In 2014, brother nations (“bratskie narodi”) Russia and Ukraine, united by common cultures, mentalities, customs, traditions and closely related languages, became enemies. They have remained so for eight years now. The main reason behind this negative development has been the geopolitical game between the Russian Federation (RF) and the West.

The Moscow-organized referendum resulted overwhelmingly (95%) in favor of the union of the Crimean Peninsula with the RF. The Russian government considers the referendum’s result as a sufficient international law basis for the accession of the said region into the RF. However, the West dismissed this result as being rigged (or engineered) by the Kremlin. What are Russia’s security concerns though as they seem to be at the heart of the current crisis?

First, Moscow is concerned that the United States (under the guise of collective NATO defense) will eventually deploy troops (and possibly missiles) in Ukraine as military cooperation between the two has seen unprecedented growth since the regime change of 2014 in Kiev. (NB: Regime change has been a time-honored “tenet” of US foreign policy – we need not elaborate in the confines of this short article.)

In this respect, let us mention that Russia has kept Kaliningrad a semi-exclave, situated on the Baltic coast, bordered by Poland to the south and Lithuania to the north and east. Thus, this Russian strip of land is squeezed by two NATO members with the US stationed troops. Currently, approximately 4,500 US personnel are on rotation in Poland while Lithuania seeks permanent US military presence in the country (online report by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, February 9, 2022).

Second, without Crimea, the Black Sea, which connects European Russia to the rest of Europe, would become a vulnerable point for Moscow. In the case of the Baltic Sea region, Russia maintains a balance of power with its weapons in Kaliningrad, reducing vulnerability in its northwest. However, Russia would become vulnerable in its western and southwestern part: In the Black Sea the RF is surrounded by Georgia and Ukraine, which are both hostile, plus Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, all three NATO member-states. Moreover, it is well known that the latter, boasting the second strongest army in NATO, harbors neo-imperial ambitions of control over former Ottoman lands in the Middle East, the Caucasus as well the Turkic republics of Central Asia (Pan-Turanism).

The Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine also held a referendum. Unlike Crimea, as of 2014 they received the status of an unrecognized state, separate from Ukraine and Russia. However, the Ukrainian crisis did not end there. We are now witnessing the second most active phase of the crisis.

Russia is pursuing an open foreign policy, positioning itself as a friendly state, in order to improve its image in the eyes of the world community, as evidenced by various international programs and projects for young people and foreign students, international humanitarian assistance, as well as peacekeeping and anti-terrorist missions in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Given the above facts, it becomes clear that Russia wants to convince everybody that it has no reason to attack Ukraine, except for one – Ukraine’s NATO accession. Therefore, the troop buildup near Ukraine’s borders is an accompanying tool for negotiating security guarantees.
Ukraine itself seems not to be the question, but the negotiating terrain between Russia and the United States. Russia’s national interests appear not to be founded on the capture of Ukraine, but on the inadmissibility of NATO’s expansion to the east.

Such is clearly reflected in the proposals for security guarantees put forward to NATO and the United States: non-advancement of NATO to the east and non-deployment of weapons systems near the borders of Russia. Russia’s proposed non-expansion of NATO not only implies an exclusion of Ukraine and Georgia from NATO membership, but also a return to the 1997 membership, which means the exclusion from NATO of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia. Of course, the Kremlin understands that such a turning back of the clock is practically impossible. However, it is a frequent stroke of Russian (and not only) diplomacy by Russia to go for the maximum in order to secure the desired minimum.

The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO is a red line. At the same time, the Kremlin reckons that the US-NATO camp shares its unwillingness to enter into a direct confrontation. First, after the Iraq and Afghanistan debacle, fresh US foreign meddling in Ukraine could deal a serious blow to the current Biden administration’s domestic approval rate. Second, NATO has no legitimate reasons to provide military assistance to Ukraine. Third, an eruption of war will lead to sad consequences for the whole world.
For all the above reasons, it seems that Moscow’s proposals for security guarantees are a good enough compromise option for both sides.

Possible crisis outcome

A possible scenario would be the conclusion of an agreement on security guarantees, where the main emphasis would be placed on the non-deployment of medium-range and shorter-range missiles near the borders of Russia. Consequently, even if Ukraine joins NATO, missiles will not be placed on its territory. Of course, this does not form a new world order, but it will ensure regional security.

