It would seem that by either ignorance to Russia’s own interests within the region, or perhaps half-blinded by the fact that I did not care much to see another US-EU-Neo-Nazi coup from occurring, after all the fun of the last one isn’t quite through with yet, I was thus inclined to view the Russian’s actions in a more favorable light, perhaps offering their supposed magnanimity more credit than it deserves. President Putin and the Russian Federation are in Crimea, at least in part to protect its governmental body from falling to another American-EU sponsored coup, but also to maintain hegemony in a region important for a number of reasons, gas supply pipelines not being the least of which, neither being the strategic naval base located on the Black Sea. There can be no doubt of this, Putin's actions represent a response to the aggressive power grab in Kiev. A strategic area heavily under the influence of Moscow was threatened by an outside nation acting through its Neo-Nazi paramilitary proxies, and Putin responded in the exact same way that any other power who’s interests were being threatened would. Because of this Putin’s ‘military aggression’ is the most justifiable position within the conflict; one need not mention how illegitimate and unjustifiable Europe and America’s actions are in contrast.
The claim of legitimacy America has been desperately trying to hide behind can thus be explained as follows: We acquired influence over Kiev through a violent, armed coup, which there can be no doubt about, the government was overtaken by force and the one we installed is by no stretch of the imagination legitimate in any meaningful sense of the word, yet it is our illegitimate government and because of that reason alone it is legitimate. It is legitimate because we say it is, and we will use all of our powers of PR, propaganda and demagoguery to influence public opinion and re-write the history of current events so that it aligns itself with this axiomatic reality. This stance is apparent when you read any of the recent corporate news stories covering Ukraine; our blindness and inability to see our own crimes while vehemently denouncing the highly predictable response of the nation whose interests we selfishly are seeking to undermine. Anybody who says that Putin’s response is shocking, alarming or surprising is either deliberately trying to mislead their audience or completely inept and ignorant to world affairs. Only an elementary understanding is needed to realize that when a power-structure’s interests are being undermined or threatened that power will behave in a way so as to protect those interests. Ukraine is the hydrocarbon energy connection between Europe and Russia, the intermediary by which a highly significant amount of gas flows through in order to reach Europe. Before the coup in Kiev, Moscow’s Gazprom held a monopoly over the region, the West’s actions are an attack on Russia’s monopoly over the energy transit routes, the use of military force in Crimea was the response by which Putin sought to maintain control of these interests. Control of Crimea maintains control of most of the pipeline routes; the real prize is Crimea, that’s where the pipelines are and that’s also where the army and naval bases are located. America can shout and moan all day over Russia’s ‘invasion’ while attempting to brand the democratic decision of self-determination of the Crimean people as somehow illegitimate and un-democratic, but once again, it is un-democratic purely because we say it is. The presidential elections to be held in Kiev will of course be held to a higher standard and branded as ‘democratic’ while those in Crimea will of course not be, the differentiating variable being that one will be held under the auspices of our control while the other will not.
Given all of this, there is only one correct way to interpret the claim for Ukrainian territorial sovereignty which is being invoked by the West as a justification to cancel the Crimean referendum for self-determination, and that would be to realize that all ‘Ukrainian territorial sovereignty’ really means is instead simply ‘our ability to maintain hegemonic control of Ukraine.’ Given this definition the American government’s stance against the democratic vote for determination makes much more sense: they are opposed to the referendum in Crimea because it would break any kind of dominating control that they seek to gain within the region. Imperialism and geo-strategic hegemony are driving the show; euphemisms regarding humanitarian concern and ‘democracy’ provide the smokescreen in the foreground.
Also to note, a likely reason why the right-wing, ultra-nationalist contingencies are gaining influence as well as positions in seats of power is, at least in part, due to the fact that they were willing to take on the police, police that have been excessively brutal at times throughout the protests yet who also have been the subjects to extreme aggression from the radical opposition elements, and have therefore been able to successfully overthrow what unanimously is agreed was a corrupt and insufficient government. Perhaps many of the protestors who had become radicalized by these elements thought that actual change would result from Yanukovych’s ouster instead of just a transfer of power from one oligarchy to another, which now has battle-proven military, security and defense forces headed by leaders of openly Nazi parties. Yet what it seems everybody did agree upon before the transfer of power took place was that Yanukovych had lost political relevancy, and was as much a threat to his citizens well being as they ended up becoming to his. This, of course, by no means gives America or anyone else the right to manipulate the valid uprisings and protests of a disenfranchised and exploited people in order to realize their own political and strategic ambitions, no matter how intensely neo-liberals claim to be spreading freedom and democracy and no matter how intensely neo-cons spout off at the mouth with jingoisms and hawkishness.
As Europe and America threaten sanctions and threats of retaliation to pressure Moscow into retreating from the region, the true impetus of the conflict becomes apparent:
The Ministers noted that energy is a critical part of Europe's security. Therefore, it is essential to accelerate the implementation of goals and activities to increase European energy independence and diversify energy sources. A concrete action plan to achieve this must be established as soon as possible.