Yes, I straightaway notified John Helmer to see if he is aware of these developments, and he
says they are incorporated in this story, which I am just now reading myself (early morning on
the MAYNE QUEEN for 'frontline workers' such as I).
The French must be envious: while they have to tolerate Pavlensky with his arson stunts
and sinister blackmailing of their politicians, the Germans only have to put up with Navalny
who can't stop shooting his mouth off in a different direction every time he opens it.
Although the day must be fast approaching when Berlin might wish Navalny silenced forever
before he embarrasses his hosts even more. The irony would certainly be rich and furthermore,
whatever transpires next against Navalny could parallel what happened to the Skripals in
2018. The difference is that Navalny may be walking into a trap with all eyes (and mouth)
open. He will have only himself to blame if his hosts decide to get rid of him
permanently.
Playing the devil's advocate, it could be that the bottle(s) were exfiltrated in another
manner which in itself raises other questions.
But I would like to know the serial number of the bottle(s). That way they could be traced
to whom the producers sold them to, so a) we can check whether in fact the hotel did purchase
them whether directly or by an intermediary store, or not; b) whether they were bought
elsewhere, i.e. the brand was noted at the hotel (during the recorded video 'discovery'
performance) .
It kind of sounds like they are lawyering up, or getting legal advice about what
Pevchikh's actions and movements prove. And so far, they're correct – a picture of her
apparently buying a bottle of water or some other beverage from a machine proves nothing. She
could have bought something entirely different, or just been standing in front of the
machine. She also could have drunk the water on the plane and left the bottle there; that's
quite true as well.
However, what do we have on their side? Video allegedly taken at the hotel in which they
are seen bagging up empty water bottles. They must have been quote sure that was the piece of
evidence they were looking for, since they took nothing else. And then what? There's no chain
of custody, and nobody who was not there has any idea what happened to these bottles, or
whether the ones allegedly delivered to the Bundeswehr or whoever are the same bottles
allegedly taken from the hotel. There must have been no end of opportunities to open the bags
– which are not proper custody envelopes, simply zip-loc bags which can be opened or
closed any number of times without any indication that this has happened – and tamper
with the contents. Nobody from Team Navalny other than The Bullshitter himself went into a
coma or even showed any symptoms although they allegedly handled evidence which was liberally
dusted with a weapons-grade nerve agent, and wore no personal protective equipment (PPE)
other than rubber gloves. Detective Nick Bailey, who allegedly spent weeks in the hospital
after touching a doorknob allegedly contaminated with the same nerve agent although he was
wearing leather gloves, proved that gloves are no defense against Novichok.
Mind you, this latest iteration was apparently specially engineered to be slow-acting. So
perhaps in a couple of weeks Pevchikh and/or Alburov will fall over jerking and drooling in
the middle of a sentence. We'll just have to wait and see.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has called "Novichok" a Western brand The chemical warfare agent called Novichok is a "purely Western brand" that has been
synthesized and is present in Western countries in about 140 variants, Russia does not have
it. This has been announced by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"We officially confirm that all chemical weapons in Russia were destroyed under the
strictest international control. This time-consuming process was completed on September 27,
2017″, the foreign ministry has said in a statement.
They recalled that on October 11, 2017, the General Director of the OPCW's technical
secretariat certified the final destruction of chemical weapons in the Russian
Federation.
"As for the chemical warfare agent called "Novichok" in the West, its structure and
mass spectrum were first presented in 1998 in the spectral database of the American Standards
Institute (NIST 98). It is indicative that information on this substance came there from the
research centre of the US Department of Defense", the ministry has stressed.
The ministry has added that subsequently, on the basis of this compound, a whole family
of toxic chemicals had been formed that did not fall under the control of the CWC.
"They worked with it along with the Americans in no less than 20 Western countries".
the statement says.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has noted that the studies of Aleksei Navalny's
biomaterials conducted in Omsk did not reveal the presence of traces of his poisoning with a
chemical warfare agent.
"And the Charité doctors did not find them either. But the German military found
them. Almost a week later", the department has said.
Earlier, the OPCW said that its experts had confirmed the presence of toxic substances
in the samples of urine and blood taken from Navalny. According to the report, a substance
had been found in his body, similar in characteristics to Novichok, but not on the list of
prohibited chemicals.
The Russian diplomatic department has noted that this story has continued according to
a pre-planned scenario, and promised to provide a chronology of "behind-the-scene
manipulations of the main characters of this performance."
Note:
In 1997, the United States ratified the United Nations International Chemical Weapons
Convention treaty. By participating in the treaty, the United States agreed to destroy its
stockpile of aging chemical weapons -- principally mustard agent and nerve agents -- by April
29, 2007. However, the final destruction deadline was extended to April 29, 2012, at the
Eleventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention
at The Hague on December 8, 2006 -- source .
The primary remaining chemical weapon storage facilities in the U.S. are Pueblo
Chemical Depot in Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. These two facilities hold
10.25% of the U.S. 1997 declared stockpile and destruction operations are under the Program
Executive Office, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives. Other non-stockpile agents
(usually test kits) or old buried munitions are occasionally found and are sometimes
destroyed in place. Pueblo and Blue Grass are constructing pilot plans to test novel methods
of disposal. The U.S. also uses mobile treatment systems to treat chemical test samples and
individual shells without requiring transport from the artillery ranges and abandoned
munitions depots where they are occasionally found. The destruction facility for Pueblo began
disposal operations in March 2015. Completion at Pueblo is expected in 2019. Blue Grass is
expected to complete operation by 2021 -- source .
According to the ministry, the structure and mass spectrum of "Novichok," which is
claimed to have been behind the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and
opposition figure Alexey Navalny, were first revealed in the mass spectral database of the
American Institute of Standards in 1998 (NIST 98).
And further:
The OPCW said on Tuesday that a substance similar to nerve agent Novichok, but not
included on the lists of banned chemicals, had been found in Navalny's system. The German
government believes the OPCW's statement actually confirmed the opposition activist's
poisoning with a Novichok group substance but admits that the substance in question is not
formally banned.
Russia has also said that the German Foreign Minister's address to lawmakers on the
"Navalny case" shows that Moscow is still subject to propaganda attacks.
"As for Heiko Maas' thesis that Russia's claims against Germany and the OPCW are
absurd, such remarks are outrageous and do not stand up to any criticism. All we want is to
get legal, technical and organizational assistance both in the bilateral Russian-German
format and via the OPCW in the interests of conducting a comprehensive, objective and
unbiased investigation of all the circumstances of the incident that occurred with Alexey
Navalny," the ministry said.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said earlier that Berlin will discuss with its OPCW
and EU partners a general reaction to the incident with Navalny, adding that the EU may "very
quickly" impose sanctions against those people who they believe are involved in the
development of chemical weapons in Russia.
Russian Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said earlier this week that
the incident with Russian opposition figure Navalny was used just as a pretext for
introducing sanctions against Russia that had long been in the works.
But, as I probably need not mention again, the provocation has served its purpose already.
The German Foreign Minister, who was once quite bellicose on the USA's bullying ways and, if
not a friend of Russia, was at least telling America "You are not the boss of us" on the
issue of energy projects with Russian partners, is now fighting with Russia and saying things
that cannot be taken back. All thanks to that otherwise-useless grifter, the German-Russian
relationship has suffered a serious blow. Merkel, the eternal pragmatist, will not be around
forever and I would not be surprised at all to see her declining health take her out of
politics altogether by the end of 2021, if she does not suffer a medical event which kills
her. She is not a well woman. With her gone, the Atlanticists in the German government
– who still constitute a significant influence – could well prevail, and dump
Germany right back into Uncle Sam's lap. At the very best, in such an eventuality, Nord
Stream II would be allowed to complete but the Germans would demand so much control over it
that it would be just as if Washington was running it.
Germany, France and the UK will push for EU sanctions on Russian individuals over the
alleged poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny, saying they see no other "credible
explanation" for the incident than Moscow's involvement.
The proposals will target "individuals deemed responsible for this crime and breach of
international norms" as well as "an entity involved in the Novichok program," the
French and German foreign ministries said in a joint statement on Wednesday.
"No credible explanation has been provided by Russia so far. In this context, we consider
that there is no other plausible explanation for Mr Navalny's poisoning than a Russian
involvement and responsibility," the statement reads. Berlin and Paris said they will share
their proposals for sanctions with their EU partners shortly.
Later, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab added that the UK stands "side by side"
with France and Germany, declaring that evidence against Moscow is "undeniable."
Navalny fell sick on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on August 20,
forcing the plane to perform an emergency landing. The anti-corruption activist was put into an
induced coma at a hospital in the city of Omsk and two days later was transferred to the
prestigious Charité clinic in Berlin at the request of his family.
The German medics who treated Navalny said that their tests revealed that he had been
poisoned with a substance from the Novichok group of nerve agents.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has also studied the samples
provided by Berlin, confirming the presence of a toxic substance from the Novichok group in
Navalny's blood and urine.
This contradicts the statements made by the Russian medics from Omsk, who insisted that they
had discovered no traces of any known poison in the activist's system at the time of his
admission to hospital.
Navalny, who has since emerged from coma and been discharged from hospital, said that he
blames Vladimir Putin for making an attempt on his life.
Moscow has repeatedly denied any involvement in Navalny's alleged poisoning and has accused
Berlin of failing to provide samples that would prove the use of the nerve agent.
'Novichok' became a household name after the chemical poisoning of double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter in the UK city of Salisbury in 2018. Western powers were also quick to
blame Moscow in that instance, slapping sanctions on Russia, before offering any solid evidence
of the country's involvement.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 16
Before the fall of USSR most Eastern Europe USSR dependencies energy and security was
subsidized by Russians /USSR. After the fall of USSR most so called independent Eastern
European former Soviet allies are reviving their energy from Russia but subsidized by EU/US
in form of loans and capital investments and their security is total subsidized by US/NATO.
This was understood as such and cleverly corrected by the Russians
The US is ruthlessly waging an intense Hybrid War on Russian energy interests in Europe by
targeting the Eurasian Great Power's relevant projects in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria,
banking on the fact that even the partial success of this strategy would greatly advance the
scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic
allies.
The Newest Front In The New Cold War
The New
Cold War is heating up in Europe after the US intensified its Hybrid
War on Russian interests there over the past two months. This proxy conflict is being
simultaneously waged in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria, all three of which are key transit
states for Russian energy exports to the continent, which enable it to maintain at least some
influence there even during the worst of times. The US, however, wants to greatly advance the
scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic
allies which would allow America to reassert its unipolar hegemony there even if this campaign
is only partially successful. This article aims to explore the broad contours of the US'
contemporary Hybrid War strategy on Russian energy in Europe, pointing out how recent events in
those three previously mentioned transit states are all part of this larger
plan.
Germany
From north to south, the first and largest of these targets is Germany, which is nowadays
treating Russian anti-corruption blogger Navalny. The author accurately predicted
in late August that "intense pressure might be put upon the authorities by domestic politicians
and their American patrons to politicize the final leg of Nord Stream II's construction by
potentially delaying it as 'punishment to Putin'", which is exactly what's happening after
Berlin signaled that it might rethink its commitment to this energy project. America isn't all
to blame, however, since Germany ultimately takes responsibility for its provocative statements
to this effect. Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, published a
thought-provoking piece titled " Russian-German Relations: Back To The Future " about
how bilateral relations will drastically change in the aftermath of this incident. It's concise
and well worth the read for those who are interested in this topic.
Belarus
The next Hybrid War target is Belarus , which the
author has been tracking for half a decade already. After failing to convince Lukashenko to
break off ties with Russia after this summer's Wagner incident, a Color Revolution was then
hatched to overthrow him so that his replacements can turn the country into another Ukraine
insofar as it relates to holding Russian energy exports to Europe hostage. The end goal is to
increase the costs of Russian resources so that the US' own become more competitive by
comparison. Ultimately, it's planned that Russian pipelines will be phased out in the
worst-case scenario, though this would happen gradually since Europe can't immediately replace
such imports with American and other ones. "Losing" Belarus, whether on its own or together
with Nord Stream II, would deal a heavy blow to Russia's geopolitical interests. Countries like
Germany wouldn't have a need to maintain cordial relations with it, thus facilitating a
possible "decoupling".
That's where Bulgaria could become the proverbial "icing on the cake". Turkish Stream is
expected to transit through this Balkan country en route to Europe, but the latest
anti-government protests there threaten to topple the government, leading to worries that
its replacement might either politicize or suspend this project. Azerbaijan's TANAP and the
Eastern Mediterranean's GRISCY pipelines
might help Southeastern Europe compensate for the loss of Russian resources, though the latter
has yet to be constructed and is only in the planning stages right now. Nevertheless,
eliminating Turkish Stream from the energy equation (or at the very least hamstringing the
project prior to replacing/scrapping it) would deal a death blow to Russia's already very
limited Balkan influence. Russia would then be practically pushed out of the region, becoming
nothing more than a distant cultural-historical memory with close to no remaining political
influence to speak of.
Economic Warfare
The overarching goal connecting these three Hybrid War fronts isn't just to weaken Russia's
energy interests, but to replace its current role with American and other industry competitors.
The US-backed and Polish-led " Three Seas Initiative
" is vying to become a serious player in the strategic Central & Eastern European space,
and it can achieve a lot of its ambitions through the construction of new LNG and oil terminals
for facilitating America's plans. In addition, artificially increasing the costs of Russian
energy imports through political means related to these Hybrid Wars could also reduce Russia's
revenue from these sources, which presently account for 40%
of its budget . Considering that Russia's in the midst of a systemic economic transition
away from its disproportionate budgetary dependence on energy, this could hit Moscow where it
hurts at a sensitive time.
The Ball's In Berlin's Court
The linchpin of Russia's defensive strategy is Germany, without whose support all of
Moscow's energy plans stand zero chance of succeeding. If Germany submits to the US on one,
some, or all three of these Hybrid War fronts in contravention of its natural economic
interests, then it'll be much easier for America to provoke a comprehensive "decoupling"
between Russia and Europe. It's only energy geopolitics that allows for both sides to maintain
some sense of cooperation despite the US-encouraged sanctions regime against Russia after its
reunification with Crimea and thus provides an opportunity for improving their relations
sometime in the future. Sabotaging Russia's energy interests there would thus doom any
realistic prospects for a rapprochement between them, but the ball's in Berlin's court since it
has the chance to say no to the US and ensure that the German-Russian Strategic Partnership
upholds Europe's strategic autonomy across the present century.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Concluding Thoughts
For as much as cautiously optimistic as many in the Alt-Media Community might
be that the US' Hybrid War on Russian energy in Europe will fail, the facts paint a much more
sobering picture which suggests that at least one of these plots will succeed. Should that
happen, then the era of energy geopolitics laying the foundation for Russian-European relations
will soon draw to a close, thereby facilitating the US' hoped-for "decoupling" between them,
causing budgetary difficulties for Moscow at the moment when it can least afford to experience
such, and pushing the Eurasian Great Power's strategic attention even further towards Asia. The
last-mentioned consequence will put more pressure on Russia to perfect its "balancing"
act between China and India , which could potentially be a double-edged sword that makes it
more relevant in Asian geopolitical affairs but also means that one wrong move might seriously
complicate its
21st-century grand strategy .
If you look at the three countries mentioned Belarus will likely be absorbed by Russia
sooner rather than later. The push for this is underway looking at meetings taking place. For
Bulgaria the US is far away and has no power to stop the Turks. It is the Turks the
Bulgarians fear, with a lot of reasons, their surest way of keeping out of the Turks clutches
is to look to Russia for support. Unfortunately the USA has an appalling track record of
betraying countries, ask Libya.
The Germans have no choice but take the Russian gas, economically, socially and for
strategic reasons. The truly big fear for the US is a German/Russian bloc. German and Russian
technology with unrivaled resources. That is the future super power if they are pushed
together, something that is very likely if we see a major economic contraction in the next
few years.
Mustahattu , 4 hours ago
The US fear of an Eurasian alliance. The US fear Europe will create a Silicon Valley of
the future. The US fear the Euro will replace the dollar as a reserve currency. The US fear
Russia will become a superpower. The US fear China. There's a lot to fear yankee dear...cos
it's all gonna happen.
Hope Copy , 1 hour ago
RUSSIA is content with 45 and 25nm as it can be hardened.. 14 and especially 7nm is so
that the **** will wear out..
Ace006 , 2 hours ago
Instead of fretting about how this or that country or bloc will become a/an _________
superpower the US could focus on regaining its former pre-eminence.
It's a crazy thought, I know, but
moving a massive amount of industrial capacity to China and fueling the rise of a
communist country just might have been a bad idea and
thrashing about in the international arena like a rutting rhinoceros at huge expense
makes us look foolish and, in the case of Syria, petty and vindictive.
Repairing the damage from the former and stopping the hemorrhage of money and reputation
respectively would be a far better objective than playing Frankenstein in Libya, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Iran, Poland, N. Korea, and Venezuela, inter alia .
Mexico is a failed state right on our border that contributes mightily to our immigration,
cultural, and political problems. But, no, the puffed up, prancing morons who make US policy
can summon the imagination to figure out how to help our very own neighbors deal with their
hideous problems. No. Let's engage in regime change and "nation building" in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Belarus.
The words of the great Marcus Aurelius are on point: "Within ten days thou wilt seem a god
to those to whom thou art now a beast and an ape, if thou wilt return to thy principles and
the worship of reason."
Herodotus , 1 hour ago
Bulgaria must return to the protection of the Ottoman Empire.
yerfej , 4 hours ago
Easy solution, end NATO. Just have all US forces told to leave the EU and let them
determine their own destiny. Then do the same with US forces in the ME, Japan, Korea, etc.
EVERYONE would be better off, including US taxpayers which get nothing out of the useless
overseas deployment of resources which could be better spent at home.
yojimbo , 3 hours ago
5% budget deficit, 5% military spending. Leave the world, drop 4.5% of the spending and
either save money, or build infrastructure. It's so simple, I am disappointed Trump doesn't
at least state it. I get he is limited by the system, and can't be a Cincinnatus, even if he
wanted to, but he has his First Amendment.. though I grant him a personal fear of being
Kennedied!
Bac Si , 2 hours ago
Howdy Yerfej. It sounds like you are all for Isolationism.
But Isolationism means different things to different people. Pre WW2, Isolationism in the
US meant selling our products to hostile countries. In the case of Japan, oil to help them
kill Chinese people. In the case of Germany and Italy, food and vehicles to help them conquer
all of Europe.
Considering the ridiculous education that the US gives its children, it's no wonder that
most Americans don't know much about history (I say that in general terms, not to you
specifically). Henry Ford senior not only received the 'Grand Cross of the German Eagle' from
Adolf Hitler in 1938, he also received a 'Congressional Medal' from the US Congress shortly
after WW2 – and for the same reason. Selling trucks to help the war effort.
Even after Pearl Harbor, there were politically powerful Isolationists that did not want
the US to get involved in WW2. Why? Because a lot of money was at stake. It still is. These
same people will continue to argue for Isolationism even after we are attacked.
Two months AFTER Pearl Harbor, FDR made a speech that included this:
"Those Americans who believed that we could live under the illusion of isolationism wanted
the American eagle to imitate the tactics of the ostrich. Now, many of those same people,
afraid that we may be sticking our necks out, want our national bird to be turned into a
turtle. But we prefer to retain the eagle as it is – flying high and striking hard. I
know that I speak for the mass of the American people when I say that we reject the turtle
policy and will continue increasingly the policy of carrying the war to the enemy in distant
lands and distant waters – as far away as possible from our own home grounds." –
FDR
This radical change in our foreign policy has never been explained or even referred to in
US history books. Powerful economic forces will always love the idea of "Open Trade
Isolationism". But if Isolationism is ever suddenly defined by not doing business with any
hostile government – those powerful forces will go ballistic. They will strongly lobby
against 'Economic Warfare'. In other words, they will always want to make lots of money by
selling their products to hostile governments, no matter how many people die.
Want a great example?
Right after Loral Corporation CEO Bernard L. Schwartz donated a million dollars to the
DNC, President Clinton authorized the release of ballistic missile technology to China so
Loral could get their satellites into space fast and at low cost. Those same missiles, and
their nuclear warheads, are now pointed at the US.
The argument has always been that if we trade with hostile governments, they will grow to
like us. Does anyone out there believe that if the UK and France gave pre WW2 Germany an
extra $20 billion in trade, Germany wouldn't have started WW2? Anyone with a brain would tell
you that Germany would have put those resources into their military (like China has been
doing) and WW2 would have started earlier.
Yerfej, if we brought back the Cold War organization called the Coordinating Committee for
Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), I would be all for Isolationism. President Clinton got
rid of it in his first year, and Western weapons technology has been threatening us ever
since.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago
You have to love the dynamic duo of "lie, cheat and steal" Pompeo and his "mob boss"
Trump. There is absolutely no subtlety in their obvious shakedown tactics.
PrivetHedge , 4 hours ago
The mob had far more honor, and better morals.
PrivetHedge , 4 hours ago
Washington's transatlantic allies...
Hahahah, occupied vassals.
Washington has cost Germany a massive slice of GDP.
you_do , 4 hours ago
Yankee has plenty of problems at home.
Rest of the world can decide their own energy policy.
They do not suffer from the 'Russia' propaganda.
geno-econ , 5 hours ago
Let Russia, the lowest cost energy producer win energy competition in Europe as China, the
lowest cost manufacturing producer is winning in America. Only difference is retailers,
shippers, assembly part importers such as auto, electronics and appliance makers are making a
profit and consumer gets lower prices. We should let others decide for themselves and stop
meddling----only result will be a bloody nose
you_do , 4 hours ago
Yankee has plenty of problems at home.
Rest of the world can decide their own energy policy.
They do not suffer from the 'Russia' propaganda.
geno-econ , 5 hours ago
Let Russia, the lowest cost energy producer win energy competition in Europe as China, the
lowest cost manufacturing producer is winning in America. Only difference is retailers,
shippers, assembly part importers such as auto, electronics and appliance makers are making a
profit and consumer gets lower prices. We should let others decide for themselves and stop
meddling----only result will be a bloody nose
free-energy , 4 hours ago
Notice how everything the US does around the world is a WAR. War on Energy, War on Drugs,
War on Birth Control, War War War... America will fall after 2020 if nothing changes for the
better. Every year the world grows more and more tired of the US bs and moves further away
from it. Its so bad that they choose to deal with a communist country over us.
You reap what you've sowed.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
The Anglo American parasite pirate gangsters keep barking on about Russia bad, China bad,
but I look around and I see nothing but these trouble makers waging war on anything they
cannot control. The US and UK are devil nations. They will deserve all the rot they have
coming their way.
Unknown User , 5 hours ago
Trump wants a trade balance with all major economies like Germany and China. If they don't
buy from us, he will have to raise tariffs. In case of Germany, they need nothing from us so
he wants them to buy US LNG. Merkel's position is that "there is a cheap Russian gas", while
Trump is telling her "no there isn't one".
Pumpinfe , 4 hours ago
So trump loves to deep throat Russia but give Germany a hard time to Nordstream 2? Wake up
fanboys, your hero is a ******. I got so much money invested in gazprom. LNG is junk and
gazprom (Russian owned) is gona crush LNG and trump and his idiot following can't do a damn
thing. You trump idiots will believe anything. Let me enlighten you...gazprom is the lowest
cost producer of natural gas in the world...go look at the difference between gazprom and LNG
and then you will realize that orange dump is an idiot along with his army of empty heads. Oh
and if you think China and Russia are not friendly, go look up the Power of Siberia pipeline.
That will give you a good sense of the relationship between Russia and China. America is
rotting from the inside and Russia and China are eating their popcorn watching it happen.
Dabooda , 3 hours ago
I don't see Trump deep-throating anyone but Netanyahu. Sans gratuitous insults, your
comment about Gazprom is spot on
Lokiban , 5 hours ago
I doubt Merkel will give in. She would commit political suicide if she did that. She knows
Navalny is a US effort to stop Nordstream 2.
What is the alternative? Buying gas from the US or US-controlled oilfields in Iraq and Syria?
Putin might have a say in that.
Lokiban , 5 hours ago
I doubt Merkel will give in. She would commit political suicide if she did that. She knows
Navalny is a US effort to stop Nordstream 2.
What is the alternative? Buying gas from the US or US-controlled oilfields in Iraq and Syria?
Putin might have a say in that.
thurstjo63 , 3 hours ago
The main fault in Mr Korybko's thinking is that he believes that European countries will
not just shoot themselves in the foot but in the head to appease the US. At a european and
local level, those who wanted Nord Stream 2 to be suspended or killed have failed. The costs
are way too high. For that we can thank, perversely, the agreements associated with
protecting investments from political decisions pushed by the US itself!!! Given that there
is no proof of Navalny being poisoned, Germany knows that there is no way that they could
hope to win their case for stopping Nord Stream 2 in a tribunal with persons capable of
rational thought. That is why they made the deal to buy some US liquified gas for a couple of
billion dollars. Because that is the cheapest way of extricating themselves from this
situation. Otherwise, they are looking at orders of magnitude more compensation to russian
and european firms for stopping the pipeline.
As for Belarus, barring Lukashenko doing something profoundly stupid like reacting
violently to protests, that ship has already sailed. Protests are smaller every week and
mainly on the weekend as now the "opposition" has been publishing people's profiles accusing
them of collaborating with the government without any proof, leading to innocent people and
their families to be threatened. There will be a transition from Lukashenko over the next
couple of years but you can be sure that the present "opposition" given their desire to break
away from Russia will not be part of the group that comes to power in the future since their
base of support diminishes every week.
Finally Bulgaria already shot themselves in the foot when they backed out of South Stream
and had major problems securing energy resources to meet its needs during the intervening
period. Radev as any politician wanting to stay in office knows, if he doesn't go through
with connecting Turk Stream to the rest of Europe that he might as well resign. So unless the
US has compromising information on him that can force him from office or the Radev's
administration doesn't control the US attempts to create the conditions for a colour
revolution in Bulgaria, it is definitely not going to happen.
I'm sorry but Mr. Korybko is wrong on all counts!
Savvy , 4 hours ago
When the US backed Georgia's violent incursion into S Ossetia it took Russia one day to
send them back.
Russians are slow to saddle but ride fast.
Joiningupthedots , 2 hours ago
That was with the remnants of the old Soviet Army too.
The new Russian Army is an entirely different beast in both organisation, training,
experience and equipment.
Decoupling Russia from EU, is re-enforcing the Eurasia bloc...where is the future of the
world.
Russia belongs to Europa...not the USA.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 4 hours ago
Geographically Europe and Asia are one continent. It was "European exceptionalism" (the
precursor to American Exceptionalism) that divided it as an ethno-cultural construct.
researchfix , 5 hours ago
Cancelling NS2 will chase the German industry into Russia. Cheap energy, moderate wages,
Eurasian market at the front steps.
The sheep and their ex working places and Mutti will stay in Germany.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
Do Germans want to be slaves of these abject Brits and Americans? Pffffft....gas from
Russia is a NO BRAINER.
Only British and Americans rats do not like that idea. How un-selfish then, it is for
these jealous, insecure morons to dictate to Germany how she should trade. That's called
outright meddling. These imperialists are like entitled Karens, they think the world owes
them favours at the snap of a finger.
Sandmann , 4 hours ago
Nordstream 2 has an add-on leg to UK. Germany is largest gas importer on earth and cannot
run its industry without gas imports from Russia. LNG is simply too expensive unless US
taxpayers subsidise it.
If US wants to destabilise Europe it will reap the consequences. Southern Europe depends
on gas from North Africa - Portugal generates electricity from Maghreb Pipeline to Spain from
Algeria via Morocco. Erdogan hopes to put Turkey in position of supplying gas to Europe.
Germany will not abandon Nordstream 2 but might abandon USA first.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
The US is ruthlessly waging an intense Hybrid War on Russian energy interests in Europe
by targeting the Eurasian Great Power's relevant projects in Germany, Belarus, and
Bulgaria, banking on the fact that even the partial success of this strategy would greatly
advance the scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's
transatlantic allies.
It's a petty game and when it fails then the Washingtonians credibility and legitimacy
just further erodes. The EU needs the energy supplies and the Russian Federation has the
supplies. It's all just short term & small gain silliness by a pack of freaks in
Washington DC and their freaks in the CIA, Thunk Tank freaks and freaks in the foreign policy
establishment. It's just more of the Carnival sideshow/freakshow put on by Washingtonians. As
usual if it's a Washingtonian (post Cold War) policy then there's little or no substance
behind it and you can be sure it hasn't be thought through thoroughly and it'll eventually
turn and boomerang back on the circus people in Washington, Ivy League circus people, and
JudeoWASP elite circus people, CIA circus clowns and circus clowns in the Thunk Tonks and
elites Fareign Poolicy ***-tablishment.
John Hansen , 3 hours ago
If all it takes is a Navaly hoax to cause this Europe isn't really worth dealing with.
propaganda_reaper , 3 hours ago
Once upon a time, a revolution occurred in a country through which passed a gas pipeline.
The bad guys were vanquished. And the very good foreign guys who helped the local good guys
defeat the tyrant said: "We got the same stuff, but liquid."
Any similarity with fictitious events or characters was purely coincidental.
Remember the Gas to Europe still flows through the Ukraine. Russia just needs to reduce
the gas Pressure and blame the Ukraine and Europe goes cold and Dark.
German People will beg for Nordstream 2 to be switched on.
lucitanian , 31 minutes ago
That's not the way Russia works. But it's the kind of blackmail that the US uses. And
that's why Russia is a more dependable partner for Europe for energy.
Hope Copy , 1 hour ago
This **** goes right back to the 'DeepState' pseudo-revolution that got the Nicky-the-weak
killed ,because he financed his railroads and wanted to be rich as hell as he perceived the
ENGLISH monarchy to be, with a parliamentary DUMA that he could over rule if need be. I have
looked 'DeepState' right in the eyes when I was young and dumb and was told that I would
never go to their masion.. Nicky had family enemies. and the Czech fighting force was never
going to save him.. Stalin was also double-crossed, but was well informed.. it was in his
sector if one reads and believes. Cunning fox Stalin was, always playing those under him to
do his bidding.. and that lesson has been well learned by a couple of the world's leaders in
this day-in-age...
Herodotus , 1 hour ago
German manufacturing costs must be driven higher to take the heat off of the UK as they
emerge from the EU and attempt to become competitive.
novictim , 1 hour ago
When "War" is actually not war but trade policy and financial incentives then you know you
are engaged in dangerous bloviations and hyperbole.
When the shooting starts, then you can talk of War.
SuperareDolo , 2 hours ago
Russia might not want to fight these attempts to isolate it from the western economy. The
collateral damage will be that much less, once Babylon the great finally falls.
LoveTruth , 2 hours ago
And US claims to be a "Fair Player," caring for freedom and democracy, while twisting arms
and supporting corrupted officials.
IronForge , 3 hours ago
PetroUSD, MIC, Colonial Control of Vassals. World Domination Play by the Hegemony.
Just like the Policies of NATO: Russians Out, Germans Down, Anglo-American-ZioMasons and
Vatican_Vassals In.
Policies were like this - Sponsored by Anglo-ZioMasons from Pre-WWI, continued through
WWII and the First Cold War, and onwards after the Collapse of the SUN and the ensuing NeoCon
Wolfowitz Doctrine and PNAC7/Bush-Cheney PetroUSD Plans.
The Hegemony Control MENA Energy Producers. The IRQ-KWT War were mishandled; and KSA
demanded for the USA to Smite IRQ. The Initial War and Occupation prompted Hussein to opt the
EUR for Petroleum, which Brought about the End of Hussein through the 9-11/PNAC7 Long
War.
LBY opted for the Au-Dinar for Petroleum; and were Fail-Stated. IRN and RUS remain the
only Major Energy Producers not Controlled by the Hegemony.
IRN were Sanctioned since removing the Shackles of Hegemonic Occupancy via Shah Par Levi;
and attempts for Energy Diversification via Nuclear means raised suspicions of Nuclear
Weapons Development - prompting for heavier Sanctions and 5thColumn Regime Change Operations
by the Hegemony. IRN circumvented Sanctions in part by selling their Petroleum via Major
Currencies and Barter. Though many Countries have reduced or maintained their purchase of IRN
Petroleum via Sanctions Protocols, CHN are involved in Purchasing IRN's Output.
RUS, another Target of Ruin, Plunder, and Occupational Exploitation by the Hegemony, were
Too Large a Country with Standing Armed Forces for Direct Military Invasion by the Hegemony.
After the Collapse of the SUN, The Harvard/Chicago led Economic Reforms ended in Plunder -
which prompted the Selection and Rise of Putin, who drove out the Plunderers. The Hegemony
continue their Geopolitical War of Influence Peddling around RUS while attempting Soft War
NATO Membership Recruitment and Regime Change Coups within RUS, Ex-SUN Nation-States, and
Trading Partners.
RUS have endured, became Militarily mightier, have become the Major Energy Producer for
North/Western Europe and CHN. In addition to the Production, RUS now have begun Trading
Petroleum+NatGas outside of the PetroUSD Exchange Mechanism, opting for Customer Currencies
or RUB.
RUS and IRN are expected to be Key Providers of the PetroCNY-Au Exchange Mechanism.
The Hegemony and MENA Vassals can't Compete in Combined Petroleum+NatGas Volume and Price;
and DEU - by Directly Importing from RUS - will most likely become more Independent from the
Hegemon.
CHN, RUS, and DEU - Major Energy, Industrial, Natural Resource, and Military Powers
Decoupling from the Influences of the Hegemony, with IND Slowly coming to their Own (IND are
simply Too Large to remain Vassals to the Hegemon; and Vassal GBR did so much to Oppress them
in the past).
Funny that the Anglo-American-ZioMasons and VAT have brought each of these 3 Powers to
Ruin and Occupation in the Past 2 Centuries.
The Ironies being Played Out are that:
1) GBR Lost their Prime Colonies - America/USA, IND, and now Trade City Colony HKG - by
their Oppressive and Exploitative Occupancy; and
2) USA, after Fighting Wars for Independence from such Occupations by GBR - Once Becoming
a Major Military Power, Followed in the Anglo-ZioMason Tradition of Geopolitical Conquest and
Control to the Scale of pursing not only in World Domination - but in Absolute Global
Rule.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Problem is demographic
shift . The previous modern system dominated by Zio-Masonry was GNP and GDP where
currencies were measured against global output and floated against gold and each other. Now
with high inflation and demographic decline knocking out the economy is easier leading to
fights between zones of influence. Petro Ruble, Euro or dollar. Dangerous commodities like
kilos of heroin, trafficked humans or weapons. Zio-Masonic system has fallen to gangsterism.
Hybrid Warfare is the kind of thing we saw in Afghanistan or 80s Columbia .
Militarized Russian mafia vs NATO backed militarized police forces.
Once the population reaches a certain age and consumption drops there isn't much to fight
over besides social control systems of the young minority. Color revolutions in Central
Europe are really only effecting the long term economy of the young . Hope would be Left wing Radicals
stood up to the system and aligned with right wing groups to eliminate masonic and Zionist
factions and take back the command and control systems before the continet is shut down
permanently.
Precision strikes and hunting down their
descendents . Easy to find because Hitler and Stalin had their ancestors massacred for
loyalty to Rothschild. They won't bite the hands that feed.The Vatican vassal systems was
built on knowing that a Zionist is Zionist and Masons is a Mason. They are cults simply
teaching them the correct way to behave can avert these political problems.
In terms of Belarus and Russia they should consider the fact the birth rate rate rose
after the Soviet collapse and exodus west means many of them shouldn't have even been born in
Rothschilds plan. In their " system
" economic planning starts at birth because color revolutions effect
long term bond issuances they control.
Stalin and Hitler both knew this and used money linked to raw marterials and goods to beat
the British gold standard system. If you knew what the Western Central banks were worth you
would kill people for using their money.
@vot
tak – Russia could stop transit through Ukraine tomorrow and switch to LNG and
existing underwater pipelines. The fact that they have not done it and signed a limited
5-year deal for 2020-2024 suggests that either Russia doesn't want to do it or it is a
political concession to its customers (Germany)
You are right that NS2 theatre by Washington is simply playing for time – they know
that they can't really prevail. But it is larger than that: their whole strategy is to delay
and postpone. They are trying to delay the inevitable or are hoping for a miracle. But
strategically they have lost. Water flows downstream, it is only a question of how fast.
A very interesting post. I might quibble with some of the finer points, but yes, the world
has gone stark raving bonkers.
The Russians are NOT ten feet tall, and the Americans – for all of the idiocy of the
ruling elites – still have many strengths, and no matter how badly employed, these
strengths will not disappear in a day. Russia might yet get pulled down, if they are unlucky
or the elites are corrupted by money.
But there is one difference between the Americans and the Russians that, long term, may be
the single biggest factor: more than hypersonic missiles or all of that. It's that, for now
at least, the Russian elites can learn from experience, and the Americans, can not (or will
not, but same thing).
Consider: after the Soviet Union fell, Russian forces got their tails whipped by the
Chechens. The Russians rethought their approach, and in a rematch Russia scored not just a
military victory, but an enduring strategic victory: they accomplished their policy goals! A
goal that was not just spreading chaos and instability! When was the last time the United
States did something like that? Maybe Korea in the 1950's.
The Taliban in Afghanistan and the 'rag-tag' North Vietnamese who successfully fought
the Vietnam War might disagree with you .
You can't really use those examples as a way of finalising the inferiority of the Western
armed forces vis-à-vis Russia as the latter also did not manage to defeat the Afghans
and would likely have been made a mincemeat of by the VC as well.
Russia's performance in Chechnya was also not that great considering the power
differential.
"... On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. ..."
On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate
Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its
red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. It would be satisfying to see
the collective wisdom of the Parliament to exceed that of the BND. But then that is a low
bar.
"... Discussion about ending Nord Stream 2 resumed last month, when EU politicians debated further sanctions, following the suspected poisoning of Navalny. Naryshkin believes that the US is using the accusations of poisoning as a pretext to sell more LNG to Europe. On Thursday, MEPs demanded that Germany cancel construction of the pipeline. ..."
The US is working hard to keep the spotlight on the case of Alexey
Navalny as a way to help block construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, according to Sergey
Naryshkin, head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (the SVR).
Naryshkin believes that Washington wants to block Nord Stream 2 so it can prevent Moscow
from efficiently providing gas to the continent, thereby increasing demand for American
liquefied natural gas (LNG) in other European states. As things stand, Russia delivers a large
percentage of the continent's gas, and the pipeline would connect the country's gas supply
directly to Germany, under the Baltic Sea. The project is more than 90 percent
complete.
"It is extremely important for Washington to end this project," Naryshkin said,
explaining that the alleged poisoning of opposition figure Navalny has become an excuse to stop
Nord Stream 2's construction.
The United States has long been opposed to the project, somewhat incredibly claiming that it
would "undermine Europe's overall energy security and stability," but many believe that
Washington's true motivations are economic.
Discussion about ending Nord Stream 2 resumed last month, when EU politicians debated
further sanctions, following the suspected poisoning of Navalny. Naryshkin believes that the US
is using the accusations of poisoning as a pretext to sell more LNG to Europe. On Thursday,
MEPs demanded that Germany cancel construction of the pipeline.
Despite US pressure, Naryshkin has expressed hope that the EU will rely on common sense
before the "cold winter" and likened the proposed halting of Nord Stream 2 to
"cutting off the nose to spite the face."
Late last month, Russian anti-corruption activist Navalny was hospitalized in the Siberian
city of Omsk after he became ill on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. Two days later, after a
request from his family and associates, he was flown to Berlin for treatment at that city's
Charité clinic. Following tests, German authorities announced that Navalny was poisoned
with a substance from the Novichok group of nerve agents. After the diagnosis, Heiko Maas, the
German Foreign Minister, told Berlin tabloid Bild that he hopes "the Russians don't force
[the Germans] to change [their] stance on Nord Stream 2."
Were Khodorkovsky or Browder among people involved? To what extent Trump administration and
MI6 were involved? Looks more and more line a bad replay of Skripals poisoning
Notable quotes:
"... Germans and "the whole world", to quote Pompeo, know the truth: Russians simply deny the truth, and the more they deny, the more truthful the accusations appear. And the elephant in the room: Why isn't the poisoned by "Novichok" bullshitting bastard of a US agent dead? And the answer given by the Germans, that is ironic in the extreme: because Russian doctors saved his life in Omsk. ..."
"... There are undeniable advantages to accusations for which no substantiation is offered – as we saw with the Skripals, you can await public comment, identify where you went wrong from scornful rejections of the narrative, and then modify it so that it makes more sense. ..."
"... I hope Germany offers residency to the Navalnys, and that they accept. Russia can't really refuse to let him back in, he's a citizen. But as long as he is there he will cause trouble, and he'll be recharged with all the PR he has received from this latest caper. ..."
"... But it is suggested that Russia is bargaining for his return; the story also expands on Lavrov's recent statements, and introduces a villain in the woodpile I would not have personally suspected: Poland. ..."
"... I recall Lavrov querying the other day Pevchikh's presence in Germany, her refusal to be interviewed by investigators in Omsk and how come she managed to fly to Germany with Navalny? He also said that other supporters of Navalny had also turned up in Germany. ..."
"... I lay a pound to a pinch of shit that Pevchikh is a British agent. ..."
"... Looking good for almost a corpse. COVID-19, a flu virus, is a deadly killer, and Novichok, a deadly nerve agent, is not a killer. ..."
"... Dances with Bears: THE PEVCHIKH PLOT – NAVALNY BOTTLE, LONDON WITNESS FLEE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, BERLIN TOO http://johnhelmer.net/the-pevchikh-plot-navalny-bottle-london-witness-flee-the-scene-of-the-crime-berlin-too/ ..."
"... I reckon Khordokovsky has a hand in this. He has the same moral compass as dead Berezovsky. None. And he has refused to stick to agreements (keep out of politics). If the British or someone else get fingered for this cunning plan , would they serve him up on a silver platter? Almost certainly so. ..."
"... We certainly did well to focus on Maria Pevchikh as soon as we discovered that in addition to being the one who evaded questioning by Russian authorities by flying out to Germany, she also had British residency. She certainly has become a "person of interest" and could well be the major individual in the plot to incapacitate Navalny and use him to pressure Germany over NSII and Russia over the Belarus unrest. ..."
"... It is still unknown whether Pevchikh is a British citizen. I think she is and probably must be, in fact, for if she is only a visa holder or an applicant for UK citizenship, she could be told by the Home Office to go take a hike if it is proven that she was instrumental in the poisoning plot. ..."
"... Ask Pevchikh! Only she is now probably undergoing debriefing in London at UK Secret Intelligence Services HQ, 85 Albert Embankment. ..."
"... There was considerable risk involved in the deception. I doubt that Navalny went into the deception willingly. There was a very real risk that he could have suffered some brain damage going into the first coma and that's sure to compromise his health in the long term in other ways. ..."
"... More likely it seems a lot of the deception was planned behind Navalny's back and people were waiting for an opportunity to carry it out. It may have been planned years ago for someone else and then switched to Navalny once he was in the Omsk hospital. Julia Navalnaya may have been pushed into demanding that Navalny be transferred to Berlin and while the Omsk hospital doctors were stabilising him for the transfer, the deception then started going into action in Germany. ..."
"... Lavrov smelt a rat several days ago -- last week, I'm sure -- when he stated that suspicions had been aroused by one of Navalny's gang refusing to answer investigators' questions in Omsk and then scarpering off to Germany. ..."
"... I'm quite sure the FSB already knew of Pevchikh's comings and goings between London and Moscow (over 60 flights there and back I read somewhere) and her activities with the Navalny organization. ..."
"... if Washington thinks it can actually halt Nord Stream II – with the understanding that the Russians would probably give up after such a stinging second rebuke – then the sky is the limit, and they will scornfully reject any other solution. The one who stands to get hurt the most is Europe. But I don't think they realize it. ..."
NYT сообщила о
планах
Навального
вернуться в
Россию
15 сентября 2020
NYT has announced Navalney's to return to Russia
15 September 2020
Founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, Alexei Navalny, who is undergoing treatment
in Germany, has discussed his poisoning with the German prosecutor and announced that he
plans to return to Russia, The New York Times has reported, citing a source in the German
security forces.
According to the source, Navalny is fully aware of his condition, of what happened and
where he is. In a conversation with the prosecutor, he refused that his case be jointly
investigated by Germany and Russia. Navalny said he planned to return to Russia immediately
after his recovery and continue his mission, the newspaper notes.
I notice that the Navalny fake story has gone off the radar in the Western MSM.
Now there just remain the lies and innuendos fixed in the minds of the sheeple.
Only an investigation by the Germans.
No investigation by the Russians.
Germans and "the whole world", to quote Pompeo, know the truth: Russians simply deny
the truth, and the more they deny, the more truthful the accusations appear. And the elephant
in the room: Why isn't the poisoned by "Novichok" bullshitting bastard of a US agent dead?
And the answer given by the Germans, that is ironic in the extreme: because Russian doctors
saved his life in Omsk.
Other elephants lurking in the shadows:
Why hadn't everyone who had been in contact with the piece of shit, including fellow
passengers on the Tomsk-Moscow flight died?
Where were the hazmat-suit-wearing specialists that should have detoxified the aeroplane
on board of which the Bullshitter threw a wobbler?
So many elephants, all ignored.
Total fabrication.
When the liar returns here, how about arresting him for breach of his bail conditions?
Not technically but absolutely legally he was not allowed to leave the country.
How about arresting him for perverting the course of justice? You can get life for doing
that in the UK!
He refuses to allow the Russian state to investigate his case but he and his controllers
and supporters maintain that the Russian state attempted to murder him with the most deadly
nerve agent known to man -- but it didn't work.
And on the plus side he can sell expensive 'blessed' trinkets to his hamsters help
subsidize his interesting lifestyle. Think holy relics, think Medjigorje, Lourdes
etc.
Навальный,
"Новичок" и
"белая коробка"
13 сентября 2020
Navalny, "Novichok" and the "White Box"
13 September 2020
Why is not a single Berlin doctor ready to personally confirm the announced poisoning
of Navalny?
A Russian patient is recovering in the "White Box" of the Charité hospital.
During the three weeks of Navalny's stay within these walls, no one shouted at the doctors
that they were murderers, no one demanded from them hourly reports on the patient's state of
health. At the beginning of the week, the hospital's press service informs the press that the
personal guest of the Federal Chancellor has been withdrawn from an artificial coma and is
reacting to other people. A couple of days later, "Spiegel" magazine publishes encouraging
information: "More progress has been made. If his health continues to improve, Navalny will
begin to receive more visitors". According to "Bellingcat" and "Der Spiegel", Navalny can
already speak and can probably recall the events that happened before he lost consciousness
on an aeroplane flying from Tomsk to Moscow.
In general, the latest Charité press releases are in clear contradiction to the
horror that the German press had been gathering all week. The already poisoned underpants
have been forgotten, the newspaper "Die Zeit" returns the reader to a famous photograph:
morning in a café at the Tomsk airport, a passenger for the flight to Moscow flight
peers into a cup that he has raised in order to drink out of it. In it,, according to a "Die
" source, is not just a chemical warfare agent from the "Novichok" group: in there is a
"Novichok" on steroids.
"Before this assassination attempt, the world did not know about this poison, which is
said to be even more deadly and dangerous than all known substances from the Novichok group.
Scientists found corresponding traces on the Navalny's hands and on the neck of a bottle from
which he had drunk. This "modified Novichok" allegedly acts more slowly than previous
versions. The Germans assume that one of the FSB agents monitoring Navalny, or an undercover
agent, added drops of poison to his tea or applied a substance to the surface of a cup.
Navalny was supposed to die on board the aircraft", writes "Die Zeit".
Everything is just fine and dandy here: for example, about agents who had to perform
the necessary manipulations with a super-poison in a crowded place. A remarkable and suddenly
appeared bottle -- no bottle was seen in Omsk at all. The story goes on about the fact that,
apart from tea, Navalny did not drink anything. It turns out that those accompanying the
blogger took the bottle out of the plane, hid it, and then transported it to Germany and
handed it to Bundeswehr chemists Concealing evidence is pure criminality. But the most
interesting thing is the super-"Novichok".
After the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury (let us recount the usual version of
events that happened there), about 50 more people sought medical help. Houses were taken
apart, pets were destroyed. But here no one except Navalny was hurt: neither the people at
Tomsk airport, nor the fellow travellers with whom he, having the terrible poison in his
hands, took a selfie on a bus, nor the passengers on board the aircraft, and he also touched
things there. Symptoms of poisoning should have appeared amongst the passengers, but they did
not. This should raise questions from the authors of the serious newspaper "Die Zeit", but it
does not. A weapon of mass destruction by any reasoning, but the longer the German press
examines the Navalny case, the more mediaeval and grotesque it becomes. And it works -- you
can see it even from the reaction of quite moderate politicians.
Already a week and a half ago, Merkel announced the results of a toxicological
examination, allegedly carried out in a secret laboratory of the Bundeswehr (yes, Navalny was
poisoned), opponents of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline have intensified their onslaught
against the federal government in order to stop the construction, they say, this is the only
way to punish Russia. At the head of the column are the party leaders of the Greens and those
associates of Merkel who are friendly with Washington and have plans for higher party or
administrative posts after the Chancellor leaves.
These voices were at least heard. In an evening talk show on ZDF, German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas made it clear that the shutdown of Nord Stream 2 could be one
response.
"We cannot say that since the sanctions do not work, then there is no need to introduce
any. Sometimes we have to put up with the risk of the consequences, thereby saying that we do
not want to live in a world without rules", Maas said.
Now Herr Maas, along with many members of the government and administration and the
Chancellor, lives in a world of very strange rules. Merkel's press secretary Seibert
reiterated that Germany will interact with Russia exclusively at the site of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), where all the documents allegedly have
already been sent.
The OPCW Technical Secretariat informed our permanent representative, Alexander
Shulgin, that Berlin had only sent a notification about Navalny's poisoning, a sheet of A4
paper, but there is still nothing that the experts could work on. But the Germans had to
formulate a response to the proposal of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office on exchange
of information: any information about the state of Navalny can be transferred to Russia only
with his permission.
This was the case in 2004. The Charité clinic then diagnosed the presidential
candidate of the Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin poisoning -- no one ever saw
documentary evidence. Yushchenko then for 4 years, while he was of interest he was to the
public, promised to show everything, but he never did.
This trick can be repeated again, the main thing is to find the answer to an urgent
task: to inflate the level of confrontation between Russia and Germany, and therefore the
entire West, in order to force the Russian authorities to be as cautious as possible in their
domestic and foreign policy, for example, in the Belarusian direction.
However, the fact that Nord Stream 2, for which the German federal government was ready
to support unto death, suddenly became an instrument of blackmail -- admit the poisoning,
otherwise we can close it down -- openly outraged German business and regional
elites.
"It seems that the verdict has already been given -- there are demands that
construction of the pipeline be stopped. I strongly oppose such measures", said Michael
Kretschmer, Prime Minister of Saxony.
"We have had absolutely trusting cooperation with Russia in the energy sector for 50
years. And even in the most difficult political times, which were probably even more
difficult during the Cold War, we managed to maintain this trust", emphasized Michael Harms,
executive director of Eastern Committee of the German economy.
Even a true transatlantist, the president of the Munich Security Conference Wolfgang
Ischinger, stood up for Nord Stream 2 (and Denmark had joined the renewed US incitement
against it the day before).
Political games will not pass themselves of as force majeure. Investors will go to the
German government for their money. Here you need to think ten times, because along with the
demands of multibillion-dollar compensation, there will definitely be asked unpleasant
questions about the reasons that made the German authorities abandon a project that was
profitable to all sides. So you can go to Navalny's analyses. In a normal court, bureaucratic
excuses will not work. And, by the way, in Germany there are politician-lawyers who can
professionally draw up a claim and conduct a case.
"I want to investigate this. One of the developers of Novichok is in the US. It is
known that many special services have this poison. Of course, the Russian have it as well,
but if Putin did it, then why give Navalny to Germany? So that we can establish all this
here? A crime must have some logic", says Bundestag deputy Gregor Gizi.
The logic that we now see is somehow not German. One gets the impression that the
compassion and humanism of the German politician, brought up on the lessons of the past, are
now being tried out by smart and cynical people who know how to competently fabricate,
substitute and cover their tracks. And not too far away, we already had Britain.
At the end of May 2003, the BBC released material that Prime Minister Blair and his
cabinet had made a decision to enter the war in Iraq based on falsified intelligence. The
person who passed on this information to reporters was David Kelly, a leading chemical
weapons specialist at the British Department of Defence. His speech at the parliamentary
hearings threatened the prime minister, the military and the secret services with big
problems, Hiwever, on July 18, 2003, Kelly was found dead in the woods near his home.
Suicide, the investigation stated, but in 2007, a group of parliamentarians conducted an
unofficial investigation -- there were no legal consequences, but now all British people know
that Kelly was murdered in cold blood.
In 2015, Blair was forced to admit that he lied to citizens about Iraq, and escaped
trial only because no one wanted to get involved with it. Nevertheless, Blair has gone down
in history with this lie. And history is important to remember in order to do it right.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov calls on the Germans to leave emotions and turn on
their brains.
"I hope that these absurd actions will be stopped and Germany, at least for the sake of
the reputation of German punctuality, will fulfill its obligations under the agreement with
the Russian Federation. Moreover, they are demanding an investigation from us, but it turns
out that all those who accompanied Navalny are slowly moving to Germany too. this is very
unpleasant and leads to serious thoughts. Therefore, it is in the interests of our German
colleagues to protect their reputation and provide all the necessary information that would
somehow shed light on their so far absolutely unfounded accusations", Lavrov said.
Another proposal has gone from Moscow to Berlin: to send a Russian investigation team
to Germany in order to jointly study the circumstances of the case, the victim of which is a
Russian citizen. So far, there is no reason to believe that Berlin will respond with
consent.
Some German politicians and almost all the SMS likes to moralize against Russia,
periodically recalling the Stalinist repressions and the GULAG. But now Germany itself
behaves like an investigator during interrogation in the dungeons of the NKVD. Confession is
the queen of proof.*
There are undeniable advantages to accusations for which no substantiation is offered
– as we saw with the Skripals, you can await public comment, identify where you went
wrong from scornful rejections of the narrative, and then modify it so that it makes more
sense.
In this case, people wonder why such a potent nerve agent did not fell Navalny instantly
like a poleaxed ox, before he ever left the terminal, instead of 40 minutes or so into the
flight. Ahhh but this, we later learn, was a specially-modified Novichok, engineered to be
slow-acting. Just what you want in a nerve agent. Hint – no, it isn't. Just like you
don't want it specially engineered to be 'persistent', like that chemical-warfare expert tit
for Bellingcat claimed was the reason the poison daubed on Skripal's doorknob did not wash
away in the rain and was still deadly weeks afterward. You want a nerve agent to quickly and
efficiently kill enemy troops caught in the open and unprotected, and then as quickly degrade
and disperse so your own forces can move in and occupy the objective. The last thing you want
is it hanging about for weeks, or being 'slow-acting' so those troops can come in and wax
your ass and then later fall down dead. One of the first casualties of these silly stories
must be that the agent is 'military grade'. The military would say, if you want to use that
useless shite, spread it yourself – we want nothing to do with it.
navalny Hi, this is Navalny. I miss you all 😍. I still can hardly do
anything, but yesterday I was able to breathe on my own all day. Generally myself. I did not
use any outside help, not even the simplest valve in my throat. I liked it very much. An
amazing, underestimated by many thing. Would totally recommend.
What, no tracheotomy scar?
Why aren't you dead, you wanker?
Thinking about thanking the Omsk doctors who "saved your life" after you had taken a dose
of salts in the aircraft shithouse?
I take it that the kiddie Navalnyites in the above Instagram are all Russian citizens and
part of the Bullshitter's entourage that turned up in Berlin, hot on the heels of their
comatose hero.
So how did they get the documentation that enabled them to leave the Mafia State and enter
Germany, the coronavirus shamdemic notwithstanding?
Yes, they are his children. Navalnaya clearly got permission for their son to travel to
Germany. His daughter has flown in from the USA.
However, the question still remains as regards those Navalnyites who rolled up in Germany
following their leader's private flight there: how did they get the appropriate documentation
to do so at such short notice, not to mention Pevchikh, who flew with the comatose Navalny to
Berlin -- and then vanished?.
Seibert was asked about this and said he knew nothing about her.
Ah, yes; that's a good point. I just assumed the hamsters were blathering from a distance,
as in Russia. I did not realize some of them had turned up in Germany, except for the
mysterious Masha.
I hope Germany offers residency to the Navalnys, and that they accept. Russia can't
really refuse to let him back in, he's a citizen. But as long as he is there he will cause
trouble, and he'll be recharged with all the PR he has received from this latest
caper.
But it is suggested that Russia is bargaining for his return; the story also expands
on Lavrov's recent statements, and introduces a villain in the woodpile I would not have
personally suspected: Poland.
I recall Lavrov querying the other day Pevchikh's presence in Germany, her refusal to
be interviewed by investigators in Omsk and how come she managed to fly to Germany with
Navalny? He also said that other supporters of Navalny had also turned up in
Germany.
I lay a pound to a pinch of shit that Pevchikh is a British agent.
British and other international toxicological experts say that without technical
reporting by the laboratory of the spectrometric composition of the chemical, and without
identifying the compound by the international naming protocol there is no evidence at
all;..
the US Army had recently manufactured its own Novichok types: "A230, A232 and A234 A232
has a CAS number of 2308498-31-7. A230 and A234 have no known CAS numbers."
