I feel sorry for Libyans. But similar fate also expects other nations, which have rich natural resources – oil, gas, ores, arable lands and fresh water.  Though these resources were given to them by God “the new Crusaders” think that they don’t deserve these gifts. We should be ready that the Libyan scenario may repeat in other countries.

Though the United Nations’ function is to prevent and to settle conflicts in reality in artificially created crisis situations the great nations can easily do without this institution if they want to promote their own interests in a certain part of the world. Otherwise they won’t be so great and the situations cannot be called critical. So they can act as they please if they have enough forces and allies.

But catching fish in troubled waters, even the great nations nowadays prefer to cover their greed with the “fig-leaf” of the UN. If they don’t do it will be so plain to see that their actions contradict their “peacekeeping” declarations. For the great nations the UN is a very convenient tool, which enables them to declare their position and to learn about the positions of other countries without troubling their officials with “shuttle diplomacy”.

The UN quarter on Manhattan is like a market where countries sell their own and other countries’ interests, bargaining to a good price.

For quite a long time official Kiev refrained from declaration of its position on Libya. On the sidelines of diplomatic meetings as well as for the citizens the Ukrainian officials explained their “wait and see” position by the fact that many Ukrainian specialists are still staying in Libya. The Ukrainian doctors working in Libya found themselves in the most difficult situation there  – this is true – they have to work either on the side of the opposition of the side of the governmental troops. They are not allowed to leave Libya as if they work not under contract but it is their call-up liability.

But after March 17, when the UN Security Council adopted the resolution allowing any country to bomb Libya, Kiev has changed its approach completely. Both the Foreign Ministry and the Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich declared their support to the resolution. The Ukrainian officials seem to believe that the US, French and other missiles and bombs will attack only Libyans who are fighting on the side of Gaddafi while peaceful citizens and Ukrainians, who, according to Yanukovich are implementing their “honorable humanitarian mission” on both sides of the front will be out of reach for the “flakes of Western humanitarian aid”.

The administration of the Ukrainian president and the Foreign Ministry should have paid attention to the statement of the US State Secretary who said that air attacks against the Libyan governmental troops were only the first stage of the multi-stage military operation. Even earlier the officials in Washington said that the US’ final goal was the liquidation of Gaddafi. For this purpose air strikes are not enough. Thus the intervention of the Western coalition or the Arab League’s forces of both of them will follow. In this case the Ukrainian “humanitarian mission” workers in Libya will risk to become hostages with very small chance to survive.

There can be only one explanation why the Ukrainian president has supported the UN’s resolution, which exposes lives of hundreds of Ukrainians to danger making them potential victims of the big war of Western countries for the Libyan oil.  The ruling elite in Ukraine have made its final choice in its geopolitical orientation. Official Kiev decided to follow the example of Washington and not even try to show (at least for the sake of its good face) that the position of Ukraine on the Libyan issue is close to the position of the countries, which abstained from the vote on the UN Security Council’s resolution on Libya.

What strikes me most of all is that Kiev does not seem to understand that Ukraine may find itself in the similar situation as troubled Libya. It may also become a victim of the failure of the international law under pressure of Anglo-Saxon policy of “managed chaos”.

Imagine that in one of the states, which borders Ukraine, the forces come to power which want to return part of the Ukrainian territory. This territory is populated by Ukrainian citizens who are ethnically close to that neighboring country (and this is one third of Ukraine). Imagine that a numerous group of such citizens seize arsenals, name themselves “the opposition” and  begin a riot against the Ukrainian government under the flags of “democracy”, “human rights’ protection”, “right for better life”. They do not call themselves “separatists”.

Can the government speak with these armed rebels supported from abroad “the language of common European values”? Especially when the “opponents” are reluctant to such negotiations? Their goal is to make Kiev agree without any military resistance on their terms and this can be achieved only if great nations put pressure on Kiev.

Will the Ukrainian leadership and most of the population agree that the people who took arms and attack Kiev become “untouchable” only if the US, Great Britain, Canada, France  (“peacekeepers” in Libya) say that their consider the rebels to be political opposition, and their aggressive style is “the fight of the Ukrainian people for their rights”? This is very unlikely.

What’s next? Another “peacekeeping” resolution of the UN? Bombing of Ukrainian villages and towns? Intervention of the forces of the neighboring states under peacekeeper’s flags to save their “co-patriots” and to force Kiev to cease fire? The establishment of the new regime in Ukraine which will be advantageous for its neighbors? Or may be the division of Ukraine between the winners?

It is an absurd situation. By supporting the aggression against Libya Ukraine has sentenced itself to similar fate.

However, Moscow has also surprised me. Of course, I understand: the Arab League requested Russia not to hamper the “democratization” of Libya  (where are the democrats in the Arab League?) in exchange for keeping Russia’s positions in the Middle East. Also US Vice President Joe Biden advised Moscow to “betray” Gaddafi in exchange for the US’ support of Russia’s entry to the World Trade Organization (Am I wrong?). One more thing here is West’s silent recognition of part of Chechen separatists as “Islamic terrorists” etc.  This is relevant in the current situation but we also have to think about the future.

There have been no signs that Anglo-Saxons gave up their plan to destruct Russia using they same scenario they used for the destruction of the USSR. Besides Caucasus there are many other regions points where they can add fuel to the fire of separatism under the slogans of “human rights protection”, “the change of the KGB regime”, “saving starving people from the terror of corrupted officials”… That is why the Kremlin should clearly define the limits of “the democracy” and the limits beyond which the opposition turns into rebels.

Any government sets these limits in particular by declaration of its position on foreign policy issues. It sets such limits when it comes to defining: who and under what circumstances can be regarded as the opposition in a given country and whose rights should be protected and who are the rebels and do not deserve such protection. Otherwise if they indirectly deprive other nation of its right to protect itself from the undermining activities of the Fifth Column, both Moscow and Kiev may become victims of their own short-sighted policy.

Going back to Ukraine – No this country borders on the West and on the South with NATO member-states, which have influential forces and which are submit territorial claims to it. These countries are not doing it directly but the trend is clear. These countries are the members of NATO which demonstrated again (on Libya’s example) that if it is necessary they can get what they want (whether it belongs to them or not like in case with the Libyan oil).

If these NATO states manage to organize protests in Ukraine, only Russia, which is still not controlled by NATO, will be able to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. However Russia also can guarantee its territorial integrity only if it has the support of the neighboring Slavonic states – Ukraine and Belarus. Because West takes into consideration only force and profit ignoring all other things.

Kiev