Will the West's regime change policy in Ukraine lead to a stable democracy or to war? Although the dust has yet to settle, some observers say the country could become a failed state and that military intervention cannot be ruled out.
Washington and the EU have objectives that are geopolitical and aimed squarely against Russia in Cold War fashion.
US strategic objectives are not new. The Clinton administration made no secret about its policy to recruit Ukraine into NATO. Then secretary of state Madeleine Albright was obsessive on the matter.
Inspiration for US policies involving Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" and other color revolutions relies in part on the strategic thought of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a mentor of Albright and national security advisor to former president Jimmy Carter.
The influential Polish-born Brzezinski is well known for his visceral anti-Russian geopolitical views. Color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia held special significance for Brzezinski and his student Albright, for their strategic implications on the Eurasian landmass.
So the denials of US President Barack Obama and National Security Advisor Susan Rice that US policy in Ukraine is not geopolitical ring false. Rice herself is a protégé of Albright, espousing humanitarian interventionism and regime change policies that find neoconservative allies.
Western media is oriented in support of regime change policies, and thus it is not surprising that analysis of the situation has been less than objective.
For example, in Ukraine, critics of the regime change say that constitutional procedures and legislative procedures are not being properly followed.
The present constitution of Ukraine apparently has been suspended, as parliament seizes all powers including executive and judicial. Constitutional procedures for impeachment of the president were not followed as he was summarily stripped of his powers.
Although the US, the EU, and the UN gave diplomatic recognition to the new government, the nature of the new government is not exactly clear and does not appear to have a constitutional basis.
The present regime did not come to power through democratic means. Whether a new and democratic constitutional order can be established is an open question.
The country may descend into chaos, and Russia may be forced to intervene.
Ukraine is considered one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and the economy may well head into catastrophic free-fall.
Given the grave financial situation in the EU, it is unlikely that the EU has sufficient funds to rescue Ukraine. Even adding funds from the US and from the IMF, a stabilizing bailout of Ukraine may not be possible.
It is not clear that Russia will step in any time soon with funding for Ukraine, given the nature of the regime change and its clear anti-Russian geopolitical objectives.
Historical and cultural factors can weigh into a Russian decision. Much of the present western Ukraine, an area once called eastern Galicia, was under Austro-Hungarian control before WWI and is linked to Roman Catholicism.
Nevertheless, much of eastern and southern Russian- speaking Ukraine is Orthodox. So the religious and cultural divide is sharp and consequential.
The autonomous region of the Crimea was transferred as recently as 1954 from Soviet-era Russia to Ukraine. Russia's Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol under a special lease.
Would NATO go to war over Ukraine? Breathless rhetorical warnings to Moscow from Washington and London signify little other than that Washington and London appear unnerved by such a prospect.
It is within Russia's power to defend Crimea and the Russian fleet. Moscow may decide that this is necessary depending on the level of provocation and threat from the West on the situation in Ukraine.
In the interest of peace, the West must end its Cold War regime change policies.
The author is an educator and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn