"Unconditional surrender from Russia and, it must return Crimea", says Liz Truss

Hi Mike - our expert on foreign affairs.

Did our side overthrow the pro-Russian Ukrainian government in Feb 2014 and that led Russia to take back Crimea and start the separatists' war in Donbas that led to 14,000 killings in Ukraine up to Feb 2022?

MIKE'S REPLY:

For a short answer within my understanding, which is limited because I am not an expert on Ukrainian political and social movements, although I have a degree of knowledge of Russian and Soviet history, I can say the following.

1). Putin has his own motives for his actions in 2014 so to imply that his actions were a reaction to others only is not to attempt an understanding of the emergence of Putin as the dominant political leader in Russia after Yeltsin and the international strategies and policies that he has developed since then. Any actions he took in 2014 needs to be understood within that context. Taking that as read, his actions in 2014 were in response to the political events within the Ukraine which moved in a direction that rejected the leadership of Yanukovich and the pro-Russian policies he wanted to pursue and those within the Ukraine who favoured a pro-Russian policy. The context within Ukraine is that after the decisive vote in the independence referendum of 1991, Ukrainian political movements switched between western and Russian oriented political tendencies with external support from western states and from Russia. Both tendencies were heavily dominated by oligarchic capitalist groups dominating the economy, media and politics. 

2). The USA and the intelligence services allied to them like ours have a long reach and western states have a far greater economic power than Russia and the ability to offer incentives that Russia cannot match and although the overthrow of Yanukovich in 2014 was an internally driven political process within the Ukraine I suspect it was supported covertly by western intelligence and its agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy and overtly because of the offers from the EU states of a partnership agreement with the west. Internally Ukrainian political movements were torn after 1991 into either a western or Russian international orientation which shifted in each of the elections after 1991. I do not accept the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovich as coup directed by the western powers.

3). Political movements in the Donbas were more allied to a pro-Russian orientation and as a major industrial zone since the 19^th century it had strong ties to Russia economically which made it more understandable they were more sympathetic to Russia. Russia intervened with covert military support to political movements that wanted more autonomy for the regions and the attempt to set up separatist movements after 2014. I have read conflicting reports as to how genuine the separatist sentiment amongst the wider Donbas population was.

So in summary what I am saying is that what has happened is down to internal political and social movements within the Ukraine, these movements are not proxies for external states. External states have tried to influence these Ukrainian political movements. In my view Russia took the more aggressive response to what was happening in the Ukraine than that of western states. 

Mike

MINE:

Very many thanks for this, Mike.

I am very concerned that our side felt unable to wait for a chance to overthrow Yanukovich in a competently and fairly run election.  This was an own goal by liberal democratic forces within Ukraine.  An utter tragedy that was, possibly, not condemned by the American/UK-led West at the time.  Putrid Putin must have been absolutely furious!  Hence, the 2021 re-assurances or demands that were never forthcoming from NATO before the war's escalation in Feb 22. Our side called it appeasement if we did what Putrid wanted.  Liz Truss is demanding unconditional surrender and the return of Crimea, instead.

Is this a fair summary, Mike?

16 June 2022:

I do fear that the UK's open-arms approach to Ukrainian refugees fleeing war and our firmly closed arms to refugees from every other war-torn country, does give the game away.  It shows how we will welcome those suffering at the hands of our No 1 sworn enemy, Russia and her war (fueled by our gifts of "only 'defensive' weapons" to make it our war, too).  No way do they have to risk drowning in the Channel, only to be jetted off to Rwanda.  We are not so welcoming to those from our own initiated wars in past years, like Afghanistan and Iraq or from our present war on Yemen!

Do remember that the West's wars and Russia's wars are all good for the capitalist armament factories in America and Europe and in Russia.  All helpful for economic growth and the fat profits for the armament kings and queens.  Never unemployment or low wages for those workers.  No industrial action, ever from trade unions in the factories churning out the weapons to kill and maim.  Only strikes from the railway workers next week when one of their leaders, last decade, publicly said that they would use their muscle to get more wages for nurses!

Only one railway worker, the brave and campaigning train driver Dave Parsons, has helped and supported me in my efforts to highlight, and our attempt to stop, the sheer scale and the long decades of our self-inflicted and ongoing destruction of about one-third of our railway network for roads and buildings and private gardens.  Dave resigned from ASLEF a couple of years ago in disgust at his union.

Tim