In order to understand the main reasons behind the conflict in Ukraine, we should first know the geostrategic factors: The oil and gas pipelines, the geography (coastline, neighboring Russia and having deposits of gas and oil), NATO expanding to the east, EU expanding to the east, economic factors (heavy industry – steel production, military equipment, agriculture, resources). We are going to review the current international legal situation in Crimea and the similar situation of Kosovo. Considering this legal situation in Kosovo and in Crimea, the western hypocrisy becomes obvious, especially of the United States. But in order to understand the geopolitical aspects, we have to observe the history of all participants in this conflict.
The analysis starts with geography: Ukraine, especially Crimea, as well as Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia and Turkey are bordering Black Sea. Black Sea is almost an inland sea, as is connected to the Mediterranean only through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles (Turkish Straits). The sea links southeast Europe with Russia and Caucasus and thus becomes a bridge to transport oil and gas (Arte 2008). Caucasus region in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is rich in oil and gas (Caspian Sea)
and from there are imported resources in Europe. Now let’s look at the maps of pipelines and deposits:
As we saw in the map, much of the Russian gas passes through Ukraine.
A geostrategic goal of the US corporations is to cut that energy supply from Russia. But what does this mean for Europe? According to the data from OECD, there are 4 countries dependent on Russian gas in Europe (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Finland and Poland). Hungary is importing 70% of the country’s gas from Russia, Greece – 54% and Germany – almost 40%. Speaking directly, destabilization of Ukraine may lead to an energy crisis in Europe. But how much the USA cares about those possible consequences, you can find out from the US Secretary of State – Victoria Nuland, who is stating in a conversation, tapped by the Russians, “Fuck the EU”. The competing “blocks” are fighting for influence over Ukraine on the one hand, EU and NATO with “Association Agreement”, and on the other hand for “Eurasian Customs Union” (economic integration with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan).
Back in 2008 in the Georgian conflict, competing energy corporations were sitting in the background. In 1999 US energy corporations created pipeline from Baku (Azerbaijan – the Caspian Sea) to Supsa (Georgia – Black Sea). It was the first to go around Russia and that was a heavy punch on Russian interests, especially for BGN pipeline (Baku-Grozny-Novorossiysk). The pipeline BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) has been expanded and is also a competition for Russia. NABUCCO pipeline was a project that aimed at lowering the European dependency on Russian gas.
This project failed in 2013 as it was not transporting neither Russian, nor Iranian gas, and ended up costing too much. Also BLUE STREAM had no competitive pressure by NABUCCO, because Russia is transporting 65% of the overall gas consumption in Turkey.
Through the Romanian port of Constanta Caspian resources enter Europe. Because of the Chechnya conflict in 2009, Russia was forced to build the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline that bypass Chechen territory. The project “South Stream”, where Bulgaria was playomg a central role, was going to transport resources from the Caucasus and Russia to Europe. All these facts are represent the network of resources and pipelines, which are of immense geostrategic importance.
Now we will take an insight into history of the Black Sea region. Back in the 8th century BC the ancient Greeks established colonies on the Black Sea coast, as you can see on the map marked in yellow:
This way the ancient Greeks controlled the grain production and supplied Athens. Then they ruled the Black Sea, Roman Empire, Great Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire.
Later the Ottoman Empire ruled this area. Russia led two wars against the Ottoman Empire and thus gained control over the northern coast of the Black Sea. This way was created the military port of Sevastopol and the commercial port – Odessa. In the Crimean War, Russia has been prevented to conquer the entire Black Sea region and thus to gain access to the Mediterranean. During the Cold War, the Black Sea can be seen as a front line between the two blocs, NATO and the Warsaw bloc. To every empire the access to the sea is an important geostrategic factor, and this is stated by the Jewish-American scientist, George Friedman (creator of the think tank “Stratfor”): “The USA controls all of the world’s seas, so far no government has achieved anything like this. We (the USA) must control all the seas and airspace, because this is the basis of our authority”. But if power is something morally justified and desirable, is a question this scientist is not asking. Nowadays the Russian sphere of influence in the Black Sea region is reduced, due to the aggressive and hypocritical (the “Genscher” lie) expansion of NATO. This may be the reason the Americans supported the defensive alliance of 1997 (GUAM) of the 4 countries: Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan. The official tasks of this agreement were to promote democracy, but could it be that parallel to that they were playing geostrategic interests?
Western values are supported by NGO’s and foundations and thus the revolutions broke in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004.The Jewish-American billionaire George Soros definitely played part in the “democratization” of these countries. In the name of democracy, the USA is destabilizing many countries and whole regions, in order to exploit their resources and their cheap labor.
In the past, there are many examples of such cases, which were implemented through media manipulation and pure violence.
