It is probably true that Ukraine was thrown under the bus by the US elite, although the total
online hate campaign in Russian press is way over the top. But in reality this is how neoliberalism
works. Ukrainian elite, like Greek elite (political and business) completely failed their own
country by exploiting the system and people. Since 1991 they were sucking the whole place dry. They are real traitors
of the nation in very precise sense. Ukraine was already neoliberal country. And the last
thing Ukrainians needed was yet another neoliberal coup d'état organized and financed by foreign
powers (listen to Larry Wilkerson's presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YM_MH_Bfq5c ). In its main events
Ukraine neoliberal revolution repeats patterns of Pinochet coup d'état in Chile with only difference
that victims among Civilian population are concentrated on the East of the country among Russian
speaking population of Donbass.
EuroMaidan was a disaster for the ordinary Ukrainians, who lost their (already low) standard of
living and now are forced to exist on the level of Central African poverty (with many categories
getting less then $5 a day with food prices on the level close (and in some categories such as
chicken meet, exceeding) the prices of the USA supermarkets. Minimum pension in Ukraine which
is received by two million of Ukrainian citizens is $43 a month ($1.4 a day); this is really Central
African level! Average salary our side Kiev is not much higher (around 2000 grivna, which with
exchange rate 22 grivna (UAH) to
dollar is around $90 or $3 a day). Many people can afford only bread and milk (the cost on milk is
lower then in the USA).
EuroMaydan was the result of cynical manipulation of Ukrainian population by Western powers,
which lured them into self-destructive actions by the carrot of European economic integration (which
implicitly was associated with Northern Europe standard of living, not Bulgarian standard of living).
Nobody tried to warn them about the destiny of Bulgaria and Romania within the EU.
Now it
is clear that Ukraine can never repay a mounting amount of debt taking into account its shrinking economy. So
population wellbeing dropped dramatically from corrupt Yanukovich days (and he was corrupt, no
question about it, but he was yet another US neoliberal stooge). Turchinov tried to play General
Pinochet with ATO, encouraged by the USA. ATO brought another round of misery and economic
contraction, plus some asset stripping (cronies of Biden, Merkel, and some other figures). And
Ukrainian population outside top 1% have found itself in a deeper hole. It's the dame mechanism like
in Greece:
How do countries like Greece find themselves in such a debt jam? Here's an example of a
typical process. A German company wants to do a project in Greece. It approaches the Greek
government, with its lobbyists and debt from a German bank to finance the deal. Since it is
coming in with the capital, it overprices the project. Greece gets an overpriced asset and debt -
sometimes the asset is indeed worthless for example military white elephants that will never be
used. The German company gets the windfall. The German banker is happy at placing more debt, they
get paid by the amount of debt they sell. The German and Greek taxpayers ultimately pick up the
bill for the overpriced asset. While the overpriced asset doesn't contribute as it should to the
Greek economy (if indeed anything, e.g. in he case of a military white elephant), the Greek
taxpayer - ironically the middle earners and poor, who don't have offshore tax accounts - is
expected to pay for it. Public opinion is whipped up against the Greek pensioner, middle earning
worker as if they somehow manipulated the system and pocketed the money, not a crony corporation
of the German politicians.
When the Greek taxpayer obviously finds himself going bust trying to pay for an overpriced asset,
Germany passes the bad debt to its own taxpayers, i.e. the Greeks now owe German taxpayers. They
obviously can't pay this either. So now they are forced to sell assets - let's look at what
assets are being proposed. These assets are monopolies like the electricity transmission grid
and airports which the Greek taxpayer has to use and pay for in any case. In other words,
compulsory taxpayer payments. Who will these assets go to? Foreign companies, cronies of the
Troika's decision makers (where they will find jobs, advisory roles after public sector
retirement). Will it help Greece grow again? No. Will it help Greek payments to the German
taxpayer? Unlikely. But it does help certain opportunists make a lot of money in the short run,
while others are left to suffer the consequences in the future.
Now compare with the following plan by the Ukrainian acting prime minister (
American PROFIT )
Arseny Yatsenyuk held a closed meeting in the Ministry of Energy.
First, he instructed the head of the Energy Ministry Vladimir Demchishin resolve the issue of
denunciation of the agreement with Russia on the completion of two units of Khmelnitsky nuclear
power plant. Though experts have warned that it is impossible to denounce the agreement, for the construction
of power is only suitable Russian equipment.
Secondly, Yatsenyuk announced that Ukraine's energy and nuclear power will be sold to US
investors. Protection of nuclear facilities will be engaged in PMC.
This looks like well though out plan:
1) Raise the rates several times
2) Get the country to default or close to default (like Greece). r>
3) Sell the energy system and nuclear power plants for pennies on dollar to US investors
4) Move to Florida.
Recent data of the Ukrainian state statistics are shocking. During the first quarter of 2015, the
Ukrainians began to spend on products for 20% less money than before. For a lot of people that
means hunger. Real hunger. In the first place then
refuse to buy canned fruit, meat and fish products - their sales fell by 37%. The demand for fish
decreased 30%. Same decrease for variety of cereals, seafood, prepared meat products, sausage.
Almost the same drop with eggs, fresh meat and vegetables - their sales have dropped by 25%. And
much less dangerous (which should probably be welcomed) 20% drop of sales of soft drinks, butter, pasta and
confectionery. Buyers increased purchases only salt - 11% more, and margarine - 2%.
Data on the consumption of eggs, meat and vegetable are scary. It means that people save on the most
valuable that could not be replaced - on their health. That is given when people reduced
the consumption vital foodstaff. Foodstaff that is
basis of any healthy diet. According to nutritionists, people over the age of 35 should consumed
meat 2-3 times a week with lots of vegetables. In the remaining days of animal protein can
be replaced with poultry and fish. Who among Ukrainian seniors (with average pension around 1000 grivna
and exchange rate 25 grivna to one dollar) eat meat three times a week? Very
few. Mainly pensioners who still are working.
In other words Yatsenyuk initiated economic
shock therapy on already impoverished nation. Killing in process a lot of people. The top 1%, including Mr. Yatsenyuk
himself, never feel this pain. It's only rank-and-file 90% Ukrainians who suffer.
Yatsenyuk likes to compare himself with Margaret Thatcher, but while he is definitely a reckless
neoliberal, not everybody is buying this self-characterization:
The Governor of the Odessa region Mikhail Saakashvili criticised the actions of Prime Minister
of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
The cause of his discontent was the situation around the Odesa port enterprise, the management of
which Saakashvili had been charged with concluding unfavorable contracts for the supply of gas to
the plant.
"in the government's response, announced by the head of state, and compares our attitude to the
corrupt contracts at Odessa port plant and to the actions of the Cabinet of Yatsenyuk with the
attacks on Margaret Thatcher some time ago. I have the opportunity to meet - in person I knew
Margaret Thatcher, and I know premiere Yatsenyuk, and I am obliged to note That Arseniy Yatsenyuk
is not Margaret Thatcher, " wrote Saakashvili on his page century
So far from economics view his action were disastrous for the country. Trade between Russia and Ukraine, in terms of overall turnover,
fell 80% in 2015 and is likely to
worsen in 2016.
In her groundbreaking book
The Shock Doctrine
The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Naomi Klein has shown how from Chile in 1973 to Iraq
today, neoliberals have repeatedly harnessed terrible shocks and violence to implement their radical
policies or neoliberalization and debt enslavement of the weaker countries. This concept is closely
related to the concepts of Military-Industrial
Complex and Predator state. Amazon review of the
book states:
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine advances a truly unnerving argument: historically, while
people were reeling from natural disasters, wars and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry
leaders nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed during less muddled times.
As Klein demonstrates, this reprehensible game of bait-and-switch isn't just some relic from the
bad old days. It's alive and well in contemporary society, and coming soon to a disaster area near
you.
"At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq'' civil war, a new law is unveiled that will allow Shell
and BP to claim the country's vast oil reserves… Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration
quietly outsources the running of the 'War on Terror' to Halliburton and Blackwater… After a tsunami
wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts…
New Orleans residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals
and schools will never be re-opened." Klein not only kicks butt, she names names, notably economist
Milton Friedman and his radical Chicago School of the 1950s and 60s which she notes "produced many
of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington
today." Stand up and take a bow, Donald Rumsfeld.
There's little doubt Klein's book--which arrived to enormous attention and fanfare thanks to her
previous missive, the best-selling
No Logo, will stir the ire of the right and corporate America. It's also true that Klein's
assertions are coherent, comprehensively researched and footnoted, and she makes a very credible
case. Even if the world isn't going to hell in a hand-basket just yet, it's nice to know a sharp
customer like Klein is bearing witness to the backroom machinations of government and industry in
times of turmoil. --Kim Hughes
Publishers Weekly review adds to this:
The neo-liberal economic policies—privatization, free trade, slashed social spending—that the
Chicago School and the economist Milton Friedman have foisted on the world are catastrophic in two
senses, argues this vigorous polemic. Because their results are disastrous—depressions, mass poverty,
private corporations looting public wealth, by the author's accounting—their means must be cataclysmic,
dependent on political upheavals and natural disasters as coercive pretexts for free-market reforms
the public would normally reject. Journalist Klein (No Logo) chronicles decades of such disasters,
including the Chicago School makeovers launched by South American coups; the corrupt sale of Russia's
state economy to oligarchs following the collapse of the Soviet Union; the privatization of New Orleans's
public schools after Katrina; and the seizure of wrecked fishing villages by resort developers after
the Asian tsunami. Klein's economic and political analyses are not always meticulous. Likening free-market
shock therapies to electroshock torture, she conflates every misdeed of right-wing dictatorships
with their economic programs and paints a too simplistic picture of the Iraq conflict as a struggle
over American-imposed neo-liberalism. Still, much of her critique hits home, as she demonstrates
how free-market ideologues welcome, and provoke, the collapse of other people's economies. The result
is a powerful populist indictment of economic orthodoxy.
In Western MSM the 17.6% year to year GDP drop in Ukraine in 2014 is mentioned as a just a number
without any context. The IMF’s mission in Ukraine has said the country’s GDP is expected to shrink 9
percent this year, with annual inflation jumping to 46 percent. Ukraine’s national currency, the hryvnia,
has two-third of its value . Exchange rate went from 8.5 to 25 per dollar or three times.
Unresolved conflict in the country’s east took a big toll on the economy, and with economic ties
with Russia severed there is no major market for Ukrainian goods. So the future does not look good,
although some of agricultural exports can be absorbed by China.
Please note that during the Great Depression the US GDP contracted "only" 25%. In any given year of that
depression it did not drop 17%. Also, in the case of Ukraine, it has already underwent its first Great
Depression, which was far worse than the US depression. It happened after the dissolution of
the USSR in early 1990th. So we are looking at The
Second Great Depression in Ukraine. This is the meaning of this 17.6% drop. Ukrainian pensioners
are brought by brave Western neocons with the help of local fifth column to the real starvation
level. This is an important story and yet Western neoliberal MSM ignore it and concentrate on
coverage of flight
MH17 tragedy.
Instead we have overoptimistic "confidence enhancing" forecasts from Moody’s, the World
Bank, the IMF, and other western agencies. Which are pure political fluff. When in reality we need to
state that USA neocons (see Nulandgate) destroyed the Ukraine
economics and plunge the country into another Great Depression.
That was clearly achieved in Ukraine where standards of living dropped to sub-Saharan Africa
levels. In 2008, only 47 percent
of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lived on $1.25 a day or less. (United Nations 2012). And it
is important to note that Germany in this story acted like a real neo-imperial power. It's the same behaviour it demonstrated
with Greece: pay the debt poor Ukrainians.
The threat to the Bank was explicit enough. Alastair Crooke wrote: “And The Wall Street Journal
in a front page tap on Angela Merkel’s shoulder- reminding her to vote “yes” on the next “level-3″
round of Russian sanctions- warned that “Deutsche Bank’s US operations suffer from a litany of
problems…” The WSJ article is behind a pay wall.
Nude pictures? a lesbian? a murky past? Those are nothing that a little spin can’t take care of
as pointed out above. Merkel serves at the pleasure of the German elites and she would be thrown
under the bus if she became a serious liability. Merkel is not the problem.
The US has Germany
by the short hairs for sure but its not through some personal scandal. The US may [have] a kill
switch on the Germany/EU financial system. Further speculating, all that NSA spying may have led
to discovery of vulnerabilities in the German financial system, again as mentioned above.
The US seems to have the ability to inflict massive pain on Germany, its elites and its general
population to account for German obedience. It seems likely to be a financial bludgeon that the
US is ready to swing. The blow back could take down the US financial system but, the Anglo elites
will still do quite well in a material sense and that is the only thing that matters.
As an example of such views we can cite the opinion of the Pro-Russian leader of the coalition of
NGOs "Eurasian choice - Georgia" Archil Chkoidze. Here is what he said about Poroshenko and his cabinet:
"This is controlled by the Americans puppet government, and their hands are used for carrying
out genocide of the Russian people. The government Poroshenko is very similar to the former government
of Georgia led by Saakashvili.
In 2008, the authorities of Georgia did the same when they bombed
Tskhinvali,"
A pipe bearing the Nord Stream 2 logo at a plant in Chelyabinsk, Russia, Feb. 26, 2020. PHOTO: MAXIM SHEMETOV/REUTERS Listen to this article 5 minutes 00:00 / 05:07 1x Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. me title= NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP ( Apr 11, 2021 , www.wsj.com )
Don't worry, US gov't...you can always sell your LNG to Poland...hahahah!
LA_Goldbug 11 hours ago
I wonder what the price is for this LNG from all the way across the Atlantic.
rosalinda 10 hours ago
I read it is triple the price of the Russian gas. The Russians have all the advantages
here. Putin probably would not weaponize the gas, but who is to say some Russian leader in
the future might not take the opportunity? Europe is more dependant on Russian gas then
Russia is dependant on European money
XJ033858JH 10 hours ago
It's more like 3.3 times...10% for the big guy
BannedCamp 8 hours ago
Likewise, Russia could nuke the whole world, but they never used a nuke on any country
before, but the US has. Saying that Russia might do something that the accusing party (The
U.S) is actually doing right now (to Germany) is blatant hypocrisy.
After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies, the
United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord Stream 2
project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about American relations
with Europe and Washington's geopolitical objectives, as well as, ultimately, the historic
decline in U.S. global power.
In the end, sanity and natural justice seem to have prevailed. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline
under the Baltic Sea will double the existing flow of Russia's prodigious natural gas to
Germany and the rest of Europe. The fuel is economical and environmentally clean compared with
coal, oil and the shale gas that the Americans were vying with Russia to export.
Russia's vast energy resources will ensure Europe's economies and households are reliably
and efficiently fueled for the future. Germany, the economic engine of the European Union, has
a particular vital interest in securing the Nord Stream 2 project which augments an existing
Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Both follow the same Baltic Sea route of approximately 1,222 kilometers
– the longest pipeline in the world – taking Russian natural gas from its arctic
region to the northern shores of Germany. For Germany's export-led economy, Russian fuel is
essential for future growth, and hence benefiting the rest of Europe.
It was always a natural fit between Russia and the European Union. Geographically and
economically, the two parties are compatible traders and Nord Stream 2 is merely the
culmination of decades of efficient energy relations.
Enter the Americans. Washington has been seething over the strategic energy trade between
Russia and Europe. The opposition escalated under the Trump administration (so much for Trump
being an alleged Russian stooge!) when his ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, fired off
threatening letters to German and other European companies arrogantly warning that they would
be hit with sanctions if they dared proceed with Nord Stream 2. Pipe-laying work was indeed
interrupted last year by U.S. sanctions. (So much for European sovereignty and alleged meddling
in internal affairs by Russia!)
The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia would
exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from Europe. It
was also claimed that Russia would "weaponize" energy trade to enable alleged aggression
towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. The rationale reflects the twisted
Machiavellian mentality of the Americans and their supporters in Europe – Poland and the
Baltic states, as well as the Kiev regime in Ukraine. Such mentality is shot-through with
irrational Russophobia.
The ridiculous paranoid claims against Russia are of course an inversion of reality. It is
the Americans and their European surrogates who are weaponizing a mundane matter of commercial
trade that in reality offers a win-win relationship. Part of the real objective is to distort
market economics by demonizing Russia in order for the United States to export their own vastly
more expensive and environmentally dirty liquefied natural gas to Europe. (So much for American
free-market capitalism!)
Another vital objective for Washington is to thwart any normal relations developing between
Russia and the rest of Europe. American hegemony and its hyper-militaristic economy depend on
dividing and ruling other nations as so-called "allies" and "adversaries". This has been a
long-time necessity ever since the Second World War and during the subsequent Cold War decades,
the latter constantly revived by Washington against Russia. (So much for American claims that
Russia is a "revisionist power"!)
However, there is a fundamental objective problem for the Americans. The empirical decline
of U.S. global power means that Washington can no longer bully other nations in the way it has
been accustomed to doing for decades. The old Cold War caricatures of demonizing others have
lost their allure and potency because the objective world we live in today simply does not make
them plausible or credible. The Russian gas trade with the European Union is a consummate case
in point. In short, Germany and the EU are not going to shoot themselves in the foot,
economically speaking, simply on the orders of Uncle Sam.
President Joe Biden had enough common sense – unlike the egotistical Trump – to
realize that American opposition to Nord Stream 2 was futile. Biden is more in tune with the
Washington establishment than his maverick predecessor. Hence Biden began waiving sanctions
imposed under Trump. Finally this week, the White House announced that it had come to an
agreement with Germany to permit Nord Stream 2 to go ahead. The Financial Times called it a
"truce" while the Wall Street Journal referred to a "deal" between Washington and Berlin.
(Ironically, American non-interference is presented as a "deal"!)
The implication is that the United States was magnanimously giving a "concession" to Europe.
The reality is the Americans were tacitly admitting they can't stop the strategic convergence
between Russia and the rest of Europe on a vital matter of energy supply.
In spinning the eventuality, Washington has continued to accuse Russia of "weaponizing"
trade. It warns that if Russia is perceived to be abusing relations with Ukraine and Europe
then the United States will slap more sanctions on Moscow. This amounts to the defeated bully
hyperventilating.
Another geopolitical factor is China. The Biden administration has prioritized confrontation
with China as the main long-term concern for repairing U.S. decline. Again, Biden is more in
tune with the imperial planners in Washington than Trump was. They know that in order for the
United States to have a chance of undermining China as a geopolitical rival the Europeans must
be aligned with U.S. policy. Trump's boorish browbeating of Europeans and Germany in particular
over NATO budgets and other petty issues resulted in an unprecedented rift in the
"transatlantic alliance" – the euphemism for American dominance over Europe. By appearing
to concede to Germany over Nord Stream 2, Washington is really aiming to shore up its
anti-China policy. This too is an admission of defeat whereby American power is unable to
confront China alone. The bully needs European lackeys to align, and so is obliged to offer a
"deal" over Russia's energy trade.
All in all, Washington's virtue-signaling is one helluva gas!
21 play_arrow 2
Peter Pan 12 hours ago
What the USA accuses Russia of planning to do down the track is actually what the USA is
doing now. In other words it is the USA that is weaponusing the gas issue with threats and
sanctions.
_ConanTheLibertarian_ 12 hours ago remove link
The US had no business interfering. Bye.
buzzsaw99 12 hours ago
the usa should ask russia to teach them how to keep natural gas flowing when it gets
cold outside. lol
RedSeaPedestrian 11 hours ago
How to keep a windmill spinning comes first.
two hoots 11 hours ago
Well we did interfere and the results exposed our decline in multifarious ways, mainly
power in all things that matter in the international arena: diplomacy, defense, economic,
trust. We yet have great influence with our scientific and industrial capabilities but even
there others are reaching parity. Internally our unsupportable debt will hinder even that.
Basically it is the US Government (domestic/foreign affairs) that has led the charge of our
decline. "Government is dead" .... (we need a new and improved one to worship)
Max21c 11 hours ago
The Washingtonians & Londoners are just upset because now their buddies and puppets
in the Ukraine aren't going to be able to use control over the transit of Russian gas
through the Ukraine to hold Europe hostage and get their way. So everything that they're
accusing the Russians of doing in the future is what Washingtonians, Londoners, and the
Ukraine were doing in the past. They're just upset since their Ukrainian vassals can no
longer do their bidding's against Moscow and Eastern Europe.
MR166 9 hours ago
I am a USA loving conservative but I really never understood the objections to the
pipeline. Since energy = standard of living the pipeline does nothing but help mankind. The
US has no problem becoming totally dependent on China for drugs, medical supplies, chips
and manufacturing but is afraid of Russia shipping gas to Europe. How does that make any
sense at all???!!!
ar8 9 hours ago (Edited) remove link
I will explain it for you:
US companies wanted to sell their gas to Europe.
The US companies attempted to use the US to bully European countries, companies,
projects and people through sanctions and threatening fines.
It worked, a bit: numerous companies ceased working on it.
But the US, as usual, with its bullyboy tactics had been less effective and created more
self-damage than it expected. It has created many enemies as a result, which will hasten
the demise of the US government.
Despite its age, the following is still relevant to Nord Stream II: "War Is a Racket" is
a speech and a 1935 short book, by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps
Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient.
Rudolph 2 hours ago
One more reason. We control Ukraine, Ukraine control gas to Germany. = We control
Germany.
Vivekwhu 9 hours ago
What is the point of having a financial/military/market empire if you don't have a
finger in every pie enriching your elite?
Chief Joesph 11 hours ago
It was simply a war of hate about anything Russian. The U.S. really had nothing to offer
Germany anyway. From the German perspective, they had to protect their own interests, and
since Russia was offering to sell them natural gas and the U.S. wasn't, the choice was
rather simple. Perhaps it might make better relationships between eastern block countries
and the west too.
The U.S. spends a great amount of time and resources "hating" other countries for no
reason at all. It's bigotry by any other definition. The U.S. practices a systematic and
especially politically exploited expression of hatred and hostilities. Not only do they
practice this against other countries, but among their own kind too. The U.S. ranks as one
of the more hateful countries in the world, only surpassed by the Middle East. Add that to
the reasons why Germany doesn't want to go along with U.S. temper tantrums.
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago
Not "hating" but "bombing" is the right description of the US foreign policy
practice.
porco rosso 11 hours ago
Mr Putin is way too clever for these yankster clowns and makes them look like the fools
they are time and time again. That is why they hate him so much.
Max21c 11 hours ago remove link
Putin didn't have to outsmart them. The Europeans need the gas. Water does not usually
flow uphill.
porco rosso 11 hours ago
True. But in Germany there are a lot of treacherous transatlantic elements that wanted
to sabotage the pipeline at any cost.
These elements are Germans but they dont give a **** about Germany. Treacherous
scumbags.
wootendw PREMIUM 11 hours ago (Edited)
" The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia
would exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from
Europe. It was also claimed that Russia would "weaponize" energy trade to enable alleged
aggression towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. "
The absurdity lies with the existence of NATO or the US being in NATO. It no more makes
sense for US to commit ourselves to Europe's defense against Russia than it does for Europe
to buy American NG for three times the price it can get Russia's for.
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 10 hours ago (Edited)
Well apparently some tard thinks it makes perfect sense for other readily imagined
strategic reasons none of which have anything to do with accountable governance.
