – dead bodies of the protesters. The Western machine of propaganda could have a chance to start working at full swing branding the “sanguinary regime”, which has shed blood of its citizens right the first day of the new Presidential term.
It all was a failure. Then the USA decided to concentrate efforts on Ukraine and began preparations of the Ukrainian state’s destruction. Having lost a battle for Russia, the Americans decided to win a “smaller prize” – Ukraine – by all means. They immediately demanded Yanukovich to ratify the already signed (incidentally, signed by himself) notorious agreement with the EU as soon as possible. Of course, the scale of these actions is not as big as desired, but if this has not worked out in case of the greater challenges, let us start over with smaller ones. The Americans were planning to start the next Maidan during the next regular Presidential elections in 2015. One very interesting and characteristic detail to be mentioned – in all “orange” scenarios the Americans overthrow persons, which are 100 % – dependent on the USA. No overthrowing of a sheer enemy – always overthrowing more or less depending puppets.
Let us repeat once more the definition of an “orange revolution”. An “orange revolution” – it is an external aggression, which is accomplished with the help of informational technologies and street unrest. It is usually accomplished by hands of internal “orange” fifth column, but in fact, it is a method of legitimization of an external pressure onto a state power (Government) in order to force the latter to change a politics and make this politics in-line with the one, which aggressors pursue. Or to force current local authorities to hand over all levers of power to those persons, who are ready to change the politics according to the guidelines of the external powers. Weak puppet-like state gets scared in such situation, starts ceding positions and tries to make agreements with the aggressors. Agreements not with rebels/insurgents – but with their puppeteers. With Washington. And here we see several very contrasting examples. Muammar al-Gaddafi tried to reach an agreement. Bashar al-Assad did not and started a struggle right away. The results are well known. Victor Yanukovich was struggling until that “red line”, beyond which it was necessary to deploy armed forces. He must use his armed forces – according to the Constitution of Ukraine. If he would have done this, then, in 2014, Crimea would NOT have reunited with Russia, there would not be a bloodshed at the streets of Ukrainian towns, and the violence would have been confined within a small spot in the center of Kiev.
But what has happened, happened. The collapse of the Ukrainian state happened not as a snap and all of a sudden – just within several months of the second Maidan. Such developments were brewing for many years. From the Nazi-like torchlight processions, which was welcomed by the power at Yushchenko’s rule, which were left on their own and were not dispersed by police at the Yanukovich’s rule. It is a paradox – the state of Ukraine came to the verge of its very existence because of the coup, accomplished by the extreme-nationalists and by pro-American forces in Kiev. Those, who shouted loudly about the love to Ukraine, almost ruined the country. Why? Because the violent overthrowing of power has sharply aggravated all intrinsic and inborn contradictions of the Ukrainian society, which have been existing all the years of the “independence” of the Ukrainian state. These collisions are understandable from the point of view of struggles of civilizations. The Ukrainian nation is a part of Russian civilization. Most of the Ukrainians feel this at the “gene” level. Affection to Russia is an affection to own self. The Western civilization – with all its pageantry and brilliance – is something alien. Each Russian (Ukrainian, Chechen, Tatar, etc.) feels it when coming abroad to the West from Russia or Ukraine. But at the same time, a significant part of Ukraine (the Western one) feels a part of the Western civilization. We will not discuss whether it is true or no – it is not that important. What is important is – the West does not acknowledge Ukraine as a part of the Western civilization. Ukraine is like a lad striving to marry, he has appointed a date of a wedding but still does not have “yes” from his beloved girl. All talks that “Ukraine is Europe” is nothing else but just
It is a kind of a paradox, but it is true. It is an art of the “realpolitik” – not to let the Western propaganda make him a marginal monster – no matter how eagerly this propaganda tries to do so. And very many ordinary people in the world really respect and like our President.
At the moment, when the West did this, Yanukovich was a legitimate President who was overthrown by a coup. Whose accounts should be arrested by the “truth-lovers” from the USA, who were so fiercely arguing about the impossibility for Vladimir Putin to ballot for the third time in a row – according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation? Are not the accounts of those, who have violated, trampled on the Constitution of Ukraine, i. e. the putschists, or of the victim of the coup – i. e. Yanukovich? The correct answer is – of those, who ceased to serve the interests of the USA.
Not only by their appearance, but also by their Russian passports which they could have got from their “curators”.