Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and Slavic Unity at Stake / News / News agency Inforos
Rate it
Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and Slavic Unity at Stake

The current crisis in Ukraine is largely seen as a conflict of President Viktor Yushchenko and opposition leader Yulia Timoshenko, on the one hand, and members of the ruling coalition in parliament (the Regions Party, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party), on the other, over the alleged violations of legal norms. Generally speaking, complaints about legality sound ridiculous in a nation which has bred dozens of oligarchs with criminal background and encouraged criminal ways and relations in practically all government bodies and in all spheres.

As is known, surface events usually have underlying cause-and-effect correlations. I would like to analyze here, in a systematic fashion, the deeper reasons for this crisis. Let me try and explain why and how it actually happened.

The first thing to be discussed under the systematic analysis scheme is criminal and oligarchic interests; second, the geopolitical reasons for the crisis; third, the legal assessment of what was imposed on society; fourth, the propaganda component; and fifth, the results we are in for.

I have written and spoken about it on multiple occasions. But I have not forecasted and warned just to share my perspective with the public. I wanted the people to understand and see for themselves who is who. They do not have to act as impersonal electorate who cast their ballots into the box without thinking. The people must see that the road they are prodded to is not leading to prosperity, well-being, reconciliation or unity.

The first major component of the Ukrainian crisis has to do with the criminal and oligarchic interests and relations. To understand this, one must look back to the year 1991, when factories, collective farms and other property built by our fathers was confiscated from the people and the criminal seizure of property began. This is still happening in Ukraine. Several oligarchic clans with criminal backgrounds exist in our country since the early 1990s. They especially prospered when Leonid Kuchma was president. In 2004, he in fact fell victim to those clans after having failed to mediate between them. One of the clans – the “orange” bloc - is the architect of today’s Saturnalia. Leaders like Yushchenko and Timoshenko are no more than political tools for them.

The new redivision of property which started in 2004 is still on in Ukraine – suffice it to mention the conflict over Krivorozhstal, Ukraine’s largest steel plant. It is in the conflict of oligarchic interests that the current political crisis is rooted; it is from there that puppets are manipulated at the level of the president, the executive branch (the cabinet) and the legislative branch (the Verkhovna Rada).

Geopolitical interests are important, too. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 was not enough for the external forces which seek to break the Russian and Slavic unity and lay hands on the Russian Federation’s energy resources. The Americans, for example, will now try to interfere in Ukraine and claim its riches, too, like they did in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Now they are greedily approaching Iran; Ukraine is sure to be next.

Viktor Yushchenko is a hostage of U.S. interests. He is too easy to manipulate. He cannot do anything else now – he has gotten bogged down in external interests. The “Ukrainian Madam Albright” – Yulia Timoshenko – is the new puppet used for the same purpose. (She seems to like her new political nickname, as it emphasizes her adherence to the anti-Slavic, anti-Russian, anti-Ukrainian and pro-American group. These two puppets have been programmed to bring Ukraine to NATO, downplaying its relations with Russia, or, better still, disrupting them. Therefore, in the wake of the current crisis, the U.S. will obtain a bigger puppet – Ukraine. They will have a new bridgehead. It is not a prospect to scare; it is reality.

From a legal perspective, I would say there has been way too much ado about the parliamentary majority of 300, which does violate the law. However, earlier consolidated decisions were even passed by 400 votes. For example, the law on imperative mandate submitted by the Timoshenko bloc was passed by 425 votes, if I remember it right. Why didn’t President Yushchenko object then? Because this time, they needed a pretext.

The Americans are so confident because their Ukrainian “help,” including Yushchenko, “Albright”-Timoshenko, defense minister Anatoly Gritsenko and ex-foreign minister Boris Tarasiuk, are happy to do “whatever master orders.” The Ukrainian constitution indeed stipulates the president’s right to dissolve the parliament. It is envisaged in three cases only: when a parliament fails to form the coalition within 30 days of its election; when the coalition fails to appoint the government ministers within 60 days; and when the parliament holds no meetings for 30 days at other times than breaks. By the way, the latter provision is the reason why members of the Yulia Timoshenko bloc and Our Ukraine faction tried to boycott several Rada sessions.

It follows from the above that the president had no formal reason to dissolve the parliament. So what were the grounds for his decree? His personal wish? Or political advisability? Or Washington’s requirement? Curiously, the U.S. Ambassador visited the Verkhovna Rada on the next day after the Orange Saturnalia started on Monday – after we, people’s deputies, finished the plenary meeting at two in the morning with a firm consolidated decision to ignore Yushchenko’s unlawful decree on parliament dissolution. No other diplomat was there on that day. It was the first time the U.S. Ambassador visited the parliament – no doubt to see the result of his country’s efforts.

As for the news coverage of the current crisis, the only unbiased information the Ukrainians have is provided by Russian television and Russian news agencies. Ukrainian TV channels and other news media belong to private owners who prefer covering the events at specific angles. People are being brainwashed in order to make them believe that Yushchenko is absolutely right and no other option is possible. We are all under the pressure of this propaganda. In our own country, we are deprived of unbiased information, and consequently, of the right to analyze the situation independently and make our own decisions.

What is to become of us? If the “orange” party’s scenario is carried through, this country will be prodded to a civil conflict.

The president and his team will have to bear responsibility for violation of the constitution, including criminal proceedings.

This crisis can have more serious aftermath than the dissolution of parliament. It is Ukraine’s territorial integrity that is at stake, as well as civilian accord and preservation of the Slavic unity. It is getting obvious as the crisis is gaining momentum: the “orange” party is playing an all-or-nothing game, the American puppets are not even trying to conceal their cynical disregard of the original East-Slavic roots of the Ukrainian people. The masks are off. Yulia Timoshenko, the radical nationalist opposition leader confirmed this position in her recent interview for U.S. Newsweek, blatantly anti-Russian. She described President Yushchenko’s decision to call early parliamentary elections the only way to save Ukraine from Russia.

The prospects can be dark indeed; but one must understand that no one needs that outcome except those who have started the whole thing in order to redivide the remaining spheres of influence in the economy and land. They do need this outcome. The country and the people do not. Therefore, what we need to do is stop arguing and wait for the Constitutional Court ruling. We must manifest a firm citizenship.

If the Constitutional Court rules in favor of the “orange” bloc, we law-abiding Ukrainians will have to obey. We must form a coalition in the new parliament which will have a constitutional majority of 300. And we’ll tell President Yushchenko: “Good-bye, you can go home to America if you like, with all your family and bee-garden, too. We will stay in this country to preserve its territorial integrity and Slavic unity, and be friends with the peoples of Russia, Belarus and other nations.”
Add comment

Сообщите об орфографической ошибке

Выделенный текст слишком длинный.