####
I reckon Khordokovsky has a hand in this. He has the same moral compass as dead
Berezovsky. None. And he has refused to stick to agreements (keep out of politics). If the
British or someone else get fingered for this cunning plan , would they serve him up
on a silver platter? Almost certainly so.
We certainly did well to focus on Maria Pevchikh as soon as we discovered that in
addition to being the one who evaded questioning by Russian authorities by flying out to
Germany, she also had British residency. She certainly has become a "person of interest" and
could well be the major individual in the plot to incapacitate Navalny and use him to
pressure Germany over NSII and Russia over the Belarus unrest.
It is still unknown whether Pevchikh is a British citizen. I think she is and probably
must be, in fact, for if she is only a visa holder or an applicant for UK citizenship, she
could be told by the Home Office to go take a hike if it is proven that she was instrumental
in the poisoning plot.
When Berezovsky got cocky in the UK after a judge there had prevented his being forced to
leave Misty Albion because Berzovsky had persuaded him that were he to return to Mordor, he
would face an unfair trial and his life would be in danger -- the erstwhile "Godfather of the
Kremlin" had arrived in the with a 6-month visitor's visa -- he started bragging to the
"Guardian" that he was organizing with his chums still in the Evil Empire the overthrow of
the tyrant Putin.
The Home Secretary at the time was none other than "Jack" Straw -- another odious pile of
ordure -- who promptly summonsed Berezovsky to the Home Office for an official bollocking. He
was told that if, while resident in the UK, he continued to engage himself with the overthrow
of a foreign head of state, he was out.
Be that as it may, I am quite sure he was working with British state security, as was his
once favoured acolyte Litvinenko.
Litvinenko was poisoned. Berezovsky committed suicide -- they say.
Россия задала
ЕС девять
вопросов об
обвинениях в
ситуации с
Навальным
Постоянное
представительство
России при
Евросоюзе
указало на
ключевые
нестыковки в
версии об
отравлении
Алексея
Навального
15 сентября 2020
Russia has asked the EU nine questions about accusations in the situation with
Navalny
The Permanent Representative of Russia to the European Union has pointed out the key
inconsistencies in the version about the poisoning of Alexei Navalny
15 September 2020
In the eighth question, Russian diplomats drew attention to a bottle of water, on
which, according to Germany, traces of poison had been found: "Not a single surveillance
camera recorded how Navalny drank from a similar bottle at the Tomsk airport [before
departure]. from this bottle earlier or on board the plane, how did this bottle get to
Berlin? "
Ask Pevchikh! Only she is now probably undergoing debriefing in London at UK Secret
Intelligence Services HQ, 85 Albert Embankment.
Navalny, if indeed he was close to death, must now realize he was set up by one of his own
benefactors. What would be his next move? Going back to Russia would make the most sense as
the Russians may actually protect him from another show-assassination and he would have
freedom to prance around to his heart's content.
I don't believe he was ever 'close to death', rather that he was an active part of the
deception. He is a grifting idiot who puffs up like a toad upon being flattered. He could
never win power in Russia legitimately, as he is mostly a figure of contempt in Russia save
for the perennially-discontented children of the liberal elite and the few Americaphiles who
don't know enough to keep their heads down. I believe he played his role by taking something
that would nauseate him but not seriously hurt him, rolling about and screaming, and that the
introduction of the phony 'poison bottle' was with his full knowledge. I wish Russia would
just disown him and tell the Germans they can have him.
However, I could be wrong. We will know from the tone of his remarks when he feels he is
strong enough to once again assume his president-in-waiting role, and starts spouting off
about what happened to him. He is the most likely candidate to be selected to get the
water-bottle narrative back on track, so if he comes out with an explanation for how he drank
from the bottle somewhere there were no surveillance cameras, and noticed a sketchy-looking
guy in a leather jacket and a "Vote For Putin!" T-shirt standing nearby just before he drank,
it will be a pretty good indication that he is as full of shit as ever.
There was considerable risk involved in the deception. I doubt that Navalny went into
the deception willingly. There was a very real risk that he could have suffered some brain
damage going into the first coma and that's sure to compromise his health in the long term in
other ways.
More likely it seems a lot of the deception was planned behind Navalny's back and
people were waiting for an opportunity to carry it out. It may have been planned years ago
for someone else and then switched to Navalny once he was in the Omsk hospital. Julia
Navalnaya may have been pushed into demanding that Navalny be transferred to Berlin and while
the Omsk hospital doctors were stabilising him for the transfer, the deception then started
going into action in Germany.
Lavrov smelt a rat several days ago -- last week, I'm sure -- when he stated that
suspicions had been aroused by one of Navalny's gang refusing to answer investigators'
questions in Omsk and then scarpering off to Germany.
I'm quite sure the FSB already knew of Pevchikh's comings and goings between London
and Moscow (over 60 flights there and back I read somewhere) and her activities with the
Navalny organization.
Perhaps they allowed Navalny to leave for Germany -- with Pevchikh flying out with him, I
may add -- because they knew what was afoot and would later expose the Germans for liars, or
if not that, then for their falling to a sucker punch off the British secret service.
They certainly allowed Pevchikh to leave Russia: she didn't sneak on board Navalny's
private flight.
Just Pevchikh, note, not Navalnaya, who is not a British agent, I'm sure.
Certainly possible – as I say, we will know more from his blabber once he starts
giving interviews, which he lives to do. His tone will have changed considerably if he
believes his erstwhile chums in politics intended to martyr him. Otherwise I read his
expressed desire to return at once to Russia as simply remaining in character – the
selfless hero risking all for freedom and democracy.
I wonder how he will thank the doctors in Omsk for saving his life, as it is generally
acknowledged they did. He cannot go into transports of admiration for their professional
skills, because they claimed to have found no trace of poisoning in his samples. He faces the
choice, then, of simply passing over it without mention, or accusing the people who saved his
life of 'being part of the machine'. Doing either will certainly not increase his popularity
in Russia. And it makes no difference at all how popular he is in the west – something
the west seemingly cannot be taught.
Die Zeit сообщила о
предложении
США от ФРГ по
"Северному
потоку -- 2"
RT на русском, 16
сентября 2020
Die Zeit announced the proposal of the USA from Germany for the "Nord Stream –
2
RT in Russian, September 16, 2020
The German government has offered the United States a deal in exchange for Washington's
waiver of sanctions against Nord Stream 2.
This is reported by the newspaper Die Zeit, citing sources
It is noted that Berlin has expressed its readiness to invest up to € 1 billion in
the construction of two terminals in Germany for receiving liquefied natural gas from the
United States.
"In response, the United States will allow the unhindered completion and operation of
Nord Stream 2", TASS quotes the text of a letter from German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz,
which was sent on August 7 to the head of the US Treasury, Stephen Mnuchin.
In early August, US senators sent a letter to the operator of the German port of
Sassnitz calling for an end to work to support the construction of Nord Stream 2.
Very true about the term "loser" being a harsh insult for Americans. The "loser" tag
starts to be applied to kids in early grade school and only intensifies from that point. The
glorification of success (defined by the level of conspicuous consumption) further sharpens
the divide between losers and winners. Our "feel-good" stories are often about individuals
who were able to transform themselves from "losers" to "winners". American culture is
one-dimensional in that way.
Building an LNG terminal is one thing, buying US LNG is another thing. In addition, I
believe that Russia could provide LNG to Germany as well and likely at a substantially lower
price.
The US may settle for this gesture as it does hold the door open, however slightly, for
future developments to be leveraged by the US to force Germany to reduce or stop gas
purchases from Russia. Having the terminal in place could make a future change in suppliers
more feasible and faster but nevertheless representing an economic disaster for Germany. Lets
call it step 1 in Plan B.
On the other hand any diplomatic/economic success plays well in this presidential erection
year. So a) is it worth it?; b) can they reverse the decision the day after? I assume they
can have their cake and eat it as Brussels is mostly spineless. Borrell can squeal about
Russia, but that's because he can do f/k all about the USA's behavior, being spokeshole and
all
That's what people seem not to get – the decision would not ever be 'reversible'
once Nord Stream II is complete. That pipeline quad alone can carry all of Europe's gas
supply that it receives from Russia. None through Ukraine, not a whiff, if that is Moscow's
will, although the Russians have agreed to transit token amounts, which the Ukrainians say
are not enough to make the system's continued operation viable – without the large
volumes they are accustomed to handling, they will have to progressively begin shutting down,
bypassing and dismantling sections they can no longer afford to maintain.
So long as the pipeline's future remains in doubt, Uncle Sam can sell the philosophical
possibility of supplying Europe with large volumes of cheap LNG via tankers, made desirable
– although it will cost a little more, no getting around that – for political
reasons. Once Nord Stream II is complete, the reality of a reliable supply of cheap pipeline
gas would have to be countered with a concrete offer from the USA; this many cubic meters
times this many Euros. Any housewife can do a cost-benefit analysis at that level. Do you
want to pay more for American gas just because it comes from America? Well, let me think
about it – what are the benefits? Well, it comes from America! What, you mean, that's
it? There would be no possibility the Americans would use their status as a major energy
supplier as leverage to bring about economic or political changes in Europe that they
desired, would there? Well I can't guarantee that.
You know what? I'm okay with Russian gas, thanks just the same. Maybe I'll use the money I
save to buy a Ford – how's that?
Pathetic. After declaring forcefully that American extraterritorial sanctions are illegal
– which, technically, they are, only America has a right to threaten to limit European
trade in America if it wishes; although that, too is illegal under WTO rules – Germany
is now cowering and trying to 'make a deal'. With Trump, in case anyone missed that, whose
'Art of the Deal' consists of destroying the opponent until he is happy to have escaped with
his life, and will never publicly complain about a 'deal' which came out very much to his
disadvantage. Put another way, offering America a 'deal' only highlights that you believe you
are in a weak position, are looking for mercy, and are ripe for the plucking. Germany was
already planning to build the heaviest concentration of LNG terminals in Europe; a far better
strategy would have been to threaten to cancel them all if Uncle Sam did not back off. The
Americans are certainly smart enough to figure out – in about 2.5 seconds – that
more LNG terminals means diddly when Russia can also supply LNG far cheaper than the USA
because it has teensy transport costs by comparison, being much closer. Two more LNG
terminals buys America precisely zero advantage, but the willingness to 'deal' reveals
vulnerability. The only American response to rolling on your back to expose your belly is to
step on your head.
I swear, it is hard to recognize Germany as the country which once frightened the
world.
A Trump counter-offer might be a commitment from Germany to buy X amount of American LNG
at a locked-in price, said amount to be sufficient that extra Nord Stream capacity would not
be utilized. It depends on whether the Americans really think they can actually stop Nord
Stream II, because even that would ultimately be a loser strategy. Unless a term far into the
future were specified, the Americans know that once the pipeline is finished, their product
is no longer competitive and cannot ever be unless it is unprofitable to themselves. They
could satisfy themselves with gutting the Germans for a year or two (if they accepted), but
it would be short-term satisfaction at best. Might be enough to win Trump the election,
though.
But if Washington thinks it can actually halt Nord Stream II – with the
understanding that the Russians would probably give up after such a stinging second rebuke
– then the sky is the limit, and they will scornfully reject any other solution. The
one who stands to get hurt the most is Europe. But I don't think they realize
it.
The Borgias are history. Well, obviously, they ARE history. But now they have been
relegated to the Second Division/Championship (football joke) of Poisoners by Sergei Lavrov
and his chef de cuisine:
Oh look! The Navalnyites have shown a video, shot in Tomsk, of Navalny drinking from the
allegedly poisoned water bottle that earlier nobody had seen or made mention of before it
turned up in Berlin and was sent to the Bundeswehr lab.
Recall that his loud-mouth spokeswoman had from the very start insisted that Navalny had
been poisoned by laced-with-poison tea that he had drunk at Tomsk airport.
Change of story line -- as persistently happened in the Skripal fake.
Video Showing Water Bottle That 'Poisoned' Alexei Navalny Shared by His Team
17 September, 2020: 10:17
That Sputnik headline should read, I think, "shared with his team".
And if that is the case, why didn't his team also start howling and screaming and rolling
around on the deck some time later on board the Tomsk-Moscow flight?
Navalny's companions have reported that they took bottles from a hotel room in
Tomsk
Alexei Navalny's companions have said that a bottle of mineral water, on which German
experts had allegedly found traces of poison from the Novichok group, had been brought from a
hotel room in Tomsk.
On an Instagram, they have posted a video in which, according to them, an hour after
news of Navalny's deteriorating condition, they examine the room and seize all the items
which he had been able to touch.
On August 20, the aeroplane in which Navalny was flying urgently landed in Omsk, from
where the blogger was taken to hospital. On August 21, doctors announced that the main
diagnosis was metabolic disorders.
At the moment, Navalny is in Germany, where he has been taken out of an artificial
coma. German doctors announced that he had been poisoned with substances from the Novichok
group, but did not provide any relevant evidence.
So why didn't the Navalny hamsters, who dutifully sought out the poison bottle and most
certainly handled it, throw wobblers as did Navalny when performing what he thought were the
effects of nerve agent poisoning?
And whom did the hamsters hand the bottle to -- Navalnaya or Pevchikh? And who handled the
bottle after its arrival in Berlin and before the obliging Bundeswehr said it had been dosed
with the most lethal nerve agent (weapons grade) known to man?
Why isn't there a trail of stiffs from Tomsk to Berlin and beyond?
Who's going to believe this shite?
"Why, the whole world knows it's true!" will Imperial Plenipotentiary Pompeus Fattus Arsus
surely say.
One of the developers of Novichok, Leonid Rink, commented on reports that a bottle in
the Tomsk hotel where Alexei Navalny had stayed could [have been] Novichok
[contaminated] .
"This is a situation where no one would have been allowed to touch the bottle -- you
would have died if you had done so. If this had really been the case, then there would have
basically been a deceased person, and everyone who had carried this bottle without gloves and
protection would also have died", he told RIA Novosti.
Ah, but . . . Rink is forgetting that it was a special, delayed action Novichok made to
take effect on "Putin's Fiercest Critic" when he was on board the Tomsk-Moscow flight.
Rink's an old Soviet has-been and knows nothing about the latest developments in
diabolical weaponry that issues forth from secret Orc laboratories.
Maybe the cunning developers have produced a Novichok variant safe to those who have
sinned but fatal (or liable, at least, to provoke a severe tummy upset, occasionally) to the
purest of heart?
I like this idea of the special edition of Novichok with the delayed kick. Maybe we could
call it Brawndo and speculate that the poison only goes into action when it does because the
added electrolytes take time to work to release the poison.
Alexei Navalny's team immediately after his departure from Tomsk airport, went to the
hotel room in that city where he had spent the night, and packed all the items (including
water bottles) so as to deliver them for analysis (of course, not in Russia). A video about
this was posted on the oppositionist's Instagram.
Everything in this story is beautiful. Navalny's supporters were collecting "evidence"
on a case that had not yet happened -- but it was already supposed to have happened? Together
with them, there went a lawyer to the hotel -- he was also at the ready. But why were none of
the "trackers" hurt if on the "evidence", as is said, they found traces of the "Novichok"
military poison? And how did the "people of Navalny" end up in a room where cleaning up
should have been done after the guest's departure? There are other questions as well. Some of
them "KP" asked FSB reserve general Alexander Mikhailov .
And the person shown handling the bottle is wearing gloves – they made sure to show
that. But as others have pointed out, this was well before anyone knew 'an attempt had been
made on the Opposition Leader's life'. What, all Lyosha's shit was still in his hotel room,
towels on the floor, the next day, after he checked out? Pretty crappy service in those
Russian hotels. He didn't even leave Russia for several days, and the first suggestions he
had been poisoned came from his 'press agent', who claimed he had been poisoned with tea at
the airport.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Sergei Yerofeyev, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA, has spoken about
this.
According to Yerofeyev, Navalny has been nominated for the prize by "a number of
professors from recognized universities who deal with Russia". He did not give specific
names, but noted that there are "great people" amongst the scientists who have nominated
Navalny.
A professor of any university in the world can nominate a candidate for the Nobel Peace
Prize: there are no specific requirements for a candidate. In addition, members of national
governments and parliaments, heads of state and some other categories of persons can nominate
candidates.
The oppositionist will have to fight for the main prize of the planet with venerable
rivals.
This is, first of all, US President Donald Trump, who was nominated by Christian
Tubring-Jedde, a member of the Norwegian parliament from the far-right Libertarian Progress
Party. As the MP said in an interview with Fox News, Donald Trump should be awarded for his
role in concluding an agreement on the full normalization of relations between Israel and the
UAE.
And why not? O'Bummer was awarded the peace prize, wasn't he?
I wonder how the Kiev Post evaluates Navalny's position on the Crimea?
The status of the Crimea is a problem that a new democratic Russia will inherit from
its former government. The Russian position on this problem will be determined by the
recognition of the right of the citizens of the Crimea to determine their own destiny
-- Navalny
20!8
I say give it to him. Let him join the prestigious ranks of Obama, the OPCW, the EU.
I also propose starting a Nobel War Prize, to be awarded to whatever individual or
organization is responsible for the highest body count in a given year. Although that may be
redundant, considering that it would probably be given to the same people as the Peace
Prize.
Ha, ha!! And it all descends into farce, again. Navalny has arrived – he has gone
global, beyond his wildest dreams. The nothing from Wherever He Is From who could not even
break 5% in presidential election polling is now a major star, glittering in the western
firmament. As Saint Lily Tomlin once remarked, no matter how cynical you get, you can never
keep up.
All the west is going to be able to get out of this is the satisfaction of showing its ass
to the neo-Soviets, the way it does when it re-names the street the Russian Embassy is
– or was – located on after some prominent Russian dissident. Beavis and Butthead
level, at best.
That's it! This is a farewell article. A real goodbye to the topic. More precisely,
parting with Navalny as a topic. His political role has been played to the end. And even
lethal doses of Novichok have not caused a mass movement. Furgal's arrest caused an explosion
of civil consciousness in Khabarovsk. The poisoning of Navalny, sending him abroad, the
discovery of Novichok, official accusations from Germany did not cause any rally, no
procession, no movement. No excitement in civic consciousness has occurred and will never
happen.
Construction of Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany is about 94%
completed.
The project is all about supplying Germany and other European countries with readily
available low-cost Russian natural gas -- around 30% cheaper than US liquified natural gas
(LNG).
Both right wings of the US one-party state want the pipeline halted to benefit US
producers at Russia's expense.
US sanctions on the project breach international law, Germany's Angela Merkel earlier saying
"(w)e oppose extraterritorial sanctions (W)e don't accept" them.
"We haven't backed down (on wanting Nord Stream 2 completed) nor do we intend to back
down."
Last December, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass said "European energy policy is decided
in Europe, not the United States. We reject any outside interventions and extraterritorial
sanctions."
Did the novichok poisoning of Putin critic Alexey Navalny hoax change things?
During a September 24 – 25 summit of EU leaders, the future of Nord Stream 2 will be
discussed. Ahead of the summit, Merkel's government offered to invest around one billion euros
(about $1.2 billion) in construction of two terminals in Germany for US LNG.
According to the German broadsheet Die Zeit, by letter to Trump regime Treasury Secretary
Mnunchin in August, German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the
following:
"In exchange (for Berlin's proposed LNG investment), the US will allow unobstructed
finalization and use of Nord Stream 2," adding:
"(E)xisting legal options for (challenging US) sanctions (on firms involved in the
project) have not been exhausted yet."
The broadsheet added that Scholz first expressed Berlin's proposal verbally, confirming it
by letter. Proposed German LNG terminals would be built in Brunsbuttel and Wilhelmshaven.
Berlin's proposal also included a gas transit contract for Ukraine and financing of a terminal
for Poland's use of US LNG.
Following the Navalny false flag, opinion on completing Nord Stream 2 in Germany is divided.
Merkel still supports the project as evidenced by her government's offer to build two terminals
for US LNG in exchange for dropping sanctions on the pipeline by the US.
Last June, US Senate hardliners proposed legislation to expand Nord Stream 2 related
sanctions.
It targets all nations and enterprises involved in the project, including underwriting,
insurance and reinsurance companies.
At the time, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller said Russia will complete construction of the project
on its own -- expected to be operational in January or shortly thereafter. Last month, German
Foreign Minister Heiko Mass expressed "displeasure" to Pompeo about US sanctions on the
project. Last week, Polish government spokesman Piotr Muller was quoted saying the
following:
"Poland has from the very beginning emphasized that European solidarity (on Nord Stream 2)
should be unambiguous."
"Therefore, if such a need is expressed by the German side, Poland is open to the idea of
using the infrastructure which it is building for its own energy security."
His remark followed German media reports that Merkel said a decision by her government on
Nord Stream 2 has not been made in light of the Navalny incident. German officials supporting
the project stressed that the country will be the main beneficiary of its completion
economically, environmentally and strategically. Construction on the proposed 800 – 950
km Baltic Pipe gas pipeline from Norwegian North Sea waters to Poland hasn't begun.
If completed in October 2022 as proposed, it'll be able to deliver about 10 billion cubic
meters of natural gas annually -- less than 20% of Nord Stream 2's 55 billion annual cubic
meter capacity.
Berlin earlier was skeptical about the project because of environmental concerns. Days
earlier, Polish energy expert Jakub Wiech called it "pointless" to compare Baltic Pipe to Nord
Stream 2, given the latter project's far greater capacity and ability to provide gas to other
Western European countries. A day after the Navalny incident last month, Merkel said Nord
Stream 2 will be completed regardless of threatened new US sanctions on firms involved in the
project.
Separately on Wednesday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Nord Stream 2's completion
should not be raised in discussing the Navalny incident.
"It should stop being mentioned in the context of any politicization."
"This is a commercial project that is absolutely in line with the interests of both Russia
and European Union countries, and primarily Germany."
No evidence links Russia to Navalny's illness. Whatever caused it wasn't from a novichok
nerve agent, the deadliest know substance able to kill exposed individuals in minutes. Over
three weeks after falling ill, Navalny is very much alive, recuperating in a Berlin hospital,
and able to be ambulatory for short periods.
A Final Comment
On September 14, CNBC reported the following:
"Experts say Berlin is unlikely to (abandon Nord Stream 2 that's) over 94% completed after
almost a decade's construction, involv(ing) major German and European companies, and is
necessary for the region's current and future energy needs," adding:
"In this case, economic and commercial interests could trump political pressure" against
Russia.
Chief eurozone economist Carsten Brzeski said he doesn't see "Germany pulling out of the
project Many (in the country) are still in favor of it."
CNBC noted that
"Germany has been reluctant to link the fate of its involvement with Nord Stream 2 to the
Navalny incident so far, and (FM Heiko) Maas conceded that stopping the building of the
pipeline would hurt not only Russia but German and European firms."
"(O)ver 100 companies from 12 European countries" are involved in the project about half
of them from Germany."
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
"... German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved "beyond doubt" that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the Russian government to answer "very serious questions." ..."
"... At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret, representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities, with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare agent -- one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills possessed only by a state actor. ..."
"... Excerpt of an article by Peter Schwarz published by wsws.org ..."
The relationship between Germany and Russia has reached its lowest point since Berlin
supported the pro-Western coup in Ukraine six years ago and Russia subsequently annexed the
Crimean Peninsula.
The German government is openly accusing the Russian state of poisoning opposition
politician Alexei Navalny, who is currently in Berlin's Charité Clinic. He reportedly
awoke from a coma on Monday.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week
that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved "beyond doubt"
that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the
Russian government to answer "very serious questions."
At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret,
representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to
media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities,
with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare
agent -- one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly
could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills
possessed only by a state actor.
Germany and the European Union are threatening Russia with sanctions. The German government
has even questioned the completion of the almost finished Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline,
which it had categorically defended against pressure from the US and several Eastern European
states.
The German media has gone into propaganda mode, repeating the accusations against Russian
President Vladimir Putin with a thousand variations. Seventy-nine years after Hitler's invasion
of the Soviet Union, which claimed more than 25 million lives, German journalists and
politicians, in editorials, commentaries and on talk shows, speak with the arrogance of people
who are already planning the next military campaign against Moscow.
Anyone who expresses doubts or contradicts the official narrative is branded a "conspiracy
theorist." This is what happened to Left Party parliamentarian Sevim Dagdelen, among others, on
Sunday evening's "Anne Will" talk show. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy
expert Norbert Röttgen, the head of the Munich Security Conference Wolfang Ischinger and
former Green Party Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin sought to outstrip one another in
their accusations against the Russian government. When Dagdelen gently pointed out that, so
far, no evidence whatsoever has been presented identifying the perpetrators, she was accused of
"playing games of confusion" and "encouraging unspeakable conspiracy theories."
The Russian government denies any responsibility in the Navalny case. It questions whether
Navalny was poisoned at all and has called on the German government to "show its cards" and
present evidence. Berlin, according to Moscow, is bluffing for dirty political
reasons.
Contradictory and implausible
Evidence of the involvement of the Russian state is as contradictory as it is
implausible.
For example, the German authorities have so far published no information or handed evidence
to Russian investigators identifying the chemical with which Navalny was poisoned. Novichok is
merely a generic term for several families of warfare agents.
No explanation has been given as to why no one else showed signs of poisoning from a nerve
agent that is fatal even in the tiniest amounts, if touched or inhaled. Navalny had had contact
with numerous people between the time he boarded the airplane on which he fainted, his entering
the clinic in Omsk where he was first treated, and his transfer to the Charité hospital
in Berlin.
This is only one of many unexplained anomalies in the German government's official story.
Career diplomat Frank Elbe, who headed the office of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich
Genscher for five years and negotiated the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as
head of the German delegation in Geneva from 1983 to 1986, wrote on Facebook on Friday: "I am
surprised that the Federal Ministry of Defence concludes that the nerve agent Novichok was used
against Navalny."
Novichok, he wrote, belongs "to the group of super-toxic lethal substances that cause
immediate death." It made no sense, he argued, to modify a nerve poison that was supposed to
kill instantly in such a way that it did not kill, but left traces behind allowing its
identification as a nerve agent.
There was something strange about this case, Elbe said. "Either the perpetrators -- whoever
they might be -- had a political interest in pointing to the use of nerve gas, or foreign
laboratories were jumping to conclusions that are in line with the current general negative
attitude towards Russia."
The assertion that only state actors can handle Novichok is also demonstrably false. The
poison was sold in the 1990s for small sums of money to Western secret services and economic
criminals, and the latter made use of it. For example, in 1995, the Russian banker Ivan
Kiwelidi and his secretary were poisoned with it. The chemist Leonid Rink confessed at the time
in court that he had sold quantities to criminals sufficient to kill hundreds of people. Since
the binary poisons are very stable, they can last for decades.
The Navalny case is not the reason, but the pretext for a new stage in the escalation of
German great power politics and militarism. The media hysteria over Navalny is reminiscent of
the Ukrainian crisis of 2014, when the German press glorified a coup d'état carried out
by armed fascist militias as a "democratic revolution."
Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier, then foreign minister and now German president,
personally travelled to Kiev to persuade the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to
resign.
He also met with the fascist politician Oleh Tyahnybok, whose Swoboda Party glorifies Nazi
collaborators from World War II. Yanukovych's successor, Petro Poroshenko, one of the country's
richest oligarchs, was even more corrupt than his predecessor. He terrorised his opponents with
fascist militias, such as the infamous Azov regiment. But he brought Ukraine into NATO's sphere
of influence, which was the real purpose of the coup.
In the weeks before the Ukrainian coup, leading German politicians (including then-President
Joachim Gauck and Steinmeier) had announced a far-reaching reorientation of German foreign
policy. The country was too big "to comment on world politics from the sidelines," they
declared. Germany had to defend its global interests, including by military means.
NATO marched steadily eastward into Eastern Europe, breaking the agreements made at the time
of German reunification in 1990. For the first time since 1945, German soldiers today patrol
the border with Russia. With Ukraine's shift into the Western camp, Belarus is the only
remaining buffer country between Russia and NATO.
Berlin now sees the protests against the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko as an
opportunity to remove this hurdle as well. Unlike in Ukraine, where anti-Russian nationalists
exerted considerable influence, especially in the west of the country, such forces are weaker
in Belarus, where the majority speaks Russian. The working class is playing a greater role in
the resistance to the Lukashenko regime than it did in Ukraine. But Berlin is making targeted
efforts to steer the movement in a pro-Western direction. Forces that appeal for Western
support, such as the presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, are being
promoted.
The dispute over the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, whose discontinuation is
being demanded by more and more German politicians, must also be seen in this context. It was a
strategic project from the very beginning.
The natural gas pipeline, which will double the capacity of Nord Stream 1, which began
operations in 2011, will make Germany independent of the pipelines that run through Ukraine,
Poland and Belarus. These countries not only earn transit fees from the pipelines but have also
used then as a political lever.
With a total capacity of 110 billion cubic metres per year, Nord Stream 1 and 2 together
would carry almost all of Germany's annual gas imports. However, the gas is also to be
transported from the German Baltic Sea coast to other countries.
In addition to Russia's Gazprom, German, Austrian, French and Dutch energy companies are
participating in the financing of the project, which will cost almost €10 billion. The
chairman of the board of directors is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (Social
Democratic Party), who is a friend of President Putin.
Nord Stream 2 is meeting with fierce opposition in Eastern Europe and the US. These
countries fear a strategic alliance between Berlin and Moscow. In December of last year, the US
Congress passed a law imposing severe sanctions on companies involved in the construction of
the pipeline -- an unprecedented move against nominal allies. The nearly completed construction
came to a standstill because the company operating the special ship for laying the pipes
withdrew. Berlin and Moscow protested vehemently against the US sanctions and agreed to
continue construction with Russian ships, which, however, will not be available until next year
at the earliest.
Excerpt of an article by Peter Schwarz published by wsws.org
That's according to Maximilian Krah, a member of the European Parliament from the
Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The "obscure" case involving the alleged poisoning
of Navalny has been used by the EU establishment to launch another round of Moscow-bashing, he
says.
The lawmaker explained that his fellow MEPs had not, in fact, seen a single piece of
evidence suggesting the Russian government might have had a hand in what happened to
Navalny.
We don't have the evidence... none of the members of parliament who today voted in
favor of sanctions has seen any evidence.
Krah said it was "unrealistic" to expect that Navalny's case would not be
politicized, arguing that it was "absolutely clear" it was being used to push an
anti-Moscow agenda.
On Thursday morning, the EU Parliament passed a resolution calling on member states to
"isolate Russia in international forums," to "halt the Nord Stream 2 project" and
to prioritize the approval of another round of sanctions against Moscow.
The MEP also expressed skepticism about the prospects of the broader public ever getting to
see any evidence linking the opposition figure's sudden illness to Russian foul play.
"Evidence will only get published and provided to Russia if there is public
pressure," he said, adding that he does not see any such pressure building anywhere in the
EU. Until that changes, Berlin is likely to continue demanding "answers" from Moscow
while holding off on requests by Russian for cooperation, Krah believes.
The German MEP also weighed in on the fate of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, suggesting that
the alleged poisoning could work to Washington's benefit, given that the White House has been
seeking to undermine the project, liking Russian gas to Germany, for months. Krah said it was
"clear from the beginning" that the US would try to use the situation to scupper the
project, which he says would make Germany "more independent from American
influence."
The EU resolution, which is not legally binding but acts as an advisory for the bloc's
leaders, was supported by 532 MEPs and opposed by 84, while 72 abstained. Fresh sanctions
against Russia have been mulled by both the EU and US since news about Navalny's alleged
poisoning was made public.
Moscow has repeatedly expressed its readiness to cooperate with Germany in the probe into
the incident, while stressing that the Russian medics who first treated Navalny when he fell
ill found no traces of any poison in his body. The Kremlin has also repeatedly approached
Berlin for data possessed by the German side, but has so far received none.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Dachaguy 8 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:02 PM
Of course, the investigation is incomplete, but that doesn't stop the EU from levying
"justice." We've seen this before in the Downing Street Memos, where the facts were, "being
fixed around the policy. " Millions of innocent people died as a result. When will people
learn?
Jeff_P 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 06:01 PM
There should be an international commission to look into this false flag. It should be
comprised of Russia and Germany, of course, but no other NATO or European countries and no US
vassal states other than Germany. Other members could be Cuba, China, Venezuela, and maybe
India. And, of course, the US playbook of assignment of guilt without the benefit of evidence
and the exacting of penalties without proving guilt won't fly. Russia might just tell Europe
to go FO and leave PACE and the other organizations that it supports but which insist on
abusing it.
perikleous 6 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:09 PM
If Russia was determined they would say you cannot delay NSII or we cut the Ukraine pipeline
as well, its all or none! Tick Tock Tick Tok, winter is coming soon! Hopefully the Covid 19
won't delay the fuel ships your relying on or the workers who procure the fuel, you know a
2nd wave... is "Highly Likely" and its taking over in the rural areas where the fuel comes
from! Present evidence to a poisoning directed by either the fuel company or the gov't and we
will continue, or just tell your "handlers" go ***, because I do not recall the US severing
weapons sales to Saudi Arabia after Admission to them Severing the head off of (J. Koshoggei)
because the US profits/jobs are bigger than one WaPo Journalists life! Hypocracy in action!
Shelbouy 6 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:46 PM
Germany has offered to help pay for the construction of two LNG terminals in Germany to the
tune of 1 billion plus to the US. to receive US LNG. The US in turn has said then they would
not interfere with the completion of Nord Stream 2 if this were to take place. I am
suggesting that Germany then would have 30% cheaper Russian gas than US LNG, blend these two
prices, hi cost US LNG and low cost Russian gas of Nord Stream 2, and sell to the EU
consumers at a price which would likely be higher than the current rate today, and who would
be the wiser, and who would consumers blame when the price of gas goes up instead of down.
This may, at least temporarily, appease the US while at the same time ensure the completion
of the cheaper Russian supply line, and prevent the diversion of Russian gas to other
customer nations like China, and Germany laughs all the way to the bank. This is only
speculation on my part because I do not know if it would work that way or not. If it did then
Germany would have their cake and eat it. The offer of Germany to the US is however, a fact.
The reasons behind this offer are speculative. After all, it's really all about money anyway.
perikleous Shelbouy 5 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:16 PM
The US would demand a contract/commitment for the fuel based on your yearly usage currently,
if you re neg, they still bill you for it! Then its handled in court while your bank accounts
are frozen and none of the US debt to you is paid until this is resolved. You may win the
hearing/court but the losses from not having access to that money will cost way more!
HimandI 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:47 PM
Just more proof that the EU rulers are bought and paid prostitutes.
Jayeshkumar 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 10:03 PM
May be EU is indirectly suggesting to use the 2nd Pipeline to be used Exclusively for
Transporting the Hydrogen, in the Future!
Congozebilu 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 08:06 PM
From the first minute this Navalny story broke I knew it was aimed at Nordstream. Everyone
who understands geopolitics and also US desperation to sell "freedom gas" knows that
Nordstream was the intended target this Navalny clown show.
ivoivo 1 hour ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:00 PM
apparently there are evidence found in a trash can in his hotel room in omsk, they poisoned
him with novichock in a water they gave it to him and discard a paper cup in a trash can,
standard kremlins procedure, isn't it, what is happening to world intelligence, russians
can't kill some dude that is actually not even important and americans can't stop russian
hackers in meddling in us election
An open and shut case! Clearly Novichok poisoning, a deadly poison made only in Russia,
and the Russians have already used it at least once. The most deadly nerve agent known to man
and part of the brutal armament that Putin's thugs use on their murderous missions.
Germany has denied allegation of falsification of the Navalny case
3 September 2020
MOSCOW, September 3 – RIA Novosti. The statement made by the President of
Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, about the falsification of data on the "poisoning" of Navalny
is not true, the press service of the German Cabinet told RIA Novosti.
Earlier, at a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Lukashenko said that
Minsk had intercepted a conversation between Warsaw and Berlin, which denied allegations of
the blogger's poisoning. He promised that he would give the Russian side a transcript of this
"interesting dialogue, which clearly indicates that this is falsification".
"Of course, Mr. Lukashenko's statement does not correspond to reality. Yesterday the
Federal Chancellor, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister expressed their views on
the new circumstances in the Navalny poisoning case There is nothing to add", the cabinet
told the agency.
In Moscow, they noted that they had not yet received this evidence.
"Lukashenko hast just announced this. He said that the material would be transferred to
the FSB. There is no other information yet", Peskov told RIA Novosti.
What a duplicitous creep Lukashenko is!
Always jumping to one side of the fence to the other and thinking he is so smart in doing
so.
Then again, perhaps he has such damning evidence, but even if he had, nobody would believe
it, because Germany, being a vassal state of the USA, is on the side of freedom and
democracy.
"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit für das deutsche Vaterland" as one sings there to a
well known tune.
A week or so ago it was reported that the EU's carbon tax would also apply to energy
imports (Russian gas etc.) and in the Tass Press Review (?) 'shock' was apparently expressed,
which is weird as de-carbonization (plus more recently a setting in place the necssary
infrastcture for a hydrogen based economy) has been an open and long stated plan by Brussels.
Norway has already invested significant resources in de-carbonizing its gas and is ready to
go.
And in the last couple of days there was a report (RT?) that Russia had jumped onboard the
hydrogen train with a plan to use nuclear created hydrogen (heat, innit?) and Norway style
de-carbonization tech. Will post the links if I can re-find them. Still, interesting
stuff.
" Once Navalny was in Berlin it was only a matter of time before it was declared that he
was poisoned with Novichok. The Russophobes are delighted. This of course eliminates all
vestiges of doubt about what happened to the Skripals, and proves that Russia must be
isolated and sanctioned to death and we must spend untold billions on weapons and security
services. We must also increase domestic surveillance, crack down on dissenting online
opinion. It also proves that Donald Trump is a Russian puppet and Brexit is a Russian
plot.
I am going to prove beyond all doubt that I am a Russian troll by asking the question Cui
Bono?, brilliantly identified by the Integrity Initiative's Ben Nimmo as a sure sign of
Russian influence.
I should state that I have no difficulty at all with the notion that a powerful oligarch
or an organ of the Russian state may have tried to assassinate Navalny. He is a minor
irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia, but not being a major threat does not
protect you against political assassination in Russia.
What I do have difficulty with is the notion that if Putin, or other very powerful Russian
actors, wanted Navalny dead, and had attacked him while he was in Siberia, he would not be
alive in Germany today. If Putin wanted him dead, he would be dead.
Let us first take the weapon of attack. One thing we know about a "Novichok" for sure is
that it appears not to be very good at assassination. Poor Dawn Sturgess is the only person
ever to have allegedly died from "Novichok", accidentally according to the official
narrative. "Novichok" did not kill the Skripals, the actual target. If Putin wanted Navalny
dead, he would try something that works. Like a bullet to the head, or an actually deadly
poison.
"Novichok" is not a specific chemical. It is a class of chemical weapon designed to be
improvised in the field from common domestic or industrial precursors. It makes some sense to
use on foreign soil as you are not carrying around the actual nerve agent, and may be able to
buy the ingredients locally. But it makes no sense at all in your own country, where the FSB
or GRU can swan around with any deadly weapon they wish, to be making homemade nerve agents
in the sink. Why would you do that?
Further we are expected to believe that, the Russian state having poisoned Navalny, the
Russian state then allowed the airplane he was traveling in, on a domestic flight, to divert
to another airport, and make an emergency landing, so he could be rushed to hospital. If the
Russian secret services had poisoned Navalny at the airport before takeoff as alleged, why
would they not insist the plane stick to its original flight plan and let him die on the
plane? They would have foreseen what would happen to the plane he was on.
Next, we are supposed to believe that the Russian state, having poisoned Navalny, was not
able to contrive his death in the intensive care unit of a Russian state hospital. We are
supposed to believe that the evil Russian state was able to falsify all his toxicology tests
and prevent doctors telling the truth about his poisoning, but the evil Russian state lacked
the power to switch off the ventilator for a few minutes or slip something into his drip. In
a Russian state hospital.
Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed
him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered.
And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be
still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok
There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which
you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single
one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.
The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about
40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both
environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable
industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency. But my reasons are very different from
those of the USA, which is concerned about the market for liquefied gas to Europe for US
produces and for the Gulf allies of the US. Key decisions on the completion of Nord Stream 2
are now in train in Germany.
The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia
at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of
Putin I tend to doubt.
I do hope that Murray was writing cynically when he penned the following words above about
Navalny:
He is a minor irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia
His popularity here is minimal and his political base statistically zilch, the incessant
swamping of the Russian blogosphere with his praise by his hamsters notwithstanding.
I saw one of such hamster's nonsense only the other week in which the retard wrote that
Navalny is the most well-known person in Russia and another post of yet another hamster who
presented a list of policies that the bullshitter would follow "when he becomes
president".
The whole crock of Navalny -- Novichok shite neatly summed up by a comment to Murray's
article linked above:
Goose
September 4, 2020 at 00:28 We're being asked to believe by people calling themselves serious journalists, that the
Kremlin's thought process was thus :
Let's poison this guy with Novichok. Nobody will know it was us and there'll be no
diplomatic fallout.
Completely illogical.
Logic has no part in this machination, dear chap: the people to whom these lies are
directed are fucking stupid: uneducated, brain-dead, browser surfing, soap opera and
"Celebrity Come Dancing" and "Reality TV" and porn watching morons.
Oh yes! And in the UK they're daily fed pap about "The Royals": every day without fail the
UK media presents page after page of "stories" concerning "Kate and Wills" and "Harry and
Megan".
And much of the rest of the UK media is full of shite about "football" and its prima
donnas -- that's "Associated Football" or "soccer" as they prefer to say in North America,
and not "Rugby Football" -- better said: not "Rugby League Football".
Nato has called for Russia to disclose its Novichok nerve agent programme to
international monitors, following the poisoning of activist Alexei Navalny.
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said members were united in condemning the
"horrific" attack.
He added there was "proof beyond doubt" that a Novichok nerve agent was used against Mr
Navalny.
Where is the proof????????
You just say so or some "guy" at Porton Down or some Bundeswehr
Scheißkerl laboratories?
Get fucked Stoltenberg!
And Peskov, a word of advice: Shut the fuck up and say nothing.
Don't believe that silence from you will be taken as proof of guilt!
You and the Russian state are guilty of everything as charged by the very nature of the
fact that you are Russian, "the other"!
Sound familiar?
It's what the Nazis said about every Jew: guilty of all accusations because of their
ethnicity -- not their religion, note: Christianized Jews were still "Jews". They were guilty
of all charges from the moment of each and every one's birth as a "Jew".
And the sickening thing is that "woke" arseholes the world over condemn racism, but racism
directed against Russians is fair game.
The US president has received heavy criticism for his reluctance to immediately join
NATO allies in pressing Russia over the Navalny incident, which CNN called "the latest
instance of Trump failing to speak out and call for answers from the Kremlin on issues
ranging from election interference to possible bounties on US troops in Afghanistan."
I presume that the concept of "burden of proof" is now a dead letter in the Free West.
I thought that whole Russia-offered-bounties-for-dead-US-troops thing had been 'debunked'
for good. Several western sources which are sometimes not snapping-turtle crazy said there
was nothing to it. So why are they still citing it?
Alexei Navalny is one of the most important leaders of what passes for political
opposition in President Putin's Russia. Some say he is, in effect, "the" leader of the
opposition in Russia. He has just been the subject of an assassination attempt, and lies in
an induced coma in a German hospital. It's worth repeating: the leader of the opposition to
Vladimir Putin has been poisoned, perhaps fatally, using novichok, a chemical weapon banned
by international treaty. There is little doubt that, in one form or another, formal or
informal agents of the Russian state would have been part of the plot, especially given the
evidence of novichok, and that the highest circles of the Russian establishment would either
have knowledge of the attack, or made it apparent to any shady blah, blah. blah ..
Now don't you folks go and forget, BoJo recently made Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of that
rag and who penned the above shite, a Baronet.
Lebedev has dual Russian/British citizen and has lived in the UK since he arrived there as
an 8-year-old with his KGB papa, who had landed a cushy number at the Soviet Embassy.
Papa Lebedev went back to Russia, where in the immediate post-Soviet years of Russia he
made a mint and became an "oligarch", namely an extremely successful thief who had pillaged
Russia. His son became a UK citizen in 2010.
Evgeny Lebedev is now a life peer and may now plonk his arse (and get paid for doing so!)
in one of the chambers of the British legislature, the one whose members are unelected: they
are there either through their aristocratic "birthright" or are appointees, such as is
Lebedev.
When BoJo appointed Lebedev as a life peer, the moronic Russophobes in the UK accused that
fool of a British PM of being under the Evil One's control.
Just shows you how they know shag all about Russia and Russians.
Recording of conversation between Berlin and Warsaw on Navalny case published
20:40 09/04/2020 (updated: 05:19 09/05/2020)
MOSCOW, September 4 – RIA Novosti.The state Belarusian media has
published a recording of the negotiations between Berlin and Warsaw on the situation with
Alexei Navalny, intercepted by Minsk .
RIA Novosti is publishing a transcript of this dialogue.
– Hello, good afternoon, Nick. How are we getting on?
– Everything seems to be going according to plan. The materials about Navalny are
ready. They'll be transferred to the Chancellor's office. We'll be waiting for her
statement.
– Has the poisoning been definitely confirmed?
– Look, Mike, it's not that important in this case. There is a war going on. And
during a war, all sorts of methods are good.
– I agree. It is necessary to discourage Putin from sticking his nose into the
affairs of Belarus. The most effective way is to drown him with the problems in Russia, and
there are many of them. Moreover, in the near future they will have elections, voting day in
the Russian regions.
– This is what we are doing. How are you doing in Belarus?
– To be honest, not that well, really. President Lukashenko has turned out to be
a tough nut to crack. They are professional and organized. It is clear that Russia supports
them. The officials and the military are loyal to the president. We are working on it. The
rest [of this conversation] we'll have when we meet and not on the 'phone.
I find it hard to believe this is real. Lukashenko is 'a tough nut to crack'? The
Belarusian government is 'professional and organized'? Well, you never know with the Poles.
But it seems so perfectly to confirm western perfidy that it must be made up. Who would be
stupid enough to say things like that on the phone?
And "Yats is our man!" Victory Noodles crowed to Pie-whacked.
Don't forget also that Jens Stoltenberg was dumb enough to think he could drive a taxi
around Oslo and pick up paying passengers without their recognising him and commenting on his
poor driving skills and knowledge of Oslo streets.
And on hearing off a Latvian (?) politician, who had been observing the "Revolution of
Dignity" and was involved in an investigation into the deaths of the "Heavenly Hundred", that
there were good grounds to believe that those martyrs for Ukrainian freedom had been martyred
by being shot in the back by their fellow countrymen who were of a fascist bent, Lady Ashton
said: "Gosh!""
Now that really was a dumb utterance to make on the phone, considering the
circumstances.
It is also worth underlining that the Russian pilot who decided to make an emergency
landing in Omsk, rather than proceed to Moscow, may have saved Navalny's life, as may the
doctors in Omsk who – despite their professed doubts about poison – administered
atropine, the closest treatment there is to a novichok antidote, early on. The claim, made by
some, that this was a brazen attack, with the Kremlin's fingerprints all over it, designed to
be found out and interpreted as a "two fingers up" to the west, does not stack up.
But the German findings that probably the most influential Russian opposition leader
was poisoned and that the substance used was the same as the one identified in the Skripal
case – a military-grade nerve agent, moreover, that is associated with Russia, even
though it was developed in the Soviet-era and can be found outside Russia – means that
the Kremlin has a case to answer. Yes, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the
Kremlin is all denials, but the onus is now squarely on Putin to make his case in the court
of international opinion.
" the doctors in Omsk who – despite their professed doubts about poison –
administered atropine, the closest treatment there is to a novichok antidote, early on."
That a fact, Doctor Dejevsky?
" everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the Kremlin is all denials, but the onus
is now squarely on Putin to make his case in the court of international opinion"
Burden of proof?
Russia has been accused! Russia is not obliged to prove its innocence, FFS!!!!
Where is the evidence to back up the accusation????
Of course the Omsk hospital doctors had to apply atropine because Navalny's groupies were
squealing that he had been poisoned. They would have squealed again and accused the hospital
of malpractice if the hospital had not used the drug.
Russian doctors have proposed to their German colleagues that they establish a joint
group on the case of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, the president of Russia's
National Medical Chamber, noted paediatrician Leonid Roshal, told reporters on
Saturday.
Will the Germans agree?
I shouldn't imagine so. They and the rest of the West have crossed the Rubicon:
By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
from 2017-2019. In June, she published her book on diplomacy 'Diplomatie Macht Geschichte' in Germany through Olms, and in early
September her book 'Die Mobilitätswende', or 'Mobility in Transition', was released in Vienna by Braumüller. The cacophony of
noise generated in the wake of the attack on the Russian opposition figure is drowning out the reality. As Angela Merkel has always
maintained, the German-Russian gas deal is purely a commercial project.
Nord Stream has always had the ingredients to drive sober-minded Germans emotional. I remember energy conferences in Germany back
in 2006 when already the idea of such a gas pipeline as a direct connection from Russia to Germany provoked deep political rows,
not just in Berlin but across the EU.
Conservatives disliked it for the simple reason that it was a "Schröder thing," the legacy of social democrat Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder, who lost the election of September 2005 to Angela Merkel. Schröder had negotiated the project with his good friend, President
Vladimir Putin, and then chaired the company in charge of implementing it.
Around that time, I was invited to an energy conference in Munich by the conservative think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation,
managed by the Bavarian party CSU, the traditional junior partner of the ruling CDU in the government. The bottom-line of the debate
on Nord Stream was negative, with the consensus being that the German-Russian pipeline would lead to the implosion of a European
common foreign policy and damage the EU's energy ambitions.
I attended many other such events across Germany, from parliament to universities, and listened carefully to all the arguments.
The feelings towards Nord Stream were much more benign at meetings held under the auspices of the SPD.
But over the years, the rift between different political parties evaporated, and a consensus emerged which supported enhanced
energy cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. Politicians of all shades defended the first pipeline, Nord Stream 1, after it went
operational in 2011, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
They also enthusiastically supported the creation of the second, Nord Stream 2, better known by its acronym NS2. This $11bn (£8.4bn)
1,200km pipeline is almost finished and was due to go online next year.
But now, in the very final stage of construction, everything has been thrown in limbo thanks to the alleged poisoning of Russian
opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
NS2 has always been controversial. Critics, such as the US and Poland, have argued that it makes Germany too reliant on energy
from a politically unreliable partner. President Trump last year signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's
state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish it. The White House fears NS2 will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and
reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.
These sanctions have caused delays to the project. A special ship owned by a Swiss company menaced with sanctions had to be replaced.
And prior to that, various legal provisions were brought up by the European Commission that had to be fulfilled by the companies
in retrospect.
Now the case of Navalny, currently being treated at a Berlin clinic after being awoken from a medically induced coma, has thrown
everything up in the air again. It has triggered a political cacophony that threatens relations between Germany, the EU, Russia,
and Washington. And at the center is the pipeline.
Various German sources, among them laboratories of the armed forces, have alleged that Navalny had been poisoned with the nerve
agent Novichok. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD)
stated in an interview published on Sunday by Bild: " I hope the Russians don't force us to change our stance on Nord Stream
2 – we have high expectations of the Russian government that it will solve this serious crime ." He claimed to have seen "
a lot of evidence " that the Russian state was behind the attack. " The deadly chemical weapon with which Navalny was poisoned
was in the past in the possession of Russian authorities ," he insisted.
He conceded that stopping the almost-completed pipeline would harm German and broader European business interests, pointing out
that the gas pipeline's construction involves "over 100 companies from 12 European countries, and about half of them come from Germany."
Maas also threatened the Kremlin with broader EU sanctions if it did not help clarify what happened "in the coming days." Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by labeling the accusations "groundless" and Moscow has staunchly denied any involvement
in the affair.
The whole matter is complicated by domestic political considerations in Germany. CDU politician Norbert Röttgen, who heads up
foreign affairs within the ruling party and has demanded that the pipeline should be stopped, is among those conservatives vying
to lead the CDU in the run-up to Chancellor Angela Merkel's retirement next year. Meanwhile, Merkel is still trying to strike a balance
between the country's legal commitments, her well-known mantra that NS2 is a " purely commercial project, " and what is now
a major foreign policy crisis.
The chancellor had always focused on the business dimension. But most large energy projects also have a geopolitical dimension,
and that certainly holds true with Nord Stream.
When I was Austria's foreign minister, I saw first-hand the recurring and very harsh criticism of the project by US politicians
and officials. I remember the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in a speech at the margins of the UN General Assembly in September
2018 that focused solely on NS2. I replied by pointing out to him that pipelines are not built to annoy others, but because there
is demand. One thing was certain – the US opposition to Nord Stream would not wane and now the Navalny case has given it new impetus.
What we are witnessing is a tremendous politicization of the pipeline with a wide range of people all shouting very loudly.
So here we are, in a very poisoned atmosphere where it might be difficult to revise positions without losing face. The social
democrat Maas, just like the conservative Röttgen and many others, have taken to the media for different reasons. In my observation,
it might have to do with their respective desires to take a strong position in order to also mark their upcoming emancipation from
the political giant Merkel (she is due to step down next year).
Due to her professional and empathetic handling of the pandemic, she is today much more popular than before the crisis. That makes
it difficult for a junior partner, represented by Foreign Minister Maas, and for all those who wish to challenge her inside the party.
What is needed is to get the topic out of the media and out of the to-and-fro of daily petty politics. Noisy statements might
serve some, but not the overall interests involved. And there are many at stake. It is not only about energy security in times of
transition, namely moving away from nuclear, but much wider matters.
As a legal scholar, I deem the loss of trust in contracts. Vertragstreue, as we call it in German – loyalty to the contract –
will be the biggest collateral damage if the pipeline is abandoned for political reasons. This fundamental principle of every civilization
was coined as pacta sunt servanda by the Romans – agreements must be kept. Our legal system is based on this. Who would still conclude
contracts of such volumes with German companies if politics can change the terms of trade overnight?
In June 2014, construction sites on the coasts of the Black sea, both in Russia and Bulgaria, were ready for starting the gas
pipeline South Stream. After pressure from the European Commission, the work never started. The political reason was the dispute
on Ukraine – in particular, the annexation of the Crimea. However, the legal argument was that the tenders for the contracts were
in contradiction with EU regulations on competition. Tens of thousands of work permits, which had been issued from Bulgaria to Serbia
etc., were withdrawn. The economic consequence was the rise of China's influence in the region. South Stream was redirected to Turkey.
So here we are in the midst of a diplomatic standoff. It is a genuine dilemma, but it could also turn into a watershed. Will contracts
be respected or will we move into a further cycle of uncertainty on all levels? Germany is built on contracts, norms (probably much
too many) and not on arbitrariness.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
silvermoon 5 hours ago
All these weeks have passed and Germany has still not shown shared actual evidence of their Navalny tests
with Russia though. That is the same as saying we found the gun with your finger prints on it but never showing it.
Count_Cash
silvermoon 3 hours ago
Correct, Germany has only since 10th September (if confirmed) shared any 'evidence'. That is sufficient intervening
time to concoct any test result and associated materials that they want - another Diesel scandal. Indeed people will ask why when
you had the patient on 22nd of august, it took you so long to send samples to the OPCW, despite almost immediately yelling Poison!
gainwmn silvermoon 5 hours ago
U stupid sheep: Germany did show it to the OPCW, i.e. the organization RF is the member of,
and therefore the latter gets the full access to all the data provided by Germany, as well as any other of 192 members. Kremlin lies
and demands in this regard is more than ridiculous, they completely destroy any shred of trust left to all RF governmental structures
and regime itself.
Teodor Nitu gainwmn 3 hours ago
Riiight!...Those Russians...not only their chemical
weapons are no longer working, but they are no longer capable to choose the proper time to use them, or so the story goes. Think
about it; they 'used' novichok to kill the Skripals and they are still alive and well (supposedly), now they (Russians) 'used' novichok
again to kill Navalny and he is alive and getting better.
Besides, they chose the absolutely wrong time to do it. With Skripals it
was just before the opening of the World Cup in Russia and now, just before the finishing of the North Stream 2 pipeline.
It sounds
that they are sabotaging their own interests, aren't they? Are they (Russians) that stup!d? Some 'smart' posters here seem to believe
it. But lets get real, one has to be able to see beyond the length of his nose, in order to understand what is really going on.
silvermoon Teodor Nitu 2 hours ago
Russia had all their chemical weapons legally destroyed. Along with hundreds of countries. The
US, UK and Israel never did. Navalny the innocent anti Putin. Can't win one way try another.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
So why is Russia still asking for it? Clearly, something is being withheld. As for
the OPCW, their credibility has been shot for years with all their fake Syrian chem weapon attack reports.
seawolf 6 hours ago
Even if there was not Navalny's story, they could invent another to stop the project.
Abraxas79 seawolf 4 hours ago
Exactly.
I hope Russia is the one that abandons it. Let Germany be the one that decides to cancel it and go along with it. Concentrate on
supplying China and other Asian nations and internal consumption. Forget about Europe. You don't have to turn off the current supply,
just charge more for it when the market allows. Looks like the next German leader according to this article is quite the Russophobe,
which means relations will only get worse.
