Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
It is said: “Someone who is drowning clutches at straws” — another proverb mentions “the straw breaking the camel’s back”. I think that very soon we will learn about whether the straw will save or break the back of the sad “camel” that is Poroshenko’s regime.
In Ukraine the expulsion of Saakashvili to Poland was explained in the usual way – that it is the “Americans who decided” that it should be done. This is natural. After all, if the leaders and cannon fodder of Maidan recognise that the Americans long haven’t cared about them, and that Poroshenko and Saakashvili “are equidistant” from Trump even more so than Saakashvili was during the inauguration of the 45th US President, then the already not brilliant state of Ukrainian affairs will become absolutely intolerable for them.
But for us it’s all the same what methods of political autogenic training the invalids of Maidan use for the maintenance of their mental balance. We understand that if Saakashvili (as proof that the US supports him) was able to hold a whole conversation on Skype from a tent with “the one and only McCain”, who managed to postpone his journey to hell (a brain tumor at such an age is not appendicitis at the age of 15), and Poroshenko – who instead of holding the meeting with Trump announced by his administration and Klimkin’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, received already a whole comment for the press from the representative of the State Department, which explained that there wasn’t enough time for the Ukrainian president because of the major meeting with the President of Rwanda, then it means that the US long ago spat very deeply on whether or not Europe will integrate the ancient Sumarian people as gastarbeiters before local statehood definitively bites the dust.
And all games around the anti-corruption court, which is allegedly needed by the Americans in order to control the Kiev elite, are staged not because the US really dreams about creating it. All of Poroshenko’s resistance could be extinguished by one call from Trump with the demand to give a report by the following morning on the adoption of the law in the necessary form. If Poroshenko would continue to wriggle out of it, then for the Ambassador of the US Marie Yovanovitch it would be enough to invite Poltorak and Avakov and to inform both of them that Poroshenko isn’t the President anymore, and that the law on the anti-corruption court has already been adopted so that Ukraine wakes up in the morning under the new “anti-corruption regime”. Or someone thinks that Kiev’s Ministers of Defence and Internal Affairs would stand for the defence of the Motherland and Petro Poroshenko personally against the impudent Washington dictatorship?
It is absolutely all the same for the Americans which spider in the jar will be the first to gobble up another spider, and which one will be the second or third to be eaten. They have more than 200 years of experience with similar regimes and know that however the Presidents of banana republics change, the interests of the “United Fruit Company” will be observed.
That why in this case we are dealing with the last desperate counterstrike of Poroshenko trying to stop the attack of his opponents. This is demonstrated also by the fact that it’s not only Saakashvili who came under the blow, or that he himself was targeted. The former President of Georgia and former governor of Odessa was simply sent to Poland, the territory of which he crossed the Ukrainian border from.
The Americans also have nothing to do with the choice of country for deportation. The recorded conversation between Avakov and the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia has been on the Internet for nearly 1.5 years, from which we learn that the Kiev regime addressed Tbilisi with the offer to extradite Saakashvili to his Motherland, but Georgians informally hinted that they don’t really want to see him there. With the rather considerable (25-30%) support of the population, Saakashvili serving his sentence in a Georgian prison would be a constant destabilising factor for the government in Tbilisi. In addition, in three years he would be released with a martyr’s aura. It would be even worse if something happened to him in prison and he doesn’t come out the other side. The [Georgian – ed] opposition would immediately accuse the authorities of murdering a political opponent, a former President, an “outstanding Georgian”, etc.
In general, Georgia can be understood. But Poroshenko also didn’t need him in a Ukrainian prison. Exactly for the same reasons. If it is impossible to send him to Georgia and impossible to leave him in Ukraine, then it was necessary only to deport him to Poland. It is possible to assume that Warsaw also wasn’t happy about receiving on its territory the tireless former President, who is persistently looking for a new throne for himself. While relations between Kiev and Poland were good, the concern of Poland was taken into consideration. But in recent months relations deteriorated considerably so that Saakashvili’s readmission couldn’t not influence them significantly. So that’s why he departed for Poland.