Someone thinks NATO is a dog leash. An expensive dog leash.
yerfej 11 hours ago
The washington idiot cabal needs something to focus on to justify their existence so
they wander the globe telling everyone how to live and who they can trade with when they're
not busy starting or expanding wars. The reality is the US federal government is a
completely useless parasite who's ONLY function is to domestically terrorize its own
citizens and the other nations of the world.
known unknown 10 hours ago remove link
Nordstream II was built to a stop Ukraine from blocking gas to Europe which they already
did once, stealing gas which they have always done. Germany asked Russia to build it. The
dummy Bulgarians stopped a similar pipeline yielding to the US. Then they cried about it
when they realized they lost billions. No matter what's promised Ukraine will be cut out in
5 years if they continue hostilities towards Russians.
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Most people conveniently forget or don't know about Ukraine's siphoning of the gas while
in transit to European countries.
Germany is as bad as the US. Thanks to Germany Yugoslavia was decapitated with help from
US and UK.
Greed is King 11 hours ago
Nordstream 2 is a trade deal between the EU (primarily Germany) and Russia.
Russia sells gas to the EU; and the EU buys gas from Russia.
2. Who the feck does America think it is that it thinks it can interfere with and make
demands of free and sovereign nations ?.
When the bully is beaten, nobody ever feels sympathy for him; America would do well to
think about that.
Samual Vimes 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Surroguts /proxies, what ever.
Unelected policy makers in all their purple clad glory.
Max21c 12 hours ago (Edited)
After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies,
the United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord
Stream 2 project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about
American relations with Europe and Washington's geopolitical objectives, as well as,
ultimately, the historic decline in U.S. global power.
It may show a decline in US global power or it may just show a rise in Washingtonian
amateurishness, arrogance, obnoxiousness, naivete and stupidity...
all it does is show out in the open that certain people are quacks, flakes, and
screwballs. Why would anyone in their right mind waste time & efforts or political
capital or diplomatic capital/bonnafides on trying to do something so silly as block Nord
Stream 2... It just makes Washingtonians look ridiculous, silly, and absurd...
It's almost as crazy as making a horse into a Roman Senator or declaring a war on the
Neptune or attacking the sea... It appears as if right after the Berlin Wall came down
American elites and Washingtonians all joined the Mad King Ludwig cult and became
worshipers of everything crazy...
RedSeaPedestrian 11 hours ago remove link
Or even as crazy as making a Dementia patient a Roman Emperor. (Or is that a United
States President? I forget sometimes.)
hugin-o-munin 12 hours ago remove link
Whatever political games are being played there is no getting around the fact that
Europe and Russia will eventually start to get along and expand trade and industrial
cooperation. Most people know that both the US and UK want to prevent this because it will
diminish their current top dog positions wrt global trade and financial control. Few things
compare to trade and mutual beneficial cooperation when it comes to lowering the risk for
conflict.
Just like Europe should promote development and trade with northern Africa so should the
US with central and southern America. This would also put an end to the endless migrant
caravans that are putting a huge strain on both the EU and US today. It's actually a non
brainer and says more about these satanic globalists' true motive than anything else.
ReichstagFireDept. 9 hours ago remove link
Nord Stream 2 is your best indicator that Governments are realizing that Renewable
Energy is NOT the replacement for Conventional Energy.
Nat. Gas IS the clean Energy source that everyone was screaming for...now it's finally
worldwide and they don't want it?!
Sorry, your Green Marxist dream is ending.
geno-econ 9 hours ago remove link
U.S. should be grateful Russia is sharing its natural resources with West rather than
aligning with China. There is much more than natural gas---ferro manganese, ferro chrome,
uranium, enrichment, titanium, aluminum, fertilizer, wheat, timber products, etc. U.S.
trade with China essentially imports only two major resources---cheap labor and synthetic
opioids !
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Well, there's some plastic junk and red refugees in there as well.
geno-econ 9 hours ago
only wealthy red capitalists disguised as refugees from China
ar8 9 hours ago
You are assuming the US government thinks rationally.
The Kremlin said on Thursday it disagreed with some statements in an agreement between the
United States and Germany on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, insisting that Russia had never
used energy as a tool of political pressure.
The pact aims to mitigate what critics see as the strategic dangers of the $11 billion Nord
Stream 2 pipeline, now 98% complete, being built under the Baltic Sea to carry gas from
Russia's Arctic region to Germany.
"Russia has always been and remains a responsible guarantor of energy security on the
European continent, or I would even say on a wider, global scale," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov told reporters.
Arby's Just Quietly Discontinued These 6 Menu Items See Dolly Parton Recreate Her Iconic
"Playboy" Cover 43 Years Later
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Germany has committed to take action on its own and back
action at the European Union level should Russia seek to use energy as a weapon or take
aggressive action against Ukraine, U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland said on
Wednesday.
"Should Russia attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive actions
against Ukraine, Germany will take actions at the national level and press for effective
measures at the European level, including sanctions, to limit Russian export capabilities in
the energy sector," Nuland told lawmakers, adding that Germany would support an extension of
the Russia-Ukraine transit agreement that expires in 2024. (Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and
Jonathan Landay)
"... Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. ..."
"... IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but exactly because it benefits Germany too much. ..."
"... You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least shitter bottom). ..."
"... The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and hostility between Germany and Russia. ..."
"... There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington. ..."
"... Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point. These are instruments of absolute power. ..."
"... While Trump is certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire, and among the empire's vassals in particular. ..."
The sanctions war the U.S. waged against Germany and Russia over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
has ended with a total U.S. defeat.
The U.S. attempts to block the pipeline were part of the massive anti-Russia campaign waged
over the last five years. But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to
Russia's advantage but important for Germany. As I described Nord Stream 2 in a
previous piece :
It is not Russia which needs the pipeline. It can
sell its gas to China for just as much as it makes by selling gas to Europe.
...
It is Germany, the EU's economic powerhouse, that needs the pipeline and the gas flowing
through it. Thanks to Chancellor Merkel's misguided energy policy - she put an end to nuclear
power in German after a tsunami in Japan destroyed three badly placed reactors - Germany
urgently needs the gas to keep its already high electricity prices from rising further.
That the new pipeline will bypass old ones which run through the Ukraine is likewise to
the benefit of Germany, not Russia. The pipeline infrastructure in the Ukraine is old and
near to disrepair. The Ukraine has no money to renew it. Politically it is under U.S.
influence. It could use its control over the energy flow to the EU for blackmail. (It already
tried
once.) The new pipeline, laid at the bottom of the Baltic sea, requires no payment for
crossing Ukrainian land and is safe from potential malign influence.
Maybe Chancellor Merkel on her recent visit to Washington DC finally managed to explain that
to the Biden administration. More likely though she simply told the U.S. to f*** off. Whatever
- the result is in. As the Wall Street Journal
reports today:
The U.S. and Germany have reached an agreement allowing completion of the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline, officials from both countries say.
Under the four-point agreement, Germany and the U.S. would invest $50 million in Ukrainian
green-tech infrastructure, encompassing renewable energy and related industries. Germany also
would support energy talks in the Three Seas Initiative, a Central European diplomatic
forum.
Berlin and Washington as well would try to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive
roughly $3 billion in annual transit fees that Russia pays under its current agreement with
Kyiv, which runs through 2024. Officials didn't explain how to ensure that Russia continues
to make the payments.
The U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in the
case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said.
So Germany will spend some chump change to buy up, together with the U.S, a few Ukrainian
companies that are involved in solar or wind mill stuff. It will 'support' some irrelevant
talks by maybe paying for the coffee. It also promises to try something that it has no way to
succeed in.
That's all just a fig leave. The U.S. really gave up without receiving anything for itself
or for its client regime in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine lobby in Congress will be very unhappy with that deal. The Biden administration
hopes to avoid an uproar over it. Yesterday Politico reported that the Biden
administration preemptively had told the Ukraine
to stop talking about the issue :
In the midst of tense negotiations with Berlin over a controversial Russia-to-Germany
pipeline, the Biden administration is asking a friendly country to stay quiet about its
vociferous opposition. And Ukraine is not happy.
U.S. officials have signaled that they've given up on stopping the project, known as the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and are now scrambling to contain the damage by striking a grand
bargain with Germany.
At the same time, administration officials have quietly urged their Ukrainian counterparts
to withhold criticism of a forthcoming agreement with Germany involving the pipeline,
according to four people with knowledge of the conversations.
The U.S. officials have indicated that going public with opposition to the forthcoming
agreement could damage the Washington-Kyiv bilateral relationship , those sources said. The
officials have also urged the Ukrainians not to discuss the U.S. and Germany's potential
plans with Congress.
If Trump had done the above Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would have called for another
impeachment.
The Ukrainian President Zelensky is furious over the deal and about being told to shut up.
But there is little he can do but to accept the booby price the Biden administration offered
him:
U.S. officials' pressure on Ukrainian officials to withhold criticism of whatever final deal
the Americans and the Germans reach will face significant resistance.
A source close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Kyiv's position is that
U.S. sanctions could still stop completion of the project, if only the Biden administration
had the will to use them at the construction and certification stages. That person said Kyiv
remains staunchly opposed to the project.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration gave Zelensky a date for a meeting at the White House
with the president later this summer , according to a senior administration official.
Nord Stream 2 is to 96% ready. Its testing will start in August or September and by the
years end it will hopefully deliver gas to western Europe.
Talks about building Nord Stream 3 are likely to start soon.
Posted by b on July 21, 2021 at 17:13 UTC | Permalink
Did Merkel also get Biden to promise that neither he nor any of his clients (AQ, ISIS, etc.
etc. etc.) would perpetrate any "unfortunate incidents" or "disruptions" on NS 2?
And would any such promises be worth the breath that uttered them?
But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to Russia's advantage
but important for Germany
I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand. Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the
Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down,
I beg to differ. IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but
exactly because it benefits Germany too much.
You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals
to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can
down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least
shitter bottom).
That is why there is also pressure for all western countries to adopt insane immigration,
LGBT, austerity policies and what not. What a better way to destroy all these countries, both
economically and culturally, or adleast make them far more worse than US, it is only way US
can again become "powerhouse", like after WW2.
Does this represent a fracturing of the EU? or maybe a change in direction?
What b is pointing out about how if it were Trump....only means that the bullying approach
by empire didn't work and now we are seeing face saving bullying and backpedaling like crazy
in some areas.
I roll my eyes at this ongoing belief that Trump represented humanity instead of all or
some faction of the elite....as a demigod it seems.
the "facts" as you state them are not quite right.
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran,
thus ensuring they are getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran
blind. The poor Iran didn't have a choice but to agree. Even today, Putin will NOT say how
much China is paying for gas on Siberia pipeline and a lot of people think China is robbing
Russia blind on the deal. A second Siberia line without a NS2 will put Russia is very bad
negotiation position and China in very good one, giving them the advantage to ask for any
price of Russia and get it.
2. Merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking over HATES
RUssia with passion. The NS2 is far from done deal, it needs to be insured. Plus it will fall
under the EU 3rd energy package making sure Germany doesn't use it 100% . The NS2 will never
be 100 usable, the Green party will see to that. AT best it will be only 50% usage.
And so on and so on.
Funny how in today's world, we all have different facts. My facts are different than YOUR
facts. My facts are just as relevant as your facts.
What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United
States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an
alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.
The article explains a lot, more than just Germany or Russia.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down...
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2. The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that. What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
The pipeline construction battle has been won, not the energy flow war.
The Financial Empire is most likely resorting to some CHARADE to find an excuse to later
stop the gas flow through Nord Stream 2. Empire's bullying was clearly exposed through
sanctions and it LOST the battle of stopping the pipeline construction. So it moves to the
next battle to find an excuse to stop the gas flow. Empire's evil intent is visible in these
words, "the U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in
the case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said."
The Financial Empire has worked hard over the last century to prevent Germany from allying
herself with Russia. It wants to control energy flowing in Eurasia and its pricing. The war
will be only won when the Financial Empire is defeated and its global pillars of power
DISMANTLED.
"The 'heartland' was an area centered in Eurasia, which would be so situated and catered
to by resources and manpower as to render it an unconquerable fortress and a fearsome power;
and the 'crescent' was a virtual semi-arc encompassing an array of islands – America,
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan – which, as 'Sea Powers,' watched over the
Eurasian landmass to detect and eventually thwart any tendency towards a consolidation of
power on the heartland."
Has the Financial Empire stopped interfering in other regions?
"US, Germany Threaten Retaliatory Action Against Russia in Draft Nord Stream 2 Accord -
Report...."
"As the US and Germany have reportedly reached a deal on the Nord Stream 2 project,
Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing the obtained draft text of the agreement, that it
would threaten sanctions and other measures if Russia tried to use energy as a 'weapon'
against Ukraine , though it did not specify what actions could provoke the
countermeasures.
"According to the report, in such a case, Germany will take unspecified national
action , a decision that may represent a concession from Chancellor Angela Merkel, who
had previously refused to take independent action against Moscow over the gas pipeline that
will run from Russia to Germany." [My Emphasis]
The article continues:
"On Tuesday, Ned Price, a spokesman for the US State Department, told reporters that he
did not have final details of an agreement to announce, but that 'the Germans have put
forward useful proposals, and we have been able to make progress on steps to achieve that
shared goal, that shared goal being to ensure that Russia cannot weaponize energy
."
" The US was hoping for explicit language that would commit Germany to shut down gas
delivery through Nord Stream 2 if Russia attempted to exert undue influence on Ukraine .
Germany, on the other hand, has long rejected such a move, stating that such a threat would
only serve to politicize a project that Merkel stresses is solely commercial in nature." [My
Emphasis]
The overall motive appears to be this:
"The accord would also commit Germany to use its influence to prolong Ukraine's gas
transit arrangement with Russia beyond 2024, possibly for up to ten years . Those talks
would begin no later than September 1, according to the news outlet." [My Emphasis]
So, here we have the Outlaw US Empire meddling in the internal affairs of three
nations--Germany, Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot afford Russian gas as it has no rubles
to pay for it. Thus if Ukraine has no money to buy, then why should Gazprom be obliged to
give it away freely? What about other European customers who rely on gas piped through
Ukraine; are they going to see what they pay for get stolen by Ukraine? And what happens when
the pipelines breakdown from lack of maintenance since Ukraine's broke thanks to the Outlaw
Us Empire's coup that razed its economy? Shouldn't the Empire and its NATO vassals who
invaded Ukraine via their coup be forced to pay for such maintenance? And just who
"weaponized" this entire situation in the first place?
From my understanding, NS 2 was mutually beneficial for Germany and Russia.
As noted, Germany desperately needs energy and relying on the outrageously priced and
unreliable US LNG was not a viable option.
Russia benefits also.
1.No more high transit fees Russia pays Ukraine. I imagine some of that was finding its way
into US pockets after 2014.
2.Ukraine supposedly helped itself to plenty of stolen gas from the pipeline. That will
stop.
3.Ukraine was occasionally shutting down the pipeline for political reasons until Russia paid
the ransom. Not anymore.
So, Russia and Germany were both highly motivated to finish the pipeline ASAP.
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2.
The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that.
Putin not too long ago (can't find the article now) said he was prepared to help Europe
gain its independence should they wish to do so, Rammstein or no Rammstein.
What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
What they fear should this deal go ahead is a Germany/Russia/China Axis that would control
the world island and thus the world.
I was convinced that the US of Assholery had lost its infantile anti-NS2 'battle' in
September 2020, after watching an episode of DW Conflict Zone in which Sarah Kelly
interviewed Niels Annen, Germany's Deputy FM. Annen came to the interview armed to the teeth
with embarrassing facts about US hypocrisy including, but not limited to, the fact that USA,
itself, buys vast quantities of petroleum products from Russia each year.
The interview is Google-able and, apart from pure entertainment value, Sarah is much
easier on the eye than Tim Sebastian...
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran, thus ensuring they are
getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran blind.
Hmmm... I seem to remember Iran shafting China on the south Pars gas field when it looked like the JCPOA was looking
likely...
If this memory of mine was correct (it may not be) then you really can't blame China for a little commercial payback.
In any case it was shown as soon as JCPOA Mk.1 was passed Iran RAN, not walked, to smooch up to the west for business, not
China, not Russia. So if its just business for Iran then its just business for China.
In our eagerness to expose the empire's shortcomings in a quick 'gotcha!' moment we
shouldn't rush head first into false premises. To suggest Dear Uncle Sam is concerned with
anything other than his own navel is naive. He's the man with the plan. He knows that down
the road, Oceania's eastern border won't run along the Dnieper but right off the shore of
Airstrip One.
As has been mentioned before, the NN2 pipeline gives Germany leverage over Russia ,
not the other way around.
US => Germany => Russia.
Which is now plan b for the US. If then they can use their leverage over Germany to
steer it in any direction it wants to vs. Russia.
This will probably be followed by "targeted" sanctions on specific Politicians, Bankers
and Heads of industry. They only need to propose such sanctions individually for them
to have an effect. Using Pegasus for inside information to Blackmail those it wants to.
*****
Example of a sanctions racket :
Similar to the potential sanctions on any Lebanese Politian or Group Leaders if they get Oil
from Iran, Russia or China. The Lebanese population be damned.
"Apparently US Treasury has informed the government of Lebanon, that if any Oil
products from Iran make it into Lebanon, in any way; the government of Lebanon and all its
members will be sanctioned. This includes the Central Bankers"
Just in case you didn't understand how the crisis in the country is manufactured.
Pegasus again:
"leaks on the targets of Israeli spy program Pegasus, show hundreds in
Lebanon including the elected leadership of every party, every media outlet, & every
security agency, have been targeted by clients in 10 countries; all belonging to the
Imperialist camp.
But it is very easy to guess by looking at who are the external imperialist forces
active in Lebanon. USA/UK/France/Turkey/Germany/Canada/Israel/Qatar; that's eight. Plus Saudi
Arabia." *******
PS. Lebanon; This comes as a response to Sayyed Nasrallah stating in his last speech
that if the State in Lebanon is not able to provide fuel, he will bring it at the expense of
Hizbullah from Iran, dock it in the port of Beirut, and dared anyone to stop it from reaching
the people.
*****
Germany will only be the latest victim as the Mafia-US "protection" racket is ramped
up.
Both b and the many commenters raise excellent points. Yes, the US wants to hurt both Russia
and Germany. And yes the US *definitely* fears close cooperation between Moscow and Berlin.
But the main take home lesson is that the US failed despite enormous efforts to block NS2.
Russo-German cooperation is inevitable and the world will be better for it.
>>a lot of people think China is robbing Russia blind on the deal
Why would be Russia building Power of Siberia 2 and 3 to China then? Or selling LNG too?
You don't have much knowledge on the topic, the way it looks. A giant gas plant was built
near the border with China, the second biggest gas plant in the world, because the gas for
China is rich in rare elements, thus turning Russia in of the the biggest producers of
strategic helium, not to mention extracting many other rare elements. China gets gas that has
been cleaned of anything valuable from it, with the exception of the gas itself.
>>merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking
over
The latest polls show clear lead for CDU/CSU. And it looks like its too late.
>>the NS2 will never be 100 usable, tthe Green party will see to that. AT best it
will be only 50% usage.
Do you even follow what has been going on? Germany is free not to buy russian gas, that
is, to be left without gas if this is what it wants.
Do you see how nat gas prices exploded in Europe recently? Do you know why is that?
Because Russia refuses to sell additional volumes via Ukraine's network. It is a message to
finish the issues with NS 2 pipeline faster and then everything will be fine, there will be
plenty of space for new gas volumes, and the gas price will drop.
It is the UNSC resolutions of 2006, 2007 and 2010 which have laid the backbone for the
incremental diplomatic, economic and material warfare against Iran. Without them, there would
be no narrative framing Iran as an outlaw nor justification for crippling sanctions. That
Iran should even be subjected to the JCPOA is in itself an objective injustice.
Each of these resolutions could easily have been blocked by the two permanent members of
the UNSC we go to much lengths on this forum to depict as selfless adversaries of the Empire.
All they had to do was raise a finger and say niet. In other words, by their actions, these
two members placed Iran in a very disadvantageous trading position.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
"According to the draft deal, obtained by Bloomberg, Washington and Berlin would
threaten sanctions and other retaliation if Russia 'tries to use energy as a weapon against
Ukraine', with Germany being obligated to take unspecified actions in the event of Russian
'misbehaviour' . [My Emphasis]
The article then turns to the interview:
"Professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway has explained what is
behind the US-Germany row is." [That last "is" appears to be a typo]
I suggest barflies pay close attention to Dr. Diesen who's the author of an outstanding
book on the geoeconomics of Russia and China, Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater
Eurasia . I judge the following Q&A to be most relevant:
"Sputnik: The Biden administration waived sanctions on the firm behind the gas project,
Nord Stream 2 AG, and its chief executive, Matthias Warnig. At the same time, Secretary of
State Antony Blinken stated in June that the pipeline project was a Russian tool for the
coercion of Europe and signaled that the US has leverage against it. What's behind
Washington's mixed signals with regard to the project? How could they throw sand in Nord
Stream 2's gears, in your opinion - or are Blinken's threats empty?
"Glenn Diesen: The mixed signals demonstrate that the completion of Nord Stream 2 was a
defeat for the US. Biden confirmed that he waived sanctions because the project was near
complete. Sanctions could not stop the project [link at original], rather they would merely
continue to worsen relations with Berlin and Moscow. The best approach for Washington at this
point is to recognise that Nord Stream 2 is a done deal, and instead Washington will direct
its focus towards limiting the geo-economics consequences of the pipeline by obtaining
commitments from Berlin such as preserving Ukraine's role as a transit state [Link at
original].
"The US therefore waives sanctions against Nord Stream 2, yet threatens new sanctions if
Berlin fails to accept US conditions and limitations on Nord Stream 2. Blinken's threats
are loaded with 'strategic ambiguity', which could be aimed to conceal that they are merely
empty threats . However, strategic ambiguity is also conducive to prevent Berlin from
calculating the "costs" and possible remedies to US threats. Furthermore, ambiguity can be
ideal in terms of how to respond as it is not a good look to continuously threaten allies."
[Emphasis original]
The professor's closing remarks are also very important regarding Merkel's successor.
Where I disagree is with the notion that the Outlaw US Empire has geoeconomic leverage over
the EU--military yes, but the Empire is just as uncompetitive versus the EU as it is versus
China.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
Of course they did, let's be real. China and Russia are not going to be the all benevolent saviors of the world, they never
were, never will.
They will always serve their interests first and foremost. Sometimes, they do get suckered
into UNSC resolutions like those you spoke of. Sometimes, there're backroom horse trading
that we're not privy to and little countries are just chips on the table...
The best we can hope for is that they can behave with more integrity than currently shown
by the incumbent anglospheric bloc in their re-ascendancy.
Either we ditch the UNSC system or everybody get nukes, because i can't see the current
UNSC members willing ditch their own, ever.
Lysander is correct.
The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and
hostility between Germany and Russia.
Types of interdependence between Germany and Russia, eg. NRG security, are a direct threat
to US dominance over Europe as a whole.
There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those
limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German
strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington.
Way too much confusion over what Nord Stream 2 really means.
1) Russian gas transiting Ukraine had already fallen from 150 bcm to the high 90s/low 100s
before Nord Stream 2 goes online.
Even after NS2 goes online, a significant amount of Russian gas will still transit via
Ukraine.
2) Energy demand generally increases over time, not decreases. Russian gas exports aren't
increasing in a straight line, but keep in mind that there are significant new competitors
now and in the process coming online. These include Azerbaijan as well as the ongoing
pipeline struggle through the Black Sea/Turkey/Eastern Med.
I never believed there was any chance of NS2 not completing; the only question was
when.
Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every
door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point.
These are instruments of absolute power.
