Arseniy Yatsenyuk
© Yves Herman / Reuters
Ukraine's Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
The Western media response to Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk's resignation is laughable. We're supposed to be amazed at the 'revelation' that the Ukrainian government is 'shockingly' corrupt and that Yatz's demise is a 'surprise move', despite the fact that Yatz was the leader of little more than a 'junta' and Yatz himself announced publicly that he was departing over 2 weeks ago. While Victoria Nuland wrings her hands over Ukraine's corruption and the oligarchs and kleptocrats that rule from the shadows, she forgets that 2 years ago it was her and her friends that created the grotesque freak show that is Ukrainian government.

Three very telling things concerning Ukraine have occurred in the last couple of weeks. Number 1 is the broohaha over the Panama Papers and Poroshenko being named. Number 2 is the 'surprising' resignation of Yatsenyuk, and number 3 is the 'shocking' no vote in the Dutch referendum on whether to establish closer tied between the EU and Ukraine. What each one of these events has in common is Ukraine's so-called independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, when the country took a wrong turn down neo-liberalization street and ended up in a economic and cultural hole from which it cannot escape.

Ukraine's 'Independence'

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine made a bold decision and voted for independence from the USSR. Led by a nationalist movement known as Rukh, Ukraine made American geopolitical madmen like Paul Wolfowitz extremely happy when they cut ties with the Soviets and embraced a Westward path of 'free market' domination. Of course they were tempted by hollow promises of the 'free market' and the 'tide that would lift all boats'. Jon Gundersen, the Consul General in Kiev at the time, relates the spirit of the time this way:
In fact I have a letter from Paul Wolfowitz, who was at the time the Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy. He was using our cables against some at State who would say, "Well, we have to work with the Soviets and Gorbachev. Let's not push it too much." The Pentagon's thinking, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, was driven by military, not political objectives. If Ukraine becomes independent, the thinking was, Soviet forces would have to retreat a thousand miles from NATO and it would no longer be a strategic threat.

And so they looked at it from a military perspective; they were less involved with arms control or other considerations. There were some in S/P, State's Policy Planning Council, who agreed. However, most at State and the NSC [National Security Council] wanted to stick with the existing policy toward the Soviet Union. So we understand there were some real tough "Whither Ukraine" discussions in Washington. It came to a head when President Bush came to Ukraine...

One of the results of the Bush meetings was that the Soviets were becoming increasingly suspicious of the Ukrainians and where they were going. So they sent down [Soviet politician Gennady] Yanayev, one of the leaders of the subsequent coup to remove Gorbachev from power, to spy on what Bush and Kravchuk were talking about.

Kravchuk and Bush wanted to have a one on one meeting, so they told me to "Talk to Yanayev, so we can have a private discussion." I have a picture of a very worried looking Yanayev sitting there with Bush and Kravchuk. Then Bush and Kravchuk disappeared. I think that was one of the key events that caused the coup makers to act. I think Yanayev reported back to his buddies in the Kremlin, but not Gorbachev, that: "Ukraine's going to go independent, we need to do something about it." The [Russian] coup occurred a month and a half later.
No doubt many shadowy machinations were playing out, each helping nudge Ukraine out of Russia's embrace. Radio Free Europe played an important part, spreading the bogus American Dream of happiness and prosperity for all, which in reality was always massive wealth for a corrupt few.

13 years later George H.W. Bush would tell an audience that Ukraine's independence had 'marked a new, hopeful chapter for mankind." It is useful to remember that a psychopath defines 'hopeful' very differently than a normal human being does.

It turned out that the new, hopeful chapter was only for psychopaths, while a never-ending nightmare greeted the ordinary people of Ukraine, and a continual drain on the resources of Russia. With the economy in free-fall, Ukraine in the 90's would experience hyperinflation, an 8-year long recession, and a production decline equaled only by a country 'ravaged by war'. Ukraine's economy was historically tied to Soviet industries, especially military industries, which accounted for the business of 25% of Ukrainian companies. With the Soviet collapse all of these industries were gone. Wages were destroyed. Livelihoods were lost.

