Uman Ukraine Israeli Hasids attacked journalists, Police, fires shots, threw stones glass bottles Updated

Yatsenyuk will deliver Ukraine to the international bankers.

“Ukraine is on the brink of bankruptcy and needs to be saved from collapse — Yatsenyuk has a strong economic background,” Ariel Cohen, senior fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, told Bloomberg on Wednesday. “Ukraine faces difficult reforms but without them there won’t be a successful future.”

Discussion with the IMF is crucial, US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said earlier this week. In order to cinch the deal, the U.S. government will sweeten the pot. Lew talked with the IMF boss, Christine Lagarde, about Ukraine as he headed back from a globalist confab, the G-20 meeting in Sydney, Australia.

“Secretary Lew informed Managing Director Lagarde that he had spoken earlier in the day with Ukrainian leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk and advised him of the broad support for an international assistance package centred on the IMF, as soon as the transitional Ukrainian government is fully established by the Parliament,” MNI News reported on Monday. “Secretary Lew also noted that he had communicated to Mr. Yatsenyuk the need to quickly begin implementing economic reforms and enter discussions with the IMF following the establishment of the transitional government.”

Ukraine’s story is right out of the IMF play-book. The nation’s corrupt leaders past and present – most notably Tymoshenko, who went to prison for corruption and wholesale thievery – have enriched themselves at the expensive of ordinary Ukrainians.

“Ukraine at the dawn of independence was among the ten most developed countries, and now it drags out a miserable existence,” Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko said last year. The nation’s leaders “signed a memorandum with the International Monetary Fund to meet the requirements of the oligarchs, but on the other hand — to timely pay the interest on the IMF loans and to raise the prices for gas and electricity,” Symonenko said.

The Orange Revolution – initiated by NED, IRI, Soros and the CIA – installed a rogue’s gallery of self-seeking social-paths who further bankrupted a country already seriously debilitated by corruption.

For the IMF and the financial elite, Ukraine is nothing less than a tantalizing bounty. “Its fertile black soil generated more than one-fourth of Soviet agricultural output, and its farms provided substantial quantities of meat, milk, grain, and vegetables to other republics,” notes ABO, a website covering energy resources. “Likewise, its diversified heavy industry supplied the unique equipment (for example, large diameter pipes) and raw materials to industrial and mining sites (vertical drilling apparatus) in other regions of the former USSR.”

After breaking away from the Soviet Union and declaring independence, it was thought the country would “liberalize” its industry and resources, in other words open them up for privatization by transnational corporations and international banks, but this did not happen quickly enough for the financiers and the corporatists.

How many Rothschild Zionist Central Bankers are in charge of entire countries now? Well more than you’d imagine because, not only are they taking over as PMs in one country after another, it is actually the European Central Bank which dictates policy to all countries within the EU and certainly those who use the Euro as their currency. While the Bank Of International Settlements sits quietly in the background.

For god’s sakes Ukraine – USE YOUR HEAD!

I’ve just written “Jew-Ukraine” the other day and now a couple of days later, what do we see transpiring? A self proclaimed government installing jewish oligarchs into positions of power.

Igor Valerian Kolonia (Ukrainian: Ігор Валерійович Коломойський; Russian: Игорь Валерьевич Коломойский, Igor Kolomoisky; born February 13, 1963) is an Ukrainian-Israeli business oligarch of Jewish descent. Kolomoysky has a dual Ukrainian-Israeli citizenship although dual citizenship is not recognized by Ukraine and controls his business empire from Switzerland.

The fact his Israeli citizenship is not even recognised in the Ukraine has him breaking the law! But then what do you expect Ukraine? You want to join the EU and be friends with the biggest criminals going like the British government and Barry Obama who’s a Kenyan in charge of the Whitehouse, contrary to the constitution of the United States of America (the REAL America that is NOT the U.S. Corporation version). So don’t be surprised when they allow a jew to take the piss out of YOUR constitution to ensure they get their people in power in Ukraine!