Pro_RussiaPole Abraxas79 2 hours ago
If this navalny farce does end up cancelling the NS2 project, Russia should stop all gas transit to western Europe through
Poland and Ukraine by spring of next year. Tell those countries that will be cut off that Russia can either sell them LNG, or
that they will have to connect to other sources of gas. Because if certain countries are so against Russian gas, then why are
they not doing anything against Russian gas going through Poland and Ukraine, and why isn't Trump threatening sanctions on
these countries for doing so?
Blue8ball713 RTjackanory 3 hours ago
Its a far longer list
and it have the fingerprints of GB secret services all over it.
Reply Gabriel Delpino seawolf 46 seconds ago It is not in the interest
of Germany to stop de project. Reply
magicmirror 6 hours ago
Europe should have nothing to do with the USA ....... proved time and
time again they cannot be trusted. All they want is markets, resources and consumers. They lie, they cheat, they steal...... (quoting mr Pompeo, I think). A big opportunity to win Europe's independence.
SmellLaRata
5 hours ago
All due respect for Mr. Navalny but since when does an individual fate of one person dictates the fate for millions ?
And c' mon Germany. Your hypocrisy is so utterly laughable. You ignore the Assange and Snowden cases, the slaughter of Kashoggi,
the brutal beating of yellow vests, the brutal actions against the Catalans ... but Navalni. Not even a hint of a proof of government
involvemen. But it fits the agenda, does it? The agenda which is dictated by the deep state agitators who so much flourished under
Obama.
gainwmn SmellLaRata
4 hours ago
Even being not a fan (to say the least) of the US foreign and some of the domestic policy, I have to point out that tried
by U analogy is largely out of balance: first, the issue in Navalny (as well as in Scripals' and others cases acted on with poisons)
case is not so much the assassination attempt on a person's life, as the banned use of chemical weapons, the ban RF's signature has
been under since 1993. And that conclusion (Russia's guilt) has not been made by the UK or Germany or any other country alone, but
the OPCW - the organization not only RF is the member of, but also 191(!) other countries, out of which not a single country (except
RF) rejected that conclusion!; second, the US did not made attempt on either Snowden's or Assange's life, with any kind of weapon,
not already mentioning the weapons banned by the international agreements American government(s) signed. This is a large - I would
say - decisive difference! As far as Kashoggi's case or other cases sited by U, RF did not react with sanctions against the respective
perpetrators either, thus demonstrating the same disregard for the law and order as the US did... therefore making all lies about
innocent RF and evil US, foolish, at the least.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
The US and its lackeys are killing Assange. They are doing it slowly. And many voices going along with a lie does not make
the lie true. Because these poisoning allegations are lies. The accused were never allowed to see the evidence or challenge
it. And there is the whole issue of politicized reports coming out of the OPCW that contradicted evidence and reality.
Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago
After completing the pipe and
it start running Russia must turn off all Ukraine pipes. No more gas for free from Russia, Ukraine must start importing LNG from thier reliable partner USA. I think imports from USA will be good for Ukrainian Nazi people
Abraxas79 Nathi Sibbs 4 hours
ago
How are they going to pay for it? Ukraine's only exports these days are its women to various brothels across Europe and North
America.
Hilarous 5 hours ago
The German leaders know very well that the case of Navalny will never be resolved and exists
for no other reason than to seize a pretext to demonize Russia and to end Nord Stream 2 in exchange for US freedom gas
magicmirror
Hilarous 4 hours ago
freedom gas and handsome presents .....
SandythePole 3 hours ago
This is an excellent account by Dr Karin Kneissl. It is a genuine dilemma for 'occupied'
Europe. Its occupying master does NOT want NS2 and will do anything to stop it. Russia suffers sanctions upon sanctions, but still
gallantly tries to maintain friendly and honourable business relations with its implacable neighbours. For how much longer is this
to continue? Surely there must be some limit to the endless provocations of occupied Europe and its Western master. Perhaps it is
time to shut off the oil and gas and leave Germany to sail under its own wind.
dunkie56 3 hours ago
Perhaps Russia should disengage
with Germany/EU totally and forge ahead in partnership with China and India and whoever wants to do business. let the EU tie it's
ship to the sinking US ship and drown along with it's protection racket partner! Then Russia should build a new iron curtain between
itself and all countries who want to align with the EU..in the long run Russia has tried to forge a partnership with the West but
it just has not born any fruit and even as pragmatic as Russia is they must be coming to the conclusion they are flogging a dead
horse!
Blue8ball713 dunkie56 2 hours ago With 146 million citizen Russia is too small to be a real partner to anyone like
China or India. Best fit is the EU, but the EU is controlled or better said occupied by the USA. Its part of their hegemonial system.
So Russia is left out in the rain..
micktaketo 5 hours ago
I am not sure if it is the right thing to do but I think Russia
should sue the German authorities if this deal is withdrawn and if it is have nothing to do with Germany again along with other corrupt
countries that cannot prove or at the least bring forth their evidence to be seen, to be transparent to all even Russia the first,
because Russia is the one being accused. These countries must think we the people are all completely stupid and Russia more so. This
corruption stinks to high heaven and is obvious to all sane people who love fairness. You cannot trust an entity that believes in
getting what they want by hook or by crook. Russia learn your lesson ! So you countries that love whats good for you and your people
do not cheat them for they voted for you to help them. Germany do not kick yourself, it will hurt your people. Saying, There is more
than one way to skin a cat, they say.
Mutlu Ozer 3 hours ago
There is a simple concept to investigate a crime to find the criminals: Just look at whose benefit the crime is? EU
politicians are certainly smart people to know this basic concept of criminal investigation. However, now they are playing a
new strategy about how to domesticate(!) not only Russia China as well... Germans are the main actors in the stage of the WW-I
and WW-II. I surely claim that Germans would be the main architect of the last war, WW-III.
"An ambitious leader never lets a crisis go to waste, and MBS is nothing if not ambitious.
During the early days of the pandemic, he increased the kingdom's value-added tax from
five percent to 15 percent, and the government earmarked $1 billion in stimulus payments to
Saudi businesses struggling with the economic downturn. MBS directed his sovereign wealth fund
to shop for bargains on global stock markets. He even went nose to nose with Russian President
Vladimir Putin on oil prices: when Russia refused to respect production limits set in 2017,
Saudi Arabia opened the spigot, driving the price of oil down, very briefly, into
negative territory . Even with oil prices back around $40 per barrel, the Saudis are left
with only half the revenue they need to balance the government's books. " FA
--------------
Well pilgrims, Trumpy and Jared may love the Saudis and the murderer MBS, but I do not. I
was the Defense Attaché there for three years. It was one of the most unpleasant
experiences of my army career. The level of social and legal restriction imposed by the
theocracy was stifling. Normal life was simply impossible. Even as a diplomat I felt imprisoned
in the embassy. For a foreigner to speak Arabic in public was most unwise because the immediate
suspicion, often voiced, was that the foreigner was a SPY!
The one thing the Saudis have historically had "going for them" was the money that flooded
the country from the ever flowing oil and gas stream. Now, that is largely finito. Good!
That means less money to use in spreading the Wahhabi cult, and less money to spend on futile
fantasies like the war against the Zeidi mountaineers in Yemen.
A million gastarbeiters have left the country? Good! Perhaps the Saudis will learn
how to do actual work. Perhaps. pl
What's your opinion on the dynamics that could lead to the fall of the House of Saud?
I'm sure in an insular country like that there must be much palace intrigue and suspicions
on loyalty among those that bear arms. How does MbS insure his survival?
With "friends" like KSA and Israel, who needs enemies? These two have driven US foreign
policy for decades and the smouldering wreakage of MENA is the legacy of these miguided
corrupt alliances. Between the fed and Treasury we'll be bailing out both of these
monstrosities.
Unfortunately the 2 presidential candidates promise us of more of the same. I was so
hopeful that Trump might make a break, but he seems to have been a weak leader with little
follow through. Biden, of course, will put these misguided alliances on steroids administered
by proven losers.
There's a positively classic scene at the beginning of the movie "A New Leaf." Walter
Matthau's character is visited on the golf course by his accountant who's come to tell him
that there's no more money in his trust account. Matthau is bewildered by this news uttering
something along the lines of "But I still have plenty of checks." It's hilarious and someone
in Saudi will also soon be visiting the Wahhabi loons to tell them the party is over. Life
imitates art.
Saudi Arabia has been in the news lately and none of them is good. One is WSJ's report on
the quasi-secret China-Saudi nuclear cooperation and the 'Yellow-cake' production in a secret
desert facility in the country's NW. I can already see the heat the Saudi's will be getting
from this!
Two, is the story of the 'Tiger Squad' assassins who were ordered by MbS personally to
pull off a Khashoggi on a former Saudi intelligence officer for his refusal to get back to
the country.
The idea of the Saudi's march to nuclear weapons development is a terrifying idea, but the
rumor is that they already have (at least) one in Pakistan. I particularly find it very
strange that the Trump admin was positively 'nudging' the Saudis toward nuclear energy
development until very recently, when Rick Perry was still in the administration! But a few
days ago the official at the State Dep's arms control and non-proliferation desk poured cold
water on Saudis and made it clear that the U.S. would not let them to do funny stuff wit
uranium behind their backs.
Also of note is the part in the WSJ's report that caught my attention and where it
mentions the involvement of an Argentinian energy firm that recently set up a nuclear reactor
for the Saudis and that they were very keen on developing the enrichment cycle supposedly for
'research' purposes and under secrecy. This reminded me of the 'colorful' history of
Israeli-Argentine secret nuclear weapons development cooperation in the 60's, in which Israel
got its'yellow-cake' it needed from Argentina to develop its nukes. Which begs the question
that are Saudis going the same route as Israel did back in the early 60s? Why not working
with Japan, Germany, France, U.S. then if it is all peaceful?
I have had my fair share of interactions with the Saudi people. while the culture is
pretty medieval with regards to social and religious matters, but when it comes to
hospitality and alike they are welcoming, especially during the month of Ramadan and after
Iftar, that is when they break their fasts at dusk. For the Saudis it is like a custom to be
'extra' generous and they donate free meals frequently to everyone.
Years ago, I suggested a cyber operation to drain the royal family of their disposable
wealth for the sole purpose of depriving the jihadists of further material support. Glad to
see that the "invisible hand of capitalism" and the royal's own stupidity are doing just
that. I don't want to see the royals toppled. Who knows what would replace them. But if they
were weakened enough so that all their remaining resources and concentration are focused on
keeping their people from rising up and ripping them to shreds, it would be fine by me. Let
the jihadis be reduced to angry men in the mosque without the resources to turn their anger
into meaningful action.
BTW, this idea of a cyber operation was from SST not from my time in DIA.
While MBS's Tiger Squad assassins were denied entry into Canada to whack former Saudi
Intel type/MBS critic Saad Aljabri, MBS succeeded in obtaining a fatwa directed against Saad
Aljabri.
pat - i think your personal experience of ksa reflects what most people in ksa probably
feel on some level.. i can't know this for a fact, but i would say if there was any place
where the usa was into doing a regime change, i would go along with this one.. anything would
be better then what they have wrought.. the export of wahabbism - salafist ideology has also
been a plague on the planet... at what point does this transfer of oil money into crazy
religious ideology indoctrination bite the dust? it can't happen soon enough as i see
it..
The Salafist approach to Islam is not crazy, i.e. insane. It is very much like
Protestanism in as much as it rejects even the theoretical possibility of a Legitimate
Central Religious Authority, it rejects Tradition, it rejects the possibility of sainthood -
Olya allah -, it posits that any fool can read and interpret the Scriptures, and it rejects
Theoretical Reason.
I think behind both Salafism and Protestanism appeals is a yearning for a simple moral and
intellectual order that does not put too much strain on the believers' cognitive faculties;
live under these black tents, follow these rules, and you are granted redemption in this life
as well as the next.
"No need to trouble your pretty little brains to grapple with the world as you find it and
not as you think it ought to be."
Felsafa is not highly regarded among the Sunnis because of the ancient closure of the Gate
of Ijtihad. Felsafa is much more highly regarded among you Shia because you still have widely
and highly regarded mujtahideen. Khomeini was a philosopher.
babak... thanks... i have a hard time understanding the distinctions... i don't know
enough of protestant ideology to appreciate the comparison.. as i understand it salafist
ideology adopts sharia and sharia is handed down from 'religious authorities'.. do you agree
in general with the description wikpedia gives on the salafi movement?? or is this slanted
too much from your point of view? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
is it too much to say that without philosophy there is just literalism? literalism seems
to reflect the bare minimum of understanding when everything boils down to this...
Sunni Islam does not admit of hierarchy except within consensus groups (Ijma'). Some are
large and some are small. 12er Shiism effectively is hierarchical through mechanism of the
"Hawza" schools of mujtahids (Ayatollahs). i will be surprised if you understand that. Ask
for clarifications.
Sharia is just the Laws of Islam, the concept is common to all Muslim sects and schools,
the content is common.
In my opinion, Seyyed Jamal Al Din Qazwini was not a Salafi as the worf is understood
today. He was a Shia Muslim who was campaigning for a unified Muslim response to the
ascendancy of the Western Diocletian civilization as well as the Russian Empire.
He was, in the final analysis, only partly successful in his effort, in as much as they
could only make sense among the Seljuk Muslims.
Salafi ideas, in my opinion, are best understood as a response of Non-Seljuk Muslims to
the Western Diocletian civilization. It reminds me of the Deobandis, another Muslim response
to the Western Diocletian civilization, exemplified by Great Britain, in India.
Both Salafis and Deobandis consider Shia Muslims to be heretics. The Wiki omits that.
babak
"the content is common" Untrue. There are many different collections of hadith and
jurisprudence that make it obvious that the content is not common among the different
sects.
pat... thanks for the additional comments... yes, i am confused by it all and think i am
in way over my head here! maybe i ought to just bow out of the conversation...
babak.. thank you as well...as i said to pat, i believe i am in over my head on the
topic... i have a viewpoint - a very subjective one again - generally all religion - the
orthodox kind anyway - have all struck me as not all that religious.. it is more like a
system where the so called authorities or leaders get to dictate how it is and the followers
have to go along with it... the whole spirit of religion seems overlooked or upside down.. i
was naive and thought religion was about love and kindness to others and basic tenets like
that, but i believe in the upper echelons of these religious systems, it is one big power
game... i don't know that chrisitianity is all that different from islam in this regard.. i
don't know enough about buddhism to comment, but i have heard similar stories in this
religion as well... call me agnostic...
i hope for the best for everyone, but in the case of saudi arabia - i personally think the
ksa-uae and etc leadership exporting wahabbism and really whacked out ideologies around to
places like pakistan and etc have not done the world or themselves any favours.. i hope it
ends soon.. it reminds me of the christian evangelicals exporting christianity to far off
places round the globe... it is a lot like that and i don't think it does much of any good..
all the generousity has serious strings attached as i see it..
and finally - i agree with pats comment at the top and would like to repeat that.. i can't
see any good coming out of ksa and think it would be better gone, or replaced with something
more tolerant..
MOSCOW, July 26 – RIA Novosti. The US authorities are increasing pressure on
German and European companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2, Die Welt
newspaper writes, citing sources.
The newspaper notes that the American side has held two videoconferences with gas
pipeline contractors from Germany and other European countries to "indicate the far-reaching
consequences of their further participation in the project". The conferences were attended by
representatives of the US Department of State, Treasury and Department of Energy.
Sources told the newspaper that American officials "have made it very clear that they
want to prevent the completion of Nord Stream 2".
I suppose the Germans could crumble like cheese, but I personally think it is very
unlikely, since doing so would mean total dependence on the United States, with its whims and
its 'loyalty tests'. Not necessarily in energy, because Europe would still have to rely
heavily on Russia; the United States would be satisfied – for the moment – with
Russia continuing to supply its present amounts, provided they went through Ukraine as they
do now, so that Russia has to help finance Ukraine's slow development as a US project
dedicated to Russia's undoing. But America knows it cannot ever replace Russian supply,
although it would ideally like to take more and more market share as its own production
(theoretically) continues to increase. It just adamantly does not want Ukraine taken out of
the equation, because Ukraine is like a rheostat that Washington can turn up or down as
necessary.
No, the USA cannot replace Russian gas, but if Germany gives in now, Washington will run
it as a wholly-owned subsidiary for as far as the eye can see. And I believe Germany knows
it.
The German foreign minister was making suitable noises for the USA yesterday, saying that
in order to rejoin G7, Russia must firstly clean up its relations with Banderastan -- read:
stop its "aggression" towards the Ukraine and return the Crimea to its rightful "owner".
The Kremlin responded that it has no intention of rejoining G7.
No mention off the German minister about the Ukraine not complying with the Minsk
agreement, about the Ukraine government waging war against its citizens, its stopping the
water supply to the Crimea etc., etc. just Big Bad Russia the "Aggressor State" that must
learn how to behave itself according "International Law".
So it would appear. But it should not be at all surprising – except maybe to
Washington – that you cannot shit on China day and night and call it all sorts of
unpleasant names, and then expect the sun to come up on happy business partners China and the
USA next day. China shares with Russia an imperative that it be respected; you don't have to
like it, but you must speak respectfully and politely about it, and limit your accusations to
what you can prove.
Washington likes to unload the mockery by the truckload, and then, when it's time to do
business, say "Aw, shucks – I were just funnin'", and have business go forward as if
the insults had never been voiced. Or, worse yet, insist that it is sticking to its
positions, but you must do business with it anyway because it is the world leader and there
is nowhere else to turn.
Natural Gas in the USA is at what is referred to as a 'messy bottom', and both production
and sales are below year-over-year average. Yet it is plain – they say so, in so many
words – that America expects sales growth to come from China and India.
"The International Energy Agency expects LNG, the main driver of international gas
trade, to expand by 21% in 2019-2025, reaching 585 billion cubic meters annually. The growth
will come from China and India, the IEA said in its Gas 2020 report published Wednesday.
Trade will increase at a slower pace than liquefaction capacity additions, limiting the
prospects of a tighter market, it said in the report."
I think he's probably right that the natural gas market will expand by a significant
number. I'm just not sure the USA will play much of a part in it. And China is on solid
ground, no matter how much America screams and roars; Russian gas is cheaper, and the
logistics chain is short and reliable.
Obviously, for this group, 'bridging the gap' in 'threat perception' does NOT mean coaxing
Poland and Lithuania to realize that Nord Stream II is just a commercial venture. It means
coaxing France and Germany to accept and amplify Poland and Lithuania's paranoia and loathing
of Russia. Equally obviously, America's determination to be Europe's Daddy with the LNG is
just a commercial venture. Nothing political about it, and if the USA ever found itself in
the position where it could leverage its energy sales to Europe to make Europe do things it
otherwise would not do willingly, why, it would never use that power. Only the Russians
weaponize energy.
The 'panel' is simply a parade of Atlanticists, a neoconservative wet dream. There are no
realists there. Fortunately, US approval of the project is not required.
Turkey is currently involved in quite a few international military conflicts -- both against
its own neighbors such as Greece, Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus, and against other nations
such as Libya and Yemen. These actions by Turkey suggest that Turkey's foreign policy is
increasingly destabilizing not only several nations, but the region as well.
In addition, the Erdogan regime has been militarily targeting Syria and Iraq, sending its
Syrian mercenaries to Libya to seize Libyan oil and continuing, as usual, to bully Greece.
Turkey's regime is also now provoking ongoing violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1565758762 NOW PLAYING
Erdogan leads first Muslim prayer after Hagia Sophia mosque reconversion
Istanbul's Hagia Sophia reconversion to a mosque, 'provocation to civilised world', Greece
says
Turkish top court revokes Hagia Sophia's museum status, 'tourists should still be allowed
in'
Erdogan: Interference over Hagia Sophia 'direct attack on our sovereignty'
Libya's GNA says Egypt's warning on Sirte offensive a 'declaration of war'
Erdogan says 'agreements' reached with Trump on Libya
What Turkish Election Results Mean for the Lira
Erdogan Sparks Democracy Concerns in Push for Istanbul Vote Rerun
Since July 12, Azerbaijan has launched a series of cross-border attacks against Armenia's
northern Tavush region in skirmishes that have resulted
in the deaths of at least four Armenian soldiers and 12 Azerbaijani ones. After Azerbaijan
threatened to launch missile attacks on Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant on July 16, Turkey
offered military assistance to Azerbaijan.
"Our armed unmanned aerial vehicles, ammunition and missiles with our experience, technology
and capabilities are at Azerbaijan's service,"
said İsmail Demir, the head of Presidency of Defense Industries, an affiliate of the
Turkish Presidency.
One of Turkey's main targets also seems to be Greece. The Turkish military is targeting
Greek territorial waters yet again. The Greek newspaper Kathimerini
reported :
"There have been concerns over a possible Turkish intervention in the East Med in a bid to
prevent an agreement on the delineation of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between Greece
and Egypt which is currently being discussed between officials of the two countries."
Turkey's choice of names for its gas exploration ships are also a giveaway. The name of the
main ship that Turkey is using for seismic "surveys" of the Greek continental shelf is
Oruç Reis , (1474-1518), an admiral of the Ottoman Empire who often raided the
coasts of Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean that were still controlled by Christian
powers. Other exploration and drilling vessels Turkey uses or is planning to use in Greece's
territorial waters are named after Ottoman sultans who targeted Cyprus and Greece in bloody
military invasions. These include the drilling ship
Fatih "the conqueror" or Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who invaded Constantinople in 1453; the
drilling ship
Yavuz , "the resolute", or Sultan Selim I, who headed the Ottoman Empire during the
invasion of Cyprus in 1571; and
Kanuni , "the lawgiver" or Sultan Suleiman, who invaded parts of eastern Europe as well as
the Greek island of Rhodes.
Turkey's move in the Eastern Mediterranean came in early July, shortly after the country had
turned Hagia Sophia, once the world's greatest Greek Cathedral, into a mosque. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan then
linked Hagia Sophia's conversion to a pledge to "liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in
Jerusalem.
On July 21, the tensions arose again following Turkey's announcement that it plans to
conduct seismic research in parts of the Greek continental shelf in an area of sea between
Cyprus and Crete in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.
"Turkey's plan is seen in Athens as a dangerous escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean,
prompting Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to warn that European Union sanctions could follow
if Ankara continues to challenge Greek sovereignty," Kathimerini
reported on July 21.
Here is a short list of other countries where Turkey is also militarily involved:
In Libya , Turkey has been increasingly involved in the country's civil war. Associated
Press reported on July 18:
"Turkey sent between 3,500 and 3,800 paid Syrian fighters to Libya over the first three
months of the year, the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general concluded in a new
report, its first to detail Turkish deployments that helped change the course of Libya's
war.
"The report comes as the conflict in oil-rich Libya has escalated into a regional proxy
war fueled by foreign powers pouring weapons and mercenaries into the country."
Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led to
the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country, the current
population of which is around 6.5 million, has been split
between two rival governments. The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), has been led
by Prime Minister Fayez al Sarraj. Its rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), has been led by
Libyan military officer, Khalifa Haftar.
Backed by Turkey, the GNA
said on July 18 that it would recapture Sirte, a gateway to Libya's main oil terminals, as
well as an LNA airbase at Jufra.
Egypt, which backs the LNA,
announced , however, that if the GNA and Turkish forces tried to seize Sirte, it would send
troops into Libya. On July 20, the Egyptian parliament
gave approval to a possible deployment of troops beyond its borders "to defend Egyptian
national security against criminal armed militias and foreign terrorist elements."
Yemen is another country on which Turkey has apparently set its sights. In a recent video ,
Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries fighting on behalf of the GNA in Libya, and aided by local
Islamist groups, are seen saying, "We are just getting started. The target is going to be
Gaza." They also state that they want to take on Egyptian President Sisi and to go to
Yemen.
"Turkey's growing presence in Yemen," The Arab Weekly reported
on May 9, "especially in the restive southern region, is fuelling concern across the region
over security in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandeb.
"These concerns are further heightened by reports indicating that Turkey's agenda in Yemen
is being financed and supported by Qatar via some Yemeni political and tribal figures
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In Syria , Turkey-backed jihadists continue occupying the northern parts of the country. On
July 21, Erdogan
announced that Turkey's military presence in Syria would continue. "Nowadays they are
holding an election, a so-called election," Erdogan said of a parliamentary election on July 19
in Syria's government-controlled regions, after nearly a decade of civil war. "Until the Syrian
people are free, peaceful and safe, we will remain in this country."
Additionally, Turkey's incursion into the Syrian city of Afrin, created a particularly grim
situation for the local Yazidi population:
"As a result of the Turkish incursion to Afrin," the Yazda organization
reported on May 29, "thousands of Yazidis have fled from 22 villages they inhabited prior
to the conflict into other parts of Syria, or have migrated to Lebanon, Europe, or the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq... "
"Due to their religious identity, Yazidis in Afrin are suffering from targeted harassment
and persecution by Turkish-backed militant groups. Crimes committed against Yazidis include
forced conversion to Islam, rape of women and girls, humiliation and torture, arbitrary
incarceration, and forced displacement. The United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its 2020 annual report confirmed that Yazidis and Christians
face persecution and marginalization in Afrin.
"Additionally, nearly 80 percent of Yazidi religious sites in Syria have been looted,
desecrated, or destroyed, and Yazidi cemeteries have been defiled and bulldozed."
In Iraq , Turkey has been carrying out military operations for years. The last one was
started in mid-June. Turkey's Defense Ministry
announced on June 17 that the country had "launched a military operation against the PKK"
(Kurdistan Workers' Party) in northern Iraq after carrying out a series of airstrikes. Turkey
has named its assaults "Operation Claw-Eagle" and "Operation Claw-Tiger".
The Yazidi, Assyrian
Christian and Kurdish
civilians have been terrorized by the bombings. At least five civilians have been killed in
the air raids, according to
media reports . Human Rights Watch has also issued a
report , noting that a Turkish airstrike in Iraq "disregards civilian loss."
Given Turkey's military aggression in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Armenia, among others, and its
continued occupation of northern Cyprus, further aggression, especially against Greece, would
not be unrealistic. Turkey's desire to invade Greece is not exactly a secret. Since at least
2018, both the Turkish government and opposition parties have openly been calling
for capturing the Greek islands in the Aegean, which they falsely claim belong to
Turkey.
If such an attack took place, would the West abandon Greece?
Gaius Konstantine , 10 hours ago
If such an attack took place, it will get real messy, real fast. The Turkish military is
only partially adept at fighting irregular forces that lack heavy weaponry while Turkey has
absolute control of the sky. Even then, the recent performance of Turkish forces has been
lacklustre for "the 2nd largest Army in NATO".
Turkey should understand that a fight with Greece will mean that the advantages she
enjoyed in her recent adventures will not be there. Nor should Turkey look to the past and
expect an easy victory, the Greek Army will not be marching deep into Anatolia this time,
(which was the wrong type of war for Greece).
So what happens if they actually take it to war?
The larger Greek islands are well defended, they won't be taken, but defending the smaller
ones is hard and Turkey will probably grab some of those. The Greeks, who have absolute
control and dominance in the Aegean will do several things. Turkish naval and air bases along
the Aegean coastline will be attacked as will the bosphorus bridges, (those bridges WILL go
down). The Greek army, which is positioned well, will blitz into eastern Thrace and stop
outside Istanbul where they will dig in and shell the city, thereby causing the civilians to
flee and clogging up the tunnels to restrict military re-enforcement.
That's Greece acting alone, a position will be achieved where any captured islands will be
traded for eastern Thrace. Should the French intervene, (even if it's just air and naval
forces), it gets a lot more interesting.
The mighty Turkish fleet was just met by the entire Greek navy in the latest stand-off, it
was enough to cause Turkey to reconsider her options. There will be no Ottoman empire 2.0
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
The Greeks need their navy for surgically precise attacks against Turkey's navy. Every
island, especially the large ones are unsinkable aircraft carriers. No one has mentioned in
any article that Turkey's navy is functioning with less than minimum required personnel. No
one has mentioned that their air force is flying with Pakistani pilots. The only way Turks
will land on Greek uninhabited islands is only if they are ship wrecked and that for a very
very short period of time. Turkey's population is composed of 25% Kurds... that will also be
very interesting to see once they awaken from their hibernation and realize their great and
holy goal of Kurdistan. Egypt will not waste the opportunity to join in to devastate whatever
Turkish navy remains. Serbian patriots will not allow the opportunity to go to waste and will
attack Kosovo and indirectly Albania composed primarily of Turkish descendants... realize the
coverage lately of how the US did wrong for supporting these degenerate Muslim
Albanians.
I have no doubt Greeks will make it to Aghia Sophia but will not pass Bosporus. The result
will be a Treaty that is a hybrid of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Sevron. If the
Albanians decide to support the Turks by attacking Greeks in the North and in Northern
Epeirus they should expect annexation of Northern Epeirus to Greece. Erdogan bases his
bullying on Trump's incompetences and false friendship. This is why America is non existent
in any of these regions. If Trump wins the election it will be a long war and very
destabilized for the region. If Trump loses the war will be much much quicker. The outcome
will remain the same. The Russians will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Israel will
not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Egypt will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area.
Not even European Union. UK is the questionable.
The West has Turkey's back otherwise the Turkish currency the Turkish Lira would have
collapsed by now under attacks from the City of London Freemasonic Talmudic bankers.
Remember what happened to the Russian Rouble when Russia annexed Crimea?
The Fed and the ECB in cahoots with the usual Talmudic interests, are supporting the
Turkish Lira and propping up the Erdogan regime.
There is NO OTHER explanation.
The Turks have NO foreign currency reserves, no net positive euro nor dollar reserves.
Their tourism industry and main hard currency generator has COLLAPSED (hotels are 95 percent
empty). The Turkish central bank has resorted to STEALING Turkish citizens'
dollar-denominated bank accounts via raising Turkish Banks' foreign currency reserve
requirements which the Turkish central bank SPENDS upon receipt to buy TLs and prop up the
Turkish Lira.
This is utter MADNESS and FRAUD and LARCENY.
London-based currency traders would be all over the Turkish Lira and/or Turkish bonds and
stocks by now UNLESS they had been instructed by the Fed and the ECB or the Talmudic bankers
that own and control both, to lay off the Turkish Lira.
Despite the noise on TV or the press,
BY DEFINITION,
Erdogan and the Turks are only doing the bidding of the TRIBE hence Erdogan has the
blessing and the protection of the people ZH censors the name.
BUT
You know how those parasites treat their host and what the inevitable outcome is,
right?
Indeed,
Erdogan and the Turks are being set up to be thrown under the proverbial bus at the
appropriate time.
The Neo-Ottoman Sultan has inadvertently set up his (ill begotten) country for eventual
destruction and partition. The Kurds will get a piece of it. Who knows, maybe even the
Armenians will be able to recover some bits of their ancient homeland.
Greeks in Constantinople? Nothing is impossible thanks to the hubris and chutzpah of
Erdogan who is purported to have "Amish" blood himself.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
Good for the UK that they have left the EU.
Apart from the Greeks, who would be fighting for their lives and homeland, the only EU
forces capable of acting are the French. German does not have an operative army or navy;
Italy, Spain and Portugal have neglected their armed forces for many years, and the Baltic
and Eastern Nations are unlikely to want to get involved. The Netherlands have very good
forces but not many of them.
MPJones , 7 hours ago
We can live in hope. Erdogan certainly seems to need external enemies to hold the country
together. Let us also hope that Erdogan's adventurism finally wakes up Europe to the reality
of the ongoing Muslim invasion so that the necessary Muslim repatriation can get going
without the bloodshed which Islam's current strategy in Europe will otherwise inevitably lead
to.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
The Turkish army is a conscript army. They will need to be whipped up with religious
fervour to perform. Otherwise they will look after their own skins.
But remember that the Turks put up a good defence in the Dardanelles in the First World
War.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
What do you expect? He killed Russian fighter pilots and he survived, this empowers
terrorists like him. Those pilots were the only ones at that time fighting ISIS. May they
RIP.
Max.Power , 9 hours ago
Turkey is in a "proud" group of failed empires surrounded by nations they severely abused
less than 100 years ago.
Other two are Germany and Japan. Any military aggression from their side will be met with
rage by a coalition of nations.
US position will be irrelevant at this point, because local historical grievances will
overweight anything else.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
"Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led
to the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country..."
Kinda gave yourself away there. The coordinated assault on Libya by the US, Britain,
France, and their Al-CiA-da allies on the ground resulted in the torture, sodomizing, and
murder of Gaddafi, as well as his son and grandchildren killed in bombings by the US.
Also, let's not forget that Turkey is still in NATO, and their actions in Syria were
alongside the US regime and terrorist proxies labeled "moderate rebels". The same terrorists
originally used in Libya, then shipped to destroy Syria, now flown back to Libya. The attempt
to paint all of those things as Turkey's actions alone is not honest.
When Turkey isn't in NATO anymore, let me know.
TheZeitgeist , 10 hours ago
Don't forget that Hiftar guy Turks are fighting in Libya was a CIA toadie living in
Virginia for a decade before they gave him his "chance" to among other things become a client
of the Russians apparently. Flustercluck of the 1st order everywhere one looks.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
Then they put on this whole production where it's the CIA guy or the terrorist puppet
regime they installed, so that the rulers win regardless of the outcome. The victims are
those caught up in their sick game.
GalustGulbenkyan , 9 hours ago
Turkish population has been recently getting ****** due to the economic contractions and
devaluation of the Lira. Once Turkey starts fighting against a real army the Turks will
realize that they are going to be ****** by larger dildos. In 1990's they sent thousands of
volunteers to Nagorno Karabagh to fight against irregular Armenian forces and we know how
that ended for them. Greeks and Egyptians are not the Kurds. Erdogan is a lot of hot air and
empty threats. You can't win wars with Modern drones which even Armenians have learned how to
jam and shoot down with old 1970's soviet tech.
Guentzburgh , 5 hours ago
Greece should be aligned with Russia, EU and USA are a bad choice that Greece will
regret.
Greece needs to pivot towards Russia which will open huge opportunities for both
countries
KoalaWalla , 6 hours ago
Greeks are bitter and prideful - they would not only defend themselves if attacked but
would counter attack to reclaim land they've lost. But, I don't know that Erdogan is clever
enough to realize this.
60s Man , 9 hours ago
Turkey is America's Mini Me.
currency , 3 hours ago
Erdogan is in Trouble at home declining economy and his radical conservative/Thug type
policies. Turks are moving away from him except the hard core radicals and conservatives. He
and his family are Corrupt - they rule with threats and use of THUGS. Sense his constant wars
may be over stretched Time for a Turkish Spring.
Time for US, Nato and etc. to say goodbye to this THUG
OrazioGentile , 7 hours ago
Turkey seems to be on a warpath to imploding from within. Erdogan looks like a desperate
despot with a failing economy, failing political clout, and failing modernization of his
Country. Like any despot, he has to rally the troops or he will literally be a dead man
walking.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
The world fears loud obnoxious tyrants and Erdogan is the loudest tyrant since Hitler.
Remember how countries pandered to Hitler early on? Same thing is happening with Erdogan.
This terrorist will do a lot more damage than he has already before the world wakes
up.
By the time Hitler was done, 70 million people were dead, what will Erdogan cause?
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
Turkey is not Germany. Not by far. Erdogan may be a bigger lunatic than Hitler, but Turkey
is not Germany of the 30's. Without military equipment/parts from Germany, Italy, Spain,
France, USA, and UK he cannot even build a nail. Economies are very integrated; he will be
disposed of very very quickly. He has been warned. He is running out of lives.
NewNeo , 9 hours ago
You should research a lot more. Turkey is a lot more power thank Nazi Germany of the
1930's. Turkey currently have brand new US made equipment. It even houses the nuclear arsenal
of NATO.
You should probably look at information from stratfor and George Friedman to give you a
better understanding.
The failed coupe a few years ago was because the lunatic had gone off the reservation and
was seen as a threat to the region. Obviously the bankers thought it in their benefit to keep
him going and tipped him off.
OliverAnd , 8 hours ago
Clearly the lockdown has hindered your already illiteracy. Turkey has modern US equipment.
Germany did not need US equipment. They made their own equipment; in fact both the US and
USSR used Grrman old tech to develop future tech.
The coup was designed by Erdogan to bring himself to full power. When this is all done he
will be responsible for millions of Turkish lives; after all he is not a Turk but a Muslim
Pontian.
According to the
newspaper, officials from US Department of State, the Treasury Department, as well as the Department of Energy
approached European contractors to make sure they fully understand the consequences of staying in the project. Up to a dozen
officials reportedly held at least two online conferences with representatives of the firms in recent days.
Speaking in a
"friendly"
manner, the US side stressed that it wanted to prevent
completion of Nord Stream 2, observers of the online talks said.
"I believe the threat
is very, very serious,"
one of them revealed to the German outlet.
Those threats are
consistent with comments by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last week, in which he warned that companies involved in the
project had better
"get out now"
or risk facing penalties under Section 232 of the
notorious Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).
Apart from Russia's energy
major Gazprom, which is developing the project, five European companies have joined. Those are France's Engie, Austria's OMV,
the UK-Dutch company Royal Dutch Shell, as well as Wintershall and Germany's Uniper.
Speaking to Welt am
Sonntag, the latter called US attempts to undermine the
"important infrastructure
project"
a clear intervention into European sovereignty.
Earlier this week, the US
House of Representatives approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, meant to expand US sanctions on
companies involved in installing Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. According to one of the sponsors of the bill, the
measures can target companies facilitating or providing vessels, insurance, port facilities, or tethering services for those
vessels, as well as to those providing certification for Nord Stream 2.
Both European businesses
and government officials have repeatedly decried US attempts to meddle in European energy policy by sanctioning Nord Stream 2,
with some even calling on Brussels to work on countermeasures.
Moscow has also lambasted
Washington's move, calling it unfair competition. Earlier this week, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia
will develop a new strategy for completion of the project if Washington proceeds with new punitive measures.
Дания
разрешила
использовать
новые суда для
прокладки
"Северного
потока – 2"
STOCKHOLM, July 6. / TASS /. At the request of Nord Stream 2 AG, the Danish Energy
Agency (DEA) has given permission that vessels with anchor positioning be used on an
unfinished section of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline southeast of Bornholm Island. This was
announced on Monday in a departmental press release.
Ha, ha! I expect the Danes had their wetted finger to the wind, and were reasonably quick
to observe Merkel's kiss-off of the United States when it did the inadvisable, and went ahead
with more sanctions to try to prevent completion of the pipeline. Might be too late to start
construction this summer, though – we're into the cod-spawning season now. Maybe they
could do part of it at the other end, or something.
No, not after the spawning season has stopped -- I think that must have just been a load
of bollocks of an excuse for blocking further work -- but when the time allowed for an appeal
against the Danish govt decision has elapsed:
К достройке
газопровода
приступят
после
истечения
срока
обжалования
обновленного
разрешения
Дании -- 3
августа.
The completion of the gas pipeline will begin after the expiration of the appeal period
for the renewed Denmark permit -- August 3./
"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities
to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or
other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US
sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence
projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".
Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.
CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?
In what way?
Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?
Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?
Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize
that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its
competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away
from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America
wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction
away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an
inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission
– like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the
USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will
take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if
they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.
The Danish Energy Agency (DEA) has announced a deadline after which it will be possible
to begin work on completing the Russian Nord Stream-2 gas export pipeline, RIA Novosti
reported with reference to the regulator's statement.
If you search through the web, you find reports in the Western media about Denmark giving
its approval in 2019. It reneged on that decision. . But nothing on the Danish decision the
other day.
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ..."
"... "the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on" ..."
"... "the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi" ..."
n 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his
first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the
Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords.
The "Clean Break" policy document outlined these goals:
Ending Yasser Arafat's and the
Palestinian Authority's political influence, by blaming them for acts of Palestinian terrorism
Inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Launching war against
Syria after Saddam's regime is disposed of. Followed by military action against Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Egypt.
"Clean Break" was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords, to which Netanyahu was very
much itching to obliterate. The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before, on September
28th 1995, in Taba, Egypt.
During the Oslo Accord peace process, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin's
government of being "removed from Jewish tradition and Jewish values." Rallies organised by the
Likud and other right-wing fundamentalist groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS
uniform or in the crosshairs of a gun.
In July 1995, Netanyahu went so far as to lead a mock funeral procession for Rabin,
featuring a coffin and hangman's noose.
The Oslo Accords was the initiation of a process which was to lead to a peace treaty based
on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and at fulfilling the "right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination." If such a peace treaty were to occur, with the
United States backing, it would have prevented much of the mayhem that has occurred since.
However, the central person to ensuring this process, Yitzak Rabin, was assassinated just a
month and a half after the signing of the Oslo II Accord, on November 4th, 1995. Netanyahu
became prime minister of Israel seven months later. "Clean Break" was produced the following
year.
On November 6th, 2000 in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin,
who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords, warned those Israelis who argued that
it was impossible to make peace with the Palestinians:
Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism, and not in
order to offer them a Jewish Sparta or – God forbid – a new Massada."
On Oct. 5, 2003, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against
Syria, targeting a purported "Palestinian terrorist camp" inside Syrian territory. Washington
stood by and did nothing to prevent further escalation.
"Clean Break" was officially launched in March 2003 with the war against Iraq, under the
pretence of "The War on Terror". The real agenda was a western-backed list of regime changes in
the Middle East to fit the plans of the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Israel.
However, the affair is much more complicated than that with each player holding their own
"idea" of what the "plan" is. Before we can fully appreciate such a scope, we must first
understand what was Sykes-Picot and how did it shape today's world mayhem.
Arabian
Nights
WWI was to officially start July 28th 1914, almost immediately following the Balkan wars
(1912-1913) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire.
Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood, the British were very keen on
acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of
being in war-time, which in the language of geopolitics translates to "the right to plunder
anything one can get their hands on" .
The brilliance of Britain's plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the
Ottoman Empire directly but rather, to invoke an internal rebellion from within. These Arab
territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman
Empire and that Britain would support them in this cause.
These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own
freedom when, in fact, they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial
interests.
In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman
Sultan, there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab, for they certainly would not agree to
rebel at the behest of Britain.
Lord Kitchener, the butcher of Sudan, was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain's
Minister of War. Kitchener's choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty,
Hussein ibn Ali, known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman
Sultan.
Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite
Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead, however, Lord Kitchener overruled this stating that their
intelligence revealed that more Arabs would follow Hussein.
Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized power of the Ottoman government in 1908,
Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to
Britain's invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom.
Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein's sons, Abdallah, as reassurance of Britain's support:
If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey,
England will guarantee that no internal intervention take place in Arabia, and will give
Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression."
Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt, would have several
correspondences with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to
lead the rebellion for the "independence" of the Arab states.
However, in a private letter to India's Viceroy Charles Hardinge sent on December 4th, 1915,
McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be, contrary to
what he had led Sherif Hussein to believe:
[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State too seriously
the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to
such a thing."
Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain's heavy-handed "advising" in all
its affairs, whether it sought it or not.
In the meantime, Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office
to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) would be given
independence guaranteed by Britain, if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire.
The French were understandably suspicious of Britain's plans for these Arab territories. The
French viewed Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as intrinsically belonging to France, based on
French conquests during the Crusades and their "protection" of the Catholic populations in the
region.
Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely
rejected French presence in Arabia. Britain was also not content to give the French all the
concessions they demanded as their "intrinsic" colonial rights.
Enter Sykes and Picot.
... ... ...
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in
Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until
diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire.
In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that
Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it
necessary to partition the land.
The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel's "prescription" and the revolt broke out again. This
time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the
British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved
the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.
In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which
stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.
Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was
organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and
adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947.
Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after
the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.
A New Strategy for
Securing Whose Realm?
Despite what its title would have you believe, "Clean Break" is neither a "new strategy" nor
meant for "securing" anything. It is also not the brainchild of fanatical neo-conservatives:
Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, nor even that of crazed end-of-days fundamentalist Benjamin
Netanyahu, but rather has the very distinct and lingering odour of the British Empire.
"Clean Break" is a continuation of Britain's geopolitical game, and just as it used France
during the Sykes-Picot days it is using the United States and Israel.
The role Israel has found itself playing in the Middle East could not exist if it were not
for over 30 years of direct British occupation in Palestine and its direct responsibility for
the construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which set a course for destruction and
endless war in this region long before Israel ever existed.
It was also Britain who officially launched operation "Clean Break" by directly and
fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the
Chilcot Inquiry, aka Iraq Inquiry , released 7 years later, attests to.
This was done by the dubious
reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S.' ultimate invasion into
Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ, unleashing the "War on
Terror", aka "Clean Break" outline for regime change in the Middle East.
In addition, the Libyan invasion in 2011 was also found to be unlawfully instigated by
Britain.
In a report
published by the British Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2016, it was concluded that
it was "the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an
intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi" .
The report concluded that the Libyan intervention was based on false pretence provided by
British Intelligence and recklessly promoted by the British government.
If this were not enough, British Intelligence has also been caught behind the orchestrations
of
Russia-Gate and the Skripal affair .
Therefore, though the U.S. and Israeli military have done a good job at stealing the show,
and though they certainly believe themselves to be the head of the show, the reality is that
this age of empire is distinctly British and anyone who plays into this game will ultimately be
playing for said interests, whether they are aware of it or not.
Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism
Ever heard of Dumbo? He's a flying elephant.
The crusade in the ME will continue, with Israel the top dog until America's military
support is no longer there. Even without the Israeli eastern european invaders, the area is
primed for perpetual tribal warfare because the masses are driven by tribalist doctrines and
warped metaphysics dictated by insane and inhumane parasites (priests). It is the epicenter
of a spiritual plague that has infected most of the planet.
paul ,
There is complete continuity between the activities of Zionist controlled western countries
and those of the present day.
In the 1930s, there were about 300,000 adult Palestinian males. Over 10% were killed,
imprisoned and tortured or driven into exile. 100,000 British troops were sent to Palestine
to destroy completely Palestinian political and military organisations. Wingate set up the
Jew terror gangs who were given free rein to murder, rape and burn, in preparation for the
complete ethnic cleansing of the country.
We see the same ruthless, genocidal brutality on an even greater scale in the present day,
serving exactly the same interests. Nothing has ever come of trying to negotiate with the
Zionists and their western stooges – just further disasters. It is only resolute and
uncompromising resistance that has ever achieved anything. Hezbollah kicking their Zionist
arses out of Lebanon in 2000 and keeping them out in 2006. Had they not done so, Lebanon
would still be under Zionist occupation and covered with their filthy illegal
settlements.
They have never stopped and they never will. The objective is to create a vast Zionist
empire comprising the whole of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and parts of Egypt,
Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. This plan has never changed and it never will. The Zionist
thieves will shortly steal what little is left of Palestine. But the thieving will not end
there. It will just move on to neighbouring countries.
The prime reason they have been able to get away with this is not their control of British
and US golems. It is by playing the old, dirty colonial games of divide and rule, with the
Quisling stooge dictators serving their interests. They have always been able to set Sunni
against Shia, and different factions against others. The dumb Arabs fall for it every time.
Their latest intrigues are directed at the destruction of Iran, the next victim on their
target list after Iraq, Libya and Syria. And the Quisling dictators of Saudi Arabia are
openly agitating for this and offering to pay for all of it. Syria sent troops to join the US
invasion of Iraq in 1991, though Iraqi troops fought and died in Syria in 1973 against
Israel. Egypt allows Israel to use its airspace to carry out the genocidal terror bombing of
Gaza.
All this is contemptible enough and fits into racist stereotypes of Arabs as stupid,
irrational, corrupt, easily bought, violent and treacherous. This of course does not apply to
the populations of those countries, but it is a legitimate assessment of their Quisling
dictators, with a (very) few honourable exceptions.
Seamus Padraig ,
Of course, Arab rulers who don't tow the Zionist line generally get overthrown,
don't they? And that usually requires the efforts/intervention of FUKUS, doesn't it? So you
can't really pretend that 'Arab stupidity' is the main factor.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The fact that, as the Yesha Council of Rabbis and Torah Sages declared in 2006, as Israel was
bombing Lebanon 'back to the Stone Age', under Talmudic Judaism, killing civilians is not
just permissible, but a mitzvah, or good deed, explains Zionist behaviour. Other doctrines
allow an entire 'city' eg Gaza, to be devastated for the 'crimes' of a few, and children,
even babies, to be killed if they would grow up to 'oppose the Jews'. Dare mention these
FACTS, seen everyday in Israeli barbarity, and the 'antisemitism' slurs flow, as ever.
Julia ,
" is that this age of empire is distinctly British"
.it takes some balls to make such an absurd statement and still expect to be taken
seriously. The US of course with its 800 military bases around the world and gifts of 40
billion a year to Israel has no opinion on the future of the Middle East. You would have us
believe that they are just humble onlookers, as a small bankrupt country tells them what to
do. We are being told that the CIA, the most formidable spy agency and manipulator of
countries in history, sits quietly by as the British and Israel tells the US what to do.
Absurd isn't it., Clearly the truth is that Israel is just another military base for the US
in the Middle East, easily the most important geopolitical region in the world. They fund it,
arm it, and protect it from all attacks, Israel does as it is told by the US for the most
part despite the pantomime on the surface.
Many on the far right like to hide US interests behind a wall of antisemitism that likes to
paint 'the jews' as an all powerful enemy but this is just cover for Israel's real
geopolitical roll as a US puppet.
Time and time again all we are seeing is attempt to write the US, the largest empire in the
history out of the news and out of the history books, like it is some invisible benign force
that has not interests, no control and does noting to forward it's interests and it's
empire.
''To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticise."
I don't know about you, but I'm not 10 years old and I know I am looking at Empire and
it's power being flexed every day in every part do the world, especial in the parts of the
world that it funds with trillions of dollars.
Julia ,
" is that this age of empire is distinctly British"
.it takes some balls to make such an absurd statement and still expect to be taken
seriously. The US of course with its 800 military bases around the world and gifts of 40
billion a year to Israel has no opinion on the future of the Middle East. You would have us
believe that they are just humble onlookers, as a small bankrupt country tells them what to
do. We are being told that the CIA, the most formidable spy agency and manipulator of
countries in history, sits quietly by as the British and Israel tells the US what to do.
Absurd isn't it., Clearly the truth is that Israel is just another military base for the US
in the Middle East, easily the most important geopolitical region in the world. They fund it,
arm it, and protect it from all attacks, Israel does as it is told by the US for the most
part despite the pantomime on the surface.
Many on the far right like to hide US interests behind a wall of antisemitism that likes to
paint 'the jews' as an all powerful enemy but this is just cover for Israel's real
geopolitical roll as a US puppet.
Time and time again all we are seeing is attempt to write the US, the largest empire in the
history out of the news and out of the history books, like it is some invisible benign force
that has not interests, no control and does noting to forward it's interests and it's
empire.
''To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticise."
I don't know about you, but I'm not 10 years old and I know I am looking at Empire and
it's power being flexed every day in every part do the world, especial in the parts of the
world that it funds with trillions of dollars.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The antithesis of the truth. It is US politicians who flock to AIPAC's meeting every year to
pledge UNDYING fealty to Israel, not Israeli politicians pledging loyalty to the USA. It is
Israeli and dual loyalty Jewish oligarchs funding BOTH US parties, it is US politicians
throwing themselves to the ground in adulation when Bibi the war criminal addresses the
Congress with undisguised contempt, not Israeli politicians groveling to the USA. The
master-servant relationship is undisguised.
Pyewacket ,
In Daniel Yergin's The Prize, a history of the Oil industry, he provides another interesting
angle to explain British interest in the region. He states that at that time, Churchill
realised that a fighting Navy powered by Coal, was not nearly as good or efficient as one
using Oil as a fuel, and that securing supplies of the stuff was the best way forward to
protect the Empire.
BigB ,
Yergin would be right. The precursor of the First World War was a technological arms race and
accelerated 'scientific' perfection of arsenals – particularly naval – in the
service of imperialism. British and German imperialism. The full story involves the Berlin to
Cairo railway and the resource grab that went with it. I'm a bit sketchy on the details now:
but Churchill had a prominent role, rising to First Lord of the Admiralty.
Docherty and Macgregor have exposed the hidden history. F W Engdahl has written about WW1
being the first oil war.
In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu
No source link for this!
By the way 1996 was during the Clinton administration. Warren Christopher was secretary of
state and John Deutch was the Director of Central Intelligence . George Tenet was appointed
the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in July 1995. After John Deutch's abrupt
resignation in December 1996, Tenet served as acting director.
Antsie, what are you going to deny next? The USS Liberty? Deir Yassin? The Lavon Affair?
Sabra, Shatilla? Qana (twice)? The Five Celebrating Israelis on 9/11?Does not impress.
"..all of these tin pot dictatorship oil rich countries are really a sick bunch.... i guess it is the byproduct off having too
much money and not enough brains..
@james@ 3
karlofi beat me to it james - or were you referring to Alberta?
"At present, a total of 117 very large crude carriers (VLCCs) -- each capable of shipping
2 million barrels of oil -- are traveling to China for unloading at its ports between the
middle of May and the middle of August. If those supertankers transport standard-size crude
oil cargoes, it could mean that China expects at least 230 million barrels of oil over the
next three months, according to Bloomberg. The fleet en route to China could be the largest
number of supertankers traveling to the world's top oil importer at one time, ever, Bloomberg
News' Firat Kayakiran says.
Many of the crude oil cargoes are likely to have been bought in April, when prices were
lower than the current price and when WTI Crude futures even dipped into negative territory
for a day.
China was also estimated to have doubled the fill rate at its strategic and commercial
inventories in Q1 2020, taking advantage of the low oil prices and somewhat supporting the
oil market amid crashing demand by diverting more imports to storage, rather than outright
slashing crude imports.
China's crude oil imports jumped in April to about 9.84 million barrels per day as
demand for fuels began to rebound and local refiners started to ramp up crude processing,
according to Chinese customs data cited by Reuters."
Well, now we know who was taking advantage of those pindo negative oil price sales ;-D
The Chinese are at the advantage here, not being neocon/likud bottom rungers. The
desperation of zionazia is expressed in choosing the neocon lowlife to run things in the
western colonies. Yes, their extremism provides the initiative in getting extreme capitalist
policies through and continues the push to the extreme far right in the zionazi-gay colonies.
But it is at the cost of intelligent long term strategy. Short term imaginary gain at the
cost of real gain. The fast food, face feeding, bum bandit approach. The quick fixers.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, built to increase the flow of Russian gas into Europe's biggest
economy, was thwarted five months ago after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed sanctions
that forced workers to retreat. Now, after a three-month voyage circumnavigating the globe,
the Akademik Cherskiy, the Russian pipe-laying vessel that's a prime candidate to finish the
project, has anchored off the German port where the remaining pipeline sections are waiting
to be installed...
Satellite images captured by Planet Labs inc. on May 10 show that sections of pipeline have
been moved to a jetty equipped with a crane for loading. Ship-tracking data shows that a
dredging vessel operated by a Nord Stream 2 contractor, as well as a Russian
pipe-laying-crane ship are also in the vicinity and that the Akademik Cherskiy had moved as
of Wednesday next to the jetty loaded with pipes.
In order to complete the final 100-mile stretch of Nord Stream 2, Russia effectively needs
to use its own vessels due to U.S. sanctions.
The U.S. still thinks that it can
stop Gazprom from finishing the pipeline, but that's insane.
Tens of billions of dollars, along with Putin's reputation as a savvy geopolitical chess
master, have been invested in the pipeline project. However, Moscow is now running out of
viable options. The only move left is to proceed in defiance of sanctions that will adversely
affect many in the higher echelons of the Russian establishment.
This is checkmate.
Yes, this is checkmate...for Putin.
After investing billions of dollars, Gazprom would go bust if they don't finish this pipeline.
So do you really think that more U.S. sanctions will give them even a moment's pause?
Sanctions are pointless now.
The question here is, why was this pipeline such a big deal?
To give you an idea, consider the recently completed
Turkstream pipeline .
The Turkstream pipeline network isn't even fully integrated yet, and it's already having an
impact.
Who it's impacting is the key.
Although Ukraine has not been importing any Russian gas for its domestic needs since November
2015, it has signed a five-year transit contract with Gazprom for a minimum 65bcm in 2020 and
40bcm/year from 2021.
However, transit volumes have fallen 47% year on year in the first four months of 2020,
amounting to 15.5bcm. The steep drop has been linked to European oversupply and low demand,
but also to the lack of transit to the Balkan region after Russian exports to Turkey,
Bulgaria and Greece were diverted to the new TurkStream pipeline from January 2020.
"Our transmission system can transit 110bcm of gas [annually] but this year we expect only
50-55bcm of transit," Makogon added, pointing out that volumes would drop even lower if
Russia commissions Nord Stream 2 , a 55bcm/year subsea pipeline designed to link Russia
directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea.
Ukraine stands to lose $3 Billion a year in transit fees from Russia once Nord Stream 2 is
completed this year. This will devastate Ukraine's budget and economy.
Before you feel any sympathy for Ukraine, consider the
situation that Ukraine put Russia in.
Ukraine's NATO membership ambitions were written into the Ukrainian Constitution in February
2019 via an amendment that also confirmed the goal of eventually joining the European Union.
NATO integration has remained official Ukrainian policy following the April 2019 election
of President Zelenskyy. In early 2020, the country was said to be on track to secure NATO
Enhanced Opportunity Partner status later in the year if the pace of reforms was
maintained.
NATO's mission continues to be "destroy Russia". So you can see why Russia would feel the
need to, at the very least, not help fund an enemy nation.
Plus the potential
consequences of Ukraine entering NATO are terrible.