From Moscow’s perspective, subjugation or occupation of Ukraine is not the end. Prevention of NATO expansion is. Russia fears the deployment of troops and missiles near its borders. It is a red line in its foreign policy. The Ukrainian crisis is not at all about Ukraine. It is about the conflicting geopolitical interests of Russia and the United States in the former Soviet space. On the one hand Moscow attempts to form a multipolar system of international relations while on the other hand Washington favors steadfast adhesion to the unipolar system established at the end of the Cold War.

Last but not least, we should not forget the important role of China in providing political support to Russia. At the same time, however, Beijing aims at capturing the energy market in Europe, which Moscow stands to lose in case sanctions are imposed.

Κατ’ αρχάς ας ξεκινήσουμε με την σημασία της διεξαγωγής αδιάβλητων δημοψηφισμάτων ως γνήσιας έκφρασης αυτοδιάθεσης των λαών. Η ημερομηνία δημοσίευσης του άρθρου του ΧΜ συμπίπτει με μια σημαντική επέτειο της Κυπριακής Ιστορίας: η 15η Ιανουαρίου του 1950, ήταν η πρώτη Κυριακή του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος στην Κύπρο. Τότε, ο Κυπριακός Λαός ψήφισε με καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία για την Ένωση της νήσου με την Ελλάδα. Η απόφαση του καταπατήθηκε από τους Βρετανούς αποικιοκράτες ενώ η αδυναμία της μητέρας πατρίδας να προστρέξει για εφαρμογή της ξεκάθαρης ετυμηγορίας (96%) κατέστησε το αποτέλεσμα του Κυπριακού δημοψηφίσματος ανενεργό εις το διηνεκές! Αντίθετα στην περίπτωση της Κριμαϊκής Χερσονήσου, όπου επίσης η καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία του Κριμαϊκού λαού ψήφισε υπέρ της ένωσης με την Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία, η ετυμηγορία εφαρμόστηκε πάραυτα με απόφαση της Μόσχας η οποία και από τότε προχωρά στην κοινωνικο-οικονομική ανάπτυξη της Κριμαίας.

Χαρακτηριστικά, όπως αναφέρεται και στο άρθρο του ΧΜ, κατά την τελευταία τετραετία, στην Κριμαϊκή Χερσόνησο οι υποδομές, η αγροτική και βιομηχανική οικονομία αναπτύσσονται, ο ορυκτός πλούτος καθίσταται εκμεταλλεύσιμος και βεβαίως συνεπακολούθως το βιοτικό επίπεδο του τοπικού πληθυσμού ανεβαίνει. Εμφανώς η Ρωσική κυβέρνηση έχει μακροπρόθεσμο σχέδιο ανάπτυξης της Κριμαίας, το οποίο μετατρέπει την δυσκολία της επιβολής Δυτικών κυρώσεων σε μια ευκαιρία διαφορετικής ανάπτυξης της περιοχής. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, όπως αναφέρεται στο προαναφερθέν άρθρο: «Στόχος της Ρωσίας είναι η Κριμαία να γίνει η νότια πύλη των αφρικανικών χωρών και των προϊόντων τους και να δημιουργήσει μια ζώνη ελεύθερης αγοράς [εμπορίου] για τα αγροτικά προϊόντα που προέρχονται από χώρες της ΕΕ, τα οποία λόγω κυρώσεων δεν προωθούνται στη ρωσική αγορά και των οποίων η αξία ανέρχεται στα 100 δις ευρώ.» Γίνεται αντιληπτό ότι ο όγκος των εν δυνάμει συναλλαγών είναι τεράστιος.

Στο άρθρο επισημαίνεται επίσης η σοβαρή εκδοχή, να έχει προκατασκευαστεί η νέα κρίση των Στενών του Κερτς από τον πρόεδρο Ποροσένκο με σκοπό να συσπειρώσει τις ψήφους των ακραίων εθνικιστών σε μια προσπάθεια να αποσοβήσει προδιαγεγραμμένη ήττα λόγω της άθλιας οικονομικής κατάστασης στην χώρα.

