I admit that I have enjoyed trying to figure out just what is behind all the political schemes between the West and Russia; because you know we are not being told the truth. And I certainly cannot decipher all the politico-speak that comes out of Washington and Moscow. But I can give you some interesting history and some fascinating quotes by the principles in this global drama, and perhaps you can view it all with a little more insight to the significance of recent events.
The Ukraine and Crimea have captivated the news cycles for weeks now. We've been fed a steady diet of "it's all about democracy", when in reality, it appears that the Ukraine has been a a toy bandied about by both Russia and the West. True, the Ukraine, as in independent nation, isn't happy that its state of Crimea is arbitrarily being declared Russian by none other than the Russian President himself, Vladimir Putin.
And speaking of Putin's history, did you know that, according to Wikipedia, the ancestry of Vladimir Putin has been described as a mystery with no records surviving of any ancestors of any people with the surname "Putin" beyond his grandfather Spiridon Ivanovich. (Why do our world leaders seem to appear these days out of thin air, with no discernible background?)
But while his personal heritage may not be clear, his support of the old Soviet Union and a desire to return to its glory days is very evident. He sincerely regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union, as observed in this statement: "Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered."
And now LibertyVoice.com reports that "While speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, former Putin economic advisor, Andrej Illarionov, made it clear that Putin sees any territories that were formerly Russian or Soviet as territories that Russia ought to expand into.... Illarionov argues that Putin’s world view has him set to retake areas of the Baltic States, Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Illarionov highlighted these states alongside Finland as territories that Russia’s president hopes to claim in the near future."
It is most certainly an interesting fact that none of the aforementioned nations that are allegedly in Putin's sights are NATO members. So, if the rumors are true, who will come to their defense? Will the world sit and watch as he accomplishes a Hitler-esque style acquisition of these sovereign nations? Or is this just posturing against the West, who is not blameless in poking the bear, while knowing exactly how sensitive this issue of the Ukraine is to the Russians.
The Guardian reports the following: "Washington knows that Ukraine has always been a delicate issue for Moscow. The ultra-nationalists who fought with the Third Reich during the second world war killed 30,000 Russian soldiers and communists. They were still conducting a covert war with CIA backing as late as 1951. Pavel Sudoplatov, a Soviet intelligence chief, wrote in 1994: 'The origins of the cold war are closely interwoven with western support for nationalist unrest in the Baltic areas and western Ukraine.' "
When Russia's Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of East and West Germany, and that the new Germany could remain in NATO, he was promised by the West that there would be no further expansion of NATO in their region. And now, several decades later, the West most likely was a covert influence in the Ukraine uprising which centered around its membership in NATO. This would explain the reason Gorbachev has publicly supported Putin on the Crimea issue; his trust in the West was plainly betrayed.
As long as Russia played along with Washington and the West, we weren't inclined to interfere. In fact, during Chechnya's bid for independence, the wholesale assaults on Chechnya by then-President Yeltsin, and then by Putin, were treated as a little local problem with support from George Bush and Tony Blair. They, in effect, supported Russia's bid to enforce control as they saw fit.
So why do we and our European allies see the Ukraine/Crimean situation so differently than Chechnya? Aren't they both instances of Russia exhibiting its sovereign power? But, you see, I don't really think it has anything to do with "the will of the people" or "democracy", which has become a convenient excuse for the West to engage in their behind-the-scenes shenanigans.
It really has more to do with the fact that Putin, unlike Yeltsin, is refusing to play ball any more on the things that matter such as NATO expansion, sanctions on Iran, Syria etc. Russia has wielded its UN Security Council vote with extreme effectiveness and advantageous results.
Don't get me wrong, Putin is no angel, and it remains to be seen if his aggressive posturing goes beyond striking a belligerent pose and talking smack. In fact, the Christian Science Monitor reports that in a speech to Russia's top military brass, President Putin urged them to make a "drastic upgrade" to Russia's armed forces within the next five years to counter a series of emerging external threats, and what he described as "systematic attempts to undermine the balance of power" by the United States.
Couple that with Putin's vigorous courting of anti-West government leaders in Nicaragua, Argentina, Venezuela, El Salvador, and the most alarming of all -- Cuba -- then it's not hard to see the implied warning in this statement before the Russian Parliament: "They (the West, led by the U.S.) are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it, and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally... They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this."
So where do we go from here? Are we on the brink of WW III, as some observers think? There is far too much deviousness and treachery for the average person to discern the real objective. Whether it is Satan pulling the actual strings, or his evil influence upon Godless men remains to be seen. But I truly believe this; that if this scenario advances to its possible course of events, it could very well usher in the most devastating period in human existence. We are looking at tyranny, economic destruction, and the deaths of millions. If you don't think we're staring the End Times square in the face, then continue in your normalcy bias. I'll be on my knees.
Ezekiel 7:14 "They have blown the trumpet and made everything ready, but none goes to battle, for My wrath is upon all their multitude."