How Russia Became Involved with Ukraine Part 3

This article is Part 3 in a series dedicated to the issue of Ukraine. 

Part 1: Could the Ukraine Conflict be the Start of WW3? Here’s the Background on This Brewing Crisis

Part 2: The Collaboration Between Islamic Fundamentalism & Neo-Nazism in Ukraine, Both Supported by U.S – Fact or Fiction?

In the past two articles, I’ve examined how the crisis in Ukraine unfolded and the makeup of the “activists” that made the overthrow of Yanukovych possible. At the time, the stage was set to be yet another Ukrainian color revolution. Fund massive protests, pressure the President, the President resigns, and a puppet President takes his place. After that, the fleecing of the Ukrainian people could begin anew, Ukraine could join NATO, and Russia would be further physically encircled with a hostile organization pointing missiles and machinery at it from the other side of the border. The “Euromaidan” was successful.

Then Russian involvement In Ukraine began.

Despite being vastly outgunned and out-manned by Ukrainian ultra-right militias and the Ukrainian military, Eastern Ukrainians were managing to not only defend themselves but also to drive Western Ukrainian forces back. This led many to speculate as to whether or not Russia had committed troops to support the Eastern Ukrainian rebels against Kiev. Western media and the governments it speaks for began crowing about Russian troops in Ukraine and “Russian aggression.” Russia, for its part, denied any involvement beyond humanitarian shipments to civilians.

The truth is somewhat murkier, however.

While Russian involvement at this point has been completely defensive, there is also undoubtedly Russian involvement.

Try as it might to deny that Russian fighters are present in Ukraine, evidence showing the ID’s of dead Russian nationals have been produced by Western operatives. Propaganda as it may be, this much at least is real. Russia, of course, claims the nationals are merely volunteers (a tactic Russia has used in other areas) but the greater likelihood is that the individuals in question were only disguised as volunteers and were indeed working for the Russian government. In other words, the idea of volunteering is merely so that the Russian government can maintain plausible deniability. Keep in mind, Eastern Ukrainians were a poorly trained and poorly armed militia, yet they have been able to fight off their own countries’ army backed by the United States and its own network of Nazi militias.

This is hardly plausible without assistance from outside.  It should also be pointed out that, in March 2014, shortly before the tide began to turn for East Ukraine, President Putin was able to secure a vote in Parliament to use military force to protect Russian interests in Ukraine.

Russia negotiated a shaky ceasefire.

Russia managed to negotiate a ceasefire between the east and west, known as the Minsk Protocol. However, the ceasefire is incredibly fragile with skirmishes occurring regularly, usually as a result of Kiev’s continued attempt to push east. As a result of the ceasefire, the battle lines have become de facto borders for two Ukraines. One is Kiev and the other known as Donbass, made up of two regions, Lugansk and Donetsk, known as the Lugansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s Republic respectively. Together, the LPR and DPR have named themselves Malorossiya, or “Little Russia.

For those who may be wondering why Russia became involved in Ukraine at all, the move was not merely to confound America’s global empire objectives. The fact is that the United States and NATO, working toward Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard goal of encircling and then breaking up Russia into three parts, had once again moved right up to Russia’s borders. Facing the destruction of its ally Syria, the impending western war on Iran, American troops in Afghanistan, American influence in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, NATO pushing right up to its borders in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as well as other eastern European states, Russia could easily see itself being physically surrounded. Couple physical encirclement with increasing demonization of Russia on the part of the West and Western (particularly American) destabilization tactics within Russia borders, Russia, like the eastern Ukrainians, saw this conflict as one of survival.

Thus, Russia felt its hand was forced and that it had to stop NATO from pushing directly up to its borders in yet another location, finally surrounding it physically before moving to another phase in the attempt to destroy the Russian state.

The Crimea Incident

The history of Crimea is the history of Russia. By all accounts, Crimea has been part of Russia from 1783, during the time of the Tsar and the Soviet Union, where it remained until the collapse of the USSR and, as a result of being attached to the Republic of Ukraine by Kruschev in 1954, was part of Ukraine with the new state declared its independence. Given the horrors of the Soviet Union as well as the horrors of its collapse, both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians/Crimeans that culturally and ethnically identified with Russia were none too ready to remain as a part of the Communist utopia Russia had become. Nevertheless, the cultural identification with Russia remained.

In addition, various agreements between Russia and Ukraine saw a number of Russian bases maintained on the Crimean peninsula. As the crisis devolved into violence against ethnic Russians and virtually any political dissent across Ukraine, Russia announced its plans to hold a referendum in Crimea as to whether or not the peninsula supported rejoining Russia. Immediately, Western governments and their media outlets began hysterical claims that Russia was “taking over” and “stealing” Crimea. To hear the American press tell it, the referendum was a Russian invasion and a grab for more territory. To begin with, claims regarding armed Russian troops having “seized” and “taken control over” the Crimea and other cities in Eastern Ukraine were greatly exaggerated.