Let’s review the geostrategic goals of the USA. Eurasia (Europe and Asia) is of geostrategic significance to every Empire, according to the theory of the British geographer Hauford Makayndar. In one of his summaries he stated that whoever controls Eurasia, controls the world. One of the tactics to achieve the US geostrategic vision is by dividing the largest and economically powerful countries Germany and Russia. This Eurasian split is mentioned also by the scientist Friedman –
“The main interest of US foreign policy over the last hundred years, i.e. in the First and Second World War and during the Cold War was to prevent convergence between Germany and Russia. Because together they are only powerful enough to threaten the USA. Our main interest was to ensure that this does not come true. US cannot intervene permanently like an empire to Eurasian matters. For that I recommend President Ronald Reagan’s technique, which was used in Iran and Iraq: he supported both warring parties.”
(It sounds like the old tactics – divide and conquer). In this light can be considered World War II (see here).
An indication that the US Empire is trying to accomplish the above mentioned geo-strategy, is the statement of former CIA agent Ray McGovern on the conflict in Ukraine: “It was a coup, sponsored by the West”. McGovern was in the inner circle and knows what it is about. Another indicator is the military history of the United States and its methods of deliberate rotation of governments. US secret service CIA toppled many democratic governments in its history (Iran 1953, Chile 1975, etc.). But let’s look at the facts: the Association Agreement of Ukraine to the EU was not only regarding the economic foundation (Trade Policy of Free Trade Agreement – you can download here), but also for the military base, analyze Swiss historian Daniele Ganser. This Treaty clearly seeks to reduce Russian influence in Eastern Europe. This may be seen as a NATO step for expansion to Russia. But what’s standing and what goals pursued NATO? Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1990-1991 and therefore NATO lost foundation of its existence because it was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union. Today, NATO is world widely fighting a phantom enemy, called terrorism. Taking a look at the map of NATO expansion, of the rocket system that encircle Russia, it is clear that in Ukraine we see a defensive reaction of Russia. If you want to find inside information on this terrorist and illegitimate organization NATO, which with secret armies destabilized and blackmailed Europe, take a look at the lecture of the Swiss scientist Ganzer or a short story – (see here) or browse the full documentary film (see here).
Military History: if you look at the global history, you cannot deny the aggression of the United States. The history of this country begins with genocide over the Indians and continued territorial expansion, and in the last 100 years – supporting dictators, mass murderers and fanatics. For the crimes of the United States – see here.
What say scientists, professors and experts, the author Wolfgang Bittner wrote in his book “The conquest of Europe by the United States,” the US is the aggressor in Europe and the conflict in Ukraine – see his interview here. Former representative in the European Parliament from Austria – Johannes Fogenhuber, said in a debate that America played the leading role in this conflict: “The root cause of the conflict is the West“. This view is shared by the German financial expert and author Dirk Muller. To the Jewish-Canadian Professor Michael Chossudovsky, the Ukrainian conflict is an American coup in the name of democracy.
Now let’s look into details the Ukrainian revolution (euromaidan). It is important to understand in what direction was the political paradigm of Ukraine moving before and after the revolution in order to find out who benefited from this revolution.
Indicator number one – if we look at the revolution from the perspective of a detective, we will realize that before euromaidan, the Ukrainian government was oriented towards Russia and after that wanted to become a member of NATO. The political direction has changed by 180 degrees after the revolution. This shows clearly what was the motive for the coup and it is direct to logic who benefits from the change of the political paradigm.
Indicator number two – Ukrainian deputy Oleg Tsarov warned as early as November 20, 2013 that there will be a civil war: “On our territory, with the direct support of the US Embassy in Kiev, launched the project “TechCamp”, which prepares Ukraine for civil war . This project is under the supervision of the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.”
Indicator number three – Former CIA agent Ray McGovern cited intercepted telephone conversations: “In late January 2014 the US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland spoke with the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and she says Yatsenyuk is their man. Because he was the governor of the central bank and knows the IMF. Whoever listened this conversation – I think it was the Russians – such conversation is not held in an open relationship, especially when you have the power after the coup. But they did.” But how could Nuland at the beginning of the year know who will come to power in Ukraine.
Indicator five – former Deputy Minister of Finance of the United States and writer Paul Craig Roberts said: “The neocons believe that the US is a nation chosen to establish hegemony over the whole world. Obama appointed Victoria Nuland and the entire administration, which works with the CIA and together with NGO’s financed by Washington organized a coup in Ukraine.” – cited in the lecture of Dr. Ganser.
Indicator six – the gunshots at the Maidan, which eventually led to a civil war, are an important indicator of who is the instigator of the unrest. According to Western media and to the official report of the new pro-Western Ukrainian government, the shots were produced by BERKUT (Ukrainian Special Forces of the police, under the direct command of President then Yanukovych). But here arises the question why Yanukovych would want to kill his people as “A” – this would mean the end of his political career and “B” – the Western powers would immediately have used it to intervene (in history there are infinitely many cases where global police intervene as a savior). But beyond pure logic just said, a few indicators stand:
Indicator 6A – Canadian political scientist and Professor Ivan Katchanovski analyzed: the massacre of February 20 (from the snipers shots at the Maidan) was the decisive factor to topple corrupt but democratically elected government. Yanukovych was accused by his opposition without having any clear evidence for his intervention and eventually he fled on February 21. This violent coup can be seen as undemocratic change of government – that is the essence of his interview and report.