There are ongoing concerns that membership would allow Ukraine to immediately invoke Article
5 of the NATO treaty, the stipulation that an armed attack against one member state is an
attack against them all.
Fortunately, the new Ukraine government of President Zelensky doesn't appear nearly so eager
for a military confrontation with Russia. Plus public support for joining NATO is dropping.
If I was to make a prediction, I would say that NATO was about to experience a political
setback.
Handelsblatt newspaper reported, citing the draft decision of the Federal Network Agency of
Germany (BNA), that the BNA intends to reject an application filed by Nord Stream 2 for an
exemption of the pipeline project from the requirements of the updated EU gas directive.
The reason for the rejection of the Nord Stream 2 application was the fact that in order to
exempt the gas pipeline from the updated directive, the pipeline must have been completed
before May 2019. Nord Stream 2 insisted that it was necessary to not proceed from the
"construction" point of this requirement, but to take into account the fact that "billions of
investments had already been made in accordance with the previous legal regime by the time the
new directives of the domestic gas market came into force".
The spokesman for Nord Stream 2, Jens Mueller, said in January that the project meets all
the requirements for its exemption from the rules of the updated EU gas directive in Germany
and
that this also applies to the completion date of the project.
WASHINGTON/LONDON/DUBAI - As the United States pressed Saudi Arabia to end its oil price war
with Russia, President Donald Trump gave Saudi leaders an ultimatum.
In an April 2 phone call, Trump told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that unless the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) started cutting oil production, he
would be powerless to stop lawmakers from passing legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from the
kingdom, four sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The threat to upend a 75-year strategic alliance, which has not been previously reported,
was central to the U.S. pressure campaign that led to a landmark global deal to slash oil
supply as demand collapsed in the coronavirus pandemic - scoring a diplomatic victory for the
White House.
Trump delivered the message to the crown prince 10 days before the announcement of
production cuts. The kingdom's de facto leader was so taken aback by the threat that he ordered
his aides out of the room so he could continue the discussion in private, according to a U.S.
source who was briefed on the discussion by senior administration officials.
The effort illustrated Trump's strong desire to protect the U.S. oil industry from a
historic price meltdown as governments shut down economies worldwide to fight the virus. It
also reflected a telling reversal of Trump's longstanding criticism of the oil cartel, which he
has blasted for raising energy costs for Americans with supply cuts that usually lead to higher
gasoline prices. Now, Trump was asking OPEC to slash output.
A senior U.S. official told Reuters that the administration notified Saudi leaders that,
without production cuts, "there would be no way to stop the U.S. Congress from imposing
restrictions that could lead to a withdrawal of U.S. forces." The official summed up the
argument, made through various diplomatic channels, as telling Saudi leaders: "We are defending
your industry while you're destroying ours."
Reuters asked Trump about the talks in an interview Wednesday evening at the White House, at
which the president addressed a range of topics involving the pandemic. Asked if he told the
crown prince that the U.S. might pull forces out of Saudi Arabia, Trump said, "I didn't have to
tell him."
"I thought he and President Putin, Vladimir Putin, were very reasonable," Trump said. "They
knew they had a problem, and then this happened."
Asked what he told the Crown Prince Mohammed, Trump said: "They were having a hard time
making a deal. And I met telephonically with him, and we were able to reach a deal" for
production cuts, Trump said.
After riffing on the theme of MBS's doomed attempt to play with the big boys over oil, Andrei
Martyanov goes on to suggest a possible way for superpowers to cooperate:
Gazprom ramps up its export capacity to China via the Power of Siberia line, plans to add a
second compressor station this year. Drill rigs at the Kovykta Field are expected to go from
7 this year to 18 next year, and the extraction flows added to the Power of Siberia capacity.
The servants of Washington in the EU will try to extract every last concession they can
before the pipeline is completed, but they absolutely want it and will back down if they
think Russia would actually give up on completing it. Their strategy all along was to let
Russia build it, but ensure its operation fell under the control of EU regulators so that
they could get plenty of gas when they needed it, but use it as a negotiating tool when they
had lots in reserve, start complaining about the price and try to get more pipeline volume
for competitors, variations on the ideal where the Russians would absorb all the costs of
building it, but would yield all advantages of the completed pipeline to the EU. Right up
until the moment the first volumes go through the pipeline, the EU is going to act as a
spoiler on a project they absolutely want to be completed.
If Russia said, all right then, fuck you; Get your gas from the Americans, if that's what
you want, two things would happen – one, The Donald would come in his pants, and two,
Brussels would go wait wait wait wait hold on. No need to be hasty.
But they think they are in a super-strong position now, because their American pals
stopped it when it was just a whisker away from completion, and gave them breathing space to
renegotiate a deal that was already set, and make up a bunch of new rules using that was
then, this is now for a rationale. I hope Russia does the same to them once it's complete,
and says yeah, you THOUGHT that was the price, but that was then, and charges them just
enough under the American price that dropping them in favour of the Americans is not
feasible, but still much more than they thought they would pay.
That's funny; I just checked her position last night, and it said she was bound for Nakhodka,
due early in July.
Yeah; making 10 knots for Nakhodka, due there July 1st. That's where she left from
originally, but so far as I could make out there is nothing in Nakhodka which might lead to
the belief she will be there undergoing updates and tweaks for her employment finishing Nord
Stream II.
It'd be nice to think Russia is going to complete Nord Stream II right away just to spite
Washington and its endless meddling, but as we have discussed before, there really is no
hurry. Russia is locked into a new medium-term transit contract with Ukraine, the Russian
state has reduced income available due to the oil-price mess and low demand owing to the
'pandemic', and would be forging ahead with work that would cost it just as much money to do
now as it would later, when it likely will have more cash available. I've read the AKADEMIK
CHERKSIY needs a short refit and a little updating to ready her for Nord Stream work, since
being principal pipelayer for that line possibly requires some different equipment or at
least some adjustments. It likely would require crewing by some more specialists, as well,
and there's no reason to believe they have been aboard all this time. I suppose they could
meet the ship in Nakhodka, but there is nothing at this point to suggest that.
The only thing that argues for Russia pressing ahead now is the weather, which should be
entering the season when it would be best for that kind of work. Otherwise, nothing suggests
Russia is in a tearing rush to get on with it. Certainly the partners have not been told
anything, and they don't appear to be unduly alarmed at the lack of immediate progress.
Can't completely agree with Tyler Durden here on his
wide-ranging postulation, "Putin Launches 'War On US Shale' After Dumping MbS & Breaking
Up OPEC+" mainly because it consists of too much speculation and not enough on facts and
statements of those involved in the decisions. The
Bloomberg story on which this is mostly based is almost 100% speculation. IMO,
this is yet another attempt to bash Russia for the massive mistakes made by the Outlaw US
Empire--for years, fracking's been known as a Ponzi Scheme to those closely watching, and it
was already set to implode.
This Sputnik article calls the Bloomberg item Bantha Pudu and offers a
completely different explanation that looks at Saudi behavior which all the Western BigLie
Media outlets omitted from their coverage.
Additional opinions and analyses were provided in
this Sputnik article that tend to back the analysis from the previous article. But
with the internal turmoil within Saudi over what's clearly an ongoing power struggle surly
contributed to Saudi's choices. As with almost all reports coming from the West about
anything Russian or Chinese, they must be treated with much skepticism. This makes at least
the third time lowering the price of oil through increased production aimed to harm Russia
and is likely the genuine reason at work again.
As for the Outlaw US Empire's fracking corps, we shall see if today's rebound is merely a
dead cat bounce, as it's now close to impossible to further hide their Enron Accounting as
their bonds descend to Junk status.
Alexander Mercouris at the Duran also recently posted his take, saying he felt the oil
market meltdown was almost entirely the doing of MbS. Essentially he posits that MbS was
getting more and more panicky, and Russia was in effect so preoccupied with the antics of
Erdogan that they weren't paying MbS the attention he thought he deserved...and it isn't
impossible that there was indeed a CIA plot to take him out. At any rate, Mercouris believes
he was basically just firing one across the bow of Russia to get their attention, but of
course by taking a demanding tone with Putin he almost guaranteed that he would receive the
lesson in manners for which the Russians are becoming more and more well known. Mercouris
feels after letting him sweat it a bit to learn his lesson, they will work out something with
the Saudis, but their return demands may be stiff.
While I do tend to agree this was probably all precipitated by MbS and his mental
instability, I can easily see the Russians long-range planning having long known that this
day--for one reason or another-- would eventually come, and deciding to bask in the glow for
just a bit more than Mercouris anticipates. After all, US fracked gas prices will now be
massively greater than Russia can provide its gas for, which with Merkle on the ropes anyway
Putin might feel is a very good time to send the Germans a reminder of what they risk if they
don't consummate the Nordstream 2 project. And after the years of illegal sanctions, it must
feel very good to be in Russia's position, where they know they can weather the storm far
better than their antagonists. So while I don't think this was Russia's doing, I can easily
see them taking their sweet time to come to a new deal, and even then at a price level that
will keep the Saudis and US frackers on their back foot...and maybe try to put more distance
between MbS and the US, too.
Regarding Putin and MBS on the oil. Who funds and supports HTS al qaeda in Idlib. I am
guessing the Saudi's have a big input there. Reports some time back that the drones AQ was
using to attack the Russian airbase used high tech US components.
I recall ex UK ambassador Peter Ford saying somewhere last year that the Saudis were outspent
by an order of magnitude by Qatar in Syria. That Qatar is funding like 80% of it all. Things
may have shifted a bit since.
Regarding KSA and their oil gamble - if I were Houthi strategist, I would wait for a while
for KSA to get knee deep into this experiment, then launch missile attack on their biggest
refineries and pipes. With one salvo whole KSA statehood could be shattered. Sweet sweet
revenge and guarantee not to get oppressed by KSA genocidal maniacs in future.
and regarding how much oil is left in Saudi even here they are calling them liers..
"the Kingdom will desperately need another primary energy source in the relatively near
future because it has nowhere near the amount of oil remaining that it has stated since the
early 1970s"
and regarding how much oil is left in Saudi even here they are calling them liers..
"the Kingdom will desperately need another primary energy source in the relatively near
future because it has nowhere near the amount of oil remaining that it has stated since the
early 1970s"
It could crash Mr Market oil stocks and wipe out fracking and such, creating possible
liquidity issues and bankruptcies which could spread. But honestly I'm not up on the details
if this could even cause any domino affects with bankruptcies, or not.
But to the Fed, Mr Market is the whole economy and nothing but the economy, Fed job #1
being to make stocks always go up.
Saudi Arabia is far more dependent on oil and tourism (also being hit) than Russia. Hence
Russia's reserves I think would last far longer that SA's can.
Saudi Arabia is already in the hurt locker and has run down their financial reserves under
Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud. In addition, their little expedition to Yemen is costing them
billions of dollars per month which is not helping. With international tourism
fading away, the threat of some two million pilgrims not being able to travel to Mecca and
spending their money there as well as plummeting oil prices, 2020 is not going to be a good
year for Saudi Arabia. Just to make things worse, they have their own problems with
Coronavirus which may knock out important links in the Royal family.
Indeed. A pattern with Salman seems to be emerging, of him rashly starting wars or
policies he can't win/finish. Makes you wonder if others in the royal family are seeing this
and noticing SA is burning thru it's reserves and the solution might be a change in
leadership?
I was just reading an article saying how Saudi Arabia need $60 a barrel for their budget
but that now it is heading towards $20 a barrel. If they wanted to achieve a massive
cost-saving, they could give their Royal Family the chop – perhaps literally so. Last I
heard there were over 6,000 of them-
SA would have more problems with reserves than Russia, that's definite – if nothing
else, Russia exports/has other things than oil, SA doesn't.
Oil stock crash would not cause Western recession. It could well cause recession in Texas
and similar, but I very much doubt it would cause even US recession, as the problems in Texas
& co would be offset by the much lower prices at the pump.
Oil debt crash would be much worse, but still I suspect brunt of it would be borne by
investors, not banks.
Thanks for this excellent analysis! When oil consumption permanently plateaus, as it's
about to, the stock and debt value of the industry . . . flatlines.
That's the good news from Grow or Die.
Russia's 2020 federal budget assumes a price of $42.4 per barrel of Urals crude oil blend
(the prices of other oil & gas exports, such as other crude oil blends, natural gas, LNG
and petroleum products, are converted into Urals blend prices using statistical formulas). If
the market price turns out to be higher, the surplus goes into the National Wealth Fund ($124
bn as of December 1, 2019; currency composition is 45% U.S. dollars, 45% euros, 10% pound
sterling); conversely, if the price is lower, the deficit is financed from the NWF. This is
known in Russia as "the budget rule" (
бюджетное
правило ).
You can see the prices of various crude oil blends at the OilPrice.com 's Oil Price Charts page, but
note that the Urals blend prices shown are lagging by three days as of the time of this
comment. Generally, Urals blend price is somewhere between WTI and Brent blend prices, so it
should be around $32/bbl at the moment. Meaning, Russia will now have to start taking money
from the NWF.
If the low prices persist for a long period of time, Russia can balance the budget by
devaluing the ruble, as its foreign debt is one of the lowest in the world -- no budget cuts
are necessary. Russia's
foreign exchange reserves currently stand at $570 bn (77.1% foreign currencies, 1.2% SDR,
0.7% reserve position in the IMF, 21.0% gold).
Russia's geographical position makes its exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) more
profitable and competitive with American and Australian supplies, according to Russia's Energy
Minister Alexander Novak. Russia ships most of its LNG (around 69 percent) to Asian markets,
where the bulk of global LNG supplies are sent. The country could also export its LNG via
traditional Russian pipeline gas European routes, due to low cost and short transportation
distance, the minister wrote, in an article for the Energy Policy journal.
"Russia's convenient geographical position between Europe and Asia allows our LNG to be
profitable at current prices and to win competition from the US and Australia," Novak said.
"If necessary, we can deliver liquefied gas to any European country, and it will be faster
and cheaper than many other suppliers."
The Northern Sea Route (NSR) could be a key transport link to connect massive Arctic energy
projects Russia is currently developing with target markets. The route, which lies in Arctic
waters and within Russia's Exclusive Economic Zone, could cut the transportation time by a
third, compared to shipments via the Suez Canal.
Russia is one of the world's leading exporters of natural gas. Last year, it produced more
than 40 billion cubic meters of LNG – a nearly 50 percent increase from 27 billion cubic
meters it had in 2018. By 2035, Novak expects the country to boost production to 120 million
tons, amounting to around a fifth of the forecasted global LNG production.
Many of these crimes grew out of shortcomings in the military's management of the deployments that
experts say are still present: a heavy dependence on cash transactions, a hasty award process for high-value
contracts, loose and harried oversight within the ranks, and a regional culture of corruption that
proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there.
Notable quotes:
"... "this thing going on" ..."
"... a regional culture of corruption that proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there. ..."
The Fraud of War: U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have stolen tens of millions through
bribery, theft, and rigged contracts.
U.S. Army Specialist Stephanie Charboneau sat at the center of a complex trucking network in Forward
Operating Base Fenty near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that distributed daily tens of thousands
of gallons of what troops called "liquid gold": the refined petroleum that fueled the international
coalition's vehicles, planes, and generators.
A prominent sign in the base read: "The Army Won't Go If The Fuel Don't Flow." But Charboneau,
31, a mother of two from Washington state, felt alienated after a supervisor's harsh rebuke. Her
work was a dreary routine of recording fuel deliveries in a computer and escorting trucks past a
gate. But it was soon to take a dark turn into high-value crime.
Troops were selling the U.S. military's fuel to Afghan locals on the side, and pocketing the proceeds.
She began an affair with a civilian, Jonathan Hightower, who worked for a Pentagon contractor that
distributed fuel from Fenty, and one day in March 2010 he told her about "this thing going on"
at other U.S. military bases around Afghanistan, she recalled in a recent telephone interview.
Troops were selling the U.S. military's fuel to Afghan locals on the side, and pocketing the proceeds.
When Hightower suggested they start doing the same, Charboneau said, she agreed.
In so doing, Charboneau contributed to thefts by U.S. military personnel of at least $15 million
worth of fuel since the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. And eventually she became one of at
least 115 enlisted personnel and military officers convicted since 2005 of committing theft, bribery,
and contract-rigging crimes valued at $52 million during their deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq,
according to a comprehensive tally of court records by
the Center for Public Integrity.
Many of these crimes grew out of shortcomings in the military's management of the deployments that
experts say are still present: a heavy dependence on cash transactions, a hasty award process for
high-value contracts, loose and harried oversight within the ranks, and a regional culture of
corruption that proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there.
Charboneau, whose Facebook posts reveal a bright-eyed woman with a shoulder tattoo and a huge grin,
snuggling with pets and celebrating the 2015 New Year with her children in Seattle Seahawks jerseys,
now sits in Carswell federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, serving a seven-year sentence for her crime.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
"... The Iraq war was about oil. Recently declassified US government documents confirm this ( 1 ), however much US president George W Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, denied it at the time. ..."
The Iraq war was about oil. Recently declassified US government documents confirm this (
1 ), however much US
president George W Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
their ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, denied it at the time.
When Bush moved into the White House in January 2001, he faced the familiar problem of the
imbalance between oil supply and demand. Supply was unable to keep up with demand, which was
increasing rapidly because of the growth of emerging economies such as China and India. The
only possible solution lay in the Gulf, where the giant oil-producing countries of Saudi
Arabia, Iran and Iraq, and the lesser producing states of Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, commanded 60%
of the world's reserves.
For financial or political reasons, production growth was slow. In Saudi Arabia, the
ultra-rich ruling families of the Al-Saud, the Al-Sabah and the Zayed Al-Nayan were content
with a comfortable level of income, given their small populations, and preferred to leave their
oil underground. Iran and Iraq hold around 25% of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and could
have filled the gap, but were subject to sanctions -- imposed solely by the US on Iran,
internationally on Iraq -- that deprived them of essential oil equipment and services.
Washington saw them as rogue states and was unwilling to end the sanctions.
How could the US get more oil from the Gulf without endangering its supremacy in the region?
Influential US neoconservatives, led by Paul Wolfowitz, who had gone over to uninhibited
imperialism after the fall of the Soviet Union, thought they had found a solution. They had
never understood George Bush senior's decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the first
Gulf war in 1991. An open letter to President Bill Clinton, inspired by the Statement of
Principles of the Project for the New American Century, a non-profit organisation founded by
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had called for a regime change in Iraq as early as 1998:
Saddam must be ousted and big US oil companies must gain access to Iraq. Several signatories to
the Statement of Principles became members of the new Republican administration in 2001.
In 2002, one of them, Douglas Feith, a lawyer who was undersecretary of defense to Rumsfeld,
supervised the work of experts planning the future of Iraq's oil industry. His first decision
was to entrust its management after the expected US victory to Kellog, Brown & Root, a
subsidiary of US oil giant Halliburton, of which Cheney had been chairman and CEO. Feith's
plan, formulated at the start of 2003, was to keep Iraq's oil production at its current level
of 2,840 mbpd (million barrels per day), to avoid a collapse that would cause chaos in the
world market.
Privatising oil
Experts were divided on the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry. The Iraqi government
had excluded foreign companies and successfully managed the sector itself since 1972. By 2003,
despite wars with Iran (1980-88) and in Kuwait (1990-91) and more than 15 years of sanctions,
Iraq had managed to equal the record production levels achieved in 1979-1980.
The experts had a choice -- bring back the concession regime that had operated before
nationalisation in 1972, or sell shares in the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) on the Russian
model, issuing transferrable vouchers to the Iraqi population. In Russia, this approach had
very quickly led to the oil sector falling into the hands of a few super-rich oligarchs.
Bush approved the plan drawn up by the Pentagon and State Department in January 2003. The
much-decorated retired lieutenant general Jay Gardner, was appointed director of the Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the military administration set up to govern
post-Saddam Iraq. Out of his depth, he stuck to short-term measures and avoided choosing
between the options put forward by his technical advisers.
Reassuring the oil giants
The international oil companies were not idle. Lee Raymond, CEO of America's biggest oil
company ExxonMobil, was an old friend of Dick Cheney. But where the politicians were daring, he
was cautious. The project was a tempting opportunity to replenish the company's reserves, which
had been stagnant for several years, but Raymond had doubts: would Bush really be able to
assure conditions that would allow the company to operate safely in Iraq? Nobody at ExxonMobil
was willing to die for oil. (Its well-paid engineers do not dream of life in a blockhouse in
Iraq.) The company would also have to be sure of its legal position: what would contracts
signed by a de facto authority be worth when it would be investing billions of dollars that
would take years to recover?
In the UK, BP was anxious to secure its own share of the spoils. As early as 2002 the
company had confided in the UK Department of Trade and Industry its fears that the US might
give away too much to French, Russian and Chinese oil companies in return for their governments
agreeing not to use their veto at the UN Security Council ( 2 ). In February 2003 those fears were removed:
France's president Jacques Chirac vetoed a resolution put forward by the US, and the third Iraq
war began without UN backing. There was no longer any question of respecting the agreements
Saddam had signed with Total and other companies (which had never been put into practice
because of sanctions).
To reassure the British and US oil giants, the US government appointed to the management
team Gary Vogler of ExxonMobil and Philip J Carrol of Shell. They were replaced in October 2003
by Rob McKee of ConocoPhilips and Terry Adams of BP. The idea was to counter the dominance of
the Pentagon, and the influential neocon approach (which faced opposition from within the
administration). The neocon ideologues, still on the scene, had bizarre ideas: they wanted to
build a pipeline to transport Iraq's crude oil to Israel, dismantle OPEC (Organisation of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries) and even use "liberated" Iraq as a guinea pig for a new oil
business model to be applied to all of the Middle East. The engineers and businessmen, whose
priorities were profits and results, were more down-to-earth.
In any event, the invasion had a devastating impact on Iraq's oil production, less because
of the bombing by the US air force than because of the widespread looting of government
agencies, schools, universities, archives, libraries, banks, hospitals, museums and state-owned
enterprises. Drilling rigs were dismantled for the copper parts they were believed to contain.
The looting continued from March to May 2003. Only a third of the damage to the oil industry
was caused during the invasion; the rest happened after the fighting was over, despite the
presence of the RIO Task Force and the US Corps of Engineers with its 500 contractors,
specially prepared and trained to protect oil installations. Saddam's supporters were prevented
from blowing up the oil wells by the speed of the invasion, but the saboteurs set to work in
June 2003.
Iraq's one real asset
The only buildings protected were the gigantic oil ministry, where 15,000 civil servants
managed 22 subsidiaries of the Iraq National Oil Company. The State Oil Marketing Organisation
and the infrastructure were abandoned. The occupiers regarded the oil under the ground as
Iraq's one real asset. They were not interested in installations or personnel. The oil ministry
was only saved at the last minute because it housed geological and seismic data on Iraq's 80
known deposits, estimated to contain 115bn barrels of crude oil. The rest could always be
replaced with more modern US-made equipment and the knowhow of the international oil companies,
made indispensible by the sabotage.
Thamir Abbas Ghadban, director-general of planning at the oil ministry, turned up at the
office three days after the invasion was over, and, in the absence of a minister for oil (since
Iraq had no government), was appointed second in command under Micheal Mobbs, a neocon who
enjoyed the confidence of the Pentagon. Paul Bremer, the US proconsul who headed Iraq's
provisional government from May 2003 to June 2004, presided over the worst 12 months in the oil
sector in 70 years. Production fell by 1 mbpd -- more than $13bn of lost income.
The oil installations, watched over by 3,500 underequipped guards, suffered 140 sabotage
attacks between May 2003 and September 2004, estimated to have caused $7bn of damage. "There
was widespread looting," said Ghadban. "Equipment was stolen and in most cases the buildings
were set on fire." The Daura refinery, near Baghdad, only received oil intermittently, because
of damage to the pipeline network. "We had to let all the oil in the damaged sections of the
pipeline burn before we could repair them." Yet the refinery continued to operate, no mean
achievement considering that the workers were no longer being paid.
The senior management of the national oil company also suffered. Until 1952 almost all
senior managers of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) were foreigners, who occupied villas in
gated and guarded compounds while the local workforce lived in shantytowns. In 1952 tension
between Iraq and Muhammad Mossadegh's Iran led the IPC to review its relations with Baghdad,
and a clause of the new treaty concerned the training of Iraqi managers. By 1972, 75% of the
thousand skilled jobs were filled by Iraqis, which helped to ensure the success of the IPC's
nationalisation. The new Iraq National Oil Company gained control of the oilfields and
production reached unprecedented levels.
Purge of the Ba'ath
After the invasion, the US purged Ba'athist elements from INOC's management. Simply
belonging to the Ba'ath, Iraq's single political party, which had been in power since 1968, was
grounds for dismissal, compulsory retirement or worse. Seventeen of INOC's 24 directors were
forced out, along with several hundred engineers, who had kept production high through wars and
foreign sanctions. The founding fathers of INOC were ousted by the Deba'athification
Commission, led by former exiles including Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, who replaced
them with his own supporters, as incompetent as they were partisan.
Rob McKee, who succeeded Philip J Carrol as oil adviser to the US proconsul, observed in
autumn 2003: "The people themselves are patently unqualified and are apparently being placed in
the ministry for religious, political or personal reasons... the people who nursed the industry
through Saddam's years and who brought it back to life after the liberation, as well as many
trained professionals, are all systematically being pushed to the sidelines" ( 3 ).
This purge opened the door to advisers, mostly from the US, who bombarded the oil ministry
with notes, circulars and reports directly inspired by the practices of the international oil
industry, without much concern for their applicability to Iraq.
The drafting of Iraq's new constitution and an oil law provided an opportunity to change the
rules. Washington had decided in advance to do away with the centralised state, partly because
of its crimes against the Kurds under Saddam and partly because centralisation favours
totalitarianism. The new federal, or even confederal, regime was decentralised to the point of
being de-structured. A two-thirds majority in one of the three provinces allows opposition to
veto central government decisions.
Baghdad-Irbil rivalry
Only Kurdistan had the means and the motivation to do so. Where oil was concerned, power was
effectively divided between Baghdad and Irbil, seat of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG),
which imposed its own interpretation of the constitution: deposits already being exploited
would remain under federal government control, but new licenses would be granted by the
provincial governments. A fierce dispute arose between the two capitals, partly because the KRG
granted licenses to foreign oil companies under far more favourable conditions than those
offered by Baghdad.
The quarrel related to the production sharing agreements. The usual practice is for foreign
companies that provide financial backing to get a share of the oil produced, which can be very
significant in the first few years. This was the formula US politicians and oil companies
wanted to impose. They were unable to do so.
Iraq's parliament, so often criticised in other matters, opposed this system; it was
supported by public opinion, which had not forgotten the former IPC. Tariq Shafiq, founding
father of the INOC, explained to the US Congress the technical reasons for the refusal (
4 ). Iraq's oil deposits
were known and mapped out. There was therefore little risk to foreign companies: there would be
no prospecting costs and exploitation costs would be among the lowest in the world. From 2008
onwards, Baghdad started offering major oil companies far less attractive contracts --
$2/barrel for the bigger oilfields, and no rights to the deposits.
ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Total, and Russian, Chinese, Angolan, Pakistani and Turkish oil
companies nevertheless rushed to accept, hoping that things would turn to their advantage.
Newsweek (24 May 2010) claimed Iraq had the potential to become "the next Saudi Arabia."
But although production is up (over 3 mbpd in 2012), the oil companies are irritated by the
conditions imposed on them: investment costs are high, profits are mediocre and the oil still
underground is not counted as part of their reserves, which affects their share price.
ExxonMobil and Total disregarded the federal government edict that threatened to strip
rights from oil companies that signed production-sharing agreements relating to oilfields in
Kurdistan. Worse, ExxonMobil sold its services contract relating to Iraq's largest oilfield,
West Qurna, where it had been due to invest $50bn and double the country's current production.
Baghdad is now under pressure: if it continues to refuse the conditions requested by the
foreign oil companies, it will lose out to Irbil, even if Kurdistan's deposits are only a third
of the size of those in the south. Meanwhile, Turkey has done nothing to improve its relations
with Iraq by offering to build a direct pipeline from Kurdistan to the Mediterranean. Without
the war, would the oil companies have been able to make the Iraqis and Kurds compete? One thing
is certain: the US is far from achieving its goals in the oil sector, and in this sense the war
was a failure.
Alan Greenspan, who as chairman of the US Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 was well placed
to understand the importance of oil, came up with the best summary of the conflict: "I am
saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war
is largely about oil" ( 5
).
"Myths, Lies, and Oil Wars" by William F. Engdahl is a must read for anyone struggling to
make sense of U.S. foreign policy. Why are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did NATO
take out Gaddafi? Why are we going after Iran and Syria? Is there a grand strategy? Was the
"Arab Spring" uprisings really grassroots revolutions or just a second round of color
revolutions?
"Control the food and you control the people. Control the oil and you control the nations"
is a statement that has been attributed to Henry Kissinger. The premise of the book is summed
up by the latter part of Kissinger's statement, the control of oil or more generally the
control of energy.
Engdahl maintains that the geopolitical events we have been witnessing is part of the
Pentagon's "Full Spectrum Dominance" plan. A cornerstone of the plan is the control of oil at
the source. Much of the world's proven oilfields are in the Middle East. For the next two
decades the Mideast oilfields is expected to provide Asia with most of its oil.
Engdahl begins laying out the history of conflicts over oil and provides insightful
revelations into conflicts that benefited the Oil majors by reducing the world supply of oil.
Case in point the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. The oil exports from these two nations was
drastically reduced during wartime leading to higher prices.
Another example Engdahl lists is the fact that David Rockefeller lobbied the Carter
Administration to allow the Shah of Iran into the U.S. for medical treatment knowing that it
would cause a crisis with the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian government and how Rockefeller's
Bank was able to benefit after the U.S. froze the assets of Iran.
Other topics covered include:
The "Peak Oil Fraud" and the pseudo-science of its creator King Hubbert.
The fact that in Russia the Abiotic theory of oil formation is accepted as the leading
theory for the last fifty years resulting in Russian Geoligist finding oil in places that
western dogma says it shouldn't be.
The rapid rise of China is a source of much concern in Washington. The economic rise of
China must be contained and in no way can Russia and China be allowed to join forces. Many
tacticians have emphasized the importance of not allowing the rise of a unified Eurasian
power. A Eurasian power would be in a position to challenge the dominance of the
Anglo-American Empire.
According to the info the Engdahl provides China's weakness is its lack of oil. Engdahl
illustrates how the Pentagon has been encircling Russia and China and the events we are
seeing is Washington's attempt to knock China out of Africa where China was making steady
inroads signing economic alliances with African nations that the Anglo-Americans were
exploiting.
Engdahl makes the case that the Iraq war was about control of the oil at the source.
The invasion of Afghanistan was about a controlling Caspian sea oil and gas.
Engdahl offers an explanation for NATO alliances with the former Soviet States of Ukraine
and Georgia.
What really was behind the Russian invasion of Georgia? The consequences for Russia.
The establishment of joint ventures between U.S. oil companies and former state run oil
enterprises in Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan.
Why did the U.S. move Afghani Mujahideen into Chechnya and start a proxy war along a vital
Russian pipeline?
Engdahl provides the information needed to connect the "dots" of seemingly unrelated
conflicts to form a vivid picture of the "New World Order" being assembled in the 21st
Century.
I highly recommend this book along with all of Engdahl's other works. Engdahl wrote two
other books that are especially pertinent to "Myths, Lies, and Oil Wars"
The first is "A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" which
I consider as a prequel to "Myths, Lies, and Oil Wars"
The second is "Full Spectrum Dominance, Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order"
which describes the encircling of Russia, the color revolutions, and much more.
These three books together will surely enlighten the lay person to the machinations of the
U.S. Empire. Another point I should mention is, Engdahl's works are concise and thoughtful
hitting on the important points while remaining entertaining and not overwhelming the reader
with a thousand plus page tome.
"... Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the neo-cons true casus belli ..."
"... But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil". Much, much worse. The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline & Scenario Analysis: "...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship with OPEC." ..."
Because it was marked "confidential" on each page, the oil industry stooge couldn't believe
the US State Department had given me a complete copy of their secret plans for the oil fields
of Iraq.
Actually, the State Department had done no such thing. But my line of bullshit had been so
well-practiced and the set-up on my mark had so thoroughly established my fake identity, that I
almost began to believe my own lies.
I closed in. I said I wanted to make sure she and I were working from the same State
Department draft. Could she tell me the official name, date and number of pages? She did.
Bingo! I'd just beaten the Military-Petroleum Complex in a lying contest, so I had a right
to be chuffed.
After phoning numbers from California to Kazakhstan to trick my mark, my next calls were to
the State Department and Pentagon. Now that I had the specs on the scheme for Iraq's oil --
that State and Defense Department swore, in writing, did not exist -- I told them I'd
appreciate their handing over a copy (no expurgations, please) or there would be a very
embarrassing story on BBC Newsnight .
Within days, our chief of investigations, Ms Badpenny, delivered to my shack in the woods
outside New York a 323-page, three-volume programme for Iraq's oil crafted by George Bush's
State Department and petroleum insiders meeting secretly in Houston, Texas.
I cracked open the pile of paper -- and I was blown away.
Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to
buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the
neo-cons true casus belli : Blood for oil.
But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil".
Much, much worse. The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline &
Scenario Analysis: "...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship
with OPEC."
The
tale of what is going on in Syria reads something like this: an insurgency active since March
2011 has been funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and allowed to operate out of Turkey
with the sometimes active, but more often passive, connivance of a number of Western powers,
including Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. The intention was to overthrow the
admittedly dictatorial Bashar al-Assad quickly and replace him with a more representative
government composed largely of Syrians-in-exile drawn from the expat communities in Europe and
the United States. The largely ad hoc political organization that was the counterpart to the
Free Syrian Army ultimately evolved into the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and
Opposition Forces (Syrian National Coalition) in November 2012, somewhat reminiscent of
Ahmad Chalabi and the ill-starred Iraqi National Congress. As in the lead-up to regime
change in Iraq, the exiles successfully exploited anti-Syrian sentiment among leading
politicians in Washington and Europe while skillfully manipulating the media narrative to
suggest that the al-Assad regime was engaging in widespread atrocities and threatening to
destabilize its neighbors, most notably Lebanon. As in the case of Iraq, Syria's possession of
weapons of mass destruction was introduced into the indictment of al-Assad and cited as a
regional threat.
If there was a model for what was planned for Syria it must have been the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 or possibly the United Nations-endorsed armed intervention in Libya in
2010 , both of which intended to replace dictatorial regimes with Western-style
governments that would at least provide a simulacrum of accountable popular rule. But the
planners must have anticipated a better outcome.
Both Libya and Iraq have become more destabilized than they were under their autocrats, a
fact that appears to have escaped everyone's notice. It did not take long for the wheels to
fall off the bus in Syria as well. As in Iraq, the Syrian exiles had no real constituency
within their homeland, which meant that the already somewhat organized resistance to al-Assad,
consisting of the well-established Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups, came to the fore.
Al-Assad, who somewhat credibly has described the
rebels as terrorists supported by foreign governments, did not throw in the towel and
leave.
The Turkish people, meanwhile, began to turn sour on a war which seemed endless, was
creating a huge refugee and security problem as Kurdish terrorists mixed in with the refugees,
and was increasingly taking on the shape of a new jihad as foreign volunteers began to assume
responsibility for most of the fighting.
The proposed alternative government of the Syrian National Coalition was quickly recognized by
Washington and the Europeans, primarily because it promised some kind of democratic and
pluralistic future for Syria and control over the disparate and sometimes radical elements in
the Free Syrian Army. The supporters of the rebellion in the West were willing to hold their
collective noses and endorse the enterprise even though it was dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and other Islamists rather than by Western-educated liberals and other
secularists. But the painstakingly arrived at distribution of power provided no real solution
as the Coalition had no authority over most of the actual rebel combatants and little ability
to enforce standards on the cadres who were fighting the Syrian Army in Aleppo and Damascus.
Emphasizing its political divisions and also its essential powerlessness, on January 21, 2013
the Coalition was unable
to agree on who might be part of a transitional government to run the areas controlled by the
insurgents, largely because the Muslim Brotherhood was unwilling to cede authority to other
groups. Since that time it has
failed to agree on possible conditions for initiating peace negotiations with the al-Assad
government.
There will be plenty of finger-pointing in Washington and in the European chanceries over
what went wrong, but one issue that will probably not be confronted directly is the competing
objectives of the various supporters of the insurgents, which should have been visible right
from the beginning. The U.S. and the Europeans clearly envisioned some kind of humanitarian
intervention which would lead to a new, more representative government, but that was not the
goal of Turkey, which sought a pliable replacement regime that would clamp down on the
activities of groups like the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), Ankara's primary
geopolitical security concern.
Perhaps even more important, people in Washington should have also been asking why
Saudi Arabia and Qatar wanted to overthrow al-Assad and what kind of government they had in
mind to replace him . Saudi Arabia's rival as regional hegemon, Iran, is viewed in
Riyadh as ascendant due to the rise to power of a friendly Shia regime in Iraq as a result of
the American invasion and regime change. This has permitted the development of a geographically
contiguous Arab bloc closely tied to Tehran and its regional interests, running through Iraq,
across Syria, and connecting with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. To break up
that de facto coalition, the Saudis, who see Syria as the weak link in the chain, have sought
to replace Assad's Alawite-led government with a Sunni regime. But there is also a
second agenda. Because the ruling minority Alawites are considered to be heretics similar to
Shi'ites, a change in religious orientation would be necessary, with the Saudis serving as
protectors of the Sunni majority. The Riyadh-backed Sunni regime would of course be expected to
conform with the particularly Saudi view of proper religious deportment -- the extremely
conservative Wahhabism that prevails in the Kingdom, which is closer to the views of the more
radical insurgents while hostile to the secularists. It would also make the country's
significant numbers of Christians, Alawites, Shi'ites, and Kurds potential victims of the
arrangement.
All of which means that the Saudis and their allies Qatar believe in change in Syria, but on
their own terms, and they actually oppose enabling a populist or democratic evolution. In fact,
Riyadh has been actively engaged regionally in doing what it can to contain the unrest
resulting from the Arab Spring so that the populism does not become untidy and spill over into
Saudi Arabia itself. This has meant that from the beginning Saudi and Qatari objectives in
Syria have differed from the goals of either Turkey or the Western powers, which should have
been seen as a recipe for disaster.
And it gets even more complicated. In spite of their tendency to support religious groups
rather than secular ones, Saudi Arabia and its ally Qatar view the Muslim Brotherhood's
"political Islam" as one of the divisive elements that has destabilized countries like Egypt,
unleashing forces that could ultimately threaten the Saudis and Qataris
themselves. As a result, working through their surrogates in Lebanon and in Turkey as
well as in Jordan, they have systematically and deliberately starved most of the Free Syrian
Army of money and weapons, instead diverting their assistance to the militant Jabhat al-Nusra,
a Salafist group alleged to have links to al-Qaeda. Al-Nusra is generally regarded as the
most effective insurgent group when it comes to fighting, but it advocates a strict Sunni
religious state as part of a worldwide Caliphate under Sharia law when the fighting is
concluded. It has also become a magnet for the foreign jihadis who have been drawn into the
rebellion, an issue that has raised concerns in Washington because of the likelihood that
any successor regime to al-Assad could easily be dominated by a well-armed and disciplined
Salafist minority.
Ironically, the Saudis are acutely aware that aid to groups like al-Nusra could easily
blowback and feed a new wave of jihadi-led violence -- with al-Nusra playing a similar role to
that of al-Qaeda after it cut its teeth in Afghanistan -- but they are unfortunately locked
into their own rhetoric regarding what is necessary to take down al-Assad and break the
coalition of Arab states aligned with Iran. What it means for the other players in the tragedy
is that Syria is de facto in a bloody civil war that is approaching stalemate, while the United
States and Europeans have no good options and the Turks are increasingly playing damage
control. If there is a solution to the conflict it is not readily discernible, and it is now
doubtful whether some kind of resolution by force could be imposed even if Washington and the
Europeans were inclined to do so, which they are not.
Syria is in danger of ceasing to exist as a nation-state. Its collapse could
inspire a new global jihad and provoke violence throughout the Middle East, while its chemical
weapons could easily fall into dangerous hands. Well-armed bands of the most radical of the
insurgents taking the lead in the conflict without any political direction or control cannot be
what anyone envisioned two years ago, but that is what has emerged, with the United States
again looking on like a helpless giant.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the
National Interest.
I coming to sad conclusion that the Syria civil war is following the steps of the Lebanon
civil war and turning into a Spaghetti (Italian) Western. What we have now a whole bunch of
warring sides with guns that are fight until everybody is too exhausted to continue
fighting.
The problem with taking a hands-off approach to Syria is that we have no say in how things
turn out. I am not so sure that we should care one way or another how it turns out. We dont do
business with them, I doubt many of our people travel there for vacation, and they are not a
direct threat to us. We can have an opinion, but shouldnt get too worked up over the
outcome.
If this article is accurate, this Admin. justified the case for the Iraq and Afghanistan
Invasions.
Regime change
And it is folly. So we assist via the back door to overthrow President Assad and replace his
government with those who have not lived the country for ten to twenty years.
Hmmm . . . I think I have seen this game plan before.
This article makes the Syrian civil war sound most like the Afghanistan revolt followed by
civil war against the Soviets after their invasion.
Of course, there limited US attention after the Soviets left meant that Saudi, Iranian, and
Pakistani backed militias fought against one another. Instead of being exhausted, the ultimate
winner decided that they still hated the USA.
The parallel that falls to mind is the Spanish Civil War in which various powers were
willing to fight right down to the last Spaniard. Spain emerged from that civil war with a
stable, non-interventionist regime under Franco but I doubt Syria will be so lucky.
As to "It has also become a magnet for the foreign jihadis who have been drawn into the
rebellion, an issue that has raised concerns in Washington because of the likelihood that any
successor regime to al-Assad could easily be dominated by a well-armed and disciplined Salafist
minority." I can only say that this is an excellent opportunity for the West to discretely fund
some vermin control. The more of these jihadis Assad kills the better off we all are. We should
remember that our defeat of Communist subversion in the Europe of 1946-7 was made easier by the
fact that so many leftist trouble makers were buried in Spain in 1936-8.
One mystery remains. Why on earth are the neo-cons agitating for war with Assad? Surely
Israel is better off with the relatively ineffective Assad regime than they would be under what
would follow.
"Syria is in danger of ceasing to exist as a nation-state". That is the problem right there,
Syria never was a nation state, no different than Yugoslavia which could only be kept together
by a Tito, so is the case with the Assads.
If this author could go beyond his PC thinking, this simple fact would easily explain why
Syria is facing such an intractable problem.
I feared the unrest in Syria would lead to a vicious civil war in which irreplaceable
historical and archaeological treasures are destroyed.
I thought the Saudis were promoting civil war in order to weaken Iran, due in part to Iran's
reckless decision to treble production of uranium enriched to 20 percent.
I also thought "the West" blundered in Libya by making a negotiated resolution of the unrest
more difficult. Same blunder has taken place with Syria.
What is the percentage of foreign fighters? I hear various percentages thrown about, some
over 50%.
The Assad government conducted a constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections, as
well (but that is studiously ignored by western press).
Syria, in its current makeup, is an obstacle to western power & control. Humanitarian
concerns have little to do with it.
In 2007, Seymour Hersh had a New Yorker article, The Redirection, where U. S.
government plans for the destabilization of Syria was reported.
And, as reported by the present author, Mr. Giraldi, the United States has been
significantly involved in facilitating weapons into Syria. What has happened presently is much
like what Hersh reported was planned to happen in his 2007 New Yorker article.
But obviously it didn't go according to plan.
Some analysts submit the United States is the spider in the center of the web, the
prime mover, as far as Syria goes. Would Saudi Arabia act against a strong U. S.
objection?
Syria is potentially also a stepping stone to Iran.
Israel is fine with balkanized neighbors who are weak (maybe a little more land can be taken
down the road).
There is no doubt the fighters use terrorist tactics of indiscriminate large scale bombing,
summary execution, and infastructure destruction (including religous and historical sites).
The U. S. vetoed a U. N. Security Council resolution submitted by Russia condemning last
week's Damascus bombing where over 50 died and hundreds were wounded. The U. S. wanted a
condemnation focusing on Assad with passing reference to the Damascus bombing (subsequently the
al-Nusra front claimed responsibility for the bombing).
So, implicitly, the U. S. government is condoning terrorist acts of al Quaeda linked terror
groups who are on the state department terrorist watch list.
The U. S. government is condoning large-scale terrorism in Syria, plain and simple. It's
immoral. Is that what the U. S. has come to?
It would be easy to turn off the weapons and terrorist supply into Syria, but it would take
political will to change the inertia and an implicit aknowledgement of failure.
That acknowledgement of failure might be the biggest political stumbling block of
all.
very much a 'devil you know vs. devil you don't' with the understanding that we pretty much
'know' both devils; we just don't 'know' what Syria (or Iraq, Libyia, etc.) would be like with
the latter. that said; I think the real question is not so much is it wise to back rebels;
which inevitably invites or at the very least encourages/nurtures jihadists? rather; is it
possible to anticipate the "jihad card" and somehow use it to serve our interests? even if "our
interests" are best served by, as Michael Corleone observed (to Frank Pantangeli re: a turf war
in NYC); " do(ing) nothing ". the truth is; many of these revolutions (Arab Spring movements,
more than Iraq) are as genuine as the 13 colonies revolting against King George. at this point
in our history; you would think we'd be pretty good at "playing" others, when the sad fact is;
we seem to be the ones being played. no doubt the neocon enablers of the military-insustrial
complex certainly act to server their interests, which is probably a good place to look for an
answer.
The great debate that I've been having for years with friends on and offline is whether
American foreign policy planners and officials are idealists or are actively assisting certain
types of Sunni Islamist forces to fill the vacuum when secularist regimes are toppled (or being
attacked, as in Syria's case).
We've seen the exodus of Christian communities and the rise of Sunni extremists in every one
of these countries either invaded by the USA or that have been part of this "Arab Spring".
"One mystery remains. Why on earth are the neo-cons agitating for war with Assad? Surely
Israel is better off with the relatively ineffective Assad regime than they would be under what
would follow."
Israel was actually one of the last to get onside with regime change in Syria, long after
the French, British and the GCC got the ball rolling. Many in Israel prefer Assad as "the devil
you know", but the plus side of a removal of the Ba'athist regime is that the route from Iran
to Hezbollah is cut off, leaving them isolated and surrounded by the IDF and Sunni Islamist
forces in Syria, with Sunni proxies in Lebanon itself.
I guess that the Israelis did the calculus and figured that a degrading of Hezbollah supply
routes is a livable option.
No Sunni forces have been able to challenge the IDF in decades, but Hezbollah gave them a
bloody nose and their entire foreign policy environment is clouded by Iran, Hezbollah's
sponsor.
By what authority does the Washington regime use our nation's money and prestige (what
remains of it) to meddle in the internal affairs of Syria or any other country? This government
is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and does not even have control its own borders; and it's
trying to bring "stability" to a country halfway around the world. Incredible
imbecility!
Really the most comprehensive short analysis I've seen anywhere. Hard to believe though that
it's passing out of Turkey's hands; it seems to me in terms of proximity, interest, toughness,
Ankara should be the strongest actor.
Syria's war is one of the most irrational and thus criminal Westren wars. Assad is way
closer to an ideal/practical government than any future State would be. Assad government
includes all factions of society, allows market, controls radicals and is less corrupt and more
representative than US allies.
"Well-armed bands of the most radical of the insurgents taking the lead in the conflict
without any political direction or control cannot be what anyone envisioned two years ago, but
that is what has emerged, with the United States again looking on like a helpless giant."
Well this is partly the result of Obama's policy of passivity and timidity in Syria. The CIA
director, the Secretary of State, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
all pushed and supported a plan to train and arm moderate, pro-Western rebel groups in Syria.
But Obama unfortunately was too risk-averse and too worried about domestic politics to approve
the plan. Obama's policy carries at least as many risks as the alternative does. At least the
Obama administration has now decided to send non-lethal aid to the armed rebel groups. Maybe
weapons will come next. But with Kerry and Hagel at State and Defense, I'm not holding my
breath.
The US is less dependent on middle Eastern oil than in the past, and this dependence will
reduce further thanks to fracking and shale oil. As long as the navy has a secure base in Doha
from which to control the Straits of Hormuz, the strategic interests of the country are
secure.
One, it isn't "terrorism" when it's done by "our" sons of bitches. "Ours" is an increasingly
loose definition.
Chaos serves the purpose of weakening rivals for the politically focused, and driving up war
equipment profits for the financially focused. There are no humanitarian considerations among
either of those groups who make policy in our name.
Scott McConnell wrote "Ankara should be the strongest actor"
Yes, Phil thinks Turkey is "playing damage control", but its military strength,
self-interest and 500 mile shared border shuts down nearly all arguments as to who should (and
will) take the lead in handling this among the various candidate state actors.
God knows we could use a break from contemplating disasters resulting from our own
blundering meddling.
Kurds are an ethnic group, rather than a religious one (though the majority happen to be
Sunni). I don't see how they are clear losers if the Saudis are more influential. Maybe the
variety of Sunni Islam they prefer isn't Wahabbist, and in that case you should have made that
explicit.
I appreciate Mr. Giraldi's invaluable contribution to shedding some true light on the war
against Syria, especially in early stages of the conflict where his reporting on the influx of
terrorists and weapons through Turkey and on their training there stood out from the deluge of
vicious hypocritical, lying and outrageous war propaganda in the Western and GCC media.
But it is beyond me why Mr.Giraldi is leaving out form his analysis two crucial issues:
1) the pivotal change in regional energy security puzzle related to the world largest South
PARS gas field shared by Iran and Qatar discovered in 2007
2) the collapse of the oil-backed Petro-dollar also sustain mainly by the the US quest for
full spectrum global dominance since the end of the Soviet Union.
You cannot understand the whole picture without these two factors. To learn more read
Thierry Meyssan et. al. at VoltairNet and Christof Lehmann et. al at NSNBC.me. Also Veterans
Today is very informative with broad spectrum of perspectives on global and domestic
issues.
"... The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Rarely do pundits apologize for the horrendous Iraqi losses inflicted by the war: more than a million deaths and millions more wounded with varying lifelong disabilities, including thousands of tortured prisoners, with an estimated 16,000 of them still unaccounted for . Twenty-eight percent of Iraqi children suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and 2.8 million people are still ..."
The only message our children will take away from the war in Iraq is that if you repeat a
boldfaced lie enough, it will someday become accepted truth. And as a corollary, saving face is
much more important than admitting a mistake, no matter how destructive the outcome.
Unfortunately for our children, manipulating the truth became the norm for the Bush
administration, which invaded Iraq on what we know now (and the administration almost certainly
knew then) were utterly false pretenses. Thanks to these lies, Americans, including our
soldiers and civilians serving in Iraq, were convinced Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11
attacks and had weapons of mass destruction, two of the ever-evolving reasons for getting into
the war. Many still believe this. Engaging in mass deception in order to justify official
policy both degrades and endangers democracy. But by far, it is ordinary Iraqis who have
suffered the most.
We know now beyond any doubt that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and had no weapons of mass
destruction. But as Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst with the Iraqi portfolio, wrote on
March 14, "Intelligence did not drive the decision to invade Iraq – not by a long shot,
despite the aggressive use by the Bush administration of cherry-picked fragments of
intelligence reporting in its public sales campaign for the war." Indeed, this was a war in
search of a justification from the very beginning, and any little lie would have worked.
It is very fortuitous for all those politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats with Iraqi
blood on their hands -- Republicans and Democrats both -- that the only courtroom they've been
shuffled into is the court of public opinion, where most received light sentences.
Indeed, the Iraq war boosters are still a fixture on our television screens. Dan Senor , who served
as a spokesman for the U.S occupation authorities and willfully misrepresented events on the
ground during that time, is a regular commentator on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," a veritable
roundtable of Washington establishment punditry. Kenneth Pollack, a longtime Brookings fellow
and CIA analyst who wrote the 2002 book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading
Iraq (which is barely mentioned today on the Brookings website), is a familiar face on the
commentary circuit and among think tank salons. Ex-Generals David Petraeus and Stanley
McChrystal, who each left their most recent posts in disgrace, are raking in thousands of
dollars for speeches, lectures, and consulting work.
Sure, there are pundits and reporters who admit they wrongly supported the war, but their
regrets are usually reserved for their blind faith in the war planners and their own lack of
inquisitiveness. For example, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius confessed in a
March 21 column that Iraq was one of "the biggest strategic errors in Modern American history."
But the thrust of his own mea culpa was that he did not write enough "on the
overriding question of whether the war made sense," which would have allowed him to see that
the U.S was not strong enough nor flexible enough to succeed.
Rarely do pundits apologize for the horrendous Iraqi losses inflicted by the war: more
than a million deaths and millions more wounded with varying lifelong disabilities, including
thousands of tortured prisoners, with an estimated 16,000 of
them still unaccounted for . Twenty-eight percent of Iraqi children suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder, and 2.8 million people are still internally
displaced or living as refugees outside the country. Add to that the
complete upheaval of the Iraqi economy, as well as its transportation, education, and medical
institutions. Don't forget the countless people suffering from trauma and depression, sectarian
strife, terrifying birth defects from toxic pollution, and a brain drain that has left the
country illiterate.
Not since the American Civil War has the U.S citizenry had to endure such horrors. Yet
discussion of these repercussions is noticeably absent as we still struggle to understand the
scope of the Iraq war and what all of its lies have wrought.
Let us start with a sincere apology to the Iraqi people for the crimes the U.S government
has committed. A long-range plan for restitution is a second step. Empires decline due to moral
decay from within. Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, our nation is looking at the moral
abyss. If lies have delivered us to this place, then only the truth will begin our journey
back.
The unexpected alliance between Turkey and Libya is a geopolitical earthquake that changes
the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean and across the Middle East.
Turkey's audacious move has enraged its rivals in the region and cleared the way for a
dramatic escalation in the 9 year-long Libyan civil war. It has also forced leaders in Europe
and Washington to decide how they will counter Turkey's plan to defend the U.N-recognized
Government of National Accord (GNA) , and to extend its maritime borders from Europe to Africa
basically creating "a water corridor through the eastern Mediterranean linking the coasts of
Turkey and Libya."
Leaders in Ankara believe that the agreement "is a major coup in energy geopolitics" that
helps defend Turkey's "sovereign rights against the gatekeepers of the regional status quo."
But Turkey's rivals strongly disagree. They see the deal as a naked power grab that undermines
their ability to transport natural gas from the East Mediterranean to Europe without crossing
Turkish waters. In any event, the Turkey-Libya agreement has set the stage for a broader
conflict that will unavoidably involve Egypt, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Russia and the
United States. All parties appear to have abandoned diplomatic channels altogether and are,
instead, preparing for war.
On November 27, Turkey and Libya signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that commits
Turkey to providing military assistance to Libya's Government of National Accord (GNA). The MoU
also redraws Turkey's maritime boundaries in a way that dramatically impacts the transport of
gas from the East Mediterranean to Europe. Israel is particularly worried that this new deal
will undermine its plans for a 1,900-kilometer EastMed pipeline connecting the Leviathan gas
field, off the coast of Israel, to the EU. YNET News summarized Israel's concerns in an
ominously titled article: "Turkey's maneuver could block Israel's access to the sea". Here's an
excerpt:
"Two of Israel's wars (1956 Sinai campaign and 1967 Six-Day War) broke out over navigation
rights. Israel must take note of a new reality taking hold in the Mediterranean. It must
regard Turkey's actions as a substantial strategic threat and consider what it may do to
respond to it
This EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones) designation essentially carved up much of the
energy-rich Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey and Libya, prompting a wave of international
condemnations first and foremost from Greece, Egypt, and Cyprus, who may be directly or
indirectly affected ..Turkey's disregard for the economic waters of Greece, Cyprus, and
Egypt.
Ankara is in effect annexing those areas pending an appeal to international tribunals,
which can take many years to resolve. In practical terms, Turkey created a sea border the
width of the entire Mediterranean ." ( "Turkey's maneuver could block Israel's access
to the sea" , ynet news )
The analysis from America's premier Foreign Policy magazine was no less foreboding. Check it
out:
"Turkey is meshing together two Mediterranean crises in a desperate bid to reshape the
region in its own favor, with potentially nasty implications both for the ongoing civil war
in Libya and future energy development in the eastern Mediterranean.
