Ukraine protection by the West: only Russia is guilty in oceans of blood?!

The famous Georgian political scientist Iosif Tsiskarishvili consistently argues the point of view in interview to Internet portal «The world and we» that the reason of the bloody conflict in Ukraine is only an aggressive policy of Russia and it compels the western states to give various help to the Ukrainian state. We call your attention to that extremely debatable interview.
— How do the society, politicians and political scientists of Georgia treat the events occurring in Ukraine?
Certainly, in the country 20% of the earth of which is occupied by Russia, sympathies remain on the party of those whom Russia decided to punish after Georgia. Such parallels are constantly drawn regardless of changes of the Ukrainian reality. Practically all Georgian political forces meet in it.
Holding peace parliamentary elections though they also didn’t pass across all territory of Ukraine causes satisfaction. In parallel we analyze performances of the American diplomacy. Performance of Mr. Kissinger who suggested to pass to strategic protection of Ukraine couldn’t cause delight and to make the reciprocal course from the North Caucasus. In case of Georgia the increase of intensity in the Caucasus irrespective of from what party it occurs, is not really attractive…
There is a hope that at least the North Caucasus remains in more peace, quiet course.
It is especially characteristic that literally in some days after Kissinger’s performance, the Kremlin made the decision to create the Ministry of Affairs of the North Caucasus the head of which was not a civilian, but the general. It specifies that the Russian authorities extremely are negative to such performances.
— Do you agree that the Ukrainian crisis is consistently prepared and started by the West, first of all, by the USA for the purpose of chaos creation directed mainly against Russia? That it is already not simply repeatedly fulfilled technology of «color revolution», but the following stage — technology of «color war»?
To represent the events in Ukraine as the American project is very unsuccessful attempt to cover own wounds with others blood. Each country which shows concrete interest in events in Ukraine has the right to represent the events in the key. But the fact remains — there are Russian troops in the territory of others countries.
In this sense the American senators are very principled and don’t consider possibility of any intervention in the military operations happening in Ukraine. It is very easy to define moods of any politician or the reporter as the Russian language offered a peculiar option of self-lustration. If we speak «on Ukraine», so we are against what Ukraine wishes. If we speak «in Ukraine», we recognize Ukraine as the country, but not «suburb"—it is already absolute other political platform.
But now it is already not the dispute — oceans of blood are poured. It is always bad when politicians forget elementary truth that the best way to win dispute is to avoid it.
Now the systems which existed decades in uniform structure meet face to face, but then dispersed. Thus it should be noted that one of the parties took the nuclear weapon and signed the contract (editorial note: the matter is not about the contract, but about so-called Budapest memorandum) that will be the guarantor of territorial integrity of Ukraine.
— Do you see the communication between events in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, recent performances in Hong Kong and the events occurring in Ukraine? Are they the links of one chain?
It is unlikely such communication is. The Arab spring of 2011 startled all dictatorships in the former Soviet Union. They worried very much and tried to secure themselves against development of such scenarios in own states. Someone managed to do it, but to someone not. Such scenario looks attractive for certain forces — the use of social networks as propaganda tool which allows to gather many thousands crowds easily. But at the same time the winners of such performances are forgotten now. And the governments change in these states happened not according to their scenario at all. Therefore it is impossible to compare all this to Ukraine so unambiguously.
— But don’t you deny that the West rendered the obvious information support and another to forces resisting to authorities in all these cases? The same occurred in February in Kiev. Is the parallel obvious that the inspiration of these processes occurs from the western countries here?
I see the uniqueness of the Ukrainian situation because really the insurgents are supported and armed by Russia. There were no insurgent movements in Kiev.
Here is an essential difference in that it is occurred in Ukraine and other countries. Of course, it will not be serious to say that there was no support from the West. But the new Ukrainian authorities could not receive such big support if Russia didn’t compel to it.
When the Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in the performances constantly tries to mix black and white, he gives reasons for strengthening of the help of the West. The Russian side constantly accuses the West of intervention in internal affairs of Ukraine. Such intervention is, but it is perceived from the positive point of view by the population of Ukraine.
At the same time it is possible to note that high degree of readiness for all current processes some months prior to their beginning was observed from Russia. That mass flow of the telecasts of the Russian television directed against Ukraine which we now observe won’t be created for some days. Of course, it was the minimum year of work by request of those forces which now say that no part is taken in the armed opposition with Ukrainians.
But annexation of the Crimea contradicts it with all evidence. And this situation is the real slap in the face on vanity of civilized part of the planet. And this part started working not to lose trust of own inhabitants in the countries.
— At the same time the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of these «civilized» countries were guarantors of agreements observance on February 21 which could prevent a sharp phase of crisis and bloodshed in Ukraine. But already next day, when arrangements were roughly violated and there was an obvious revolution, these guarantors didn’t tell a word. In your opinion, are the subsequent consecutive steps of Russia on upholding of the reached agreements and condemnation of violent overthrow of the legitimate power much more civilized approach than these actions of the western states?
Till February 21 there was an October of previous year when the ultimatum of Russia concerning signing of the contract of Ukraine with the EU was heard. And then already all Russian cards were laid out on a table. And when there is something unforeseen, first of all a question is set, for whom it was favorable? Was the contract really signed on February 21. But nobody started executing it. And who benefited from it?
Here the Crimea turned out. And if everything went as was put in these agreements, the Crimea would remain the Ukrainian.
Therefore it is necessary to understand correctly who was interested in driving Yanukovych out of his wits. He wasn’t exposed to physical threat, but, nevertheless, appeared in Russia. It is necessary to comprehend reality after occurrence of results. And now it can be considered as the part of the existing plan.
We know it from experience of 2008 year when everything happened, slowly academic, with fine terms. Suddenly Russia left the contract CIS concerning Abkhazia — it removed a duty to communicate with Sukhumi, only having informed Tbilisi in advance. There was no tension of a situation then in 2007. Then there was the decision to rehabilitate the railroad in Abkhazia. Then railway troops were entered. Then it appeared that in the summer the 58th army settled down from northern part of the Abkhazian ridge by chance. What they were engaged these months there? There are no explanations for it.
Therefore in a case with Ukraine I see the same consecutive deployment of in advance prepared plan. Events of February 21−22 became one of the links in this chain. Therefore it is difficult to estimate these events from the point of view of «civilization». It is obvious that observance of arrangements on February 21 and stabilization of a situation in Ukraine wasn’t in interests of any of the parties which participated in adoption of these agreements. Now we observe the tragic consequences of such approach.