My truth about the revolution in Ukraine

         I have seen lots news about the crisis in Ukraine, but I think it’s really difficult to see a real truth. When I see the crisis in Ukraine I see connections with events like the crisis of Yugoslavia [1], when the Czech Republic was handed over to Germany in 1938 (signing of the Munich Agreement) [2] and the Velvet revolution in 1989 [3]. In next paragraphs I will explain why I see these connections with these particular events.

             To be familiar with facts I'm stating here some events.

                    Ukrainian parliament declared independence from USSR in 1991 (In referendum 90 % vote for independence). Viktor Yanukovych was declared as a winner in the presidential election in 2010.  An agreement on closer trade with EU was declined on 21^st Nov 2013. Protests against this broke out in late November. [4]

            I know nowadays it is very difficult to trust to the media, because you can’t be sure what the truth is because every newspaper owns someone (I mean the owner of the newspapers can say “You have to write about this otherwise I’ll sack you”). The best choice is to go to a part of a country where something is happening.Considering/in view of this media problem I have my own view on all of this. (Not only because of this).

            Here my view is: It started like any other revolution. Inhabitants of Ukraine weren’t satisfied, because of some decisions of Yanukovych. The last drop was the declination of the agreement between the EU and Ukraine. So people went to the streets and said “We want to get the justice. Kill that bad guy” This is fine, revolutions are here because sometimes some crazy people do everything against people. Sometimes we, the nation, have to dethrone a king from a throne. It’s fine. Here I see the connection with the velvet revolution in the Czech Republic. People wanted to dethrone the king from the throne and we did it or we have been thinking it for a long time. Yes, we think it. That’s the problem about revolutions, at the beginning it’s always about people. People want to change something, because they are not satisfied with a regime. And now the man behind the wall appears on the scene, actually nobody appears in the meaning we see someone. I’m talking about the power which moves with events in favour of the man behind the wall. Have you ever thought about it? In fact this can’t happen the invisible power turns up on the scene without the beginning, without people. At the beginning there are people wanting to change something and in the end it’s without the people. The people aren’t important anymore. They started it, because the man behind the wall wants it to have it like that (To show it’s the will of the people). This is the case of Ukraine. I heard about the Ukrainians at the beginning now I don’t hear about them anymore. They aren’t important anymore. They succeed in a role of a trigger of all events. Now I hear only about Russia and the west and other big men behind the wall. Russia says “We have to protect our residents in Ukraine” and the West says “We have to protect our position and our interests and we have to dethrone that big ugly Russian man, because it is the interest of the westerners” In fact the west doesn’t say that, but the westerner behind the wall would say that. I have a few questions do they protect our interests? Really? My interest? Who has said it is my interest. Who told you that it’s your interest?  Who is the westerner behind the wall? Ask yourself! That is a revolution or a change of a regime is about. It’s about with people and without people. Here I see the connection with the Munich Agreement. That time nobody asked us if we wanted to be a part of Germany and the UK and France didn’t do anything (And we had some kind of an agreement that they would help us in case of an attack). Instead of that they said “Be my guest” in order to save their selves. Here I also see a connection with the EU, the NATO and other organisations .  I’ve read news about Poland asked the NATO for sending troops to the border with Russia and also for sending troops to Eastern Europe in order to protect Europe before the Russian threat. The NATO had hesitated and didn’t send any troops then Some Danish Politician said “Who needs troops in Eastern Europe?”

            It was shown the NATO and the EU are useless in case of defence of the new modern European Union. Isn’t Poland a part of the EU, isn’t Eastern Europe an equal part of the EU? Who is the Danish politician who has said that?

                        In conclusion I want to say. A revolution isn’t about people. The people are only a trigger of events, then it’s a fight of men behind the wall. The people aren’t important in revolutions, in the end it’s about the power and a sphere of influence. From these events I came to the conclusion nothing has changed in the Europe. We have lots of organizations but when there is a problem they don’t want to help us.

The idea of disarmament is very nice,

but it has only one small tiny snag, one country still builds its army.

Information resources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275