This month, Turkey's unusual outreach to the internationally recognized government of
Libya has resulted in a formal agreement for Ankara to provide military support, including
arms and possibly troops, in its bid to hold off an offensive from Russian-backed rebels in
the eastern part of the country. The military agreement came just weeks after Turkey and that
same Government of National Accord reached an unusual agreement to essentially carve up much
of the energy-rich eastern Mediterranean between them -- threatening to cut out Greece and
Cyprus from the coming bonanza ." ("Newly Aggressive Turkey Forges Alliance With Libya",
Foreign Policy )
While these new developments are likely to intensify the fighting on the ground in Libya,
they also portend a deepening of divisions within the region itself where new coalitions are
forming and battle-lines are being drawn. On the one side is the Turkey-Libya Axis, while on
the other is Greece, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, France, Germany, UK and probably the
United States although the Trump administration has not yet clarified its position. In any
event, the war between Libya's internationally-recognized government and Haftar's Libyan
National Army (LNA) is just a small part of a much larger struggle over vital hydrocarbons in a
strategically-located area of the Mediterranean. Here's a clip from an article at War On The
Rocks that helps to underscore the stakes involved:
"The discovery of significant deposits of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean
beginning in 2009 was a game-changer that upended regional geopolitics. It prompted new and
unexpected alliances between Israel, Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt to maximize their chances of
energy self-sufficiency. The bulk of the gas lies in Egypt's Zohr field, the Leviathan and
Tamar fields in Israeli waters, and the Aphrodite near the island of Cyprus. With recoverable
natural gas reserves in the region estimated at upward of 120 trillion cubic feet, the
strategic implications could not be bigge r. This is about the same amount as the proven gas
in the whole of Iraq, the 12th largest reserve globally .(Israel's gas field) Leviathan is
estimated to hold 22 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, and a potential half a
million barrels of oil." ("Hydrocarbon Diplomacy: Turkey's Gambit Might Yet Pay a Peace
Dividend", warontherocks.com)
Turkey's ambitious gambit makes it more likely that its rivals will increase their support
for the Libyan warlord, Haftar, who is, by-most-accounts, a CIA asset that was sent to Libya
in 2014 to topple the government in Tripoli and unify the country under a US puppet. Haftar's
forces currently control more than 70% of the Libyan territory while almost 60% of the
population is under the control of the GNA led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. According
to Turkish news: "More than half of Haftar's troops are mercenaries from Russia and Sudan,
who are mainly paid by the Gulf states."
In April, 2019, Haftar launched an offensive on the government in Tripoli but was easily
repelled. In recent days, however, Haftar has resumed his attacks on the city of Misrata and on
the Tripoli airport in clear violation of the Berlin ceasefire agreement. He has also received
shipments of weapons from the UAE despite an arms embargo that was unanimously approved two
weeks ago at the same Berlin Conference. We expect that support for Haftar will continue to
grow in the months ahead as Berlin, Paris and particularly Washington settle on a plan for
reinforcing proxies to prosecute the ground war and for blunting Turkey's power projection in
the Mediterranean.
The Turkey-Libya agreement is a clumsy attempt to impose Turkey's preferred maritime
boundaries on the other countries bordering the Mediterranean. Naturally, Washington will not
allow this unilateral assertion of power to go unchallenged.
And while Washington's strategy has not yet been announced, that merely indicates that the
foreign policy establishment was caught off-guard by Turkey's November 27 announcement . It
does not mean that Washington will accept the status quo. To the contrary, US war-planners are
undoubtedly putting the finishing touches on a new strategy aimed at achieving their objectives
in Libya while at the same time dealing a stinging blow to a NATO ally that has grown closer to
Russia, caused endless headaches in Syria, and is now disrupting Washington's plans for
controlling vital resources in the East Mediterranean.
Washington sees Turkey's assertive foreign policy as a sign of "defiance" which requires a
iron-fisted response. But any attack on Turkey or Turkish interests will only intensify the bad
blood between Ankara and Washington, it will only put more pressure on the threadbare NATO
alliance, and it will only push Turkish president Erdogan further into Moscow's corner. Indeed,
the Trump team should realize that an overreaction on their part could trigger a fateful
realignment that could reshape the region while hastening the emergence of a new order.
At the Davos forum an at least 2-year long shutdown of Nord Stream-2 has been
announced
Liliya Karayeva, January 24, 2020
The launch of the Russian gas pipeline "Nord Stream-2", which is needed to supply
Europe with gas that bypasses the Ukraine, will take place not earlier than after 2 years. It
is not ruled out that the project will cease to exist if Western sanctions continue.
Former US ambassador to the Ukraine John Herbst said this at the World Economic Forum
in Davos. He noted that there is no possibility of Russia completing the gas
pipeline.
For the construction, it is necessary to have a company that will ensure the laying of
pipes on the sea bed. However, US sanctions do not allow foreign firms to do this, Eadaily
reports.
Herbst stressed that the Russians "can beat themselves on the chest," but under current
conditions the project may not be completed.
Earlier the pipe-layers of the Swiss company Allseas left the Baltic Sea because of US
sanctions. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia can complete the gas pipeline,
but it will take more time.
Cue you know who.
That former US ambassador to Banderastan certainly knows a lot about the technological
incapabilities of the gas station with missiles, doesn't he?
Amazing; at the time sanctions were applied, the Russian Energy Minister claimed that the
Russian Federation had the ships and the capability to complete the pipeline in only two
months. Therefore it would have opened only a month late.
In fact, a joint statement just after the sanctions were announced to great fanfare said
that the remainder of the pipeline could be completed using divers, although it would be
slow. But Russia is known to have pipe-laying vessels in its inventory which would surely
require little modification to finish the remaining work. Russia simply does not seem to be
in any hurry to complete the project.
I personally think Russia is just approaching completion of the pipeline in a leisurely
fashion, now that there is a new gas-transit agreement with Ukraine and there is no
particular rush to get it done. Russia is committed to transit 60 BCm through Ukraine this
year, so what's the hurry to get a pipeline done which bypasses Ukraine? According to the
Energy Minister – who must be speaking under advisement from field professionals
– Russia could finish it in about 2 months. It would not be in Ukraine's interests to
provoke a transit crisis now, the winter is over and demand will slacken, and there just is
no compelling reason to hurry. But if there were, it would not take long to finish.
The current cocky attitude which assumes the project has been stopped cold with a wave of
Washington's mighty hand and now may never be completed is, however, pure and classic Ukie
nationalist. The Ukrainians seem fated to slobber lovingly all over America whenever it makes
a gesture, and start up again with the tough talk toward Russia. Nord Stream II is dead in
the water, and now it might never be completed – Russia might have to transit gas
through Ukraine until the infants of today are grandparents! It is so much more pleasant to
put your faith in something which sounds like you are going to have an easy life without
doing much of anything; just loll in bed all day on cushions of goose-down, and let the
Russians pay to use your pipes to transit their gas – so easy! It's a wonder there are
any realists left. Keep in mind that those are the same people who will scream that they were
betrayed when the pipeline is completed, and that the dirty Russians took advantage of
Ukraine's frank and open nature.
This US sanctions business often confuses me. I work at ExxonMobil twice a week -- right next
to the Exceptional Nation's embassy are the Exxon offices situated -- and they tell me there
that the project they were undertaking in the Barents Sea, I think, was stopped and is now on
hold because of sanctions, whereas the Exxon activity in Sakhalin is still in operation. The
reason why? Sakhalin is on dry land, the Russian woman whom I teach there told me. "So?" I
asked. She reckons it's because at Sakhalin they use Russian gear and technology, whereas the
offshore Barents Sea rig is US operated.
For Russia, at least, it will serve as an object lesson to not ever again be reliant on US
technology for anything, and be to the least extent possible reliant on technology of its
close allies. That would likely mean Asian drilling technology. Despite what American media
would have you believe, Americans are not the only people on earth capable of developing and
using extraction technology. Russia is also perfectly capable of engineering its own
production methods and equipment. Sanctions are only effective, to the limited degree they
are effective at all, where you as the sanctioner can get all available sources to deny their
use. Arm-twisting to go along with the American sanctions has cost European business
billions, but the important thing to remember about employment of sanctions and successful
work-arounds is that business will not bounce back to its previous arrangements once
sanctions are lifted unless their duration is very short. The sanctions against Russia, quite
apart from the Americans having supplied their own justification for employing them in the
first place (so that the Russians as a whole have a sense of having been unjustly punished,
which taints the American brand), have had the effect of forcing Russia to seek other
suppliers and to develop domestic industry. It has survived the sanctions regime quite well,
and is much stronger for it. It also serves as a reminder to other countries which are not
ideologically aligned with the United States that a dependence on American products could
constitute an unacceptable vulnerability for them as well.
China is the biggest producer in Asia, with an output of nearly 4 million barrels per day.
Although its production has been stagnant or even declining in recent years, that is about to
change; the national government announced last year a 20% increase in capital investment in
production, with the goal of increasing its output by 50% to 6 million BPD by 2025. I think
it would be safe to bet that none of that technology will be American or owned by its closest
allies, since a key platform of the increased expenditure is energy independence.
Looks like two former ministers in the previous Medvedev government got bumped upstairs:
Vladimir Medinsky (Culture Minister) and Maxim Oreshkin (Economic Development Minister) have
become Presidential aides. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news
Alexander Novak is back in as Minister of Energy so he must have been telling the truth
back in December about Russia being able to finish the Nordstream II pipeline construction in
two months. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62625
Either that or his lies are so reliable that the Kremlin knows immediately to believe the
opposite of what he says. But that's not likely, because an Energy Minister who started a
massive project like that and had no prospects at all of completing it would not likely be
reappointed.
Another potential reason for Russian relaxation toward pipeline completion might well be
the global collapse of LNG prices due to overproduction: according to the new (ish) CEO of
Gunvor Group (remember them? The energy company that Putin owned 75% of its shares?), US LNG
exporters are 50 cents away from shutdowns.
"LNG prices are on track to hit an all-time low in Asia later this summer. Gas is also
at its weakest seasonally in the U.S. and Europe since the late 1990s. "There's a surplus
already in the U.S. and Europe. And the mild winter in Asia means another surplus is building
up there," Marco Dunand, chief executive officer of trading house Mercuria Energy Group Ltd.,
told Bloomberg. Torbjorn Tornqvist, chief executive officer of Gunvor Group Ltd., said U.S.
LNG exporters are 50 cents away from shutdowns."
Under such conditions, it's unlikely the Kremlin is overly concerned at the thought of
American LNG carriers steaming into European ports and snatching the energy rug from
underneath them. Think what a great time this would be to have an energy-extraction empire in
which – thanks to western sanctions – your production costs were in rubles and
your selling price was in Euros. Why, you'd still be able to take a profit no matter how low
prices went!
After having forbidden the Chinese company Huawei to compete in the calls for tender for the
5G network, the United States are now forbidding the Europeans to increase their supplies of
Russian gas. While the first decision was aimed at maintaining the coherence of NATO, the
second is not a result of Russophobia, but of the 1992 " Wolfowitz doctrine " - preventing the
EU from becoming a competitor of the " American Empire ". In both cases, the point is to
infantilise the EU and keep it in a situation of dependence.
Although they were locked in a convoluted struggle concerning the impeachment of President
Trump, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate laid down their arms in order to vote, in
quasi-unanimity, for the imposition of heavy sanctions on the companies participating in the
construction of North Stream 2, the doubling of the gas pipeline which delivers Russian gas to
Germany across the Baltic Sea. The main victims were the European companies which had helped
finance the 11 billion dollar project with the Russian company Gazprom. The project is now 80 %
finished. The Austrian company Omy, British/Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, French Engie, German
companies Uniper and Wintershall, Italian Saipem and Swiss Allseas are also taking part in the
laying of the pipeline.
The doubling of North Stream increases Europe's dependence on Russian gas, warn the United
States. Above all, they are preoccupied by the fact that the gas pipeline – by crossing
the Baltic in waters belonging to Russia, Finland, Sweden and Germany – thus avoids the
Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary), the Baltic States and
Ukraine. In other words, the European countries which have the closest ties to Washington
through NATO (to which we must add Italy).
Rather than being economic, the goal for the USA is strategic. This is confirmed by the fact
that the sanctions on North Stream 2 are included in the National Defense Authorization
Act , the legislative act which, for fiscal year 2020, hands the Pentagon the colossal sum
of 738 billion dollars for new wars and new weapons (including space weapons), to which must be
added other posts which bring the US military expenditure to approximately 1,000 billion
dollars. The economic sanctions on North Stream 2 are part of a politico-military escalation
against Russia.
An ulterior confirmation can be found in the fact that the US Congress has established
sanctions not only against North Stream 2, but also against the Turk-Stream, which, in its
final phase of realisation, will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Eastern Thrace,the
small European area of Turkey. From there, by another pipeline, Russian gas should be delivered
to Bulgaria, Serbia and other European countries. This is the Russian riposte to the US action
which managed to block the South Stream pipeline in 2014. South Stream was intended to link
Russia to Italy across the Black Sea and by land to Tarvisio (Udine). Italy would therefore
have become a switch platform for gas in the EU, with notable economic advantages. The Obama
administration was able to scuttle the project, with the collaboration of the European
Union.
The company Saipem (Italian Eni Group), once again affected by the US sanctions against
North Stream 2, was severely hit by the blockage of South Stream – in 2014, it lost
contracts to the value of 2.4 billion Euros, to which other contracts would have been added if
the project had continued. But at the time, no-one in Italy or in the EU protested against the
burial of the project which was being organised by the USA. Now German interests are in play,
and critical voices are being raised in Germany and in the EU against US sanctions against
North Stream 2.
Nothing is being said about the fact that the European Union has agreed to import liquified
natural gas (LNG) from the USA, an extract from bituminous shale by the destructive technique
of hydraulic fracturation (fracking). In order to damage Russia, Washington is attempting to
reduce its gas exports to the EU, obliging European consumers to foot the bill. Since President
Donald Trump and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, signed in
Washington in July 2018 the Joint Statement of 25 July: European Union imports of U.S.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) , the EU has doubled its importation of LNG from the USA,
co-financing the infrastructures via an initial expenditure of 656 million Euros. However, this
did not save European companies from US sanctions. Manlio Dinucci
I can't say that I've dug into that in detail, although I do recall reading the post.
What I would like to say, however, is that the Cyprus question is one of the pivotal
pieces in the current geopolitical situation.
A few points warranting further investigation to try and tie into a coherent whole:
1) The Cyprus banking crisis c. 2012-2013. This includes Russian oligarch/mafia money, and
whether it was squirreled out of there before the buy-in orchestrated collapse of Laiki
Bank of Cyprus as well as who was behind this push (IMF/NATO/GER/etc)
2) The Turkstream (1 & 2) gas projects (from which Turkey will extract considerable
transit fees for decades to come). This also supports one of the main pillars of the Russian
Federations' economy. Links also to US hegemon trying to kill off Nordstream 2.
3) The plans/MOU for Israel, Cyprus and Greece to build an undersea gas pipe network. This
will effectively by-pass Turkstream, and is probably behind the push to have Israeli claims
over the Golan Heights crystallise (along with the US staying put in Syria and Iraq). I also
recall reading about ISIS shipments of stolen Syrian oil taking a cross-country route through
Turkey to end up being refined in Israel, and on-sold to Greece (and others). This points at
another whole behind-the-scenes dynamic.
4) Recent attempts by Turkey to get involved in Libya, create a new exclusive maritime
zone, develop gas of the coast of Cyprus, and now military involvement. This is drawing
rebuke from Israel, as it will scupper their planned pipe network. Greece likewise is now
trying to send in troops (as observers/peace-keepers, LOL).
Cyprus is also
rallying around to try and stop the Turkish plan from going ahead.
5) Recent
arrests of Israeli intel assets in Cyprus of late also adds further heat to the
situation.
I would really need to dedicate months of my life to try and untangle all of this, and by
the time I did the situation would have moved on. (reminds me of the quote from Wagelaborers'
blog: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating
other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Karl Rove)
@Shitposter
him some fighter planes for free and he will build an airbase of the Belarus army.
6. Belarus makes gasoline and other products from Russian oils and resells them at a huge
profit. Besides, he wants to export it all via Baltic statelets, providing their ports
business that Putin is taking away from them by building Russian deep-sea ports, like
Ust-Luga.
7. Not to mention that he talks about 10 times more than is wise, saying mostly BS (the
latter is natural for a moron).
There are many more, but these are enough to explain how most Russians feel about him.
Belarus either gets rid of that idiot, or suffers because of his stupidity.
About this whole Ukraine-Russia gas transit thing that Felix is panicking about. It seems
Germany had a key role in facilitating
the deal.
However, that risk receded this week after Moscow and Kyiv concluded a landmark agreement
that will ensure Russian gas continues to transit through Ukraine even after Nord Stream 2 is
completed. Germany played a critical role in brokering the agreement and pressuring Russia
to maintain Ukraine's transit status.
Why would Germany spend all this time and resources to construct these pipelines and then
suddenly pressure Russia to maintain the transit fees? That makes zero sense unless you believe
that Germany was acting as a proxy on behalf of a greater power. My pet theory: Germany most
likely caved to US pressure and tried to triangulate at the last minute in a bid to stave off a
larger German-US conflict.
What Germany wants, it seems to me, is (1) cheap energy for German industry, (2) a
maximally weak Russian hand visavi Ukraine (which is now in effect a NATO/EU dependency), and
(3) good enough relations with the Kremlin for Russia not to go rogue. Goals (1) and (3)
obviously sit uneasily with goal (2), which is why we see so much back and forth.
I agree with (1) and (3) but I'd disagree over (2). I am not convinced Germany cares much
about Ukraine's well-being. It is a very small economy (barely over 100 billion USD) and
Germany's trade exposure to Ukraine is minimal. It isn't part of NATO, EU or any other major
Western framework.
If Ukraine collapsed it would create significant refugee streams but Ukrainians are very
easily assimilated into Western European countries, unlike Syrians or Turks, so even in a
worse-case scenario the fallout would not be a major problem. If Croats or Serbs can mix into
Germany easily, I don't see why Ukrainians would be a problem. Germany's shrinking work force
would in fact even need such an influx. The only kink would be Russia's expanding borders if
both Belarus+Ukraine was swallowed up but Germany probably would calculate that Russia wouldn't
attack a NATO ally (and they wouldn't be wrong). I'm not saying Germany would want such an
outcome, only that the worst-case scenario wouldn't be a big problem for them.
I think this has the fingerprints of the US all over it. Trump personally hates Ukraine,
which has been documented in leaked documents during the impeachment process and major
personalities of the Trumpist movement like Tucker Carlson openly cheers for Russia. So it
wasn't Trump or his people who pushed for this but rather the permanent national-security state
that was behind it and they are obsessed with keeping Russia down, or inventing fake
Russiagate hoaxes to justify their paranoia. Germany made a 180 and suddenly pressured Russia
to do something which Germany itself had no interest in keeping for the longest time. That
suggests Germany caved to US pressure and tried to do a compromise. The US interest would be
for NS2 to be scrapped completely. This was a German attempt at triangulating.
Either way, Ukraine got a big win purely because of Great Power politics over which they had
no direct control.
"... Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living. ..."
"... So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor. ..."
My comment @342 should have read: "The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the
rest of the world to fund its wars,"
---------
Your comment about capitalist accumulation doesn't hold (as a motivator for the US) when
we have a capitalist monopolist situation. Rate of profit is not about growth (of real
goods); it is about reducing competition and scarcity. When you are the monopolist you can
charge what you like but profit becomes meaningless - the monopolist power comes from the
control of resources - the monopolistic capitalist becomes a ruler/monarch. You no longer
need ever-increasing customers so you can dispense with them if you so chose (by reducing the
population). One bottle of water is far more valuable and a lot less trouble to produce that
100 millions bottles of water. There is no point in AI to provide for the needs of "the
many"; AI becomes a means to dispense with "the many" altogether.
Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free
or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living.
So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of
retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's
capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor.
The future of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East is in Iraq. The exchange of
hostilities between the U.S. and Iran occurred wholly on Iraqi soil and it has become the site
on which that war will continue.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, following President Trump's lead by bombing Shia
militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
The U.S. and Israel are determined this border crossing remains closed and have demonstrated
just how far they are willing to go to prevent the free flow of goods and people across this
border.
The regional allies of Iran are to be kept weak, divided and constantly under
harassment.
Iraq is the battleground because the U.S. lost in Syria. Despite the presence of U.S. troops
squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor province or the troops sitting in the desert
protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces
continue to reclaim territory previously lost to the Syrian government.
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas deposits,
the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is nearly
complete.
The defenders of Syria can soon transition into the rebuilders thereof, if allowed. And they
didn't do this alone, they had a silent partner in China the entire time.
And, if I look at this situation honestly, it was China stepping out from behind the shadows
into the light that is your inciting incident for this chapter in Iraq's story.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
It doubles China's investment in Iraq while denying the U.S. that money and influence.
This happened after a massive $53 billion deal between Exxon-Mobil and Petrochina was put on
hold after the incident involving Iran shooting down a U.S. Global Hawk drone in June.
With the U.S balking over the Exxon/Petrochina big deal, Iraqi Prime Minster Adel Abdul
Mahdi signed the new one with China in October. Mahdi brought up the circumstances surrounding
that in Iraqi parliaments during the session in which it passed the resolution recommending
removal of all foreign forces from Iraq.
Did Trump openly threaten Mahdi over this deal as I covered in my
podcast on this? Did the U.S. gin up protests in Baghdad, amplifying unrest over growing
Iranian influence in the country?
And, if not, were these threats simply implied or carried by a minion (Pompeo, Esper, a
diplomat)? Because the U.S.'s history of regime change operations is well documented. Well
understood color revolution
tactics used successfully in
places like Ukraine , where snipers were deployed to shoot protesters and police alike to
foment violence between them at the opportune time were on display in Baghdad.
Mahdi openly accused Trump of threatening him, but that sounds more like Mahdi using the
current impeachment script to invoke the sinister side of Trump and sell his case.
It's not that I don't think Trump capable of that kind of threat, I just don't think he's
stupid enough to voice it on an open call. Donald Trump is capable of many impulsive things,
openly threatening to remove an elected Prime Minister on a recorded line is not one of
them.
Mahdi has been under the U.S.'s fire since he came to power in late 2018. He was the man who
refused Trump during
Trump's impromptu Christmas visit to Iraq in 2018 , refusing to be summoned to a
clandestine meeting at the U.S. embassy rather than Trump visit him as a head of state, an
equal.
He was the man who declared the Iraqi air space closed after Israeli air attacks on Popular
Mobilization Force (PMF) positions in September.
And he's the person, at the same time, being asked by Trump to act as a mediator between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in peace talks for Yemen.
So, the more we look at this situation the more it is clear that Abdul Madhi, the first
Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging
as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on General Soleimani and what comes after
Iran's subsequent retaliation.
It's clear that Trump doesn't want to fight a war with Iran in Iran. He wants them to
acquiesce to his unreasonable demands and begin negotiating a new nuclear deal which
definitively stops the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and as P
atrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire thinks ,
Trump now wants a new deal which features a prohibition on Iran's medium range missiles ,
and after events this week, it's obvious why. Wednesday's missile strike by Iran demonstrates
that the US can no longer operate in the region so long as Iran has the ability to extend its
own deterrence envelope westwards to Syria, Israel, and southwards to the Arabian Peninsula,
and that includes all US military installations located within that radius.
Iraq doesn't want to be that battlefield. And Iran sent the message with those two missile
strikes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is unsustainable and that any thought of retreating to
the autonomous Kurdish region around the air base at Erbil is also a non-starter.
The big question, after this attack, is whether U.S. air defenses around the Ain al Assad
airbase west of Ramadi were active or not. If they were then Trump's standing down after the
air strikes signals what Patrick suggests, a new Middle East in the making.
If they were not turned on then the next question is why? To allow Iran to save face after
Trump screwed up murdering Soleimani?
I'm not capable of believing such Q-tard drivel at this point. It's far more likely that the
spectre of Russian electronics warfare and radar evasion is lurking in the subtext of this
story and the U.S. truly now finds itself after a second example of Iranian missile technology
in a nascent 360 degree war in the region.
It means that Iran's threats against the cities of Haifa and Dubai were real.
In short, it means the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq now measures in months not
years.
Because both China and Russia stand to gain ground with a newly-united Shi'ite Iraqi
population. Mahdi is now courting Russia to sell him S-300 missile defense systems to allow him
to enforce his demands about Iraqi airspace.
Moqtada al-Sadr is mobilizing his Madhi Army to oust the U.S. from Iraq. Iraq is key to the
U.S. presence in the region. Without Iraq the U.S. position in Syria is unsustainable.
If the U.S. tries to retreat to Kurdish territory and push again for Masoud Barzani and his
Peshmerga forces to declare independence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go
ballistic.
And you can expect him to make good on his threat to close the Incerlik airbase, another
critical logistical juncture for U.S. force projection in the region.
But it all starts with Mahdi's and Iraq's moves in the coming weeks. But, with Trump rightly
backing down from escalating things further and not following through on his outlandish threats
against Iran, it may be we're nearing the end of this intractable standoff.
Back in June I told you
that Iran had the ability to fight asymmetrically against the U.S., not through direct
military confrontation but through the after-effects of a brief, yet violent period of war in
which all U.S., Israeli and Arab assets in the Middle East come under fire from all
directions.
It sent this same message then that by attacking oil tankers it could make the transport of
oil untenable and not insurable. We got a taste of it back then and Trump, then, backed
down.
And the resultant upheaval in the financial markets creating an abyss of losses, cross-asset
defaults, bank failures and government collapses.
Trump has no real option now but to negotiate while Iraq puts domestic pressure on him to
leave and Russia/China come in to provide critical economic and military support to assist
Mahdi rally his country back towards some semblance of sovereignty
How about "what is the goal?" There is none of course. The assholes in the Washington/MIC
just need war to keep them relevant. What if the US were to closed down all those wars and
foreign bases? THEN the taxpayer could demand some accounting for the trillions that are
wasted on complete CRAP. There are too many old leftovers from the cold war who seem to think
there is benefit to fighting wars in shithole places just because those wars are the only
ones going on right now. The stupidity of the ****** in the US military/MIC/Washington is
beyond belief. JUST LEAVE you ******* idiots.
Sometimes, in treading thru the opaque, sandstorm o ******** swept wastes of the '
desert of the really real '...
one must rely upon a marking... some kind of guidepost, however tenuous, to show you to be
still... on the trail, not lost in the vast haunted reaches of post-reality. And you know,
Tommy is that sort of guide; the sort of guy who you take to the fairgrounds, set him up with
the 'THROW THE BALL THRU THE HOOP... GUARANTEED PRIZE TO SCOOP' kiosk...
and he misses every time. Just by watching Tom run through his paces here... zeroing in on
the exact WRONG interpretation of events ... every dawg gone time... one resets their compass
to tru course and relaxes into the flow agin! Thanks Tom! Let's break down ... the Schlitzy
shopping list of sloppy errors:
Despite the presence of U.S. troops squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor
province or the troops sitting in the desert protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the
Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces continue to reclaim territory previously
lost to the Syrian government. / umm Tom... the Russkies just ONCE AGIN... at Ankaras
request .. imposed a stop on the IDLIB CAMPAIGN. Which by the way... is being conducted
chiefly by the SAA. Or was that's to say. To the east... the Russkies have likewise become
the guarantors of .... STATIS... that is a term implying no changes on the map. Remember
that word Tom... "map" ... I recommend you to find one... and learn how to use it!
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas
deposits, the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is
nearly complete. See above... with gravy Tom. Two hundred jihadists moving to Libya has not
changed the status quo... except in dreamland.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, f ollowing President Trump's lead by bombing
Shia militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Urusalem.. and its pathetically obedient dogsbody USSA ... are busy setting up RIMFISTAN
Tom.. you really need to start expanding your reading list; On both sides of that border
you mention .. they will be running - and guarding - pipeline running to the mothership.
Shia miitias and that project just don't mix. Nobody gives a frying fluck bout your
imaginary 'land bridge to the Med'... except you and the gomers. And you and they aren't
ANYWHERES near to here.
Abdul Madhi, the first Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for
more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on
General Soleimani and what comes after Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Ok... this is getting completely embarrassing. The man is a 'caretaker' Tom...
that's similar to a 'janitor' - he's on the way out. If you really think thats' being
pivotal... I'm gonna suggest that you've 'pivoted' on one of your goats too many
times.
Look, Tom... I did sincerely undertake to hold your arm, and guide you through this to a
happier place. But you... are underwater my man. And that's quite an accomplishment, since we
be traveling through the deserts of the really real. You've enumerated a list of things which
has helped me to understand just how completely distorted is the picture of the situation
here in mudded east.. is... in the minds of the myriad victims of your alt-media madness. And
I thank you for that. But its time we part company.
These whirring klaidescope glasses I put on, in order to help me see how you see things,
have given me a bit of a headache. Time to return to seeing the world... as it really
works!
The whole *target and destroy* Iran (and Iraq) clusterfuck has always been about creating
new profit scenarios, profit theaters, for the MIC.
If the US govt was suddenly forced to stop making and selling **** designed to kill
people... if the govt were forced to stopping selling **** to other people so
they can kill people... if the govt were forced to stop stockpiling **** designed to
kill people just so other people would stop building and stockpiling **** designed to kill
people... first the US then the world would collapse... everyone would finally see... the US
is a nation of people that allows itself to be propped up by the worst sort of people... an
infinitesimally small group of gangsters who legally make insane amounts of money... by
creating in perpetuity... forever new scenarios that allow them to kill other people.
Jesus ******* Christ ZeroHedge software ******* sucks.
Why has Trump no real option? What do you believe are the limits of Trump's options that
assure he must negotiate? Perhaps all out war is not yet possible politically in the US, but
public sentiment has been manipulated before. Why not now?
One must not yet reject the idea that the road to Moscow and Beijing does not run through
Iran. Throwing the US out of the Middle East would be a grievous failure for the deep state
which has demonstrated itself to be absolutely ruthless. It is hard to believe the US will
leave without a much more serious war forcing the issue.
So far Trump has appeared artless and that may continue but that artlessness may well
bring a day when Trump will not back down.
The motivation behind Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action wasn't
because, after careful analytical study of the plan, he decided it was a bad deal. It was
because Israel demanded it as it didn't fit into their best interests and, as with the
refreezing of relationships with Cuba, it was a easier way to undo Obama policy rather than
tackling Obamacare. Hardly sound judgement.
The war will continue in Iraq as the Shia majority mobilize against an occupying force
that has been asked to leave, but refuse. What will quickly become apparent is that this war
is about to become far more multifaceted with Iraqi and Iranian proxies targeting American
interests across numerous fronts.
Trump is the head of a business empire; Downsizing is not a strategy that he's ever
employed; His business history is a case study in go big or go bust.
trump's zionist overlords have demanded he destroy iran.
as a simple lackey, he agreed, but he does need political cover to do so.
thus the equating of any attack or threat of attack by any group of any political
persuasion as originating from iran.
any resistance by the shia in iraq will be considered as being directed from iran, thus an
attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the currect governement of iraq will be considered as being directed
from iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the sunni in iraq will be considered subversion by iran, or a false flag
by iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
trump's refusal to follow the SOFA agreement, and heed the call of the democratic
government we claim to have gone in to install, is specifically designed to lead to more
violence, which in turn can be blamed on iran's "malign" influence, which gives the entity
lackeys cover to spread more democracy.
I'm more positive that Iraq can resolve its issues without starting a Global War.
The information
shared by the Iraqi Prime Minister goes part way to awakening the population as to what
is happening and why.
Once more information starts to leak out (and it will from those individuals who want to
avoid extinction) the broad mass of the global population can take action to protect
themselves from the psychopaths.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
Come on Tom, you should know better than that: the U.S will destroy any agreements between
China and the people of Iraq.
The oil will continue to be stolen and sent to Occupied Palestine to administer and the
people of Iraq will be in constant revolt, protest mode and subjugation- but they will never
know they are being manipulated by the thieving zionists in D.C and Tel aviv.
Agreed. It will take nothing short of a miracle to stop this. Time isnt on their side
though so they better get on it. They will do something big to get it going.
This isn't "humanity." Few people are psychopathic killers. It is being run by a small
cliche of Satanists who are well on their way to enslaving humanity in a dystopia even George
Orwell could not imagine. They control most of the levers of power and influence and have
done so for centuries.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor
for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.
- Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's testimony before the Nuremberg tribunal on crimes
against humanity
When
the United States, the United Kingdom, and the "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq in
March 2003, millions protested around the world. But the war of "shock and awe" was just the
beginning. The subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority
bankrupted the country and left its infrastructure in shambles.
It's not just a question of security. Although the breathtaking violence that attended
Iraq's descent into sectarian nightmare has been well documented in many retrospectives on the
10-year-old war, what's often overlooked is that by far more mundane standards, the United
States did a spectacularly poor job of governing Iraq.
It's not that Iraq was flourishing before the occupation. From 1990 to 2003, the UN Security
Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were the harshest in the history of global
governance. But along with the sanctions, at least, came an elaborate system of oversight and
accountability that drew in the Security Council, nine UN agencies, and General Secretary
himself.
The system was certainly imperfect, and the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people
were devastating. But when the United States arrived, all semblance of international oversight
vanished.
Under enormous pressure from Washington, in May 2003 the Security Council formally
recognized the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Resolution
1483. Among other things, this resolution gave the CPA complete control over all of Iraq's
assets.
At the same time, the Council removed all the forms of monitoring and accountability that
had been in place: there would be no reports on the humanitarian situation by UN agencies, and
there would be no committee of the Security Council charged with monitoring the occupation.
There would be a limited audit of funds, after they were spent, but no one from the UN would
directly oversee oil sales. And no humanitarian agencies would ensure that Iraqi funds were
being spent in ways that benefitted the country.
Humanitarian concerns
In January 2003, the UN prepared a working plan anticipating the impact of
a possible war. Even with only "medium impact" from the invasion, the UN expected that
humanitarian conditions would be severely compromised.
Because the Iraqi population was so heavily reliant on the government's food distribution
system (a consequence of international sanctions), the UN anticipated that overthrowing the
Iraqi regime would also undermine food security. And because the population already suffered
from extensive malnutrition, this disruption would be quite lethal, putting 30 percent of Iraqi
children under five at risk of death. The UN noted that if water and sewage treatment plants
were damaged in the war, or if the electrical system could not operate, Iraqis would lose
access to potable water, which would likely precipitate epidemics of water-borne diseases. And
if electricity, transportation, and medical equipment were compromised, then the medical system
would be unable to respond effectively to these epidemics.
During the occupation, much of this came to pass. A
June 2003 UN report noted that the postwar water and sewage systems for Baghdad and other
central and southern governorates were "in crisis." In Baghdad alone, the report estimated that
40 percent of the city's water distribution network was damaged, leading to a loss of up to
half of the city's potable water through leaks and breaks in the system. And direr still, the
UN reported that neither of Baghdad's two sewage treatment plants was functional, leading to a
massive discharge of raw sewage into the Tigris River.
The food situation was similar. The UN found that farming had collapsed due to "widespread
insecurity and looting, the complete collapse of ministries and state agencies -- the sole
providers of essential farming inputs and services -- together with significant damages to
power supplies."
Likewise, the health system deteriorated dramatically. Less than 50 percent of the Iraqi
population had access to medical care, due in part to the dangers associated with travel.
Additionally, the report estimated that 75 percent of all health-care institutions were
affected by the looting and chaos that occurred in the aftermath of the war. As of June 2003,
the health system as a whole was functioning at 30-50 percent of its pre-war capacity. The
impact was immediate. By early summer, acute malnutrition rates had doubled, dysentery was
widespread, and little medical care was available. In August, when a power outage blacked out
New York, the joke going around Baghdad was "I hope they're not waiting for the Americans to
fix it."
The CPA gave responsibility for humanitarian relief to the U.S. military -- not to agencies
with experience in humanitarian crises -- and marginalized the UN's humanitarian relief
agencies. Over the 14-month course of the CPA's administration, the humanitarian crisis
worsened. Preventable diseases like dysentery and typhoid ran rampant. Malnutrition worsened,
claiming the lives of ever more infants, mothers, and young children. All told, there was an
estimated 100,000
"excess deaths" during the invasion and occupation -- well above and beyond the mortality rate
under Saddam Hussein, even under international sanctions.
The CPA's priorities were clear. After the invasion, during the widespread looting and
robbery, occupation authorities did little to protect water and sewage treatment plants, or
even pediatric hospitals. By contrast, they provided immediate protection for the oil ministry
offices, hired a U.S. company to put out oil field fires, and immediately provided protection
for the oil fields as well.
Corruption
In addition, the U.S.-led CPA was deeply corrupt. Much of Iraq's revenues, from oil sales or
other sources, went to contracts with U.S. companies. Of contracts for more than $5 million, 74
percent went to U.S. companies, with most of the remainder going to U.S. allies. Only 2 percent
went to Iraqi companies.
Over the course of the occupation, huge amounts of money simply disappeared. Kellogg, Brown,
and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, received over 60 percent of all contracts paid for
with Iraqi funds, although it was repeatedly criticized by auditors for issues of honesty and
competence. In the last six weeks of the occupation, the United States shipped $5 billion of
Iraqi funds, in cash, into the country, to be spent before the Iraqi-led government took over.
Auditor reports indicated that Iraqi funds were systematically looted by the CPA officials:
"One contractor received a $2 million payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped
bundles of currency," read one
report . "One official was given $6.75 million in cash, and was ordered to spend it one
week before the interim Iraqi government took control of Iraqi funds."
U.S. officials were apparently unconcerned about the gross abuses of the funds with which
they were entrusted. In one instance, the CPA transferred some $8.8 billion of Iraqi money
without any documentation as to how the funds were spent. When questioned about how the money
was spent, Admiral David Oliver, the principal deputy for financial matters in the CPA,
replied
that he had "no idea" and didn't think it was particularly important. "Billions of dollars of
their money?" he asked his interlocutor. "What difference does it make?"
In the end, none of this should be terribly surprising -- the corruption, the indifference
to human needs, the singular concern with controlling Iraq's oil wealth. It was obvious from
the moment that the Security Council, under enormous pressure from the United State, passed
Resolution 1483.
By systematically removing nearly every form of oversight from their self-imposed
administration of Iraq, the United States and its allies laid the foundation for the looting of
an entire nation's wealth, abetted by their own wanton indifference to the needs and rights of
Iraqis. Ten years after the start of the war, the CPA's disastrous governance of Iraq stands
alongside the country's horrifying descent into violence as a dark legacy in its own right.
Having spent the last several years of my life engineering investment strategies to profit
from the inevitability of Peak Oil, I've become obsessed with understanding the ramifications
of radically different energy supply dynamics on the global economy. There are many facets to
this, some obvious and some not so obvious. So when ASPO-USA Executive Director Jan Mueller
approached me at the end of this year's conference in Austin and asked for an article
discussing the less obvious economic impacts of Peak Oil, I knew instantly that the
topic should be the threat Peak Oil poses to the International Monetary System (IMS). This
connection is critically important, but far from obvious.
I assure you that this story is very much about Peak Oil, but please bear with me, as I'll
need to start by reviewing what the IMS is and how it came about in the first place. Then I'll
explain the role energy has already played in shaping the present-day IMS, and finally, I'll
tie this back to Peak Oil by explaining why rising energy prices could very well be the
catalyst that will cause the present system to fail.
What is the International Monetary System?
At the end of World War II, many countries were literally lying in ruin, and needed to be
rebuilt. It was clear that international trade would be very important going forward, but how
would it work? World leaders recognized the need to architect a new monetary system that would
facilitate international trade and allow the world to rebuild itself following the most
devastating war in world history.
A global currency was out of the question because the many countries of the world valued
their sovereignty, and wanted to continue to issue their own domestic currencies. In order for
international trade to flourish, a system was needed to allow trade between dozens of different
nations, each with its own currency.
A convention was organized by the United Nations for the purpose of bringing world leaders
together to architect this new International Monetary System . The meetings were held in
July, 1944 at the Mt. Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and were attended by
730 delegates representing all 44 allied nations. The official name for the event was the
United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference , but it would forever be remembered as
The Bretton Woods Conference .
To this day, the system designed in those meetings remains the basis for all international
trade, and is known as the Bretton Woods System. The system has evolved quite a bit
since its inception, but its core principles remain the basis for all international trade. I'm
going to focus this article on the parts of the system which I believe are now at risk of
radical change, with Peak Oil the most likely catalyst to bring about that change. Readers
seeking a deeper understanding of the system itself should refer to the Further Reading
section at the end of this article.
Why is an International Monetary System needed?
It simply wouldn't be practical for all countries to sell their export products to other
countries in their own currencies. If one had to pay for wine from France in French Francs
(there was no Euro currency in 1944), and then pay to import a BMW automobile in German Marks,
then pay for copper produced in Chile in Pesos, each country would face an overwhelming burden
just maintaining reserve deposits of all the various world currencies. The system of trade
would be very inefficient. For centuries, this problem has been solved by using a single
standard currency for all international trade.
Because a standard-currency system dictates that each nation's central bank will need to
maintain a reserve supply of the standard currency in order to facilitate international
trade, the standard currency is known as the reserve currency . At various times in
history, the Greek Drachma, the Roman Denari, and the Islamic Dinar have served as de-facto
reserve currencies. Prior to World War II, the English Pound Sterling was the
international reserve currency.
Throughout history, reserve currencies came into and out of use through happenstance. The
Bretton Woods conference marked the first time that a global reserve currency was established
by formal treaty between cooperating nations. The currency chosen was, of course, the U.S.
Dollar.
How does the IMS work?
The core of the system was the U.S. Dollar serving as the standard currency for
international trade. To assure other nations of the dollar's value, the U.S. Treasury would
guarantee that other nations could convert their U.S. dollars into gold bullion at a fixed
exchange rate of $35/oz. Other nations would then "peg" their currencies to the U.S. dollar at
a fixed rate of exchange. Each nation's central bank would be responsible for "defending" the
official exchange rate to the U.S. dollar by offering to buy or sell any amount of currency bid
or offered at that price. This meant each nation would need to keep a healthy reserve of
U.S. dollars on hand to service the needs of domestic businesses wishing to convert money
between the local currency and the U.S. dollar.
By design, the effect of the system was that each national currency was indirectly
redeemable for gold. This was true because each nation's central bank guaranteed convertibility
of its own currency to U.S. dollars at some fixed rate of exchange, and the U.S. Treasury
guaranteed convertibility of U.S. dollars to gold at a fixed rate of $35/oz. So long as all of
the governments involved kept their promises, each nation's domestic currency would be as good
as gold, because it was ultimately convertible to gold. United States President Richard Nixon
would break the most central promise of the entire system (U.S. dollar convertibility for gold)
on August 15, 1971. I'll come back to that event later in this article.
Triffin's Dilemma
In 1959, three years after M. King Hubbert's now-famous Peak Oil predictions, economist
Robert Triffin would make equally prescient predictions about the sustainability of the "new"
IMS, which was then only 15 years old. Sadly, Triffin's predictions, like Hubbert's, would be
ignored by the mainstream.
The whole reason for choosing the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency was
that without a doubt, the U.S.was the world's strongest credit in 1944. To assure confidence in
the system, the strongest, most creditworthy currency on earth was chosen to serve as the
standard unit of account for global trade. To eliminate any question about the value of the
dollar, the system was designed so that any international holder of U.S. dollars could convert
those dollars to gold bullion at a pre-determined fixed rate of exchange. Dollars were
literally as good as gold.
Making the USD the world's reserve currency created an enormous international demand for
more dollars to meet each nation's need to hold a reserve of dollars. The USA was happy to
oblige by printing up more greenbacks. This provided sufficient dollars for other nations to
hold as foreign exchange reserves, while at the same time allowing the U.S.to spend beyond its
means without facing the same repercussions that would occur were it not the world's reserve
currency issuer.
Triffin observed that if you choose a currency because it's a strong credit, and then give
the issuing nation a financial incentive to borrow and print money recklessly without penalty,
eventually that currency won't be the strongest credit any more! This paradox came to be known
as Triffin's Dilemma.
Specifically, Triffin predicted that as issuer of the international reserve currency, the
USA would be prone to over consumption, over-indebtedness, and tend toward military
adventurism. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government would prove Triffin right on all three
counts.
Triffin correctly predicted that the USA would eventually be forced off the gold standard.
The international demand for U.S. dollars would allow the USA to create more dollars than it
otherwise could have without bringing on domestic inflation. When a country creates too much of
its own currency and that money stays in the country, supply-demand dynamics kick in and too
much money chasing too few goods and services results in higher prices. But when a country can
export its currency to other nations who have an artificial need to hold large amounts of that
currency in reserve, the issuing country can create far more money than it otherwise could
have, without causing a tidal wave of domestic inflation.
Nixon proves Triffin right
By 1970, the U.S.had drastically over-spent on the Vietnam War, and the number of dollars in
circulation far outnumbered the amount of gold actually backing them. Other nations recognized
that there wasn't enough gold in Fort Knox for the U.S.to back all the dollars in circulation,
and wisely began to exchange their excess USDs for gold. Before long, something akin to a run
on the bullion bank had begun, and it became clear that the USA could not honor the $35
conversion price indefinitely.
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon did exactly what Triffin predicted more than a decade
earlier: he declared force majeure , and defaulted unilaterally on theUSA's promise to
honor gold conversion at $35/oz, as prescribed by the Bretton Woods accord.
Of course Nixon was not about to admit that the reason this was happening was that the U.S.
Government had abused its status as reserve currency issuer and recklessly spent beyond its
means. Instead, he blamed "speculators", and announced that the United Stateswould suspend
temporarily the convertibility of the Dollar into gold. Forty-two years later, the word
temporarily has taken on new meaning.
Exorbitant Privilege
With the whole world conducting international trade in U.S. dollars, nations with large
export markets wound up with a big pile of U.S. dollars (payments for the goods they exported).
The most obvious course of action for the foreign companies who received all those dollars as
payment for their exported products would be to exchange the dollars on the international
market, converting them into their own domestic currencies. What may not be obvious at first
glance is that there would be catastrophic unintended consequences if they actually did
that.
If all the manufacturing companies in Japan or China converted their dollar revenues back
into local currency, the act of selling dollars and buying their domestic currencies would
cause their own currencies to appreciate markedly against the dollar. The same holds true for
oil exporting countries. If they converted all their dollar revenues back into their own
currencies, doing so would make their currencies more expensive against the dollar. That would
make their exports less attractive because, being priced in dollars, they would fetch lower and
lower prices after being converted back into the exporting nation's domestic currency.
The solution for the exporting nations was for their central banks to allow commercial
exporters to convert their dollars for newly issued domestic currency. The central banks of
exporting nations would wind up with a huge surplus of U.S. dollars they needed to invest
somewhere without converting them to another currency . The obvious place to invest them
was into U.S. Government Bonds.
This is the mechanism through which the reserve currency status of the dollar creates
artificial demand for U.S. dollar-denominated treasury debt. That artificial demand allows the
United States government to borrow money from foreigners in its own currency, something most
nations cannot do at all. What's more, this artificial demand for U.S. Treasury debt allows the
USA to borrow and spend far more borrowed foreign money than it would otherwise be able to,
were it not the world's reserve currency issuer. The reason is that, if not for the artificial
need to hold dollar reserves, foreign lenders would be much less inclined to purchase U.S.
debt, and would therefore demand much higher interest rates. Similarly, the more that
international trade has grown as a result of globalization, the more the United States'
exorbitant privilege has grown.
Have you ever wondered why China, Japan, and the oil exporting nations have such enormous
U.S. Treasury bond holdings, despite the fact that they hardly pay any interest these days? The
reason is definitely not because those nations think 1.6% interest on a 10-year
unsecured loan to a nation known to have a reckless spending habit is a good investment. It's
because they have little other choice. The more their own economies rely on exports priced in
dollars, the more they need to keep their own currencies attractively priced relative to the
U.S. dollar in order for their exports to remain competitive on the international market. To
achieve that outcome, they must hold large reserves denominated in U.S. dollars. That's why
China and Japan – major export economies – are the biggest foreign holders of U.S.
debt.
The net effect of this system is that the USA gets to borrow money from foreigners at
artificially low interest rates. Moreover, the USA can become over-indebted without the usual
consequences of increasing borrowing cost and declining creditworthiness. Other nations have
little choice but to maintain a large reserve supply of dollars as the international trade
currency. But the U.S. has no need to maintain large reserves of other nations' currencies,
because those currencies are not used in international trade.
By the mid-1960s, this phenomenon became known as exorbitant privilege : That
phrase refers to the ability of the USA to go into debt virtually for free, denominated in its
own currency, when no other nation enjoys such a privilege. The phrase exorbitant
privilege is often attributed to French President Charles de Gaulle, although it was
actually his finance minister, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who coined the phrase.
What's important to understand here is that the whole reason the U.S. can get away with
running trillion-dollar budget deficits without the bond market revolting (a la Greece) is
because of exorbitant privilege. And that privilege is a direct consequence of the U.S. dollar
serving as the world's reserve currency. If international trade were not conducted in dollars,
exporting nations (both manufacturers and oil exporters) would no longer need to hold large
reserves of U.S. dollars.
Put another way, when the U.S. dollar loses its reserve currency status, the U.S.will lose
its exorbitant privilege of spending beyond its means on easy credit. The U.S. Treasury bond
market will most likely crash, and borrowing costs will skyrocket. Those increased borrowing
costs will further exacerbate the fiscal deficit. Can you say self-reinforcing vicious
cycle?
But wait Wasn't Gold convertibility the whole basis of the system?
If the whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to guarantee that all the currencies of
the world were "as good as gold" because they were convertible to U.S. dollars, which in turn
were promised to be convertible into gold And then President Nixon broke that promise in 1971
Wouldn't that suggest that the whole system should have blown up in reaction to Nixon slamming
the gold window shut in August of '71?
Actually, it almost did. But miraculously, the system has held together for the last 42
years, despite the fact that the most fundamental promise upon which the system was based no
longer holds true. To be sure, the Arabs were not happy about Nixon's action, and they
complained loudly at the time, rhetorically asking why they should continue to accept dollars
for their oil, if those dollars were not backed by anything, and might just become worthless
paper. After all, if U.S. dollars were no longer convertible into gold, what value did they
really have to foreigners? The slamming of the gold window by President Nixon in 1971 was not
the only cause of the Arab oil embargo, but it was certainly a major influence.
What's holding the IMS together?
Why didn't the rest of the world abandon the dollar as the global reserve currency in
reaction to the USA unilaterally reneging on gold convertibility in 1971? In my opinion, the
best answer is simply "Because there was no clear alternative". And to be sure, the unmatched
power of the U.S.military had a lot to do with eliminating what might otherwise have been
attractive alternatives for other nations.
U.S. diplomats made it clear to Arab leaders that they wanted the Arabs to continue pricing
their oil in dollars. Not just for U.S.customers, but for the entire world. Indeed, U.S.
leaders at the time understood all too well just how much benefit the USA derives from
exorbitant privilege , and they weren't about to give it up.
After a few years of tense negotiations including the infamous oil embargo, the so-called
petro-dollar business cycle was born. The Arabs would only accept dollars for their oil, and
they would re-invest most of their profits in U.S. Treasury debt. In exchange for this
concession, they would come under the protectorate of the U.S. military. Some might even go so
far as to say that the U.S. government used the infamous Mafia tactic of making the Arabs an
"offer they couldn't refuse" – forcing oil producing nations to make financial
concessions in exchange for "protection".
With the Arabs now strongly incented to continue pricing the world's most important
commodity in U.S. dollars, the Bretton Woods system lived on. No longer constrained by the
threat of a run on its bullion reserves, the U.S. kicked its already-entrenched practice of
borrowing and spending beyond its means into high gear. For the past 42 years, the entire world
has continued to conduct virtually all international trade in Dollars. This has forced
China,Japan, and the oil exporting nations to buy and hold an enormous amount of U.S. Treasury
debt. Exorbitant privilege is the key economic factor that allows the U.S.to run trillion
dollar fiscal deficits without crashing the Treasury bond market. So far.
There's a limit to how long this can last
But how long can this continue? The U.S.debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 100%, and the U.S.has
literally doubled its national debt in the last 6 years alone. It stands to reason that
eventually, other nations will lose faith in the dollar and start conducting business in some
other currency. In fact, that's already started to happen, and it's perhaps the most
important, under-reported economic news story in all of history.
Some examples China and Brazil are now conducting international trade in their own
currencies, as are Russia and China. Turkey and Iran are trading oil for gold, bypassing the
dollar as a reserve currency. In that case,U.S.sanctions are a big part of the reason Iran
can't sell its oil in dollars. But I wonder if President Obama considered the undermining
effect on exorbitant privilege when he imposed those sanctions. I fear that the present U.S.
government doesn't understand the importance of the dollar's reserve currency role nearly as
well as our leaders did in the 1970s.
The Biggest Risk We Face is a U.S. Bond and Currency Crisis
To be sure, Peak Oil in general represents a monumental risk to humanity because it's
literally impossible to feed all 7+ billion people on the planet without abundant energy to run
our farming equipment and distribution infrastructure. But the risks stemming directly from
declining energy production are not the most imposing, in my view.
Decline rates will be gradual at first, and it will be possible, even if unpopular, to
curtail unnecessary energy consumption and give priority to life-sustaining uses for the
available supply of liquid fuels. In my opinion, the greatest risks posed by Peak Oil are the
consequential risks. These include resource wars between nations, hoarding of scarce
resources, and so forth. Chief among these consequential risks is the possibility that the Peak
Oil energy crisis will be the catalyst to cause a global financial system meltdown. In my
opinion, the USA losing its reserve currency status is likely to be at the heart of such a
meltdown.
A good rule of thumb is that if something is unsustainable and cannot continue forever, it
will not continue forever. The present incarnation of the IMS, which affords the United States
the exorbitant privilege of borrowing a seemingly limitless amount of its own currency from
foreigners in order to finance its reckless habit of spending beyond its means with
trillion-dollar fiscal deficits, is a perfect example of an unsustainable system that cannot
continue forever.
But the bigger the ship, the longer it takes to change course. The IMS is the biggest
financial ship in the sea, and miraculously, it has remained afloat for 42 years after the most
fundamental justification for its existence (dollar-gold convertibility) was eliminated. How
long do we have before the inevitable happens, and what will be the catalyst(s) to bring about
fundamental change? Those are the key questions.
In my opinion, the greatest risk to global economic stability is a sovereign debt crisis
destroying the value of the world's reserve currency. In other words, a crash of the U.S.
Treasury Bond market. I believe that the loss of reserve currency status is the most likely
catalyst to bring about such a crisis.
The fact that the United States' borrowing and spending habits are unsustainable has been a
topic of public discussion for decades. Older readers will recall billionaire Ross Perot
exclaiming in his deep Texas accent, "A national debt of five trillion dollarsis
simply not sustainable!" during his 1992 Presidential campaign. Mr. Perot was right when he
said that 20 years ago, but the national debt has since more than tripled . The big
crisis has yet to occur. How is this possible? I believe the answer is that because the U.S.
dollar is the world's reserve currency and is perceived by institutional investors around the
globe to be the world's safest currency, it enjoys a certain degree of immunity derived from
widespread complacency.
But that immunity cannot last forever. The loss of reserve currency status will be the
forcing function that begins a self-reinforcing vicious cycle that brings about a U.S. bond and
currency crisis. While many analysts have opined that the USA cannot go on borrowing and
spending forever, relatively few have made the connection to loss of reserve currency status as
the forcing function to bring about a crisis.
We're already seeing small leaks in the ship's hull. China openly promoting the idea that
the yuan should be asserted as an alternative global reserve currency would have been
unthinkable a decade ago, but is happening today. Major international trade deals (such as
China and Brazil) not being denominated in U.S. dollars would have been unthinkable a
decade ago, but are happening today.
So we're already seeing signs that the dollar's exclusive claim on reserve currency status
will be challenged. Remember, when the dollar loses reserve currency status, the U.S.loses
exorbitant privilege. The deficit spending party will be over, and interest rates will explode
to the upside. But to predict that this will happen right now simply because the system is
unsustainable would be unwise. After all, by one important measure the system stopped making
sense 42 years ago, but has somehow persisted nonetheless. The key question becomes, what
will be the catalyst or proximal trigger that causes the USD to lose reserve currency status,
igniting a U.S. Treasury Bond crisis?
Elevated Risk
It's critical to understand that the USA is presently in a very precarious fiscal situation.
The national debt has more than doubled in the last 10 years, but so far, there don't seem to
have been any horrific consequences. Could it be that all this talk about the national debt
isn't such a big deal after all?
The critical point to understand is that while the national debt has more than doubled, the
U.S. Government's cost of borrowing hasn't increased at all. The reason is that interest
rates are less than half what they were 10 years ago. Half the interest on twice as much
principal equals the same monthly payment, so to speak. This is exactly the same trap that
subprime mortgage borrowers fell into. First, money is borrowed at an artificially low interest
rate. But eventually, the interest rate increases, and the cost of borrowing skyrockets. The
USA is already running an unprecedented and unsustainable $1 trillion+ annual budget deficit.
All it would take to double the already unsustainable deficit is for interest rates to rise to
their historical norms.
This all comes back to exorbitant privilege. The only reason interest rates are so low is
that the Federal Reserve is intentionally suppressing them to unprecedented low levels in an
attempt to combat deflation and resuscitate the economy. The only reason the Fed has the
ability to do this is that foreign lenders have an artificial need to hold dollar reserves
because the USD is the global reserve currency. They would never accept such low interest rates
otherwise. Loss of reserve currency status means loss of exorbitant privilege, and that in turn
means the Fed would lose control of interest rates. The Fed might respond by printing even more
dollars out of thin air to buy treasury bonds, but in absence of reserve currency status, doing
that would cause a collapse of the dollar's value against other currencies, making all the
imported goods we now depend on unaffordable.
In summary, the U.S. Government has repeated the exact same mistake that got all those
subprime mortgage borrowers into so much trouble. They are borrowing more money than they can
afford to pay back, depending solely on "teaser rates" that won't last. The U.S. Government's
average maturity of outstanding treasury debt is now barely more than 5 years. This is
analogous to cash-out refinancing a 30-year fixed mortgage, replacing it with a much higher
principal balance in a 3-year ARM that offers an initial teaser rate. At first, you get to
borrow way more money for the same monthly payment. But eventually the rate is adjusted, and
the borrower is unable to make the higher payments.