While Russia did have ground troops stationed in Crimea as a result of the presence of Russian Naval bases (which existed in Crimea ever since the 1990s through lease), there was never any credible evidence that Russian troops were acting outside of the naval bases. Reports that they were came from largely unreliable sources, including fascist members of the newly installed Western-backed Ukrainian government.

Such is also the case with claims regarding demands of surrender from Ukrainian Navy vessels and the “surrender” of other ships to the Russian military. Sources such as the New York Daily News reported claims that Russia demanded that two Ukrainian military ships surrender to the Russian fleet on March 3. Immediately, these claims were picked up by other media outlets and reported as fact and examples of how, yet again, the Russian military was taking aggressive action against Ukrainian sovereignty.

However, the sole source of these claims was the Kiev-centered and Western-backed Ukrainian government. Russia denied the claims and no credible evidence has ever been presented to prove them to be true. What is known is that a sizable portion of the Ukrainian Navy and Armed Forces willingly defected to the Crimean side and, by default, the Russian camp.As Eric Draitser wrote in his article, “Ukraine, Intervention, And America’s Doublethink,”

In fact, recent days have seen a number of key defections within the military and bureaucracy of Crimea. The newly appointed head of Ukraine’s Navy has officially “defected” from the putsch government in Kiev, instead swearing loyalty to the pro-Russian Prime Minister of Crimea. Other high ranking and influential figures within the military and bureaucratic structures have also refused to recognize the authority of Kiev, choosing instead to remain loyal to Crimea and, de facto, to Russia. In addition, reports have surfaced that Ukraine’s flagship naval vessel, the Hetman Sahaidachny has also defected to the Russian side. These and other defections demonstrate a growing trend in Crimea: de facto independence from Ukraine and a move towards full integration with Russia.

Draitser was also apt to point out that justification of Russia’s actions do, in fact, exist, even under international law as it stands on paper. He wrote,

The movement of Russian troops into Crimea has caused an international outcry. Western leaders have been quick to condemn the move as an “invasion”, and assault on “democracy” and international law. However, there are a number of points that must first be examined. First and foremost is the fact that the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty establishes that Crimea, and Sevastopol specifically, represents a strategic national interest for Russia. Moreover, it codifies the fact that the protection of the rights of the people of Crimea is the responsibility of the Ukrainian government. However, what happens when a so called government in Kiev is openly hostile to the region? Who then is responsible for the Russians living there? With Kiev’s putsch government having the backing of the US, NATO and Europe, it seems that no one other than Russia could possibly guarantee the security of Crimea.

Second is the fact that Russia’s naval facilities are undoubtedly of vital national security interest to Moscow. Considering the openly hostile attitude expressed by the new Security and National Defense Committee leadership in Kiev, it seems clear that Russia’s national security interests would be under threat. There is ample precedent in international law justifying Russia moving to protect its forces in Crimea. Moreover, with Ukraine falling into the hands of Nazi elements, a sound argument could be made that, beyond the Crimea, Ukraine poses a danger to the security of Russia proper. Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.

Third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that the putsch government in Kiev is absolutely illegal under international law. Yanukovich, whatever negative things could be said about him and his government (and there are many), was never defeated in a democratic election. Rather, he was chased out of the country by a violent mob that has now been consecrated by the much touted “international community” (read US-EU-NATO) as the recognized government. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s Constitution, not to mention international law and the accepted principles of modern democracy. With Yanukovich having taken refuge in Russia, and still being the legal President of Ukraine, isn’t it fair to say that Russia is acting as the guarantor of international law, rather than its enemy?

While one might choose to argue with Draitser’s points, the fact is that a referendum was held, one that was free and fair by all accounts except for the disruptive and corrupt Western NGO community. With an 83 Percent voter turnout, the results revealed that 96% of the population voted in favor of integration with Russia.

Russia immediately moved to restore order and security as well as vital services that had been interrupted and that were continually being interrupted by various acts of sabotage and terror by Kiev forces and Tatar terror organizations who themselves were closely affiliated with the Turkish government which, itself, has worked closely with NATO for the purposes of facilitating its goal of destroying independent states and encircling Russia (although that cooperation has been less reliable as of late).Just as quickly, Western governments and mainstream media began claiming that Russia had “invaded,” and “illegally annexed” the Crimea Peninsula in an “act of war.”

The West refused to acknowledge the annexation as legitimate and continues its obstinance to this day. However, it has become virtually impossible to ignore Russia’s authority over Crimea in the practical and real world.

This article is Part 3 in a series dedicated to the issue of Ukraine. 

Part 1: Could the Ukraine Conflict be the Start of WW3? Here’s the Background on This Brewing Crisis

Part 2: The Collaboration Between Islamic Fundamentalism & Neo-Nazism in Ukraine, Both Supported by U.S – Fact or Fiction?

About Brandon Turbeville

Brandon Turbeville is a geopolitical expert who writes for The Organic Prepper and his own website, BrandonTurbeville.com He is the author of ten books including, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1500 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, civil liberties though most notably on geopolitics and the Syrian crisis.  His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact [email protected]