Cold War Crisis in The
Ukraine
Control of oil: Key Grand
Chessboard "Pivot" at Stake
Back to Alternative Reader Index
The bitterly disputed
Ukrainian presidential election, and the crisis that is exploding in the
wake of the contested outcome, has re-ignited Cold War and a new round of
East-West conflict over control of Eurasian/Caspian/Black Sea energy.
Against the backdrop of
Peak Oil (also check energy-related coverage in
From The Wilderness), this conflict could well decide the geo-resource
direction of the planet itself.
Amidst reports of election
irregularities, Moscow-backed Viktor Yanukovych, who supports stronger
ties with Russia, declared himself the winner over pro-Western opposition
leader Viktor Yushchenko, in defiance of shrill and aggressive opposition
and open threats from the West and the Bush administration.
In an example of off-the-scale hubris
and irony, outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell---representing an
illegitimate Bush administration that itself stole a presidential election
through fraud and abuse just weeks ago---declared that "we cannot accept
this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards
and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and
credible reports of fraud and abuse".
The camps of both candidates have
asserted victory, while accusing the other of staging a coup and inciting
civil unrest. Intelligence operatives and provocateurs on all sides are
undoubtedly working in high gear. In activity undoubtedly supported by the
CIA and Western intelligence, thousands of "opposition supporters" remain
in the streets, pressing their claim that the election was stolen, and
threatening violence. Yushchenko has called for a
national strike. There are also allegations, still unconfirmed, that
Yushchenko was
poisoned, and that he suffers from a "mystery illness." Yushchenko’s
camp is even calling for a
Supreme Court intervention, --i.e. shades of Bush’s 2000 election
theft.
Why does Ukraine merit such furious and
violent scrambling by the various parties?
Whichever powers manage to prevail will
hold the key to the control of Eurasian oil and energy, the political
control of the Eurasian corridor itself, and the survival of Russia as a
nation.
Ukraine: key square on the "Grand
Chessboard"
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The
Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
has served as a blueprint for world dictatorship, and an incriminating
predictor of the post-9/11 world conflict. Against today’s explosive
headlines, Brzezinski’s words are, once again, nightmarishly relevant:
"Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from
their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location and
from the consequences of their potentially vulnerable condition for the
behavior of geostrategic players. Most often, geopolitical pivots are
determined by their geography, which in some cases gives them a special
role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources
to a significant player [my emphasis-LC]."
"Ukraine,
Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically
important geopolitical pivots…
"Ukraine,
a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical
pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to
transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.
Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would
then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn
into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be
supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.
"However,
if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and
major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically
again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state,
spanning Europe and Asia.
"Ukraine’s determination to preserve its independence was encouraged by
external support. In July 1996, the US secretary of defense declared, "I
cannot overestimate the importance of Ukraine as an independent country to
the security and stability of all of Europe," while in September, the
German chancellor…went further in declaring that "Ukraine’s firm place in
Europe can no longer be challenged by anyone…"
"Without
Ukraine…an imperial restoration based on either the CIS [Commonwealth of
Independent States] or on Eurasianism was not a viable option. An empire
without Ukraine
would eventually mean a Russia that would become more "Asianized" and more
remote from Europe.
"The
states deserving America’s strongest geopolitical support are Azerbaijan,
Uzbekistan, and (outside this region) Ukraine, all three being
geopolitcally pivotal. Indeed, Kiev’s role reinforces the argument that
Ukraine is the critical state, insofar as Russia’s own future evolution is
concerned."
Then Brzezinski goes directly at
Ukraine’s importance to world energy:
"For
Ukraine, the central issues are the future character of the CIS and freer
access to energy sources, which would lessen Ukraine’s dependence on
Russia.
"Accordingly, Ukraine has supported Georgia’s efforts to become the
westward route for Azeri oil exports.
Ukraine
has also collaborated with Turkey in order to weaken Russian influence in
the Black Sea and has supported Turkish efforts to direct oil flows from
Central Asia to Turkish terminals."
Neither the West nor Russia can afford
to lose Ukraine to its geostrategic and geo-economic adversary.
An even clearer view of the conflict
It is critical to view Ukraine within
the framework of an energy-rich Eurasian corridor that has been
increasingly militarized by the US and the West since the late 1990s, and
even more aggressively by the Bush administration under the 9/11/"war on
terrorism" pretext. America’s Silk Road Strategy (SRS) Act, adopted in
1999, explicitly calls for "strong political, economic and security ties
among countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia".
Ukraine is a key member of the CIS, but
more importantly, it is member of the GUUAM (Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan and Moldava) military alliance formed under NATO, financed by
Western military aid.
There is no more incisive explanation
of the current conflict than can be found in
Michel Chossudovsky’s book War and Globalisation , in which he
writes:
"Backed
by US military might, the SRS is to open up a vast geographical region to
US corporations and financial institutions. The stated purpose is "to
promote political and economic liberalization’ including the adoption of
‘free market reforms’ under IMF-World Bank-WTO supervision.
"This [GUUAM]
alliance lies "strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas wealth,
with Moldava and the Ukraine
offering [pipeline] export routes to the West.
"Dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, the formation of GUUAM
ultimately purports to exclude Russia from the oil and gas deposits in the
Caspian area, as well as isolating
Moscow politically [my
emphasis-LC]".
"In the
context of GUUAM and the SRS, Washington has encouraged the formation of
pro-US client states strategically located along oil pipeline routes. The
latter are to be "protected" by NATO under GUUAM and various other
military cooperation agreements. The hidden agenda is to eventually cut
the Russians off altogether from the Caspian oil and gas fields [my
emphasis-LC].
"With a
view to weakening Moscow’s control over Caspian oil, several alternative
pipeline routes have been envisaged. The Baku-Supsa pipeline---inaugurated
in 1999 during the War in Yugoslavia and protected military by GUUAM---totally
bypasses Russian territory. The oil is transported by pipeline from Baku
to the Georgian port of Supsa, where it is shipped by tanker to the
Pivdenny terminal near Odessa in the Ukraine. Both Georgia and Ukraine are
part of the GUUAM military alliance. This Pivdenny terminal has been
financed---in agreement with the (neo-fascist) government of President
Leonid Kuchna---by Western loans."
Geostrategic battle mirrored in
corporate media accounts
The prescient (and in the case of
Brzezinski, incriminating) analysis from both of the above cited books,
written years ago, is echoed by current reporting in mainstream news.
A
San Francisco Chronicle article offers the following:
"The
United Financial Group, an investment banking organization based in
Moscow, described the struggle in Ukraine as ‘a Cold War-style proxy
confrontation’." Yushchenko promised to turn Ukraine, a geographical
bridge between the European Union and the energy-rich Caspian Sea and
Black Sea regions, toward Western-style democracy….Yanukovych, on the
other hand, advocates closer ties with the increasingly authoritarian
Russia, its Eastern neighbor.
"An
independent, Western-oriented Ukraine also could provide a crucial
partnership for the United States and a potential staging ground for its
pursuit of oil in the Caucasian region, according to Celeste Wallander,
director of the Russia/Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington."
According to a
Washington Post report:
"In Russia’s
view, the key to its continued influence in the region is Yanukovych.
"‘Russia
cannot really afford to suffer a defeat over Ukraine,’ Liliya Shevtsova,
an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center, said Wednesday. ‘Russia cannot
be a power without Ukraine. It is historically conditioned, but it is also
plain fact.’
"If
Yushchenko became Ukraine’s president, though, the country could decide to
join NATO and end its substantial military cooperation with Russia. Such a
move, some analysts believe, could cost Russia as much as $10 billion a
year in contracts and other revenue.
"In
contrast, a Yanukovych presidency would guarantee Russian companies access
to vital energy pipelines---Ukraine
exports 90 percent of Russian gas to Europe---and crucially, Russia’s own
Black Sea fleet, currently headquartered on leased property in the
Ukranian port
of Sevastopol [my
emphasis-LC]".
"Yanukovych’s
defeat would signal the collapse of the classic Soviet-style bureaucratic
structure in Ukraine and could result in similar regimes long Russia’s
frontier---in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazahkstan and Belarus---giving way
to democratic forces sooner rather than later."
Bush administration crisis
Coming off of its own stolen
presidential election, the priorities for the Bush regime’s second term
are clear from the aggressive actions taken in recent weeks. The genocidal
counterinsurgency operations in
Iraq continue to foment escalating backlash and hatred. Bush
administration leaders, including both George W. and George H.W. Bush, are
engaging in feverish rounds of negotiation for increased militarization,
narcotrafficking and exploitation in Latin America, and meeting with
resistance from both political leaders and angry resistance on the
streets:
Rumsfeld fails to forget new US-Latin America security pact
Bush provokes protests--and police---in Chile
Drug scandal rocks Gutierrez government
Jet crashes before picking up elder Bush
Interference in Ukraine is one more
example of the administration’s desperate need to keep its oil-driven "war
on terrorism" train from derailing.
The Bush administration’s arrogant
triumphalist rhetoric masks the fact that its plans for easily securing
the world’s last remaining energy reserves for its chosen elites is
failing, despite its military aggression. It has also failed so far to
"manage" a world economy that teeters on the brink of collapse, and one
that is only sustained by book-cooking and criminal money flows, such as
the renewed Afghanistan opium trafficking, re-established under US
occupation.
In the meantime, the Middle East
is continuing to spiral further out of control---even under US military
occupation. China continues to
expand and evolve as an economic and military rival, a
direct super power adversary for oil and energy.
The failure to install a pro-Western
government in Ukraine
will gravely threaten the US energy conquest, and perhaps derail the
imperial agenda altogether.
Colin Powell threatened: "if the
Ukrainian government does not act immediately and responsibly, there will
be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine’s hopes for
Euro-Atlantic integration, and for individuals responsible for
perpetrating fraud".
Coming from the representative of the
most criminal and militaristically violent presidency in United States
history, there is little question what the "consequences" will entail.
Larry Chin is a free lance writer
specializing in Geopolitical and Intelligence issues. He is Online Journal
Associate Editor and a Global Research Contributing Editor.
Bulatlat
Past Alternative Readers
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified. |