Ένα άλλο σοβαρό ενδεχόμενο μας βρίσκει επίσης σύμφωνους: όπως εκτιμάται από αρκετούς διεθνών αναλυτών, η πρόσφατη κρίση στο Κερτς πιθανόν να είναι πρόβα τζενεράλε για έναυσμα Γ’ Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Οι ΗΠΑ, για ανεξήγητο(;) λόγο, έχουν αποχωρήσει από την Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – Συνθήκη INF (όχι ΙΜF όπως εκ παραδρομής αναφέρεται στο εν λόγω άρθρο). Η Συνθήκη INF διημείφθη το 1987 μεταξύ ΗΠΑ και ΕΣΣΔ και προέβλεπε απόσυρση πυραύλων – και των εκτοξευτών τους – τόσο συμβατικών όσο και πυρηνικών, βεληνεκούς 500 μέχρι 5,500 χιλιομέτρων. Μέσα σε τέσσερα χρόνια, μέχρι το 1991, είχαν αποσυρθεί από την ενεργό δράση 2,692 πύραυλοι. Στη δεκαετία 1991-2001 διεθνείς παρατηρητές επιβεβαίωναν με διατεταγμένες επιθεωρήσεις ότι οι αποσυρθέντες πύραυλοι παρέμειναν ανενεργοί.

Σήμερα, ως αποτέλεσμα της Αμερικανικής απόσυρσης από την Συνθήκη INF, αλλά και της γενικότερης τεταμένης κατάστασης δημιουργηθείσας από τις απανωτές επελάσεις του ΝΑΤΟ επί του πάλαι πότε Σοβιετικού χώρου άσκησης επιρροής – κατ’ αθέτηση σιωπηρής συμφωνίας μη επέκτασης του μετά την διάλυση της ΕΣΣΔ –  γινόμαστε σήμερα μάρτυρες μιας νέας κούρσας εξοπλιστικού ανταγωνισμού η οποία αναβιώνει τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο. Από την μια, ΗΠΑ με το ρυμουλκούμενο της ΝΑΤΟ να επιχειρούν με υπερβολική αυταρέσκεια να παίξουν τον ρόλο του αδιαμφισβήτητου πλανητάρχη, ενώ από την άλλη μια ανερχόμενη Ρωσία και Κίνα να ορθώνουν ανασχετικώς το ανάστημα τους. Ας σημειώσουμε εδώ ότι αθροιστικά οι δύο τελευταίες δυνάμεις πόρρω απέχουν σε στρατιωτικές δαπάνες συγκρινόμενες με αυτές της υπερδύναμης των ΗΠΑ.

Όπως και να ‘χει το ξέσπασμα ενός καταστροφικού περιφερειακού πολέμου στον Εύξεινο Πόντο θα είχε απρόβλεπτες συνέπειες. Θα μπορούσε εύλογα να ρωτήσει ο μέσος Κύπριος: και τι μπορεί να πράξει η μικρή και αδύναμη Κύπρος; Κι όμως η Κύπρος ως μέλος της ΕΕ με κατά πλειοψηφία ορθόδοξο πληθυσμό και άριστες σχέσεις τόσο με την Μόσχα όσο και με το Κίεβο και τις ΗΠΑ θα μπορούσε να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία διαμεσολάβησης σπρώχνοντας προς την κατεύθυνση της εκτόνωσης της κρίσης και της προώθησης του αφοπλισμού. Είμαστε πεπεισμένοι ότι η ομόδοξη προεδρεύουσα της ΕΕ παρευξείνια Ρουμανία έχει επίσης άμεσο κι απτό συμφέρον εκτόνωσης της παρούσας κρίσης.

Ως προς το γενικότερο ζήτημα της μη εξάπλωσης, με απώτερο στόχο την εξάλειψη των Όπλων Μαζικής Καταστροφής, ας μας επιτραπεί να αναφέρουμε ότι η δουλειά του Δικτύου Ανεξαρτήτων Δεξαμενών Σκέψης της ΕΕ στο συγκεκριμένο φλέγον ζήτημα δεν είναι αμελητέα κι έχει την στήριξη της καθ ύλην αρμόδιας Φεντερίκα Μογκερίνι. Ένα κυπριακό ίδρυμα ερευνών συμμετέχει σε αυτή την αγωνιώδη προσπάθεια …

As a result of Euromaidan, some oligarchs were replaced by others, and Ukraine is built out of patronage pyramids, which are based on corruption. Relatives, friends and acquaintances exchange with each other money, orders, real estate, goods, services, licenses, grants and benefits. As a result of these exchanges, ministries, parties, enterprises, media and public organizations are in the hands of a small group of people. When public discontent increases, they change the visible figures. But basically nothing changes the author of the article asserts.

