For a long time – probably two or three years after the beginning of the “Arab Revolutions” in Tunisia in late 2010 – something seemed wrong with the picture of events. There was a feeling that they were chaotic, and that everything was happening too spontaneously to be understood at the level of predetermined intent or a geopolitical plan. The spontaneous change of power in Egypt, Tunisia, the defeat of Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, unrest, and then the war in Syria – all these events seemed to be riots created by people dissatisfied with the authorities. The West was only helping.
There was a feeling that a “fifth element” was missing, which would put in order this chaos created and controlled by an unknown power. According to an opinion, expressed in the February issue of “Le Monde Diplomatique” by a major Orientalist, native Moroccan Hicham Ben Abdallah Al Alaoui from the Freman Spogli Institute at Stanford University (and he is not alone in his conclusions), there never was any plan or conspiracy against the Arabs, in the sense that the events of 2010-2014 in the vast Middle East and the surrounding regions were carefully planned and carried out with a certain specified purpose. In his article entitled “The Arab Spring” has not said the last word” he cites numerous facts that the events in the Middle East were the result of purely internal contradictions in the development of the Arab world.
However that diplomatic ballet, organized by the Americans and their Western allies in Ukraine on February 20-21, the consistency and programming of their actions, insensitivity to obvious logical inconsistencies, (despite of which, the performance with the expulsion of the legitimately elected President Yanukovych was played without causing much objections from the Europeans, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Germany, France and Poland, who usually were so scrupulous in respect of procedures) made us think that there was a connection between the events in the Middle East and the Euromaidan.
At first sight, as was the case with the Middle East, we are talking about the “disinterested” help of the West to Ukraine for the construction of a state governed by the rule of law and the introduction of Western values of democracy. However, a person familiar with the Arab “revolutions” can say that, by the very nature of militants’ actions on the Maidan, they are, first, very far from European values, and, second, are as like the events in the Middle East as two peas. The slogans are the same – instead of “Go away, tyrant”, shouted by the youth in Tahrir Square in Cairo in January 2011, “Gang – get out” was heard in Kiev. The approach and tactics are the same. Street protests of well organized militants who are paid and instructed, their resistance to law enforcement agencies, the constant escalation of demands, rejection of compromise or a quick revision of it and, finally, (oh, of course!) the “victory of the people rebelling against tyranny”. Usually this is accompanied by sniper shooting at demonstrators by unknown people from behind the backs of the police, so that victims are produced, and the opposition, anxious to gain power, could have “heroes”.
The cynicism and simplicity of this scheme still strikes with its efficiency. It works wherever it is used, though it is done according to a template, sometimes organizers are too lazy even to change colors of revolutionaries’ flags not to mention slogans. At that, the efficiency is equal to the naivety of the people who come to the bullets and thus become an instrument in the technology for seizing power by quite different forces.
Also striking is the blindness of people who fall for these techniques, used repeatedly since the collapse of the USSR. Now Kiev has many other things to do than analyzing the events in the Middle East, but it would be worth seeing what Maidan democracy results in – be it in Tahrir or Independence Square. And it always ends in the same way – election of incompetent, but arrogant leaders, under the dictates of the crowd, the subsequent degradation of state institutions, decline in the governance and rule of law, catastrophic weakening of the state with the possible anarchy or dictatorship and subsequent disintegration of the country. Judging by the fact that candidates in the government are approved by the Maidan, the possibility of this Egyptian-Yemeni scenario cannot be excluded in Ukraine today.
It cannot be excluded in our country, Armenia, either. As you know, our President S. Sargsyan made a statement at a meeting with Vladimir Putin on September 3, 2013, that the country was going to join the Customs Union and become a member of the Eurasian Community. As soon as he returned to Yerevan, meetings against the country’s joining of the Customs Union were held near the walls of the Presidential Administration. The secretary of the pro-Western party “Heritage” S. Safaryan called the intention to join the Customs Union as “unacceptable”. The former Prime Minister H. Bagratian also rejected this perspective and called for the resolution of this matter at a referendum.
Just like in the case with Kiev, there were accusations that this decision had been adopted allegedly under pressure from Moscow, which used methods of “blackmail”. And they sounded from both Armenia itself, and from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. In the light of the developments on the Maidan, there is every reason to believe that the pressure on Armenia will only grow from internal and external opponents of the CU, including using the tools that have already worked in Kiev.
So, who needs this? Experienced analysts are now saying that, in helping the Maidan in Kiev, the EU is supposedly solving its own problems – the seizure of Ukrainian markets to prevent the collapse of its own integration scheme, which is failing the test, with its protracted economic crisis. This is because Ukraine, with its 46 million consumers, chernozem (black earth) and metallurgy, can give a breath of life-giving oxygen to Europe that is experiencing a systemic crisis.