What we need now is a worldwide Me Too movement to denounce this leverage. Taking that
first step would require a lot of courage for any blackmailed individual, but the one little
breach could lead to a flood of world citizens just about fed up with the Empire's shit.
It pains me that I do not remember exactly who it was, but one of the more erudite posters
here mentioned some time ago that Trump seemed more like a Bonapartist figure than a fascist
or a typical and simple representative of a faction in the oligarchy. While Trump is
certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was
in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould
of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate
that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire,
and among the empire's vassals in particular.
It is unwise to downplay the significance of Trump coming to power in 2016, regardless of
what feelings one may have about the individual himself. The conditions that led to the rise
of Trump not only persist, but have intensified. Those conditions cannot be resolved by mass
media gaslighting and social media censorship, which actually seems to be having an effect
more like holding the emergency relief valve on a boiler closed; it quiets an annoying sound,
but causes the underlying issue to grow more severe.
Basically, further splits in the EU are inevitable. It is the timing of those splits that
is difficult to predict, but the accuracy of that prediction hinges upon the accuracy of our
assessment of events occurring now. Interestingly, Trump is still part of these unfolding
events.
Fracturing NATO and the West hmmm ... If Germany gains any independence from U.S.
coercion they are 'fracturing Europe'. Bad Germany.
Germany must forever remain a vassal state of the U.S. by allowing the U.S. to use another
vassal state to control their energy supply. And who says we don't believe in freedom. Neocons are such vile creatures. Always twisting words but remember, whenever they say
something, the exact opposite is true.
One issue underlying this fiasco is I believe that the neocons / Atlantic Council were 100%
certain that Russia did not have the expertise to lay pipelines at the required depths, and
once Allseas was facing sanctions, the project would never be completed.
I believe that the exact pricing formula for Power of Siberia is confidential, but this
much is known:
"The price of Russian gas supplies to China increased in the second quarter of 2021 for
the first time since deliveries started via the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2019, but daily
delivery volumes fell in April, Interfax reported on Sunday.
Russian gas giant Gazprom GAZP.MM has said it supplied China with 3.84 billion cubic
metres of gas via the Power of Siberia pipeline in its first year of operation.
Citing Chinese customs data, Interfax said the price of gas increased to $148 per thousand
cubic metres, rising from $121 in the first quarter, and reversing a downward trend."
Also, Victoria Nuland informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today about Biden's
cave to Russia. That must have been brutal for her. Regardless, nice to see a rare display of
sanity from s US administration.
The primary and only objective of the US Foreign policy vis-a-vis Europe since WW2 has
been to prevent Russia and Germany (now read the German run EU project) coupling up, that's
it, nothing else matters on Europe.
The completion of N-2 presents a serious blow tho this aim, the new pipeline is a must for
Germany, it must get finished, without it Germany's supply of energy would have been almost
fully controlled by the Americans who have either direct or indirect authority over every
major source of hydrocarbons except for Venezuela and Russia, the latter only partly, the
Ukrainian pipeline is fully in their sphere of influence.
Energy fuels everything from private dwellings to major corporations, it's together with
labour and technology the most important ingredient in every economy. To lose control of it
would have been a catastrophe for Germany, in particular if one takes into account the secret
treaty between Germany and the Allies (read the US) from 1949.
"On 23 May 1949, the Western Allies ratified a new German constitution, known as the
"Basic Law" or Grundgesetz.
However, two days prior, a secret state treaty - Geheimer Staatsvertrag - was also signed to
grant complete Allied
control over education and all licensed media, press, radio, television and publishing houses
until the year 2099.
This was confirmed by Major-General Gerd-Helmut Komossa, former head of German Military
Intelligence in his
book, "Die Deutsche Karte" or The German Card".
What's interesting about Power of Siberia-1 is that the gas is being stripped -- refined at
the newly completed Amur Gas Plant -- of its components prior to being piped into China. I
don't know if Germany's petrochemical industry will be deprived in similar manner with
NS2.
CD Waller @36--
Nothing in the energy production realm is carbon neutral. ROSATOM has mastered the fuel
cycle which means most if not all toxic waste will now be burned for energy. New reactors do
NOT use water as coolant. Clearly you need to update what you know about nuclear power.
The Russian 'victory' is very narrow and mostly consists of the patience and determination to
follow-thru while consistently being derided/attacked by Western media, pundits, and
politicians:
Since Russia/Gasprom owns NS2 100% (paying for half the construction cost outright and
financing the rest), there was never much need to stop construction, only to stop/limit
consumption. The 'trick' was to find a way to accomplish US/NATO goals that would not make
German leaders look like puppets.
Biden's approach looks good compared to Trump's heavy-handed approach. As they are BOTH
spokesman of the Empire's Deep State, we can surmise that this is merely good cop / bad cop
theatrics.
This USA-GERMAN agreement makes Germany appear to voluntarily support EU/NATO -
a good thing(tm) that most Germans will accept without question. But behind the scenes,
it's unlikely that there was ever any real choice, just a mutual desire to fashion a
'smart' policy that didn't undermine German political leaders.
Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined
in this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled
as a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark
efforts to force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets.
Russia and China are likely to be increasingly linked in Western media/propaganda.
Deficiencies of one or the other will apply to BOTH.
The next few winters in EU will be very interesting.
Jackrabbit @41 incorrectly says Russia owns NS2 100% It's owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, and
here's its
website listing its financial investors, while its shareholders/owners are global. The
company is located in Zug, Switzerland. Here we are told who the financial companies
are :
"In April 2017, Nord Stream 2 AG signed the financing agreements for the Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline project with ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall. These five
European energy companies will provide long-term financing for 50 per cent of the total cost
of the project."
As with the first string, Russia doesn't own it 100% nor did it finance it completely;
rather, its stake was @50% It appears both Nord Streams will be managed from the same
location in Zug. I hope the company produces a similar sort of book to record its
accomplishment as it did for the first string pair, which can be found and downloaded here
.
Who is paying for it: Russia's energy giant Gazprom is the sole shareholder of the
Nord Stream 2 AG , the company in charge of implementing the €9.5 billion ($11.1
billion) project. Gazprom is also covering half of the cost. The rest, however, is being
financed by five western companies: ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper and
Wintershall.
Emphasis is mine.
<> <> <> <> <>
Nord Stream 2 AG is a German company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia's
Gazprom. The German subsidiary has borrowed half of the construction cost but is 100% owner
of the NS2 project.
From karlof1's link to Nord Stream 2 AG's Shareholder and Financial Investors page makes it
clear that NordStream 2 AG is a subsidiary of Gazprom international projects LLC, which is,
in turn, a subsidiary of Gazprom. Under "Shareholder" there is only one company listed:
Gasprom.
PS I was mistaken: Nord Stream 2 AG is a Swiss company, not a German one.
"4. Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined in
this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled as
a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark efforts to
force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets."
Germany has been portrayed as not living up to its NATO obligations one way or another
since about 1985, and with respect to NS 2, since 2018. They do not seem fazed - maybe a
Green win would change that. If the USA-Ukraine get (more) belligerent, Germany might be less
likely to insist on Ukraine gas transit after 2024.
The Russian government owns a majority of Gazprom. As majority owner they can be said to
control the company and with that control comes an inescapable political dimension.
For the purposes of this discussion: the Russian government has biggest stake in the
financial success of Nord Stream 2. That "success" depends on gas sold, not simply the
completion of NS2 construction.
Merkel is meeting with President Joe Biden on Thursday this week, and said while
she will discuss the issue at the White House, she does not believe the matter will be resolved
at that time.
"I don't know whether the papers will be fully finalized, so to speak. I believe rather
not," Merkel said. "But these will be important talks for developing a common position."
Sanctions imposed against German companies involved in the project by the U.S. were recently
waived, which raised hopes in Berlin that the two countries may soon be able to find an
acceptable agreement on the matter.
For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below.
Washington has long argued that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia
to Germany endangers Europe's energy security and harms allies such as Ukraine, which currently
profits from transit fees for Russian gas.
Germany is keen to increase its use of natural gas as it completes the shutdown of its
nuclear power plants next year and phases out the use of heavily polluting coal by 2038.
Merkel's comments to reporters in Berlin came ahead of a meeting with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has warned that Nord Stream 2 poses a threat to his country's energy
security. Should Russia route all of its gas around Ukraine in the future, the country might be
cut off from the supplies it needs, putting it at further risk of being pressured by
Moscow.
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and supports separatists in Ukraine's eastern
industrial heartland of Donbas.
Zelenskyy said he was looking for guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit country for
Russian gas beyond 2024. He also suggested that the gas issue should become part of four-way
talks between his country, Russia, Germany and France on solving the conflict in eastern
Ukraine and that the United States could join those negotiations.
Merkel said she took Ukraine's concerns seriously and that Germany and the European Union would use
their weight in negotiations with Russia to ensure the agreements are extended.
"We have promised this to Ukraine and we will stick to that. I keep my promises and I
believe that is true also for any future German chancellor," she said.
Merkel isn't running for a fifth term in Germany's national election on Sept.
26.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not
pictured, give statements ahead of talks at the Chancellery in Berlin, Monday, July 12, 2021.
Stefanie Loos/Pool Photo via AP
@fyi 30 Russia has nothing to gain from invading Ukraine. She refused to do so in 2014.
Putin was never happy about the Donbass insurrection, just could not get them crushed and
massacred because the Russion people would not have understood nor accepted that. Russia had
the opportunity to occupy if not all of Ukraine then at least Novorossija (all the east and
northeast from Charkov to Odessa oblast) three times at minimum since 2014. From a merely
military point of view they could do it anytime within a week, or faster. They had even
larger exercises than the latest transferring 300k servicemen with full equip from the far
east and central Siberia to the western part.
The political repercussions would be grave. NS2 would certainly the first victim. And for
which gain? Russia, instead of EU and (to some extent, US) had to foot the bill for that
bankrupt failed state. As to the popular uprising, even when real (or just PD), there was a
popular uprising against the Nazis in Donbass. NATO sides with Nazis, the Greens love them.
German Chancellor aspirant Annalena Baerboeck boasted before the Atlantic Council, that her
Grandpa in winter 1945 (together with his Hitler Wehrmacht and SS comrades) fought "for the
reunification of Europe" - against the evil Russkis.
The West is already fighting for and alongside with Nazis, also in those Baltic
shitholes.
Odessa is not likely to be attacked by Russia in spite of the city's past historical
associations with Russia. If everyone is expecting a Russia attack on Odessa then NATO
strategies in the Black Sea will be based on such an assumption. So Russian strategy must be
based on what everyone least expects the Russians to do.
If the Russians were so minded as to want to cut off Ukrainian access to the Black Sea,
they could do so by building up their naval forces at the Kerch Strait and near Sevastopol,
as
a show of force. If they were to target a city, not that they need to, that city would be
Mariupol on the Azov Sea.
I suspect most people in Odessa and Mikolayiv in SW Ukraine are by now so fed up with Kiev
that they would, if given an opportunity, switch their loyalties to Russia without the
Russians having to fire a shot.
Summits are good - if they are successful. But when they fail, potentially crashingly, they
can quickly lead to escalation. Biden is just as much in his fifties as his predecessor. This
generation is not capable of coming to terms with the current power situation. For them, the
usa is still the undisputed leading power. They act accordingly arrogantly. Geneva could
backfire - on all of humanity.
Sorry Aquadraht but my smartphone changed your name in my comment @ 38. I was too busy fixing
up other deliberate changes my smartphone was making to my comment to notice.
1.Putin has already won the hearts of humanity.
2.The purpose of computing accelerated algorithms have been useful tools of economics,
politics & psychopaths.
3.The favorite play of Joe is the dumb dementia card. Let's not forget the badass boss his
authentic meanness projects.
4. Narily consuming news, I have observed a financial front setup for the dollar demise in
Russia via some big fund there. Equally important is their positioning a system of trade that
excludes SWIFT. (I read it on this blog) What's the point of BIS killing Putin? Just out of
hate, spite, what? No. Hes got an elite euro pedigree. I expect a mean Joe in Switzerland
with all his marbles lined up. Putin won't quake, then what will the Pentagon play be?
Thanks b.
Expect nothing.
Biden is a cold war thug and a Russia hater. Being his age he will be running on his 20's
brain cells and memories and prejudices. He was the Obummer point man in Ukraine and Kurt
Volker with that belligerent mind set are likely music to Biden's ears. Biden just has to
reassert that the killers are back in charge after the tragi-comedy of Trump and the clown
cart. Biden has a mission to merely demonstrate the return of the magi
neo-cons.
Yes it will fail. It will be seen as pathetic at first and a week later as useless.
The USA has NEVER grasped the flower of peace and no world leader has offered that flower
so consistently as has Putin or lately Xi. And yet the USA shits on their hand of greeting.
This is a tragedy for all across this world as we witness the idiocy of squandered resources
on military might.
I do not expect the USA to clean house and sack the colony of warmongers occupying their
foreign policy advice team. I suspect the state is not in control of its destiny but rather
run by a self perpetuating mindset within the military/academia/media that glorifies itself,
ensures its succession, and then glorifies itself some more. An echo chamber of ego, fear and
loathing.
Passer by@44 I firmly believe that history books still need massive infusions of facts, but I
am not an adherent of Critical Race Theory, which substitutes moralizing for scientific
analysis, only to do a bad job with the morals (notably, the notion of collective hereditary
guilt plays a major part in much of it...and CRT is deliberately left vague so that the more
extreme positions can be reserved while more reasonable ones are defended in lieu.) And I
also believe that re-defining "democracy" as "social democracy" while ignoring how democracy
is class collaboration in pursuit of national conquest (or defense when things go badly.)
Pretending that the past democrats weren't is a way of flattering ourselves that we are so
enlightened we know better and will have true democracy as soon as we reform the bad people's
minds. It's opposing an imaginary ideal to a straw man reality in defense of illusions. The
fundamental motive I think is anti-communism, but that's my opinion I guess. The multipolar
world of 1900 wasn't unipolar because "white," that's hare-brained CRT crap in my judgment. I
don't agree with it.
But history books really need to concentrate on what happened without moralizing on
motives, which are always mixed. Children will grow up and figure that out eventually, except
for the religious ones who mentally consign others to hell.
Babylon 5 is a space war TV series, so if the argument is supposed to be that multipolar
is more peaceful, the logic escapes me. If the idea is that if "states" are equal, then it's
democratic strikes me as ideology. In the US, the idea that this or that state has rights
that ordinary people do not (variations on residual sovereignty usually,) has *never* been
essential to progress. The people having rights, majority rule, yes. But those things and
states' rights rarely even aligned. States' rights to maintain slavery or Jim Crow are the
primary examples. But I can't think of any real states' rights that work out to progress for
real people, as opposed to legal abstractions like a state. Consider the attitude of the
federal government to the states' right to decriminalize/legalize marijuana.
fyi 30
What you wrote about Ladakh and China vs. India is rubbish too (as always when you cluelessly
write about China). As MK Bhadrakumar detailed a while ago, it is not China who is the bully
in the Himalayas and Kashmir/Jammu. It is India who constantly changed the status quo by
occupations and annexions like in Sikkim, and with Nepalese territories too.This was the case
under the congress governments already to some extent, and radicalized with the Hindutva
fascists of Janata/RSS in power. It is them who build tens of military airfields and roads
around the LAC, deploying ten thousands of servicemen.
China is not interested in conflicts. It wants to guarantee the safety of the
Sichuan-Tibet-Xinjiang Highway which is crucial for the development of Western Chinese
provinces. It is the Janata regime who tries to menace and cut that connection.
China made a ton of modest and reasonable proposals, from Zhou Enlai's memorandum in 1954
on, to settle all border disputes and uncertainties in the Himalayas. And though China kicked
the Indian's butts miserably in 1961, they pulled back from Southeast Tibet, the area India
boasts as Arunachal Pradesh, British robbery prey from the Chinese empire.
The nationalist and fascist fools in Delhi have nothing real to win in the Himalayas. They
are fighting uphill, and face tremendous cost for their poor country. They continue
provocations though.
@ 46 spudski.. me either... everyone i know has one though.. oh well.. they will just have to
catch up with us!
@ 50 aquadraht... what you have to realize is fyi filters everything thru his religious
bigotry... once you figure that out - then it all becomes obvious why he concludes what he
does... it is all based on a narrow religiously intolerant position...
Very good, though I'm doubtful about the weapons worry. Isn't it the case that 1) both sides
still have significant ICBM and sub-based MRBMs? 2) Isn't it also the case that neither side
has reliable anti-ballistic missile defenses? Aren't we still very much living under a
Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm? So what if the Russians have hypersonic missiles? Are
they going to be able to saturate US missile launching systems? No.
I have a hard time believing we want war. To take on an enemy with the manpower and
productive capacity of China would be suicidal. If there is an alliance between Russia and
China and you throw in Russia's natural resources - doubly so. My take is that what we want
is an excuse to continue spending on defense - it's a business model - and Russia provides
the bogeyman.
Whatever Washington could throw at Russia, the residual Russian forces would penetrate
American defenses and wreak havoc on the American homeland.
You're being polite here.
Russia's nuclear arsenal would do much more than "wreak havoc on the American homeland":
it would reduce its entirety into a radioactive wasteland. There would be no
redneck-in-the-middle-of-Wyoming standing after such attack. The USA would become some kind
of cursed land where nothing grows for millennia.
Russian Government does not need to directly intervene then; a series of small incidents
could be caused during which the city of Odessa organizes a self-defense Unit called Rus
Protection Force and asks for help from Lugansk People's Republic.
The key consideration is to deny a legitimate beach head to the NATO forces.
In any case, I think the Russian Government is resigned to another decade or more of
confrontation with West; they already have concluded that the sanctions against the Russian
Federation will never be removed, that they would be ejected from SWIFT, and should invest
more in autarky lest they reprise the experience of Iran.
The US aircraft you were searching for is the F-15. The new version is the F-15EX which is
now in production after the Gulf states handily paid for the bulk of the R&D. Initially
it will replace the old F-15C/D single seat interceptors but in the longer term will also add
to or replace the F-15E multirole fighter/bomber. There is no overlap in functionality
between the F-15EX and the F-35.
Thank you for that rebuttal. Fyi, I sense the writer is a china russia basher lurking
behind a thin masquerade of faux shia sophistication and all intended to give shia a bad
name. Tacky.
There is a drink waiting for you at the bar of excommunicated souls ;)
In 1900 the world was more unipolar than any time in the last 3000 years. Anglo
colonialism was at a peak, Caucasians directly controlled Africa and South East Asia. white
Colonialism and genocide were everywhere. China was still crushed by European powers, Russia
was incredibly weak.
It takes a lot of word salad and spinning to say the world in 1900 was multi-polar.
Doesn't matter what you think if critical race theory...that has zero relevance here.
>>Babylon 5 is a space war TV series, so if the argument is supposed to be that
multipolar is more peaceful, the logic escapes me
Well, it was a film about different civilisations overcoming war and conflict - the whole
point about constructing the Babylon 5 space station was to avoid war and to find ways to
communicate with each other, no matter how different the various space species can be.
The multipoar space station was constructed after a disastrous Earth War against another
space civilisation, in order to fix conflicts in the Galaxy.
I really recommend you that Sci Fi series.
>>The multipolar world of 1900 wasn't unipolar because "white,"
Unless you are from another race, in which case you will see massive white dominance all
over around the world during those years.
>>Babylon 5 is a space war TV series, so if the argument is supposed to be that
multipolar is more peaceful, the logic escapes me
Well, it was a film about different civilisations overcoming war and conflict - the whole
point about constructing the Babylon 5 space station was to avoid war and to find ways to
communicate with each other, no matter how different the various space species can be.
The multipoar space station was constructed after a disastrous Earth War against another
space civilisation, in order to fix conflicts in the Galaxy.
I really recommend you that Sci Fi series.
>>The multipolar world of 1900 wasn't unipolar because "white,"
Unless you are from another race, in which case you will see massive white dominance all
over around the world during those years.
Yes, that seems like a fair assessment. In 1900 there was indeed not only rivalry between
european-american colonial powers, but also between European Colonial Powers and powerful
European countries who were at disadvantage for lack of colonies...Germany.
Here's what's goin' down. (According to my 95% WRONG predictions.) Nothing whatever of the
slightest importance will be discussed at the Putin/Biden 'summit'. No significant accords
will be established, and virtually nothing will occur. EXCEPT:
This will be a rollicking Royal Send-Up for the benefit of Joe Biden. Why? The logic is
dirt simple. Biden is always on the hairy edge of being removed from office for
incapacitation. Russia would then be dealing with the amateur and insanely aggressive Kamala
Harris. It's about sticking with the Devil You Know.
Therefor, Putin will provide the feeble Joe Biden with an all-in Royal Send-Up. Putin will
praise Biden to the heavens. He will even toss in some empty but hugely auspicious
'concession'. Which will be hailed by the indentured media as a Tremendous Victory.
All solely to keep the feeble Master of Bargain Basement Politics in 'charge'.
>>In 1900 the world was more unipolar than any time in the last 3000 years. Anglo
colonialism was at a peak, Caucasians directly controlled Africa and South East Asia. white
Colonialism and genocide were everywhere. China was still crushed by European powers, Russia
was incredibly weak.
It takes a lot of word salad and spinning to say the world in 1900 was multi-polar.
Doesn't matter what you think if critical race theory...that has zero relevance here.
In my previous comment @8 above, I concurred with b that a significant faction within the
Outlaw US Empire's elite governing aparat are delusional while other factions are very much
aware of the stark reality of the Empire's condition--particularly its domestic condition. A
shining example of this was published today by Global
Times , of which there are three total articles I hope barflies will read, although
they might have read the first two as I linked and commented about them when they were
published. Franz Gayl is a 64-year-old retired US Marine major who worked at the Pentagon as
an analyst and wrote two reality-based articles for publication by Global Times for
what are obvious reasons when read--the Outlaw US Empire has zero chance of winning a war
against China over Taiwan, and he advocated against such a stupid undertaking. But reality
just cannot be mentioned--the Narrative Must Hold at All Costs!!--as with the continuous
stream of lies about the state of the USA's economy that have been ongoing since Reagan and
his VooDoo Economics. For a self-declared Christian nation, it most certainly has
forgotten--buried very deeply--the admonition from Proverbs 16:18: Pride goeth before the
fall. And genuine patriots like Franz Gayl get crucified for trying to avert that fall. Just
like wanting to kill Assange for telling the truth--the Outlaw US Empire is facing the same
stark reality that Gorbachev and the USSR faced in the early 1980s. And guess what, Putin
just said that's exactly what the USA's facing today at the SPIEF to the heads of global
media:
" But problems keep piling up. And, at some point, they are no longer able to cope with
them. And the United States is now walking the Soviet Union's path, and its gait is confident
and steady." [My Emphasis]
At least Clueless Joe @11 sees through the bologna and gets it correct. I highly suggest
this op/ed . As Putin
told the global media heads, Russia is all about Russia and Russians, and is willing to
partner with other nations that can aid Russia in its development that's aimed at benefitting
all Russians . Defending genuine strategic interests is NOT Imperialism. the big
problem for the Outlaw US Empire is that since WW2's end it's seen the entire planet as its
strategic interest, which was the first post-war BigLie it told to itself and swallowed
whole.
There are a lot of things that can be done to mitigate problems due to declining oil
production. When it comes to SA, they can start using natural gas from Ghawar or Qatar to
replace fuel oil for power generation during especially summer.