In fact, the country is periodically reformatting, but it has nothing to do with the change of power. The publication claims that Poroshenko climbed up to the president’s post using the same scheme, hence the official elections were a routine performance.

Illustrious Ukrainian reforms are conducted exclusively to the extent that the authorities allow. If the transformations affect the interests of at least one of the clans, they are not implemented.

It became known that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), which is under the control of the United States, received instructions from Washington to check the activities of the Poroshenko’s closest associates. Within a few days, this department initiated more than twenty cases against the President’s business partners, his associates and relatives. Apparently, the aim is to collect discrediting material on the Ukrainian president through his closest associates …

The US security services files are bursting with discrediting information on the Kiev authorities. For example, Washington knows that the oligarch Igor Kolomoisky and President Petro Poroshenko withdrew part of IMF tranches through Privat Bank to offshore. In addition, some Ukrainian politicians provide relevant information. Thus, US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch met with Yulia Tymoshenko, who has told her about corruption in the top leadership of Ukraine. The former chairman of the Odessa regional administration, Mikhail Saakashvili, in recent months has written several articles and has given interviews to well-known Western media such as The Washington Post. He referred to Poroshenko himself and his entourage’s corruption.

Earlier this year the US became interested in Poroshenko’s corruption schemes. At the time the Congress decided to start investigating possible serious financial fraud of the current of Ukrainian government high ranking officials. The special subcommittee of the US parliament, which deals with issues of Europe and Asia, initiated an investigation. A subsequent hearing in the Congress examined a number of corruption cases of Ukrainian politicians and government officials associated with large-scale businesses.

It is clear that such major investigations are not conducted for the sake of it. Apparently, Poroshenko’s attempts to please Donald Trump and to beg forgiveness for the support of Hillary Clinton were unsuccessful.

According to Oleg Tsarev former deputy of the Ukrainian parliament, the United States has already prepared a plan to replace the current regime in Kiev. According to him, the American curators keep the situation under control and monitor every step of the Ukrainian “reformers”.

Undoubtedly, under such circumstances any president’s misdemeanor may signal his end. If the investigations establish Poroshenko’s dishonesty and wrong practices, the consequences may far reaching. Washington may decide for a plan to replace not only the president but the entire Kiev authorities. It is also possible that the discrediting material is collected with the aim to blackmail Poroshenko in case he decides to disobey Washington’s advice to step down. In any case, none of the available choices looks promising for Poroshenko.

The leaflets spread by the activists read: 20,000 of our children have been killed so far in Donbass. Poroshenko and his government officials earn by dint of the war. So as long as Poroshenko is in power, the war will not end. Poroshenko and his henchmen plunder our country, make money on weapons, using which then kill our children and their own people!

The main demand of the protesters is to stop the war in Donbass. Women who lost their sons in the so-called antiterrorist operation (“ATO”) zone are sure that the war will continue as long as Poroshenko is in power. According to activists, the president and his team plunder Ukraine by warmongering.

Interestingly, three years ago, when the “ATO” was just beginning, the mothers of potential Ukrainian soldiers never protested against the war in Donbass. On the contrary, all women’s protests were related to the demand of purging operation in Donetsk and Lugansk and the supply of lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military. As coffins filled with Ukrainian soldiers’ and officers’ dead bodies have been regularly coming in the capital from Donbas, mothers came to their senses and began to oppose the war. “ATO veterans” who came to the building of the presidential administration joined the protesters and they all began to chant “Impeachment!”

However, there is no law allowing the legitimate “dismissal” of the president in Ukraine. But does it embarrass anyone? Once during Maydan in 2014, the same “peaceful protesters” demanded impeachment, and then they were shooting at Yanukovych. This scenario may possibly repeat itself.

Natalia Don, head of the movement and member of the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, considers that the Ukrainian authorities and the head of the Security Service of Ukraine Vasily Hrytsak for some reason see in their movement “the hand of Moscow”. Apparently, those in power in Kiev believe that the real patriots will remain silent, whatever the authorities do with the country and its people.

The people are gradually beginning to understand that the so-called “revolution of dignity” was a political bluff which led Ukraine to a destructive civil war. Now the state, which is in fact under external control, cannot expect anything better. The crisis in the country is due not only to costly military operations, but also to poor management of the state system, which leads to an actual default, external economic and thereby political dependence. All this has transformed the life of ordinary Ukrainians into a desperate battle for existence.

