QUORA: HOW TRUE IS THE ASSERTION THAT THE US IS USING RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT TO TIE DOWN RUSSIA MILITARILY AND ECONOMICALLY?
I gave a short and sweet response as appears below, but a more detailed explanation of the US interference in Ukraine since the illegal Maidan coup was not mine. It was given by Constantine Petrenko (see below my response).
How true is the assertion that the U.S. is using the Russia- Ukraine conflict to tie down Russia militarily and economically and further its position in Europe?
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Answered 2h ago
The US is less focused on long-term goals than it is on politics. Midterm elections are coming up, on Nov 6. Whatever the US does with its military now is Trump’s attempt to get votes for the GOP.
Wait until after the elections and then see what the US is doing in Ukraine. Perhaps nothing…?
Constantine Petrenko, Business Manager
American foreign policy strategist Zbigniew Brzezinki famously argued, “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.” The idea that the West needs to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Russia in order to contain Russian ambition goes back to the 1950s, and at this point it isn’t a secret.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict, however, is not exactly what the United States was hoping for, and the scenario is not turning out the way they would like. The original plan, first attempted during the 2005 “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine and then repeated in the 2014 Maidan, was to encourage mass protests against pro-Russian political governments in Ukraine in order to bring pro-Western politicians to power and gradually destroy most political, economic and cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine. The end game was to plant Ukraine squarely in the Western sphere of influence.
The first attempt in 2005 largely failed. Viktor Yushchenko, who was elected President of Ukraine in 2005 with Western support after mass protests, quickly lost popularity and did not even attempt to run for re-election. Instead Ukrainians chose the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych as their next President, and Ukraine was quickly falling back into Russian arms. So a follow-up plan was devised. This time not through a democratic election, but through an Arab Spring [colour revolution] style coup. Protesters started occupying government buildings and eventually seized power and forced Yanukovych to run.
This time around, however, Russia was not willing to sit back and watch. Putin had a plan of his own. As Ukraine descended into political chaos, Russia quickly blocked Ukrainian military units in Crimea, helped organize a referendum, and snatched Crimea without a fight. Most Ukrainian military stationed on the peninsula simply switched to the Russian side. Russia also helped two other Ukrainian cities, Donetsk and Lugansk, proclaim their independence from Ukraine. This was not part of the American plan. These developments meant Ukraine would be a much weaker, embarrassed country, and its new pro-Western leadership would be viewed as losers by their own people. Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s current president, has a dismally low approval rating, while political parties which call for a restoration of good relations with Russia are on the rise. This could turn into a nightmare scenario for Ukraine’s current leadership and its Western allies, and certainly this isn’t what the United States was looking for.