The Janszen Scenario
When it comes to evaluating the risk of a U.S. sovereign debt and currency crisis, most
mainstream economists dismiss the possibility out of hand, citing the brilliant wisdom that
"the authorities would never let such a thing happen". These are the same people who were
steadfastly convinced that housing prices would never crash in the United States because they
never had before, and that Peak Oil is a myth because the shale gas boom solves everything
(provided you don't actually do the math).
At the opposite extreme are the bloggers on the Internet whom I refer to as the
Hyperinflation Doom Squad. Their narrative generally goes something like this: Suddenly,
when you least expect it, foreigners will wise up and realize that the U.S. national debt
cannot be repaid in real terms, and then there will be a panic that results in a crash of the
U.S. Treasury market, hyperinflation of the U.S. dollar, and declaration of martial law. This
group almost always cites the hyperinflations of Zimbabwe and Argentina as "proof" of what's
going to happen in the USA any day now, but never so much as acknowledges the profound
differences in circumstances between the USA and those countries. These folks deserve a little
credit for having the right basic idea, but their analysis of what could actually happen simply
isn't credible when examined in detail.
Little-known economist Eric Janszen stands out as an exception. Janszen is the only credible
macroeconomic analyst I'm aware of who realistically acknowledges just how real and serious the
threat of a U.S.sovereign debt crisis truly is. But his analysis of that risk is based on
credible, level-headed thinking complemented by solid references to legitimate economic theory
such as Triffin's Dilemma. Unlike the Doom Squad, Janszen does not rely on specious comparisons
of the USA to small, systemically insignificant countries whose past financial crises have
little in common with the situation the USA faces. Instead, Janszen offers refreshingly sound,
well constructed arguments. Many of the concepts discussed in this article reflect Janszen's
work.
Janszen also happens to be the same guy who coined the phrase Peak Cheap Oil back in
2006, drawing an important distinction between the geological phenomenon of Hubbert's Peak and
the economic phenomenon which begins well before the actual peak, due to increasing marginal
cost of production resulting from ever-increasing extraction technology complexity.
"But there's no sign of inflation " (Hint: It's coming)
Janszen has put quite a bit of work into modeling what a U.S.bond and currency crisis would
look like. He initially called this KaPoom Theory , because history shows that brief
periods of marked deflation (the 'Ka') usually precede epic inflations (the 'Poom'). He
recently renamed this body of work The Janszen Scenario . Briefly summarized, Janszen's
view is that the U.S. has reached the point where excessive borrowing and fiscal
irresponsibility will eventually cause a catastrophic currency and bond crisis. He believes
that all that's needed at this point is a proximal trigger , or catalyst, to bring about
such an outcome. He thinks there are several potential triggers that could bring such a crisis
about, and chief among the possibilities is the next Peak Cheap Oil price spike.
How Peak Oil could cause a Bond and Currency Crisis
There are several ways that an oil price spike could trigger a U.S.bond and currency crisis.
Energy is an input cost to almost everything else in the economy, so higher oil prices are very
inflationary. The Fed would be hard pressed to continue denying the adverse consequences of
quantitative easing in a high inflation environment, and that alone could be the spark that
leads to higher treasury yields. The resulting higher cost of borrowing to finance the national
debt and fiscal deficit would be devastating to the United States.
A self-reinforcing vicious cycle could easily begin in reaction to oil price-induced
inflation alone. But we must also consider how an oil price shock could lead to loss of USD
reserve currency status, and therefore, loss of U.S.exorbitant privilege. In the 1970s, the USA
represented 80% of the global oil market. Today we represent 20%, and demand growth is
projected to come primarily from emerging economies. In other words, the rationale for oil
producers to keep pricing their product in dollars has seriously deteriorated since the '70s.
The more the global price of oil goes up, the more the U.S. will source oil from Canadian tar
sands and other non-OPEC sources. That means less and less incentive for the OPEC nations to
continue pricing their oil in dollars for all their non-U.S. customers.
Iran and Turkey have already begun transacting oil sales in gold rather than dollars. What
if the other oil exporting nations wake up one morning and conclude "Hey, why are we selling
our oil for dollars that might some day not be worth anything more than the paper they're
printed on?" Oil represents a huge percentage of international trade, so if oil stopped trading
in dollars, that alone would be reason for most nations to reduce the very large dollar
reserves they now hold. They would start selling their U.S. treasury bonds, and that could
start the vicious cycle of higher interest rates and exploding borrowing costs for the U.S.
Government. The precise details are hard to predict. The point is, the system is already
precarious and vulnerable, and an oil price shock could easily detonate the time bomb that's
already been ticking away for more than two decades.
What if U.S. Energy Independence claims were true?
There's another angle here. Peak Oil just might be the catalyst to cause the loss of U.S.
exorbitant privilege, even without an oil price shock.
Astute students of Peak Oil already know better than to believe the recently-popularized
political rhetoric claiming that the USA will soon achieve energy independence, thanks to the
shale oil and gas boom. To be sure, the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and various other U.S. oil and gas
plays are a big deal. The most optimistic forecasts I've seen show these plays collectively
ramping up to as much as 4.8 million barrels per day of production, which is equivalent to
about ½ of Saudi Arabia's current production.
But the infamous "wedge of hope" chart from the EIA projects production declines from
existing global resources of 60 million barrels per day by 2030. By the most optimistic
projections, all the exciting new plays in the U.S. will replace less than 5 million barrels
per day. Where the other 55 million barrels per day will come from remains a mystery! And of
course the politicians never bother to mention such minor details when they make predictions of
energy independence.
But let's just pretend for a moment that hyperbole is reality, and that the USA will achieve
energy-independence in just a few years' time. Now consider the consequences to the IMS. The
oil-exporting nations would lose the USA as their primary export customer, and would no longer
have an incentive to price their oil in dollars, or to maintain large dollar reserves. They
would start selling off their U.S. treasury bonds, and pricing their oil in something other
than dollars. Large oil importers like China and Japan would stop paying for oil in dollars,
and would no longer need to maintain present levels of U.S. dollar reserves. So they too would
start selling U.S. treasury bonds, pushing up U.S. interest rates in the process. Once again,
we have the ingredients for a self-reinforcing vicious cycle of increasing U.S. interest rates
causing U.S. Government borrowing costs to skyrocket.
Without the artificial demand for treasury debt created by exorbitant privilege, the U.S.
would be unable to finance its federal budget deficit. The Federal Reserve might respond with
even more money printing to monetize all the government's borrowing needs, but without the
international demand that results from the dollar's reserve currency status, the dollar would
crash in value relative to other currencies as a result of excessive monetization by the Fed.
The resulting loss of principal value would cause even more international holders of U.S.
Treasury debt to panic and sell their holdings. Once again, a self-reinforcing vicious cycle
would develop, with consequences for the United States so catastrophic that the 2008 event
would pale in contrast.
Rambo to the Rescue?
Let's not forget that the USA enjoys virtually unchallenged global military hegemony. China
is working hard to build out its "blue water navy", including strategic ballistic missile
nuclear submarine capability. But the USA is still top dog on the global power stage, and if
the USA was willing to use its nuclear weapons, it could easily defeat any country on earth,
except perhaps China and Russia.
While the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity might seem unthinkable today, the
USA has yet to endure significant economic hardship. $15/gallon gasoline from the next Peak
Cheap Oil price shock coupled with 15% treasury yields and a government operating in crisis
mode just to hold off systemic financial collapse in the face of rampant inflation would change
the mood considerably.
All the USA has to do in order to secure an unlimited supply of $50/bbl imported oil is to
threaten to nuke any country refusing to sell oil to the U.S. for that price. Unthinkable
today, but in times of national crisis, morals are often the first thing to be forgotten. We
like to tell ourselves that we would never allow economic hardship to cause us to lose our
morals. But just look at the YouTube videos of riots at Wal-Mart over nothing more than
contention over a limited supply of boxer shorts marked down 20% for Black Friday. What we'll
do in a true crisis that threatens our very way of life is anyone's guess.
If faced with the choice between a Soviet-style economic collapse and abusing its military
power, the USA just might resort to tactics previously thought unimaginable. Exactly what those
tactics might be and how it would play out are unknowable. The point is, this is a very complex
problem, and a wide array of factors including military capability will play a role in
determining the ultimate outcome.
I certainly don't mean to predict such an apocalyptic outcome. All I'm really trying
to say is that the military hegemony of the USA will almost certainly play into the equation.
Even if there is no actual military conflict, the ability of the U.S. to defeat almost
any opponent will play into the negotiations, if nothing else.
Conclusions
The current incarnation of the International Monetary System, in which the USA enjoys the
exorbitant privilege of borrowing practically for free, and is therefore able to pursue
reckless fiscal policy with immunity from the adverse consequences that non-reserve currency
issuing nations would experience by doing so, cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore, it will
not continue indefinitely. How and when it will end is hard to say, especially considering the
fact that it's already persisted for 42 years after it stopped making sense. The system will
continue to operate until some catalyst or trigger event brings about catastrophic change.
The next Peak Cheap Oil price spike is not the only possible catalyst to bring about a U.S.
bond and currency crisis, but it's the most likely candidate I'm aware of. I don't believe that
U.S. energy independence is possible, but if it were, the end of oil imports from the Middle
East would also be the catalyst to end exorbitant privilege and bring about a U.S.bond and
currency crisis. To summarize, the music hasn't stopped quite yet, but when it does, this will
end very, very badly. I'm pretty sure we're on the last song, but I don't know how long it has
left to play.
First, thank you b for presenting the 'knowns' as you always do, succinctly and with your
usual clarity. "Iran's missile launch...calls...bluff." That is what it did do, and
effectively.
It should be very clear to all which country defines its own terms and which does not.
Some are pointing to the red flag for confirmation as to who has 'won' this challenge. Not
necessary. A simple comparison of statements before and after, the witness of Iran's
solidarity in the face of atrocity, and now, I think we simply watch and wait.
I will take from Michael Hudson's piece at the Saker site what will be a clear sign,
and that will be who controls the oil? Someone did say on a previous thread that an oilfield
near one of the bases attacked has been relinquished. And for those wondering about 'minimal
damage' it ought to be pointed out that the airfields in question are on Iraq soil, and the
less harm to them the better if Iraq is to be able to recover its assets. So too for Syria -
it should not be forgotten that the problem that was arising was with the protection of
terrorists on the Syria/Iraq border, and the boast that the US had control over the oil
fields in that vicinity.
Also, dominion over the air space is crucial. As I understand it, that is now free of US
planes and drones. How far that extends would be very important to all those who have
shuddered at the sound of approaching engines for weddings and funerals these many years.
What a sorry legacy this empire has left! And, may it have left it!
Thanks for your reply! Some years ago prior to Russia's Syrian intervention, I examined
where genuine Turkish national interests lay and concluded they weren't in the EU given the
numerous repulses when attempting membership but rather they lay to the North and East in
rekindling relations with longtime rivals Russia and Iran. Putin noted this rekindling's been
ongoing for awhile:
"I would like to note that Russia has been exporting gas to Turkey for 30 years, even
though not everyone knows about it. It was initially shipped through the Trans-Balkan gas
pipeline, then through the direct, transit-free Blue Stream pipeline. Last year alone, 24
billion cubic metres of fuel was delivered to our Turkish partners."
Turkey discovered how dependent its economy had become on Russia during the trade embargo
that ensued upon the shootdown of the Mig, which IMO is the main reason a spiteful Erdogan
released the torrent of refugees into the EU as he finally realized Turkey's been used for
decades by the West with no real tangible benefits to show. And yes, IMO he was returning to
sender Terrorists to Libya, and it was no small number as it was several thousand.
IMO, Qatar and Turkey have Seen the Light when it comes to sponsoring terrorist affiliated
organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood; That all they've done is contribute to the Evil
Outlaw US Empire's plan for continuous destabilization of the Persian Gulf region as part of
its strategy to interdict Eurasian Integration, the latter of which is in both Qatar's and
Turkey's genuine national interest.
Looks like Iran is Catch22 for the USA: it can destroy it, but only at the cost of losing empire and dollar hegemony...
Notable quotes:
"... The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings 12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own economies? It's an age-old problem. ..."
"... The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight. ..."
"... Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel]. This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it is about the BRI. ..."
"... The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with China shortly before it slid into this current mess. ..."
"... This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time to speed up this development. ..."
"... "Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal agreed between the two countries." ..."
"... "For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas, China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines' process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq." ..."
"... Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous. ..."
"... I'd never thought of that "stationary aircraft carrier" comparison between Israel and the British, very apt. ..."
"... Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at all costs". ..."
"... This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to the Iraqi parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US admitted to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers. ..."
"... This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11. https://www.voltairenet.org/article ..."
"... "The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire." ..."
"... The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US Financial/Political/Military power. ..."
"... In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world. Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the world. ..."
"... the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few entities. ..."
Introduction: After posting Michael Hudson's article "America
Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East" on the blog, I decided to ask
Michael to reply to a few follow-up questions. Michael very kindly agreed. Please see our
exchange below.
The Saker
-- -- -
The Saker: Trump has been accused of not thinking forward, of not having a long-term
strategy regarding the consequences of assassinating General Suleimani. Does the United States
in fact have a strategy in the Near East, or is it only ad hoc?
Michael Hudson: Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not
reflect a deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and
exploitative that it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if
they came right out and said it.
President Trump is just the taxicab driver, taking the passengers he has accepted –
Pompeo, Bolton and the Iran-derangement syndrome neocons – wherever they tell him they
want to be driven. They want to pull a heist, and he's being used as the getaway driver (fully
accepting his role). Their plan is to hold onto the main source of their international revenue:
Saudi Arabia and the surrounding Near Eastern oil-export surpluses and money. They see the US
losing its ability to exploit Russia and China, and look to keep Europe under its control by
monopolizing key sectors so that it has the power to use sanctions to squeeze countries that
resist turning over control of their economies and natural rentier monopolies to US buyers. In
short, US strategists would like to do to Europe and the Near East just what they did to Russia
under Yeltsin: turn over public infrastructure, natural resources and the banking system to
U.S. owners, relying on US dollar credit to fund their domestic government spending and private
investment.
This is basically a resource grab. Suleimani was in the same position as Chile's Allende,
Libya's Qaddafi, Iraq's Saddam. The motto is that of Stalin: "No person, no problem."
The Saker: Your answer raises a question about Israel: In your recent article you only
mention Israel twice, and these are only passing comments. Furthermore, you also clearly say
the US Oil lobby as much more crucial than the Israel Lobby, so here is my follow-up question
to you: On what basis have you come to this conclusion and how powerful do you believe the
Israel Lobby to be compared to, say, the Oil lobby or the US Military-Industrial Complex? To
what degree do their interests coincide and to what degree to they differ?
Michael Hudson: I wrote my article to explain the most basic concerns of U.S. international
diplomacy: the balance of payments (dollarizing the global economy, basing foreign central bank
savings on loans to the U.S. Treasury to finance the military spending mainly responsible for
the international and domestic budget deficit), oil (and the enormous revenue produced by the
international oil trade), and recruitment of foreign fighters (given the impossibility of
drafting domestic U.S. soldiers in sufficient numbers). From the time these concerns became
critical to today, Israel was viewed as a U.S. military base and supporter, but the U.S. policy
was formulated independently of Israel.
I remember one day in 1973 or '74 I was traveling with my Hudson Institute colleague Uzi
Arad (later a head of Mossad and advisor to Netanyahu) to Asia, stopping off in San Francisco.
At a quasi-party, a U.S. general came up to Uzi and clapped him on the shoulder and said,
"You're our landed aircraft carrier in the Near East," and expressed his friendship.
Uzi was rather embarrassed. But that's how the U.S. military thought of Israel back then. By
that time the three planks of U.S. foreign policy strategy that I outlined were already firmly
in place.
Of course Netanyahu has applauded U.S. moves to break up Syria, and Trump's assassination
choice. But the move is a U.S. move, and it's the U.S. that is acting on behalf of the dollar
standard, oil power and mobilizing Saudi Arabia's Wahabi army.
Israel fits into the U.S.-structured global diplomacy much like Turkey does. They and other
countries act opportunistically within the context set by U.S. diplomacy to pursue their own
policies. Obviously Israel wants to secure the Golan Heights; hence its opposition to Syria,
and also its fight with Lebanon; hence, its opposition to Iran as the backer of Assad and
Hezbollah. This dovetails with US policy.
But when it comes to the global and U.S. domestic response, it's the United States that is
the determining active force. And its concern rests above all with protecting its cash cow of
Saudi Arabia, as well as working with the Saudi jihadis to destabilize governments whose
foreign policy is independent of U.S. direction – from Syria to Russia (Wahabis in
Chechnya) to China (Wahabis in the western Uighur region). The Saudis provide the underpinning
for U.S. dollarization (by recycling their oil revenues into U.S. financial investments and
arms purchases), and also by providing and organizing the ISIS terrorists and coordinating
their destruction with U.S. objectives. Both the Oil lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex
obtain huge economic benefits from the Saudis.
Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about.
The Saker: In your recent article you wrote: " The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves ." Others believe that
the goal was precisely the opposite, to get a pretext to remove the US forces from both Iraq
and Syria. What are your grounds to believe that your hypothesis is the most likely one?
Michael Hudson: Why would killing Suleimani help remove the U.S. presence? He was the
leader of the fight against ISIS, especially in Syria. US policy was to continue using ISIS to
permanently destabilize Syria and Iraq so as to prevent a Shi'ite crescent reaching from Iran
to Lebanon – which incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative.
So it killed Suleimani to prevent the peace negotiation. He was killed because he had been
invited by Iraq's government to help mediate a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That was what the United States feared most of all, because it effectively would prevent its
control of the region and Trump's drive to seize Iraqi and Syrian oil.
So using the usual Orwellian doublethink, Suleimani was accused of being a terrorist, and
assassinated under the U.S. 2002 military Authorization Bill giving the President to move
without Congressional approval against Al Qaeda. Trump used it to protect Al Qaeda's
terrorist ISIS offshoots.
Given my three planks of U.S. diplomacy described above, the United States must remain in
the Near East to hold onto Saudi Arabia and try to make Iraq and Syria client states equally
subservient to U.S. balance-of-payments and oil policy.
Certainly the Saudis must realize that as the buttress of U.S. aggression and terrorism in
the Near East, their country (and oil reserves) are the most obvious target to speed the
parting guest. I suspect that this is why they are seeking a rapprochement with Iran. And I
think it is destined to come about, at least to provide breathing room and remove the threat.
The Iranian missiles to Iraq were a demonstration of how easy it would be to aim them at Saudi
oil fields. What then would be Aramco's stock market valuation?
The Saker: In your article you wrote: " The major deficit in the U.S. balance of payments
has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean
War in 1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing
the dollar off gold in 1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to
continue supporting the 800 U.S. military bases around the world and allied troop support
without losing America's financial leverage. " I want to ask a basic, really primitive
question in this regard: how cares about the balance of payments as long as 1) the US continues
to print money 2) most of the world will still want dollars. Does that not give the US an
essentially "infinite" budget? What is the flaw in this logic?
Michael Hudson: The U.S. Treasury can create dollars to spend at home, and the Fed can
increase the banking system's ability to create dollar credit and pay debts denominated in US
dollars. But they cannot create foreign currency to pay other countries, unless they willingly
accept dollars ad infinitum – and that entails bearing the costs of financing the U.S.
balance-of-payments deficit, getting only IOUs in exchange for real resources that they sell to
U.S. buyers.
This is the situation that arose half a century ago. The United States could print dollars
in 1971, but it could not print gold.
In the 1920s, Germany's Reichsbank could print deutsche marks – trillions of them.
When it came to pay Germany's foreign reparations debt, all it could do was to throw these
D-marks onto the foreign exchange market. That crashed the currency's exchange rate, forcing up
the price of imports proportionally and causing the German hyperinflation.
The question is, how many surplus dollars do foreign governments want to hold. Supporting
the dollar standard ends up supporting U.S. foreign diplomacy and military policy. For the
first time since World War II, the most rapidly growing parts of the world are seeking to
de-dollarize their economies by reducing reliance on U.S. exports, U.S. investment, and U.S.
bank loans. This move is creating an alternative to the dollar, likely to replace it with
groups of other currencies and assets in national financial reserves.
The Saker: In the same article you also write: " So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. " We often hear people say
that the dollar is about to tank and that as soon as that happens, then the US economy (and,
according to some, the EU economy too) will collapse. In the intelligence community there is
something called tracking the "indicators and warnings". My question to you is: what are the
economic "indicators and warnings" of a possible (probable?) collapse of the US dollar followed
by a collapse of the financial markets most tied to the Dollar? What shall people like myself
(I am an economic ignoramus) keep an eye on and look for?
Michael Hudson: What is most likely is a slow decline, largely from debt deflation
and cutbacks in social spending, in the Eurozone and US economies. Of course, the decline will
force the more highly debt-leveraged companies to miss their bond payments and drive them into
insolvency. That is the fate of Thatcherized economies. But it will be long and painfully drawn
out, largely because there is little left-wing socialist alternative to neoliberalism at
present.
Trump's protectionist policies and sanctions are forcing other countries to become
self-reliant and independent of US suppliers, from farm crops to airplanes and military arms,
against the US threat of a cutoff or sanctions against repairs, spare parts and servicing.
Sanctioning Russian agriculture has helped it become a major crop exporter, and to become much
more independent in vegetables, dairy and cheese products. The US has little to offer
industrially, especially given the fact that its IT communications are stuffed with US
spyware.
Europe therefore is facing increasing pressure from its business sector to choose the non-US
economic alliance that is growing more rapidly and offers a more profitable investment market
and more secure trade supplier. Countries will turn as much as possible (diplomatically as well
as financially and economically) to non-US suppliers because the United States is not reliable,
and because it is being shrunk by the neoliberal policies supported by Trump and the Democrats
alike. A byproduct probably will be a continued move toward gold as an alternative do the
dollar in settling balance-of-payments deficits.
The Saker: Finally, my last question: which country out there do you see as the most capable
foe of the current US-imposed international political and economic world order? whom do you
believe that US Deep State and the Neocons fear most? China? Russia? Iran? some other country?
How would you compare them and on the basis of what criteria?
Michael Hudson: The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States
itself. That is Trump's major contribution. He is uniting the world in a move toward
multi-centrism much more than any ostensibly anti-American could have done. And he is doing it
all in the name of American patriotism and nationalism – the ultimate Orwellian
rhetorical wrapping!
Trump has driven Russia and China together with the other members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), including Iran as observer. His demand that NATO join in US oil
grabs and its supportive terrorism in the Near East and military confrontation with Russia in
Ukraine and elsewhere probably will lead to European "Ami go home" demonstrations against NATO
and America's threat of World War III.
No single country can counter the U.S. unipolar world order. It takes a critical mass of
countries. This already is taking place among the countries that you list above. They are
simply acting in their own common interest, using their own mutual currencies for trade and
investment. The effect is an alternative multilateral currency and trading area.
The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice
their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are
beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew
from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings
12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own
house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US
unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own
economies? It's an age-old problem.
The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another
currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other
countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight.
The Saker: I thank you very much for your time and answers!
Another one that absolutely stands for me out is the below link to a recent interview of
Hussein Askary.
As I wrote a few days ago IMO this too is a wonderful insight into the utterly complicated
dynamics of the tinderbox that the situation in Iran and Iraq has become.
Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel].
This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it
is about the BRI.
The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with
China shortly before it slid into this current mess.
This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used
directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would
help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A
key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time
to speed up this development.
In essence, this would enable the direct and efficient linking of Iraq into the BRI
project. Going forward the economic gains and the political stability that could come out of
this would be a completely new paradigm in the recovery of Iraq both economically and
politically. Iraq is essential for a major part of the dynamics of the BRI because of its
strategic location and the fact that it could form a major hub in the overall network.
It absolutely goes without saying that the AAA would do everything the could to wreck this
plan. This is their playbook and is exactly what they have done. The moronic and
extraordinarily impulsive Trump subsequently was easily duped into being a willing and
idiotic accomplice in this plan.
The positive in all of this is that this whole scheme will backfire spectacularly for the
perpetrators and will more than likely now speed up the whole process in getting Iraq back on
track and working towards stability and prosperity.
Please don't anyone try to claim that Trump is part of any grand plan nothing could be
further from the truth he is nothing more than a bludgeoning imbecile foundering around,
lashing out impulsively indiscriminately. He is completely oblivious and ignorant as to the
real picture.
I urge everyone involved in this Saker site to put aside an hour and to listen very
carefully to Askary's insights. This is extremely important and could bring more clarity to
understanding the situation than just about everything else you have read put together. There
is hope, and Askary highlights the huge stakes that both Russia and China have in the
region.
This is a no brainer. This is the time for both Russia and China to act and to decisively.
They must cooperate in assisting both Iraq and Iran to extract themselves from the current
quagmire the one that the vicious Hegemon so cruelly and thoughtlessly tossed them into.
Also interesting is what Simon Watkins reports in his recent article entitled "Is Iraq About
To Become A Chinese Client State?"
To quote from the article:
"Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal
agreed between the two countries."
and
"For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been
told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and
Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that
central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas,
China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and
build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from
Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as
those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines'
process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to
use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq."
and
"The second key announcement in this vein made last week from Iraq was that the Oil
Ministry has completed the pre-qualifying process for companies interested in participating
in the Iraqi-Jordanian oil pipeline project. The U$5 billion pipeline is aimed at carrying
oil produced from the Rumaila oilfield in Iraq's Basra Governorate to the Jordanian port of
Aqaba, with the first phase of the project comprising the installation of a
700-kilometre-long pipeline with a capacity of 2.25 million bpd within the Iraqi territories
(Rumaila-Haditha). The second phase includes installing a 900-kilometre pipeline in Jordan
between Haditha and Aqaba with a capacity of 1 million bpd. Iraq's Oil Minister – for
the time being, at least – Thamir Ghadhban added that the Ministry has formed a team to
prepare legal contracts, address financial issues and oversee technical standards for
implementing the project, and that May will be the final month in which offers for the
project from the qualified companies will be accepted and that the winners will be announced
before the end of this year. Around 150,000 barrels of the oil from Iraq would be used for
Jordan's domestic needs, whilst the remainder would be exported through Aqaba to various
destinations, generating about US$3 billion a year in revenues to Jordan, with the rest going
to Iraq. Given that the contractors will be expected to front-load all of the financing for
the projects associated with this pipeline, Baghdad expects that such tender offers will be
dominated by Chinese and Russian companies, according to the Iran and Iraq source."
Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and
alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the
military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle
east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous.
They will not sacrifice the
(free) oil until booted out by a coalition of Arab countries threatening to over run them and
that is why the dollar hegemonys death will be slow, long and drawn out and they will do
anything, any dirty trick in the book, to prevent Arab/Persian unity. Unlike many peoples
obsession with Israel and how important they feel themselves to be I think Hudson is correct
again. They are the middle eastern version of the British – a stationary aircraft
carrier who will allow themselves to be used and abused whilst living under the illusion they
are major players. They aren't. They're bit part players in decline, subservient to the great
dollar and oil pyramid scheme that keeps America afloat. If you want to beat America you have
to understand the big scheme, that and the utter insanity that backs it up. It is that
insanity of the leites, the inability to allow themselves to be 'beaten' that will keep
nuclear exchange as a real possibility over the next 10 to 15 years. Unification is the only
thing that can stop it and trying to unite so many disparate countries (as the Russians are
trying to do despite multiple provocations) is where the future lies and why it will take so
long. It is truly breath taking in such a horrific way, as Hudson mentions, that to allow the
world to see its 'masters of the universe' pogram to be revealed:
"Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not reflect a
deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and exploitative that
it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if they came right
out and said it."
Would be to allow it to be undermined at home and abroad. God help us all.
Clever would be a better word. Looking at my world globe, I see Italy, Greece, and Turkey on
that end of the Mediterranean. Turkey has been in NATO since 1952. Crete and Cyprus are also
right there. Doesn't Hudson own a globe or regional map?
That a US Admiral would be gushing about the Apartheid state 7 years after the attempted
destruction of the USS Liberty is painful to consider. I'd like to disbelieve the story, but
it's quite likely there were a number of high-ranking ***holes in a Naval Uniform.
The world situation reminds us of the timeless fable by Aesop of The North Wind and the Sun.
Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far
removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at
all costs".
Perhaps the most potent weapon Iran or anyone else has at this critical juncture, is not
missiles, but diplomacy.
"Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about."
Thank you for saying this sir. In the US and around the world many people become
obsessively fixated in seeing a "jew" or zionist behind every bush. Now the Zionists are
certinly an evil, blood thirsty bunch, and certainly deserve the scorn of the world, but i
feel its a cop out sometimes. A person from the US has a hard time stomaching the actions of
their country, so they just hoist all the unpleasentries on to the zionists. They put it all
on zionisim, and completly fail to mention imperialism. I always switced back and forth on
the topic my self. But i cant see how a beachead like the zionist state, a stationary
carrier, can be bigger than the empire itself. Just look at the major leaders in the
resistance groups, the US was always seen as the ultimate obstruction, while israel was seen
as a regional obstruction. Like sayyed hassan nasrallah said in his recent speech about the
martyrs, that if the US is kicked out, the Israelis might just run away with out even
fighting. I hate it when people say "we are in the middle east for israel" when it can easily
be said that "israel is still in the mid east because of the US." If the US seized to exist
today, israel would fall rather quickly. If israel fell today the US would still continue
being an imperalist, bloodthirsty entity.
The Deeper Story behind the Assassination of Soleimani
This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to
the Iraqi
parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US
admitted
to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers.
This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the
Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article
I wish the Saker had asked Mr Hudson about some crucial recent events to get his opinion
with regards to US foreign policy. Specifically, how does the emergence of cryptocurrency
relate to dollar finance and the US grand strategy? A helpful tool for the hegemon or the
emergence of a new currency that prevents unlimited currency printing? Finally, what is
global warming and the associated carbon credit system? The next planned model of continuing
global domination and balance of payments? Or true organic attempt at fair energy production
and management?
With all due respect, these are huge questions in themselves and perhaps could to be
addressed in separate interviews.
IMO it doesn't always work that well to try to cover too much ground in just one giant
leap.
I have never understood the Cebrowski doctrine. How does the destruction of Middle Eastern state structures allow the US to control Middle
East Oil? The level of chaos generated by such an act would seem to prevent anyone from controlled
the oil.
Dr. Hudson often appears on RT's "Keiser Report" where he covers many contemporary topics
with its host Max Keiser. Many of the shows transcripts are available at Hudson's website . Indeed, after the two Saker items,
you'll find three programs on the first page. Using the search function at his site, you'll
find the two articles he's written that deal with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, although I
think he's been more specific in the TV interviews.
As for this Q&A, its an A+. Hudson's 100% correct to playdown the Zionist influence
given the longstanding nature of the Outlaw US Empire's methods that began well before the
rise of the Zionist Lobby, which in reality is a recycling of aid dollars back to Congress in
the form of bribes.
Nils: Good Article. The spirit of Nihilism.
Quote from Neocon Michael Ladeen.
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear
down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and
cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their
inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do
not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack
us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
@NILS As far as crypto currency goes it is a brilliant idea in concept. But since during the
Bush years we have been shown multiple times, who actually owns [and therefore controls] the
internet. Many times now we have also been informed that through the monitoring capability's
of our defense agency's, they are recording every key stroke. IMO, with the flip of a switch,
we can shut down the internet. At the very least, that would stop us from being able to trade
in crypto, but they have e-files on each of us. They know our passwords, or can easily access
them. That does not give me confidence in e=currency during a teotwawki situation.
One thing that troubles me about the petrodollar thesis is that ANNUAL trade in oil is about
2 trillion DAILY trade in $US is 4 trillion. I can well believe the US thinks oil is the
bedrock if dollar hegemony but is it? I see no alternative to US dollar hegemony.
The lines that really got my attention were these:
"The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That
is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that
other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire."
That is so completely true. I have wondered why – to date – there had not been
more movement by Europe away from the United States. But while reading the article the
following occurred to me. Maybe Europe is awaiting the next U.S. election. Maybe they hope
that a new president (someone like Biden) might allow Europe to keep more of the
"spoils."
If that is true, then a re-election of Trump will probably send Europe fleeing for the
exits. The Europeans will be cutting deals with Russia and China like the store is on
fire.
The critical player in forming the EU WAS/IS the US financial Elites. Yes, they had many
ultra powerful Europeans, especially Germany, but it was the US who initiated the EU.
Purpose? For the US Financial Powerhouses & US politicians to "take Europe captive."
Notice the similarities: the EU has its Central Bank who communicates with the private
Banksters of the FED. Much austerity has ensued, especially in Southern nations: Greece,
Italy, etc. Purpose: to smash unions, worker's pay, eliminate unions, and basically allowing
US/EU Financial capital to buy out Italy, most of Greece, and a goodly section of Spain and
Portugal.
The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as
separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US
Financial/Political/Military power.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this but it sounds like he is saying that the U.S.
has a payment deficit problem which is solved by stealing the world's oil supplies. To do
this they must have a powerful, expensive military. But it is primarily this military which
is the main cause of the balance deficit. So it is an eternally fuelled problem and solution.
If I understand this, what it actually means is that we all live on a plantation as slaves
and everything that is happening is for the benefit of the few wealthy billionaires. And they
intend to turn the entire world into their plantation of slaves. They may even let you live
for a while longer.
I didn't know this until I read a history of World War I.
As you know, World War One was irresolvable, murderous, bloody trench warfare. People
would charge out of the trenches trying to overrun enemy positions only to be cutdown by the
super weapon of the day – the machine gun. It was an unending bloody stalemate until
the development of the tank. Tanks were immune to machine gun fire coming from the trenches
and could overrun enemy positions. In the aftermath of that war, it became apparently that
mechanization had become crucial to military supremacy. In turn, fuel was crucial to
mechanization. Accordingly, in the Sykes Picot agreement France and Britain divided a large
amount of Middle Eastern oil between themselves in order to assure military dominance. (The
United States had plenty of their own oil at that time.)
In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of
world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world.
Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the
world.
That is one third of the story. The second third is this.
Up till 1971, the United States dollar was the most trusted currency in the world. The
dollar was backed by gold and lots and lots of it. Dollars were in fact redeemable in gold.
However, due to Vietnam War, the United States started running huge balance of payments
deficits. Other countries – most notably France under De Gaulle – started cashing
in dollars in exchange for that gold. Gold started flooding out of the United States. At that
point Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard. Basically stating that the
dollar was no longer backed by gold and dollars could not be redeemed for gold. That caused
an international payments problem. People would no longer accept dollars as payment since the
dollar was not backed up by anything. The American economy was in big trouble since they were
running deficits and people would no longer take dollars on faith.
To fix the problem, Henry Kissinger convinced the Saudis to agree to only accept dollars
in payment for oil – no matter who was the buyer. That meant that nations throughout
the world now needed dollars in order to pay for their energy needs. Due to this, the dollars
was once again the most important currency in the world since – as noted above –
energy underlies everything in modern industrial cultures. Additionally, since dollars were
now needed throughout the world, it became common to make all trades for any product in
highly valued dollars. Everyone needed dollars for every thing, oil or not.
At that point, the United States could go on printing dollars and spending them since a
growing world economy needed more and more dollars to buy oil as well as to trade everything
else.
That leads to the third part of the story. In order to convince the Saudis to accept only
dollars in payments for oil (and to have the Saudis strong arm other oil producers to do the
same) Kissinger promised to protect the brutal Saudi regime's hold on power against a restive
citizenry and also to protect the Saudi's against other nations. Additionally, Kissinger made
an implicit threat that if the Saudi's did not agree, the US would come in and just take
their oil. The Saudis agreed.
Thus, the three keys to dominance in the modern world are thus: oil, dollars and the
military.
Thus, Hudson ties in the three threads in his interview above. Oil, Dollars, Military.
That is what holds the empire together.
Thank you for thinking through this. Yes, the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the
absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the
US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few
entities.
I should make one note only to this. That "no man, no problem" was Stalin's motto is a myth.
He never said that. It was invented by a writer Alexei Rybnikov and inserted in his book "The
Children of Arbat".
Wow! Absolutely beautiful summation of the ultimate causes that got us where we are and, if
left intact, will get us to where we're going!
So, the dreamer says: If only we could throw-off our us-vs-them BS political-economic
ideology & religious doctrine-faith issues, put them into live-and-let-live mode, and see
that we are all just humans fighting over this oil resource to which our modern economy (way
of life) is addicted, then we might be able to hammer out some new rules for interacting, for
running an earth-resource sustainable and fair global economy We do at least have the
technology to leave behind our oil addiction, but the political-economic will still is
lacking. How much more of the current insanity must we have before we get that will? Will we
get it before it's too late?
Only if we, a sufficient majority from the lowest economic classes to the top elites and
throughout all nations, are able to psychologically-spiritually internalize the two
principles of Common Humanity and Spaceship Earth soon enough, will we stop our current slide
off the cliff into modern economic collapse and avert all the pain and suffering that's
already now with us and that will intensify.
The realist says we're not going to stop that slide and it's the only way we're going to
learn, if we are indeed ever going to learn.
Thank you for this excellent interview. You ask the kind of questions that we would all like
to ask. It's regrettable that Chalmers Johnson isn't still alive. I believe that you and he
would have a lot in common.
Naxos has produced an incredible, unabridged cd audiobook of
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. One of Gibbon's observations really resonates
today: "Assassination is the last resource of cowards". Thanks again.
All maps has been removed. See the original for full article with maps
Notable quotes:
"... Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and seizure of hostages in the U.S. Embassy, Washington has sought to topple the Shi'a revolutionary government in Tehran. That moment was when the demonization of Muslims replaced anti-Communism as the main selling point for military interventions. U.S., Israeli, and Saudi threats have also encouraged a siege mentality among Iranian leaders, who repeatedly used them as a rationale for limiting internal dissent. ..."
"... The nightmare scenario of a regional war has been played out in Central Command strategic planning since the 1980s. The regional blocs have been oversimplified in the western media as merely a Shi'a vs. Sunni rivalry, but Iran has also supported Sunni forces, such as Hamas in Palestine. What is at stake in the Middle East is usually about oil and state power, not simply about religion. ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman have been itching for the U.S. to launch strikes against Iran for some time, ostensibly over the nuclear program, but actually to roll back the Tehran-led regional alliance. Trump's tilt toward Russia has been welcomed by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as he tries to "decouple" Moscow from Tehran , in order to make Iran more vulnerable. ..."
"... Part of the neocon agenda for occupying Iraq was to have a staging area for regime change in Iran, but that is clearly no longer possible. Ground forces invading Iran from Kuwait would have to pass through a slice of Iraqi territory. An invasion from Afghanistan or Pakistan would be untenable because of on-going Islamist insurgencies (even though Iran has tended to back the U.S. against the Taliban and ISIS). The U.S. has not built bases to the north in Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan, but Trump's recent tilt toward Turkey may be partly to put more pressure on Iran's northwestern border . ..."
"... Watch for the U.S. stoking ethnic divisions in the diverse country, where ethnic minorities form about 40 percent of the population. The most dangerous sign would be encouraging a rebellion in the Arab province of Khuzestan, called "Ahwaz" by its Arab inhabitants. ..."
"... Back in 2005 I wrote about the possibility that the U.S. would use such an uprising as an excuse to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan province (next to southern Iraq), with the "humanitarian" rationale of protecting its ethnic Arab population from "ethnic cleansing." Like back then, Tehran's repression of Ahwazi Arab protests and insurgent attacks have recently been increasing, and the possibility again exists of the U.S. exploiting their legitimate grievances for its own interests. ..."
"... My color map makes it clear that the ethnic Ahwazi Arab province of Khuzestan, which Saddam Hussein invaded at the start of the Iran-Iraq War, contains Iran's largest oil reserves (actually about 85% of Iran's oil). In a 2008 New Yorker article, journalist Seymour Hersh exposed CIA assistance to Ahwazi Arab and other ethnic insurgents , later advocated by John Bolton , and a CIA analysis declassified in 2013 referred to Khuzestan as " Iran's Achilles Tendon ." ..."
"... Whether Trump carries out an air war or a ground war, attacking Iran would be far more disastrous than attacking Iraq. It would destroy any chance of political reforms in Iran or Iraq, and rally even Iranian and Iraqi reformers around their governments. Iranian military forces and Revolutionary Guards could counterattack, block oil lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, or melt into an insurgency far deeper and longer than in Iraq. ..."
"... Trump's War would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it could stimulate the terrorism and nuclear weapons programs it claims to oppose. ..."
"... The American public has developed a healthy " Iraq Syndrome " that abhors endless wars, much as the "Vietnam Syndrome" temporarily scaled back U.S. military interventions. Even though Iran is very different from Iraq, that strong public sentiment previously prevented both Obama and Trump from attacking Iran. If that sentiment can again be mobilized into an organized antiwar movement in the coming weeks, it can be even more effective. ..."
Since President Trump's assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, widespread alarm has
centered on whether he is again dragging us into another war like Iraq, to detract from his
impeachment. The bad news is that the situation is even more potentially disastrous.
As a political-cultural geographer who has long studied the history of U.S. military interventions
, I'm alarmed that his action could set into motion a regional conflagration, the violent
break-up of Iran into ethnic enclaves, and a death toll that would make the Iraq War look like
a warm-up exercise. The good news is that Americans can and have stood in the way of such a
war, and we can do so again.
...Iran has
always been more geographically pivotal than Iraq, in land area, population, and economics. It
was one of the few countries that retained independence through the colonial era, and one of
the only Third World societies to successfully reject Western corporate domination.
Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and seizure of hostages in the U.S. Embassy,
Washington has sought to topple the Shi'a revolutionary government in Tehran. That moment was
when the demonization of Muslims replaced anti-Communism as the main selling point for military
interventions. U.S., Israeli, and Saudi threats have also encouraged a siege mentality among
Iranian leaders, who repeatedly used them as a rationale for limiting internal dissent.
The U.S. has already been at war with Iran, during the Iran-Iraq War. In 1987-88, the U.S.
Navy actively sided with Saddam
Hussein in his war with Iran , by escorting tankers carrying Iraqi oil, attacking Iranian
boats and oil rigs, and "accidentally" shooting down an Iranian civilian jetliner. A war with
Iran is not a hypothetical possibility, but a continuation of a long-simmering conflict.
Geopolitical Scenarios
Trump's actions may lead to a full-blown World War I-style regional war in the Middle East,
between two blocs that have emerged in the past decade. On one side are the United States,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, most Gulf states (UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman), Syrian Sunni insurgents,
and southern Yemen. On the other side are Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon,
and Houthi rebels in northern Yemen.
Every major war has been preceded by early rumblings, such as in Morocco before World War I,
or in Spain, Ethiopia, and China before World War II. The horrific civil wars in Syria and
Yemen -- as well as conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain -- have partly served as proxy wars
(with local origins) between these two emerging blocs. We may now be living in August 1914,
when similar alliances propelled Europe to World War I, also sparked by an assassination.
The nightmare scenario of a regional war has been played out in Central Command strategic
planning since the 1980s. The regional blocs have been oversimplified in the western media as
merely a Shi'a vs. Sunni rivalry, but Iran has also supported Sunni forces, such as Hamas in
Palestine. What is at stake in the Middle East is usually about oil and state power, not simply
about religion.
... ... ...
What's Next?
The Houthi-claimed attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure, attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf,
direct exchange of missiles between Iranian forces in Syria and Israeli forces in the occupied
Golan Heights, the U.S. bombing of Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, and a short siege of
the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad have all taken place since
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, but their origins are far more complex
and local than the Washington-Tehran rivalry.
This conflict could quickly mushroom out of control, such as in confrontations over islands
contested by Iran and the Gulf states, as well as U.S. military brinkmanship with Iranian
vessels in the Straits of Hormuz, and with Russian and Iranian forces in Syria. Juan Cole has
pointed out that even in the Iran-Iraq War, neither side attacked oil
refineries because they knew they were vulnerable to a counterattack, but the assassination
of an Iranian general is also unprecedented.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman have been itching for the U.S. to launch strikes
against Iran for some time, ostensibly over the nuclear program, but actually to roll back the
Tehran-led regional alliance. Trump's tilt toward Russia has been welcomed by Israel and Saudi
Arabia, as he tries to
"decouple" Moscow from Tehran , in order to make Iran more vulnerable.
It's possible that Trump is building up war fever as a set-up, in order that he can later
reverse it and portray himself as a peace candidate. But if he does spark a war, he will use it
to the hilt to question the loyalty of anyone who opposes it, and many congressional Democrats
would probably rally around the flag.
Even if Iran reacts militarily to the assassination, Mayor DeBlasio's hysterical
warning of terrorist retaliation in New York is utter B.S. In four decades of conflict,
Iran has never sponsored an attack within the U.S., even as the U.S. has attacked its allies in
Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and directly attacked its own forces in the Gulf. Only Sunni
terrorists (also opposed by Iran) have attacked targets inside the U.S.
Ground War or Air War?
Unlike Iraq, the U.S. has limited options to invade Iran. One of the most important
differences between Iran and Iraq is in their physical geography. Iraq has largely flat
terrain, and so has been repeatedly invaded by foreign armies. Iran has natural defensive
barriers in the Zagros and Elburz mountain ranges, and a political advantage in having complex
neighbors that may not be willing to host invading forces.
Part of the neocon
agenda for occupying Iraq was to have a staging area for regime change in Iran, but that is
clearly no longer possible. Ground forces invading Iran from Kuwait would have to pass through
a slice of Iraqi territory. An invasion from Afghanistan or Pakistan would be untenable because
of on-going Islamist insurgencies (even though Iran has tended to back the U.S. against the
Taliban and ISIS). The U.S. has not built bases to the north in Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan, but
Trump's recent tilt toward Turkey may be partly to put
more pressure on Iran's northwestern border .
Trump also is aware that U.S. civilians and even the military will be wary of another Middle
East war. Like President Obama in 2013, Trump pulled the Pentagon back from strikes against
Iran and Syria earlier in 2019, understanding (at least before his impeachment) that voters
would not want another war. In a recent
Pew Center poll , 62 percent of civilians and 64 percent of veterans say the war in Iraq
was not worth fighting. A recent Military Times poll shows that half of active-duty military personnel are unhappy
with Trump, and Bernie Sanders actually leads in
donations from them.
These limited options means that a U.S. ground invasion of Iran is very unlikely, so there
would not be a repeat of the 2003 Iraq invasion, followed by an occupation of the entire
country. At least in its initial stages, a war on Iran would be largely an air war of bombs,
missiles, and drones, launched by the Navy and Air Force, with minimal "boots on the
ground."
That's why it may be dangerous for the antiwar movement to warn that an Iran War would be a
repeat of the Iraq War, with massive U.S. casualties and a legacy of combat injuries and PTSD.
During the Vietnam War, facing huge protests because of bodybags coming home, President Nixon
switched from a ground war to an air war, reducing U.S. troop casualties, but vastly increasing
civilian casualties.
President Bush employed a similar strategy in the 1991 Gulf War, sanitizing air strikes on
Iraq as a detached video game. Clinton's 1999 air war on Serbia and Obama's 2011 air war on
Libya were the first time in human history that a one side in a major war had zero deaths by
enemy fire. Trump has inherited these technological tactics of imperial impunity. If the
antiwar movement mainly emphasizes the possibilities of U.S. military casualties, it only plays
into the Pentagon's hands and reinforces high-tech warfare that claims even more civilian
lives.
Playing the Ethnic Card
But there is one scenario that I fear could lead to a ground invasion of Iran. Watch for the
U.S. stoking ethnic divisions in the diverse country, where ethnic minorities form about 40
percent of the population. The most dangerous sign would be encouraging a rebellion in the Arab
province of Khuzestan, called "Ahwaz" by its Arab inhabitants.
Back in 2005 I wrote about the possibility that the U.S. would use such an uprising as an
excuse to
occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan province (next to southern Iraq), with the "humanitarian"
rationale of protecting its ethnic Arab population from "ethnic cleansing." Like back then,
Tehran's repression of Ahwazi Arab protests and insurgent
attacks have recently been increasing, and the possibility again exists of the U.S. exploiting
their legitimate grievances for its own interests.
My color
map makes it clear that the ethnic Ahwazi Arab province of Khuzestan, which Saddam Hussein
invaded at the start of the Iran-Iraq War, contains Iran's largest oil reserves (actually about
85% of Iran's oil). In a 2008 New Yorker article, journalist Seymour Hersh exposed
CIA assistance to Ahwazi Arab and other ethnic insurgents , later advocated by
John Bolton , and a CIA analysis declassified in 2013 referred to Khuzestan as " Iran's
Achilles Tendon ."
The U.S. and Saudis may feel that in this " Khuzestan Gambit ," they could
land Marines and paratroopers on western Khuzestan's flat terrain, and hold its massive oil
fields hostage for concessions from Tehran, without having to push through mountainous barriers
and occupy the rest of Iran.
Like Saddam in 1980, they may be deluded that that Ahwazi Arabs will welcome them in
Khuzestan, much as they thought that Iraqi Shi'as would welcome foreign occupiers in 2003.
Backing an Arab secessionist movement could easily set into motion the violent "Balkanization"
of Iran, which would make Yugoslavia pale in comparison, and even tear apart neighboring
countries.
Even if ethnic grievances are legitimate, the timing of western interest in their grievances
coincides too neatly with the larger desire to pressure and isolate Iran. Washington has a long
history of championing the rights of ethnic minorities against its enemies (such as in Vietnam,
Laos, Nicaragua, and Syria), then abandoning or selling out the minority when it is no longer
strategically useful. We love 'em, we use 'em, and then we dump 'em.
Fighting the Last War
Whether Trump carries out an air war or a ground war, attacking Iran would be far more
disastrous than attacking Iraq. It would destroy any chance of political reforms in Iran or
Iraq, and rally even Iranian and Iraqi reformers around their governments. Iranian military
forces and Revolutionary Guards could counterattack, block oil lanes in the Strait of Hormuz,
or melt into an insurgency far deeper and longer than in Iraq.
Trump's War would be a
self-fulfilling prophecy, because it could stimulate the terrorism and nuclear weapons programs
it claims to oppose.
The American public has developed a healthy " Iraq
Syndrome " that abhors endless wars, much as the "Vietnam Syndrome" temporarily scaled back
U.S. military interventions. Even though Iran is very different from Iraq, that strong public
sentiment previously prevented both Obama and Trump from attacking Iran. If that sentiment can
again be mobilized into an organized antiwar movement in the coming weeks, it can be even more
effective.
But to be effective, the movement has to focus on the horrendous effects of such a war on
Iranian civilians, not only on U.S. troops. And it should understand that this war may unfold
in unpredictable ways that differ from previous invasions. Just as "generals always fight the
last war," antiwar movements will lose if they merely fight against the last war. Join the debate
on Facebook
Zoltan Grossman is a
professor of Geography and Native Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Washington, who has been a warm body in peace, justice, and environmental movements for the
past 35 years. His website is http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz and
email is [email protected]
In the wake of this, Congress passed the 2002 Authorization Act. This authorized the
President to move against Al Qaeda.
Fast forward to today: Suleimani and Iran were fighting AGANST Al Qaeda and its offshoot,
ISIS/Daesh. Saudi Arabia had asked Suleimani (with U.S. approval) to help negotiate a peace,
whereby the Saudi's would stop backing ISIS. It was an official mission invited by Iraq to
negotiate peace between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq.
This infuriated the United States, which wanted a permanent warfare there as an excuse to
occupy Iraq and prevent a Shi'ite Crescent linking Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, which
incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative. So it killed Suleimani to
prevent the peace negotiation.
The implication is that the US wants a PERMANENT occupation of Iraq, which is needed to
secure the US grab of Iraq's oil and Syria's oil, as well as to prevent any non-U.S. oil
transit.
The question is, how to get the world's politicians – U.S., European and Asians
– to see how America's all-or-nothing policy is threatening new waves of war, refugees,
extreme weather and the disruption of the oil trade in the Strait of Hormuz. Ultimately, the
aim is to ensure neoliberal dollarization is imposed on all countries to subsidize US imperial
hegemony.
It is a sign of how little power exists in the United Nations that no countries are calling
for a new Nurenberg-style war crimes trial following the assassination, no threat to withdraw
from NATO or even to avoid holding reserves in the form of money lent to the U.S. Treasury to
fund America's military budget.
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
Nordstream II cost $12 billion. Russia is selling 55 billion M3 of LNG to Europe. Add
Nordstream I, another 55 billion, Power of Siberia to China and Turkstream just opened.
And for $5 trillion spent bombing unoffending MENA countries the US has gotten what? Moar
war. That's it.
Russia is building infrastructure while the US destroys.
Russia is planning level production for the next 4 years.
"As far as the production cuts are concerned, I repeat once again, this is not an
indefinite process. A decision on the exit should be gradually taken in order to keep up market
share and so that our companies would be able to provide and implement their future projects. I
think that we will consider that this year."(2020)
Meanwhile, Russia's energy ministry is assuming that the country's total output is to
average around and slightly above 11.2 million barrels per day until 2024. In other words, it
is not building any cut into its plan.
Russia's peak month, so far, was December 2018 at 11,408,000 barrels per day. The average
daily production for 2018 was 11,115,000 bpd. Average production for 2019 was 11,211,000 bpd.
This is the level they hope to hold for the next 4 years.
Russia's production increased by an average of 96,000 barrels per day in 2019. They are not
expecting any further increase at all. They just hope to hold at 2019 levels for another four
years. I think they will be very lucky if they manage that.
Point is, the world's largest producer, the USA, will likely peak in a few months. The
world's second-largest producer, Russia, is admitting they have peaked. The world's
third-largest producer, Saudi Arabia, has very likely peaked though they do not admit it. OPEC
likely peaked in 2016, *Iran and Venezuela notwithstanding.
*Iran peaked in 2005 at 3,938,000 bpd. My Venezuela records only go back to 2001 when they
produced 2,961,000 bpd. However, they peaked several years before that. However, neither is
producing at maximum capacity today due to political problems. However both are clearly in
decline regardless of political problems keeping them from producing flat out.
If we are at peak oil right now we are damn close to it.
The Russian Chart below is C+C through December 2019.
Ovi, the data in my chart above is from the official Ministry of Energy web site,
converting tons to barrels at 7.33 barrels per ton: MINISTRY OF ENERGY OF
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
In December, total oil and gas condensate stood at 11.262 million bpd, up from 11.244
million bpd in November, according to the data.
Those are the exact numbers I used in my chart above. And yes, 2019 was a new high,
exactly as I stated in the post above. Its yearly average beat the 2018 yearly average by
90,000 bpd.
Concerning 2020 average, it could not be stated any clearer than this:
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak expects Russian oil and condensate production
of between 555 million tonnes and 565 million tonnes in 2020, or 11.12-11.32 million bpd
using a conversion rate of 7.33 barrels per tonne of oil.
Got an exemption for condensates at the OPEC meeting, though this was not discussed in
the press conference.
Achieving another cut of 70,000 b/d in first quarter appears to be beyond its
capability, given past statements.
Russia is planning level production for next 4 years.
And is prepared for oil prices to drop to $25-30 per barrel.
You wrote: I found this statement interesting, in that if they can't increase
production, and are at max, why are they worried about market share.
I really don't understand that question. If they plan on producing 11.2 million barrels
per day for the next four years, then they should be worried about their market share.
Whether they can or cannot produce more than that is beside the point.
Since 1979 the oil has flowed through the government of Russia.
Iran nationalized it's oil production in 1979 and Russia had nothing to do with this.
The era of nationalized oil, 1979–present
...
Following the Revolution, the NIOC took control of Iran's petroleum industry and canceled
Iran's international oil agreements. In 1980 the exploration, production, sale, and export of
oil were delegated to the Ministry of Petroleum. Initially Iran's post-revolutionary oil
policy was based on foreign currency requirements and the long-term preservation of the
natural resource. Following the Iran–Iraq War, however, this policy was replaced by a
more aggressive approach: maximizing exports and accelerating economic growth. From 1979
until 1998, Iran did not sign any oil agreements with foreign oil companies.
...
In the early 2000s, leading international oil firms from China, France, India, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom had agreements to develop Iran's
oil and gas fields. In 2004 China signed a major agreement to buy oil and gas from Iran, as
well as to develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field. The value of this contract was estimated at
US$150 billion to US$200 billion over 25 years.[5][30] In 2009, China National Petroleum Corp
(CNPC) signed a deal with the National Iranian Oil Company whereby the former took ownership
of a 70% stake upon promising to pay 90 percent of the development costs for the South
Azadegan oil field, with the project needing investment of up to $2.5 billion. Earlier that
year, CNPC also won a $2 billion deal to develop the first phase of the North Azadegan
oilfield.[31]
...
US sanctions have pushed Iran firmly into the welcoming arms of both Russia and China. It's
another burgeoning love affair - a ménage à trois? The law of unintended
consequences strikes again.
After having forbidden the Chinese company Huawei to compete in the calls for tender for the
5G network, the United States are now forbidding the Europeans to increase their supplies of
Russian gas. While the first decision was aimed at maintaining the coherence of NATO, the
second is not a result of Russophobia, but of the 1992 " Wolfowitz doctrine " - preventing the
EU from becoming a competitor of the " American Empire ". In both cases, the point is to
infantilise the EU and keep it in a situation of dependence. Voltaire Network | Rome (Italy) |
30 December 2019 français italiano
Español PortuguêsTürkçe română Deutsch
norsk
German chancellorAngela Merkel and her Minister of the Economy, Olaf Scholz, immediately
denounced US interference.