While the degree of destruction and degradation of the state is steadily growing and moving to a critical level, the social atmosphere grows tense. But even if the situation in the state becomes threatening and the discontent with government come up ceiling, next coup will not take place without the will of external players who have their own idea in mind, which is far from Ukrainian national interests. It is possible that the patrons will have a desire to “renew their control of power” in Kiev again, entrusting it to a more effective figure. And the current president of Ukraine is very afraid of it.

Petro Poroshenko is trying to lead a “double game”, but it turns out badly. On the one hand, he tries to persuade the West that the Donbas region will soon ask to return back to his control, and that heavy military losses are not a defeat, but an innovative military strategy. On the other hand, he perfectly understands that it is high time the war finished. In any case, Poroshenko is unlikely to be able to keep his hold on power.

It is not easy to keep the power in a situation where crowds of armed aggressive radicals who have fought in Donbas present to the authorities an account of their “heroism” and assert their claims. Poroshenko has to solve an almost impossible problem: to disarm the battalions of thugs who do not obey anyone. Of course, he will seek to “distract” them with a new rush to the front.

All this scabrous political card game indicates that in the near future the Ukrainian people can expect neither positive changes nor stability.

“We will provide assistance by way of advice. Today we will discuss the issue of the association. We are pleased that despite these difficult times, and reforms, the country exhibits economic growth,” said Merkel. Where she got the data about the rising showings in the heavily impoverished country, is unknown. Probably, she has believed Poroshenko’s words. In addition, Merkel characterized as hard all the measures that the IMF has demanded from Ukraine as a precondition of granting loans.

The evolving situation in the relations between Europe and Ukraine, is puzzling. The authorities in Kiev bend over backwards in order to secure that at least one of the EU member-states helped Ukraine, in appreciation of its pro-Western aspirations. Europe pretends to be ready to help, but it is not in a hurry to do so. The logic is simple: it is high time European taxpayers money was saved, especially because everyone understands that Ukraine will never return the loans.

Recently, the focus of the EU-Ukraine dialogue has been reduced to a single item: soliciting of money.  Whether the next tranche will be granted at all and under what conditions – if provided – remains to be seen.

In January 2015, the well-known billionaire investor George Soros said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that “the ability of the West to provide financial support to Ukraine will be a crucial test of strength of “disintegrating Europe” opposing a “growing Russia”. Twenty five years ago the Soviet Union collapsed while Europe united, but today the situation is quite the opposite. Consequently, Europe has failed to pass the “test of strength” referred to by George Soros.

Irrespective of how one rates the personality of Soros, there is no doubt that he is a great financier and that it is worth heeding to his point of view. Appealing to Europe, Soros was evidently panicked, knowing that things in the West were going bad.

Shortly before his statement, Soros visited Kiev. Being an ace at his job, he has easily assessed the situation in the Ukrainian economy. The adventurer Soros, the famous investor in all post-Soviet regimes, who welcomed the coup in the Ukraine, recognized that the investment to this country is a pointless undertaking. No sooner he said so and financial tranches to Kiev were seriously curtailed.

President Petro Poroshenko and other Ukrainian politicians often reiterate that their country needs the assistance from abroad because they “are waging a war for Europe”. Evidently Poroshenko engaged in self-importance overrating the role of Ukraine: war is waged not by them, but via them. The West has used the country for its own purposes: to tear Ukraine away from Russia and to move NATO eastward. Major players on the global chessboard are least interested in the fate of the Ukrainian people. Kiev politicians instead of restoring cooperation with Russia and joining the process of Eurasian integration, in other words doing what is beneficial to their national economy, fall for the temptation of odious “European choice”.

No doubt according to Western plans, the Ukrainians had to fight hard with their eastern compatriots turning the conflict into a protracted one. Funding for this bloody project, of course, was also expected. The US did not hide the fact that only for preparation and execution of the “Maidan” mass demonstration they spent more than five billion dollars, not to mention contributions to the ensuing war. The West could not imagine that a significant portion of the channeled funds would dissolve in Ukraine and that it would be impossible to explain where the money has gone.

Ukraine is losing the image of the European power that was created by the West. Until recently, Ukrainian politicians were welcomed in Brussels and Washington. However, today, this goodwill is lacking.