As we already noted – Saakashvili managed to come out unscathed better than the others. “Snipers on Maidan” — citizens of Georgia, already for the third month describe in Kiev how in 2014 the leaders of Maidan employed them (by the way, with Saakashvili’s mediation) to shoot both “Berkut” and the “Heavenly Hundred”; how they courageously refused to execute criminal orders; how they weren’t paid the stipulated fee; and how three years later they were offended by not receiving money for it (what should they be paid for if they didn’t shoot?), and that they decided to open the eyes of the Ukrainian people. And precisely now, on the very day of Saakashvili’s expulsion, these “snipers” remember that they “saw” how valorous Maidan protesters were shot from behind by Pashinsky via the short burst of a machine gun, by Parasyuk – from a hunting “Saiga” rifle, and by Parasyuk’s father – from a combat “SKS” carbine.
Just imagine – all these Maidan activists arrived in the room, where three refusing-to-shoot Georgians were sat, and staged a safari on their colleagues, using all types of weapons. By the way, I don’t exclude that the “snipers” indeed name precisely the brands of these weapons, the bullets of which were extracted from the bodies of the killed Maidan protesters. And I won’t be surprised if it becomes known that the “observant” Georgians even “recalled” the serial numbers of all used guns. Such a heap of “proof” is exactly in the style of Lutsenko.
So, what do we have?
Saakashvili’s expulsion coincides in terms of timing with the involvement of “Georgian snipers”, whose testimonies were earlier used in order to try to discredit the former President of Georgia, and now against the Ukrainian politicians from the camp opposing Poroshenko. In any case, Pashinsky was connected to “People’s Front”, where he came together with Tymoshenko’s party “Fatherland” when the imprisoned Yulia allowed Yatsenyuk to “borrow” her political force. Thus, Pashinsky focused his attention on one more former colleague of Tymoshenko – Turchynov, who, immediately after the victory of the coup, was appointed the acting President – according to the illegal Maidan. Pashinsky became the acting head of administration under Turchynov.
So, the blow on Pashinsky can be potentially extended to Turchynov and, further, to Tymoshenko.
Parasyuk, who likes to kick dear law enforcement officers, opposed Poroshenko in the last standoff. It is precisely he who was spurred on by Leshchenko, tried to shove around the former Minister of Defence and acting head of presidential protection Colonel-General Geletey. Parasyuk’s father, visibly, went full speed ahead (or maybe also unflatteringly spoke about the main confectioner of Ukraine [Poroshenko – ed]) somewhere.
Also we shouldn’t forget that the testifying Georgian mercenaries were, allegedly, sent to serve these murderers by Saakashvili, who Lutsenko accuses of attempting to stage a coup. This connects all opponents of Poroshenko to one criminal syndicate – which already once before shot Maidan activists in the back – and now wishes to repeat it. One might be led to believe that Poroshenko fights not for himself, but for the ideals of Maidan and against vile murderers.
In principle – a good position. Except for the fact that Saakashvili very inertly was recently engaged in the organisation of anti-Poroshenko actions, bringing out to the streets 150-200 outcasts, but actively hinted to everyone that he is ready to work as the Prime Minister of Ukraine. Respectively: that in a conflict he will take the side that will satisfy his ambitions.
It isn’t known who Saakashvili harmed more – Poroshenko or his opponents. But now, Poroshenko’s enemies can as much, as long, and as loudly as they want mourn the “great son of the Georgian people” who the “chocolate thief” didn’t allow to “save Ukraine”. For one and a half months Tymoshenko has shown a readiness to lead a street protest. By the way, it’s impossible to link her to the shootings on Maidan: at the time, she was “heroically” sat in prison.
Poroshenko’s opponents still had weaknesses, traditional for Ukrainian politics, which allowed Poroshenko to hope to stay up to the elections. Firstly, all of them wanted to be the main one, while there is only one place. This sometimes created insuperable difficulties during the unification of efforts and the coordination of actions. Secondly, in 15 years and two Maidans they got used to all leading decisions being made by Washington so much so that they weren’t able to independently elect at least an interim leader nor to start a putsch. That’s why Saakashvili – worthless, not having any support in Ukrainian society – became the face and engine of the anti-Poroshenko coup and, having realised the situation, despite his very modest progress, began to lay a claim to the first roles in the post-Poroshenko government.
All of this contributed to the successfulness of Poroshenko’s counterattack. As far as I understand, Poroshenko was stimulated to carry out active actions by the definitive refusal of American and European politicians to deal with him and, the most important thing, the lack of any prospects on renewing crediting. Without the money and public support of the West, Poroshenko, in the best case for himself scenario, could last until the elections, but couldn’t win in them (more precisely, he didn’t possess the resource for the announcement of a “correct” [in the eyes of the US – ed] result).