But I have to ask you – Do you like sleepwalking? Because that’s what you’re doing! Half of you wanting to cling to the shirt-tail of one corrupt criminal establishment on the east and the other half of you wanting to join the western mafia! Don’t you read? I guess not, not many people do over here either. But if you DO read this, let me tell you, this thing you’re thinking of embracing called “democracy” (or at least the western version of it) is a joke! “Out of the frying pan into the fire” comes to mind!

But, that aside, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ALLOWING THE BLOODY JEWS/ZIONISTS TO TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY?

0.5% of your 70 million population are jewish and here we are again. The virus starts to eat the host once more and the host embraces it!

It’s like the virgin who can’t stop herself from allowing Dracula in through her window!

—————————————–
Late 2002
Viktor Yushchenko (Our Ukraine), Oleksandr Moroz (Socialist Party of Ukraine), Petro Symonenko (Communist Party of Ukraine) and Yulia Tymoshenko (Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc) issued a joint statement concerning “the beginning of a state revolution in Ukraine”.

From the “New York Times” March 9th 2007:

In five short years, the man in line to be the fifth Baron Rothschild is close to becoming a billionaire through a web of private equity investments in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and most significant, his partnership stake in Atticus Capital, the fast-growing $14 billion hedge fund.

The ascent of Mr. Rothschild is a vivid illustration of how the still glittering, if somewhat faded, prestige and wealth of Europe’s most storied banking family has been reinvigorated from bold bets in this era’s new-money investment vehicles.

Like his forebears, he prefers that his influence remain unseen.

Mr. Rothschild is a principal adviser to Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest oligarchs in Russia and the owner of the aluminium giant Rusal, which recently merged with two other companies to create the world’s largest aluminium company. Mr. Rothschild received no public credit despite having played a crucial role in getting the deal done.

And like a true Rothschild he has a taste for the good life: as an avid skier, his principal residence is in Klosters, Switzerland, and he uses his Gulfstream jet to shuttle among his other homes in Paris, Moscow, London, New York and Greece.

But he is also a man of contradictions: he dates supermodels and actresses, sits on an advisory board of the Brookings Institution, a research organization in Washington, and serves his guests the best wines from the Rothschild vineyards, which he himself will not drink.

Please bear in mind that the Brookings Institute is the top of the tree – Number 1 – worldwide “Think Tank” as shown in a previous blog-post regarding “Think Tanks”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/business/09rothschild.html?ref=rothschildfamily&_r=0

GEORGE SOROS is an Hungarian Jew. Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 as Gyorgy Schwartz. When young Gyorgy Schwartz enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1947 he changed his surname to Soros. In 1956 Soros settled in NYC. George Soros then built his multi-billionaire international hedge fund called the Quantum Fund.

George Soros is known for saving George Bush Jr from a 1990 bankruptcy. Soros still works with Bush Sr in the Carlyle Group a powerful financial organization & international weapons dealer controlled by the Rothschilds. Take note of the Carlyle Group.

Russia expelled the Open Society Institute at the end of 2003

Recently, George Soros played an important role in the change of governments, especially in central and eastern Europe. He was particularly active in Poland, where he was, at the same time, friend of General Jaruselski and of the main official patron of the Solidarnoc (Solidarity) trade union, the Polish Bronislaw Geremek, who is currently member of the ICG administrative council. He was also very active in Hungary, his native country.

It is highly probable that he also engaged in the preparation of the “Velvet Revolution” in the Czech Republic, an action that culminated with Vaclav Havel as President. He repeated the same model in Serbia to defeat Slobodan Milosevic and, recently, in Georgia against Edouard Shevarnardze. Every time he has been served and supported by Otpor-style youth organizations. He has been accused of stirring popular disturbances in Ukraine and Belarus. In order to put an end to his intervention in Russia, authorities have resorted to the pretext that the rent was not paid to expel the Open Society Institute some days after Mijaíl Khodorkovsky was detained under complot suspicions.

Now let’s turn to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” which, I have said for years now, is the “blueprint” for western/Zionist moves to destabilise the world for exploitation by the western oligarchy (with help from their Eastern jewish oligarchical pals).

