#Official Commentary of Marina Zheynova on successive infusions of West in Ukraine’s democratization
One can endlessly speculate about financial and charitable activities of the United States and Europe, in Middle Eastern countries and the former Soviet Union, but one thing is for sure: neither America nor Europe will throw money if they cannot predict the outcome of these expenses.
According to Victoria Nuland, the US government has allocated to Ukraine five billion dollars since 1991 for the establishment of “a strong democratic government,” which resulted in the illegal coup and civil war in the east in 2014.
America has very rich experience of the change and control of power in the countries of the whole world. For such projects, there is a whole network of organizations operating in the United States, one of which is the agency for international development USAID. Initially, the agency had declared objectives to stimulate the economic growth and the fight against poverty and corruption. However, experience has shown that such right and good intentions are under an entirely different approach. In this case the lion’s share of funding for global democratization worldwide agency and its affiliated institutions obtain directly from the state budget of the USA. I wonder why such experienced staff are not able to control the process of presidential elections in their own country, and after the victory of Donald Trump are looking for culprits in the face of the Russian Federation’s leader and its mysterious and very dangerous ‘hackers team.’
For the agency mentioned above this is not the first change of power in a particular country through the organization in it of subversion using pre-trained “peaceful” revolutionaries. The practice of run-of-the-mill democratic regimes has similar features in all cases. Funds accumulate in the accounts of non-profit organizations, then there is the provocation of the ‘orange’ or ‘velvet’ mass protests against the old “non-democratic” regime under the auspices of some medium-sized non-governmental organization or an opposition party. Slogans usually sound very positive. Be sure to fight for the rights and freedom of man, freedom of speech, and we should not forget about the European values or equality of sexual minorities. At the same some kind of heartbreaking story of a journalist or a politician who went on hunger strike and had been thrown in jail will emerge. If not everything is as ‘velvety’ as intended, the Molotov cocktails and riots for opponents of American democracy laid up in case of emergency.
After the coup, the country’s financial system, including the central bank begins to be fully controlled from the outside. Next the ward state is forced to turn to their patrons for a loan to repair the destruction after the riots and bombings and, of course, for development. The development involves the management of all key resources in the state, ranging from water, electricity and ending with customs, which will be transferred to large international corporations. In such circumstances, the democratize country will remain a debtor literally forever.
As for Ukraine, then after the coup in 2014, foreign investors were waiting for enchanting and very quick results. But it so happened that in this country, every representative of the new ‘megademocratic’ Ukrainian government consider himself the main leader and is deeply convinced that in the world there is only one person who will lead his country to prosperity – it is himself. That is why Ukrainian politicians are not able to either agree or unite for the sake of the bright future of his long-suffering Ukraine. Their leadership qualities form a unique and unpredictable style of Ukrainian politics, the main rule of which is the thesis ‘stock up and get away.’ Western interventionists also underestimated the level of corruption. Some do not even wait until the end of their serving term. It is possible, that that’s why the revolution’s result was very far from the expected by masses raised by overseas combinators.
Is deja vu phenomenon possible in large politics? By the end of 2016 news feeds again were full of US and Europe plans to fund several NGOs in Ukraine. It turns out that the US and European authorities are extremely concerned about the depth of corruption and low levels of development of the Ukrainian civil society. For example, in the document on new financing of Ukrainian NGO, published on the website of the European Commission, very noble purposes, ranging from successive democratic reforms and ending with increased control over the power of civil society are declared. That is, it turns out that previous investments in the Ukrainian revolution had been in vain. What are the purposes of the new financing then? Judging by early experience, many experts agree that the US and Europe’s intentions may likely lead to another ‘colour revolution.’ In addition, we would like to understand: does Europe sincerely believe that successive ‘reforms”‘ in Ukraine will need only 10 million euros, taking into account the appetite of managers set by them? They themselves are used to feeding these defenders of Western values with meat, and now they throw a bone, and even not to everybody. I think that the stated amount is only enough for the fresh cookies for new lodgers of “Maidan”.
What is the cause of permanent failures of Western projects of democratization in Eastern Europe and the Middle East? I think that one of the main problems is the fallacy of the US and European foreign policy, but also in an effort to impose its own model of government. At the same concepts introduced from the outside absolutely do not take into account the enormous cultural, ethnic, and finally the geographical differences between countries and peoples, which leads to isolation from the real world of Western foreign policy ideas. The result is that a change of leader or regime in the country does not solve the problem of corruption, does not start sustainable economic growth and development of civic in society. But if all of these democratic values for the sponsors of colour revolutions are secondary, the main purpose of profit and control is not achieved at the desired volume too.
From the foregoing it is possible to make at least two conclusions: either the West did not draw the necessary conclusions from the Ukrainian crisis and continues to fund criminal and corrupt Kiev regime, silly hoping for dividends or Kiev did not meet the expectations of their supervisors, and it is time to sponsor a new coup in Ukraine.
Marina Zheynova, the DPR People’s Council deputy