THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS LYING AT THE HEART OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS
There has been a lot of talk from predominantly British sources in the last few days about a US-predicted puppet government being set up by Russia in Kiev.
I thought now was an appropriate time to look at a few fundamental truths concerning the change of both president and government in Ukraine during the winter of 2013-14.
First let us take a look at the presidential election which brought the president into power prior to the change in government initiated that winter.
Was he democratically elected?
Number of election observers:
European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO) - 450 observers, The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - approximately 60 long-term and 600 short-term observers, European Member States - 700+ observers, the European Center of Geopolitical Analysis - 20 observers.
A total of 3,149 international observers monitored the January 17 2010 presidential election in Ukraine. (Source: Wikipedia)
Result of the election: Victor Yanukovich becomes president of Ukraine.
What was the Verdict of the election observers listed above?
'After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest.' (Source: Wikipedia)
'The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe).' (Source: Wikipedia)
Let us now turn to the Ukrainian parliamentary elections of 2012.
Was the election monitored by observers?
On election day (28 October) there were 3,500 accredited foreign observers. (Source: Wikipedia)
Ten thousand foreign observers (in all) were expected to observe the elections. (Wikipedia)
Which party won the election?
The Party of Regions won with 185 seats. In second place was the Batkivshchyna Party with only 101.
What was the verdict of the election observers?
'The observers from the European Academy for Election Observation (most of whom were European parliament members), stated it was "a good election, not perfect but clearly acceptable", and that it was "in compliance with democratic norms"'. (Source Wikipedia)
Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions then were both democratically elected to power, having gained the greatest support of the voters of Ukraine, most of those residing in the eastern half of the nation.
Both were caused to fall dramatically from power in several months that saw acts of arson, Molotov cocktails thrown, bricks hurled, toxic sprays used, heavy chains swung, clubs of all kinds embedded with nails used, along with handguns and hunting rifles.
Was this a democratic process? The answer to this is surely obvious.
Was it justifiable to bring both president and government down for some unconscionable criminal act that they had committed?
Hardly. The point of contention was that the president hesitated to accept an offer from EU representatives that was put in terms that excluded any other offer such as the very generous offer from Russia available to Ukraine at the time.
Is this a valid reason to use violent insurrection to remove both president and government from power?
Is this a valid reason for the United States to promote certain individuals to replace those democratically elected to their positions within the Ukrainian state and to applaud the methods used and their ultimate outcome?
If what was created in Ukraine by the USA was not a puppet government then the term loses all meaning... except as an expedient term to use regarding the acts of others than yourselves.
How does this sit with their reaction to the attack on the Capitol Building in Washington on January 6, 2021 which though resulting in much less of an outcome than that in Kiev, Ukraine in 2014, has been called by many, a violent insurrection?
Is this not a case of obvious hypocrisy and double standards? A stance totally swayed by the perceived national interest of the United States. Where are the high moral principles supposedly sincerely espoused by U.S. political elites concerning democracy and the rule of law?
What then was the net effect of the insurrection against both Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions in regard to those who had voted them into power, those in the eastern half of Ukraine?
Clearly their democratic rights were removed from them and in addition it was threatened that they should lose their language also, become second class citizens in their own country and if they didn't like that then they would be taught to like it and to give up their previous loyalties and allegiances and much else besides.
What you YOU do in such circumstances? Simply take it and bow to the new power usurped through violent, undemocratic means by those who called you the pejorative term 'Moskals' and regarded you as Russians, fit to be excluded, attacked, imprisoned, abused and eliminated if necessary.
Would you allow your culture, language and heritage to be swept aside, denigrated and denied you along with any democratic rights you had up to the point of those months on Kiev's Maidan Square? Would not perhaps think of what this would mean not only for you but for your children and all children to come in your region of eastern Ukraine? Would you not be tempted to resist, to do all you had to do to demand autonomy for your region and make a stand for your way of life, your loyalties, heritage and language?
I leave it up to you to make of the above what you will, to examine if what the western powers did was right according to their own oft asserted principles and in particular those concerning the sanctity of the democratic process.
These are the fundamental and primary questions that lie at the heart of the Ukraine crisis and are the genesis of all the tragedy, death, destruction and division that followed on from these events. I ask you to consider who is TRULY to blame for all that has subsequently occurred. On the evidence above was it all Russia to blame... or do you see another entity (or perhaps two) having a track record for so-called colour revolutions and regime change?