In the post-Soviet period, US foreign policy and media establishments have overhyped Ukrainian positives, while disproportionately highlighting the negatives in Russia and Belarus, Michael Averko writes.
In February 2014 a coup took place in Ukraine to serve the interests of big geopolitical players and tycoons, but not grassroots. The first ones wanted to start an offensive against Russia, the second ones wanted to take advantage of instability and promote their business interests… The war unleashed by the government in the eastern part of Ukraine resulted in death and impoverishment of common people. At the same time it opened great prospects for personal enrichment of government, those who are close to it and tycoons. The higher is position, the more profit a person makes.
Les événements des ces derniers jours à Kiev montrent les tendances à la désintégration du système politique. Mais, ces mêmes tendances sont, peut-être porteuses d’espoir en ce qui concerne le conflit que ce pays connaît depuis février 2014.
The Ukraine’s government is losing independence unable to stop the internal fight between the clans of tycoons. For instance, the current stand-off between Ukrainian big business tycoon Igor Kolomoisky, the governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Region (one of the most important regions of the country) and President Petro Poroshenko was stopped only after the US embassy directly interfered to support the head of state. Poroshenko would not dare launch an open attack against Kolomoisky or, all the more, fire him without Washington’s say so…