Ukraine on the Grand Chessboard

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an inde- pendent 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...    (The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski  :46)

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 requires 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.    (Ib. 72)   Stated less diplomatically:  "F*** the EU."  --Victoria Nuland

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.  (Ib. 84)

Brzezinski: 

Events seem to be slightly behind schedule:

  The Orange Revolution (Ukrainian: Помаранчева революція, Pomarancheva revolyutsiya) was a series of protests and political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, in the immediate aftermath of the run-off vote of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election which was claimed to be marred by massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud. Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, was the focal point of the movement's campaign of civil resistance, with thousands of protesters demonstrating daily.^[5] Nationwide, the democratic revolution was highlighted by a series of acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins, and general strikes organised by the opposition movement. --Wikipedia

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.   (Brzezinski :84)

 Or perhaps not, as the sheeple are herded one way and another:

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.   (Ib. :121)

That seems to be going well.

Meanwhile, in the background Rothschild occultists are trying to incorporate more people in "the West" with their currencies and New World Order Inc. again.  A change on the Ukrainian currency in 2003: 

 Not that Ukrainian peasants will necessarily be better off with Russian oligarchs and Putin or even their own nationalists and antisemitic "fascists" that see the "soft power" of the Rothschilds, etc. They'd probably actually be better off with an open source currency like Bitcoin.   But there again, when you're caught between different empires or an axis of powers then you're probably not going to be better off no matter what you do.  

Anyway, note Zbigniew's conclusion on the impact of the internet:

  [The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,” said Brzezinski during a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal. 

 Great, huh?  Why is this guy advising American politicians, again?