This is true, of course. Germany also craved to profit at the expense of Ukraine in the 1930s. Just like A. Merkel did when participating actively in the events in Kiev. However, this is not the entire truth, especially if we try to analyze when and what events were occurring in parallel with the Maidan.
And they look strange. First, they all occurred immediately before and during the Sochi Olympic Games that were extremely successful for Russia. Second, on the same days of February, when Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by dubious, if not treacherous methods in Ukraine, a large group of Syrian opposition forces (they say about 40,000 soldiers), which, according to the Saudi “Al-Sharq Al-Awsat”, were trained by the CIA, began an attack on the positions of the Syrian regime’s forces near Deraa from Jordan (city of Salt). And, third, a beastly corruption scandal erupted in Ankara, which involved Prime Minister of this country R.T. Erdogan. Mass demonstrations have already begun, and so another local Maidan is not far off.
What is happening? Is this also just a coincidence in time, like in the case with the Arabs?
It seems not. Obviously, the hand of an experienced strategist, for which even leaders like Angela Merkel are just pawns in a big game, is felt behind all these and other possible similar events (in the near future they are quite possible in Yerevan).
They are too similar to what the well-known Polish and professional Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his famous book “The Grand Chessboard (American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives)”. The objectives of the chess game, described in the book, are declared rather clearly – to ensure the world domination of the U.S., slyly called the “leadership”, in the twenty-first century via the “nibbling of Russia”, reducing it to a “hard core”, by tearing away resource-rich hinterlands. Then the checkmate will be delivered to it – and the country will be offered to become a “junior partner” of the U.S. or disappear forever from the world stage as a country and as a civilization core in Eurasia, an alternative to Europe. Zbig formulates everything clearly and without equivocation: “Eurasia is the main geopolitical prize for America”.
“He writes that the most politically active and dynamic states are located in Eurasia…. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the six countries with the largest spending on weapons are located in Eurasia. All legitimate nuclear powers, except one, and all illegal nuclear powers, except one, are located in Eurasia. Two aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence, that have the largest populations, are located in Eurasia. All potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy originate from Eurasia. In total, Eurasian power is significantly stronger than U.S. power. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too large to be united politically…” Thus, spoke Zbig.
Therefore, if you have a look from these positions at the events taking place in Ukraine now, and that are possible in Yerevan, in Ankara and in Syria in the near future, much becomes clear. Then the events of the “Arab Spring” fit into Zbig’s logic: the first stage (2010-2013) – the deterrence of Russian and Chinese growth in influence in the Middle East by the destruction of their actual or potential allies (Libya, Syria). At the same time, simultaneous addressing of the challenges of globalization, involving splitting of the world into smaller and smaller disabled actors on the international scene, all dependent on the USA, and their subsequent incorporation into broader regional alliances under the auspices of Washington’s allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Qatar). Then, in 2014, the direct offensive on the position of Russia started, and the first was a strike against its direct interests in Ukraine, because the Eurasian Union, being formed by it, does not fit into the logic of the globalizers. The Eurasian Union is being created in the heart of Eurasia for the direct development of interests of the countries located on this continent, and it has not joined and is not going to join any U.S. subordinate units – NATO and the like. This is an attempt at creating a multipolar world, where there is no place for U.S. hegemony.
Though with a certain time lag, Erdogan’s Turkey has also “fallen under the gun” now. Its task during the “Arab Revolutions”, set by curators from Washington, was to form around it (within the overall intent of the globalization strategy) a “constellation” of new Arab regimes, led by the Muslim Brotherhood (including Egypt and Syria). Indeed, the head of Turkish government is a member of this group, and by no means in the lowest positions. However, T. Erdogan failed in his task – Assad’s regime survived in Syria during the three-year unrest in 2011-2013, and in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, using Masonic methods, quickly lost credibility among the population. In summer of 2013, the U.S.A. was forced to pass the guardianship over the largest Arab country to Saudi Arabia, which supported the military coup there and expressed its willingness to allocate money for the modernization and strengthening of the Egyptian army.
Furthermore, T. Erdogan is guilty of developing and maintaining ties with Russia, having strengthened trade relations to a multi-billion turnover and granting benevolent neutrality during the creation of the Customs Union. Now the charismatic Turkish Prime Minister is interfering with the attempts to set Ukraine under full control of pro-Western forces, and altogether demonstrating excessive independence (purchases of air defense systems from China, the development of relations with Iran). Thus, he was immediately attacked by the powerful leader of the secret society of Hizmet, F. Gulen, sitting in Pennsylvania.
Only by linking together the events in Ukraine, the Middle East, Southwest Asia and the Caucasus, can we see the intents of the globalization strategists. Time will tell, whether they are able to implement them. Scales vary, but Zbig’s victory is far from guaranteed. It is possible that the historical time to address the issue of deterring Russia by a united West has already been lost…
Pogos Anastasov, political analyst, orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.