Okay, first point: Qatar has plenty of natural gas. The problem is they are in a feud with
Saudi and they do not trade with each other:
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with
Qatar in mid-2017 after accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has repeatedly
denied the accusations. The boycotting countries, known as the Arab quartet, also cited
political differences with Qatar over Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Second point: Saudi does not have nearly enough natural gas to power their own power plants
and desalination plants:
New York CNN Business --
Saudi Arabia has placed a huge bet on American natural gas.
In a sign of shifting energy fortunes, Saudi Aramco announced a mega preliminary
agreement on Wednesday to buy 5 million tons of liquefied natural gas per year from a Port
Arthur, Texas export project that's under development.
If completed, the purchase from San Diego-based Sempra Energy (SRE) would be one of the
largest LNG deals ever signed, according to consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.
But this may change. Saudi is desperate for natural gas and this has led them to try to make
amends with Qatar:
(CNN)Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies agreed on Tuesday to restore diplomatic relations
with Qatar and restart flights to and from the country, ending a three-year boycott of the tiny
gas-rich nation.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with
Qatar in mid-2017 after accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has repeatedly
denied the accusations.
The boycotting countries, known as the Arab quartet, also cited political differences
with Qatar over Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Doha, unlike its Gulf neighbors, has friendly
relations with Tehran, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and has hosted groups
affiliated with the Islamist group.
Qatar's only land border -- which it shares with Saudi Arabia -- was sealed shut.
Boycotting countries closed their airspace to Qatar, and nearby Bahrain and the UAE closed
their maritime borders to ships carrying the Qatari flag.
REPLYRATIONALLUDDITE IGNORED
06/08/2021 at 8:29 pm
Fantastic Ron. Too many people practising truth by assertion and liar's bluff / wishful
thinking. They won't change, but you persuade others whom are genuinely seeking the truth and
can distinguish between evidence supported logic and security blanket speculation.
SA is going to end badly, as too will fever dreams that don't realise that their electric
transition is a mirage – largely it's all fossil fuels in disguise and totally parasitic
on upon the peak energy infrastructure of previous and current fossil fuel excess calories.
We may have an Electric Middle Ages (Ugo Bardi), but unless a new energy source AT LEAST as
energy dense and net positive as FF is discovered like yesterday then this lovely wealth Blip
we all enjoyed is going away.
Who caused the flight to be diverted is still uncertain to me. It's clear that Roman was
the target though. And that relations between the West and Russia are suffering.
With that said, I think it's worthwhile to note that this new low in relations is
something that is not in Russia's interest as NordStream2 is still under attack.
Some say that Nordstream 2 is unstoppable. Well, the completion of the pipeline is near
but whether Germany buys gas from Russia and/or how much gas is still a question. The Empire
opposition to NS2 has been relentless but they may accept a pipeline that guarantees German
energy security yet demand that it restrict purchases of Russian gas to only what is
absolutely necessary.
Barring a mistranslation, Putin said that continued gas transit through Ukraine depends on
Ukraine's behaviour. Based on a quick impression, that contracts pretty much every previous
Russian / Gazprom statement that Garprom intends to retain same flows through Ukraine. No one
expects Russia to keep flows in the event of hostilities, but to give opponents of the
pipeline a soundbyte to say "see, we told you they would do that" is a shocking blunder.
Actually, he kept repeating that the current transit contract will be maintained, but that
if Ukraine wants to increase the volume of gas that goes through their territory, and
subsequently earn more money from transit contracts, they have to make that option more
lucrative for customers and suppliers. Primarily, by breaking up the gas monopoly on that
territory -- harking back to the consortium suggestion by Shroeder in 2008-2009(?).
That said, he was fairly blunt about the advantages of supplying gas directly to Germany
and the lack of any strictly economical reason to use Ukrainian gas transit, and that's a
fairly obvious aspect of this entire project -- provided that the capacity of these auxiliary
pipelines isn't exceeded, there's no good economic reason to use the Ukrainian
infrastructure.
When asked about Ukrainian financial woes, in the comical context of Zelensky complaining
that the gas transit income is essential for financing the Ukrainian army, he replied
sardonically that it's not the responsibility of the Russian state to keep the Ukrainian
state fed. There's a sort of Russian gag, where a guy asks his neighbor for something to eat,
so that he has the strength to take a dump on his doorstep, which neatly fits the
situation.
Biden backed down on Nordstream 2 and, at The Davos Crowd's insistence, he will back down on
the JCPOA.
Davos needs cheap energy into Europe. That's ultimately what the JCPOA was all about. The
basic framework for the deal is still there. While the U.S. will kick and scream a bit about
sanctions relief, Iran will be back into the oil market and make it possible for Europe to once
again invest in oil/gas projects in Iran.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate just
lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to bludgeon Gaza
to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and Silent
generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then get
gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North South
Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle East.
What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent between
exhausted participants.
But the big geopolitical win for Davos, they think, is that by returning Iran to the oil
markets it will cut down on Russia's dominance there. That the only reason Russia is the price
setter in oil today, as the producer of the marginal barrel, is because of Trump taking Iranian
and Venezuelan oil off the market.
With these negotiations ongoing and likely to conclude soon I'm sure the thinking is that
this will help save Iranian moderates in the upcoming elections. But with Iran's Guardian
Council paving the way for Ebrahim Raeisi to win the election that is also very unlikely(
H/T to Pepe
Escobar's latest on this ) :
So Raeisi now seems to be nearly a done deal: a relatively faceless bureaucrat without the
profile of an IRGC hardliner, well known for his anti-corruption fight and care about the
poor and downtrodden. On foreign policy, the crucial fact is that he will arguably follow
crucial IRGC dictates.
Raeisi is already spinning that he "negotiated quietly" to secure the qualification of
more candidates, "to make the election scene more competitive and participatory". The problem
is no candidate has the power to sway the opaque decisions of the 12-member Guardian Council,
composed exclusively by clerics: only Ayatollah Khamenei.
I have no doubt that Iran is, as Escobar suggests, in post-JCPOA mode now and will walk away
from Geneva without a deal if need be, but Davos will cut the deal it needs to bring the oil
and gas into Europe while still blaming the U.S. for Iran's nuclear ambitions because they've
gotten what they actually wanted, Netanyahu out of power.
Seeing the tenor of these negotiations and the return of Obama to the White House, the
Saudis saw the writing on the wall immediately and began peace talks with Iran in Baghdad put
off for a year because of Trump's killing Soleimani.
The Saudis are fighting for their lives now as the Shia Crescent forms and China holds the
House of Saud's future in its hands.
Syria will be restored to the Arab League and all that 'peace' work by Trump will be undone
quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone,
Israel just got
defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold, put on hold by four years of
Jared Kushner's idiocy and U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the
situation.
The Saker put together two lists in his latest article (linked above) which puts the entire
situation into perspective:
The Goals:
Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces,
and security services.
Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by
Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone,"
but this time in Lebanon.
Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East
and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas
or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional
coalition of forces.
Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.
The Outcomes:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports,
they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally
"plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on local flashpoints.
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country,
including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now,
which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
(2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility
left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace. This
is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's no way for
Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
Trump's hard line against Iran was always a mistake, even if Iran's nuclear ambitions are
real. But with the Open Skies treaty now a dead letter the U.S. has real logistical problems in
the region and they only multiply if Erdogan in Turkey finally chooses a side and gives up his
Neo-Ottoman ambitions, now very likely.
But when it comes to economics, as always, Davos has this all backwards vis a vis oil. They
still think they can use the JCPOA to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia over oil. They
still think Putin only cares about oil and gas sales abroad. It's clear they don't listen to
him because the policy never seems to change.
So, to Davos, if they bring 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day from Iran back online and oil
prices drop, this forces Russia to back down militarily and diplomatically in Eastern Europe.
With a free-floated ruble the Russians don't care now that they are mostly self-sufficient in
food and raw material production.
None of that will come to pass. Putin is shifting the Russian economy away from oil and gas
with an announced ambitious domestic spending plan ahead of this fall's State Duma elections.
Lower or even stable prices will accelerate those plans as capital no longer finds its best
return in that sector.
This carrot to Iran and stick to Russia approach of Brussels/Davos is childish and it will
only get worse when the Greens come to power in Germany at the end of the year. Unless the
German elections end in a stalemate which is unforeseen, the CDU will grand coalition as the
junior partner to the Greens, just as Davos wants it.
Don't miss the significance of the policy bifurcation either when it comes to oil. The Biden
administration is trying to make energy as expensive as possible in the U.S. -- no Keystone
Pipeline, Whitmer trying to close down Enbridges's Line 5 from Canada into Michigan, etc. --
while Europe gets Nordstream 2 from Russia and new, cheap supplies from Iran.
This is what had Trump so hopping mad when he was President. This is part of why he hated
the JCPOA. Israel and the EastMed pipeline was what should have been the U.S. policy in his
mind.
Now, those dreams are dead and the sell out of the U.S. to Davos is in full swing.
Seriously, Biden/Obama are going to continue on this path of undermining U.S. energy production
until they are thrown out of office, either by the overwhelming shame of the election fraud
lawsuits which recall Senators from Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, the mid-term elections which
brings a more pro-Trump GOP to power or by military force. That last bit I put a very low
probability on.
Bottom line, for now global oil prices have likely peaked no matter what drivel comes out of
John Kerry's mouth.
The Brent/WTI spread will likely collapse and go negative for the first time in years as
Iran's full oil production comes online over the next two years while U.S. production falls.
We'll see rising oil prices in the U.S. while global supply rises, some of which China is
getting at a steep discount from who? Iran.
Meanwhile Russia continues to hold the EU to account on everything while unmasking the not
just the latest Bellingcat/MI6/State Dept. nonsense in Belarus surrounding the arrest of Roman
Petrosovich, but also filling the void diplomatically left by a confused and incompetent U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
If I'm the Bennett in Israel, the first phone call I make after taking office is to no one
other than Putin, who now holds the reins over Iran, Hezbollah and a very battle-hardened and
angry Syria who just re-elected Assad because he navigated the assault on the country with no
lack of geopolitical skill.
Because it is clear that Biden/Obama, on behalf of Davos , have left Israel out to twist in
the wind surrounded by those who wish it gone. We'll see if they get their wish. I think the
win here is clear and the days of U.S. adventurism in the Middle East are numbered.
The oil wars aren't over, by any stretch of the imagination, but the outcome of the main
battles have decisively shifted who determines what battles are fought next.
About time that fcking Project for the New American Century(aka Greater Israel from the
Nile to the Euphates) got derailed .
Fcking useless neocon sh its gutted and bankrupted the U.S. for their fcked up ziosh it
garbage.
Sheldon Adelson belongs in the Aus witz Mengele suite in hell. He was the biggest
cheerleader for the last 20 years of this hell on earth that was created in the middle
east.
Woodenman 2 hours ago remove link
Trump got it *** backwards , he should have defunded Israel and fast tracked Iran to be
a nuclear power, Iran is an oil producer, what does Israel do for us?
Would I care that Israel cannot sleep at night knowing Iran has the bomb, not at
all.
AGuy 37 minutes ago
" what does Israel do for us? "
Keeps the ME unstable so the US has the excuse to keep a lot of military resources in
the ME, in the name of being the worlds policemen. Plus the US needs to protect the Petro
dollar, but at this point I don't think that will matter soon considering the amount of
money printing & spending the US is doing at the momement.
wellwaddyaknow 2 hours ago (Edited)
Soleimani was very good at destroying ISIS trash.
And which countries backed ISIS?
JR Wirth 2 hours ago
NeoCon tears as the world attempts to move on from deranged foreign policy. Will the US
throw a fit and drag the world into war? Let's call Tel Aviv and find out.
Der Steppenwolf 2 hours ago remove link
Iran already sells huge amounts of oil to China and likely many others, there just isn't
going to be a significant increase in Iranian oil hitting the market as a result of any
deal. Moreover, this relatively small increase will occur over time. Even if Iran
eventually increases production the 2.5-3 million bpd the author cites, world consumption
in 2021 is forecast to increase about 6 million bpd over 2020. Considering these facts any
changes in Iranian oil production should do little to affect the overall
price.
lay_arrow
AGuy 42 minutes ago
" Iran has huge potential to increase production "
I doubt that very much. Iran has very old oil fields which have been producing since the
1920s. Global Oil production peaked in 2018 & is now in permanent decline. Iran could
increase NatGas production, but Oil production is in permanent decline.
Apollo 32 minutes ago
God, I hope half of the above comes true. Bibi needs to be court martialed and Israel
needs to go back into smaller and more peaceful version of itself (if that is even
possible) . USA can just bugger off home, and try to deal with transgendered army,
president's dementia and critical race theory nonsense first.
What the world needs is less wars, less central bankers screwing the game and less
stealing of other people's natural resources. Instead it just more plain old hard work,
honest trading and no bs diplomacy.
dead hobo 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Amazingly perfect analysis.
Israel will survive. I wish them well.
So many US wars are oil based. Lies abound to cover this up. Neocon Economics turns
every war opportunity into a profit center. No Profit = No War potential. Whenever you see
a Neocon pumping a war somewhere, you need to look for who will make scads of money from
it.
Trump isn't an angel. He's the guy who destroyed Establishment Republicanism. That begat
populism. I detested him working his book when he pumped QE and ZIRP. I considered it a
temporary price to pay to remove Establishment Republicans from the world. Yes, the US also
needed a good Front Door with a lock. He also did good there. Trump playing the Imperialism
Game clumsily worked in the favor of Peaceful Coexistence. Probably by mistake. Ok by me if
everyone else declares peace anyway.
The US economy can still outpower anyone even if it is forced to play fair.
This brings us to the Deep State. Who exactly are they?
Are they Neocons who want war profits by making it look like others are the war mongers?
Are they anti-peace as long as it doesn't start a full blown war - providing a profit can
be made from it by their oligarch bosses?
Or is the Deep State the Davos oriented oligarchs who wants the 99% to whistle while
they work to support uncountable billions of dollars flowing into the asset piles of the
1%?
Why did the Deep State allow the BLM / Antifa / Democrat cabal take over? Are they
stupid? Or did they think Covid-19 along with these freaks would work in their favor
somehow?
Is the Deep State only common ordinary Imperialism? Is it only oil, and natural gas and
who gets to control the markets? Ukraine has a lot of natural resources. Is that a
coincidence?
What is it about Peaceful Coexistence that makes them go crazy?
What does The Deep State really want?
AGuy 49 minutes ago
" The only difference will be the wars will be fought for lithium and other rare metals.
"
Unlikely Oil will remain the King for causing wars. electricification of transportation
is doomed to fail. First average Americans cannot afford EV. heck they are struggling with
cheaper ICE vehicles. Auto loan duration have ballooned & most Americans are rolling
over debt from their older vehicle when they buy a new one. Second the grid is struggling.
Most of the older power plants are getting replaced by NatGas fired plants & at some
point we are going to see NatGas prices shoot up. Much of the US grid was built in the
1930s & 1940s and will need trillions just to maintain it and replace equipment &
power lines operating beyond their expected operating lifetime.
The US economy is slowly collapsing: Mountains of debt, demographics, dumbed down
education, and worthless degrees for Millennials, failing infrastructure (ie I-40 bridge).
We are on borrowed time.
AJAX-2 1 hour ago remove link
The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to prop
up their derivative portfolios. As a result, they are at odds with the Davos Crowd and
their desire for cheap/plentiful oil for Europe. We shall see who prevails.
AGuy 1 hour ago
" The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to
prop up their derivative portfolios. "
Nope:
Higher oil prices leads to higher defaults, which is likely to trigger derivative
losses. Banker shady deals come under congressional\agency scrutiny usually ending with
billion dollar fines, and bad press. A lot of banks probably will get nationalized when the
next banking crisis happens & all those bankers will lose out on the financial scams
they play.
European Monarchist 46 minutes ago remove link
Currently:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all
reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah
were literally "plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on
local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large
chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the
country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is
backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in
charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no
credibility left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace.
This is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's
no way for Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
ut218 2 hours ago remove link
Solarcycle 25 had a bad start. By 2028 people will realize we are in a period of global
cooling. oil prices will soar
Itinerant 18 minutes ago
There won't be major investments of European majors in Iran's oil industry.
For Iran, Western partners have proved too fickle
For Western corporations, the risk is too great for long term investment.
China will be reaping most of the investement opportunities.
2 play_arrow
Marrubio 1 hour ago
.... the NWO & Davos idiotards ,they have been trying since March for oil not to
exceed the $ 70 barrier and they are not succeeding. Week after week they try to lower the
price, frightening with the covid, the production of Iran or whatever, and the following
week the oil rises again. The only thing left for them is mass slaughter ... but now people
know that what is going to kill them is in the "vaccine". Of course they will be stupid
enough to do it; if they have shown anything it is that they are profoundly idiots. They
will not be successful in getting cheap oil, simply because PeakOil is running since 2018
and since then oil production decreases at 5% per year: -5% per year, I am telling to the
NWO deep idiotards.
European Monarchist 55 minutes ago (Edited)
Interesting, but it remains to be seen where this is going, short term and long.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate
just lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to
bludgeon Gaza to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and
Silent generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then
get gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North
South Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle
East. What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent
between exhausted participants.
play_arrow
Einstein101 55 minutes ago remove link
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their
country, including every single city in Syria).
Really? Hell no! The Syrians and the mighty Russians and the Hezbollah for many months
now are not able to overcome lowly terrorists militia in northern Syria's Idlib. Plus,
the Israelis has been launching hundreds of airstrikes over Syria while the Russian made
Syrian anti air defense can do nothing about it.
NORDSTREAM. Washington has lifted sanctions on German companies involved with the pipeline
but imposed
new ones on Russian entities . What are we to make of this? A realisation that Berlin is
determined on completion combined with face-saving meaningless toughness. Amusingly Biden's now
being called " Putin's $5
million man " (because of the supposed payout by the pipeline to the supposed Russian
supposed hackers). Nordstream was a " key Putin goal ",
giving
power to Putin , what does he have
on him ? Hilarious, isn't it? Biden loved it then: here he is calling Trump Putin's puppy
.
I saw this today and while I can't say it is surprising, I am sorry that we are officially
at the end of the "engagement" period with China. I hate to see our major challenges in the
world increase.
I was wondering if you think we will officially recategorize our relationship with Russia,
too? If so, would you expect us to also label that "competitive?" How do you think this change
in our China stance will affect Russia?
Thanks.
"The U.S. is entering a period of intense competition with China as the government running
the world's second-biggest economy becomes ever more tightly controlled by President Xi
Jinping, the White House's top official for Asia said. "The period that was broadly described
as engagement has come to an end," Kurt Campbell, the U.S. coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs
on the National Security Council, said Wednesday at an event hosted by Stanford University.
U.S. policy toward China will now operate under a "new set of strategic parameters," Campbell
said, adding that "the dominant paradigm is going to be competition." (via Bloomberg News)
Reply
Dollar short and a day late. The US has lost the competition.
The USA was mighty because of tremendous manufacturing capacity, great inventiveness and
the ability to harness that, political stability and the "American Dream" had sufficient
reality. What's left of that? And the same applies to the West in general.
As to Moscow, why would it ever trust Washington?
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
The The Hill piece linked in the week in review here confirms our suspicions Ukraine has
become a financial black hole for the West, and the USA is trying to get rid of it by
throwing it to the EU's arms:
Instead of expending diplomatic capital on a campaign to stop Nord Stream 2, the Biden
administration should work with its European partners to prepare Ukraine to withstand the
pipeline's completion. The deadline for action is 2024, when Kyiv's current gas contract
and President Biden's term effectively end. By that time, Washington and Brussels should
formulate and implement an economic package that, first and foremost, covers Ukraine's
inevitable budget shortfall from the loss of transit fees to keep the Ukrainian state
running. This package should, however, also invest in the country's sustainable growth.
That would entail material and technical support for Kyiv's ongoing anti-corruption
campaign, whose success is a prerequisite for attracting long-term investment. One idea
worth considering is a loan to cover revenue shortfalls, whose repayment would be
incrementally forgiven in exchange for concrete progress on reforms by Kyiv.
That won't happen. The easiest way you can infer that is that the USA and Germany don't
even have the resources to invest in green energy in their own territories, let alone on
third-parties' territories. Hell, the USA doesn't even have the resources to rebuild Puerto
Rico.
This is not the 1950s. The American Empire's bottomless pocket is no more.
Glenn Greenwald writes that President Trump acted more hostile to Russia than President
Biden does, even while the media claimed that Trump was 'a Russian agent'. It is probably a
fair point to make but in his piece Greenwald himself falls for anti-Russian propaganda
nonsense.
Greenwald seems to presume that it is the right or the job of a U.S. president to 'permit'
pipelines between two foreign country? That is of course completely false. The U.S. has no
right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular businesses between foreign partners. Such
interference is in fact illegal under international law. Biden, as well as Trump, should be
criticized for even thinking about 'permitting' it.
On to Greenwald's main point:
When it came to actual vital Russian interests" as opposed to the symbolic gestures hyped
by the liberal cable and op-ed page circus" Trump and his administration were confronting
and undermining the Kremlin in ways Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, had, to his credit,
steadfastly refused to do.
Indeed, the foreign policy trait relentlessly attributed to Trump in support of the
media's Cold War conspiracy theory" namely, an aversion to confronting Putin" was, in
reality, an overarching and explicit belief of President Obama's foreign policy, not
President Trump's.
Obama waged a massive undercover war to overthrow the Syrian government, an old Russian
ally. He arranged a fascist coup in the Ukraine and he sent the anti-Russian academic Michael
McFaul as ambassador to Russia where McFaul immediately started to prepare a color revolution
against President Putin. It was the Obama administration which launched the 'Russiagate'
campaign against Trump which further infested U.S. policies with anti-Russian sentiment.
Seen from the Russian side Obama certainly showed absolutely no 'aversion to confronting
Putin'.
While Trump ripped up arms treaties with Russia and gave a few useless weapons to the
Ukraine, making sure they would not reach the front lines, he otherwise took, thankfully, few
other damaging steps.
Well, the fact that the pipeline has not been finished for years, despite being near
completion, tells us that it's not actually true that the "pipeline would have been finished
with or without US sanctions." Certainly, it seems that Trump's pressure did work to severely
slow down if not completely stop the completion of the project and presumably Biden could
have continued that pressure. Btw, didn't the front-running Green party head come out against
the pipeline, showing that there's not unanimous support in Germany for its completion?
But more importantly, Greenwald's main point is that Trump's actions had nothing to do
with the Russian Puppet narrative against him. That both Biden and previously Obama were less
"anti-Russian" in practice and yet were thought to be "tough" on Russia, while Trump
(providing lethal arms to Ukraine and stopping NS2) was a "puppet" ... narrative building by
the Deep State. Greenwald's larger point is in fact accurate.
I think Greenwald was thrown off by what seems a sudden reversal and positive step by
Biden administration.
Personally I think Biden Administration was stunned at almost having instigated WW3 within
100 days of taking office. They looked fairly like amateur idiots even to the unwashed such
as myself. Then they realized that it would be difficult and given their evident ineptness
they chose the well proven political tactic of taking the loss and making it a win. Voila
they are genious - why didnt Trump think of that?
We in the US must accept that our government is craven incompetents and have to hope that
they might accidentally do something good by virtue of being so incompetent.
Greenwald makes an error but it is understandable. NS2 pipeline wont deliver enough gas to
truly make a significant difference to Germany. Where it makes a difference is to Ukraine,
which will struggle to steal as much gas from Russia as it has in the past. Gas transit rates
will fall, and if Ukraine doesnt like it RF will still be able to supply Germany without
Ukraine stealing gas which was meant for Germany.
