Artigo publicado originalmente no jornal da Strategic Culture Foundation, em 08 de fevereiro de 2014.
Por Irina Lebedeva
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…
O texto original encontra-se em: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/02/08/west-and-ukraine-looking-at-possible-scenarios.html
O texto original encontra-se em: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/02/08/west-and-ukraine-looking-at-possible-scenarios.html