Page 46:

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chess- board, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would

also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly independent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine’s loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe

Page 47:

Almost as much as in the case of Ukraine, the future of Azerbaijan and Central Asia is also crucial in defining what Russia might or might not become.

Page 52:

To what extent should Russia be helped economically—which inevitably strengthens Russia politically and militarily—and to what extent should the newly independent states be simultaneously assisted in the defence and consolidation of their independence? Can Russia be both powerful and a democracy at the same time? If it becomes powerful again, will it not seek to regain its lost imperial domain, and can it then be both an empire and a democracy?

U.S. policy toward the vital geopolitical pivots of Ukraine and Azerbaijan cannot skirt that issue, and America thus faces a difficult dilemma regarding tactical balance and strategic purpose. Internal Russian recovery is essential to Russia’s democratization and eventual Europeanization. But any recovery of its imperial potential would be inimical to both of these objectives. Moreover, it is over this issue that differences could develop between America and some European states, especially as the EU and NATO expand. Should Russia be considered a candidate for eventual membership in either structure? And what then about Ukraine? The costs of the exclusion of Russia could be high—creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Russian mindset—but the results of dilution of either the EU or NATO could also be quite destabilizing.

Pages 57/58:

Europe also serves as the springboard for the progressive expansion of democracy deeper into Eurasia. Europe’s expansion eastward would consolidate the democratic victory of the 1990s. It would match on the political and economic plane the essential civilization scope of Europe—what has been called the Petrify Europe—as denned by Europe’s ancient and common religious heritage, derived from Western-rite Christianity. Such a Europe once existed, long before the age of nationalism and even longer before the recent division of Europe into its American- and Soviet- dominated halves. Such a larger Europe would be able to exercise a magnetic attraction on the states located even farther east, building a network of ties with Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, drawing them into increasingly binding cooperation while proselytizing common democratic principles. Eventually, such a Europe could become one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored larger Eurasian structure of security and cooperation.

Page 72:

Neither France nor Germany is sufficiently strong to construct Europe on its own or to resolve with Russia the ambiguities inherent in the definition of Europe’s geographic scope. That re- quires energetic, focused, and determined American involvement, particularly with the Germans, in defining Europe’s scope and hence also in coping with such sensitive—especially to Russia—issues as the eventual status within the European system of the Baltic republics and Ukraine.

Page 84:

Accordingly, the process of widening Europe and enlarging the transatlantic security system is likely to move forward by deliberate stages. Assuming sustained American and Western European commitment, a speculative but cautiously realistic timetable for these stages might be the following:

1. By 1999, the first new Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, though their entry into the EU will probably not happen before 2002 or 2003.

2. In the meantime,the EU will initiate accession talks with the Baltic republics, and NATO will likewise begin to move for- ward on the issue of their membership as well as Romania’s, with their accession likely to be completed by 2005. At some point in this stage, the other Balkan states may likewise become eligible.

3. Accession by the Baltic states might prompt Sweden and Finland also to consider NATO membership.

4. Somewhere between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, especially if in the meantime the country has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has succeeded in becoming more evidently identified as a Central European country, should become ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO.

Pages 92/93:

Most troubling of all was the loss of Ukraine. The appearance of an independent Ukrainian state not only challenged all Russians to rethink the nature of their own political and ethnic identity, but it represented a vital geopolitical setback for the Russian state. The repudiation of more than three hundred years of Russian imperial history meant the loss of a potentially rich industrial and agricultural economy and of 52 million people ethnically and religiously sufficiently close to the Russians to make Russia into a truly large and confident imperial state. Ukraine’s independence also deprived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea, where Odessa had served as Russia’s vital gateway to trade with the Mediterranean and the world beyond.

