우크라이나로 알던 나라는 아다시피, 영원히 사라졌다
An Interview with "The Saker" The Ukraine, As We Know It, Is Gone Forever
세이커는 유럽 태생으로써 러시아 난민 가계의 군사분석가이다. 그는 플로리다에 살면서 세이커 블로그의 바인야드를 기고하고 있다 그리고 러시아 내부자 지에 정기 기고를 한다. 세이커 국제 공동체는 프랑스, 독일, 러시아, 오세아니아, 세르비아, 라틴 중미 회원을 포괄한다. - 마이크 휘트니 The Saker is an ex-military analyst who was born in Europe to a family of Russian refugees. He now lives in Florida where he writes the Vineyard of the Saker blog and is a regular contributor to Russia Insider. The international community of Saker Blogs includes, besides the original Saker blog, French, German, Russian, Oceania and Serbian members and will soon include a Latin American member. – Mike Whitney
마이크 휘트니 Mike Whitney: 현재 우크라이나 문제에 미국이 책임이 있나요? Is the United States responsible for the troubles in Ukraine? 세이커 The SAKER: 예, 물론이죠, 의심의 여지가 없습니다. 우크라이나 국민이 부패한 야누코비치 체제에 불만이었음을 주지의 사실입니다. 허나 쿠데타는 씨아이에이가 확실히 조종한 것입니다. 유럽연합도 연루되어있는데, 독일이 그렇지요, 허나 미국만큼 중요한 역할을 한게 아닙니다. 미국 차관보 빅토리아 눌란드가 통화하는 내용을 보면 막후에서 누가 조종하는지를 여실히 보여줍니다. Yes, absolutely, there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the Ukrainian people were unhappy with the corrupt Yanukovich regime, the coup itself was definitely CIA orchestrated. The EU was also involved, especially Germany, but they didn’t play nearly as big a role as the U.S. The taped phone messages of (US Undersecretary of State) Victoria Nuland show who was really calling the shots behind the scenes.
Mike Whitney: 오바마 정권은 동 우크라이나의 내전을 일으키는데 키에프 정권이 결정을 내리는데 어떤 역할을 한건가요? What role did the Obama administration play in Kiev’s decision to launch a war on its own people in the east of Ukraine? The Saker: 중심역할이다. 당신은 키에프에 우크라이나 권력이란 것이 없음을 이해해야만 한다. 포로센코는 100%가 미국이 조종한다 이는 그의 주변의 인물도 마찬가지이다. 악명높은 우크라이나 비밀경찰 SBU 수장 발렌틴 날리바이첸코는 알려진 씨아이에이 요원이다. 미국이 포로센코를 우리의 내부자라고 부르는 것은 사실이다. 소위 그가 내린 결정이란 실제로는 키에프의 미국 관리들이 내린 것이다. 포로센코가 몇주전에 의회에서 연설한 것을 보면 미국인들이 써준 것이 명백하다. A central role. You have to understand that there is no “Ukrainian” power in Kiev. Poroshenko is 100% US-run as are the people around him. The head of the notorious Ukrainian secret police (the SBU), Valentin Nalivaichenko, is a known CIA agent. It’s also true that the US refers to Poroshenko “our Ukraine insider”. All of his so called “decisions” are actually made by U.S. officials in Kiev. As for Poroshenko’s speech to Congress a few weeks ago, that was obviously written by an American.
Mike Whitney: 동부의 분리주의자들은 우크라이나 정부군을 몰아내는데 아주 성공했고 보안쪽의 신나치 조직을 몰아냈다. 여기 노보러시아 민병대를 지원하는데 러시아는 어떤 역할을 했는가? The separatists in the East have been very successful in repelling the Ukrainian army and their Neo Nazi counterparts in the security services. What role has Russia played in assisting the Novorussia militias? The Saker: 러시아의 역할은 아주 중요했다. 러시아 군대가 국경에 걸쳐서 배치된건 아니지만 모스크바는 자원자가 무기를 갖고서 투입되도록 허용했다. 지원은 러시아연방 보안부나 군대에서 내려진 것은 아니지만 다양한 사설 조직을 통해 공급되었다. 확실히 크렘린은 그들이 하기로 선택할때 확실한 지원을 할수있는힘이 있다. 한 예로써 러시아 국경을 넘어서 야포 사격을 직접하는 모습이 나타났다. 거기는 남쪽 계곡이라 불리는 곳이다. 허나 대부분의 지원은 은밀하게 진행되었다. 그외에도 러시아는 정보과 군수물자 정치적 지원을 노보러시아에 제공했다. 러시아의 지원이 없었다면 노보러시아는 결코 전쟁의 판세를 돌리지 못했을 것이다. Russia’s role was critical. While Russian troops were not deployed across the border, Moscow did allow volunteers and weapons to flow in. And while the assistance was not provided directly by the FSB (Russia’s Federal Security Service) or the military, it was provided by various private groups. Clearly, the Kremlin has the power to help-out when it choses to do so. In one instance, there appears to have been direct artillery support from across the Russian border (in the so-called “southern cauldron”), but most of the aid has been covert. Besides the covert assistance, Russia has also provided intelligence, logistical and political support for the Novorussians. Without Russia’s support, the Novorussians never would have been able to turn the tide in the war.