But who will make good any shortfall in Ukraine's budget?
The early closure of the Netherlands Groningen natural gas field, due to land subsidence,
was a big hit to European energy security - especially with the move from coal/nuclear to
natural gas. B is very right in stating that Europe desperately needs Russian gas to fill a
yawning future hole between supply and demand. Russia is also developing their Arctic gas
reserves, which can be provided as LNG to Europe (as well as Asia). Very bad for the
Ukrainians, but they (or the US and the Nazis) picked their bed and can deal with the
consequences.
The Russians opened the Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China, and have agreements to
start development on additional pipelines. China is rapidly expanding natural gas usage so no
demand problem there.
Seems like the Biden administration took their "hardass" shot in the past months and it
blew up in their face. Now they have to take a step back and play a bit better with their
so-called allies. Probably won't last long, the US elite have extreme learning difficulties
when it comes to the reality of their decline from the Unipolar moment.
This is somewhat OT to the subject, but it's clear to me a greater understanding of the
Russian POV is needed. Although the transcript is currently incomplete, this meeting of the Russian
Pobeda (Victory) Organising Committee provides an excellent insight into the Russian
mind, and IMO this excerpt says a great deal:
"Regrettably, the ranks of the great generation of victors are thinning out. But this is
only increasing our responsibility for preserving their legacy, especially now that we are
witnessing increasingly frequent attempts to slander and distort history and to revise the
role played by the Red Army in the routing of Nazism and the liberation of European nations
from the Nazi plague.
"We understand the reasons for this, and attempts to hamper the development of this
country, regardless of its name, be it the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union or Russia, were
made in different times and historical epochs and under different political systems. These
approaches and principles remain the same. There is one principle or rather, one reason
for containing Russia: the stronger and more independent Russia becomes, the more
consistently it defends its national interests, the greater the striving of foreign forces to
weaken it, to discredit the values uniting our society and sometimes to slander and distort
what people hold dear, the things that are instilled in the younger generations of Russians
and which help them acquire a strong character and their own opinions .
"This is why all kinds of Russophobic individuals and unscrupulous politicians are trying
to attack Russian history, to promote the ideas of revising the results of World War II and
to exonerate Nazi criminals." [My Emphasis]
"Very soon, we will be celebrating 20 years of our core bilateral document, the Treaty of
Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. Since the signing of this treaty, Russia
and China have achieved great success in strengthening our multidimensional cooperation and
mutual trust across all areas without exception: politics, international affairs, trade and
the economy, cultural and humanitarian exchanges. It can be said that Russia-China relations
have reached their highest level in history."
And those relations will certainly reach much greater heights regardless the nature of
Russian-EU relations.
I'm puzzled by b's arithmetic on the gas flow rates
Apart from Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, there are also old Soviet pipelines that go
through Belarus and Ukraine, as well as the recently completed Turk Stream, part of which is
used to export gas to Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia (and soon Hungary, Bosnia and
Austria).
@11
My two cents on that is that the old surface Power-structure of Germany has been crumbling
rapidly for around the last decade. Merkel has left the christian conservative party in
shambles and there's no one with enough gravitas around to fill the giant sized shoes she's
left vacant, same thing with the social democrats who've been in a freefall from 35% to now
barely 15% for the last 15 years. Environmentalism coated Neoliberalism seems to be the maxim
of the hour in the leftists and centrists spheres, and almost everyone, but foremost the
Green Party, is trying to ride that wave to the finish line. Don't expect peoples first
policies, climate change will dominate the election, and we'll likely be wrapped up in more
deindustrialization coupled with an ever more chaotic energy policy. If anything the average
persons cost of living in terms of rent, energy, food and transportation will continue to
rise, while jobs in traditional industry sectors will continue to fall off. I haven't heard a
coherent plan on how the German economy is supposed to work like 10 years from now, and there
likely is none, all I expect is more taxes and the possibility of plundering social security
trust funds to address whatever critical infrastructure issue will face us next.
@14
Green-Party was about to oust the Conservatives in a major federal state election. People got
really riled up by nuclear, especially since there already was an ongoing controversy around
long term waste storage. It was one of Merkels signature opportunistic moves that aimed to
size the moment in absence of long term planing. It didn't work btw, Greens still ousted
them, but once you make a big move like that there's not going back without losing face, but
it does seem like exiting nuclear proved to be a popular strategy with the electorate in the
long run. I'm sure that are more complex/intricate theories around, but I can't speak on
that
Thanks b. The Empire of the Deranged is in a steady downward slide. By its own hand,
through financial engineering (stock buy back schemes fueled by bailout's of bankrupt
corporations plus derivatives etc. etc.) Add to this, restrictions on the use of swift. The
US devalues its own currency. Other countries are not so interested in purchasing US debt to
offset rising US deficit. Include all of that with our foreign policymaking which angers even
our allies like Germany, as you point out with NS2. The Leaders think they can snap their
fingers and bring the world to heel. That ship sailed a long time ago. The multi-polar world
is a reality that the paper tiger struggles with. To Glen Greenwald's Brazil, US influence
evaporates should Lula get elected as the next President. The tiger is toothless Glen, no
need to give it more authority than it has.
With the US pressuring Germany to end NS-2 in favor of importing much more expensive
fracked US gas, we see that the US thinks there is nothing wrong with asking it's vassal
states to cut their own throats (forego steps to retain their economic competitiveness) to
please their patron. The idiocy of Cold War 2 is costing US allies a lot and seems inimical
to the very idea of US allies even regarding their own national interests. One would hope
this is leading to either a re-evaluation of these alliances or a revolt of the satraps.
thanks b... Agree that "the U.S. has no right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular
businesses between foreign partners." Every journalists needs to be making this key point.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Vladimir Putin in his Munich (2007) speech announced Russia's pivot away from the Dollar
Empire and unwillingness to be a vassal. The Dollar Empire challenged Russia through Georgia
in 2008. Obama & Clinton fooled Russia through their reset announcement and got a go
ahead to attack Libya. The relationship was calm in 2012. Obama fooled Medvedev by saying,
"he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues," after reelection, in
early 2012. However, Vladimir Putin was back in 2013 and the Dollar Empire realized it has
been outplayed. It moved aggressively after the two outside Russian military bases in Syria
and Ukraine. Russia captured Crimea in 2014, and Putin declared Russia's willingness to go to
war in Syria (2015). The Imperial Council
of the United States was surprised by Russia's move into Syria and wasn't ready for a
war. In the meantime, China was developing strong. Here comes Trump in 2017. It seems like
the Imperial Council and its Intelligence Community came with a new ploy to associate Trump
with Russia, so they can bully China and bend it over on trade. China stood up to Empire's
challenge and developed its independence plan! In the meantime Trump increased sanctions on
Russia using the Congress as a pretext while strengthening Ukraine. The sanctions on the Nord
Stream 2 brought halt to work in December 2019. Did Trump FOOL Putin/Russia by stating, "he
will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues," after reelection? The
reasoning behind this question is that Russia didn't start work on the pipeline until the
election was over in December 2020. One year wait to start work on the pipeline.
MISSING DIMENSIONS
Why isn't Greenwald speaking against the dollar monetary imperialism and enslavement? Very
rarely one come across a journalist that shines light on reality and exposes truth. It seems
like Empire's MSM and journalists are making a big deal of this minuscule Nord Stream 2
sanction waiving. Why? It is just propaganda and perception management to create distrust in
the China-Russia relationship? No one is mentioning Russia's redlines or its ability to
retaliate to additional sanctions. Andrei Martyanow gets it right!
Please analyze every geopolitical
development from the MONETARY lens too. Russia as part of its De-Dollarization plan is
offering energy deals in national currencies to win nations in Eurasia, including Japan. In
which currency is the U$A offering its LNG ? US$? Also, it seems like Russia's transit
payments to Ukraine are in the US$. In addition to providing an alternate route, the Nord
Stream 2 increases Russia's leverage with Ukraine. Imagine if those transit payments were in
Rubles to Ukraine, Russia's leverage will be immense.
China, Russia, Germany, Japan... (Non-$ Bloc) are standing up to dollar's monetary
imperialism, and seeking more trade in their respective national currencies. The EU and
Germany will pay for its energy in Euros and reduce threats to their economies. Why don't
journalists address the monetary or currency dimensions?
RUSSIAN SUCCESSES?
Successfully completing the Nord Stream 2 and supplying gas to Europe in Euros will be a huge
victory for Russia and Germany. It has yet to implement its agreements (Minsk, Astana,
JCPOA...). All its conflicts are frozen and unresolved. Please share agreements that Russia
has successfully delivered on in the 21st Century, particularly when the Dollar Empire is
involved. Will the Empire surprise Russia by attacking on multiple fronts?
To say that there is a shift in US geopolitical policies, is an understatement. In short,
IMO, Biden is going back to Obama's plan and his pivot to Asia. Therefore, it is China,
China, China. Nothing else matters that much right now.
1. Nordstream 2 settled"¦..check
2. Germany and Europeans happy"¦..check
3. Settling ME problems with going back to JCPOA, promoting KSA and Iran peace, pulling out
of Afghanistan (not ME)"¦..check
4. Putting Israel in its place (via a shift in media coverage and taking away support slowly
and congress expressions of outrage) "¦..check
5. Abstention form UN resolution punishing Israel"¦"¦.coming up
6. Taking Europeans to the South East China confrontation"¦..coming up
7. Prying away Iran and Russia away from China"¦"¦wishful thinking,
hopefully.
8. Ousting Netanyahoo"¦"¦coming up
Although, Biden is a zionist, Netanyahu and his antics are not convenient at this time and
Israel takes a back seat to grand chessboard strategy.
Greenwald's and b's commentaries are a bit of a sideshow, in my opinion. Best concentrate
on the outcome and the bigger picture instead of this he said she said.
What happened this year is that the winter was cold, gas storage in Europe was nearly
depleted, and Europe needed huge amounts of russian gas.
The other problem is that LNG is more expensive in Asia, causing LNG producers and
shippers to prefer the asian market.
There are many more issues as well - such as the hit on US producers by the Covid crisis,
Germany moving the carbon goal posts from 2050 to 2045, green energy problems this winter in
Germany, explosions on pipelines in Ukraine, and so on.
It is also true that Russia is readying Power of Siberia 2 and 3 pipelines to China, as
well as actively developing its own LNG exports.
The disputed claim by Greenwald is that, "Nord Stream 2... is designed to double Russian
sales capacity to an EU addicted to cheap Russian natural gas, producing massive revenue for
the Russian economy and giving Moscow greater leverage when dealing with its European
neighbors." This is very different from the statement that NS2 together with NS1 is twice the
capacity of NS1 on its own.
There are several, to my mind, wrongful assumptions in Greenwald's claim.
The first, that the EU wants to increase its purchases of Russian gas, but is prevented
from doing so solely due to the lack of infrastructure which, presumably, is operating at
full capacity. From this assumption, it then follows that Russia is expecting massive
revenues from an increase in transit capacity, since customers are already standing by.
Finally, as a result of supplying significantly more gas to Europe and earning substantially
more money from it, Moscow can be expected to take advantage of its position as an energy
supplier to pressure Europe over political matters.
While it's true that European gas-needs are growing, it's more of a long-term projected
development and not some energy crisis straining the current configuration. A more topical
and urgent crisis is the situation in Ukraine and the state of disrepair of the gas transit
infrastructure in that country, which not long ago accounted for 80% of Russian gas supplied
to Europe. IIRC, official estimates gave these pipelines a few short years before becoming
unusable without major repair efforts -- something like 5 years -- and coupled with the state
of the country itself, it's not impossible that the pipelines outlive the state.
If we, for the sake of argument, assume that Ukraine and/or the gas infrastructure on that
territory ceases to function tomorrow, halting all gas transits to Europe in the blink of an
eye, which isn't as far-fetched as you might think, the result would be an energy crisis.
Already, this crisis would not be of catastrophic proportions as it would have been a mere
decade ago, due to alternative transit routes established to lessen reliance on Ukrainian
pipelines. NS2 is designed to eliminate reliance on Ukrainian pipelines completely, if one
disregards various political commitments made by Russia on Europe's behalf to retain part of
its gas export through Ukraine, which I'm sure would fall to the wayside the moment European
capitals started going dark. Of course, cutting off transit states also has the added benefit
of making the gas cheaper and thus the contract becomes more lucrative, but that's more of a
bonus.
If we, for the sake of argument, assume that all the pipelines to Europe are working at
full capacity, and Europe desperately needs more gas -- say, 25 years from now when no new
green alternatives have presented themselves and no new pipelines have been built because the
war of sanctions continues -- there's always LNG, which Russia can supply at a competitive
price, and the port infrastructure for that is already available, provided the EU is willing
to resolve its energy problems collectively.
From this it follows that, no, Russia isn't expecting massive revenues to come flooding in
at the completion of NS2. They're presumably expecting massive revenues from new energy
projects in Asia, but they're at worst expecting to retain the current revenue in the
European market, and at best see it grow in connection with European economy. Certainly, they
wouldn't like to lose the European market, especially due to unpredictable incidents abroad
that are outside of their control, but Europe is arguably much more vulnerable and has more
to lose from such an eventuality.
Lastly, since we are no longer expecting an immediate increase in European reliance on
Russian energy following NS2, how does it translate to Russian leverage over European
politics? Russia is already Europe's main supplier of, not only gas, but crude oil which
accounts for 2/3 of Europe's energy supply (gas is 24%). If Russia wants to leverage its
position as the main energy supplier to Europe, it does not need NS2 to do so, and shutting
down NS2 will not prevent it from doing so.
It's Izvestia and it was in Russian, that's why I'm not able to recover it. It was also
machine translated, so I may well have gotten the wrong message.
But yeah, from what I understood, the spirit of the article was that it was just a matter
of time before Russia start to deliver LNG to Western and Northern Europe at much more
competitive prices than the American LNG, through the Arctic route (investment in
icebreakers, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, nuclear reactors etc. etc.).
"... A draft report published online by the assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs caused consternation in Russian media on Monday, after statements came to light that argued the bloc "should establish with the US a transatlantic alliance to defend democracy globally" and "deter Russia" from supposed aggression in Eastern Europe. ..."
A draft report published
online by the assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs caused consternation in Russian media on Monday, after statements came
to light that argued the bloc "should establish with the US a transatlantic alliance to defend democracy globally" and "deter
Russia" from supposed aggression in Eastern Europe.
As part of its "vision" for future ties with Moscow, the paper concludes that the EU should put forward a number of incentives
designed to persuade Russians that a turn to the West would be beneficial, including visa liberalization and "free trade investment."
[...]
At the same time, the committee puts forward a number of extreme steps that it says the bloc should take. It insists that
Brussels "must be prepared not to recognize the parliament of Russia and to ask for Russia's suspension from international
organizations with parliamentary assemblies if the 2021 parliamentary elections in Russia are recognized as fraudulent."
The success or failure of this operation will depend entirely on the Russian people. Will it fall for the Western European
honey trap once again?
After Putin is gone, bets are off. Also, the EU continues to suffer from refugee waves from Syria and Libya, and its economy
continues to deteriorate (recession confirmed for Q1 2021). The whole system is so exhausted that they don't talk about even of
the absorption of Moldova anymore (the Moldovan president had to bring that up to the Kremlin; good they remembered them).
This looks like Biden had some surge of sanity, but it's not: I read an article on Izvestia some days ago and it seems Russia
won the war for the Arctic and has expelled the USA from that sea. That, combined with the fact that Russia has been ramping up
investment on the sector, results in the fact that, soon enough, Russia will also have the infrastructure to deliver cheaper LNG
by ship to Europe, too.
That means the USA has given up on the NordStream II in order to hurt the Russian LNG investments. Yes, people, that's the
insanity of the situation: the USG is completely lost. It still has its ace in the hole, though: the Green Party is set to win
the next German general elections, and they're rabid Atlanticists. Like, this would cost Germany dearly and they wouldn't last
two years in government, but at least Russian gas to Europe through a non-Ukrainian route would be stopped.
Speaking of the Ukraine, this whole situation makes us reflect: it is patent at this point in time that the EU is a subsidiary
of NATO - it expands eastwards after those countries become NATO members. They're the "socioeconomic" version of NATO. This has
created a huge problem for the EU, though, because the Ukraine is a massive financial black hole to the American economy (through
the IMF) and the USA is pressuring the EU to make it a member quick, so that this black hole goes to European (i.e. German) hands.
The thing is Germany obviously doesn't want that, because it needs the Euro to keep at where it is or stronger (you can only enter
the EU by entering the EZ nowadays). The Ukraine is salivating to become an EZ member - that's the whole point of the Maidan coup
in the first place - so Ukraine entering the EU without entering the EZ is out of the table. The EU must've told the USA that
no, the Ukraine must first become a NATO member, then they'll make it an EZ-EU member. The Ukraine is the proverbial hot potato.
All of that coupled with the hard economic fact that, without the Russian gas transit exclusivity, you can't leverage Ukraine's
debt, because, after Maidan, all of the public goods and infrastructure were privatized to American capitalists. That means we
have the absurd situation where Germany has to give up cheaper gas for itself (which would be essential for its economic recovery)
in order to make the Ukraine happy so that it enters the EU, so that it becomes a financial black hole... to the German economy!
Germany has to pay the Ukraine for the privilege of having to pay it even more, for eternity.
The price of nation-building has become more and more expensive to the capitalist world. Turns out those Third World shitholes
have learned something after all those decades.
Taiwan is also suffering from a significant brain drain to the Mainland. They're trying to solve the problem by demonizing
those people by calling them "traitors".
Probably it was not a false flag. First of all the state of IT security at Colonial Pipeline
was so dismal that it was strange that this did not happened before. And there might be
some truth that they try to exploit this hack to thier advantage as maintenance of the
pipeline is also is dismal shape.
Notable quotes:
"... "As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went." If you are right about the perpetrators, my guess would be that it went into the black-ops fund, two birds one stone. ..."
"... I have become so used to false flags, I am going to be shocked when a real intrusion happens! ..."
"... an in depth article researching solarwinds hack - looks like it was Israel, not a great leap to see that colonial was a false flag https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/01/investigative-reports/another-mega-group-spy-scandal-samanage-sabotage-and-the-solarwinds-hack/ ..."
"... Regarding the ownership of Colonial Pipeline: 'IFM Investors, which is owned by 27 Australian union- and employer-backed industry superannuation funds, owns a 16 per cent stake in Colonial Pipeline, which the infrastructure manager bought in 2007 for $US651 million.' ..."
"... 'The privately held Colonial Pipeline is valued at about $US8 billion, based upon the most recent sale of a 10 per cent stake to a unit of Royal Dutch Shell in 2019.' ..."
The Colonial Pipeline Co.,ransomware attack was a false flag. They wanted to blame Russian
hackers so they could derail Nordstream II
It is common knowledge that the only real hackers that are able of such sabotage is CIA
and Israeli. It's the same attack types they do to Iranian infrastructure on a regular
basis.
The Russians are not that stupid to do something they know will be blamed on them and is
of no political use to them. And could derail Nordstream2.
As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went. CEO is ultra corrupt. They
never ever invested in their infrastructure so when it went down they came up with a
profitable excuse. Just look at their financials/balance sheet over the years. No real
investment in updating and maintaining infrastructure. Great false flag. Corruption and
profiteering.
"As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went." If you are right
about the perpetrators, my guess would be that it went into the black-ops fund, two birds one
stone.
I'm not familiar with your handle - hello. IMO, it would be counterproductive for Russia
to initiate such a hack. What really affects and debilitates US oil and gas interests is low
prices, both at the pump and on the stock exchange. The hack helped jack up prices (which
were already being jacked-up despite demand still lagging behind supply) which only HELPS
those energy interests. It has long been known, the math isn't complicated, what level crude
must trade at for US domestic oil & gas operations to be profitable. Remember that just
as the pandemic was emerging Russia and Saudi Arabia once again sent the global crude market
into the depths of despair.
I do agree the hack can be interpreted in light of the desperation of US energy interests
to try to kill NS2. I have not yet read the recent articles discussing Biden's recent moves
in that regard. If these moves are a recognition that US LNG to Europe (and elsewhere) are
diametrically opposed to climate responsibility, I'd welcome those moves. As is usually the
case though, environmental responsibility is probably the least likely reason.
Regarding the ownership of Colonial Pipeline: 'IFM Investors, which is owned by 27
Australian union- and employer-backed industry superannuation funds, owns a 16 per cent stake
in Colonial Pipeline, which the infrastructure manager bought in 2007 for $US651
million.'
also
'The privately held Colonial Pipeline is valued at about $US8 billion, based upon the
most recent sale of a 10 per cent stake to a unit of Royal Dutch Shell in 2019.'
-The Greens, if they "win" will not win with a majority. That means they will need
coalition partners. Neither the CDU or the SPD is going to go along with their plan to stop
NS2. The Greens, in order to form a govt. will cave in on NS2 and probably other things.
-The Ukies are still fleeing the country to avoid going to the front. The Ukie brass says
as much. These are not soldiers. They are farm kids. At the 1st sign of serious war, they
will all head for the russians with hands in the air.
-V. Putin handled the western MSM narrative quite well, imo, when he said "Those behind
provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done
in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time." It can't be clearer than that.
And that tells me that the ussa is in the crosshairs. This may be the 1st time in history
that the oceans will offer no protection for the warmongers that have been at war for 222
years of 237 years of their existence
The comedian is still flaying about and now trying to play the SWIFT card (last week it
was nuclear weapons, before that it was...). Which, of course, the west will not honor
because it would cripple the west as much or more than RU. I would imagine he needs to change
his undershorts on an hourly basis these days. He is literally caught between a rock and a
hard spot. No more support from DE, FR, US, NATO, TR except good wishes. And demands from his
brain-dead Banderites are only growing more shrill. What's a poor comic to do?
The west is basically done with him and with the show of force by the russians they are
more done with him than before. For his sake, i hope his khazarian passport app has been
approved.
Another failed state compliments of the khazarians in DC. And the beat goes on.
Eighthman @10 North Stream 2 will be the last mayor cooperation between Russia and Europe
for the next 10, 20 years. If you had to choose where to put your money, would you put it in
a gas pipeline to China (Power of Siberia) or a gas pipeline to Europe (North Stream2)?
Putin will be the last Russian president who looked west, to Europe; the next president
will look east, to Asia. It's where the money is.
I know how the German system works. Yet I am not seeing the Greens win or compose the next
government if they threaten to cancel NS2. The NS2 is not about the CDU/CSU but about the
German elite interest. No way they are going to give green light to the Greens. Speaking of
someone which city is on the border.
There is ONE little thing Mike Whitney missed, or maybe it developed as/after he wrote
this, the State Department told Germany last week there would be no further sanctions on
Germany or her companies as regards Nordstream II. I believe also that a four-Euro-country
coalition told the U.S. a couple of weeks ago that this was for Germany's energy security,
Nordstream that is and they sounded like they're serious about any further American
interference in the matter.
On the subject of LNG, is it even possible to transport enough LNG from the United States
to Germany in quantity equal to the flow of Nordstream II? That pipe they're laying looks of
sufficient diameter to walk through standing up, it's going to pass a LOT of gas. I don't
know what the flow rates and pressures are, but I know one thing; Boston has a large LNG
terminal and it's a dangerous setup. Pipelines seem to me a safer enterprise.