The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia’s non-strategic options. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, a Russia that retained control over Ukraine could still seek to be the leader of an assertive Eurasian empire, in which Moscow could dominate the non-Slavs in the South and South-east of the former Soviet Union. But without Ukraine and its 52 million fellow Slavs, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire was likely to leave Russia entangled alone in protracted conflicts with the nationally and religiously aroused non- Slavs, the war with Chechen perhaps simply being the first example. Moreover, given Russia’s declining birthrate and the ex- plosive birthrate among the Central Asians, any new Eurasian entity based purely on Russian power, without Ukraine, would inevitably become less European and more Asiatic with each passing year.

The loss of Ukraine was not only geopolitically pivotal but also geopolitically catalytic. It was Ukrainian actions—the Ukrainian declaration of independence in December 1991, its insistence in the critical negotiations in Bea Velez that the Soviet Union should be replaced by a looser Commonwealth of Independent States, and especially the sudden coup-like imposition of Ukrainian command over the Soviet army units stationed on Ukrainian soil—that pre- vented the CIS from becoming merely a new name for a more con- federal USSR. Ukraine’s political self-determination stunned Moscow and set an example that the other Soviet republics, though initially more timidly, then followed.

Pages 95/96:

This staggering new reality was bound to affect the Russian sense of security in its Far Eastern region as well as Russian interests in Central Asia. Before long, this development might even over- shadow the geopolitical importance of Russia’s loss of Ukraine. Its strategic implications were well expressed by Vladimir Lu kin, Russia’s first post-Communist ambassador to the United States and later the chairman of the Dumas Foreign Affairs Committee:

In the past, Russia saw itself as being ahead of Asia, though lagging behind Europe. But since then, Asia has developed much faster. . . . we find ourselves to be not so much between “modern Europe” and “backward Asia” but rather occupying some strange middle space between two “Europe.”

Page 104:

In this regard, Ukraine was critical. The growing American inclination, especially by 1994, to assign a high priority to American- Ukrainian relations and to help Ukraine sustain its new national freedom was viewed by many in Moscow—even by its “westernise”—as a policy directed at the vital Russian interest in eventually bringing Ukraine back into the common fold. That Ukraine will eventually somehow be “reintegrated” remains an article of faith among many members of the Russian political elite.5 As a result, Russia’s geopolitical and historical questioning of Ukraine’s separate status collided head-on with the American view that an imperial Russia could not be a democratic Russia.

Page 113:

Ukraine’s determination to preserve its independence was encouraged by external support. Although initially the West, especially the United States, had been tardy in recognizing the geopolitical importance of a separate Ukrainian state, by the mid- 1990s both America and Germany had become strong backers of Kiev’s separate identity. In July 1996, the U.S. secretary of defence declared, “I cannot overestimate the importance of Ukraine as an independent country to the security and stability of all of Europe,” while in September, the German chancellor—notwithstanding his strong support for President Yelping—went even further in declaring that “Ukraine’s firm place in Europe can no longer be challenged by anyone … No one will be able any more to dispute Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity.” American policy makers also came to describe the American-Ukrainian relationship

as “a strategic partnership,” deliberately invoking the same phrase used to describe the American-Russian relationship.

Without Ukraine, as already noted, an imperial restoration based either on the CIS or on Eurasianism was not a viable option. An empire without Ukraine would eventually mean a Russia that would become more “Asianised” and more remote from Europe. Moreover, Eurasianism was also not especially appealing to the newly independent Central Asians, few of whom were eager for a new union with Moscow. Uzbekistan became particularly assertive in supporting Ukraine’s objections to any elevation of the CIS into

a supranational entity and in opposing the Russian initiatives de- signed to enhance the CIS.

Page 121:

Most important, however, is Ukraine. As the EU and NATO expand, Ukraine will eventually be in the position to choose whether it wishes to be part of either organization. It is likely that, in order to reinforce its separate status, Ukraine will wish to join both, once they border upon it and once its own internal transformation be- gins to qualify it for membership. Although that will take time, it is not too early for the West—while further enhancing its economic and security ties with Kiev—to begin pointing to the decade 2005-2015 as a reasonable time frame for the initiation of Ukraine’s progressive inclusion, thereby reducing the risk that the Ukrainians may fear that Europe’s expansion will halt on the Polish- Ukrainian border.

