Ukraine risks becoming another Syria, and guess who that benefits?
By: Rachel Marsden
PARIS — Here we go again. Yet another round of ramped-up rhetoric about how 
Russia is supposedly on the verge of invading Ukraine. Does it strike anyone 
else as just a bit too convenient an argument for flooding the area along the 
Russia-Ukraine border with weapons and troops?
Does Russia want some sense of control over what’s going on in Ukraine? Well, 
British foreign secretary, Liz Truss, claims to “have information that indicates 
the Russian government is looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv as it 
considers whether to invade and occupy Ukraine.” She lists former Ukrainian 
officials with whom “Russian intelligence services maintain links.”
The insinuation is that Moscow is planning to overthrow the actual president and 
install one of these guys — to which one of the candidates, Yevhen Murayev, 
replied by pointing out that, in reality, he’s under Russian sanctions — a fact 
that undermines London’s claims of him being a future Kremlin puppet. “All I can 
think is that the British Foreign Office was given misinformation by some 
elements in Ukraine, and they repeated it without proper checking,” Murayev told 
The Independent. “I also think that myself and some others are getting caught up 
in the geopolitical confrontation going on between the US, UK, NATO and Russia. 
I think we are getting caught in the middle.”
While the propaganda is being exaggerated, it isn’t a stretch to imagine that 
Russia would be concerned about a hostile neighbor with an open-door and 
open-fridge policy for Washington: the world’s most ardent practitioners of 
regime change. Moscow is seeking national security guarantees directly from the 
U.S., in much the same way that the U.S. under President Trump, for example, 
sought the same from neighboring Mexico under threat of crippling tariffs of up 
to 25 percent if it didn’t prevent undocumented migrants from attempting to 
cross into the U.S.
Moscow’s concerns are hardly unfounded, at least going back to the 
western-backed attempt to overthrow the Kyiv government in the winter of 2013 
after then-president Viktor Yanukovych stalled on signing an association 
agreement with the European Union. That unrest left an opening for Moscow to 
swoop into neighboring Crimea (home to Russia’s long-standing leased Black Sea 
Port of Sevastopol) under the then-trendy United Nations’ Responsibility to 
Protect principle, evoked just two years earlier by NATO member states in Libya 
and ultimately used to overthrow leader Muammar Gaddafi.
So now, eight years later, the same western players are overtly moseying right 
up to the Russian border and bringing weapons and proxies with them. The 
CIA-backed Azov Battalion, whose covert training under the supervision of the 
Agency’s Ground Branch reportedly began as soon as the Ukraine unrest ended in 
2014, is frequently described as a “Neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Guard unit.” Now 
integrated into the Ukrainian military, it represents the kind of proxies that 
Washington has historically embraced, going back to the jihadists who fought the 
Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the Cold War, or more recently, the “Syrian 
rebels” backed by Pentagon and CIA funds to the tune of a billion dollars in a 
failed effort to oust President Bachar al-Assad.
Washington and its allies are well aware the closer they can get troops and 
weapons to the Russian border, with Moscow at a distance of just 490km (about 
304 miles) away, the more low-intensity proxy conflicts or covert action it can 
dial up or down against Moscow – all under the guise of “protecting” the locals, 
despite subjecting them to endless war and instability.
It’s such a well-worn blueprint. Washington has just left Afghanistan in tatters 
after two decades of selling the locals a pipe dream while stoking endless 
conflict. And Syria is just now getting back on its feet after years of 
Washington-backed regime change efforts, which were ultimately stymied by 
Moscow.
Moscow’s request for guarantees that NATO troops and hardware won’t be placed 
against its border is being countered by the massively peddled narrative that 
Moscow could invade at any time. Why? Because it has amassed troops inside its 
own country. OK, and why would that be? Because of legitimate concerns about the 
proximity of foreign military buildup against its own border, backed by 
countries outside of the region known for employing regime-change tactics to get 
their way.
As Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin play a game of chicken against a backdrop of 
ongoing diplomacy, spare a thought for the poor people of Ukraine, whose country 
risks becoming the next Syria or Libya if this all pops off. Three guesses whom 
that would benefit most (hint: not Russia).
COPYRIGHT 2022 RACHEL MARSDEN