You have not viewed any products recently.
Srdja Trifkovic's latest RT interview
The U.S. perceives the Ukrainian crisis as an opportunity to damage Russia and bring Ukraine into NATO, says Srdja Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles Magazine. He says a decision to ship lethal weapons to the Kiev regime has already been made.
RT: Despite an improving situation in Ukraine, we are still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials. Why is that?
ST: Because strategically the US political elite perceives it as an opportunity to damage Russia. They have not given up the geopolitical objective of bringing Ukraine into the Western fold, and eventually even having it join NATO. What we are witnessing right now is just the political preparation for a decision which, I believe, has already been made—and that is to deliver lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian regime. Of course the Europeans are opposed to that, but this would not be the first time that the US has sabotaged and torpedoed European peace initiatives.
A good example was the intervention of then U.S. ambassador in Belgrade Warren Zimmermann, who sabotaged the Portuguese plan for Bosnia under the EU auspices which could have avoided the Bosnian war exactly 23 years ago, in March of 1992. I believe that it is both the Republicans and interventionist Democrats who are acting in unison in providing the political pressure which Victoria Nuland actually treats as welcome, because it will only provide the alibi for the Obama administration to concede to their demands and do what I believe they are already preparing to do.
RT: At what point will they supply lethal aid if, for example, the peace agreement works?
ST: First of all, they will deny that Minsk-II works at all. There will be constant accusations of fresh Russian incursions. We had one of those from Victoria Nuland on Wednesday, even though there was no evidence to substantiate the claim. So we will continue to hear this rhetoric of Russian non-compliance and demands for those poor, defenseless Ukrainians to be supplied with weapons to defend themselves. But if they do go ahead, I think that there will be something of a rift within the Western alliance, because the Germans and the French in particular, will know that this is a deliberate sabotage of Minsk—and not an action that reflects the realities on the ground. I also believe that in that case the Russian government will be much less circumspect about actually helping the Donetsk and Lugansk republics and effectively doing what they have already been accused of having done.
RT: How could arms shipments from the West impact the situation?
ST: First of all let’s look at the kind of weaponry they are likely to supply: artillery suppression radar systems, communication equipment, and anti-tank weaponry. For all of those it will take a few months for the Ukrainians to be trained in their use, because at the moment they have Soviet stock which is out of date and which is certainly not up to NATO standards. So I think that if they do so, we are looking at perhaps a new government offensive sometime in mid-summer, probably not before that; but the point is that in strategic terms the US government—both the executive and the legislative branches—are obviously treating this as a major geo-political game in which Russia is the one who is in the crosshairs and the Ukrainians are treated as collateral damage.
So let's review this again students. The United States financed and engineered the overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government . An election the United States and the entire international community recognized as legitimate. This freely and fairly elected government had the audacity to refuse to sign on to EU diktats. So we violently overthrew them . Today the "Ukraine" has lost the Crimea and third or more of its territory because the US has strutted the Ukraine's naked ass into war with Russia. More war with Russia ? Brilliant!!! As I have stated before, genuine Ukrainian patriots can stop being the cannon fodder for the Soros-Scientology-sodomite freak team in Kiev and rebuild a Ukraine fraternal with Russia. First move: overthrow the clowns in Kiev.
Mr. Hylan, your review bears very little resemblance to reality. Yanukovich was not "overthrown." Having lost all political support, and knowing he would most certainly be put on trial for his many crimes, he fled the country and abandoned his office. He was thereby essentially impeached by the Rada, following democratic, constitutional procedure. Poroshenko was then elected, also according to constitutional procedure. It is pure fantasy to believe that the US sponsored a coup. Second, Ukraine did not "lose" Crimea after having started a war with Russia. Crimea was taken at gunpoint by Russia. The war came later, and Russia is the aggressor. Please refer to Girkin's interview in which he states plainly that, had it not been for Russia's little green men pointing guns at Crimea's deputies and demanding a mock referendum, Crimea would still be a part of Ukraine today. As for Mr. Trifkovic's narrative, I will only point out one obvious fact: Debaltseve was taken by the Russian side AFTER Minsk went into effect. How does he propose this occurred without non-compliance on the Russian side?
Whatever, Mr. Pilkington,whatever. Some Ukrainians threw the dice with an openly aggressive US and supposedly the EU. They lost.Turned out lots of their fellow Ukrainians weren't into the coup. Turned out the US was just interested in poking the Bear. Turned out the EU was never going to admit Kiev. Dumb move. Unnecessary move. Bye-bye Crimea. Bye-bye Novorossiya. So how does more war help? Bye-bye Odessa.
Mr. Pilkington, do you honestly believe the re-unification of Crimea to Russia was not the will and wish of the vast majority of its residents? You mar your good points with statements like that. Not even our State Department can buy that. Had at least as much popular support as the secession of .....errr....Kosovo.
Mr. Pilkington, was the $5.5 billion the United States spent on regime change in Ukraine (according to Victoria Nuland) fantasy too? Regarding the Crimea, is it unreasonable to expect a great power to act to secure its most important military asset in the region when it obviously would have been the first target of the Washington-backed junta? Should Putin have thrown up his hands and said to his cronies, "we'll have better luck next time"? Would the United States have done that if faced with a similar situation? As Dr. Trifkovic wrote, Ukrainians are and will continue to be treated as "collateral damage" while the American empire continues to provoke Russia. If it doesn't work this time, they'll try again soon and it won't stop until Russia ceases to be a player in world affairs, the United States implodes for reasons well-understood by readers of Chronicles, or there is a major conflict between the two powers that reduces one or both of them to rubble.
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.