There are two main schools of thought in Russia these days about the reasons for the crisis in Ukraine.
The first states that the Cold War never really ended, but lay bubbling in the shadow of the supposedly ‘improving’ relations between Russia and the West.
It has now simply come out into the open, with the US and the EU – weakened by the financial crash and the economic crisis that followed – deciding to go for a gigantic ‘asset grab’ in Ukraine, and installing a pro-Western, fiercely anti-Russian regime in Kiev.
This, they hoped would drag Ukraine into their sphere of influence, with the not so distant aim of turning it into a NATO advanced post on the Russian border.
This school of thinking is shared by quite a lot of people in the Kremlin and the political establishment generally, who have always been saying that the West could not be trusted and that it was a huge mistake to open the doors for Western companies to flood into Russia and occupy serious positions in different sectors of industry.
The crisis in Ukraine, therefore, for these people was a logical result of Western expansionism to the east, with the view of staging some sort of ‘colour revolution’ in Russia itself as the final goal.
The other school of thought states that it was actually Moscow’s fault that its European neighbours were looking westwards, simply because Russia could not really offer them anything attractive enough to counter the influence of the West.
Proponents of this school of thinking believe that oil and gas were important factors that maintained the links between Russia and its eastern neighbours; the Russian consumer market had its attractions as well.
Complete story at - Ukraine Crisis: Playing Russian Roulette With All The Bullets In The Cylinder | The BRICS Post
The first states that the Cold War never really ended, but lay bubbling in the shadow of the supposedly ‘improving’ relations between Russia and the West.
It has now simply come out into the open, with the US and the EU – weakened by the financial crash and the economic crisis that followed – deciding to go for a gigantic ‘asset grab’ in Ukraine, and installing a pro-Western, fiercely anti-Russian regime in Kiev.
This, they hoped would drag Ukraine into their sphere of influence, with the not so distant aim of turning it into a NATO advanced post on the Russian border.
This school of thinking is shared by quite a lot of people in the Kremlin and the political establishment generally, who have always been saying that the West could not be trusted and that it was a huge mistake to open the doors for Western companies to flood into Russia and occupy serious positions in different sectors of industry.
The crisis in Ukraine, therefore, for these people was a logical result of Western expansionism to the east, with the view of staging some sort of ‘colour revolution’ in Russia itself as the final goal.
The other school of thought states that it was actually Moscow’s fault that its European neighbours were looking westwards, simply because Russia could not really offer them anything attractive enough to counter the influence of the West.
Proponents of this school of thinking believe that oil and gas were important factors that maintained the links between Russia and its eastern neighbours; the Russian consumer market had its attractions as well.
Complete story at - Ukraine Crisis: Playing Russian Roulette With All The Bullets In The Cylinder | The BRICS Post
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments subject to moderation.