The Secessionist Conundrum

By Jim Jones

Well, we have the announcement from Moscow that Russian Federation troops are being withdrawn from the border with Ukraine. Already we have the ill-informed clamouring to out-do each other with claims of Russia surrendering to the NWO.  The magnanimity of these pontiffs is beyond belief; so sure they are of their right, and Russian wrong - of their all suffocating propaganda, that they cannot contain their gloating.

These gloating baboons are quick to point to the bellicose words of the cretin William Hague [he really is one sandwich short of a picnic] who by his utterances adds new meaning to the saying that an empty vessel makes the most noise and who has religiously condemned Russia for it's interference and orchestrating of the events in Eastern Ukraine and preached dire warnings of catastrophic events to befall Russia should it meddle any further in Ukraine's affairs.

Prima facie, one might be inclined to argue that they have certain credence to their position; until one actually looks at the facts, or one has actually been following the events and not just listening to the ramblings of the MSM and their puppet masters.

There can be no denying that the current government in Kyiv is illegal - the offspring of a bastard association between Vikoria Numan [US State department] and the IMF, with the seduction being accomplished by the well lubricated CIA coloured revolution programme. Trying to argue that it was the result of a popular uprising against a corrupt government is an exercise in self denial. No one has denied that the government of Viktor Yanukovch was corrupt - Putin came out and said as much right at the beginning and said he saw no future for Yanukovch in Ukraine's future. What the blind fail to see is that Yanukovch agreed to step down and in agreement with UE mediators on 21^st  February, agreed to elections in Ukraine. Until there are new elections, he is still the legally appointed president of Ukraine!  The terrorist operation that followed the agreement to hold elections occurred after Yanukovych withdrew his security forces in order to comply with the spirit of the agreement to hold elections.  What happened after that is well documented - whereby the new junta used criminals and mercenaries to shoot on both the Police and the protesters [this is verified in a leaked phone conversation between top EU officials]. Those are the stark cold facts.  The current government is illegal and propped up by shenanigans of the US/EU and IMF. They saturate the news coverage and by their power, give authority to the illegal regime.

Russia, rightly, challenged that and received the full wrath of the IMF sponsored puppets. Even more so when the Crimea was annexed by Russia. While the UN charter and the EU declarations both sustain the right to self determination -  the Western world, under the IMF control, have been happy to champion the self determination of Ukraine when under President Yanukovch, but quick to denounce self determination of the Eastern region and Crimea as a terrorist activity against their illegal puppet government in Kyiv. Can you honestly say that you cannot see the hypocrisy in that?

Crimea was already an autonomous state within Ukraine; it held it's own special position. The people of Crimea overwhelmingly decided in a plebiscite [in which over 80% of the voting population voted and of which returned a 97% mandate] to join Russia. Any Western country that got that sort of turnout to it's elections would trumpet the result! Hell, many EU countries struggle to get 30% of the voting population to vote. This was "democracy" working - wasn't it?   Just because it wasn't what the West wanted - it was rejected, ridiculed.

However, the Crimea was seen by many uninformed as the "blueprint" for how the rest of the Eastern Ukraine would "fall". In promoting this as the course of future events, a very serious difference was over-looked. The difference between Crimea and Easter Ukraine.

Crimea was well governed by an existing structure. There was an overwhelming predominance of Russian speaking people there and who wanted to be part of Russia. There was an existing Russian military presence there; which at the start of the troubles amounted to some 12,000 troops. [From memory, the agreement allowed for up to 25,000 Russian troops to be stationed in Crimea].  Russia could, and did, increase the troop numbers there and still not officially be seen as "invading" on account of the existing agreement. Russia has very strategic investment and interest in Crimea - missiles, armament and of course the Black Sea fleet stationed there. Crimea was previously Russian until being given away in the 1950's by the Ukrainian sympathiser, Khrushchev.

For these unique reasons, Crimea was always going to be annexed. Incidentally, the annexation of Crimea would have to rate as a miracle - there was only one person killed in the transition and never before in history has there been such a smooth and controlled annexation.  It is a total mistake to relate the Crimea and it's set of conditions, to the situation in the rest of Eastern Ukraine.