There was a situation where the time-wasting method that was successfully used earlier by Poroshenko ceased to work. He could avoid a putsch before elections, but he couldn’t remain in power. And Poroshenko dared to opt for a counter-putsch dressed as a fight for the rule of law.
By the way, by his actions Poroshenko struck a blow also on the US and EU, which were forcing upon him gratuitous anti-corruption love. After all, in this way it gave the impression that America and Europe brought to power, supported, and financed the criminals [Parasyuk, Pashinsky, etc – ed] who personally shot the “heroes of Maidan” from behind. Earlier [just after Maidan – ed], these people could be considered as helpers of murders. They had the opportunity, in the worst case scenario, to plead their ignorance, and, in an extreme situation, to say that they “didn’t understand the conditions of time trouble”, etc. Now they are personally accused of killing. In the conditions of Ukraine two exits from the situation remain for them: victory or death.
In this format, Saakashvili’s expulsion was necessary for Poroshenko not to get rid of the street bawler, who obviously didn’t constitute a danger any more. Mikhail Saakashvili was removed from Ukraine so that he, in the expressional manner peculiar to him, wouldn’t testify in favor of the accused. I don’t exclude that in court Saakashvili could dismantle the entire scheme with the “Georgian snipers”, who “began to see clearly and who were ashamed and repented”. Now he is far away, and the experience of the legal proceedings vis-a-vis Yanukovych taught the Ukrainian courts not to stage remote interrogations. In Poland Saakashvili can say whatever he wants. In Ukraine the masses won’t hear him, and his testimonies will be insignificant for court proceedings.
But in the strength of Poroshenko’s position there is also its weakness. Informally he unites everyone against himself. Pashinsky, Turchynov, Parubiy (whose name also regularly flashes among the organisers of the Maidan shootings), this same Parasyuk, and other potential victims of “memoirs” of “Georgian snipers” have no place to retreat. Saakashvili isn’t present any more and only Tymoshenko can play the role of the leader of the masses. The others are too petty. Americans and Europeans, most likely, won’t interfere, since even now they are constantly splashed from head to toe by the bodily waste of Ukrainian political life. Obviously they won’t want to also dive into this puddle. But, taking into account the fact that Poroshenko compromises them too, and in the event that he crushes the internal opposition and becomes absolutely uncontrollable, the position of Washington and Brussels must be in general benevolent concerning supporters of the idea of Poroshenko’s early departure this spring.
Unlike Tymoshenko and other victims of their own naivety, thinking that they will replace Poroshenko and will start to live okay, the Americans understand that the current opposition won’t be able to do what Poroshenko didn’t manage to do after [the removal of – ed] Yanukovych. After all, Poroshenko also dreamed of returning to the Ukraine of the pre-putsch format, but with himself as the leader instead of Yanukovych. The US isn’t so naive to not understand that after Poroshenko’s removal in a short period of time – days, weeks, as a last resort, months – in Ukraine the fiercest war of all against all will inflame, in which the best chances will be had not by even ministers-security officers, such as Avakov and Poltorak, but by the Führer (“white leader”) Biletsky, who is actively traveling down the path of the association and reduction of all Nazis to a common denominator.
The latter, by the way, is the only Ukrainian politician who considers power not only as a source of earning money or satisfying personal ambitions, but also as an implementer of his ideas. Therefore, he is much more dangerous than thieves – both with and without epaulettes – controlling government institutions. Avakov, Poltorak, and others (in a critical case – even Tymoshenko) are capable of abandoning power and Ukraine for the sake of compensation. Biletsky, considering Ukraine as a springboard for the global neo-Nazi movement laying a claim for global power, will never concede, and he will battle for the realisation of his ideas to the very end.
Of course, he doesn’t have enough resources (including human) in order to win against all potential applicants [for power – ed] from among the regional elite and to carve out for himself subordinated territories of specific principalities. He also won’t be able to repel the desires of the Eastern European neighbors [Hungary, Poland, and Romania – ed] of Ukraine to “correct” the existing borders in their own favor. But he can boil the blood both of the former [regional elite – ed] and the latter [neighbours – ed], and, first of all, the remaining people of Ukraine. And if it’s not he who does it, then someone else will do it all the same.
Copyright © 2018 СТАЛКЕР/ZONE. All Rights Reserved.