Europe is pestered with domestic problems, which disturb its organized civic life. The EU openly demonstrates its dissatisfaction with the actions of the current Ukrainian leadership and with the results of their incompetent work as well as with their endless requests. The prospective Brexit, the influx of illegal migrants and the constant threat of terrorism, these are of prime interest to Europe today. Ukraine is lacking in this list. So the country can only wait for Europe’s promised advice.

In a whole raft of policy fields the EU needs cooperation with the Russian Federation as much as the other way round. Energy cooperation is paramount. First, the EU imports around a third of its needs in natural gas from Russia. Second, whether certain policy circles in Washington like it or not, Moscow leads the fight in eradicating the Islamic terrorism threat (ISIS) emanating from the Middle East and seeking to spread westwards. The Russian intervention in Syria has proved effective in stemming the horrible growth of the Daesh menace.

Sanctions against Russia over Ukraine were ill conceived and counter-productive in the first place. As time passes, it becomes increasingly transparent that the current administration in Kiev fails to deliver on its Minsk Agreement deliverables. Smaller EU member states, for example Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary have been hit hard in their trade relations with Russia because of the sanctions imposed at the behest of Washington. Unfortunately, Merkel’s administration in Berlin, the EU’s locomotive, irresponsibly drifts along the US in a futile sanctions policy against EU’s main trade partner, rational neighbour, energy provider and natural ally Russia.

The Cypriot Parliament already in July approved a resolution calling for the lifting of the sanctions the European Union has imposed on the Russian Federation. No single vote was cast against this resolution, an indication of the strong support in favour of full normalization of relations with the RF across the political spectrum. The Cypriot MPs who voted in favour of the resolution noted that the sanctions have not helped towards the resolution of the crisis in Ukraine, but rather they have proved to be counterproductive and ineffective.

The resolution calls on the Government “to work within the framework of the European Council for lifting the sanctions imposed by the European Union against the Russian Federation, pointing to the usefulness of dialogue and the need for peaceful cooperation in all fields”.

At the same time, the House of Representatives urges the Cypriot Government to take initiatives and proceed to actions in order to prepare the ground for lifting the sanctions of the Russian Federation regarding exports of Cyprus products to this country. It also decides to take initiatives in the framework of parliamentary diplomacy aiming at the restoration of relations and cooperation between the EU and the RF in all fields.

The Cyprus Parliament “calls on all parties involved in the Ukrainian crisis to continue the political and diplomatic efforts for its peaceful settlement and to fully implement the Minsk Agreement of 12 February 2015”. It stresses the consequences of the crisis in Ukraine on the broader cooperation and development of relations between all states of the European continent.

The resolution underlines that the House of Representatives is “convinced that the sanctions … have proved counterproductive and in no way have helped to solve the crisis in Ukraine”. It recognises that the sanctions imposed by the European Union against the Russian Federation ‘have had a negative effect on the trade and economic relations’ between Cyprus and Russia. It also considers the sanctions as unacceptable and an obstacle to dialogue on the bilateral and multilateral level.

Thus, President Anastasiades arrives in Brussels on Thursday equipped with a strong mandate from the Cypriot people’s representative body to oppose the renewal of the sanctions regime that only seeks to damage relations with the EU’s natural ally at a time that cooperation with Russia is an absolute need in order to defeat the Islamist extremist threat that is engulfing the European continent.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte declared that Ukraine will “never” join the EU. According to Amsterdam, Kiev today needs to establish good relations with the EU and Russia. It is clear that after the April 6 referendum the Dutch society does not support the idea of Ukraine’s accession to the EU.

Kiev’s foreign policy is built on claiming that Russia is the aggressor. This idea helps Ukraine’s government to cover the flourishing iniquity and corruption in the country. Kiev just promises to bring the country to European standards. The Ukrainian mass media quote the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement that the Ukraine will not stop its integration into the EU. Kiev takes out European loans with no intention to ever pay them back. This is how the Ukrainian leadership acts in the framework of “European integration”. It is obvious that new insolvent state within the EU will cause new economic difficulties.

In an ill-conceived attempt to promote European values, Kiev increases the gap between the government and the Ukrainian society. For example, the majority of citizens reject the idea of LGBT support, but the country’s leaders persistently promote it. It is obvious that this is one of the issues that cause rising tensions in the Ukraine.

