Leading Russian economist Sergey Glazyev, an old friend of Lyndon LaRouche and now adviser to Russia’s President on Regional Economic Integration, has a brilliant and informative six-page overview of the Ukraine crisis in today’s edition of The National Interest, a magazine for which former top U.S. intelligence professional Paul Pillar is a leading author. It is well worth reading in full, because so much of what Glazyev presents is otherwise unavailable in the West.
His article builds up from the current political and economic issues, to end with the choice between peace and world war, the latter presented on the analogy of World War II. The alternative is trilateral negotiations as proposed by Ukraine and accepted by Russia,— but not by the EU.
Glazyev demonstrates that the EU Association Agreement would have put Ukraine under European jurisdiction as a unilaterally dependent colony, pledged to the directives of the European Commission over which they would have no say. Ukrainian goods would have been pushed out of its own market for a $2 billion annual loss on that account alone. Foreign debt would have grown, the currency would have been devalued, inflation would peak, and ultimately the standard of living would have fallen. “Ukrainian entrance into the Customs Union and Common Economic Space is projected to increase GDP anywhere between 3 and 9 percent; under the Association Agreement it is projected that GDP would fall about 2-3 percent.”
The article identifies repeatedly that “Euro-Atlantic integration has pronounced imperial overtones. The use of military power to establish orders in the Near and Middle East, the organization of revolutions in the post-Soviet space and territorial expansion via the incorporation of former Socialist countries are great lengths just to establish geopolitical hegemony… it is easy to see that the true meaning of the agreement is to tear Ukraine from Russia and isolate it from the process of Eurasian economic integration…. we must admit that the [EU] Eastern Partnership project is in its nature anti-Russian and exceptionally detrimental to the establishment of good neighborly relations and stability in Europe.”
He also reveals U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s blackmail against Ukrainian business that accompanied her “cookies”:
“Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s visit to Kiev was a pivotal moment. Accompanied by calls in Congress to impose sanctions against many Ukrainian officials and businessmen disloyal to Washington, she had confidential meetings with the most influential of them, threatening that they would be put on a list of sanctioned persons barred from entry into the United States and other NATO member-states and have their accounts and property seized. The blackmail of the most influential Ukrainians was attended by the publicized distribution of food to suffering supporters of Euro-integration and accusations against Russia for tough pressure on Ukraine.”
His conclusion follows:
“Fifth, we should combine the efforts of both the EU and the Customs Union in the framework of the Eurasian Economic Community to optimize trade and economic cooperation with Ukraine.
“The last proposition, recently articulated by Prime Minister Azarov of Ukraine, has excellent potential for improving the trade, economic and political relations in Europe. As we know, Russia and the EU have failed to establish a constructive dialogue since the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation expired some years ago. This is largely driven by political tensions caused by the anti-Russian Eastern Partnership. President Putin supported Azarov’s proposition, which was then rejected by frenzied Lithuanian politicians and by some European officials. Fortunately, the terms of those officials are coming to an end, and it is possible that this may also bring an end to the Maidan schizophrenia, which poisons the climate for cooperation in all of Europe.
“Should the blackmail of Ukraine’s elite continue, the meddling of politicians and secret agencies of NATO countries in the domestic affairs of Ukraine will also endure. This could make the conflict spill beyond the limits of the Maidan in Kiev to overtake all of Ukraine, ensnaring Russia and the EU in it, and further aggravating relations between all parties. The escalation of this conflict would inevitably lead Ukraine to split, which would throw the entire Eastern European region into a spiral of instability and political tension. In the context of the continuing global economic crisis, this would have severe consequences for the trade relationship between the Customs Union, Ukraine and the EU, undoubtedly bringing about losses. It is possible that American political pundits are deliberately manipulating Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs dependent on them, however the realization of such a plan would damage the United States itself because it would further weaken the EU, America’s main ally in the post-Soviet world.
“The staging of trilateral discussions between Ukraine, the EU and Russia together is the best possible outcome of the current stalemate. The EU’s ignoring this proposition would be counterproductive and reflect the involvement of the current European Commission, as well as the disproportionately large ambition of the Polish and Lithuanian politicians trying to enmesh the EU in their own anti-Russian adventures fanned by old inferiority complexes in their own countries. It is time to stop the growing conflict zone around the EU, which is still paying for the Balkan wars after the collapse of Yugoslavia. Russia’s interest lies in a stable and strong European Union, as it is the country’s main trade partner. The temptation of Ukraine, which was and is a historic and spiritual center of the Russian world with Kiev—the mother of all Russian cities—could end in catastrophe for the EU, as has already been explored in previous attempts to forcefully integrate Russia into Europe.”
Glazyev wrote the article in his private capacity, not as a spokesman for the Russian government.