Mike Whitney: 푸틴과 러시아 군대가 크리미아에 들어가서 불법으로 그 지역을 포획한 것이 사실인가? 아니면 서방 언론의 프로퍼갠더였던가? Did Putin send Russian troops to Crimea and illegally seize the area or is that a fiction that’s been propagated in the western media? The Saker: 그것은 실제로 기술적인 문제이다. 그렇다, 푸틴은 러시아 군대를 크리미아에 파병했다, 하지만 러시아와 우크라이나가 현재 합의한 것을 넘어가는 일은 결코 하지 않았다. 기억할 것은 흑해함대가 이미 세바스토폴에 본부를 두고 있다는 사실이다, 그곳에는 이미 충분한 군대가 주둔하고 있다. 또 필수적인 군사작전을 하는 지역의 자원요원들이 대규모로 있다. 이들 중 어떤 이들은 러시아 특수요원으로 오인되기도 한다. 허나 중대한 싯점에 푸틴은 크리미아에 특수부대를 추가로 보냈다 It’s actually a technicality. Yes, Putin did send Russian troops to Crimea, but no, they never exceeded the limits allowed under current agreements between Russia and the Ukraine. Remember that the Black Sea Fleet was already headquartered in Sevastopol, so there were plenty of troops available locally. Also, there was a large group of local volunteers who perform essential operations. Some of these volunteers were so convincing that they were mistaken for Russian Special Forces. But, yes, at the critical moment, Putin did send additional special forces to Crimea. Was the operation legal? Well, technically it didn’t violate treaty agreements in terms of numbers, but did it violate Ukraine’s sovereignty. The reason Moscow did this was because there was solid evidence that Kiev was planning to move against Crimea. (possibly involving Turkey and Crimean Tatars) If Putin had not taken the initiative, the bloodbath in Crimea could have been worse than it’s been in Novorussia. Also, by the time Putin made the decision to protect Crimea, the democratically-elected President (Yanukovich) had already been removed from office, which created a legal vacuum in Kiev. So the question is: Should Putin have abided by the laws of a country that had been taken over by a gang of armed thugs or should he have tried to keep the peace by doing what he did? What Putin chose to do was allow the people of Crimea to decide their own future by voting freely in a referendum. Yes, the AngloZionist propaganda says that they were forced to “vote at the barrel of a gun”, but that’s nonsense. Nobody disputes the fact that an overwhelming majority of Crimeans (95%) wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. All the “polite armed men in green” did was make it possible for the people to exercise their right of self-determination, something that the junta in Kiev never would have permitted.
Mike Whitney: 오바마는 포로센코 우크라이나 대통령에게 결정을 내리도록 어떤 영향을 주는가? 워싱턴은 실제로 상황을 통제하고 있는가? What influence does Obama have on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s decision-making? Is Washington actually running the show? The Saker: 그렇다, 확실하다, 오바마는 명령을 내리고 포로센코는 복종한다. 세계 어느나라에서나 미국이 그렇듯이 그들은 한 국가를 식민화하는데 지역 도당을 이용한다. 러시아에서도 1991년부터 1999년까지 마찬가지이다. 러시아의 술취한 앞잡이 보리스 엘친 뒤에 도당을 통해서 미국은 러시아를 통제했다. 이것이 오늘 우크라이나에서 동일하다. 야누코비치는 다른 우크라이나 대통령보다 친러시아계 인물이었다. 그는 다른 도당이 교체해버린 도당의 인물이다. 후자인 포로센코는 엉클샘에게 완전히 복종하므로써 생존의 길을 연다고 생각한 지능적인 인물이다. 허나 미국은 포로센코를 버릴수있다. 그것은 미국의 목적에 따르는 것인데, 만일 라이트섹터가 권력을 쥐는게 맞다면 눈깜작할 사이에 다른 인물로 교체된다. Yes, totally. Obama gives the orders and Poroshenko obeys. Just as they do everywhere, the US uses local oligarchs to colonize a country. Take for example Russia between 1991 and 1999. It was run by oligarchs behind a drunken figurehead. (Boris Yeltsin) Everyone knew that Russia had become a American colony and that the US could do whatever it wanted. It’s the same today. Yanukovich was no more pro-Russian than any other Ukrainian President. He’s just an oligarch who’s been replaced by another oligarch, Poroshenko. The latter is a very intelligent man who knows that his survival depends on his complete obedience to Uncle Sam. I wouldn’t put it past the US to dump Poroshenko and install someone else if it suits their purposes. (Especially if the Right Sector takes power in Kiev.) For now, Poroshenko is Washington’s man, but that could change in the blink of an eye. Mike Whitney: How close is the Obama administration to achieving its goal of establishing NATO bases (and, perhaps, missile sites) in Ukraine? What danger does this pose for Moscow? The Saker: The only place where NATO bases really make sense is in Crimea, and that option is no longer available. But there’s more to this issue than meets the eye, that is, if the US continues to pursue this provocative policy of establishing NATO bases on the Russian border, then Russia will withdraw from the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) and deploy advanced versions of the SS-20 (Soviet Nuclear Ballistic Missile) closer to Europe. The point is, US meddling could lead to a confrontation between nuclear-armed adversaries. Mike Whitney: The European Commission has created a number of obstacles to prevent Russia from building the Southstream pipeline which will diversify export routes for natural gas from Russia to central and southern Europe. Critics have said that the Obama administration is behind the move, and that powerful US energy giants want to either block or control the flow of energy from Russia to Europe. Is this