Moreover, Ukraine has an official conflict zone – two unrecognized republics of Donbass – which declared independence from Kiev. The country’s leadership has started military actions against its own citizens, bashfully calling them “anti-terrorist operations”; at the same time it declares that the Ukraine is at war with Russia.

Witnessing all of Ukraine’s problems, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte concluded that this country “should never join the EU”. It is worth noting that, unlike the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who promised Kiev to join the EU “in twenty years,” Rutte used the word “never”. It is obvious that the Dutch Prime Minister expressed the attitude of the majority of his country’s citizens.

Moreover, no one should forget that the Ukraine and the EU’s rapprochement could affect negatively EU – Moscow relations. Neither Europe, nor Moscow wishes it to happen, no one but Ukraine. Anti-Russian sanctions have already undermined relations between Moscow and European countries, which resulted in economic losses on both sides. Today, Europe has a choice – either Russia or Ukraine. Apparently, the choice will be made not in favor of the latter.

Obviously, the citizens of the Netherlands are not interested in Ukraine’s joining the EU due to the fact that this would entail negative consequences for the whole Europe.

All projects, in fact, are aimed at studying the possibility of controlling the masses, through the expression of dissatisfaction with their situation. The practical goal of these “scientific studies” is to organize protest movements and create a revolutionary situation, which are in the interests of the state-initiator i.e. the USA. Those who are interested in the Ukrainian conflict, of course, drew attention to the statement of the US Vice-President Joseph Biden, which was made during his visit to Kiev in December 2015. It was he, who called all what is happening in Ukraine, “experiment”.

It is clear that all American “experiments” are aimed not at the welfare of Ukrainians, the prosperity of the country and the fight against corruption, as many people would like to believe. Their results are of value primarily for the American hegemon, otherwise they would not have the slightest sense. It is worth noting that the first object of such American experiments became an European state, not an African or Asian country. The scheme of the color revolutions was already tested in other countries. However, the model of relations between Ukraine and the United States is unique: a country in Central Europe, with 42 million people, comes under the complete control of Washington.

The “Ukrainian experiment” is distinguished by the fact that the US force many European countries not only to support this expensive idea (only its first step – the Maidan, according to Washington, cost five billion USD), but also to provide vital information and political support. The heads of EU member states, as if on command, welcomed the “European choice” of Ukraine, not caring what price is paid by Ukrain-ian people for this choice. Thanks to American experiments, the country actually lost sovereignty and succumbed to external control. Such a model of puppet state, created in Ukraine, is represented by the US as a European standard. But this state became absolutely ineffective, because it was deprived of its managerial and financial leverage. The country cannot comply well enough even the orders of its overseas patrons.

Carrying out new experiments, the Americans seek to destabilize the situation at the borders with Russia, creating “hot spots”. Integrating a new member state in the EU, half-destitute, externally manipulated and completely out of control Ukraine, Washington probably do cunning maneuver in the great political game that will help to eliminate unnecessary political and economic rivals and retain its status as global hegemon. The result is palpable: the European Union has implemented a policy of confrontation with Russia nearly for two years, referring to alleged ‘Russian involvement’ in Ukraine as a pretext. Brussels uses at a loss the tool of sanctions, which, however unpleasant for Moscow, has not yielded the effect expected by the West. The West does not require much from Kiev: Ukraine just needs to be a “bad country” with many problems, it must wage senseless war against its own people, humbly beg for loans to pay the bills and ignore the Minsk agreement. But the main thing in this drama is to hate Russia as much as possible, inculcating this feeling in each Ukrainian citizen. A logical question arises: will Ukraine remain the single platform for the European experiments of White House?

Russian media outlets have long criticized the policy of ubiquitous intervention of Washington, which brings to the world nothing but trouble: bloody tribal and sectarian wars, economic crises (vede: Iraq, Syria, Libya). Lately, US foreign policy actions are also harshly criticized by Western media which overtly state that “cracked position of the American hegemony in the global political arena is the direct result of persistent intervention in the affairs of others”. This is clearly manifested in the backdrop of the civil war in Donbass, eastern Ukraine. It becomes increasingly apparent that the US – probably for the first time – stumbles, failing to negotiate the ‘Ukrainian fence’ in its quest for global hegemony.

