Is Crimeas Shift the First of a Long Series ?

by Thierry Meyssan
Translated by Mohammad Yousef

Beyond the emphatic cries of the West against the accession of the Crimea to the
Russian Federation, the real issue is whether this is an orphan event or whether it
foreshadows a turning of Eastern Europe toward Moscow. With only enslavement to
the Brussels bureaucracy to offer, Brussels fears that its current clients may be
attracted by Moscows freedom and money.
,
, ,
,
.

Westerners bellow to denounce the "military annexation" of the Crimea by Russia.

According to them, Moscow, returning to the "Brezhnev doctrine" threatens the
sovereignty of all States which were members not only of the former Soviet Union,
but also of the Warsaw Pact, and is about to invade as it did in Hungary in 1956 and
Czechoslovakia in 1968.
." "
, ," "
,5916 , ,
. 5961
Is this true ? Obviously, the same Westerners are not convinced of the imminent
danger. Though they equate the "annexation" of the Crimea by Vladimir Putin to that
of the Sudetenland by Adolf Hitler, they do not think that we are heading towards a
Third World War.
.

.
At most, they have enacted theoretical sanctions against some Russian leaders
including Crimean leaders - blocking their accounts in case they should wish to
open such in Western banks, or prohibiting them from traveling there, in case they
yearned to travel there. True, the Pentagon has sent 22 fighter jets to Poland and the
Baltic States, but it does not intend to do more than this posturing for the moment.
- -
,

 22 ! .
.
What exactly is happening ? Since the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989
and the Malta summit that followed on December 2 and 3, the United States has
steadily gained ground, and in violation of their promises, have absorbed all Eastern
European states - except Russia - into NATO. The process began a few days later, on
Christmas 1989, with the overthrow of Ceausescu in Romania and his replacement by
another communist dignitary suddenly converted to liberalism : Ion Iliescu. For the
first time, the CIA organized a coup in broad daylight, while staging it as a
"revolution" thanks to a new television channel, CNN International. This was the
beginning of a long series.
,
,5919 9
. - - ,
.

. . CNN
Twenty other targets would follow, often by equally fraudulent means : Albania, East
Germany , Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina , Bulgaria , Croatia , Estonia ,
Georgia , Hungary , Kosovo , Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova , Montenegro ,
Poland , Serbia , Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Ukraine.
:

.
No document was signed at the summit in Malta, but President Bush Sr. , advised by
Condoleezza Rice, took the oral commitment that no member of the Warsaw Pact
would be accepted into NATO. In reality, East Germany was de facto accepted, by its
simple accession to West Germany. And the door being open, now 12 former USSR
and Warsaw Pact member states acceded and others have been waiting to join the
Alliance.
.
.
.
.
However, "all good things come to an end." The power of NATO and its civil side,
the European Union, is faltering. While the Alliance has never been so numerous , its
armies are ineffective. It excels in small theaters of operation, such as Afghanistan,
but can not go to war against China, or against Russia, without the certainty of losing
as we have seen in Syria this summer.
, , " ",
. , .
,

 ,
.
Ultimately, Westerners are amazed at Russian speed and efficiency. During the
Olympic Games in Sochi, Putin stoically uttered no comment on Maidan events. But
he reacted when his hands were free. Everyone could see him playing cards he had
prepared during his long silence. Within hours, the pro- Russian forces neutralized the
pro-Kiev Crimea forces while a revolution was organized in Semferopol to bring to
power a pro-Russian team. The new government called for a referendum on selfdetermination which saw a huge pro-Russian wave, Tatar population included. Then
the official Russian forces captured the soldiers still loyal to Kiev with their
equipment. All this without firing a shot, with the exception of a pro-NATO
Ukrainian sniper who was arrested in Semferopol after killing a person from each
side.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
Twenty years ago, the same Crimeans would certainly have voted against Russia. But
today, freedom is better provided by Moscow than by Kiev, where a third of the
government has gone back to the Nazis and the other two thirds to the representatives
of the oligarchs. In addition, their bankrupt economy was immediately underwritten
by the Bank of Russia, while, despite the IMF and loans from the U.S. and EU, Kiev
is sentenced to a long period of poverty. It was not necessary to speak Russian to
make that choice and, despite Western propaganda, Muslim Tatars did so as well as
Russian speakers. This is also the choice of 88 % of Ukrainian troops stationed in the
Crimea, who rallied with Moscow with the intention of bringing their families and
getting their Russian citizenship. It is also the choice of 82 % of Ukrainian sailors
who were at sea, too happy to be Russians, they rallied to Moscow with their ships
without being forced in any way.
, ,
.
, .
,
.
% 11 .