Although they were locked in a convoluted struggle concerning the impeachment of President
Trump, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate laid down their arms in order to vote, in
quasi-unanimity, for the imposition of heavy sanctions on the companies participating in the
construction of North Stream 2, the doubling of the gas pipeline which delivers Russian gas to
Germany across the Baltic Sea. The main victims were the European companies which had helped
finance the 11 billion dollar project with the Russian company Gazprom. The project is now 80 %
finished. The Austrian company Omy, British/Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, French Engie, German
companies Uniper and Wintershall, Italian Saipem and Swiss Allseas are also taking part in the
laying of the pipeline.
The doubling of North Stream increases Europe's dependence on Russian gas, warn the United
States. Above all, they are preoccupied by the fact that the gas pipeline – by crossing
the Baltic in waters belonging to Russia, Finland, Sweden and Germany – thus avoids the
Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary), the Baltic States and
Ukraine. In other words, the European countries which have the closest ties to Washington
through NATO (to which we must add Italy).
Rather than being economic, the goal for the USA is strategic. This is confirmed by the fact
that the sanctions on North Stream 2 are included in the National Defense Authorization
Act , the legislative act which, for fiscal year 2020, hands the Pentagon the colossal sum
of 738 billion dollars for new wars and new weapons (including space weapons), to which must be
added other posts which bring the US military expenditure to approximately 1,000 billion
dollars. The economic sanctions on North Stream 2 are part of a politico-military escalation
against Russia.
An ulterior confirmation can be found in the fact that the US Congress has established
sanctions not only against North Stream 2, but also against the Turk-Stream, which, in its
final phase of realisation, will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Eastern Thrace,the
small European area of Turkey. From there, by another pipeline, Russian gas should be delivered
to Bulgaria, Serbia and other European countries. This is the Russian riposte to the US action
which managed to block the South Stream pipeline in 2014. South Stream was intended to link
Russia to Italy across the Black Sea and by land to Tarvisio (Udine). Italy would therefore
have become a switch platform for gas in the EU, with notable economic advantages. The Obama
administration was able to scuttle the project, with the collaboration of the European
Union.
The company Saipem (Italian Eni Group), once again affected by the US sanctions against
North Stream 2, was severely hit by the blockage of South Stream – in 2014, it lost
contracts to the value of 2.4 billion Euros, to which other contracts would have been added if
the project had continued. But at the time, no-one in Italy or in the EU protested against the
burial of the project which was being organised by the USA. Now German interests are in play,
and critical voices are being raised in Germany and in the EU against US sanctions against
North Stream 2.
Nothing is being said about the fact that the European Union has agreed to import liquified
natural gas (LNG) from the USA, an extract from bituminous shale by the destructive technique
of hydraulic fracturation (fracking). In order to damage Russia, Washington is attempting to
reduce its gas exports to the EU, obliging European consumers to foot the bill. Since President
Donald Trump and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, signed in
Washington in July 2018 the Joint Statement of 25 July: European Union imports of U.S.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) , the EU has doubled its importation of LNG from the USA,
co-financing the infrastructures via an initial expenditure of 656 million Euros. However, this
did not save European companies from US sanctions. Manlio Dinucci
@Situational
Lefty
...The world is not dependent on Iranian oil. But it is dependent on Gulf oil and gas. A few
missiles fired into a Q-Max
will cause a real problem - mainly in Europe. Without a steady supply of gas and oil from the
Saudis and Emirates it will very quickly get cold and dark in Europe this winter and they'll
soon regret allowing Uncle Sammmy to put a kink in Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream.
Speaking of TurkStream, Putin will be going to Turkey to attend the official
launching with Erdogan right after his pleasant visit with Assad . I wonder
what in the world Putin and Erdogan are going to do with those extra 31.5 billion cubic
meters of natural gas?
Russia and China are relatively isolated. American actions in the last 2 decades have
caused the two to elope and their love affair is going strong. Putin and Xi have already had
30 intimate dates discussing just this very scenario.
Of course, the extra transport costs to ship America's shoes, underwear and pots to piss
in is going to be a bitch for the now burgeoning poor class.
Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most
fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer
military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy
old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that
his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he
avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and
fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive
military engagements.
Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the
head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has
brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too
shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game.
My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive
protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.
They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of
Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior
military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the
Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has
48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime
minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.
The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in
Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into
account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the
embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.
Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad,
Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to
the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths,
since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to
corruption.
Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites
who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq
from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need
all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for
direct crowd action.
You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the
absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation
of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either
the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having
to leave Iraq.
Although Trump justified the murder of Soleimani by calling him a terrorist, that is
nonsense in the terms of international law. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the
equivalent of the US National Guard. What Trump did is the equivalent of some foreign country
declaring the US military a terrorist organization (some have) and then assassinating General
Joseph L. Lengyel, the 28th Chief of the National Guard Bureau (God forbid and may he have a
long healthy life).
Today Tass (or Tacc) gave a big update on Nord Stream-2.
Number one, Academic Cherskiy will remain in the Far East, because it is essential in
completion of far more important projects than Nord Stream. Pipes from Sakhalin (and through
Amur river? I am not sure on that) together have to deliver 80 [huge units] per year, and
they will be laid by Tschersky (Nord Stream 2 has capacity 55 HU)
Number two. Danes softened their requirements. Concerning the specs for a pipe laying
vessel, they can be satisfied by Fortuna that is finishing some bits in the German sector.
Danes added requirement that the sea has to be sufficiently calm during the work, seems like
weather when swimming is forbidden on Baltic beaches, but on summer usually it is permitted.
So Fortuna will finish the job on the Baltic.
A bit weird how Danes oscillate between obstructing and just harrassing. Both USA and
Germany seem to have influence.
So new progressive Danish government issued the permission in November, after full three
months. And now they still make a gesture as if the wanted to inflict huge extra cost. That
said, they were perhaps a bit slow in correcting disinformation.
It's all about the level of geopolitical control of oil-rich regions. In other words Carter
doctrine.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces. ..."
"... Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood ..."
"... Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra). ..."
"... But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over. ..."
I personally do not think that the strike was a typically
capricious move by Trump. I am more inclined to believe that it has been in the works for a
long time and his advisers might well have offered it to him as a preferable retaliation option
against the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone in June of last year – where Trump floundered
and finally held back from launching a conventional military attack on Iranian forces, through
fear of civilians being killed, or so he claims.
What we are witnessing is unprecedented in the region. It has caught everyone off guard,
even the democrats in the U.S., who can barely believe the stupidity of the move, which
arguably, is a measured one. Trump believes that he can come out the winner of a pseudo war
– or a proxy one – in the region, even though the Iranians have demonstrated that
they easily have the capability of shutting down Saudi Arabia's oil exports with a relatively
minor salvo of ordinance.
In fact, Saudi Arabia might well, in my view, be part of this latest move. Much has been
made of the petulant twitter goading of Tehran's Supreme leader to Trump directly, which may
well have pushed him over a line. But in reality, there is something much deeper and nefarious
at play which may well be the true basis of why the decision was taken for the assassination:
to destroy any possibilities of Iran and Saudi Arabia patching up their differences and
continuing in dialogue, to avoid further tensions.
There is ample evidence to show that since the oilfield attacks carried out by Iran, Saudi
crown prince Mohamed bin Salman has softened his stance on Iran and was looking at ways,
through intermediaries, to build a working relation. It was early days and progress was
slow.
But the Soleimani hit will blow that idea right out of the water. In one fell swoop, the
strike galvanises and polarises an anti-Iran front from Saudi Arabia and Israel, which, whilst
doing wonders for U.S. arms procurement will cause more tension in the region as it places
countries like Qatar, UAE, Turkey and Oman in a really awkward spot with regards to how it
should continue to work with Tehran. It may well put back the Qatar blockade to its earlier
position as 'rogue state' in the region, prompting it to possibly even go rogue and get more
involved in the battle to take Tripoli (supporting Turkish forces, obviously, who are with the
UN-recognised government).
In fact, there is an entire gamut of consequences to the move, beyond merely Iran seeking to
take revenge against America's allies in the region. It is less about a declaration of war
against Iran but more a declaration of anti-peace towards the entire Arab world, which was
starting to unfold in the last six months since Trump stepped back from the region and stood
down from a retaliation strike against Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Trump is gambling that he
can sustain Saudi Arabia's oil being disrupted and even body bags of U.S. soldiers in Syria and
Iraq in return for a fresh wave of popularity from people too ignorant to understand or wish to
comprehend the nuances of the Middle East and how so many U.S. presidents use the pretext of a
war, or heightened tensions, as part of their chest-beating, shallow popularity campaign.
Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's
achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to
do that in cooperation with U.S. forces.
Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know
that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their
bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the
White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that
year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie
actor from Hollywood .
Reagan, in turn, carried on the great tradition of Middle East histrionics by his notably
'mad dog' Libya campaign, which ran concurrent to two devastating attacks on U.S. soldiers and
embassy staff in Lebanon, while two different CIA teams worked against each other in trying to
secure the release of U.S. hostages in Beirut – while all along he was selling illegal
arms to the Iranians and using the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua.
Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining
momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him,
like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra).
But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the
U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the
Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if
Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region
boils over.
Martin Jay is an award -winning freelance journalist and political
commentator
In fact, the strategic balance – though sorely tested – had been hanging
together. Just to be clear: Iran and Israel both had been keeping – just – within
the parameters of unspoken 'red lines' – despite the inflated rhetoric. And both were
practicing 'strategic patience'. So the strategic balance seemed more or less sustainable:
until its upending with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the head of the PMU,
Al-Muhandis, ordered by Trump.
Israel has not – despite its lurid language – been landing strategic blows on
Iran in Syria. It has not been killing Iranians there (apart from seven killed at T4 airport in
eastern Syria last year). It did not target the head of the Iranian air force, some ten days
ago, as some reports have suggested (he was not even in Iraq at the time). Most of the Israeli
air attacks have been on depots in the early hours, when no personnel were present. It has been
a campaign more of a regular, small slicing away at Iranian logistics. It was not strategic
damage.
And Iran, after sending clear 'messages' to Gulf States of its willingness to inflict pain
on parties to its economic siege, plainly had been calibrating this push-back carefully; Iran
still had its eye to global diplomacy (to wit: the joint Iranian naval exercises with Russia
and China in the Persian Gulf) – whilst countering politically, America's 'new' tactic of
inciting 'colour' protests across Lebanon and Iraq (and trying to bust Syria financially, by
stealing its energy revenues).
Here is the point: The US was no longer content with mere sanctions on Iran. It has been
covertly escalating across the board: orchestrating protests in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in Iran
itself; mounting a major cyber offensive on Iran; and a 'messaging' operation aimed at turning
genuine popular frustration with regional mis-governance and corruption, into a weapon aimed at
weakening revolutionary Iran.
The US was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until,
that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week
(Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).
Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but
assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not
observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.
And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq.
He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior
Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was
all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state
official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of
war.
This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the
sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people.
It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between
Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's
sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the US presence in Iraq (and
therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.
Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House
official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen
consequences soon may come home to roost.
Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the
crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always
unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?
Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no US embassy siege 'on my watch' –
unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would
play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly
by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.
Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli
officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring
within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has
requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his
legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its
future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but
much to gain.
Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with
Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for
technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the
March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his
continued tenure of the premiership.
One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of
Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the US will
back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli
and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is
seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to
Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble
to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the US elections? We do
not know.
So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will
Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the US cross another 'red line' by
striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?
Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi
Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as
"Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd
a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist
forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow
approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces
led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on
the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.
These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a
identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common
zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct
experience).
But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be
outraged by the US attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then
blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?
But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from
limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was
not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real US
channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next
days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?
The murder of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, in the early hours of January 3 by
US forces, only highlights the extent to which US strategy in the Middle East has failed. It is
likely to provoke reactions that do not benefit US interests in the region.
To understand the significance of this event, it is necessary to quickly reconstruct the
developments in Iraq. The US has occupied Iraq for 17 years, following its invasion of the
country in 2003. During this time, Baghdad and Tehran have re-established ties by sustaining an
important dialogue on post-war reconstruction as well as by acknowledging the importance of the
Shia population in Iraq.
Within two decades, Iraq and Iran have gone from declaring war with each other to
cooperating on the so-called Shia Crescent, favoring cooperation and the commercial and
military development of the quartet composed of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Such ties,
following recent victories over international terrorism, have been further consolidated,
leading to current and planned overland connections between this quartet.
Local movements and organizations have been calling for US troops to leave Iraqi territory
with increasing vigor and force in recent months. Washington has accused Tehran of inciting
associated protests.
At the same time, groups of dubious origin, that have sought to equate the Iranian presence
with the American one, have been calling for the withdrawal of the Popular Mobilization Units
(PMUs) that are linked to Iran from Iraq. The protests from such groups appear to be sponsored
and funded by Saudi Arabia.
With mutual accusations flying around, the US hit a pro-Iranian faction known as Kataib
Hezbollah on December 29. This episode sparked a series of reactions in Iraq that ended up
enveloping the US embassy in Baghdad, which was besieged for days by demonstrators angry about
ongoing airstrikes by US forces.
The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, blamed this volatile situation on Iran, warning that
Tehran would be held responsible for any escalation of the situation involving the embassy.
In the early hours of January 3, 2020, another tangle was added to the Gordian Knot that is
the Middle East. Qasem Soleimani was assassinated when his convoy was attacked by a drone near
Baghdad International Airport. The most effective opponents of ISIS and Wahabi jihadism in
general was thus eliminated by the US in a terrorist act carried out in foreign country in a
civilian area (near Baghdad International Airport). The champagne would have no doubt been
flowing immediately upon receiving this news in the US Congress, the Israeli Knesset, Riyadh
royal palace and in Idlib among al Nusra and al Qaeda militants.
It remains to be seen what the reasons were behind Trump's decision to okay the assasination
of such an influential and important leader. Certainly the need to to demonstrate to his base
(and his Israeli and Saudi financiers) plays into his anti-Iranian crusade. But there are other
reasons that better explain Trump's actions that are more related to the influence of the US in
the region; the geopolitical chess game in the Middle East transcends any single leader or any
drone attack.
In Syria, for example, the situation is extremely favorable to the government in Damascus,
with it only being a matter of time before the country is again under the control of the
central government. General Soleimani and Iran have played a central role in ridding the
country of the scourge of terrorism, a scourge directed and financed by the US and her regional
allies.
In Iraq , the political situation is less favorable to the US now than it was back in 2006.
Whatever progress in relations between Baghdad and Tehran has also been due to General
Soleimani, who, together with the PMUs and the Iraqi army, freed the country from ISIS (which
was created and nurtured by Western and Saudi intelligence, as revealed by Wikileaks).
It would seem that the US sanctions against Iran have not really had the intended effect,
instead only serving to consolidate the country's stance against imperialism. The US, as a
result, is experiencing a crisis in the region, effectively being driven out of the Middle
East, rather than leaving intentionally.
In this extraordinary and unprecedented situation, the Russians and Chinese are offering
themselves variously as military, political and economic guarantors of the emerging Eurasian
mega-project (the recent naval exercises between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran serving as a
tangible example of this commitment). Naturally, it is in their interests to avoid any extended
regional conflict that may only serve to throw a monkey wrench into their vast Eurasian
mega-project.
Putin and Xi Jinping face tough days ahead, trying to council Iran in avoiding an excessive
response that would give Washington the perfect excuse for a war against Iran.
The prospects of a region without terrorism, with a reinvigorated Shia Crescent, led by Iran
at the regional level and accompanied by China and Russia at the economic (Belt and Road
Initiative) and military level, offer little hope to Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Washington of being
able to influence events in the region and this is likely going to be the top argument that
Putin and Xi Jinping will use to try to deter any Iranian overt response.
Deciding to kill the leader of the Quds Force in Iraq proves only one thing: that the
options available to Trump and his regional allies are rapidly shrinking, and that the regional
trends over the next decade appear irreversible. Their only hope is for Tehran and her allies
to lash out at the latest provocation, thereby justifying the regional war that would only
serve to benefit Washington by slowing down regional unification under Iranian leadership.
We must remember that whenever the US finds itself in a situation where it cannot control a
country or a region, its tendency is to create chaos and ultimately destroy it.
By killing General Soleimani, the US hopes to wreak havoc in the region so as to slow down
or altogether scupper any prospect of integration. Fortunately, China, Russia and Iran are well
aware that any conflict would not be in any of their own interests.
No drone-launched missiles will be enough to save the US from decades of foreign-policy
errors and their associated horrors; nor will they be enough to extinguish the memory of a
hero's tireless struggle against imperialism and terrorism.
Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most
fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer
military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy
old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that
his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he
avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and
fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive
military engagements.
Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the
head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has
brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too
shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game.
My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive
protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.
They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of
Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior
military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the
Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has
48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime
minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.
The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in
Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into
account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the
embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.
Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad,
Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to
the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths,
since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to
corruption.
Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites
who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq
from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need
all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for
direct crowd action.
You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the
absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation
of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either
the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having
to leave Iraq.
After having forbidden the Chinese company Huawei to compete in the calls for tender for the
5G network, the United States are now forbidding the Europeans to increase their supplies of
Russian gas.
While the first decision was aimed at maintaining the coherence of NATO, the second is not a
result of Russophobia, but of the 1992 " Wolfowitz doctrine " - preventing the EU from becoming
a competitor of the " American Empire ". In both cases, the point is to infantilise the EU and
keep it in a situation of dependence.
lthough they were locked in a convoluted struggle concerning the impeachment of President
Trump, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate laid down their arms in order to vote, in
quasi-unanimity, for the imposition of heavy sanctions on the companies participating in the
construction of North Stream 2, the doubling of the gas pipeline which delivers Russian gas to
Germany across the Baltic Sea. The main victims were the European companies which had helped
finance the 11 billion dollar project with the Russian company Gazprom. The project is now 80 %
finished. The Austrian company Omy, British/Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, French Engie, German
companies Uniper and Wintershall, Italian Saipem and Swiss Allseas are also taking part in the
laying of the pipeline.
The doubling of North Stream increases Europe's dependence on Russian gas, warn the United
States. Above all, they are preoccupied by the fact that the gas pipeline – by crossing
the Baltic in waters belonging to Russia, Finland, Sweden and Germany – thus avoids the
Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary), the Baltic States and
Ukraine. In other words, the European countries which have the closest ties to Washington
through NATO (to which we must add Italy).
Rather than being economic, the goal for the USA is strategic. This is confirmed by the fact
that the sanctions on North Stream 2 are included in the National Defense Authorization
Act , the legislative act which, for fiscal year 2020, hands the Pentagon the colossal sum
of 738 billion dollars for new wars and new weapons (including space weapons), to which must be
added other posts which bring the US military expenditure to approximately 1,000 billion
dollars. The economic sanctions on North Stream 2 are part of a politico-military escalation
against Russia.
An ulterior confirmation can be found in the fact that the US Congress has established
sanctions not only against North Stream 2, but also against the Turk-Stream, which, in its
final phase of realisation, will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Eastern Thrace,the
small European area of Turkey. From there, by another pipeline, Russian gas should be delivered
to Bulgaria, Serbia and other European countries. This is the Russian riposte to the US action
which managed to block the South Stream pipeline in 2014. South Stream was intended to link
Russia to Italy across the Black Sea and by land to Tarvisio (Udine). Italy would therefore
have become a switch platform for gas in the EU, with notable economic advantages. The Obama
administration was able to scuttle the project, with the collaboration of the European
Union.
The company Saipem (Italian Eni Group), once again affected by the US sanctions against
North Stream 2, was severely hit by the blockage of South Stream – in 2014, it lost
contracts to the value of 2.4 billion Euros, to which other contracts would have been added if
the project had continued. But at the time, no-one in Italy or in the EU protested against the
burial of the project which was being organised by the USA. Now German interests are in play,
and critical voices are being raised in Germany and in the EU against US sanctions against
North Stream 2.
Nothing is being said about the fact that the European Union has agreed to import liquified
natural gas (LNG) from the USA, an extract from bituminous shale by the destructive technique
of hydraulic fracturation (fracking). In order to damage Russia, Washington is attempting to
reduce its gas exports to the EU, obliging European consumers to foot the bill. Since President
Donald Trump and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, signed in
Washington in July 2018 the Joint Statement of 25 July: European Union imports of U.S.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) , the EU has doubled its importation of LNG from the USA,
co-financing the infrastructures via an initial expenditure of 656 million Euros. However, this
did not save European companies from US sanctions. Manlio Dinucci
The mainstream media are carefully
sidestepping the method behind America's seeming madness in assassinating Islamic Revolutionary Guard general
Qassim Suleimani to start the New Year. The logic behind the assassination this was a long-standing application
of U.S. global policy, not just a personality quirk of Donald Trump's impulsive action. His assassination of
Iranian military leader Suleimani was indeed a unilateral act of war in violation of international law, but it
was a logical step in a long-standing U.S. strategy. It was explicitly authorized by the Senate in the funding
bill for the Pentagon that it passed last year.
The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops
(Isis, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America's foreign legion) to
support U.S. control o Near Eastern oil as a buttress o the U.S. dollar. That remains the key to understanding
this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.
I sat in on discussions of this policy as
it was formulated nearly fifty years ago when I worked at the Hudson Institute and attended meetings at the
White House, met with generals at various armed forces think tanks and with diplomats at the United Nations. My
role was as a balance-of-payments economist having specialized for a decade at Chase Manhattan, Arthur Andersen
and oil companies in the oil industry and military spending. These were two of the three main dynamic of
American foreign policy and diplomacy. (The third concern was how to wage war in a democracy where voters
rejected the draft in the wake of the Vietnam War.)
The media and public discussion have
diverted attention from this strategy by floundering speculation that President Trump did it, except to counter
the (non-)threat of impeachment with a wag-the-dog attack, or to back Israeli lebensraum drives, or simply to
surrender the White House to neocon hate-Iran syndrome. The actual context for the neocon's action was the
balance of payments, and the role of oil and energy as a long-term lever of American diplomacy.
The balance of payments dimension
The major deficit in the U.S. balance of
payments has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean War in
1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing the dollar off gold in
1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to continue supporting the 800 U.S. military
bases around the world and allied troop support without losing America's financial leverage.
The solution turned out to be to replace
gold with U.S. Treasury securities (IOUs) as the basis of foreign central bank reserves. After 1971, foreign
central banks had little option for what to do with their continuing dollar inflows except to recycle them to
the U.S. economy by buying U.S. Treasury securities. The effect of U.S. foreign military spending thus did not
undercut the dollar's exchange rate, and did not even force the Treasury and Federal Reserve to raise interest
rates to attract foreign exchange to offset the dollar outflows on military account. In fact, U.S. foreign
military spending helped finance the domestic U.S. federal budget deficit.
Saudi Arabia and other Near Eastern OPEC
countries quickly became a buttress of the dollar. After these countries quadrupled the price of oil (in
retaliation for the United States quadrupling the price of its grain exports, a mainstay of the U.S. trade
balance), U.S. banks were swamped with an inflow of much foreign deposits – which were lent out to Third World
countries in an explosion of bad loans that blew up in 1972 with Mexico's insolvency, and destroyed Third World
government credit for a decade, forcing it into dependence on the United States via the IMF and World Bank).
To top matters, of course, what Saudi Arabia
does not save in dollarized assets with its oil-export earnings is spent on buying hundreds of billion of
dollars of U.S. arms exports. This locks them into dependence on U.S. supply o replacement parts and repairs,
and enables the United States to turn off Saudi military hardware at any point of time, in the event that the
Saudis may try to act independently of U.S. foreign policy.
So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. Foreign countries to not have to pay the Pentagon
directly for this spending. They simply finance the U.S. Treasury and U.S. banking system.
Fear of this development was a major reason
why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign reserves were held in gold, not dollars, an which was
urging other African countries to follow suit in order to free themselves from "Dollar Diplomacy." Hillary and
Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars
worth of gold) and destroyed Libya's government, its public education system, its public infrastructure and
other non-neoliberal policies.
The great threat to this is dedollarization
as China, Russia and other countries seek to avoid recycling dollars. Without the dollar's function as the
vehicle for world saving – in effect, without the Pentagon's role in creating the Treasury debt that is the
vehicle for world central bank reserves – the U.S. would find itself constrained militarily and hence
diplomatically constrained, as it was under the gold exchange standard.
That is the same strategy that the U.S. has
followed in Syria and Iraq. Iran was threatening this dollarization strategy and its buttress in U.S. oil
diplomacy.
The oil industry as buttress of the
U.S. balance of payments and foreign diplomacy
ORDER IT NOW
The trade balance is buttressed by oil and
farm surpluses. Oil is the key, because it is imported by U.S. companies at almost no balance-of-payments cost
(the payments end up in the oil industry's head offices here as profits and payments to management), while
profits on U.S. oil company sales to other countries are remitted to the United States (via offshore
tax-avoidance centers, mainly Liberia and Panama for many years). And as noted above, OPEC countries have been
told to keep their official reserves in the form of U.S. securities (stocks and bonds as well as Treasury IOUs,
but not direct purchase of U.S. companies being deemed economically important). Financially, OPEC countries are
client slates of the Dollar Area.
America's attempt to maintain this buttress
explains U.S. opposition to any foreign government steps to reverse global warming and the extreme weather
caused by the world's U.S.-sponsored dependence on oil. Any such moves by Europe and other countries would
reduce dependence on U.S. oil sales, and hence on U.S. ability to control the global oil spigot as a means of
control and coercion, are viewed as hostile acts.
Oil also explains U.S. opposition to
Russian oil exports via Nordstream. U.S. strategists want to treat energy as a U.S. national monopoly. Other
countries can benefit in the way that Saudi Arabia has done – by sending their surpluses to the U.S. economy –
but not to support their own economic growth and diplomacy. Control of oil thus implies support for continued
global warming as an inherent part of U.S. strategy.
How a "democratic" nation can wage
international war and terrorism
The Vietnam War showed that modern
democracies cannot field armies for any major military conflict, because this would require a draft of its
citizens. That would lead any government attempting such a draft to be voted out of power. And without troops,
it is not possible to invade a country to take it over.
The corollary of this perception is that
democracies have only two choices when it comes to military strategy: They can only wage airpower, bombing
opponents; or they can create a foreign legion, that is, hire mercenaries or back foreign governments that
provide this military service.
Here once again Saudi Arabia plays a
critical role, through its control of Wahabi Sunnis turned into terrorist jihadis willing to sabotage, bomb,
assassinate, blow up and otherwise fight any target designated as an enemy of "Islam," the euphemism for Saudi
Arabia acting as U.S. client state. (Religion really is not the key; I know of no ISIS or similar Wahabi attack
on Israeli targets.) The United States needs the Saudis to supply or finance Wahabi crazies. So in addition to
playing a key role in the U.S. balance of payments by recycling its oil-export earnings are into U.S. stocks,
bonds and other investments, Saudi Arabia provides manpower by supporting the Wahabi members of America's
foreign legion, ISIS and Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda. Terrorism has become the "democratic" mode of today U.S. military
policy.
What makes America's oil war in the Near
East "democratic" is that this is the only kind of war a democracy can fight – an air war, followed by a
vicious terrorist army that makes up for the fact that no democracy can field its own army in today's world.
The corollary is that, terrorism has become the "democratic" mode of warfare.
From the U.S. vantage point, what
is
a "democracy"? In today's Orwellian vocabulary, it means any country supporting U.S. foreign policy. Bolivia
and Honduras have become "democracies" since their coups, along with Brazil. Chile under Pinochet was a
Chicago-style free market democracy. So was Iran under the Shah, and Russia under Yeltsin – but not since it
elected Vladimir Putin president, any more than is China under President Xi.
The antonym to "democracy" is "terrorist."
That simply means a nation willing to fight to become independent from U.S. neoliberal democracy. It does not
include America's proxy armies.
Iran's role as U.S. nemesis
What stands in the way of U.S.
dollarization, oil and military strategy? Obviously, Russia and China have been targeted as long-term strategic
enemies for seeking their own independent economic policies and diplomacy. But next to them, Iran has been in
America's gun sights for nearly seventy years.
America's hatred of Iran is starts with its
attempt to control its own oil production, exports and earnings. It goes back to 1953, when Mossadegh was
overthrown because he wanted domestic sovereignty over Anglo-Persian oil. The CIA-MI6 coup replaced him with
the pliant Shah, who imposed a police state to prevent Iranian independence from U.S. policy. The only physical
places free from the police were the mosques. That made the Islamic Republic the path of least resistance to
overthrowing the Shah and re-asserting Iranian sovereignty.
The United States came to terms with OPEC
oil independence by 1974, but the antagonism toward Iran extends to demographic and religious considerations.
Iranian support its Shi'ite population an those of Iraq and other countries – emphasizing support for the poor
and for quasi-socialist policies instead of neoliberalism – has made it the main religious rival to Saudi
Arabia's Sunni sectarianism and its role as America's Wahabi foreign legion.
America opposed General Suleimani above
all because he was fighting against ISIS and other U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria
and replace Assad's regime with a set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British "divide and conquer"
ploy. On occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of line"
meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work with that government seeking
to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has bragged so loudly about grabbing.
Trump's idea that America should "get
something" out of its military expenditure in destroying the Iraqi and Syrian economies simply reflects U.S.
policy.
That explains the invasion of Iraq for oil
in 2003, and again this year, as President Trump has said: "Why don't we simply take their oil?" It also
explains the Obama-Hillary attack on Libya – not only for its oil, but for its investing its foreign reserves
in gold instead of recycling its oil surplus revenue to the U.S. Treasury – and of course, for promoting a
secular socialist state.
It explains why U.S. neocons feared
Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S.
and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what made his assassination an immediate drive.
American politicians have discredited
themselves by starting off their condemnation of Trump by saying, as Elizabeth Warren did, how "bad" a person
Suleimani was, how he had killed U.S. troops by masterminding the Iraqi defense of roadside bombing and other
policies trying to repel the U.S. invasion to grab its oil. She was simply parroting the U.S. media's depiction
of Suleimani as a monster, diverting attention from the policy issue that explains why he was assassinated
now
.
The counter-strategy to U.S. oil,
and dollar and global-warming diplomacy
This strategy will continue, until foreign
countries reject it. If Europe and other regions fail to do so, they will suffer the consequences of this U.S.
strategy in the form of a rising U.S.-sponsored war via terrorism, the flow of refugees, and accelerated global
warming and extreme weather.
Russia, China and its allies already have
been leading the way to dedollarization as a means to contain the balance-of-payments buttress of U.S. global
military policy. But everyone now is speculating over what Iran's response should be.
The pretense – or more accurately, the
diversion – by the U.S. news media over the weekend has been to depict the United States as being under
imminent attack. Mayor de Blasio has positioned policemen at conspicuous key intersections to let us know how
imminent Iranian terrorism is – as if it were Iran, not Saudi Arabia that mounted 9/11, and as if Iran in fact
has taken any forceful action against the United States. The media and talking heads on television have
saturated the air waves with warnings of Islamic terrorism. Television anchors are suggesting just where the
attacks are most likely to occur.
The message is that the assassination of
General Soleimani was to protect us. As Donald Trump and various military spokesmen have said, he had killed
Americans – and now they must be planning an enormous attack that will injure and kill many more innocent
Americans. That stance has become America's posture in the world: weak and threatened, requiring a strong
defense – in the form of a strong offense.
But what is Iran's actual interest? If it
is indeed to undercut U.S. dollar and oil strategy, the first policy must be to get U.S. military forces out of
the Near East, including U.S. occupation of its oil fields. It turns out that President Trump's rash act has
acted as a catalyst, bringing about just the opposite of what he wanted. On January 5 the Iraqi parliament met
to insist that the United States leave. General Suleimani was an invited guest, not an Iranian invader. It is
U.S. troops that are in Iraq in violation of international law. If they leave, Trump and the neocons lose
control of oil – and also of their ability to interfere with Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian-Lebanese mutual defense.
Beyond Iraq looms Saudi Arabia. It has
become the Great Satan, the supporter of Wahabi extremism, the terrorist legion of U.S. mercenary armies
fighting to maintain control of Near Eastern oil and foreign exchange reserves, the cause of the great exodus
of refugees to Turkey, Europe and wherever else it can flee from the arms and money provided by the U.S.
backers of Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq and their allied Saudi Wahabi legions.
The logical ideal, in principle, would be
to destroy Saudi power. That power lies in its oil fields. They already have fallen under attack by modest
Yemeni bombs. If U.S. neocons seriously threaten Iran, its response would be the wholesale bombing and
destruction of Saudi oil fields, along with those of Kuwait and allied Near Eastern oil sheikhdoms. It would
end the Saudi support for Wahabi terrorists, as well as for the U.S. dollar.
Such an act no doubt would be coordinated
with a call for the Palestinian and other foreign workers in Saudi Arabia to rise up and drive out the monarchy
and its thousands of family retainers.
ORDER IT NOW
Beyond Saudi Arabia, Iran and other
advocates of a multilateral diplomatic break with U.S. neoliberal and neocon unilateralism should bring
pressure on Europe to withdraw from NATO, inasmuch as that organization functions mainly as a U.S.-centric
military tool of American dollar and oil diplomacy and hence opposing the climate change and military
confrontation policies that threaten to make Europe part of the U.S. maelstrom.
Finally, what can U.S. anti-war opponents
do to resist the neocon attempt to destroy any part of the world that resists U.S. neoliberal autocracy? This
has been the most disappointing response over the weekend. They are flailing. It has not been helpful for
Warren, Buttigieg and others to accuse Trump of acting rashly without thinking through the consequences of his
actions. That approach shies away from recognizing that his action did indeed have a rationale -- do draw a line
in the sand, to say that yes, America WILL go to war, will fight Iran, will do anything at all to defend its
control of Near Eastern oil and to dictate OPEC central bank policy, to defend its ISIS legions as if any
opposition to this policy is an attack on the United States itself.
I can understand the emotional response or
yet new calls for impeachment of Donald Trump. But that is an obvious non-starter, partly because it has been
so obviously a partisan move by the Democratic Party. More important is the false and self-serving accusation
that President Trump has overstepped his constitutional limit by committing an act of war against Iran by
assassinating Soleimani.
Congress endorsed Trump's assassination
and is fully as guilty as he is for having approved the Pentagon's budget with the Senate's removal of the
amendment to the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that Bernie Sanders, Tom Udall and Ro Khanna inserted
an amendment in the House of Representatives version, explicitly not authorizing the Pentagon to wage war
against Iran or assassinate its officials. When this budget was sent to the Senate, the White House and
Pentagon (a.k.a. the military-industrial complex and neoconservatives) removed that constraint. That was a red
flag announcing that the Pentagon and White House did indeed intend to wage war against Iran and/or assassinate
its officials. Congress lacked the courage to argue this point at the forefront of public discussion.
Behind all this is the Saudi-inspired 9/11
act taking away Congress's sole power to wage war – its 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, pulled
out of the drawer ostensibly against Al Qaeda but actually the first step in America's long support of the very
group that was responsible for 9/11, the Saudi airplane hijackers.
The question is, how to get the world's
politicians – U.S., European and Asians – to see how America's all-or-nothing policy is threatening new waves
of war, refugees, disruption of the oil trade in the Strait of Hormuz, and ultimately global warming and
neoliberal dollarization imposed on all countries. It is a sign of how little power exists in the United
Nations that no countries are calling for a new Nurenberg-style war crimes trial, no threat to withdraw from
NATO or even to avoid holding reserves in the form of money lent to the U.S. Treasury to fund America's
military budget.
[2]
Michael Crowly, "'Keep the Oil': Trump Revives Charged Slogan for new Syria Troop Mission,"
The New
York Times
, October 26, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/politics/trump-syria-oil-fields.html
. The article adds: "'I said
keep the oil,' Mr. Trump recounted. 'If they are going into Iraq, keep the oil. They never did. They never
did.'"
as if it were Iran, not Saudi Arabia that mounted 9/11,
Saudi Arabia mounted 9/11? LOL. As if Michael Hudson is much too smart and well connected to not know that
this is bullshit, so why write it? Oh wait, there's more
Behind all this is the Saudi-inspired 9/11 act taking away Congress's sole power to wage war – its 2002
Authorization for Use of Military Force, pulled out of the drawer ostensibly against Al Qaeda but actually
the first step in America's long support of the very group that was responsible for 9/11, the Saudi airplane
hijackers.
This article appears to be a bullshit banquet. I shall have to reassess my thoughts on Hudson. If you aren't
part of the solution you're part of the problem.
So maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending.
The main reason for the U.S. military is dollar protection. Idealogical wars(for Israel) don't get very far
without the money.
Fear of this development was a major reason why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign
reserves were held in gold, not dollars
, an which was urging other African countries to follow suit in
order to free themselves from "Dollar Diplomacy." Hillary and Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we
still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars worth of gold) and destroyed Libya's
government, its public education system, its public infrastructure and other non-neoliberal policies.
I still don't know why the Libyan war doesn't get the attention it should like Iraq's WMD? The lie of "We
were trying to protect brown people in the middle east/north Africa" still stands with most Americans.
@NoseytheDuke
If Hudson got some minor detail wrong, it ultimately isn't that important as we are all struggling to see
through a glass darkly to find the truth in the daily deluge of lies. None of us have connected all of the dots
perfectly, though Hudson has connected more than most, more than you or I. And there are layers of narrative
about September 11, 2001. The idea that it was Saudi-inspired may not be the deepest level of the story, but
neither is it entirely false. And the Saudis provided the manpower for the attacks on the Twin Towers, just as
they are providing the boots on the ground, the Wahabi crazies, e.g., ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and others, used
by the US/Israeli interests as a proxy army to take out Assad. This is Hudson's larger point.
Hudson gives us
a panoramic economic view of the reasons that neoliberal policies have of necessity become militarized (from
the Empire's point of view), why for instance the attempt to take out Assad had to be made. It is all about
maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency and keeping a steady income stream flowing into the US
Treasury, to fund the Empire's wars as well as domestic expenditures. He also explains why this is a war that
the US ultimately will not win. Michael Hudson is to be lauded for his laying out the big picture in clear,
economic terms. Not only is he not a part of the problem (although you might be, my trollish friend) he is a
national treasure and his writing should be read and discussed by all Americans.
The USA now faces two big problems. Iraqis want American troops out and most Americans agree. Now the
spinmasters (like Trump) must explain why American troops must stay. The US military now faces a tough
logistics problem. Bases in Iraq are supplied via trucks driven by local Iraqis. Most drivers will refuse to
work in sympathy with protestors or fear of them. Resupply by airlift is not practical, so thousands more
American troops will be needed as drivers who will be vulnerable to attack.
Once again, as usual, Michael Hudson comes up aces in his analysis. He gets it. It is always about the
Benjamins! As for the Trumptard, our cowardly, compromised, corrupt Congress Critters should fugeddibout their
farcical trumped up "impeachment" and any ridiculous "trial" in the Senate. It is high time to bring back the
Nuremberg Trials. The bloated, bloviating, narcisisstic, ignorant boob and war criminal is ready for his
closeup! The same goes for the enablers, whisperers and political ventriloquists who manipulate the dummy.
Great analysis with the exception of the bits about the climate warming hoax. One of these days–not long
now–this fakery will be completely exposed, and then, a lot of people–including most certainly Mr. Hudson–will
have a lot of egg on their faces. We can only pray for the decline of Saudi Arabia, the ending of NATO, the
de-dollarization of the world, the withdrawal of all US military from the ME (and most of the rest of the
world), and the final debunking of man-made global warming.
America's hatred of Iran is starts with its attempt to control its own oil production, exports and
earnings. It goes back to 1953, when Mossadegh was overthrown because he wanted domestic sovereignty over
Anglo-Persian oil.
It was the British who wanted Mossadegh overthrown because of their profits in the Anglo Iranian Oil Co..
The US was suckered in by the threat of Iran going communist.
1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to CoupEdit event
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in order to ensure
that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had already earned him being named Time
Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to
overthrow his government, so he closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its
intelligence operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the American intelligence
community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when Harry Truman throws the British
representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't overthrow governments; the United States has never
done this before, and we're not going to start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive audience, and plans for
overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower
administration later will write in his memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to
rescue a British oil company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans that Mosaddeq is
leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower administration, who promptly decides to
organize a coup in Iran.
(see August 19, 1953). [STEPHEN KINZER, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953
The evolutionary purpose of the human animal is to remove the carbon from the earth's crust and return it to
the atmosphere ..all the while the abundant cheap energy allowing overpopulation, eventually overshoot, and
then extinction. The carbon build up in the atmosphere will then usher in a new golden age of plant
life .eventually returning the carbon to the earth's crust and starting the animal-plant rotation cycle anew.
It's almost poetic ..your houseplant's genes will outlive yours.
Writing such an article without any consideration of the Zionist dimension is quite a feat. Probably it was
done on purpose to muddy the waters. Admit to some part of the story to try and bury another one.
CAGW
(catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is a lie. To the extent that the world is warming, it is mostly
because of natural causes.
The Saudis and others are not American clients. They function in unison and synergeticaly with other
globalist elites. They play the role that is assigned to them, but the same can be said about all other
factions of these elites. These different factions are clients of each other, so to speak. There is a
hierarchy; we know who sits at the top. It's neither the Saudis nor any Anglo-Saxons walking around and making
noises in beltway circles.
Still, the guy is an economist purporting financial knowledge. (OTOH, he is evidently not rich.) He may care
to comment on the present situation in connection with the Fed's repo bailout and its 90% monetization of US
treasury debt.
America's war of terror is not about "oil"; it is about Israel. The ongoing US war in the Middle East is pushed
and promoted by the Israeli regime, the Zionist media (owned by Jews), and wealthy Jews on behalf of Israel.
The US does not need to control the oil. It is already in control of most of it, in Suadi Arbia, Qatar Kuwait,
UAE, etc. The so-called "US war for oil" is an old and rusty thesis fabricated by Zionist Jews and designed to
deflect attention away from Israel.
It's true that the US grip is slipping and it has been acting here and there to douse the fires that pop up.
However, as things become harder to manage-not like the old days-the question becomes how radical will the US
become in trying to hold on? It's a nuclear power with all sorts of military hardware that can inflict a huge
amount of damage and death. How far will it be willing to go to avoid being dislodged? Would it go nuclear? The
US may become a very dangerous country indeed as it throws whatever it has to keep it's position. Scary times
ahead.
Fantastic Article! The wars are always bankers wars. Follow the money
I got into understanding the
financial sector roughly 10 years ago from various economists (Michael included). I've been telling my friends
the same thing for a very long time. The fiat money system is what has enabled all the wrong in the world i.e.
exponential money printing, exponential population growth. With exponential population growth you have the
requirement for food, shelter, water (all natural finite resources).
Bravo, Michael, that was meant as to the one step further. You are the outsider – insider with balls today. The
key strategy of what holds up the US is the toxic pollution in thin air.
Putin, Xi, alternatively, second
row Germany – France's elites are up for the next move. Unilateralism is over.
Rational and logic dictates pulling in global population counts, migrations, resources, the long term
species survival into the accounting. No US matter, a global essentiality to which should live up local
policies. There are myriad variables as to the outcome, what is predictable, is that a status quo on today's
terms has come apart. Change is upon the power paradigms.
Nothing New here, these type of things go back to our Yangtze Patrol in China for Standard Oil and our Marines
kicking butt in the Caribbean and Central America for United Fruit in the 1920s and before.
@Toxik
Good to see an analysis that goes beyond the usual Trump Derangement- and Israel!- Syndromes. Then again, for
individual actors individual motivations (" wag-the-dog attack, or to back Israeli lebensraum drives, or
simply to surrender the White House to neocon hate-Iran syndrome.") reasonably play primary, co-equal or
supporting roles. It is almost as if people can have a number of intersecting motivations and loyalties.
Michael Hudson is an idiot, albeit a useful one. Or possibly he is crypto. In either case instead of naming the
jew, he rants about global warming and anti-semite conspiracies concerning jewish lebensraum.
In order to
seize Iraqi, Libyan or Syrian oil in general it is wise to leave the infrastructure intact so production can
immediately be resumed. In all of Wesley Clark's 7 countries in 5 years the oil production was decimated.
Why destroy the oil infrastructure? Because the primary goal was not oil, but destruction of society,
culture, economy, and ultimately genocide and Palestinian style ethnic cleansing. Hudson simply cannot point
out the obvious racial supremacist motivations of his judeo-masonic communist masters.
One theory behind the assassination is that both victims had become theats to their respective Iraqi and
Iranian leadership, and that both Iran and Iraq were in on the hit. Amadinijad is a crypto-jew and Iran is
chock full of Masonic architecture.
I still don't know why the Libyan war doesn't get the attention it should
The move or not into Lybia by Erdogan is pertinent as to Libia and it's greater realm these days. It is part
of the bargaining as to how Putin and Xi now are part of global decision making. If Erdogan moves, the top
layer of decision making globally can be confirmed
bi-polar
. As in coordinated decision making and the
nexus into the potential to impose coordinated policies that the US
" and you cannot do anything about it"
cannot deflect.
The impotence of it all no player brings something new to the table, the global masses are in for more
suppression (veganism?). Quality populations, managed proportional quotas, migrations based on quality of life,
global asset management, honest accounting, are into the mist of the generational future.
At first glance they seem to have found the perpetuum mobile:
Monopoly extorted petrodollar can be invested
in furthering the monopoly.
At second, it´s a Ponzi (surprise).
-"[] the Prince who relies on mercenaries will never be safe; (for) they are braggarts among friends and
cowards among the enemy."
– Forcing others to undercut you at any cost hollows out the domestic economy,
IOW the "outsourcings" are an inevitable consequence.
When they did it to Germany it caused the Great Depression (that much was "unintended").
This time?
What this translates to is the stakes keep getting higher, the returns diminishing,
and even with good will – and I rate (not J. Ed) Hoover as the last one with that claim –
there is no halfway palatable way out.
Even if the Orange Golem wanted to do the "right" thing (fat chance), he couldn´t;
not with 23T funded debt, ~260T unfunded liabilities (to include pensions) and nothing to export anyone would
want.
There´s nothing we can do either – just watch it crash and burn.
I wish there was a LOL option for entire articles.
Leftists never back up claims that US wars are for oil with any facts. For example,
they can never point to oil industry lobbyists lobbying for war. But we do see a huge crossover with Jewish
Zionist ideologues and those that actively plan and promote war policy.
Leftists never back up claims that US wars are for oil with any facts. For example, they can never point
to oil industry lobbyists lobbying for war.
But we do see a huge crossover with Jewish Zionist ideologues
and those that actively plan and promote war policy
.
Another mixed bag; some interesting points made here, yet accompanied by nonsensical premises or statements,
such as:
" reverse global warming and the extreme weather caused by the world's U.S.-sponsored dependence on
oil."
and
" the very group that was responsible for 9/11, the Saudi airplane hijackers."
I have come across this phenomenon numerous times already; experts providing valid but controversial
information in their field of expertise, who feel a need for then embedding self-negating passages alongside
it, as a trade-off; for instance also with gratuitously contrived references to allegedly faked moon landings,
or Hollywood's fantastical holocaust narrative. This is a very similar tactic to that of "poisoning the well".
@whattheduck
Follow the money and you find Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer, Trump's biggest donors. Their
concern is not with oil or keeping the dollar as the reserve currency.
@Weston Waroda
Obscuring the real perpetrators of 9/11 is not a minor detail whether done intentionally or by accident.
Anything and everything that even appears to give credence to the official bullshit narrative about who really
did 9/11 is harmful to the nation and the entire world. Exposing the 9/11 perps is the most powerful key that
is capable of unlocking the grip on the throat and regaining the reins of the USA. He could have written, "as
if were Iran that mounted 9/11" without including, "not Saudi Arabia". The Devil, as always, is in the details.
And then you wrote the following utter nonsense, "And the Saudis provided the manpower for the attacks on the
Twin Towers". Read more, comment less.
This article appears to be a bullshit banquet. I shall have to reassess my thoughts on Hudson.
That's very very far from the truth the article is in fact extremely enlightening as to the mechanics of US
imperialism by way of petrodollar hegemony the Giant Ponzi Scheme inner workings laid bare
It's too bad you are monomaniacally fixated on one single issue that you cannot appreciate good knowledge
that doesn't pander to your hot button
I naturally don't agree with the silly notion about the Saudi 'hijackers' nor do I agree with the equally
silly conclusion that global warming is
definitely
caused by burning hydrocarbons, rather than much more
powerful natural mechanisms and cycles that have been around for eons
Prof Hudson may or may not be on board with these sentiments also,
but he chooses his battles carefully
as
one probably must in order to be taken seriously by a wider and more mainstream [brainwashed] audience
Consider for a moment that all of his
authoritative
explanations about the economic dimension of our
current scam system would be immediately dismissed by the pinheads that control our narratives, as the ravings
of a climate denier and 911 truther what good would that do ?
@nokangaroos
As for Israel, this is not elective either not even for "Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates".
It´s
about the water, plain and simple. The groundwater they have been using since independence is fossil (ice age),
not replenished and good as gone; as is the Jordan river.
They are already stealing water from the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and it isn´t anywhere near
enough.
They MUST have Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa, or it´s game over.
And who is in the way of that? Well Hassan Nasrallah and his merry company!
Ergo, Iran must go. What´s so hard to understand?
(Like "the greatest army in the world" "the most moral army in the world" should take to wearing pink tutus,
methinks)
So there also is no hope for peace from this side.
@restless94110
"Great analysis with the exception of the bits about the climate warming hoax. "plus, "calling for a new
Nurenberg-style [sic] war crimes trial." Nuremberg was a farce, show-trial to give Stalin cover for grabbing
eastern and central Europe. For the U.S. to be in the dock in a "new Nuremberg-style war crimes trial," it's
people and cities will have to have been bombed to smithereens and its women raped by the victor-armies. Whose
armies will have pulled that off?
Saudi Arabia mounted 9/11? LOL. As if Michael Hudson is much too smart and well connected to not know
that this is bullshit, so why write it?
You're the one who's full of shit, pal.
In 2016, several US Senators called on then President Obama to release 28 pages of official 9/11 report that
they claim reveal aspects of Saudi state involvement in the attacks. That is to say, intelligence agencies of
the United States government officially acknowledge this fact. So, yes, it is technically correct to say,
"Saudi Arabia mounted 9/11." And this is before we get to the Dancing Israelis, which, again, is not a
conspiracy theory, but an officially acknowledged reality.
@Weston Waroda
Hudson gets some things right, but he shoots himself in the foot with his "Saudi inspired 9/11" reference. This
is a major flaw and to describe it as minor is simply wrong or worse.
The only role played by the Saudis was
that of patsy and in doing so they gave just a slither of cover to the actual perpetrators. Such cover, as it
was, has long since been blown out of the water. That people can still repeat
the Saudis did it
line is
quite ridiculous, national treasures or not.
We've known for aeons that the US approach to the rest of the world is about oil and its role in keeping the
intrinsically valueless dollar afloat. Hudson isn't needed for that and his article reeks of sophisticated
damage limitation, concentrating as it does on the reasons why the US does the disgusting things it does.
Right now it is much more relevant to dwell on the unjustifiable brutality, immorality and illegality of the
US in its dealings with the rest of the world.
He may care to comment on the present situation in connection with the Fed's repo bailout and its 90%
monetization of US treasury debt.
Yes, I too would be interested in hearing a coherent analysis on the extraordinary money printing going on
now I understand it's up to half a trillion in a single month it sounds like somebody is trying to plug a
massive leak in the dam a la the little Dutch boy
Is the deluge coming ?
I also think you dismiss the professor's article based on minor quibbles I don't agree with man-made climate
change either, but it doesn't take away from the meat of the article, which is a lot of excellent insight into
the inner workings of the imperialist money machine
@eah
This is not a mutually exclusive thing. Why can't it be both a war for Zionism and a war for oil? It's
absolutely both! There is no reason to believe that the Zionist lobby and the petrodollar don't exist together
in one unholy marriage.
Michael Hudson fails the "9/11 litmus test " by making statements such as "the Saudi-inspired
9/11 act " and implying several times in his essay that the Saudis did 9/11.
@NoseytheDuke
This one hurts. My man Hudson proves here he is an active disinformation agent. As you note, he is too smart to
be a dupe. Starting to think that he and PCR are advanced limited hangout. Their role is to shunt us towards
the next prepared phase of the globalist script, which is the collapse of the west and its bogus "salvation" by
the "multipolar" NWO led by Russia and China. They want us to beg for this next turn of the screw. They want us
to beg for Putin and Xi to "liberate" us. Create problem, offer solution. What they have coming down the
pipeline two iterations from now is worse than we can imagine.
Oil and economics are part of the equation governing U.S. ME policy, but so are Israeli geopolitics, religion
and culture. Making economics the sole focus oversimplifies and over-reduces the holistic reality of our
grossly misdirected, hijacked foreign policy.
The synthetic American Second Founding ethos of civic nationalism along with the synthetic mythos of
"Judeo-Christianity" are a major element of why America sides with Israel and not the Arabs, Persians or other
regional powers. The Jewish-exacerbated and inflamed cultural enmity that Westerners feel toward Muslims, in
large part due to mass immigration championed by Jews and false-flag terror from the Dancing Shlomos on 9/11 to
ISIS today, is the other side of this pincer movement of cultural and political influence.
The author isn't wrong, but he's an economist. When all you have is a hammer
Although the shale resource estimates presented in this report will likely change over time as additional
information becomes available,
it is evident that shale resources that were until recently not included
in technically recoverable resources constitute a substantial share of overall global technically
recoverable oil and natural gas resources
.
Canada has a series of large hydrocarbon basins with thick, organic-rich shales that are assessed by this
resource study.
The claim that the US has an urgent need to secure oil supplies in the Middle East is not really supported
by the evidence vis-a-vis oil production and reserves.
Reminder the same people who want you to fight Iran also want you to live in a pod and eat bugs. Even in the
best case where you actually manage to get back alive, minus a limb or three, what awaits you is a glorified
drawer and maggot patties
@9/11 Inside job
However , Michael Hudson does write of " Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq , Al
Nusra) and other divisions of what are actually America's foreign legion " .
But it wasn't. There was no live TV coverage of the first WTC attack.
Pres. Bush lied about his initial knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, presumably to give them more time to
succeed. ABC News reported that Bush had been informed about the first WTC attack even before he left his
resort hotel that morning.
You are free to think, however, that it was the Saudis who paid for the glue on Bush's chair in that Florida
classroom on 9/11. Maybe they even paid Ari Fleischer to hold up that sign for Bush while the WTC was burning:
DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET
Why was his Press Secretary telling President Bush to keep his mouth shut for the time being? How did
Fleischer even know what Card had whispered in Bush's ear unless he was in on the plot?
All the talk about the Israelis, Jews, or the Saudis -- and now the dead Iranian general Soleimani -- being
responsible for 9/11, but nobody wants to talk about the Americans who were on duty that day, all of whom
dropped the ball in one way or another, starting with Pres. Bush, who sat in his chair rather than taking
immediate action to defend the United States against ongoing terrorist attacks.
Allowing an enemy or false flag attack to succeed is treason.
9/11 was the treasonous event that opened up this entire ugly can of worms in the Middle East, and
elsewhere, Mr. Gettysburg Partisan.
@Toxik
That is true. Just like the Brit WASP Empire. It was always about more money for the 1 to 5%, and if the white
trash – the vast, vast majority of the natives of the British Isles – got hammered over and over, so be it.
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
It is not some of the folks who say that 9/11 is an Israeli false flag, it is all of the folks except for the
Israeli trolls. (And there are a lot of those!)
@NoseytheDuke
In the course of several threads Ron Unz has referred to the Twin Towers coming down at free fall speed into
their own footprints as key evidence against the official story. My recollection is that you have said much the
same. Correct?
So I ask what you make of this link provided by LK, one of the chosen for elephant stamps,
"FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down
the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which
cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell
outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the
structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens -- 600 feet"
You clearly care a great deal about 9/11 truth, and Ron's language is that of one convinced that the
official story is wrong in ways that matter so I seek to know whether you are given pause and reason to doubt
your own certainties by that evidence by the 3000.
Economic hit man Hudson reminds us of how many people Chase Manhattan killed in Vietnam
but somehow claims he doesn't know how the US stole Gaddafi's 44 tons of gold.
The poverty draft works in the US because we let the poor fight the wars for the rich and corporations. Tell
me who started the Iraq war, the Mullahs in Iran or the Mullahs in DC?
Hudson works the alternative media to disable dissent. The Democrats and Republicans will send internet
dissenters to psychiatric hospitals if they complain too much on the internet. The Iran war really means that
everyone needs to go along with the party line or get banned – total agreement between right wingers and left
wingers.
The wars in the mideast are not for oil, they are for Israel and Israels greater Israel agenda, and since
zionists control the FED and IRS the wars for Israel, which were instigated the last time by the joint Israeli
and ZUS attack on WTC and blamed on the Arabs to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the mideast for Israel.
@Fluesterwitz
Perceptive as many of Dr Hudson's remarks are, the article is itself a wag-the-dog story inasmuch as, were it
not for US support for Israel, oil production in the ME would have remained under Western control at low prices
indefinitely.
