In 2016, the United States committed to arming Ukraine to fight and win a war against Russia. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense organized a biological research program in Ukraine, and then huge amounts of nuclear fuel were secretly transferred to the country. These data change the interpretation of this war: it was not wanted and prepared by Moscow, but by Washington.
The Ukrainian war started when the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, […]
Trump stands vindicated for accusing Biden of trying to cover up his son’s corruption in Ukraine after one of that country’s lawmakers released audio recordings of the former Vice President’s numerous conversations with former President Poroshenko to that effect, proving that the real Ukrainegate scandal has been about the Democrat […]
Zelensky’s projection of himself as a president for peace echoes the deep yearning of a big majority of Ukrainians for an end to the war in Donbas. He seems willing to make concessions, such as a measure of regional autonomy, a say in the foreign and security policies, the use of Russian language and so on. If he moves in that direction, a sea change in the climate of relations between Ukraine and Russia is possible.
In the post-Soviet period, US foreign policy and media establishments have overhyped Ukrainian positives, while disproportionately highlighting the negatives in Russia and Belarus. Let’s see if Zelensky will break from that trend. For now, it’s quite premature to see him and his country as a positive model for Russia and Belarus.
Simply put, Zelensky needs to be ‘pro-Ukraine’ than ‘pro-West’ — that is to say, he should realise that if Ukraine has any chance of prospering, it must somehow normalise relations with Moscow, which remains its largest trading partner.But will he be allowed by the West to open a dialogue with Moscow?
The stage in Ukraine has been going to seed for some years, manuring away in decay and poverty, bleeding in the Donbass region and plundered by self-enriching elites. It took Zelenskiy to come to the fore by stepping off the screen and, quite literally, onto a live stage. Whether he is capable of directing his own show, mastering his own brief, as it were, will be a wonder.
Provoking conflicts in the Orthodox world has become a new area of US intervention in the internal affairs of other states, and the geographical spread of their activities is expanding rapidly. Besides Ukraine itself, the Ukrainian schism will directly affect Russia, Turkey, and Greece. Attempts to fuel dissension are currently being observed in the Balkans.
There’s no such thing as the so-called “Crimean Corridor”, but it plays to Poroshenko’s domestic political interests to pretend that there is, and if he’s even partially successful at manipulating international perceptions surrounding this fake news narrative.
Of course, an open western military intervention can be ruled out. But the danger lies in the Ukrainian hardliners drawing encouragement from the Western support to stage more provocations against Russia that might lead to a conflict. A flare-up in Donbass between the Ukrainian army and the separatists (backed by Russia) also cannot be ruled out.
If the true picture of the events surrounding the downing of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the skies over Ukraine is emerging with such clarity that even the primary actors understand the futility of further attempts to conceal it, then what will Europe do about Kiev?
The timing of Zakharchenko’s assassination also deserves to be looked at because it was meant to coincide with the upcoming opening ceremony of the UN General Assembly later this month, during which Poroshenko could use his global pulpit to try and rally the Western world against Russia and the rebels.