-The Ziocorporate globalist NATO/EU terrorists: We supported Chechen terrorist separatists
and KLA organ-harvesting Jihadis, dismembered Yugoslavia and bombed Serbia, used your Russian
airspace that you opened for us to invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 Zioterrorist
self-attacks, instigated Georgia into war with Russia, used your UNSC vote to destroy Libya
with ISIS, turned EUkraine into a NATO satellite complete with an bloody massacre in Odessa
and yet another massmurderous war on Russia's border and blamed and sanctioned you for it,
shot down your planes in Syria; and we're gonna be taking Belarus the moment Lukashenko
blinks. But we're really good business partners, and need some gas, you know...
To my American readers I'd say that the US is very strong and the people of the US can
have a wonderful life even without world hegemony, in fact, hegemony is not in their
interests at all. What they should seek is a strong nationalist policy that cares for
the American people and avoids wasteful foreign wars.
The problem here, is that the American people are crushed and powerless, and in the grip
of something morphing into a Neo-Bolshevik style dictatorship. Similarly to the mid 1930's
this dictatorship wants world power – and from this perspective Ukraine looks more like
Spain 1936 (the first act of a much bigger show).
Biden's recent phone call to Putin suggests that the administration has decided not to
launch a war after all. The unconfirmed report of two US ships turning away from the Black
Sea fits this assessment. However, we cannot be sure about this since the Kremlin refused
to agree to Biden's offer for a meeting. The Kremlin's response was a frosty "We shall
study the proposal". Russians feel that the summit proposal might be a trick aimed at
buying time to strengthen their position.
Except that the US ordered two British warships to go there instead.
TASS, April 18. Two British warships will sail for the Black Sea in May. According to
The Sunday Times, a source in the Royal Navy indicated that this gesture is intended to
show solidarity with Ukraine and NATO in the region against the background of the situation
at the Russian-Ukrainian border.
According to the newspaper, one Type 45 destroyer armed with anti-aircraft missiles and
an anti-submarine Type 23 frigate will peel off from the Royal Navy's carrier task group in
the Mediterranean and sail through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea.
It is reported that the decision was made in order to support Ukraine after the US
cancelled its plans of sending two destroyers to the Black Sea in order to avoid further
escalation in the region and tensions with Russia. It is noted that in case of a threat on
the part of Russia, the UK is ready to send other military equipment to the region.
I would guess that the US Trotskyites plan to push the Ukrainians into a war and then
launch a massive international media barrage, "heroic Ukrainian patriots", "Russian
atrocities", "killer Putin" etc. sufficient to finish with Nord Stream 2 and scare France and
Germany back into the US fold.
If this is right, then they're not expecting Russia to retake the whole of the Ukraine,
and they're not planning to start WW3.
However, Russia's lowest risk strategy would probably still be to only defend their
existing positions making it difficult to claim a "Russian invasion". They've probably
already lost Nord Stream (which is really a German loss – and the Germans know what the
ZioGlob are doing here). This buys time, and given that the US is already on a fast downward
slope, lets them keep sliding.
@Anonymous
point the finger and shriek about 'Russian aggression' in order to pressure the Germans into
cancelling Nordstream 2 and any other Russian supplied energy.
Of course if the Europeans weren't run by (((banker))) stooges and if they had any balls
between them they would force the US to call the whole thing off and pressure the Ukrainian
fascists to honour the Minsk 2 agreement. Sadly we are just going to have to prepare for the
worst and hope it doesn't go nuclear.
I see my own government (I am from the UK) has decided to send some sacrificial ships to
the Black sea (the US apparently doesn't want to risk theirs) What else can we expect when
2/3 of our parliament are in 'Friends of Israel' groups?
The Ukrainians who would the hardest to pacify are in the Ukie Diaspora in US, Canada and
Western Europe. These folks still maintain a WW II mentality, act as if the Holodomor (which
was terrible) only happened the other day and have a fair number of Banderists among their
number. They do not wish to acknowledge that the Holodomor was orchestrated by the same Jews
who launched the Bolshevik Revolution and killed millions of Orthodox Russians more than a
decade beforehand. The ideal would be for Ukraine to maintain it territorial integrity minus
perhaps the Donbas and go forward with a positive relationship with Russia.
@Anonymous
refugees, including tens of thousands of Russian passport holders, trek into Russia, creating
a nightmare for Putin. Ukranazistan is enormously emboldened, joins NATO de facto if not yet
de jure, Russia is tremendously weakened, loses all allies and prospective allies. Win for
Amerikastan.
Scenario 2: Putin intervenes.
Result: Amerikastan leaves the Ukranazis high and dry, but shrieks about Evil Russian
Invasion; NordStream II and all other economic connections with Europe are severed.
Amerikastan immensely reasserts its control over Europe, sells its LNG to Germany at much
inflated prices, and its useless weapons to everyone to "defend against Russia". Hands Russia
the unenviable burden of the ruin of Ukranazistan, which Amerikastan has looted for 7 years
till there is nothing left. Win for Amerikastan.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist ttlement of Disputes". Hopefully it will direct the attention of
the Security Council or the General Assembly to realize the Russian Federation and permanent
member of the UNSC, see no other path to peace if the representatives of the UN fail to make
a just and fair decision on this particular matter that has gone on for far too long.
This in itself does not necessarily mean the armies of Russia will pour over Ukraine's
western border and over their northern border from Belarus. But the declaration of defensive
war puts US-NATO in a Hobson's choice predicament and that is to choose peace. If they choose
to cross the Rubicon then the necessity of defense war as theoretically stated will happen to
preserve the sovereignty of Mother Russia.
Less than 11% of ukrainians are Catholic -- less than 1% "Latin Rite" and 10% Uniate
Catholic -- and they are concentrated overwhelmingly in the oblasty bordering Poland and
Slovakia etc. in the west. Catholicism does not exist in the Donbass region and has almost
zero presence or influence in the rest of the Ukraine excluding the far west.
Russian and Ukrainian are even more similar than you make out, albeit not nearly-identical
like Russian and Belarussian.
In any event, many Ukrainians consider BOTH Russian and ukrainian to be their native
languages.
Moreover, a large minority of people, especially around Kiev, use the Russian-Ukrainian
mix called Surzhyk.
If the MIC/Banksters like the brinkmanship games so much, it would be interesting to see
Russian nuclear submarines emerging near Patagonia (Jewish "retreat") and Cuba. A piece of
leaked information about the City of London being on a crosshair of Kinzhal will be a bonus.
Add to that the publication of a detailed map of underground luxury bunkers for the
"deciders;" that would be super nice.
The cannibals – the "globally-oriented elites" – need to feel the flaming spear
directed towards each of them (and their progeny) personally. The confrontation has indeed
become personal: the ZUSA's "elites" against humankind.
@Miro23
re it fit best how would that be a bad thing?
Some to Russia, some to Poland, some to a rump State.
I would love to see Putin, Lavrov and Shoigu cook up a feast for Bidet Joe and Camel Toe tbat
would see them humiliated. Bidet is a fraud and anything that makes him and his little goblin
Blinkenfeld look like idiots is great.
We can only hope!
P.S. It must really suck to be a Ukrainian. Here we are in the 21st century and these guys
can't get out from being stuck in the mud. The young have to leave for Poland to get jobs.
And for what reason, so American Jews can get their Hate On for the Czar?! All the
Greenblatts need war crime charges. Convict and execute the next morning. All legal. Force is
all these vermin understand.
@Anonymous
oke Putin into overreacting, thus, proving that Russia poses a threat to all of Europe. The
only way Washington can persuade its EU allies that they should not engage in critical
business transactions (like Nordstream) with Moscow, is if they can prove that Russia is an
"external threat" to their collective security.
Shamir unfortunately became fixated on Whitney's use of the word "overreact" (though I agree
it's not the right word) and mostly failed to address the substance of the question and its
underlying premise.
And, as a postscript, I agree with animalogic. Your kindergarten language is embarrassing. I
mean, if you're going to insult Escobar et al., at least use adult insults.
In the unlikely event that Ukraine does try to take back the Donbas by force, Shakespeare
has already devised the appropriate stage direction for the Zelensky government:
"Get your hands off my country," Zimerman told the stunned crowd in a denunciation of US
plans to install a missile defence shield on Polish soil. Some people cheered, others yelled
at him to shut up and keep playing. A few dozen walked out, some of them shouting
obscenities.
I've played hundreds of Russians at chess, and they prefer what chess players call "quiet
moves." (Unlike US players, who are more impetuous). Same for Putin; quiet moves. But if
provoked, he will finish the job. (Adm Spruance, after Pearl Harbor: By not attacking the tank
farms, sub base, and machine shops, they had not "finished the job.
The "western" Ukraine you cite may have been culturally Ukrainian/Russian/eastern Slavic,
several hundred years ago. But as they were under Polish and later Austro-Hungarian
overlordship for many generations, they became westernized–culturally deracinated. They
are Galicians, NOT Ukrainians.
If Ukraine retains some level of political independence, they need to divorce these
culturally undigestible Uniates and their fascistic leadership. Currently that group poses a
toxicity to the body-politick of Ukraine, however else you may wish to define Kievan Rus.
@Bombercommand
> In some ways your take is apropos, particularly regarding potential Russian overextending.
You do place a lot of reliance on "International Law". With little incidents like Trump's
overturning of the uranium-processing accords with Iran, plus numerous other violations by the
U$/British consortium working as the intel and military enforcement arms for the Bank$ter
Cabal; international law has been constantly and consistently violated.
Geopolitically speaking, in terms of realistic "real politick", as per Bismark, no national
regime regards such nice-sounding accords as valid and inviolable. At some unknown future time,
genuine International Law may become a reality. At present, it is primarily a smiley-faced
mask.
A bear has never been a "Russian totem animal". Eagles, falcons, wolves – but never
bears. "Russian bear" is a product of the British russophobic propaganda of the Crimean war of
the 19 century.
The ukies are not Russians. Russian society looks forward demolition of the ukronazi
statehood, but without any form of integration of the Northern Somalia into our country. A few
million insurgent anarchists on top of all our problems would finish us.
The fanatics who actually live in Ukraine can be easily traced and kept under control. Their
funding would be cut off. They are a tiny portion of the population.
In the last elections that were won by Zelensky, the parties that wanted peace with Russia
represented over 95% of the population. Zelensky deceived everyone by continuing exactly the
same policies of Poroshenko. In fact, he was worse as he recently shut down all opposition TV
stations.
1n 2019, the only area in favour of continuing the war was brick-red on this map. Today, due
to the collapsing economy and the lockdowns, there are even fewer people in favour of war. The
Russians would be welcomed almost everywhere.
Fraud Bidet and little goblin Blinkenfeld; amusing but true nevertheless.
And I couldn't agree more when it comes to what you say about Ukraine, i.e. the borderland.
According to my sister who lives in Poland, Ukraincy (in Polish "those from bordeland) are
everyplace.
I would add that the western part of Ukarine "released" to join Poland would just allow the
evil empire to occupy that much land even closer to Russia. I don't see that as desirable.
Perhaps that western
extremity is something that needs to be made "independent" and demilitarized, perhaps with UN
peacekeepers present. At any rate, it needs to be rendered as no danger to Russia.
I have thought that by making Ukraine unavailable to the native neo-nazies there, they are
forced to relocate, and then become a major headache for their damaging and dangerous influence
in Europe.
Call it "blowback" . just another reason for the Europeans to defuse any American smart ideas
in their neighbourhood.
Canadian, British and hand-picked nazi battalions attempt to enter the no mans land, come
under mortar fire, go to ground and ask their artillery to save them.
Ukrainian/nato artillery battalions get counter-batteried into oblivion by ru artillery
regiments stationed in range.
Commanders at battalion level ask for a cease-fire, evacuate their troops back to the starting
line.
V.V. Putin, being merciful and kind, agrees.
Russia wins.
Fifth variant
Nothing happens except for a lot of hot air, troop movements and wails from Lugenpresse.
Status quo is maintained, zato keeps paying for the Ukrainian Project.
Russia wins.
They are already being treated as an outlaw state, and although Russians are inhumanly
patient, as I've seen for too long firsthand, this may figure into any looming brinkmanship
– as Lavrov's recent exasperated remark about the US being incapable of negotiation may
indicate.
True, There is zero need for the US to play Imperial Global Overlord because of the
natural resources on North America. It is only the greed and hubris of the Elites, who cannot
ever be satisfied.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire is very much an Evil Empire.
The Ukraine Crisis Recedes - But A False Narrative Of It Leads To Bad Conclusions
Some two month ago we discussed how the
U.S. focus on narratives will let it collide with reality . It is certainly not only the
U.S. government that creates narratives, comes to believe in them, and then fails when it is
confronted with reality. Carried by think tanks and media the narrative mold has grown
throughout the wider 'western' world.
On the danger of this development the above piece quoted Alastair Crooke who wrote
:
[B]eing so invested, so immersed, in one particular 'reality', others' 'truths' then will
not – cannot – be heard. They do not stand out proud above the endless flat plain
of consensual discourse. They cannot penetrate the hardened shell of a prevailing narrative
bubble, or claim the attention of élites so invested in managing their
own version of reality .
The 'Big Weakness'? The élites come to believe their own narratives –
forgetting that the narrative was conceived as an illusion, one among others, created to
capture the imagination within their society (not others').
They lose the ability to stand apart, and see themselves – as others see them. They
become so enraptured by the virtue of their version of the world, that they lose all ability
to empathise or accept others' truths. They cannot hear the signals. The point here, is that
in that talking past (and not listening) to other states, the latters' motives and intentions
will be mis-construed – sometimes tragically so.
Over the last weeks we passed through a crisis that easily could have had a tragic
ending.
Since February the Ukraine built up a force to retake the renegade Donbas region in
east-Ukraine by military force. After waiting several week to see the situation more clearly
Russia started to assemble a counterforce backed up by statements that were sufficiently strong
to deter the Ukraine from continuing its plans. The danger of a Ukrainian assault has now
receded.
Today the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu gave orders for the troops to return to their bases.
Much of the equipment though will stay on training grounds near Ukraine until the regular fall
maneuvers later this year take place. That minimizes transport costs and gives a little time
advantage should someone in the Ukraine again have silly ideas.
Russia has clearly won this round.
But that is not how it looks when seen from the 'western' narrative. In that version the
Ukrainian plans and its assembling of heavy weapons and troops near the Donbas border never
happened. The narrative says that the whole incident started as a 'Russian aggression' when
Russia very publicly showed its potential force.
Only a few
analysts on the 'western' side have rejected that narrative and stuck to reality. Dmitri
Trenin of Carnegie's Moscow Center is one who got it right :
In February, Zelensky ordered troops (as part of the rotation process) and heavy weapons (as
a show of force) to go near to the conflict zone in Donbas. He did not venture out as far as
Poroshenko, who dispatched small Ukrainian naval vessels through the Russian-controlled
waters near the Kerch Strait in late 2018, but it was enough to get him noticed in Moscow.
The fact of the matter is that even if Ukraine cannot seriously hope to win the war in
Donbas, it can successfully provoke Russia into action. This, in turn, would produce a
knee-jerk reaction from Ukraine's Western supporters and further aggravate Moscow's
relations, particularly with Europe. One way or another, the fate of Nord Stream II will
directly affect Ukraine's interests. Being seen as a victim of Russian aggression and
presenting itself as a frontline state checking Russia's further advance toward Europe is a
major asset of Kyiv's foreign policy.
Russia intentionally over reacted to Kiev's opening move. It demonstrated its overkill
capability and made it clear to Zelensky's western sponsors that any further provocations would
have extremely harsh consequences.
Those behind provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what
they have done in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time.
Zelensky's plan did not work out. While he did get verbal statements of support from Biden
and NATO everyone knew that those were empty promises.
But for people who have fallen for the false narrative the situation looks different.
Consider this reaction to Shoigu's return-to-barracks order today from a member of the
European Council On Foreign Relations (a U.S. lobby shop in Europe):
I have to congratulate (Flag of United States) @JoeBiden to deterence success and crisis
management. The right warnings were sent to Moscow, the right intelligence to Ukraine. (Flag
of Russia) could not extort concessions, could not provoke. Let's see w. these forces aren't
just redeployed to (Flag of Belarus).
Indeed Biden's order last week to
pull back two war ships that were supposed to go into the Black Sea to support Ukraine was
really great deterrence. But that was not a warning to Moscow. It did not deter Russia from
doing anything. But it did end Zelensky's illusions of U.S. support.
But for Gressel, who like others is stuck to the 'western' narrative, the sense is
different. He really seems to believe that the U.S. deterred Russia from some nefarious plans
which it never had. He ignores that Russia reacted to a Ukrainian provocation in a way that, in
the end, has made NATO and the U.S. look weak.
The danger is that Gressel, and other 'political scientists' like him, may once take up
government positions and use their learned illusions to handle the next crisis. Stuck in the
idea that Russia will retreat if only 'deterred' enough they will lean to measures that are
outright hostile to Russia and may have indeed very tragic consequences. To repeat Crooke's
warning
:
The point here, is that in that talking past (and not listening) to other states, the
latters' motives and intentions will be mis-construed – sometimes tragically so.
Posted by b on April 22, 2021 at 17:25 UTC |
Permalink
The Russians have only partly gone. Heavy weapons will remain in place which can be
reactivated easily. (Particularly in Crimea). However the Russian "Threat" to Zelnsky is
still there. Logically he should now have more difficulty in stirring up the EU and US for
cash and weapons as the "obvious and visble" threat is diminished. I don't think his troops
can stay indefinitely where they are. How can he continue to pay for all his new mercenaries,
new arms?
So how is the MSM going to react? They have a lot of "journalists" around there, waiting
for something to happen.
One obvious factor is that the supply lines of both are within their own countries
(Ukraine for Ukrainians, and Russia for the Russians). Those that have the longest supply
lines are NATO, the UK and US.
An earlier ploy (Attempted violent assasination of Lukashenko and most of the Belarussian
parliament), with Georgia and other close by countries getting involved too, is now unlikely.
BUT the US is desperate to cut the Russian-Chinese access to Europe by any means. What's
next? Plan ....F?
The Western narrative was also very clearly visible in the latest printed "Der Spiegel"
16/2021 (News magazine in Germany). They had a 4 page article about Ukraine with the title
"On the edge of war". They reported at length about russian troops near the border.
Explicitely they wrote about sabre rattling from russia and generally gave the impression
that all action is solely on the russian side and must be seen negatively or with grave
concerns.
But they failed completely to mention Ukrainian troop movements, bellicose rhetoric or even
the Zelensky's decrete 117/2021 from march 23rd with the translated title "Strategy of
de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol".
b... thanks.. yes - narrative and controlling the narrative is what so much of this is
about.... people in the west are not told of ukraines role in any of this or how they are
encouraged by the west... instead what they are told is how russia is building up along the
ukraine border.... in other words only one side of the story is told, and not both..nor is
the timing of all of it shared either... people are literally given a script or narrative
tailor made for brainwashing.. and indeed it works on most...
for an example of this today - i was listening to cbc radio - national news show ''the
currenct''.. the host matt galloway discusses the situation with Mark MacKinnon, senior
international correspondent for the Globe and Mail; Nina Khrushcheva, professor of
international affairs at the New School in New York; and Michael Bociurkiw, global affairs
analyst, formerly with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
I am not so sure that this is over. The Belarus coup was intended to be around May 9.
Zelensky has called up the reserves who ever they might be. He just floated the idea of
banning Russia from the SWIFT so that it is on everyone's mind when Ukraine claims they were
attacked. The NS2 will likely be initially complete in May. The USS Cook and Roosevelt are
waiting for the British boats and will likely enter together. They have not yet given notice
that I have seen. Two frigates are transiting the Suez to join their fellow yanks. I see a
perfect storm yet coming. Shoigu is bright and knows that it looks good to announce the
return to barracks, but he has access to my data plus a ton more. He knows that the situation
is still fluid and volatile.
... But for Gressel, who like others is stuck to the 'western' narrative, the sense is
different. He really seems to believe that the U.S. deterred Russia from some nefarious plans
which it never had. He ignores that Russia reacted to a Ukrainian provocation in a way that,
in the end, has made NATO and the U.S. look weak.
This delusion reminded me of a retort, from an astute observer, to a dopey remark made by
Bush II soon after the start if the Iraq Fake War. Bush said "We're gonna turn EyeRack into
fly-paper for ter'rists! To which the observer responded...
"If Iraq was fly-paper then the only bug that got stuck to it was Bush."
I'm one of the most ardent proponents of the "imbecilization of the West" hypothesis, but
this is clearly a diplomatic style face-saving plausible deniability exit by the West.
The West knows time is not on its side in the Ukrainian issue, and its puppet president
threw a Hail Mary. Russia correctly didn't swallow the bait, and the West fell back as it
knew it would have to, since this was a long shot.
NS-2 is now getting finished, and the Ukraine will consolidate itself more than ever as a
black hole of American resources. The West, however, has one last ace in the hole: the German
Green Party, which is well positioned to form the next government after the December national
elections. The NS-2 certainly won't be finished by then, if the American diplomacy is to do
its job properly, and the Greens will have all the tools at hand to implode the project, thus
giving the Ukraine some more years to ride on American finance by its gas leverage (over
which all its sovereign T-bonds rest at this point).
The key to Ukrainian success is in Germany, not in Russia.
Thank you b.
More and more interesting links for a great nightshift!
Every body must read in UNZ an interview of Israel Shamir (posted it in the afternoon)
Who cares their narrative? Dummkopft
On the decision level a lot of people know the facts.
And Putin and al. ability to build fact is impressive. A lot more than "1962 Cuba missile
crisis".
And Russia got good countermeasures with RT, VK...
One advantage that Ukraine has in military terms is the number of people who willingly and
enthusiastically want to join the army for the sake of de-occupation (interesting why they
invented a replacement of "liberation" that has at least two equivalents with Slavic roots,
perhaps they do not like their current occupations). The best proof is that through their
democratically elected representatives they voted for a huge increase of punishments for
avoiding conscription.
The other proof is that, temporarily at least, Ukrainians abolished the system of rotation
in which units were staying on the fortified lines literally dying of boredom and related
risk (alcohol poisoning, explosions of stills making moonshine, drug overdoses, suicide,
stepping over their own mines, to mention a few), instead the troops to be rotated stayed in
place and the other units joined them nearby.
However, Russian conscripts without the advantage of Ukrainian enthusiasm have better
weapons. Modernizing Ukrainian military is a tall order. The budget barely supports the
troops without modernization, the domestic industry in its better years relied to selling
parts to Russia and buying other parts, remnants of industrial integration of Soviet times.
Supplying them with NATO weapons would require huge gifts that (a) could be unpopular in the
West (b) raise risk of getting the best toys of NATO to Russian in exchange for non-toxic
alcohol, fresh Afghan heroin etc. Did I mention mind-killing military service? And with not
so best toys, like missile boats that are about to be de-commissioned, say, in Canada, they
do not really change the strategic balance.
Thus Zelensky had to be saved from his own rhetoric and gestures -- the aforementioned
change in "rotation". Kiev authorities have a good practice in "never mind". For example,
they utilize fascist radicals to intimidate opposition, but they are what I call "pet
cobras", biting the hand that feeds them is what is programmed into their reptilian minds
that do not have circuits for "friends" and "gratitude". And because of some grievances they
trashed the Presidential place of work, insulting graffiti, broken windows, a broken and
burned door, so three ringleaders got arrested, Parliament spent a few hours being appalled
(after thinking for a week what to say), and now one ringleader was let free, with the
remainder probably joining him soon (one at the time, I think). See folks: nothing
happened.
It is possible that Napoleonic rhetoric and gestures were planned to get a "street cred"
with those hoodlums, or that they were discreetly encouraged by an embassy (some people think
that UK is the leader here, USA having mental problems and distractions). Or some
combination.
