Ukrainian Tragedy that Threatens the World

Before getting to the current events, let us recall a few historical facts.

1654 – Bohdan Khmelnytsky was the Ukrainian leader who organized a rebellion against Polish rule and signed the Pereiaslav Treaty with Russian Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, proclaiming the reunification of the two nations. As a result, Ukraine continued to be a part of the Russian empire for the next 337 years (with a short 5-year interruption during 1917-1922 World War I and Russian Civil War upheavals) when it gained vast northern territories granted by various Russian tsars and Soviet rulers. A statue of Khmelnytsky pointing toward Moscow is still located in downtown Kyiv.

1917 – 1922 – World War I and the collapse of the Russian Empire were a time of sustained conflicts between different political and military forces in Ukraine, including nationalists, socialists, anarchists, Germans, Austrian-Hungarians, Poland, France, Romania, as well as “Red” and “White” Russians engaged in civil war. This bloody struggle resulted in the territory of Ukraine being divided between the Soviet Ukrainian Republic and several East European countries.

1922 – 1991 – Ukraine gained additional territories during this period due to political machinations and military conquest by Soviet rulers Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. First secretary of CPSU, Nikita Khrushchev “donated” the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift on the 300^th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty without due constitutional process or a referendum by the Crimean population. Ironically, communist behaved like kings or queens who could transfer land ownership and its people to anyone at their monarch’s will.

 1991 – 2014 –  Due to the Soviet Union’s collapse, its 15 former republics became independent, including Ukraine. Free from communism, with vital well-developed industrial and agricultural sectors, a favorable climate, and fertile land, Ukraine had great potential to become one of the most prosperous European countries. The premise was to choose a political course considering the country’s centuries-old economic, family, cultural, and religious ties with Russia. Effective anti-corruption reforms, a certain level of autonomy for the regions with large Russian ethnic populations, two state languages, and neutral status with no membership in any military blocs were necessary to achieve this goal. Had Ukrainian leadership chosen these steps, there would have been no war, and the country could have lived peacefully and happily within its 1991 borders.

The West, led by the U.S. has spent billions of taxpayer funds to use Ukraine as “strategic anti-Russian springboard.”

However, some inside (corrupt leaders and radical nationalists) and outside (Western) forces had a different agenda, which resulted in the current Ukrainian tragedy, loss of life and territory, economic devastation, and millions forced to leave the country in search of new life or to escape military conscription. The West spent billions of their taxpayer’s funds to turn the whole country into cannon fodder to use it as a strategic anti-Russia beachhead. Ukrainian president Zelensky, whose term expired last May, desperately tries to get NATO’s direct involvement in the war with Russia through his 5-point “Victory Plan.” He presented it first to the Western leaders and only then to Ukrainian lawmakers, no public discussion, of course. So far, it looks like at least some in the West are hesitating, but if it is accepted, WWIII is practically guaranteed.

Besides Zelensky, the list of those responsible for this tragedy is long. When it comes to radical Ukrainian nationalists, they could be efficiently dealt with. No one else but U.S. President George H.W. Bush issued the following warning during his speech to a session of still Soviet Ukraine’s Parliament, Verkhovnaya Rada, on August 1, 1991: “Americans will not support those who seek independence to outpace a far-off tyranny with local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

Bush’s opponents humiliated him, labeling this speech “Chicken Kyiv.” They already envisioned a unipolar world under U.S. hegemony where the interests of Russia, or any other country, can be largely ignored. Starting with Bill Clinton and on, Washington and the so-called collective West (George Soros should be mentioned separately since his contribution exceeded those of some countries) invested billions of dollars for “democracy” promotion, Russia-hate indoctrination, and NATO expansion using Ukrainian radical nationalists as useful idiots.

For those who forgot, let’s also remind the foreign ministers of Sweden and Poland of Carl Bildt’s and Radek Sikorski’s roles in this tragedy. Both developed the European Economic Association duplicitous scheme, which promised considerable benefits to Ukraine if it severed economic ties with Russia. Isolating Ukraine from its primary market obviously could not bring prosperity to the Ukrainian people. The logical way for this has been a trilateral agreement between the E.U., Russia, and Ukraine, whereby the latter could enjoy the benefits of dealings and friendships with all sides. However, the interests of the Ukrainian people were the last thing on the minds of Bildt, Sikorski, and Co.

At that time, the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians preferred neutral status. However, when democratically elected Ukrainian President Yanukovich rejected joining NATO, he was overthrown in the February 2014 regime change coup coordinated by then-Vice President Joe Biden and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

This coup lies at the roots of the current crisis, which has the potential for global catastrophe. More and more concerned voices worldwide call for the immediate start of negotiations to end it.

Still, so far, the majority of Western leaders prefer to discuss Zelensky’s catastrophic “Victory plan” to continue the slaughter and destruction on the road to the abyss.