The result was massive poverty and an increase in crime. The homicide rate doubled, and life was 'terrifying' for the average citizen. Just like in Russia, entire companies were sold through the use of vouchers given to employees which they could, in theory, exchange for a share in the corporation. As was the case in Russia, most ordinary people were forced to sell their vouchers for food to greedy ruthless individuals who would become the 'oligarchs' in possession of state enterprises and therefore with access to the political influence necessary to further enrich themselves:
In fact, during the early and mid-1990s, high inflation rates and destruction of savings led to increased poverty. Since people needed ready cash for buying food and paying for housing, many decided it was more beneficial to sell their privatization certificates to companies and investors that purchased them for 2 - 8 Hryvnias (approximately US$1 to US$4 at that time), less than their par value of UAH 10. Having acquired a significant number of certificates, these investors participated directly in competitions and auctions. Similar to the Russian experience, only a handful of Ukrainians became real owners.
From 1992 to 2002, 100,000+ Ukrainian companies were privatized. The result? A society broken down and rebuilt on the basis of pure corruption and greed. Unlike Ukraine, Putin managed to rein in the oligarchs who had amassed vast political and economic fortunes in the same period. In Ukraine however, there was no Putin, and thanks to the US any influence that Putin might have had over Ukraine has now been lost as a result of the US-led coup in February 2014. Instead Ukraine has been subjected to one 'color revolution' after another, which keeps them destabilized and therefore easily controlled by Western imperial nut cases.

Thanks to decades of privatization, as of 2008 the 50 richest Ukrainian oligarchs held the equivalent of 85% of Ukraine's GDP. How's that for modeling Ukrainian society on a Western template. Since the 1990's, Western politicians and journalists have lamented Ukraine's corruption - in fact reading recent reports and comparing them to early ones we find little difference in the style or substance of the writing. It is as if the West has gotten so lazy they've recycled entire reports and changed a few names, from Kravchuk to Poroshenko. But then again, that is likely because nothing has changed, by design. One look at Yatz's 2014 agenda in Ukraine will convince the reader of that:
"Next week, the government of Ukraine will discuss a bill that will consider a draft law on the list of government entities that are not subject to privatization. After this, we will announce the most ambitious privatization in 20 years," - he said according to ITAR-TASS. The largest producer of alcohol in Ukraine - the company "Ukrspirit" - will be given to the private sector, along with a number of other state-owned enterprises, "which are sources of corruption, not the development of Ukraine."

The energy minister Yuri Prodan (which ironically means "sold" in Ukrainian) announced the privatization of all the energy resources with the exception of some pipelines and ministry offices. The government later added that the plan included the privatization of its 50% stake in Ukrneft (state oil company) and 75% stake in Turboatom (hydroelectric plant). Also included was the Odessa port factory along with several mines.

What Yatsenyuk is proposing "to combat corruption" is the very cause of Ukraine losing 60% of its industrial capacity since the fall of the USSR. Once possessing one of the leading economies in the world, Ukraine has been reduced to a nation with staggering amounts of unemployment and poverty.
1.5 million citizens of the Donbass are starving thanks to the regime in Kiev, which violates the Minsk ceasefire on a regular basis, creating constant distress for men, women, and children. Ukrainians are experiencing an unemployment rate higher than any time (up to 50% in some regions) in their history as an independent nation. Those that have a job can only hope to earn 100 euros a month. The massacres of innocent civilians by the Kiev junta continues to be hushed up by the Western media, since anything that can't be falsely attributed to Russia simply doesn't exist, apparently.

Is it any wonder then that Ukrainians hate Yatsenuyk and everything that he represents? Is it any wonder that Donbass and Luhansk are fighting tooth and nail to escape the clutches of this US-inspired pathocracy? Is it any wonder that Poroshenko has been 'revealed' to be just as corrupt as his Western masters? The West manipulates Ukraine whenever it wants, in any way that it wants, in order to fan the flames along Russia's border and keep the country in their grip.

Any Ukrainian that still holds out hope that the West wants to help them needs their head examined. Both the Americans and the Europeans care nothing for the ordinary Ukrainian people. The EU power brokers want to dominate them politically, economically, and legally in order to exploit them as cheap labor, while the US sees them as a weapon aimed at Russia. The recent Dutch referendum on the EU/Ukraine association agreement is just one example of this. The organizers of the Referendum made it clear that Ukraine was useful only as a political wedge to attempt to force a Dutch 'exit' from the EU:
"Actually, we do not care about Ukraine, you must understand," said Arjan van Dixhoorn, one of the organizers, and the president of the Burgercomité-EU association.

According to her, the referendum of April 6 is aimed at creating tensions between the Netherlands and the European Union. "A referendum on a Nexit was impossible until now. That's why we are using every possibility of putting pressure on relations between the Netherlands and the EU," she told the Dutch newspaper NRC.
Ukrainians have a choice. Either wake up and realize that the real intentions of their Western 'friends' is to exploit them to that last man, woman and child and that they are far better of in an alliance with their historical neighbor, Russia, or continue to believe the Western lies about 'freedom and democracy' and the hysterical 'anti-Russian rhetoric, and pay the consequences for such stubborn idiocy.