West and Ukraine: Looking at Possible Scenarios By Irina LEBEDEVA

8 February 2014 — Strategic Culture Foundation

The Ukraine 2020 report was published in 2010 by the Center for Global Affairs. The paper presents possible options for Ukraine’s political development. Professor Michael Oppenheimer, Center for Global Affairs, New York University, was the founder of the project. The events in Ukraine appear to unfold at present according to the «three scenarios» described in the paper. James Sherr, Russia and Eurasia Program, Chatham House, writes in the foreword that the Center has participated in the projects conducted for the State Department, the Department of Defense, the National Intelligence Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Institute for Peace, the Bookings Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and Presidential Science Advisor. Almost all known experts on Ukraine from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Poland and other states took part in the project… but there was no representation on the part of Russia. It’ll be no surprise if one day the files found in the Ukraine’s Batkivshchyna Party office during a search will happen to be excerpts from this American what-to-do instruction book. A few years ago the authors of the paper managed to foresee the Svoboda Party leading the «people’s protests», the resignation of Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov and Arseniy Yatsenyuk coming to the fore… As the report says, there will be anti-Semitic attacks against Yatsenyuk because of his nationality, but they are easy to parry as ridiculous. The scenario described in the report envisages Svoboda getting sidestepped giving the way to the militants belonging to Trizub, an organization with reverence for the so called «Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists» led by Stepan Bandera. These people are characterized as «moderate elements» in the Ukraine-2020 report… Then, as the document predicts, the process of deeper «Ukrainization» is to ensue provoking the «Russian elements». It presupposes the privatization of strategic assets, open doors for Western investors, credits granted by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, doing away with the «Soviet taboos» on selling land away to foreigners and supervised involvement of China which is an enemy for the European Union and a competitor for Russia, squeezing the Black Sea Fleet out of Sebastopol, changing the Ukraine’s constitution making the country a parliamentary or Parliamentary-presidential republic (who will vote for Yatsenyuk at the presidential election?).

Scenario Two: National Consensus Leading to Reform. This is the best option for Washington and Brussels. Scenario One: Fragmentation from Failed Authoritarianism. The authors believe this option to be disadvantageous for the United States, as well as for the Russian Federation. Scenario three: Scenario Three: Strategic Authoritarianism. It envisions the development of events when President Yanukovych retains power. It’s a back-up option. In this case, President Yanukovych will have to ascertain his legitimacy by getting his shoulder wounded. Besides he will have to make all kinds of concessions to «foreign investors», implement structural and constitutional reforms, agree to credits serving to enslave and softly push Russia away from the sphere of its geopolitical interests. The outside forces have already created chaos in Ukraine, it’s not clear if they will be able to control it. Yanukovych has already been warned about following the fate of Milosevic in Serbia or Gaddafi in Libya. «International community» presumptuously believes the now encouraged Ukrainian nationalists will get tame as time goes by. Money is to go to pro-Western democrats under the condition of implementing the above mentioned «reforms», something the «trusted» opposition activists are already talking about. To the point, Yatsenyuk has recently remembered the Marshall Plan. Looking back at the history of the North Atlantic Alliance, they have often mentioned the Marshall Plan comparing it to «two halves of the same nut». After the second world war America did not grant the ruined Europe a gratuitous loan, there were agreements of semi-colonial nature like deploying «secret NATO weapons». It’s not the local Pravy Sektor (extreme right wing group), but these NATO structures who will play the role of «iron hand» leading Ukraine into transatlantic integration.

Washington is facing the possibility of new diplomatic failures damaging the country’s image abroad. The time is right to ask what $5 billion of America taxpayer’s money have been spent on. This is the sum Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Thomas O. Melia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), mentioned during the January hearings in Senate while talking about the Ukrainian successors of those who supported the ideas of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. The very same moderate Trezub named in honor of Stepan Bandera has been under constant oversight exercised by Euro Atlantic centers. Open at random any page of the US-based Ukrainian Weekly. You’ll see it expounding the views of Ukrainian collaborationists. The outlet has an office in Kiev. Reading it, you’ll know a lot of interesting things about the past «deeds» of those who go rampant on the streets of Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) and Grushevsky Street now. Since Victor Yanukovych was elected President of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Weekly focused on highlighting the activities of Pravy Sektor activists, the stories about prisoners’ tortures in the contemporary Ukraine, the calls for support of the «Ukrainian patriots» who blast Soviet era memorials. It also offers the information on Dmitro Yarosh, leader of the far-right militant group Pravy Sektor, and Pravy Sektor’s coordinator (nick name Pilipas) Andrei Tarasenko, who is telling stories about militants training, how youngsters, which have not seen military service, are taught to become real men who know how to use knives and compressed-air guns. It offers exhaustive information on other «brave nationalists» and the ways to counter «Russian intervention». The outlet also contains the recommendations of «Serbian revolutionaries» sharing their experience of toppling «dictators».

The more early Ukrainian Weekly editions were filled with the horror stories making blood run cold about the intrigues of Communists and Moskali, a derogatory Ukrainian term applied to Russians (try to say something to denigrate Jews in America, they’ll get you behind bars for that) or Golodomor- genocide organized by Russians to exterminate Ukrainians.

It’s a shame that, lacking independent information sources, American diplomacy uses such ravings to work out its Ukraine’s policy. The arrogance of ordinary American diplomats and congressmen is nothing to be surprised about. During the January congressional hearing devoted to Ukraine even someone as dry behind the ears as Zbigniew Brzezinski educated senators telling them that before the Ukrainians had been called Rusyns before Russians appeared and their old dream of many centuries to join Europe should be supported. Domino reaction is to be launched and the multi-national Russia will also walk down the same road leading to NATO membership. The both sons of Zbigniew Brzezinski have close relation to NATO. Ian Brzezinski is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program and is on the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Advisors Group. Mark Brzezinski is a lawyer who served on President Clinton’s National Security Council as an expert on Russia and Southeastern Europe and who was a partner in McGuire Woods LLP, he serves as the US ambassador to Sweden. He has had relation to selling military aircraft.

Why should Victoria Nuland, who became a laughing stock of Ukrainian and Russian blogs for distributing buns and cookies on Maidan Square, appear in Kiev again the day before the Olympic Games in Sochi kick off and call on those dissatisfied with the «Yanukovych regime « to get back to the idea of European integration or stepping on the «war path»? That’s when clannish mentality – the scourge of US foreign policy – steps in. The clan Victoria Nuland belongs to is no less influent than the clan of the Brzezinski. Her husband Robert Kagan is a well-known foreign policy scholar, analyst and columnist. He feels right at home when it comes to rubbing shoulders with other researchers in the most important think tanks and has access to the most influential American media outlets. He has pushed for taking part in the Libyan military operation. He was among those who opposed the incumbent President of the United States advising Mitt Romney. It was him who prompted Romney to call Russia number one geopolitical enemy of the United States. His brother Fred Kagan has authored a number of books and reports published by different digests around the world. Victoria Nuland’s career path has been closely intertwined with the collapse of the Soviet Union; she was in Moscow at the time. And she has witnessed the ensuing US foreign policy «tectonic shifts». It was her who honed her skills in finding pretexts for invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in 2001 when the intervention in Afghanistan was launched. Later she served as the representative in the North Atlantic Council. Her NATO experience is not wasted – her heart is calling her to the East again…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.