Indicator 6B – German reporter Stephan Stuchlik, after intense surveillance and study, reaches the following conclusion: “We believe that many of those killed at February 20, were deliberately killed by professional snipers.” According to general opinion and according to numerous videos, Special Forces BERKUT were down in the street with the protesters. This finding is in stark contrast to the argument of the prosecutor of the new illegal government (source: Stuchlik’s report – written summary).
Indicator 6B – American journalist John Beck Hofmann spoke with several BERKUT members and created a 50-minute documentary called “Maidan carnage”. Now follow some excerpts from the interviews. BERKUT policeman
Yurts Veprikov: “I was wounded by a gun on February 20 at 08.00 am. My friends, also BERKUT employees, brought me to the hospital by ambulance. The shots came from a building, I think the conservatory.“ BERKUT policeman Yuri Struyko: „The firing started at 5:40 in the morning, my colleague was shot in the hand and I also got wounded.”
Why would BERKUT shoot their own colleagues, what’s the point in it? Why people believe the illegitimate opposition, which has not been elected and whose report sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they don’t listen to common sense or the version of the old government?
Indicator 6D – Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia Urmas Paet, said in a telephone conversation on February 26 the High Commissioner of EU foreign policy Catherine Ashton: “We have more and more come to the conviction that behind the snipers at the Maidan is not Yanukovych, but someone from the new coalition.” His analysis is justified by the medical special report by Olga Bogomoles. According to her, all indicators suggest that the people of the two competing camps were fired by the same sniper with the same ammunition and in the same way. See the entire report here.
A long criminal tradition and its methods: Nazism and fascism: American corporations like GM, IBM, FORD, STANDARD OIL, CHASE BANK
benefitted the most from the Second World War. From the Nazi regime many high-ranking employees moved to NATO – noted by Professor John McMurtry. But is still US-sponsored fascism ongoing? The author and strategist William Engdahl sees behind snipers on the Maidan the right-wing groups SVOBODA (freedom), as well as NATO and the United States. Former senator John McCain was filmed in several meetings with right-wing SVOBODA extremists. Not only are noticed parallels between World War II and the situation in Ukraine today, but also transnational or supranational organizations such as the IMF, who are involved in the Yugoslavia conflict.
- IMF and World Bank, as assistants in violence: if we look at the “help” of the IMF, it is immediately noticeable that from the 17 billion dollars sent, 40% went to the Ukrainian “Privat Bank”, which almost bankrupted afterwards. This “Privat Bank” is under the control of the Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. The Forbes magazine estimated his wealth to 1.24 billion dollars. He controls an empire of companies in the fields of energy, media, aviation, chemical industry, metallurgy and financial companies. At the center of this conglomerate stands “Privat Bank”, which is the most powerful financial institution in Ukraine, holding more than a quarter of all bank accounts. This oligarch gained favor with the new government and maintains a private army of 20,000 soldiers. He also supports the Ukrainian army with fuel in the fight against the Russian separatists – according to the German newspaper “Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachricht”. And another parallel can be seen with the conflict in Yugoslavia:
- The militant Islam: Again we see the clear fingerprints of the United States in the struggle for spheres of influence against Russia. Osama bin Laden not only acted in Kosovo, but also in Afghanistan in the fight against Russia. After the “useful idiots” fulfilled their task, NATO-USA created the biggest NATO base in Europe in Kosovo and even today these “useful idiots” are active in Ukraine – as the journalistic report “The Intercept” clearly shows.
- Corporate capitalism: In the previous government of Ukraine GMO foods were banned as required by Article 404 of the Europe Agreement. Accidentally was canceled on January 13. Since 2016, private foreign investors can buy agricultural land, shows Oakland’s Institute research, who writes about the huge potential of Ukrainian agriculture. The investment banker Michael Cox said: “Ukraine and Eastern Europe are very promising markets for agricultural companies, DEERE, Monsanto, DuPont – quoted by a Russian newspaper. Ukraine has the size of Britain and Germany put together and very fertile land. In addition, Ukraine is one of the largest electricity producers in Europe and is still one of the biggest producers of iron and steel. Ukraine has also been for a long time among the ten biggest arms manufacturers in the world, supplying Russia with military equipment. To cut these economic relations means simultaneous weakening of the Russian and the Iranian power, since these countries import resources and military equipment from Ukraine.
Author: Josef Muehlbauer (12.Nov. 2015), translated from german: Zornitsa Nikitina