Page 122:

The key point to bear in mind is that Russia cannot be in Europe without Ukraine also being in Europe, whereas Ukraine can be in Europe without Russia being in Europe. Assuming that Russia decides to cast its lot with Europe, it follows that ultimately it is in Russia’s own interest that Ukraine be included in the expanding European structures. Indeed, Ukraine’s relationship to Europe could be the turning point for Russia itself. But that also means that the defining moment for Russia’s relationship to Europe is still some time off—”defining” in the sense that Ukraine’s choice in favour of Europe will bring to a head Russia’s decision regarding the next phase of its history: either to be a part of Europe as well or to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its “near abroad” conflicts.

Now, think about the dates mentioned by Brzezinski. It would all start in the mid 2000s. Well, we had the Orange Revolution in late 2004/early 2005. Perfect timing. While, having had a leadership who had just begun the process of democratisation in 2002, Ukraine then, in 2003, had a whole new set of currency designed and printed. It looks like it was all “approval stamped”.

Who is it that designed and issued this currency? It just so happens that DeLaRue were provided the new contract for design and printing.

Do you know who DeLaRue is?

DeLaRue is Rothschild owned company in London.

Now, take your own conclusions.

——————————————

Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders – leaked EU’s Ashton phone tape.

“Gosh!” says Catherine Ashton.

Now I don’t know about you but I can hear a sense of no surprise in Ashton’s voice. I can also hear the woman say to Paet “my friend” while she displays total impotence in her role (she literally says nothing of any consequence) and would appear to be rather in a rush to get him off the line.

“We’re talking about how to get money in during the short, medium and long term… and support the IMF” – aka: “Get yourselves into as much debt as possible with us and we’ll love ya!”… “You have to go and lay flowers and show you care…” aka: “Make a show and make the people you give a shit”.

Note to Paet: She wasn’t happy to hear you say you knew what you knew. And she wasn’t surprised to the point it didn’t even phase her.

The snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were allegedly hired by Maidan leaders, according to a leaked phone conversation between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister, which has emerged online.

“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Urmas Paet said during the conversation.

“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton answered.

—————————————

The call took place after Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Kiev on February 25, following the peak of clashes between the pro-EU protesters and security forces in the Ukrainian capital.

Paet also recalled his conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.

Ashton reacted to the information by saying: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”

“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” Paet said.

Olga Bogomolets was the main doctor for the Maidan mobile clinic when protests turned violent in Kiev. She treated the gravely injured and helped organized their transportation to neighboring countries, who had expressed a willingness to treat those with severe wounds. From the outset, Olga blamed the injuries and deaths on snipers. She turned down the position of Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine for Humanitarian Affairs offered by the coup-appointed regime.

Warning to Olga Bogomolets: Catherine Ashton says today that you should be thinking in terms of being the Health Minister for Ukraine. Tomorrow, however, you shall see that “white woman speaks with fork tongue” in one way or another. Because, just as she refers to Urmas Paet as “my friend” during the call, she will speak to each and every person she ever talks to as “my friend” while, although you and she may know each other and get along on the face of things, she also has Tzipi Livni classed as “a friend”. What you have done, Olga, is you have stated something you know to be true which is that the coalition Maidan leaders have had the snipers kill both sides. What that means is that the jews are doing what they normally do (probably through Mossad) which is cause chaos and fear to make people desperate to just achieve any peace on any terms (or, at least lesser terms) and this will suit the west/zionist aims. Now YOU having the information that you do just might end up in you being a threat. Perhaps not at this moment nor for some time, but somewhere down the road. Watch your back Olga!

———————————————————

The Grand Chessboard “Eurasia”

THE UNITED STATES OF EURASIA

We listen to the words of Hilary Clinton but we must ask: Were they HER words? I suggest not. I suggest she is echoing the words and the intent of Zbigniew Brzezinski – the ex Democrat NSA lead who funded the Mujahidin in Afghanistan to draw Russia INTO a war – admitted by Brzezinski.