It is not the case that oil prices quadrupled in early '74 because of the US quadrupling the cost of wheat,
which, if I recall correctly, had mainly to do with crop shortages in the USSR, as f.o.b. USGulf prices were
bid up dramatically from around $1.65 a bushel to nearly $7, and not by the US government or its proxies, but
by grain traders. The price of oil quadrupled independently and because of the US yet again backing of Israel
in its wars of aggression against the Arab nations.
There's also Dr Hudson's conspicuous misdirection about 9/11, blaming it on the absurd, fairytale narrative
for childish minds about nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle a Cessna 150 magically flying jetliners into
buildings magically exempted from the laws of physics during 9/11, making it clear he takes readers here for
morons. There are several dozen lines of relevant and substantial evidence overwhelmingly disproving the
official narrative and implicating Israel. If anything, Dr Hudson's participation in these elaborate efforts at
concealing the truth about 9/11 provide powerful evidence that he's a disinformation agent poisoning the well
by cognitive infiltration of sites opposing the ME wars.
We don't blame everyday Jews for any of this any more than we blame Italians for crimes of the Mafia, so
let's not hear hateful lies that we want these wars ended because we're the haters.
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
I agree JB – Its a multi faceted MOnkey F that has as many end games, as the number of Think tanks – " Thinking
of every angle in the quest for Rule." Nokangaroo has it down with water – also. The US isn't just happy owning
the America's – they want Europe too, as they play the strong arm game for Israel. Whereas Russia , seems like
it just wants Russia , the Slavs, and wishes to trade its goods in mostly – Peace. Wanna be -Israel wants the
whole Mid East and the natural resources to itself and China wants a whole lot of the Worlds natural resources
through trade and loans that can't be paid back, or it seems to be. They are all the NWO players, but they have
different ideas on – Splitting the booty.
@Haxo Angmark
Tend to agree and I can see Mr Hudson's logic, which explains why the US wants to control (by allies or
proxies) Middle East oil despite being self-sufficient – but if that was the only reason, why aren't they
flattening wind farms and solar plants all over the world? I assume the Danes don't pay for their offshore
electricity in dollars.
I'm aware though that oil is still pretty unique in that it's the most portable form
of energy. No one is going to build a battery-powered aircraft carrier.
Maybe it's 50/50 between 'defending Israel' by attacking any functioning unfriendly ME state and keeping the
petrodollar, which would explain the attack on Libya, surely no threat to Israel.
Two little quibbles. Climate has always been changing. The desire to fill banks and government coffers for
essentially the air you breathe is what is new.
The second thing is the Democrats are not anti war. Think of the two parties as participants in a scripted
WWE wrestling match. To make matters worse most anti war groups have financially back by a non profit, who is
backed by more non profits. Wouldn't be that surprising is end of the donor road leads to the likes of the
Atlantic Council and its members. We're living in a matrix.
M. Hudson says : "The assassination was intended to escalate America's presence in Iraq to keep control the
region's oil reserves,"
Well, that's one "expert" opinion.
Here's
another :
" ..More than 13 years after Saddam's last hurrah on a Baghdad gallows, the US still has upwards of 30,000
troops and contractors in the immediate vicinity of the Persian Gulf. But why?
..it should be obvious by now that it's not the oil, either. At the moment the US is producing nearly 13
million barrels per day and is the world's leading oil producer – well ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia; and is
now actually a net exporter of crude for the first time in three-quarters of a century.
Besides, the Fifth Fleet has never been the solution to oil security. The cure for high prices is high
prices – as the great US shale oil and Canadian heavy oil booms so cogently demonstrate, among others.
And the route to global oil industry stability is peaceful commerce because virtually every regime –
regardless of politics and ideology – needs all the oil revenue it can muster to fund its own rule and keep its
population reasonably pacified.
Surely, there is no better case for the latter than that of Iran itself – with an economy burdened by
decades of war, sanctions and mis-rule and an 80-million population that aspires to a western standard of
living.
So left to its own devices, Tehran would produce 5 million barrels per day from its abundant reserves.
That's barely one-tenth of its present meager output, which is owing to Washington's vicious sanctions against
any and all customers for its oil and potential investors in modernizing and expanding it production
capacity "
@BuelahMan
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion.
But my take is the article was about the reason for the recent assassination, not the reason for the
invasion of SW Asia, the Middle East, SE Europe, and N Africa, which began in 1978, BTW.
The article did contain a few throw-away lines which were contentious and not necessary for his point.
All in all, I thought it was great. Thanks Michael.
@Wizard of Oz
Wizard of Oz says : ""FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of
what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the
official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin
Towers' mass fell outside their footprints"
Riddle me this: why in god's name would you believe
anything
that FEMA, or, for that matter, any other government agency [e.g. N.I.S.T.] says did or did not happen on 9/11?
Do you also believe
anything
Trump/ Pompeo etc. are claiming as reasons for the [alleged]
assassination?
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
This is true, it seems unlikely these wars are
purely
for the benfit of Zionism and Israel, granted they
are a major component but there are also Gentile interests here.
The only difference is that these wars
benefit Israel as a whole, its people and all. They only serve to beenfit a small handful of Gentiles though
and the rest of us goyim are seeing nothing but losses, this is why there is often a tendency to place the
blame solely on the Jews and push the Gentiles aside as simply
shabbos goyim
, these Gentiles are
actually benefiting but at the expense of their own people.
Michael Hudson has a lot to say about economics. I wish he would stick to that. I can't believe that anyone
with his IQ and interest in politics could be so deluded about 9/11. It's almost like running into a
field-theorist who happens to be a flat-earther.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty
comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto
nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars
against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan
Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing
for the allied forces during World War I pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done,
because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.
@Carlton Meyer
Trump has already threatened Iraqis with crippling sanctions if they insist American forces leave Iraq. And in
a bizarre twist to this blackmail, Iraq will be forced to "compensate" the Americans for their "investment".
Any sane individual would think it is Iraq that's owed compensation after a criminal war based on lies
destroyed a once prosperous and secular country. The American criminal gangster protection racket is about to
go full throttle.
@ Ron Unz: When I want to forward this article, or other articles on this site, and i click on email–nothing
happens. Two days ago, and years before, I'd click on email, give my name, email, type in Capcha, and get a
notice, Mail Sent. Now, nothing.
@YetAnotherAnon
It has been argued that Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi´s "Great Man-Made River" (a 40-year irrigation project) was of
no minor concern, as the Jews could have sat on their produce until it hatched
The reason behind the oil increase has nothing to do with the US (undocumented) quadrupling of the price of its
grain exports. It is rather linked to the blind (like today) support of ZioAmerica and the West for Israel in
the 1973 war. After the oil price quadrupling, the OAPEC countries threatened that they would cut their
production an additional 5 per cent per month, 'until Israeli withdrawal is completed from the whole Arab
territories occupied in June 1967 and "the legal rights of the Palestinian people are restored".
The 1973 oil shock was not a shock for everyone. While it had a devastating impact on world industrial growth,
it brought enormous benefits to major US and European banks and above all it was a godsend for oil majors, the
so-called seven sisters.These oil companies were able to invest in the north sea oil fields only when the oil
price quadrupled.
In early 1973, the bilderberg group discussed an imminent "400 per cent future rise in OPEC's price". At
bilderberg they knew beforehand the oil price was going to be quadrupled.
@Wizard of Oz
'Cause when you blow up a four hundred meter high building you can't get it to fall exactly in its own
footprint, no matter how hard you try. The firemen were told "another plane is coming" as the order to get out
when they finished evacuating the employees from buildings which were already 60% vacant. (And the buildings
had been vacant for some time which is why Silverstein bought them on the cheap, and why they were sold,
essentially for scrap.)
Without the dollar's function as the vehicle for world saving – in effect, without the Pentagon's role in
creating the Treasury debt that is the vehicle for world central bank reserves – the U.S. would find itself
constrained militarily and hence diplomatically constrained, as it was under the gold exchange standard.
Fascinating as it always is with this author, I wish Professor Hudson had enlarged on the block quoted
snippet above, or given a link to where he had explained it thoroughly for those of us less quick on the
uptake. He obviously has a great deal of knowledge about these things and the promise of unique insights
motivates me to concentrate. I could be quite negative if I held him to the fire for the absolute truth of
everything he has written in the piece, but such dogmatism would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Most of what Prof, Hudson says is basically correct if you pull back from the detailed allegations he makes.
My criticisms would be he does have a tendency to write as if conscious intention is at work in the way America
acts, and the elite thus understands all the implications of what they are doing. If one is looking at
international politics the debt can be important, but in the final analysis (loans to Germany and its debts
before WW2 were from losing WW1) some nation states view others as a potential threat to be neutralised.
Moreover, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, or rather the Persian and Arabs, have a very long history of
enmity. Both are heavily dependant on oil prices for their ability to keep funding proxy wars. Saudi Arabia
tried to put the frackers of the United States Of America–now the world's largest exporter of petroleum–out of
business and failed. It would be silly to say the low interest rates in the US were intended to stop the
fighting in Syria, but they might have had that effect. Bethany McLean says fracking is afloat on a tsunami of
free money that cannot last.
[MORE]
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-02-04/venezuelas-collapse-is-a-window-into-how-the-oil-age-will-unravel/
The shift can be best understood through the concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI), pioneered
principally by the State University of New York environmental scientist Professor Charles Hall, a
ratio which measures how much energy is used to extract a particular quantity of energy from any
resource. Hall has shown that as we are consuming ever larger quantities of energy, we are using more
and more energy to do so, leaving less 'surplus energy' at the end to underpin social and economic
activity. As the surplus energy available to sustain economic growth is squeezed, in real terms the
biophysical capacity of the economy to continue buying the very oil being produced reduces leading
the market price to collapse.
That in turn renders the most expensive unconventional oil and gas projects potentially
unprofitable, unless they can find ways to cover their losses through external subsidies of some kind,
such as government grants or extended lines of credit.
My understanding of ME geopolitics is that Britain created states to separate (gerrymander) the Arab
masses from the oil wealth of the region. Hence Kuwait ect. In 1953 a threadbare Britain told America
that without the income from Iranian Oil the financial status of the UK would be desperate. The US, which
had originally opposed a coup, went along with and funded one. America then deciding that Iran could be
Uncle Sam;s cop on the ME beat
gave
the Shah so much weaponry that the Arab nations became
extremely alarmed. The Shah's second (first was half German) wife told a story about how when she went to
tell their cook what she wanted for dinner her would turn his eyes away because she was wearing a bikini.
He also secretly prayed. It was a very religious country and yet the Shah's father had banned the veil in
1936.
Saudi Arabia gave 40 billion dollars to Saddam's Iraq to fight the Iran Iraq war against the Islamic
regime in Tehran. After a good start Saddam's army was halted and then turned back by the Iranians
ruthless use of their relatively huge population of young men as cannon fodder. The debts Saddam incurred
fighting against the Persians gave him a grudge against the family dictatorship oil wealthy countries and
that was a major reason he invaded Kuwait. If Iraq has so much oil of its own, then why would Saddam have
needed to invade a tiny neighbour?
On loan guarantees and the settlements issue Bush sent the Lobby packing with a flick of his eyebrow
and brought Israel to Madrid only having to give Israel revocation of UN Resolution 3379 (Zionism is
racism). All great stuff. It started the process that led to the Camp David 2000 Summit and Barak making
an offer for a final settlement that was if very hard to accept for the Palestinian side, still a serious
offer that they might have taken and successfully built on.
Bush the Elder and Scowcroft saw the problem of a US army in Iraq, so the just evicted Saddam from
Kuwait, but the US army in Saudi Arabia they did not seem to worry about even though it would have to be
there as long as Saddam ran Iraq, and the 1979 Grand Mosque seizure showed there was a strong dislike of
the Saud regime's westernisation. Bush the Elder sent the Lobby packing with a flick of his eyebrow and
brought Israel to Madrid only having to give Israel revocation of UN Resolution 3379. Down the line there
was the Camp David 2000 Summit and Barak making an offer for a final settlement that was serious.
The Saudi ambassador at the time of 9/11 lobbied hard for an invasion to overthrow Saddam. American
strategists regard Saudi Arabia as a the richest prize in the world and a client state so they had to
invade Iraq and neutralize it as a threat Saudi Arabia in order to be able to withdraw their army (that
had been there since Saddam had been kicked out of Kuwait, but left in power in Iraq) from Saudi Arabia.
Osama bin Laden's main complaint and the cause of domestic unrest in Saudi Arabia was disgust with the
Saud regime's decision to allow the U.S. military into the country in 1990 to deter an attack by Saddam
Hussein. To retain Saudi Arabia within the US's orbit, it was necessary to overthrow Saddam. Yes Iraq has
oil, but not that much. As already mentioned the Middle East was drawn up so the oil is where the Arab
masses cannot get at it without an invasion of another country.
Recently, researchers and academics have revisited the attack on the USS Liberty and have uncovered credible
evidence that the vicious murderous onslaught was a false flag perpetrated by Iranian jets disguised with the
markings of America's best friend in a diabolical attempt to drive a wedge between bosom buddies and shatter
all of judeo-christian civilization. Furthermore, very credible witnesses who can't be named at this time to
insure their safety overheard the swarthy men with rifles on the grassy knoll overlooking Dealy Plaza speaking
Farzi back in 1963. What more evidence could anyone possibly need as to exactly who is threatening world peace
and stability? As to 9/11, everyone knows it was perpetrated by those sneaky Iranians impersonating Saudis and
then trying to promote the event as an inside job perpetrated by our best friend and ally.
This one hurts. My man Hudson proves here he is an active disinformation agent.
No, he cannot touch the third rail!
Hudson is a balance of payments specialist, and he knows full
well how the Petrodollar system works. He has exposed it.
He did good work on Panama papers episode. It is up to us to carefully parse what Hudson is saying, and the
fact that we have to do this implies just how dangerous ZOG has become.
The Saudi's are PART OF ZOG. I have had to repeat this ad-nauseum. You can follow the money. MI6 abets Saudi
Coup at the behest of oil interests e.g. BP/Shell. Compliant Saudi Kingdom is installed and later America takes
over security guarantees via 73 Kissinger agreement. The Petrodollar/Tbill economy is born – Hudson has
explicitly described this mechanism, it is up to you to peer through the veil. Super Imperialism is his first
work on this balance of payment charade that forms our world.
Wahabbism is part of the construct as it enshrines Saudi Kingdom as the leader of Islam (their brand) and
Mecca. Zion/Globo-homo is actually State Sponsored Usury, and their real god is Moloch and Mammon.
I get it that people are tired of the Saudi's did 911, when instead it was a matrix of ZOG, including Mossad
and Sayanim in America along with "international globo-homo interests, including the deep-state."
The common denominator is that all of these players are tethered to international federal reserves notes
(international corporate banking), or finance capital that won WW2.
If the globo-homo cabal can maneuver the polity to win WW2, then it can maneuver to have Hudson
disappeared/executed or however you want to put it.
Hudson is very smart, and is using code language for us to follow, while still exposing the truth of things.
The Saudi's did 911 wink wink nudge nudge.
It would be nice if we could get the truth in one sitting without having to sift through BS, but that is not
the way the world works today.
With regards to PCR, he pretty much has larger stones than Hudson, and does not couch his language as
carefully. PCR will call out the Jew and his usury and you know these two men talk to each other.
Hudson knows full well what is going on. What do you think his important career would look like if he named
the Jew?
Michael Hudson, with whom I often disagree, provides an excellent analysis of one reason behind Suleimani's
assassination, the USA establishment's determination to effectively control the world's energy no matter what
the cost,
Unfortunately Hudson fails to consider the role of Israel. The Israelis cannot establish the local
regional hegemony they want as long as Iran, a traditional regional power, is a functioning nation. Israel is
desperate to destroy Iran. Therefore, Israel's traitorous, Zionist fifth-column in the USA will do everything
in its power to encourage and defend any politician who promotes aggression against Iran and to attack any
politician who stands against this insanely immoral and counterproductive policy. Zionist's in this country
currently have a stranglehold on the USA's policy in North Africa, the Levant, the Near East. And Southwest
Asia. I don't see how this can change unless the people of the United States are brutally forced to deal with
the consequences of this policy and finally become aware of the espionage and lobbying groups responsible for
it.
Wow. I am usually a big fan of Hudson's but this analysis is just an effort to conceal the truth. While it's
true that "dollar hegemony" and and the 'control of oil' factor large in washington's geopolitical
considerations, those considerations could have been adequately addressed by simply observing the "nuke's deal"
which would have allowed Iran to sell oil and gas to Europe in dollars, as was intended.
So why did Trump blow up the deal???
He blew it up for the same reason he made Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and the same reason why he gave
Israel the green light to settle the west Bank. He blew up the nukes deal because that is what is main
deep-pocket constituents wanted him to do and because he believes that his best path to greater personal power
is by placating his zionist constituents. This is the choice Trump has made. and he is one false flag away
from realizing his dream of nearly absolute power.
Hudson's article is a diversion from the ugly truth that is unfolding before our eyes
If people want to know about money and the maneuverings of the cabal, then E Michael Jones serves that role.
Jones has decided to name the Jew, and of course they are doing their best to demonetize and demonize him.
Hudson won't go there -- get over it. Others have also complained about Hudson in this regards. If you look
very carefully you can see that Hudson is not being disingenuous.. he is not a disinfo agent, he is dropping
clues.
People like PCR and myself can still admire the man and we can also admit Hudson is not as much of an Alpha
male as we are.
The world is made up of different kinds of people, including some men who are more girly, reticent and
careful.
@bjondo
I have no idea I have an open mind and just look at facts not religion or place of birth.
December 2, 2018
Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: "A Famous American Family" Made its Fortune from the Nazis
The Bush family links to Nazi Germany's war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in
the testimony of Nazi Germany's steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.
Jan 2, 2012 Bush & Rockefeller family's funded NAZI war effort and laundered NAZI money
IG Farban which is the German company that held the patent for Zyklon B was being funded by Rockefeller
owned Standard Oil. Union Banking Corp whose Director and Vice president was Prescott Bush (father of George)
was money laundering for the Nazis and after the war ended its assets were seized for trading with the enemy.
Recently, researchers and academics have revisited the attack on the USS Liberty and have uncovered
credible evidence that the vicious murderous onslaught was a false flag perpetrated by
Iranian
jets
disguised with the markings of America's best friend in a diabolical attempt to drive a wedge between bosom
buddies and shatter all of judeo-christian civilization.
LoL.
It was Israeli Jets, and sneaky Mossad wanted U.S. to bomb Egypt, so "greater Israel" the Zion project could
come into effect. LBJ was in on the charade. By this point in history, the U.S. was fully infiltrated at the
highest levels.
Through deception do war -- is that what you are doing, being deceptive? The Iranians have never been our
enemy.
Also, there is no such thing as JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY. That is a made up term so Jews can dupe Christian Goyim.
It takes lots of usury to fund deception of this magnitude.
The New TESTAMENT supersedes the old. Christian doctrine of super-session IS OPERATIVE, and means that any
sect emphasizing old testament is a Judaiser, and hence should be shunned.
If you catch yourself saying the words Judeo-Christianity, then do a face-palm and realize you have been
hoaxed and are repeating deception.
@plantman
To me it seems the US and it's lackeys are continually and repeatedly provoking Iran by committing actions
which are acts of war or merit strong retaliation, which could cascade and escalate into causes of war. This
recent assassination is similar to the hijacking of Iranian oil tankers earlier this year. This pattern has
been present and escalating in intensity since immediately after the Iraq war. There was a partial hiatus under
Obama because he personally disliked the zionists so much. We will be at war with Iran sooner or later, just as
with Iraq, if republicans keep the White House.
Hudson is obviously avoiding talking about the Zionist angle,
probably for his own security -- I'll wager he doesn't have tenure yet. He talks about the OPEC embargo of the 70s
without mentioning Israel. It's openly known that this was in retaliation for western support of Israel during
the Yom Kippur war. There's no way he could be that uninformed.
@sarz
Sara says: "Michael Hudson has a lot to say about economics. I wish he would stick to that. I can't believe
that anyone with his IQ and interest in politics could be so deluded about 9/11"
Well, if it's any
consolation, his "government knows best", grandiose economic "theories"are no less delusional than his. 9/11
theories
This essay provides a glimpse of the satanic levels of Greed and Psychopathy of the whitrash civilisation
(previously it was the British, and now the baton is with the AmeriKKKans). This spiritually and morally cursed
cesspool's "success" in this world has been predicated on such unabashed Evil. Surely it will not be worth it
as they will find themselves writhing in a Fiery torment, soon enough.
I think what this world desperately
needs is whitey "genocide." The quotes signify the fact that since I am a true monotheist, I can never ever
condone that level of bloodshed. So, what is required is reducing the number of whiteys in the world, so as to
curtail their demonic Evil.
@Cowboy
Excellent points. Not so sure about Free Masons though.
– And recall that most of the big oil field drilling
/ management contracts went to Russia, China, & Europe after the US / Israel invasions, not the US.
– Zionists love guys like Hudson who all too conveniently attempts to deflect attention away from Israel.
–
US oil companies make about six cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand there's US Big
Government, taxes per gallon
:
That's before federal taxes of ca. 20 cents per single gallon
@eah
No disrespect, but the EIA report is not entirely correct.
First, While the US is a large producer of hydrocarbons this is not the same as oil. For example, the
Permian Basin produces about 98% condensates which must be blended with overseas oil the produce products in US
oil refineries. As a result the US must import heavy oil, such as Urals heavy for blending purposes. See the
Peak Prosperity website for details.
Second, globalism is not just about ownership of products but also about the control of their rates of
production and the control of the transport routes. America is trying to selectively stop production and if
this fails stop transport from those countries that are not part of the US$/Zionist economy.
Third, technically recoverable oil is not the same as economically recoverable oil. As the Our Finite World
website points out, recoverable oil is limited by what the population can pay for it or products produced or
delivered using that oil. Remember the strong correlation between energy use and GDP.
Fourth, Production of primarily condensates and gas from most fracking operations is overall an economic
loss for most investors and poses external economic and environmental costs not factored into the cost/benefit
analysis of the corporations.
Fifth, the EIA and US DOE are greatly overestimating the lifetime of the fracking boom which will start
declining in the 2022-2025 time-frame.
I will admit that the US needs to export excess natural gas (Freedom gas) from the fracking operations.
Currently, the Permian producers have to pay for the gas to be taken away or flare it at a rate of about
3bcm/year. The dramatic 100% drop in the price of natural gas in Western Europe has derailed the grand plan for
LNG export, or at least caused the countries that entered into long term contracts, such as Poland and Ukraine,
for delivery to pay much more for gas than those that rely on pipeline transported gas.
Currently, natural gas sells for $146/100 cm. In contrast, Cheniere gas prices are 115% of Henry Hub price +
liquefaction fee of around $3 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). This corresponds to as LNG price of
about $320/1000cm. To compete against Russian and Norge natural gas the US government is indirectly subsidizing
those countries receiving "Freedom Gas" via foreign aid to take the gas!
The solution turned out to be to replace gold with U.S. Treasury securities (IOUs) as the basis of
foreign central bank reserves. After 1971, foreign central banks had little option for what to do with their
continuing dollar inflows except to recycle them to the U.S. economy by buying U.S. Treasury securities.
Correct Nixon goes off of international trading gold standard in 1971. This forces dollar accumulation in
central banks to recycle back to the U.S. to buy TBills (debt). Foreign economies can no longer buy gold to
balance international trade.
Saudi Arabia and other Near Eastern OPEC countries quickly became a buttress of the dollar. After these
countries quadrupled the price of oil (in retaliation for the United States quadrupling the price of its
grain exports, a mainstay of the U.S. trade balance),
In 1971, OPEC negotiated a higher posted price and a 55% minimum profit share in the Tehran Agreement.
But the dollar's falling purchasing power after the 1971 Nixon shock had already put a big strain on the
Agreement's fixed posted prices. US support for Israel during the October 1973 Yom Kippur War was the final
straw. A resulting embargo lasted until March 1974, but after it was removed low and stable posted prices
failed to return.
U.S. banks were swamped with an inflow of much foreign deposits – which were lent out to Third World
countries in an explosion of bad loans that blew up in 1972 with Mexico's insolvency, and destroyed Third
World government credit for a decade, forcing it into dependence on the United States via the IMF and World
Bank).
Foreign deposits of surplus dollars were flowing into "private banks' and these private banks then agitated
to have Mexico redefined as "emerging market" instead of third world. This then allowed predatory
"international" loans to go forth. See Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Part of Mexinvasion of
Mestizo's into the U.S. can be tracked to this event. Our finance class is an internal enemy and a parasite.
(Never allow your debt to be denominated in a foreign currency – this is an Iron Law of Economics, not
taught in Skools.)
To top matters, of course, what Saudi Arabia does not save in dollarized assets with its oil-export
earnings is spent on buying hundreds of billion of dollars of U.S. arms exports. This locks them into
dependence on U.S. supply o replacement parts and repairs, and enables the United States to turn off Saudi
military hardware at any point of time, in the event that the Saudis may try to act independently of U.S.
foreign policy.
The Saudis are not going against their MI6 masters, and besides are dependent on foreign technology to
extract their oil, and get said oil to dollarized markets. By the time Kissinger shows up in 1973, the pattern
is already in place. The oil shock in 1974 is due to Kissinger Saudi 1973 agreement, which legitimated OPEC
cartel (monopoly). The 1973 Agreement codified the petrodollar Tbill economy that MIC and "liberalism"
globo-homo now depends on.
So maintaining the dollar as the reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. Foreign
countries to not have to pay the Pentagon directly for this spending. They simply finance the U.S. Treasury
and U.S. banking system.
Returning petrodollars fund some 800 U.S. overseas military bases. The return path is through purchasing of
TBills, and then said TBills are held in offshore accounts. Dollars then spin out of TBill and spent to enter
into dollarized economies worldwide. This is a form of inflation tax on the world. When U.S. deficit spends new
TBills, then they find returning petrodollars dollars, or said TBill can be monetized by the FED (which has
been happening in recent years.) U.S. government then spends new deficit dollars on MIC. Saudi also recycles
dollars through CIA to buy from MIC. Is it any wonder that China and Russia are working diligently to
de-dollarize their trading affairs?
That is the same strategy that the U.S. has followed in Syria and Iraq. Iran was threatening this
dollarization strategy and its buttress in U.S. oil diplomacy.
Iran is part of Russia/China axis that is de-dollarizing and hence is threatening globo homo deep state
finance capitalism (ZOG). Iran is in the way of Greater Zion, and is central to Belt and Road, and will not bow
down to Globo Homo.
The U.S. is on the wrong side of history, especially after it got brain infected and parasitized in 1912 by
the (((usual suspects))).
The poverty draft works in the US because we let the poor fight the wars for the rich and corporations.
Tell me who started the Iraq war, the Mullahs in Iran or the Mullahs in DC?
More accurate question would be
The poverty draft works in the US because we let the poor fight the wars for the rich and corporations.
Tell me who started the Iraq war, the Mullahs in Iran or the Rabbis in DC
?
That's a brazen hardLeft lie . and the central dynamic isn't oil per se; it's the petrodollar.
1) It's not a hard Left lie, it's a globalist lie. It is the justification for further de-industralization
of the "bad 1st world" who do "all the polluting" and ship it to the 3rd world where peoople are paid slave
wages.
2) If you control the oil, you control the currency/petrodollar.
I do agree that it is indirect, but at the end of the day, it's the same thing. Iraq was invaded because its
oil was primarily going to the EU, and Saddam wanted Euros for it, not US dollars.
More than a decade ago, Iran opened its oil bourse. It was prepared to take any currency for oil sales. It has,
in fact, taken gold from India as payment.
Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution was to trade oil for a different product. Doctors from Cuba, beef and other
foodstuffs from Brazil and Argentina, for example.
All of the above are examples of de-dollarization, and will never be tollerated. They all link to another facet
of the program: all opponents are the new Hitler. In some respects, this is correct. The German economy was
turned around using its version of Lincoln's greenbacks and trading commodity for commodity, often raw material
for manufactured goods. The (((banks))) were nowhere in that equation, therefore, Hitler had to be demonized,
just as Israel began demonizing Saddam in the early 1980s with the fictitious Saddam's WMD, before a nuclear
reactor was even commissioned. It's all about currency control, or as the vile Congresswoman Omar would put it
"the Benjamins".
CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is a lie.
No, it's not a lie, it's a hypothesis.
To quote the UN International Panel on Climate Change, Third Report, Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2, (2001):
In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear
chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
@NoseytheDuke
I suspect that Prof. Hudson is exaggerating on it being Saudi inspired, however, there is more than a break
even chance they were involved. What you, and others are missing is the reference to legislation. I am
acquainted with a lawyer who worked for the city at the tome of 9/11. When the Patriot Act came out of nowhere
to be passed less than 3 months after 9/11, a controversial city by-law had been proposed. I casually asked,
how long it took to produce a draft by-law, and the response was, typically 4-6 months, as the proposed by-law
had to be cross referenced with all other by-laws to ensure that it neither conflicted with, nor used terms
that would cause confusion in interpretation of the by-law or any court decision.
So, if it takes 4-6 months for a city by-law, how long do you think it might take to cross-reference the
Patriot Act and/or the Authorization for Use of Military Force legislation to check against the Constitution,
all other laws, and all court rulings that would touch on the matter? Hence, the author's "pulled out of the
drawer ostensibly against Al Qaeda ", which is the whole point of his article – the fix is in.
Well, if it's any consolation, his "government knows best", grandiose economic "theories"are no less
delusional than his. 9/11 theories
There goes the Lol-bertarian one born free-dumb again.
If you ignore gravity, you fall down and bump your head.
Human relations are NOT PURELY TWO WAY. This is as axiomatic as gravity. You have to make pretend to be a
lolbertarian, and only little girls and the deluded make pretend about things.
The plain fact of the matter is that human relations include three parties. When you get into trouble, you
will be one of the first to go whining to a sheriff, or some authority (the king) to help.
Civilization is impossible without an honest third party interlocutor. Did I say IMPOSSIBLE.
How this third party interlocutor is controlled or placed into our governing hierarchy is an entirely
different subject.
Everybody's eyes should focus on good government, not some sort of lolbertarian fantasy of a world with only
two way relations and some sort of nebulous laughable "human action," or making gold as a god.
Hudson is doing a good job of showing how the god of money, MOLOCH has infested the mind of man, and has
become our "king."
It will actually take some sort of facism or king to overcome the democrap/finance capital construct which
lolbertarans make excuses for. Dupes.
@Wally
Don't forget BLM land grabs in Nevada and Oregon, and the Soleimani style assassination of Levoy Finicum.
Here is a recent comment I made that b blocked at MofA:
Now we need for Trump to assassinate Lavrov in Berlin and create another Russian martyr that would cause
Germany to end the SOFA and throw the US occupation out after 75 years!
These latest revelations that Soleimani had been invited on behalf of the USA to Bahgdad shows how
deprave the USA has become. The latest Douma "chemical weapons" revelations and the following Trump cruise
missile retaliation illustrates how entire chains of fake action/retaliation chains are created. I think we
have to assume that the entire Katayusha rocket attack and the "dead contractor" are fake/staged. The
retaliation bombing was true, but its justification was faked. The attack on the US Embassy was clearly
staged by US agents provocatuer who were allowed into the green zone.
These plausibly deniable war provocations have an long history. In Germany's case in 1939 it was Polish
atrocities like
Bromberg
.
Germany, like Iraq, still has a constitution crafted by the usual suspects during occupation. Iraq, like
Germany, will never get rid of the Yankee parasites without a fight.
Since then, and upon further consideration, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy and most of the planet would
love to expel the US occupation and free themselves. Many would do well to completely destroy their old
Judeo-Masonic constitutions and write something free of talmudic mind control.
Tim Kelly and Joe Atwill have a
recent podcast
where they discuss the occupation of Japan by 33 degree Douglas MacAuthur. It turns out that
MacAurthur hired a 22 year old jewess to write the Feminist Civil Rights clauses into the still valid
occupation constitution. The demographic collapse of Japan, Germany and all the occupied countries was a
deliberate multi-generational conspiracy, just like the one against Iran.
@Smith
Indirectly. All wars are economic wars, only the bankers, and what they own, benefits. The Rothschilds are the
kings of banking, and bankrollers/owners of Israel. The Greater Israel/Rothschild project is to control all of
the oil in the ME. Ignore all of the "tribes of Israel" and "historic homeland" nonsense. It's about wealth and
power.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/greater-israel-maps.htm
@FB
Hudson's account of the way the US Empire funds its occupation of the world is correct. The World accepts newly
printed US dollars -- ink money as it is sometimes known, in exchange for oil and other goods and assets, and
then hands those dollars back to the US Fed in exchange for bonds yielding a below-inflation rate of interest.
What, depending on you point of view, is a nice side benefit of this arrangement is that corporations, their
share holders and other financially astute investors get to borrow money (directly or indirectly) at what are
near zero or even below zero real interest rates. In that circumstance, naturally, an ever increasing
proportion of all wealth accumulates in the hands the great corporations, investors, and others astute enough
to understand and take advantage of the ongoing scam.
Overall, one would not object too much to American global hegemony, even an American hegemony funded by the
debasement of currency, destruction of savings, and the obscene wealth of the plutocratic few, provided that
said hegemony was exercised in the interests of the people of what the US used to call "The Free World."
But clearly American hegemonists don't give a damn for the American people, let alone the people of the
tributary nations. On the contrary, they seem intent on destroying not only the peoples of subject nations but
their own people too, both culturally and literally, racial genocide being effected by a combination of
repressed fertility and mass replacement immigration.
@Krollchem
I'm aware there are different kinds/grades of crude.
Third, technically recoverable oil is not the same as
economically recoverable oil.
Yes, the lives of young men are so much cheaper, right? -- I guess that's where the term "cannon fodder"
comes from -- anyway, technically vs economically can also be seen as
a matter of national energy policy
,
like e.g. the strategic petroleum reserve -- does the US really need to spend more on its military than all
other countries combined?
Simple question: what is the proximate cause of the tension with Iran? -- answer: it's Iran's nuclear
program, specifically the allegation they intend to produce weapons grade enriched uranium (or plutonium) and
then make a bomb -- another question: how is this a threat to the US, a nation with > 10k nuclear weapons, and
more importantly,
the means to deliver them
? -- answer: it's not -- Israel sees it as a threat -- and re
that, I'll say what I've said before: if MAD (mutually assured destruction) was good enough for the US and the
USSR during the Cold War, it's good enough for the Jews and Iranians today --
it's time to out Israel as a
nuclear power
.
The US has no urgent need for Middle East oil; that's not what this is about.
The oil market should be worried. Iran can stop all traffic through the Straight of Hormuz at
will. And that would start a war. Which would keep it closed. It may be a mistake to think Iran's
leadership is more sane than ours.
Iran might also seek to draw Israel into a conflict via Hezbollah in Lebanon. We can't rule
out some sort of grand-scale attack, but an array of smaller-scale activity is our core
bet.
The risk that something bigger will trigger a real war, however, likely will put a premium
on oil prices for the next few months, at least.
Higher oil prices represent a tax on oil consumers and a windfall for producers. World oil
consumption is about 100M barrels per day, so each five dollars on the prices is equivalent to
an annualized tax of about $183B per year, or 0.1% of global GDP. The U.S., however, is both a
huge oil producer and a consumer. Domestic production runs at almost 13M bpd, with consumption
at 21Mbpd. That would seem to suggest that the net effect of higher prices on the U.S. would be
to depress economic growth, but recent experience points in the opposite direction, because oil
sector capex, in the era of shale, is acutely sensitive to prices, even in the short term. When
oil prices collapsed between spring 2014 and early 2016, the ensuing plunge in capital spending
in the oil sector outweighed the boost to consumers' real income from cheaper gasoline and
heating oil, and overall economic growth slowed markedly. This story played out in reverse when
oil prices rebounded in the three years through spring 2018, and economic growth picked up even
as consumers' real incomes were hit.
... ... ...
The wild card is whether turmoil in the Middle East triggers a sustained sell-off in
equities, depressing business and consumer confidence to the point where labor market and
inflation concerns become secondary. We'd be surprised -- the plunge in S&P futures is just
the initial knee-jerk response -- but if Iran takes more drastic action than we are expecting,
it will become a real risk. In that case, the Fed might have no choice but to ease, especially
if credit markets seize-up too. In the meantime, expect defensive stocks to outperform, with
downward pressure on Treasury yields and gains for safe-haven currencies, until Iran's response
becomes clear. To repeat: Iran will respond.
I still can't get any logical explanation as to why this Israeli spy ring, the largest ever
on U.S. soil, was in The U.S. And, why were they dancing after the first plane impact?
News flash. The government in Washington is extremely unpopular as well. More unpopular in
America than the Iranian government is with Iranians. I am saying this because anyone who spent
any time with Impeachment; read how Barr let Epstein and all pedo elites walk away fully
protected, his hideous Operation Guardian, Trump's complete destruction of 1st Amendment rights
to free speech in the guise of "suppressing antisemitism" ... God, how I hate this tyranny
complete with WalMarts and mulatto invaders and LGBT as "normal", the all tranny military,
meaningless laws we are rounded up and shot to death for the slightest traffic infraction
black, white but never Jewish. They get away with everything. Trump made them a protected
class, Judaism a race and a nationality to have special protections at taxpayer expense. What a
wonderful country I just can't get enough of....
No one will miss the US apart frmo the Americans themselves: the polls are clear worldwide
that the world considers the Americans to be ruled by the most aggressive and psychopathic
regimes. They have killed millions since WWII and the world would be a much better place
without the US.
The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news
I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make it's two
major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US troops in Iraq and
Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies Iran has in the area?
Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the #BaghdadAirport
is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".
That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.
AND
S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on the borders
killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a violation and
internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading to difficult times for
#Iraq".
Really, the ball is in Iraq's court. This is an attack on Iraqi sovereignty as much as an act
of war on Iran. We will now see what the Iraqi are made of.
Trump was personally responsible for having the organisation Soleimani led declared a
terrorist organisation. Time to quit the "Trump is a dumbfuck led by others" Trump is around
70 and has been his own boss all his life. He is now commander in chief of the US military.
He gives the orders, nobody else. He doesn't give a shit about the cold war and Europe, hence
people thinking he is a peacenik. What he does care about is enemies of Israel and control of
energy.
The best revenge the Iraninans could have would be the expulsion of US troops from Iraq and
Syria, which by the way was also the overarching goal of Soleimani...
Trump doesn't give a shit about soft power. He believes in hard power. Iraq has no defence
against the US, and Trump intends to attack Iran. He needs a 9 11 to take the American
population with him.
Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures,
in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as
well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under
the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate
their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also
known as Da'esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United
Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support
Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the
International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven
they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
USA have made it very clear that they are not leaving Syria and the same thinking/excuses
likely applies to Iraq.
Some will argue that using UN2249 as justification for over-staying and virtual
occupation is wrong-headed. Nevertheless, USA claims to remain to ensure against a resurgence
of ISIS. Clearly they intend to stay until their goals are met or they are forced out
militarily.
I suspect I'm not the only MoA barfly who thinks the assassination of Hossein Soleymani could
have been planned with Mossad or other organisations and individuals in Israeli society.
The Iraqis are certainly capable of making life for the US very uncomfortable in Iraq and
Syria, even if not force withdrawal. The present US structure and numbers depend on Iraqi
acquiescence, and that's about shot, even before the assassination. If the position is to be
maintained without Iraqi acquiescence, then thousands more troops would be required, and that
wouldn't go down well back home in the States. That's one of the reasons why the act was a
grave miscalculation.
This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in command. He
will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis. By then it is too late.
The US and its vassals are speeding up confrontation with the Axis because they know that the
showdown is inevitable. However, It will not happen according to the US timetable.
Keep a good supply of popcorn on hand. The pandora box has plenty of surprises. The question
remains,
I figure Iran will have to retaliate and thus this will likely escalate. The Saker initially
thinks war is 80% certain, I think it's probably a bit higher than that.
Posted by: TEP | Jan 3 2020 10:49 utc | 36
The Iranians would be foolish to allow themselves to be goaded like that.
For weeks, it was Iranian consulates and facilities that bore the brunt of Iraqi
popular unrest. Iran reacted with restraint. With our lethal attacks on the Kata'ib
Hezbollah, we changed that. Pompeo, Esper and Trump are keeping up the trash talking.
Threatening Iran by killing Iraqis whose ass was that brilliant diplomatic strategy pulled
from?
####
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
"... Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they were this morning, and the president is responsible for that. ..."
ran hawks have been agitating for open conflict with Iran for years. Tonight, the Trump
administration obliged them by assassinating the top IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
and the head of Kata'ib Hezbollah in a drone strike in Baghdad:
Hard to understate how big this is
• Qassem Suleimani is Iran's most powerful mil figure in Region
• He runs Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
• Both men designated by US as Terrorist
• Muhandis was at US embassy attack protest, calls himself "Suleimani soldier"
Reuters reports
that a spokesman for the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq also confirmed the deaths:
Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi militia
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed late on Thursday in an air strike on their convoy
in Baghdad airport, an Iraqi militia spokesman told Reuters.
Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the
more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that
guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners
in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that
he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a
high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new
war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers,
diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they
were this morning, and the president is responsible for that.
It is hard to convey how irrational and destructive this latest action is. The U.S. and Iran
have been dangerously close to war for months, but the Trump administration has made no effort
to deescalate tensions. All that it would take to push the two governments over the brink into
open conflict is a reckless attack that the other side cannot ignore. Now the U.S. has launched
just such an attack and dared Iran to respond. The response may not come immediately, but we
have to assume that it is coming. Killing Soleimani means that the IRGC will presumably
consider it open season on U.S. forces all across the region. The Iran obsession has led the
U.S. into a senseless new war that it could have easily avoided, and Trump and the Iran hawks
own the results.
Trump supporters have often tried to defend the president's poor foreign policy record by
saying that he hadn't started any new wars. Well, now he has, and he will be responsible for
the consequences to follow.
Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, called the killing of General Suleimani an act of
"international terrorism" and warned it was "extremely dangerous & a foolish
escalation."
"The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," Mr. Zarif
tweeted.
... ... ...
"From Iran's perspective, it is hard to imagine a more deliberately provocative act," said
Robert Malley, the president and chief executive of the International Crisis Group. "And it is
hard to imagine that Iran will not retaliate in a highly aggressive manner."
"Whether President Trump intended it or not, it is, for all practical purposes, a
declaration of war," added Mr. Malley, who served as White House coordinator for the Middle
East, North Africa and the gulf region in the Obama administration.
Some United States officials and Trump administration advisers offered a less dire scenario,
arguing that the show of force might convince Iran that its acts of aggression against American
interests and allies have grown too dangerous, and that a president the Iranians may have come
to see as risk-averse is in fact willing to escalate.
One senior administration official said the president's senior advisers had come to worry
that Mr. Trump had sent too many signals -- including when he called off a planned
missile strike in late June -- that he did not want a war with Iran.
Tracking Mr. Suleimani's location at any given time had long been a priority for the
American and Israeli spy services and militaries. Current and former American commanders and
intelligence officials said that Thursday night's attack, specifically, drew upon a combination
of highly classified information from informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance
aircraft and other surveillance.
The strike killed five people, including the pro-Iranian chief of an umbrella group for
Iraqi militias, Iraqi television reported and militia officials confirmed. The militia chief,
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was a strongly pro-Iranian figure.
The public relations chief for the umbrella group, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq,
Mohammed Ridha Jabri, was also killed.
American officials said that multiple missiles hit the convoy in a strike carried out by the
Joint Special Operations Command.
American military officials said they were aware of a potentially violent response from Iran
and its proxies, and were taking steps they declined to specify to protect American personnel
in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.
Two other people were killed in the strike, according to a general at the Baghdad joint
command, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the
news media.
... ... ...
The United States and Iran have long been involved in a shadow war in battlegrounds across
the Middle East -- including in Iraq, Yemen and Syria. The tactics have generally involved
using proxies to carry out the fighting, providing a buffer from a direct confrontation between
Washington and Tehran that could draw America into yet other ground conflict with no
discernible endgame.
The potential for a regional conflagration was a basis of the Obama administration's push
for a 2015 agreement that froze Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
Mr. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, saying that Mr. Obama's agreement had emboldened
Iran, giving it economic breathing room to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign
of violence around the region. Mr. Trump responded with a campaign of "maximum pressure" that
began with punishing new economic sanctions, which began a new era of brinkmanship and
uncertainly, with neither side knowing just how far the other was willing to escalate violence
and risk a wider war. In recent days, it has spilled into the military arena.
General Suleimani once described himself to a senior Iraqi intelligence official as the
"sole authority for Iranian actions in Iraq," the official later told American officials in
Baghdad.
In a speech denouncing Mr. Trump, General Suleimani was even less discreet -- and openly
mocking.
"We are near you, where you can't even imagine," he said. "We are ready. We are the man of
this arena."
Nothing untrue in this article. Secondary sanctions are evil because they prevent minor
transactions because banks don't think it is worth the severe penalties. So Iranian cancer
patients aren't allowed to buy chemotherapy medications. Trump has gone overboard because he
has learned that there is no political cost to doling these out.
I think this is how US dominance will end. No challengers will end it, although some may
rise in the vacuum. The internal changes the US needs to make to come back are politically
impossible. Sanctions are big government on steroids, and having the US Government sitting
atop the global economy will cause it to seize up. The question is how long commerce will be
able to continue under these conditions.
With the USA help Ukraine got three billions from Russia. But that might mean that if Ukraine
does not switch sides the Ukrainian transit will became minuscule and unable to help Ukraine to
survive financially. Then what ?
The introduction of us sanctions against Nord stream 2, immediately signed by President
trump, created a new situation in Europe at the request of the Congress.
The Stockholm verdict
Gazprom retreated from its positions and agreed to an agreement with Naftogaz on transit,
including the payment of 2.9 billion dollars to Kiev according to the verdict of the Stockholm
arbitration, this is a difficult compromise for Moscow and a consequence of American sanctions
that actually suspended the construction of the SP-2 for at least six months.
I can't help remembering how President Yanukovych received three billion dollars of credit
from Moscow, and now President Zelensky also received almost three billion, although on other
grounds, according to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration.
But Moscow gave money, and immediately, although it could stretch these payments with gas
supplies, which Naftogaz agreed to. Moscow seems to be banking on Zelensky in his projected
clash with the nationalists behind Poroshenko. As a lesser evil.
Big European game
The Stockholm billions and Ukrainian transit are also a big European policy. For the first
time, us sanctions hit Germany and Europe as a whole: all energy and construction companies
related to the SP-2. Germany's energy supply was under threat.
In this situation, Russia is making compromises and concessions on Ukrainian transit, and
Ukraine is also making compromises on its part, apparently under pressure from Germany and the
European Union. As a result, Russia and Germany with their friends and the SP-2 are
situationally in the same boat against US sanctions. This is an important episode in the
unfolding Great European game for gas and its delivery routes.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov makes a sharp statement: "Russia will definitely respond to
the sanctions against the SP-2." So as not to"shoot yourself in the foot." Almost
simultaneously, the US intelligence agencies are giving Moscow information about the upcoming
terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg -- an incredible fact, given the current relations between
Washington and Moscow, unless President trump wants to soften Moscow's reaction to the
sanctions against SP-2, hinting that he was forced to sign them.
By the sum of circumstances
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak called the payment of $ 2.9 billion to Kiev "a
difficult decision, a choice between bad and very bad." What is the difference between "
bad " and "very bad"?
Here are the congressional sanctions that really slowed down the construction of the SP-2,
and the judicial burden in the international courts under the influence of the United States,
and the situation in Ukraine. And soon there will be a trial in London on a
three-billion-dollar loan from Russia to Ukraine during the time of President Yanukovych --
this seems to be another reason why we had to pay for the Stockholm gas verdict.
If Russia refused to pay the debt awarded in Stockholm, the London court could on this
basis refuse to consider the claim of Russia. And so, too, Moscow paid 2.9 billion dollars to
Kiev immediately in money. Of course, the London court may follow the Stockholm path, but then
the West and its financial system will lose their reputation in the non-Western world, and
Russia may declare the West a non-legal community.
Victory as treason (Peremoga as zrada)
In General the Ukrainian "Naftogaz" behaves very recklessly and boldly with "Gazprom",
flooding it with lawsuits. His" victory " is undoubtedly Pyrrhic, since Gazprom, as an energy
supplier, will be able to recoup its Stockholm losses.
"Naftogaz" as if Ukrainian, because it is really run by American managers, for them
"Naftogaz – - only a tool to counter Russia, and what will happen then, it does not
matter. What could it be? There may not be a discount of 25 percent, which was in the rejected
package of "Gazprom". New agreements – new discounts.
On the other hand, Gazprom's concessions are due to the entire sum of the political and
economic circumstances of the great European game: Moscow is still trying to create a
Moscow-Berlin axis against us sanctions pressure.
"Pentagon officials said on Friday that the United States would deploy several hundred
troops to guard oil fields in eastern Syria, despite Mr. Trump's repeated boasts that he is
bringing American soldiers home from Syria. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said that the
United States would "maintain a reduced presence in Syria to deny ISIS access to oil
revenue," leaving what military officials said would be about 500 troops in the country, down
from about 2,000 a year ago.....
Senator Graham (R), too, contends that American control of the oil fields would "deny Iran
and Assad a monetary windfall," as he put it in a statement last week. But Mr. Graham has
taken the argument a step further, to suggest that Syrian oil could go into American coffers,
as Mr. Trump once implied for Iraq. "We can also use some of the revenue from oil sales to
pay for our military commitment in Syria," Mr. Graham added.
Last week, Mr. Trump offered a variation on that idea "we'll work something out with the
Kurds so that they have some money, they have some cash flow." He added that he might "get
one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly."
And look back to his comments on Iraqs oil before taking office
"He has a short notebook of old pledges, and this was one of the most frequently repeated
pledges during the campaign: that we were going to take the oil," said Bruce Riedel, a former
C.I.A. official who served as a Middle East adviser to several presidents. "And now he
actually is in a position where he can quote, take some oil."
Mr. Trump first spoke approvingly about the United States seizing foreign oil in April
2011, when he complained about President Barack Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq. "I would
take the oil," Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal. "I would not leave Iraq and let Iran
take the oil."
He elaborated in an interview with ABC News a few days later. "In the old days, you know,
when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils." he said. "You go in. You win the war
and you take it."
That year, Mr. Trump endorsed the United States seizing oil reserves not only in Iraq, but
also in Libya, where Mr. Obama had recently intervened in the country's civil war. "I would
just go in and take the oil," he told Fox News. "We're a bunch of babies. We have wars and we
leave. We go in, we have wars, we lose lives, we lose money, and we leave."
Trump does not like endless wars but that does not mean he is adverse to war. Far from
pulling the US out of the middle east, Trump is engaging in a constant creeping build up of
forces. Every incident, more US forces are moved in.
In Q2 2019, thanks to the LNG supply glut and converging prices, the EU's LNG imports jumped
by 102 percent on the year, with Russia accounting for 19 percent of LNG imports, second only
to Qatar with 30 percent, and ahead of the U.S. with 12 percent, the European Commission's
Quarterly Report on European Gas Markets
shows .
Between January and November, LNG imports into Europe including Turkey hit a record high,
beating the previous record from 2011, the EIA said in its latest natural gas update. The U.S.,
Russia, and Qatar boosted their LNG supplies to Europe this year, and the U.S. beat Russia in
volumes supplied to Europe in the latter part of the year, EIA data shows.
While Russia and the U.S. compete for gas market share in Europe, the U.S. hit Russia's Nord
Stream 2 project with sanctions this month, delaying the completion of the project with at
least several months.
Following the announcement of the sanctions, Switzerland-based offshore pipelay and subsea
construction company Allseas
immediately suspended Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities.
Also
The agreement between Gazprom and Naftogaz provides for the rejection of new claims, withdrawal of claims, payment by the
decision of the Stockholm arbitration-Miller
MOSCOW, Dec 21-RIA Novosti. Gas transit through Ukraine in 2020 will be 65 billion cubic meters, and 40 billion in 2021-2024, said
the Head of "Gazprom" Alexey Miller.
In turn, the Minister of energy of Ukraine Oleksiy Orzhel noted that the tariff will increase due to a decrease in pumping volumes.
The agreement provides for the rejection of new claims, the withdrawal of claims and the payment of about 2.9 billion dollars on the
decisions of the Stockholm arbitration court.
In addition, Gazprom and Naftogaz will sign an agreement to settle mutual claims under existing contracts. With Kiev, the Russian
company will sign a settlement agreement to withdraw the claim of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The European Commission in the framework of the new agreement on gas cooperation guarantees the compliance of transit with EU
standards, the Ukrainian side-the independence of the regulator, protection of the interests of the transit customer, predictability
and economic feasibility of tariff formation.
MOSCOW, Dec 21-RIA Novosti. "Gazprom" and "Operator of GTS of Ukraine" on Saturday are preparing in Vienna inter-operator agreement
signed on Friday between Russia and Ukraine Protocol of the contract on gas transit and settlement of mutual claims is already
working, told reporters the representative of "Gazprom".
"... With Nordstream II becoming operational, Russia can bypass Ukraine completely in supplying gas to EU countries and Ukraine will only receive enough gas for its own needs. Ukraine becomes a liability to the West as that country continues its slow and agonising collapse. Perhaps in 2020 the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts may officially declare their independence and apply for inclusion into the Russian Federation, or combine into a new nation. Other adjoining oblasts (Kharkiv?) may follow suit. Transcarpathia oblast in the far west of Ukraine may declare independence and then apply to join Hungary. ..."
Nordstream II should be completed in 2020 in spite of the many handicaps and threats of
sanctions the US has applied against Germany if the pipeline project continues. Its
completion is bound to change the geopolitical landscape in central and eastern Europe
considerably.
With Nordstream II becoming operational, Russia can bypass Ukraine completely in
supplying gas to EU countries and Ukraine will only receive enough gas for its own needs.
Ukraine becomes a liability to the West as that country continues its slow and agonising
collapse. Perhaps in 2020 the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts may officially declare their
independence and apply for inclusion into the Russian Federation, or combine into a new
nation. Other adjoining oblasts (Kharkiv?) may follow suit. Transcarpathia oblast in the far
west of Ukraine may declare independence and then apply to join Hungary.
Volodymyr Zelensky may not last long as President and is likely to be turfed out in a
coup. Civil war will come again to Ukraine but not in its Russian-speaking east.
Belarus should be monitoring its own southern borders. Maybe crunch-time is coming for
President Lukashenko there as to whether he should align Belarus more closely with Russia or
with the EU instead of trying to get the best of both worlds by playing one against the
other.
My predictions for 2020 are that Ukraine's final collapse and fragmentation will start,
that the use of threats and sanctions continues to isolate the US to its detriment, and that
(maybe, just maybe) the collapse of Ukraine will lead to some of the truth of what actually
happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 becoming public with whistleblowers in the
investigation finally coming forward.
Re Jen @37 "With Nordstream II becoming operational, Russia can bypass Ukraine completely in
supplying gas to EU countries and Ukraine will only receive enough gas for its own needs."
I am hoping this is a bad joke, but perhaps not. I suppose, if true, it will prevent a lot
of Ukrainians from freezing to death this winter. But considering the benefits it will
provide to the Ukro-nazis who hate Russia, I have to wonder about the decision-making process
in Moscow.
Plain English Foundation has voted freedom gas as the worst word or phrase of 2019.
The term comes from the United States Department of Energy, which rebranded natural gas as
"freedom gas" and boasted about bringing molecules of US freedom to the world.
"When a simple product like natural gas starts being named through partisan politics, we
are entering dangerous terrain," said the Foundation's Executive Director, Dr Neil James.
"Why can't natural gas just remain natural gas?"
Each year, Plain English Foundation gathers dozens of examples of the worst words to
highlight the importance of clear and ethical public language.
The full list of 2019's worst words and phrases follows.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
CORTES September 17, 2020 at 12:41 am
When the United States, the United Kingdom, and the "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq in March 2003, millions protested around the world. But the war of "shock and awe" was just the beginning. The subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority bankrupted the country and left its infrastructure in shambles.
The whole reason for choosing the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency was that without a doubt, the U.S.was the world's strongest credit in 1944. To assure confidence in the system, the strongest, most creditworthy currency on earth was chosen to serve as the standard unit of account for global trade. To eliminate any question about the value of the dollar, the system was designed so that any international holder of U.S. dollars could convert those dollars to gold bullion at a pre-determined fixed rate of exchange. Dollars were literally as good as gold.
By the mid-1960s, this phenomenon became known as exorbitant privilege : That phrase refers to the ability of the USA to go into debt virtually for free, denominated in its own currency, when no other nation enjoys such a privilege. The phrase exorbitant privilege is often attributed to French President Charles de Gaulle, although it was actually his finance minister, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who coined the phrase.
At the opposite extreme are the bloggers on the Internet whom I refer to as the Hyperinflation Doom Squad. Their narrative generally goes something like this: Suddenly, when you least expect it, foreigners will wise up and realize that the U.S. national debt cannot be repaid in real terms, and then there will be a panic that results in a crash of the U.S. Treasury market, hyperinflation of the U.S. dollar, and declaration of martial law. This group almost always cites the hyperinflations of Zimbabwe and Argentina as "proof" of what's going to happen in the USA any day now, but never so much as acknowledges the profound differences in circumstances between the USA and those countries. These folks deserve a little credit for having the right basic idea, but their analysis of what could actually happen simply isn't credible when examined in detail.
français italiano Español Português Türkçe română Deutsch norsk
