In our previous article concerning the subject of Ukraine Pravda.Ru has made an assumption that Ushchenko’s team plans to move Ukraine to America.
Obviously, one shouldn't think of it in terms of geography; although from the standpoint of political, economic and cultural preferences America could just as well be the new role model for the Ukrainian elite. One should keep in mind however that “America” isn't only the United States and Canada but also encompasses such countries as Honduras or Nicaragua.
Once the Ukrainian government made it official who's going to be in the office, it has become evident that the US began influencing the country. The influence is mainly political. However, the country’s economy is also being influenced; this will be the topic of our next articles. Russia in turn will have its own role to play in determining how long this “remote control” mode will continue.
Western media has been closely following “Orange revolution.” Among the abundance of talks and rumors about “the right choice the Ukrainian people have made”, one could scarcely overhear some talking about Washington’s interest in Ukraine.
An article of chief expert Anatoly Liven published in The International Herald Tribune (December 21, 2004) sparks considerable interest because it doesn’t seem to reflect the strict position of neoconservatives but presents constructive arguments of a community of American experts. As it can be seen from the article, the author has absolutely no doubts that Washington had to support Yushchenko and help him integrate Ukraine into Western institutions; however, Anatoly Levin seems to be alarmed that instead of moving on in the right direction, the West will most likely choose the wrong tactic.
In another case, “…Instead of acquiring a powerful and stable buffer state, the West will get a country with weakened structure and confused people: in other words, the buffer state that’s unable to act as a buffer. As it can be seen from the context, it totally lacks empathy. The competition of the two diverse styles of global domination appears obvious.
So the States want Ukraine to turn into “…the buffer state, aimed against Russia.” At best, Ukraine will be a powerful and stable buffer state; in the worst case scenario, it will end up a buffer “…with weakened structure and confused population.” It is noteworthy to mention that it isn’t the entire West but only the United States that is responsible for conducting such politics on the post-Soviet territory. It is mainly the States that is interested in sustaining the existing confrontation between Russia and Western Europe.
As for Europe itself, it doesn't need this confrontation. On the contrary, it would much rather have smooth and predictable relationship with Russia. Besides, such cooperation with Russia is way more important for Europe than its cooperation with Ukraine.
Once the Washington issue has been straightened out, it is important to straighten out our own position. It would be a mistake to resist integration of the US politics in Ukraine by means of American methods, i.e. by means of destabilization and information wars. Moscow’s job is to provide this kind of political and economic influence with Russia’s border states in order to ensure good relationships between the countries.
Obviously, it is much easier to say than to do; however, it is of utmost importance to continue working in this direction. In today’s difficult situation we just have to manage not to make things worse.
In response to the unlawful December 1 arrest and detention of Chinese tech giant Huawei's chief financial officer Sabrina Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities in Vancouver at the behest of the Trump regime, facing possible unacceptable extradition to the US, Beijing warned its high-tech personnel last month against traveling to America unless it's essential.