%12 .
.

Freedom and prosperity that were selling in the West for almost 70 years, have
changed sides.
. , ,
This is not to say that Russia is perfect, but to note that for Crimeans and in reality for
most Europeans, it is more attractive than the Western camp.

.
That is why the independence of the Crimea and its accession to the Russian
Federation marked the return of the pendulum. For the first time, an ex-Soviet people
freely decided to recognize the authority of Moscow. What Westerners fear is that this
event is comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall in effect, but in the other direction.
Why would we not see among the member states of NATO -like Greece - or simply in
the European Union like Cyprus some that would follow the same path ? The
Western camp would then disaggregate and sink into a very deep recession - like
Yeltsins Russia -.

. .
. ,
, , ,
, , ,
.
In addition, the question of the survival of the United States would inevitably arise.
The dissolution of the USSR should have caused that of its enemy and nonetheless
partner, however, these two superpowers existing only to face one another. But it did
not happen. Washington, being deprived of its competitor, launched into world
conquest, globalized the economy and installed a new order. It took two years and one
month for the Soviet Union to dissolve after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Will we soon
see the dissolution of the United States and the European Union into several entities,
as theorized by Igor Panarin of the Diplomatic Academy in Moscow ? The collapse
would be even faster as Washington reduced its subsidies to its allies and its Brussels
Structural Funds.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
Nobody should fear the attractiveness of Russia, because it is an imperial power but
not imperialist. If Moscow tends to snub small countries it protects, it does not intend
to extend its hegemony by force. Its military strategy is the "denial of access" to its
territory. Its armies are the first in the world in terms of anti-aircraft and anti-ship

defense. They can destroy fleets of bombers and aircraft carriers. But they are not
equipped to set out to conquer the world, or deployed in quantities of external bases.
.
" " .
.
. .
It is particularly strange to hear Westerners denounce membership of Crimea to
Russia as contrary to international law and the Constitution of Ukraine. Is it not they
who dismembered the USSR and the Warsaw Pact ? Is it not they who broke the
constitutional order in Kiev ?
.

German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, deplores alleged Russian will to
"cut Europe in two." But Russia got rid of the Soviet bureaucratic dictatorship and
does not intend to restore the Iron Curtain. It is the United States who wants to cut
Europe in two to avoid hemoraging to the east. The new bureaucratic dictatorship is
not in Moscow but in Brussels, it is called the European Union.
.
.
.
.
Henceforth, Washington is trying to bind its allies to its camp. It extends its missile
cover to Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan. It is no longer a mystery that its "shield"
was never intended to counter Iranian missiles, but is designed to attack Russia. It also
tries to push its European allies to take economic sanctions that would cripple the
continent and would push capital to flee... to the United States .
.

.
.
The magnitude of these adjustments is such that the Pentagon is examining the
possibility of interrupting its "pivot to the Far East", that is to say, the movement of its
troops from Europe and the Middle East to position them for a war against China.
Anyway, any change in its long-term strategy will disrupt its armies even in the short
and medium term. Moscow did not ask for as much, and voluptuously observes the
reactions of populations of eastern Ukraine and, why not, Transnistria.

.

. .