One can say with confidence that Washington turns a deaf ear to the critical opinions expressed by a whole raft of seasoned Western analysts. The US administration must make up its mind for radical change in its foreign policy course. Otherwise, not only the dominance of the US dollar, but also the American world dominance in trade, economic, cultural and military terms will come to an end. This US dominance is already the big question.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war the U.S. “relaxed”, considering that the main geopolitical enemy had already been defeated. The level of training of political scientists, analysts and especially experts on Russian affairs decreased. This manifest decline in the study of Russia has led to serious problems in practicing the interventionist approach. In particular, this factor had a negative impact on the planning and implementation of the ‘Maidan revolution’ which gave birth to the the Ukrainian conflict and the surge of neo-Nazism in the country. The American strategists in charge were so confident of the US overwhelming power that did not even allow the doubt that anyone would dare to obstruct the implementation of their plans.

However, Russia was not willing to tolerate the re-emergence of fascism among their Ukrainian brethren, the older generation of which fought heroically against the Nazi war machine during what the Russians and the other ex-Soviet peoples call ‘The Great Patriotic War’.

No doubt, the American grand strategists have made a fundamental error: they failed to take into account the peculiarities of Ukrainian history, the ethnic heterogeneity of its society, the mentality characteristics of the population in the Western and Eastern regions of the country. They aimed to wrest the whole of Ukraine from Russia, but as a result they are splitting it into parts. Perusing a Soviet-Russian school history textbook would have sufficed for them to avoid the horrible blunders .

Another cause of failure was the fact that the U.S. underestimated the will of their chief opponent, i.e. Russia, to dare challenge American power. Without meeting much resistance in their waged wars, US believed in their invulnerable superiority. They have been under the illusion of omnipotence that blurred their judgment.

As it happens Moscow has shown remarkable resilience over Ukraine, putting up an unexpected degree of stiff political and diplomatic resistance. Washington did not seem to be prepared for this situation; thereby its much vaunted omnipotence is put under serious doubt. It is unlikely that the battered U.S. image will manage to regain its former lustre.

The international community, tired of the failing American dictates that bred trouble and enormous human suffering in the entire Middle East North Africa (MENA) region and now in Ukraine, begins to plausibly pose the question: Why should the United States make all world decisions? It looks like that the unfolding Ukrainian drama grants the initiative on the world chessboard to Russia, which has a unique chance to make the US acknowledge the fact that we live in a multi-polar world.

It seems that the Ukrainian authorities entertain an ulterior motive in their talk about UN peacekeepers and EU police mission. In the near future, on the initiative of Kiev (in all probability following US wishes), this issue will be discussed by the UN Security Council.

Russia, for its part, has already stated that the latest Minsk agreement should just be observed and made it clear that there is not much of a point in these missions. Moscow places utmost importance to the implementation of the painstakingly negotiated 12th February Minsk Agreement. According to the provisions of the ceasefire agreement, the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are to create their own police forces. The OSCE will hold observation missions of the separatist area. Naturally, if some other schemes are immediately put forward, the question arises if the Minsk agreement is going to be implemented, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, wondered.

What do the Americans and Kiev really seek? A repetition of the Kosovo model? A UN peacekeeping mission, even with the participation of Russia, as the first step to legitimization of foreign military presence in Ukraine? Then an EU police mission can become the follow-up measure designed to preserve the status quo and keep the national liberation movement in Novorossia within the borders of the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ and the ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’. If the Europeans balk at the consequences, the Americans will accuse everyone of unwillingness to settle the conflict and will continue to bolster up Kiev’s punitive forces with military counselors, mercenaries and weapons which Washington has long been supplying directly and indirectly through its NATO allies.

Interestingly, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor is not keen in further militarizing the conflict by sending more weapons to the Kiev government. Sensing the distance Berlin keeps from Washington, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin stated that Germany should take more responsibility for the resolution of conflicts in Europe and monitor the compliance of the latest Minsk agreement. In other words Klimkin says that Europe should not allow the US to expose Europe as unable of solving problems of regional security.

Not without reason, Russia is watchful of the Western NATO-driven Kosovo model ‘peacekeeping ideas. The self-proclaimed people’s republics of eastern Ukraine do not put much trust to the current Kiev authorities, neither to the US nor to the EU. Naturally, the pro-Russian Easterners understand that their future depends on themselves including their resolve to fight for freedom with arms. And the number of such people in the East of Ukraine is growing.