Ukraine refused to sign an Association Agreement in Vilnius in November 2013 as it had committed to do under the pro western president Viktor Yushchenko who was elected after the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004. In February 2010, the newly elected president Viktor Yanukovych decided to step backwards. He justified his move arguing that this treaty would jeopardize the sovereignty of his country. If Ukraine had signed this agreement, it would have had to cut the close relationships it had maintained with Russia and this would have threatened the unsteady balance by means of which the country had remained independent despite the presence on its borders of the two big powers: Russia and the EU-NATO. We now know this treaty was a tactic used by the United States to put an end to this geopolitical balance of power and separate Ukraine from Russia once and for all.
« Yanukovych rejected a pending EU association agreement, choosing instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia. This led to popular protests and the occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square dubbed « Euromaidan » by young pro-European Union Ukrainians. » Source: Wikipedia
The social unrest mysteriously broke out after the refusal of Yanukovych. President Yanukovych, who had been legally elected in 2010 for a period of five years was ousted by an apparently spontaneous uprising. The Ukrainians wanted so much to join the West ! Would that kind of behaviour have ever been accepted in the United States? Imagine a bunch of people, unhappy with the signing of the TPP and hence going to “Washington-Maidan” and forcing president Obama (and the whole Wall Street-CFR mafia surrounding him) out. If people had reacted the same way in France when the Lisbon Treaty was voted by its deputies in February 2008, three years after the referendum had buried the European Constitution, do you seriously think the mainstream journalists would have applauded such a « Revolution »?
An Association Agreement concerns all the aspects of a country life : political, juridical, military, economic and financial. The exact definition of that kind of agreement is :
A European Union Association Agreement (for short, Association Agreement or AA) is a treaty between the European Union (EU) and a non-EU country that creates a framework for co-operation between them. Areas frequently covered by such agreements include the development of political, trade, social, cultural and security links. The legal base for the conclusion of the association agreements is provided by art. 217 TFEU (former art. 310 and art. 238 TEC). Source Wikipedia
Here’s an excerpt from the March, 27th European Commission memo (those lines are really worth reading):
« Ukraine decided on 21 November 2013 to suspend preparations for signing the Association Agreement (initialled in March 2012), citing national security interests and the need to restore lost trade with Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States partners. In the Joint Declaration from the Eastern Partnership Summit on 28-29 November, Ukraine reiterated its commitment to signing the Association Agreement. Ukraine ’s decision to suspend preparations for the signing of the AA/DCFTA sparked massive civil protests (so-called « Euromaidan ») in support of political association and economic integration with the EU. The President and the opposition reached an agreement on the way out of the political crisis on 21 February which was facilitated by the EU. Subsequently, the Parliament voted the law to reinstate the constitution of 2004. Following the sudden departure of President Yanukovych from Kyiv, the Parliament dismissed with constitutional majority President Yanukovych, for failing to perform his duties, and appointed a new government headed by the Prime Minister Yatsenuk. Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity were violated clearly by acts of aggression by the Russian armed forces. The Federation Council of Russia authorised on 1 March the use of the armed forces on the territory of Ukraine. These actions are in clear breach of the UN Charter and the OSCE Helsinki Final Act, as well as of Russia’s specific commitments to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the bilateral Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership of 1997. »
Isn’t it incredible? As we now know, signing the Association Agreement, one of president Yanukovych “duties” if not the one and only, would have led to the dismantlement of Ukrainian sovereignty. And those who orchestrated this project of destruction of Ukraine reproach the Russians for violating the Ukrainian territory.
Conclusion, the Russians partially violated the national sovereignty of a country that our voracious elites could not violate because of the non-signing of this Association Agreement. And this absurdity made those voracious elites voraciously mad.
After the fall of Viktor Yanukovych, the EU didn’t lose time to speed up the process of confiscation of sovereignty of Ukraine, as you can see in this memo:
« The sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine must be respected. The European Union does not and will not recognise the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation. The European Council shares the view on the illegality of the referendum and the ensuing steps, as expressed in its conclusions on 20 March 2014. On the next day, the EU and Ukraine signed the political provisions of the Association Agreement, and confirmed their commitment to proceed to the signature and conclusion of the remaining parts of the Agreement which together with the political provisions constitute a single instrument. »
Source: European Commission MEMO: « ENP Country Progress Report 2013 – Ukraine », Brussels, 27 March 2014
The economic part of the Association Agreement was signed soon after, on June 27, “simultaneously with the signing of similar documents with Moldova and Georgia, according to the European Council.” Maybe this was the most important part of the agreement. The others, the social and cultural parts were certainly not that urgent. You don’t organize a coup to promote friendship and mutual knowledge.
The Ukrainian crisis looks very much like the Georgian crisis of summer 2008. The Russians just tried to prevent the United States and Georgia from coming close by occupying strategic areas that are vital to them: Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia (because on these areas are located the only roads that link the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the railroad reconstructed by the Russian in July 2008 along the Abkhazian coast and the Roki Tunnel in South Ossetia) and Crimea in Ukraine (were the Russian fleet is moored, an agreement had established the upholding of this fleet until 2042). And let’s not forget that part of the Russian military-industrial complex plants are still producing missiles and engines in the eastern Russian-speaking region.
I’m not a pro Russian but I’m not an enemy of Russia and I don’t consider the campaign that has been carried out to demonize this country and its president in the western mainstream media to be acceptable. Neither do I accept, as a European citizen, the destabilization of the region that’s being operated by our human and generous unelected leaders.
I simply observe that the bankers and businessmen who, as experts or lobbyists, dictate their choices to the EU, officially defend values that are at the exact opposite of what their own actions reveal to the public. Why don’t people open their eyes?
Because their European Newspeak seems to be a quite efficient propaganda tool.