Imagine a drunken red nosed music hall comedian having to be taken so seriously. It really
grates that the West has been reduced to this; a Spam headed sham, so pilled up he rattles,
as a President of the FSOA. This obvious, self professed clown, Zelensky as head of an SS
Totenkopf militia. A tiny appendage of Russia called Europe being a colony of a country based
on genocide and slavery, that is reputedly anti-colonial. and a parcel of rogues spanning
three continents and two oceans that gobble up lies like dung beetles on excrement lean back
on their laurels, ill gotten gains, genocide and lies, and feel themselves morally superior
to the victims, actual and future.
Our problem here in the U$A is still the same as always. Mr. Z's announcement on 3/24 about
his nation's intentions to take back the Crimea, were NEVER mentioned on our MSM. It's always
Russian aggression, or China's aggression. It's NEVER our fault.
listen from 22:48" for a good example of script writing and narrative control here... CBC The
Current for April 22, 2021
Posted by: james | Apr 22 2021 18:19 utc | 4
Do you care to take responsibility for our mental health? I did provide a summary of a
"narrative control" article once, I can do it once in few months, should we also have some
rotation here?
@ 14 piotr.... for your mental health i recommend unplugging from all western news outlets
especially with regard to topics like russia, china, venezuala, syria, ukraine and etc.
etc... free! no charge for you piotr! and okay - you're on next shift!
Just a couple of notes:
-The Greens, if they "win" will not win with a majority. That means they will need coalition
partners. Neither the CDU or the SPD is going to go along with their plan to stop NS2. The
Greens, in order to form a govt. will cave in on NS2 and probably other things.
-The Ukies are still fleeing the country to avoid going to the front. The Ukie brass says
as much. These are not soldiers. They are farm kids. At the 1st sign of serious war, they
will all head for the russians with hands in the air.
-V. Putin handled the western MSM narrative quite well, imo, when he said "Those behind
provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done
in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time." It can't be clearer than that.
And that tells me that the ussa is in the crosshairs. This may be the 1st time in history
that the oceans will offer no protection for the warmongers that have been at war for 222
years of 237 years of their existence
The comedian is still flaying about and now trying to play the SWIFT card (last week it
was nuclear weapons, before that it was...). Which, of course, the west will not honor
because it would cripple the west as much or more than RU. I would imagine he needs to change
his undershorts on an hourly basis these days. He is literally caught between a rock and a
hard spot. No more support from DE, FR, US, NATO, TR except good wishes. And demands from his
brain-dead Banderites are only growing more shrill. What's a poor comic to do?
The west is basically done with him and with the show of force by the russians they are
more done with him than before. For his sake, i hope his khazarian passport app has been
approved.
Another failed state compliments of the khazarians in DC.
And the beat goes on.
Being seen as a victim of Russian aggression and presenting itself as a frontline state
checking Russia's further advance toward Europe is a major asset of Kyiv's foreign
policy.
Wait...what?
I think B takes the "administration" too literally -
We know they are lying, they know they are lying, everyone knows they are lying but they are
creating a virtual world in which their behavior is rational and justified. I am not sure why
exactly such an artificial construct is seen as helpful. I suppose you could blame it on the
voting public in the democratic west but we all realize by this point that the west is in no
way democratic in a literal, functional sense - they less than do not give a damn what the
little people think in fact they could well do with a lot fewer of them and really without
the need of actual vote counting.
Possibly to their dog at night under the covers and after many martinis to help them
forget what they are, they admit something like their best attempt at the truth.
Eighthman @10 North Stream 2 will be the last mayor cooperation between Russia and Europe for
the next 10, 20 years. If you had to choose where to put your money, would you put it in a
gas pipeline to China (Power of Siberia) or a gas pipeline to Europe (North Stream2)?
Putin will be the last Russian president who looked west, to Europe; the next president
will look east, to Asia. It's where the money is.
The militias with their supposed morale -- These are the grandkids and great grandkids of
WWII collaborators. Middle class and hipsters. In a country where there basically is no
middle class. Ukraine's economy is at African level. Only source of funds for anything is the
US embassy. There is no agenda but the agenda of 1945. Any from the 2014 crop who had
anything on the ball whatsoever is now my neighbor. What is left in Uke is the dregs.
Hipsters do not hang around in failed states.
Entire political landscape is now centered on US Embassy. Oligarchs might have some input
still, their wealth is out of country and so are they most of time.
Pure political vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum. CIA and their hired actors will fill the
stage, journalists will report their antics. They are playing to an empty house. Ukraine
could exist in same zone as Libya or Iraq for a long time. In end nothing fills the vacuum
but Russian Federation.
The Russian military's policy is not to use conscripts on the front lines, that role is
far too important to trust to what are partially trained soldiers, they are used in support
functions. The frontline is manned by professional soldiers.
Zelenski has got $300M of 'stuff' out of Congress this week so that was a result for
him.
Russia might be pulling back but the Ukrainians haven't got the message. My understanding
is there are 50,000 Ukrainian army and 20,000 Ukrainian security forces normally in the
Donbass on the frontlines against 30,000 or so NAF. This crisis came when another 30,000
troops plus heavy weapons were moved into the area. Two days ago OSCE reported that two
artillery battalions of self propelled 122mm and 152 guns have been moved up to the front.
Then apparently earlier this week, two battalions of the Azov were moved up from Mariupol
(their normal area) to the front lines facing Donetsk City. Most of these 20,000 security
forces would be your Nazi wannabe's with the Azov unit being the largest. For those of you
not watching in 2014/5 Azov are the evil bastards that make the Red Army in WW2 Germany look
like angels.
So Kiev is still building an overpowering strike force with a probable objective of a
thrust through the center to the Russian border, splitting the two 'rebel' states. Both US
and UK and no doubt other advisors are on site. The Global Hawk is sucking up data overhead
most days. There is NATO pride on the line here planning and directing. We await a false
flag.
I think b is being a bit too optimistic. Somehow they have to stop NS2, in many ways their
futures depend on transit gas and, as before, they won't care how many have to die to save
their skins and wallets.
@ vk | Apr 22 2021 19:14 utc | 7
I agree Once again Deutschland :
أم كل المعارك
"The Mother of all Battles"
Germany, the biggest Tabaqui, surrounded by many petty tabaquies...
But
Germany, playing the two side...
Germany, so stark and so weak...
Germany, "So jung und doch so alt"
How long can Germany resist the narrative?
How long before the end of the show?
Scroll up on that to the original Aslund post. He is talking about his friends getting
ready to flee to Western Ukraine (or further). Sounds likely enough. Maybe they know
something. And if it is just a routine panic in a failed state amongst a nervous elite, it
only repeats so many times before they all do get out of town.
LOL The greens will not win in Germany. Wait to September and tons of pedophilia scandals to
appear on the media about Robert Habeck, and they will be toast
There's no question that if and when push comes to shove, and the first hints of defeat waft
from the frontlines despite all attempts to spin it otherwise, the Ukrainian people will drop
any sense of unity, fold like a wet napkin, and demand peace. Only a small sector of the
population is highly motivated to fight or turn out the vote for bellicose policy against
Russia.
Do the Greens have vote in Bavaria, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Eastern Germany? I don't think
so. Greens are popular Baden-Württemberg due Kretschmann charisma. If they haven't vote
in Bavaria, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Eastern Germany , so they aren't going to win..
I'm seeing a lot of anglo and america media trying to boost these guys. But I have a bad
feeling that the child book writer Robert Habeck will get a 'Sebastian Edathy'
treatament.
1) Germany has a proportional representative system. You don't have to win it all to
compose the government. The Greens are going to compose the next government; Germany, as a
First World country, is socially stable enough so that we can already consider this a fait
accompli .
2) Laschet's choice as Merkel's successor
apparently backfired . The CSU-CDU will probably lose some 10% more on top of what
they're already projected to lose in these next general elections, mostly to the Greens.
I know how the German system works. Yet I am not seeing the Greens win or compose the next
government if they threaten to cancel NS2. The NS2 is not about the CDU/CSU but about the
German elite interest. No way they are going to give green light to the Greens. Speaking of
someone which city is on the border.
"One advantage that Ukraine has in military terms is the number of people who willingly
and enthusiastically want to join the army for the sake of de-occupation "
Not nearly as motivated as Russians who have dealt with Nazi Fascists once before. What
happened last time is seared into their heads.
Russia has closed the Kerch Strait.
It is reported that the two US destroyers which were to have transited the Bosphorus are
awaiting a pair of Britsh destroyers intended to join them with the flotilla of 4 ships to
enter the Black Sea.
What happens if the UK and US decide on a FONOP which involves a transit of the Kerch Strait
to make a port visit to Ukraine on the Sea of Azov?
Does Putin keep the Kerch closed?
If he stops the flotilla does this become "interference with international right of
navigation?"
Does this asserted interference then result in Ukraine attack? Or a combined NATO / Ukraine
action?
President Putin consulted with Minster of Defense Shoigu and asks if the troops can be scaled
back from the lines of contact without significantly reducing tactical capability. Shoigu
runs the numbers and delivers the answer that Putin was looking for.
Putin is offering an olive branch to Zelensky knowing full well his military can roll over
the eastern and southern borders of Ukraine with impunity.
Does Zelensky do the same? No, instead he calls up reserve boys to make himself look
tough.
A Russian proverb that is most appropriate in this case is this:
Дурна́я
голова́ нога́м
поко́я не даёт.
Translation: The stupid head doesn't leave feet in rest or in other words, no rest for the
wicked.
Sushi @32
How does Putin close the Kerch strait?
The same way as last time, park a largish ship or two in it.
FONOPS don't work so well as battering rams, and the straight is very narrow.
If all of this sound and fury is just to cancel North Stream 2, then it strikes me as a
demonstration of terrible impotence, using a lot of leverage to achieve a fairly small end.
Maybe it is exactly this. But I prefer Rostislav Ischenko's
outline of several actions in several neighboring theaters as a concerted attack on
Russia - with the objective of levering EU away from Russia. And the note here is that this
is not over yet, the game is still afoot.
This larger ploy seems like a far more desirable objective for the US, given the
expenditure of resources, rather than simply the NS2. But it still reeks of impotence, given
how decisively Russia has countered each move (of the ones that are visible - no telling
about the ones beneath the surface).
I have read somewhere, probably here, that if Germany were to cancel NS2 she would owe
Russian billions of dollars in penalties. This project is after all, a matter of contract.
And Germany must abide by its contracts if it is to remain in the business world. Or so it
seems to me. Is Germany going to flout contract obligations with Russia, which supplies it
with fuel for its industry and to stay warm in winter? It seems unlikely.
So, while the US acts to try to split Europe away from Russia, Germany is actually taking
the least divisive path if it finishes NS2. Because if it is forced to cancel, and then to
pay the billions in penalties, surely this causes a far greater split from the US and toward
Russia than otherwise? Simply a split that plays out over a longer time, but much more
finally.
If the US were capable of thinking all this through, it might understand how it pushes
away everything it attempts to grasp. But we have watched for years, with some gladness, to
see that this is exactly the fatal weakness of the US now. It simply doesn't understand
reality, and simply cannot learn from it. Which I guess is b's point. Agreed.
For whomever may be under any illusion whatsoever,
Please,
Do not decieve yourselves,
The truth and the fact of the matter is very readily apparent.
All one must do is look objectively upon the reality of the situation in an honest
manner.
Please do so.
Thank you.
The Sea of Azov is the shallowest sea in the world and has a maximum depth of 45 feet. An
Arleigh Burke destroyer has a draft of 30 feet. Even if somehow NATO ships entered the Sea of
Azov, there are not many places that they can go unless they are very small ships.
The situation around these unplanned military drills reminded me of 8 unplanned military
drills by Iran during the last few months of Mr. Trump's government.
A likely preemptive responses, in both cases, to planned acts of aggression, nullifying
them. Someone might have alerted them too.
b, thanks for this post and thanks for the link to the excellent Alister Crook SCF article. I
am sick of being told what to think and what opinions I should hold by the corporate and
public MSM.
Narrative control is even more pervasive these days and the disconnect with the actual
reality is more obvious.
How can the Anglo/Zionist captive nations talk about 'our values' while the grotesque
horror show and slow motion genocide continues in occupied Palestine?
How can the Anglo/Zionist captive nations politicians talk about 'free trade' and
'liberalised trade'
while enforcing illegal trade embargoes on sovereign nations?
We were told by President Nixon that trade with China was good. Now the BRI railroad is
portrayed as a 'threat' and 'controversial.' Ditto the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia
to Europe.
What is threatened is the cushioned pashas position to dictate hegemonic power throughout
the world.
Australia is among the worst offenders of this moronic groupthink as shown by
distinguished veteran correspondent Hamish McDonald:
During the Siege War against Iran, as well as during the hard times of the pandemic,
Germany established herself to be of no consequence in the political arena or in the
humanitarian one.
If Ukrainian government has indeed mobilized or otherwise has planned a war against
Russia, then her life expectancy in her current format or within her current borders will be
measured in years and not decades.
Russia will not tolerate an armed camp of enemy soldiers in Ukraine, she will be
neutralized as an independent actor shortly.
The 3 Westernmost oblasts might survive as a rump Ukraine but she is finished now.
Yes Fyi, it is shameful. What is not so well known is Australia and the US have a long
history of bullying New Zealand with loud megaphone diplomacy on cherished policy issues. One
example was when the Muldoon [NZ] government recognised the PLO as the legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people many decades ago. Muldoon told them to F off,
diplomatically, of course.
The NZ superannuation fund recently decided to divest from Israeli banks citing
'repetitional damage.' among other relevant things. Another win for BDS but ignored by the
MSM. How could they spin that together with the prevailing narrative? So they ignored it.
At least NZ has some self respect intact. In business it is a good idea to speak the
language of the buyer. I prefer NZ white wine and Australian red wine, particularly Barossa
Valley reds. Now Australia complains about coal fired power stations in China, forgetting it
is Australia selling the coal. NZ can sell the wine.
My guess is that the Russians will create the conditions whereby the US/UK flotilla will
be forced to get stuck in the shallow waters of the Azov Sea. Thus they will achieve their
objective without firing a shot. The Russians know the spots with shallow waters. US/UK not
so much.
I have known, during my life, one single individual from New Zealand. He was the only
English-speaker who could pronounce my name at first try. Very fine chap.
I do not know much about that country except that it is populated by serious Anglicans and
is currently being led by a real statesman, unlike so many other countries.
I wish that country well, they are trying to do the right thing where larger more powerful
countries, such as Germany, UK, or Italy, sold themselves for the proverbial 30 pieces of
silver.
Agreed, your proposition for an immediate fast rush to the Russian border to split the
region is just as likely as a stand down. I would never be trusting NATO or FUKUS.
I am actually an Australian living in New Zealand. Lucky me. The two countries used to
have a deal. Now that deal is observed by NZ but not observed by Australia. I tell some
Kiwis, sometimes young in cheek, 'I am an Australian refugee boat person, fleeing from an
oppressive government.'
As for the population, someone told me years ago ' it doesn't matter which party is in
power, the country is always governed by Scottish Presbyterians so it always has some money
put away'.
Most people can pick my Australian accent.
Race relations is far better in NZ than Australia. Australia is dysfunctional and utterly
corrupt at all three levels of government. My American friend says that is like America. He
moved to NZ. Both countries have rotten bureaucracy, perhaps a British hangover.
Posted by: Grieved | Apr 23 2021 1:48 utc | 37
(Germany will not walk away from NS 2)
Thanks for fleshing out the NS 2 'controversy' with additional "inconvenient truths". My
confidence that NS 2 will proceed as planned is based 90% on Sarah Kelly's 2020 DW Conflict
Zone interview with Niels Annen, Heiko Maas's 2IC. Annen pointed out to (deaf-in-one-ear,
can't-hear-with-the-other) Sarah that Germany's trade relationship with Russia is
"complicated" but works for both. By the end of the interview it looked as though he felt a
bit sorry for Sarah being stuck in the awkward position of being obliged to argue that black
is white.
I thought Zelensky was the Real Deal, a kind of Trump echo. But he ran into the same problem
as Trump - a painful collision with the reality that the President is just a figurehead with
very little Leadership autonomy, if any.
There's a new post-Trump 3-part BBC documentary series called Trump Takes On The World.
Last night, ABC.net.au broadcast the first 1-hour Episode. It begins with Theresa May's visit
to Trump's Washington. There's a formal meeting to discuss UK-US attitude to NATO. Before the
meeting gets into stride, someone in Team Trump mentions that Putin phoned the White House
and Team Trump is working out a schedule for the conversation to take place. Trump hits the
roof.
"What!!?? Are you telling me that Putin, the only man who can destroy the United States,
phoned the White House and you didn't tell me about it!!??"
Trump let's it slide, in deference to the presence of Ms May, but as the implications sink in
he can't leave it alone and delves deeper into this weird event, Ms May's presence
notwithstanding...
I think Zelensky ran into exactly the same problem - believing that the Prez is in charge
of something important but realising that's just theatrical window-dressing. 'Democratic'
window-dressing.
And with the Biden family having influence in Regime-changed Ukraine, it's probably safe to
assume that the same Swamp Creatures which keep POTUS in check also 'manage' Zelenski's
Presidential daydreams.
.. why ..artificial construct ... Passerby @ 18 < deep state reprograms what people
remember about events. planting
misinformation 30 year study
Reprogamming what you remember about an event is technology embedded deep in MSM propaganda.
Passerby goes on to say "we all realize ...the west is in no way democratic in a
literal,
functional sense - they .. do not give a damn what the little people think .. ..fewer of them
.." <=is desirable.
Not true, the west is ~2.6 billion people [+ .010 billion can understand what you posted],
but
<1,000,000 people are in the group you classify as the West. The governed masses are
victim to
Oligarch owned nation states. The nation states are 1) tools, Oligarch's use, to compete in
the
national and international markets (Article II), 2) each nation states includes a
political
system (basically a consumer complaint department) to control the behaviors of the
domestic
flocks and to keep the flocks distributed into their respective pastures.
Basically, the legislative and law making nation states are open air prisons that oversee
the
domestic masses, but in foreign affairs, the nation states are economic weapons used by
Oligarch
to engage in national and international profit making competition.
In other words,the only benefactors of the nation state system are the Oligarchs.
The 21st Century problem humans must resolve: "How to impose democratic principles,
human rights, and self-determination on the nation state system?"
It does not matter if we are talking East or West.
The nation state is the structure that confines the sheep so Oligarch can shear the wool.
A comment elsewhere alleged Lukashenko, of Belarus revealed how the world bank coerced
sovereign nations to engage Corona virus lock down and vaccine scenarios; the same comment
alleged Lukashenko fined the Soros foundation in Belarus 3.0 million for currency violations,
and that the foundation left Belarus?
I am not sure about those claims. Can anyone authenticate those facts or elaborate on them .
?
Biswapriya Purkayast: if the comment isn't the recent one you wrote in the "Kipling" Russia
thread it has probably been snagged by the link-checker and will appear later. It happens to
everyone once in a while, a good idea to write and save any comment in a text editor before
copying and posting it, unless it's short like this one :)
All this fuss around Crimea and Donbass was simply meant to distract attention from
Belarus. (Did the Americans inform Zelensky or did they just manipulate him?)
The destabilization, collapse, invasion of Belarus failed (When did the Russians
understand?), so the players disengage from this point of confrontation to find another one
(Where?).
A key aspect of propaganda is reversing the actual order of cause and effect to make the
enemy falsely look like the aggressor. We see this in the recent case of Ukraine. The western
pressitutes cynically ignored, and failed to report, the unprovoked Ukrainian military build
up on the border, to which the Russian build was a defensive reaction. So that now, as far as
the average western consumer of this propaganda is concerned, the Russian 'aggressor' 'bad
guys' have been forced to back down. All BS of course.
The anti-imperialist movement needs to establish popular online hubs that
aggregate/syndicate the writings of small blogs like this. It is beyond the abilities of any
single blogger to keep up with news events to counter imperialist lies in real time but
collectively they can do it if their work is made available at bigger hubs.
Searched for some info on that fine but that's an old story, the Soros Fund was fined and
expelled from Belarus in '97. But recently there was a debate about the influence in
education by the Soros foundations in the former soviet countries. Probably this has a lot to
do with the comments made by Putin in his address to the Federal Assembly, he remarked that
some history text books do not even mention the Stalingrad Battle while at the same time
enhancing the second front influence in WWII outcome. In other words, the foundations might
be out, there influence is not, money buys wills, and if anything else is missing in those
influence institutions money is not one of them.
UK was hoping to provoke an incident with its ships in Black Sea.
Russia has unilaterally withdrawn, leaving the British ships to cruise about at their
leisure. Pardon me, but might you have any Grey Poupon?
@43 Fyi
To my knowledge Germany has several times delivered medical equipment to Iran during the
ongoing pandemic. I`m not familiar with the details, though. Germany is also heavily involved
with COVAX which is one of the main sources of vaccines for Iran.
It bugs me how even well-informed critics of North Atlanticist regimes and their foreign
policies write and talk of them as "western demoracies". The "Founding Fathers" of the USA
feared nothing more than 'democracy' -- by which they thought of ancient Athens, or the
ancient republic of San Marino or some Swiss Cantons. What they wanted was a republic in the
mold of Ancient Rome, Venice, or like the Netherlands before Wilhelm of Orange, i.e. roled by
rich men's clubs and throuh inherited wealth, be that from land ownership, slave-holding or
from commercial gains and prate privatering -- plus of course exploiting colonies and
controlled marketing opium and its derivats (plus cocaine).
None of the present-day Atlanticist nations call themselves "demomracies" in their name or
constitutions. Only Greece does -- and only because they don't have the romance word
"republic" in their language.
In observation of these linguistic and political facts, the governments of Central Europe
east of Nato, China, Viet-Nâm and Chosôn ("North Korea") all called themselves
"people's republics" -- as opposed the the states further west that were ruled by the elected
representatives of Capital and Big Banking.
@7 vk
I don't know how you come to that conclusion:
he West, however, has one last ace in the hole: the German Green Party, which is well
positioned to form the next government after the December national elections. The NS-2
certainly won't be finished by then ..
In fact, the elections will take place Sep 26. The newly elected parliament will gather
fist time ("constituting") 3-4 weeks after that date, so end of October. After that,
coalition agreement has to be negotiated, usually taking 6 weeks or more (last time, it was
nearly 5 months). If the outcome is as the polls indicate at the moment, with the Greens as
the strongest faction, they will get the task to strike a coalition deal, negotioting
probably with CDU, and SPD plus FDP, for a couple of weeks. A new government, elected by the
Bundestag, is not to be expected before end of December.
Before anybody could act upon NS2, it will be 2022. If the project is not stopped at the
last kilometres, it will be finished by May, 2021. Once operational, the government does not
have much leverage to shut it down.
Yes, I can confirm reports of Australian racism against Indians, Iranians, Lebanese,
Chinese, and Greeks.
One person told me that she was reluctant to travel to the United States because she had
feared similar treatment there.
On the other hand, I know of a case of an abandoned Sikh mother & child (by her
husband) in New Zealand - the social services stepped right in and helped stabilize their
lives.
I think all of these evils start from the top.
The late General MacArthur tolerated racism and the African-Americans under his command
suffered.
Some other Flag Rank officers did not tolerate racism and that made a huge difference to
the experience of the African-American soldiers and sailors under their commands.