the broader context of the troubles in Ukraine, that is, are we really seeing an energy war unfold in real time? The Saker: This is an important part of the equation, but not the central one. The central one is the mistaken belief (put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski) that without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower, and the equally mistaken belief (put forward by Hillary Clinton) that Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union. For the AngloZionists, the Ukraine is a zero-sum game in which the US must either control the Ukraine or destroy it, but not allow Russia to have it. The problem with this theory is that Russia doesn’t really want or need the Ukraine. What Russia wants is a stable, dependable and neutral partner with which it can do business. Even now, while the Novorussians are demanding full independence, Russia has been pushing a different plan altogether. Moscow wants a unitary Ukraine in which each region would have de-facto autonomy but still be part of the same state. Powerbrokers in the West are so maniacally obsessed with controlling the Ukraine, they can’t imagine that Russia doesn’t want the same thing. But Russia doesn’t want the Ukraine. It has no need for a broken, dysfunctional, failed state with massive social problems, that will require billions upon billions of dollars to rebuild. Sure, there are cultural, historical, religious and even family ties between Russia and the Ukraine, but that does not mean they want to run the place. Russia already got what it wanted, Crimea. As for the rest, Moscow’s attitude is, “You broke it, you own it.”
Russia Insider on Oct 10, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nxCGWhHP-Y Maidan Massacre Documentary <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-nxCGWhHP-Y?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Mike Whitney: What’s the endgame here? Will Poroshnko succeed in keeping Ukraine together and further isolate Russia from Europe or will Ukraine splinter along political lines? Or is there another scenario that you see as more likely? The Saker: Crimea is gone forever. So is Novorussia. But in the case of the latter, there might be a transitional phase in which Kiev retains some degree of sovereignty over areas in the east. In the near term, there could be more fighting, but eventually there will be a deal in which Novorussia will be given something close to independence. One thing is certain, that before reaching an agreement on final status, two issues will have to be settled: 1– There must be regime change in Kiev followed by de-Nazification. Neither Russia nor Novorussia will ever be safe as long as the Nazis are in power in Kiev. That means that these russophobic, nationalist freaks will have to be removed before final status issues can be resolved. The Russians and the Novorussians are somewhat divided on this issue. While the Novorussians want their independence and say “To hell with the Nazis in Kiev”, the Kremlin wants regime change and sees it crucial for their national security. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out in the future. 2– There will have to be a conference of donors. The Ukraine is basically dead, it’s been reduced to rubble. It will take years to rebuild, and immense sums of money. The US, EU and Russia will all have to contribute. If the AngloZionists persist in their maximalist position and continue to support the Nazi junta in Kiev, the Russians will not pay a single kopeck. Russian aid will go exclusively to Novorussia. Sooner or later the US and EU will realize that they need Russia’s help. And when they finally figure that out, they’ll work together to reach a comprehensive political agreement. Right now, they’re more preoccupied with punishing Putin (through economic sanctions and political isolation) to prove that no one can defy the Empire. But that kind of bullying behavior won’t change the reality on the ground. The West needs Russia’s cooperation, but Russia isn’t going to cooperate without strings attached. The US will have to meet certain conditions before Moscow agrees to a deal. UKRAINE: “Gone forever” Though it’s too early to tell, I think the Ukraine as we know it, is gone forever. Crimea will remain part of Russia, while Novorussia will become independent and probably end up in some kind of association status with Russia. As for the rest of the Ukraine, there’s bound to be a confrontation between the various [Ron: Jewish] oligarchs and Nazis, after which the pragmatists will appear and lead the way to a settlement. Eventually, there will be some kind of accommodation and a new state will emerge, but I can’t imagine how long it will take for that to happen. If you want a more systematic analysis of the points above, please see my analysis (here: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-russian-response-to-double.html) http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/14/the-ukraine-as-we-know-it-is-gone-forever/ |