Brzezinski is also a “Bishop” in relation to Rockefeller’s “King” when we look at his involvement in Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski is the “Grand Chessboard strategist” for the Rothschild/Rockefeller clan as is Henry Kissinger (Republican). They take slightly oppositional stances on matters such as this but, in reality, they just see slightly different methods of achieving the same ends. Both of these guys are not the decision makers. They don’t have the wealth and power to make them so. They are simply “Bishops” who strategise for the “Kings'” wished for outcomes. Then, below them are the Obamas of this world (the “Knights”) who implement (but do not decide on) the tactics to be played out to meet the overall strategy.

Clinton wants to be a “Knight” or the next “Knight” anyhow. Since she is a democrat, she’ll be getting her script from Brzezinski and, when it comes to Russia, Brzezinski is a “hawk” – he despises Russia. But Brzezinski and Kissinger always play the “good cop/bad cop” routine. They have to. They sit on what is portrayed to us as opposite sides of the fence. But that is simply the Hegelian dialectic at work: “an interpretive method in which some assertional proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertive and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis), the contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis).”

Here is Clinton trying to wiggle her way out of her comments re Putin acting like Hitler. You see, she is one of those who are presented to us as being the “people in charge” and the media is given the ok to debate and criticise these people. It provides for the “feedback loop” to inform those higher up the chain how their ideology and strategy is received by the wider population. Their words are put into the mouths of Obama, Clinton, Cameron and Hague etc etc. The latter then take the heat if they get it wrong but the REAL power quietly strategises in the shadows.

What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response.

By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Published: March 3

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser from 1977 to 1981.

Regarding the Russian aggression against Ukraine, much depends on what Vladi­mir Putin does next. But what Putin does depends on not only his calculation of the likely NATO (and especially the U.S.) response but also his estimate of how fiercely the Ukrainian people would respond to any further escalation by Russia. And, to complete the circle, the Ukrainian response would be influenced by citizens’ reaction to any repetition of Putin’s Crimean aggression and by whether the nation believes that the United States and NATO are truly supportive.

Putin’s thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea offer some hints regarding his planning. He knew in advance that his thinly camouflaged invasion would meet with popular support from the Russian majority in Crimea. He was not sure how the thin and light Ukrainian military units stationed there would react, so he went in masked like a Mafia gangster. In the event of serious Ukrainian resistance, he could disown the initiative and pull back.

Accusing the West of encouraging an “unconstitutional coup” in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin said that Moscow reserves the right to protect Russians there.

Following a speech on the budget Tuesday, President Obama accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of seeking to exert influence through force over Ukraine.

His initial success may tempt him to repeat that performance more directly in the far eastern provinces of Ukraine. If successful, the conclusive third phase could then be directed, through a combination of political unrest and increasingly overt use of Russian forces, to overthrow the government in Kiev. The result would thus be similar to the two phases of Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland after Munich in 1938 and the final occupation of Prague and Czechoslovakia in early 1939.

Much depends on how clearly the West conveys to the dictator in the Kremlin — a partially comical imitation of Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler — that NATO cannot be passive if war erupts in Europe. If Ukraine is crushed while the West is simply watching, the new freedom and security in bordering Romania, Poland and the three Baltic republics would also be threatened.

This does not mean that the West, or the United States, should threaten war. But Russia’s unilateral and menacing acts mean the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade. The West also should convey — privately at this stage, so as not to humiliate Russia — that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch.

Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.

In addition, such efforts to avert miscalculations that could lead to a war should be matched by a reaffirmation of the West’s desire for a peaceful accommodation with Russia regarding a joint effort to help Ukraine recover economically and stabilize politically. The West should reassure Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO or to turn it against Russia. Ukrainians themselves can define the depth of their closeness to Europe and the scope of their economic cooperation with Russia, to the benefit of peace and stability in Europe. And after their May elections, they can revise some of the arrangements for a special status for Crimea, but they should not do so under duress or attack from a neighbour driven by imperial or personal ambitions.

Beginning to see more clearly yet?