The problem for Eastern Ukraine is that there is no clear mandate from the people. While most want "independence" from Kyiv, they are splintered in how they perceive that being achieved.  Some want to still be part of Ukraine but to be autonomous as Crimea was and to be able to determine their own destiny. Others want a complete split for Ukraine and to be part of Russia - their motherland. Others simply do not want to be part of the UE but cannot see how to avoid that if they are controlled by Kyiv. For these reasons, Moscow very early, determined that the climate for change in Eastern Ukraine was totally different to that of Crimea.  Both Lavrov and Putin stated many times that Russia had no intention of invading Eastern Ukraine - but reserved the right to do so if the situation there deteriorated. [Don't take my word for it - look it up as it is all over the internet].  William Hague and buffoon Kerry were the ones pushing the "Russian invasion". Yatsenyuk was also instrumental in voicing his hyperbole - "we are at war with Russia", Russia is invading our country" etc.

Moscow could not see that there was a clear mandate for change which would support an annexation of Eastern Ukraine - preferring instead to push the line that Ukrainian people had to resolve the issues themselves and that the West must stop meddling in it so that they could get on with sorting out the mess that had been created. For anyone who was prepared to see - here was the clearest expression of intent by Moscow as to the way forward in Eastern Ukraine. Incidentally, Moscow's position on this has not varied.

For the Eastern resistance movement, they banded together as a troika intent on achieving one goal - autonomy from Kyiv. While this movement could be considered popular, it was and has been supported only be a dedicated few who are prepared to take up arms. In fact, a strange phenomena of the whole Crimea/Eastern Ukraine uprising has been the relative reluctance of the population to resort to violence; we see this throughout YouTube clips whereby local people, young and old [some very old] have resisted, but done so peacefully. The advent of troops moving against the population has fanned the violence.

This violence has been in some cases, extremely brutal - I challenge any of you to view this YouTube clip and not be deeply moved. http://ersieesist.livejournal.com/813.html when I watched this, I was moved to tears; the inhumanity of these Right Sector and Ukrainian Nationalist animals must be incomprehensible to any sane person.

Events in Odessa almost tipped the balance toward Russian intervention. Yet still Russia held it's hand - why? For that we need to look at the situation in Eastern Ukraine. Almost without exception we have opportunist who have strived to usurp power. Like miniature war-lords, they have fastened their sledge to the coat-tails of Crimea and appealed to Putin to bail them out. Because of the parentage of the various leaders, they lack the credibility and political astuteness for a major world power to be seen as being involved with them. [One of them posts far too much personal information on Social Media - like some self promoting crusade]. There is a serious lack of commitment to them by Moscow - very different to that which we saw in the Crimea situation - remember the visit to the Duma?

For this reason, Moscow has been loathed to commit Special Forces or commit other aid to the various factions in the East. There are no "wee green men" running around, there is not supply or war materiel - this is very evident by the fact that after a couple of Helicopters were shot down, there have been no more as the missiles were most probably those obtained from the Airborne unit that defected.  The resistance fighters have a motley collection of firearms [old shotguns etc] and need to husband their ammunition carefully. This would not be the case if Russia was assisting them. There is not direct communication between the units on the ground and the Russian Field HQ - HATO are not reporting any, but they did when Crimea was on the go.

So you ask, what is Russia's end game?

Time. Let the Ukrainian authorities continue to pursue forced integration. The outcome of that will be generational animosity between ethnic Russians in the East and European leaning Ukrainians in the West. The use of the Armed Forces against the population will cause a rift that will not be healed - not in our life-time. Eastern Ukraine will always remain a simmering hot-bed of discontent.

Time. Let Russia re-organise trading relationships to avoid issues of sanctions. The implementation of BRIICS and the new banking system is not far away. The introduction of that will render Russia immune to any Western sanctions.

Time. Russian economy does not need the burden of integrating Eastern Ukraine and supporting it in order to turn it around.  Let the IMF do that and be blamed for the suffering that it will cause.

Time. Russia has $16 billion [$34 by some counts] to recover in gas debt.  Let's not risk that.

Time. Tomorrow Russia will be stronger and the US/EU will be weaker.

Time. Tomorrow, Eastern Ukraine will be so destitute that they will all want to join Russia and the mandate will be clear and unequivocal.

Time. In the interim, Eastern Ukraine will still need to trade with Russia and will still be a "buffer" against the Western cancer crossing the continent.

So, has Russia surrendered to the NWO? No, Russia is playing a waiting game; a game of "in my time all will be revealed".

Besides, I am sure that there is some "back-room" deal over the withdrawal of troops and the forthcoming elections - watch for constitutional reform and the forming of an autonomous region in the East. Putin is not as green as he is cabbage looking.

Jim Jones