Addenda to Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 23 2021 8:11 utc | 53
(BBC doco Trump takes On The World)
Episode 1 spans events from Ms May's Trump White House visit, to Helsinki and Trump's
'betrayal' of AmeriKKKa in his private meeting with Putin.
During the closing moments of the doco (minute 55 - no ads on ABC) a bloke who looks like
Mitch McConnell (R) Kentucky/Tel Aviv, says "That'll be the lar-yest time we ever have a
President meet a foreign leader in private."
Russia has not been idle as the US and allies have been pumping plane loads of weaponry to
the ukropa army, this 'training deployment' was an opportunity for Russia to check, train and
equip the Donbass militia. I would assume that an operation room is already setup, with
spetnaz remaining in place to monitor the lines.
Nato is stumped at both the heavy response and language used by Russia, they are a paper
tiger, and many of their members, would have opted out. The 'Belarus attempted coup' is
another Red line for Russia, thus VVP stressed that Russia has the resources to put a stop to
it.
The Czech hyenas have started walking-back(US State department word) accusations about the
2014 explosions https://www.rt.com/russia/521514-czech-blast-not-state-terrorism/
@B could you look into the issue of the Damona explosion, I believe a poster somewhere
mention a retaliatory attack by Iran on missile factories in Jerusalem, I also doubt it was a
stray AA missile.
All the open source evidence does indeed point to it being an S-200/SA-5 missile.
The Israeli Defense Minister Beni Gantz has officially acknowledged that the attempt to
shoot down the S-200PMT missile failed. Saying that 4 US and 6 Israeli Patriot SAMs & 2
Israeli SAMs "David Sling" missed the S-200 at 17 km.
So, not just IAF but US operated systems as well by the look of it.
This is now a huge problem for the US. At least when the Yeminis hit Saudi the US can
mutter about the quality of the Saudi AD crews but here, in Israel they will be skilled and
well trained crews from both countries i.e. the 'best'. This is very embarrassing for the US
MIC. Their SAMs couldn't even down a Soviet era errant SAM.
No doubt today many countries will be re-evaluating their Patriot AD systems. Indeed,
should existing customers be demanding their money back as the system is clearly shown to be
faulty (it has to be a fault, it can't possibly be a design error)? Turkey and India must be
feeling pleased.
I meant to say that for a while now the Syrian rules of engagement have changed and they are
now able to 'chase the launcher aircraft' home. Before that they were only targeting the
incoming munitions. Putin confirmed the change.
The radars attached to the Syrian S-300s, plus freestanding units, give them a very good
view of where the IAF aircraft are. Even better if they are plugged into the Russians
IAD.
In a way this was a very good warning shot. It did no real damage so no excuse for Israel
to seek revenge yet it must be giving the IAF second thoughts about their current attack
strategy.
I think along with Pres Putin address credit is also due to Lavrov's statement that Ukraine
would cease to exist....a real dose of blunt sober reality.
Here come the englanders turn Zelensky into David the Goliath killer. He will be all fired up
by the British Embassy squad. Black Sea battle next week.
Speaking of dangerous narratives... this is what scares the hell out of me...
"the plan which had been first described publicly in America's two most prestigious
international relations journals, as being a suitable replacement for "M.A.D.": "Nuclear
Primacy". That's the goal for America to blitz-nuclear attack Russia so quickly that Russia
won't have enough time to launch a retaliatory response."
... that there are people who are so deluded they actually believe a nuclear war can be
"won."
Now that we've established who the aggressor is, let's take a look at Tsereteli's and
Carafano's next brilliant takeaway point. The dynamic duo of war strategies says cosmetic
measures against Russia will not do! The "west" (meaning NATO), they say, needs a more
clear strategy. Which certainly means a massive arms buildup west of the Siverskyi Donets
River. The Zelensky government is being pushed from Washington to take even more drastic
measures to force Russia into a war stance. The editorial board of the Washington Post
recently advised Zelensky:
"Mr. Zelensky now has the opportunity to forge a partnership with Mr. Biden that could
decisively advance Ukraine's attempt to break free from Russia and join the democratic
West. He should seize on it."
So, now that we've shown who is doing the pushing here, let's turn to the final takeaway
from Heritage Foundation master strategists. Tsereteli and Carafano come right out and say
"countries left outside of NATO will remain targets of Russian aggression and
manipulations." So, the purpose of all this supposed spread of militaristic-based democracy
is to expand NATO to? I mean, seriously. Washington is not reaching out with the Peace
Corps to shore up a budding Eastern European democracy. The United States is kidnapping
another former Soviet republic on the way to the big score. My country has military bases
in almost every country in the world, has had more wars than the Mongols, and spends more
on weapons than everybody else combined – but Russia is being aggressive!
"I'd like to know how Zelensky and the Kiev authorities are supposed to get out of
this situation without falling apart."
Well, if I were Zelensky I might imagine getting myself out of this mess by the
following steps:
1. Keep raising the ante. Scream about an imminent Russian invasion, keep your population
panicked (by concocting a list of "bomb shelters" in Kiev, for example). Keep actual violence
against the Donbass republics at just low enough a level to not be enough provocation for a
Russisn intervention, for now .
2. Keep acquiring missiles from NATO, and trainers in how to use them. Negotiate with
Sultan Erdoğan for headchopper mercenaries (especially Chechens and other Russian
speakers).
3. Arrange for NATO exercises in Ukranazistan this summer.
4. Under cover of those exercises, using the NATOstanis as human shields in fact, attack
the Donbass Republics, and only the Donbass Republics. Use the headchoppers as shock
troops to minimise own losses. Capture the Donetsk and Lugansk main urban areas, leave slices
right on the Russian border. Do not touch Crimea.
5. Present this as a huge victory, like Ilham Aliyev did in Nagorno Karabakh.
As I said, this would be my plan if I were Zelensky. Whether it would work depends on how
much "restraint " Putin is willing to give up on, and how much risk he's willing to take.
The present stand-off cannot last forever, so it is a question of time before something
falls apart.
Russia used the aggressive move by NATO/Ukraine to perform a judo-like move
The speed of execution of the manoeuvre also calls for admiration when NATO can't even
move an armoured division in Poland (inadequate road infrastructure)
But Evil is in the details. And as the greatest french dialogue writer: "Les conneries
c'est comme les impôts, on finit toujours par les payer."
[Bullshit is like taxes, you always end up paying them.]
"The British training program, Operation Orbital, has trained over 17,500 Ukrainian
service members since its inception in 2015. Last year British Defence Secretary Ben
Wallace confirmed that the training mission would be extended until 2023. It is explicitly
designed to transform the Ukrainian military in order to meet NATO standards: to be a NATO
proxy army on Russia's western border."
To which my own response was:
"I strongly agree with Igor Strelkov: war now is preferable for Russia than (inevitable)
war later. I also completely agree with him that the Ukranazi cancer should have been
eliminated in 2014, or, failing that, the Donbass armies should have been permitted by the
Putinist regime to liberate Slovyansk and Mariupol, or, even better, liberate Odessa and
advance to the Dneiper. If that had been done then, there would have been no problem now.
The Empire is trying to surround and castrate Russia. Russian interests are being hit
every day. Sanctions for ever, more and more.
Putin has to come up with something exceptionally crazy and unexpected. another level of
asymmetry. Russian stockpile is "officially" of about 6.400 nuclear heads of which 1600
operational, probably more than that. This Nuclear Capital should be "invested ". Putin
should convince Iran to change policy and accept donation or lease of 200-300 nuclear heads.
Siria,Venezuela and maybe Korea should be given a number of tactical nuclear weapons for self
defence. China,as well,with Russian help,should double the Nuclear Potential. A political
Earthquake would shake the Empire. Russia survival
is the Stake.
USA givesall its manufacturing to then moans about China carbon emissions. Chine is worlds
largest solar panel manufacturer, us moans about China carbon. USA blocks Nord Stream 2 gas
supply to Germany then moans about Russian carbon emissions. USA hasthe poorest house
insulation regulationa and moans about others carbon emissions.
China achieves major reafforestation targets and reclaims huge tracts of desert and USA
ignores it, continues to strip forests at home and everwhere else.
USA needs to build a bridge to its future and to common sense.
@ pnyx -- It's not only that USians are unaware of much of what's happening in other
countries, it's the fact they are misinformed and misled about current events by propaganda.
This is also the case in Europe because their MSM also have been co-opted by the coordinated
Intelligence Apparatus (CIA - MI6 - FiveEyes) that controls the flow of information in the
U.S. MSM. We are witnessing censorship/control of Social Media, Search Engines, and formerly
independent websites as well.
This is an all-out effort of Class War. One aspect of this is to broadcast a hidden
personal message that if I feel oppressed, "it must be my own fault" because "success"
supposedly is within everyone's grasp (note the emphasis on celebrity 'culture').
Russia has shown an astonishing amount of 'strategic patience' in the face of racism,
lies, insults, seizure of diplomatic property, obstruction of officials coming to the UN,
possibly a hand in the murder of their high rank military landing in Syria, perhaps the
downing of their choir, US silence of US radar data 'highly likely' showing Ukraine downing
the Malaysian aircraft, fabrications everywhere, and so very much more.
Well, the cup of patience runneth over.
"These steps represent just a fraction of the capabilities at our disposal. Unfortunately,
US statements threatening to introduce new forms of punishment show that Washington is not
willing to listen and does not appreciate the restraint that we have displayed despite the
tensions that have been purposefully fuelled since the presidency of Barack Obama.
Recall that after a large-scale expulsion of Russian diplomats in December 2016 and the
seizure of Russian diplomatic property in the US, we did not take any response measures for
seven months. We responded only when Russia was declared a US adversary legislatively in
August 2017.
In general, compared to the Russian diplomatic missions in the United States, the US
Embassy in Moscow operates in better conditions, enjoying a numerical advantage and
actively benefitting from the work of Russian citizens hired in-country. This form of
disparity frees up "titular" diplomats to interfere in our domestic affairs, which is one
of the main tenets of Washington's foreign policy doctrine.
...the reality is that we hear one thing from Washington but see something completely
different in practice... a proposed Russian-US summit. When this offer was made, it was
received positively and is now being considered in the context of concrete
developments. "/BLOCKQUOTE>
The last bit is deliberately ambiguous. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: Bernard F. | Apr 17 2021 21:21 utc | 38
I suspect Sullivan and Blinken's next gig will be something like that. "We came here to
forget", but instead of the French Legion, it will be PMC Wagner.
Personally what I would do would be a Operation Bagration 2.0 at the slightest misstep by
Ukraine. There is may too much on the table here. Bio labs, nests of NATO rats, nuclear power
plants, NATO missiles on the Ukrainian and Belarus borders with Russia. Time to clear out the
rats including Lviv. After disinfecting this part of eastern Europe (again) of that other far
more dangerous virus, Nazism, life will be much more peaceful in that part of the world, and
likely by the domino effect (yes I actually said that!) to other places in the world plagued
by US exceptionalism.
The danger here is that the US and the EU vassals push Russia into having nothing to lose.
I don't see how NS2 can be finished if Navalny dies. I hope Russia/Putin are working to
prevent this, if they can.
"Why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?"
The apparent change in stance is unlikely a ruse because a ruse presumes that Russia would
take the bait.
The change is unlikely due to a miscalculation on Ukraine's part because Ukraine was well
aware of the strength of the juggernaut just to the east before Ukraine sent men and materiel
that way.
The change is unlikely due to a miscalculation on Washington's part because a likely
drubbing of Ukraine with Washington sitting on the sidelines would result in a loss of
prestige vis a vis Russia and China.
I'd suggest the change -- if there really is such a change -- is more likely the result of
Germany, and maybe France, exerting simultaneous pressure on Washington and Kiev, coupled
with leading sectors of the bureaucracy in both Washington and Kiev agreeing with Merkel
(Washington for its own reasons and Kiev because of Washington's instructions) that a war
does not advance their interests.
Washington is in a position similar to that of Britain prior to the Suez Crisis: one loss
away from losing its preeminence on the world stage. Losing that position over a conflict
involving, essentially, a gas pipeline to Germany is not worth the risk.
It's likely that Washington's apparent stance is symptomatic of significant discord
between the Neocons and the less belligerent of the foreign policy establishment. It appears
that the Neocons may have lost this round. One can expect the schism to continue to play out
over the coming years
vk@29 writes "[My comment@24] is nonsense: if Ukraine takes back the Donbas basin, it will
have full control over Crimea. The option of
'trading' the Donbas for Crimea doesn't exist."
It's hard to know how seriously this is meant. Luhansk and Donetsk are not *the* Donbas.
Kharkiv is culturally and economically as much Donbas, for a start. And Odessa is a major
center of Russian population, too, even if not part of the Donbas. At any rate, insofar as
the "Donbas" is essential to control Crimea, though, it is Kherson and Zaporizhye provinces
that control the water supply. And it is Mariupol's port that contests the Sea of Azov.
That's the part of Donbas that vk implies to be essential for full control of Crimea. But if
Mariupol is essential for full control, then Putin neither has full control now, nor does he
want it, because it is apparently Putin who pressured the rebels into leaving Mariupol in
Ukrainian hands. By the criteria vk uses here, Putin doesn't have full control of Crimea now.
This could be understood to show that in the long run Luhansk/Donetsk are untenable too,
trapped in a race to collapse with Kyiv. And it would show too that Putin needs a genuine
peace in Crimea, needs to do something, because in the long run, time is not on his/Russia's
side. The thing is of course, is that either vk doesn't mean what is actually written, or vk
won't draw the conclusions vk's own premises require.
Ukraine's leadership doesn't care about their civilians and soldiers. US and NATO
leadership care even less for them. In the current context actions speak far louder than
words.
Even the dimmest and most senile leaders can figure out some of the following:
• Russia is not bluffing. Bluffing is not their style.
• Neither the US nor NATO will put boots on the ground of Donbass or Crimea.
• Against Russia the US surface ships in the Black Sea are floating targets, as they are
anywhere else in the world.
• There won't be a Minsk3 agreement.
• Nord Stream 2 will be completed no matter what. For the respect, Russia doesn't need
the revenue so much.
If in fact Ukraine backs down, it will be a Biden continuation of Trump's off-repeated
stunt of walking to the edge and then backing off. You can't expect innovation from senile
players.
Crimea needs water badly with summer coming on.
Any Ukrainian or Russian advance cannot happen across bogs and mud. Wait until the rain
stops, or sink.
I saw somewhere that Zelensky actually thought of opening the canal sometime ago but was
"stopped". It was never made clear WHO ordered him not to, or who ordered him to start an
anti-Russian drive, or.....etc.
b's post undelines that the previous lines of cultural/liguistic division have not gone
away, and have probably hardened. The Nasty brigade are actually in lands that probably do
not appreciate them being there. (ie, the Russian speaking areas under Ukie control are
probably not overjoyed to become "permanent collateral damage")
*
Anyone else notice the large movement of Chinese ships in the South China Sea?
Doubled trouble for the Empire? They hardly get the time to concentrate on claiming "rights
of passage" through Indian territoral waters, or in the Black sea, or in the Artic, without
someone stirring the pot. Whatever next?
A diversion or just taking advantage of the limited scope of the attention span of whoever
is in command in the US ?
@vk "And that's the objective truth: if the Ukraine conquers the DPR and LPR, it will
essentially cut off Crimea from Russia."
How so? It doesn't seem to me that a hypothetical merger of DPR, LPR, and Ukraine would
have any effect on Crimea.
In fact, if DPR and LPR join according to the Minsk2 conditions, it could help, as they
would (theoretically) become a significant political factor on the national level. Which is
why Kiev is not interested in a peaceful unification.
And even a military conquest (which is what you're talking about) would create problems
for Kiev, as disenfranchising (or expelling) most of the population there might be somewhat
problematic.
"One should therefore consider that the sudden call for a renewed ceasefire might be a
ruse." --our host
Precisely. The US prefers to start its conflicts with a sucker punch, but that is only
possible if the target is unprepared and looking the other way. Russia only needs to let its
guard down and look away for a moment for the empire to take advantage of it. Notice how the
ukrops are not moving their attack forces back? They will attack while the US ships are in
the Black Sea to monitor the fighting and provide direction.
Donbass does not have strategic depth. The plan is to hit the republics with a suicide
bum-rush. America doesn't care how many of the ukrop aggressors are exterminated in the
attack so long as some units survive to take up positions in the city centers. The empire's
strategists figure that with a sudden enough and massive enough assault, and given at least
some element of surprise, this can be accomplished overnight. The ukrop cannon fodder will be
given orders to not bother securing any areas they overrun and instead continue to charge
forward.
Suicidal? Absolutely, because any Novorossiya troops that are overrun will regroup behind
the ukrop aggressors and pull back, cutting off the units that penetrated into the cities.
That's when those advance ukrop units will go all "Shock & Awe™" on the
urban civilians to draw the Novorossiya units away from their established positions and
demoralize them.
So long as the Russians are not caught with their pants down they should be able to easily
repel the ukrop assault. If they are thinking this through clearly then the Novorossiya
troops, with the Russians at their backs, should push for the Dniper in order to acquire that
much needed strategic depth. At the same time the Black Sea should be completely cleared of
any hostile vessels, and obviously that means the American ships.
I disagree about DNR and LNR are of importance for Russia to keep hold on Crimea. Crimea
secession was prior to the insurrection in eastern Ukraine, they tried to copy Crimean
secession (even held referenda in 2014) To the frustration of DNR/LNR activists as well as
many russian nationalists, the russian government has rejected all pleas to incorporate the
breakaway regions or Ukraine into Russia. On contrary, it has repeatedly tried to broker a
compromise, and the Minsk accords are part of. Putin even ostensibly bound his hands by
forcing a Duma decree in 2015, revoking the "Medvedyev doctrine" from 2008 Georgian conflict
which authorized use of force when ethnic Russians were threatened, Anyway, the russian
government could not abandon the insurgency in Donbas without risking to be toppled by
nationalists.
One should keep this in mind: Russia does not want the ethnically russian parts of Ukraine
which would comprise of most of it. It was not Russia who escalated the inner ukrainian
divide. And militarily, LNR and DNR are in no way helpful for Crimea. Normal relations
between the RF and Ukraine would be in Russia's interest, would belp both countries. But that
is what the West prevents at any cost, to the last Ukrainian. Only the dumb ukronazis don't
realize that.
@53 vk Ukraine will never get back DNR and LNR by military means, but, if at all, only via
a compromise alongside the Minsk accords. And if you speak to realistic Ukrainians (there are
not few, even in the nazi infested galicia and volyn), they all realize that Crimea is gone,
and that it always only grudgingly agreed to be an autonomous republic inside Ukraine until
2014.
Its not just the Fortuna laying pipe now, the Akadamik Cherskiy has been on the job for
about 10 day and she can lay pipe faster. According to the plans submitted to the Danes, in
whose waters they are laying, Fortuna is expected to finish in May whilst the AC has
permission until September but is expected to finish early.
As to the USN ships (Black sea regular USS Ross passed Gib inbound Med today) are not due in
until the start of next week and will leave early May. What their role, apart from being a
gesture of support for Ukraine, is is not clear. An obvious job of one, if not both, could be
to be tied up at a berth in Odessa harbour as a poison pill to try to make sure that Russia
does not attack that part of the coast. Were there to be an attack of course.
Seems to be a big mistake by the US to me. I can understand what they are trying to do
but, given the option above, if they stay at sea it will be a clear statement that they don't
want to get that involved. I'm sure it is not their intention to be so open in showing their
true objective.
Another possible reason for a delay until May is that the Orthodox Church celebrates its
Eater Sunday on the 2nd May.
William R Henry 52
There is no need to go to the Dneiper to gain sufficient strategic depth, not only would
that be a political nightmare but just stopping at the oblast borders should be sufficient.
Included in that would be Mariupol, the only Ukrainian port on the Sea of Azov. That would
make Donbass economically viable.
No need to clear the Black Sea, Russia totally dominates over, on and under it.
Wouldnt this be the second time that Zelinski used thread of conflict to help himself in
election?
It seems an important point. Why would B over look it, I wonder.
Declaring war and then declaring peace. I guess one cannot chose ones neighbors.
I thought Russia stood to benefit from war. They should keep pressure on Zelinski -
training, preparations and support of Donbass. Seems Russia is very measured with
assistance.
b. :
"It seems that order has come from Washington to stand down - at least for now."
The Postman Always Rings Twice
Bloomberg:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to return to Brussels next week for more meetings
with NATO and European officials, according to people familiar with the matter, as the U.S.
grows increasingly concerned about Russian troop movements near Ukraine.
The meetings will take up most of the week,[...]
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will be in Brussels at the same time, for a meeting with
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
"Frank muses that just as the postman always rings a second time to make sure people
receive their mail, fate has made sure that he and Cora have both finally paid the price for
their crime.
"Schöne Wochenende". Next week will be interesting as last 3 were.
Maybe I missed it but there were elections in Ukraine last Sunday and
"The new Verkhovna Rada (parliament) of the Ukraine, elected on Sunday, will have an
overwhelming national mandate to negotiate peace terms to end the five-year civil
war.
You misssed it....
Those elections were in 2019....
Zelenski has been compromised since then... most notably via loss of his plutocrat
mentor...
The CIA/NSA/RightSector are firmly in charge, because Zelenski did not use his mandate to
throttle them.
The best he could have done, was to invite Russia in for the purpose of "stabilizing"
ukraine.
Western nations chided Russia for failing to turn up at talks in Vienna on Saturday aimed
at defusing tension over Ukraine, where a Russian troop buildup close to the border between
the two countries has sparked fears of renewed conflict.
MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a press conference
Friday following talks with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Josep Borrell.
"Therefore, we organize our life coming from the premise that the EU is not a reliable
partner, at least at this stage,"
"I hope that the strategic review which is coming will finally pay attention to vital
interests of the European Union in its closest vicinity " Lavrov stressed.
"I hope that today's talks will help us reach a more constructive trajectory. We are
ready for it."
@b - "...why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?"
J Swift offered a good clue in his
comment in the previous thread:
"the Nuland crowd have played right into Russia's hands, because the Ukraine is definitely
a place where Russia has escalation dominance. I suspect that when some of those famous
military channels began chatting, the Russians were not so friendly, and made it clear that
an offensive by the Ukies would not only free Russia's hand toward the Nazis and provide a
perfect excuse to rid the East and South of them, but that Russia would be specifically
targeting US/NATO "advisers," command centers, resupply aircraft or any aircraft entering
Ukrainian airspace, and would be just waiting for any US ship in the Black Sea to do
something remotely involving it in the conflict, such that it would be on the bottom in
minutes."
We know from Pepe Escobar's latest article ,
presenting highlights from the recent important interview with Nikolai Patrushev (Secretary
of the RF Security Council), that Patrushev, a very dangerous and serious man, enjoys
undiminished communications with Washington, including a March phone discussion with Jake
Sullivan, White House security advisor. If his interview is anything to go by, his candid
discussions with US leadership could have scared them totally awake.
Once again, it could well be that the neocons talked up a blazing firestorm that the
generals and security professionals ultimately had to pour water on.
Patrick Armstrong in his
latest article gives us ample evidence that Victoria Nuland, back in power and riding
high, is also vastly ignorant and imperceptive, incapable of learning or reflection, and
mediocre in her intelligence. The neocons, as Armstrong points out, have always failed. And
they have led the US down a path of loss.
If in fact this Ukraine adventure is over for the moment (if in fact it ever was real in
the first place), then it bears total resemblance to every other neocon stupid idea, that
goes as far down the path to ruin as it can, sometimes being stopped by wiser heads,
sometimes simply charging over the edge, into the abyss.
If Russia gets to choose, one assumes Russia would prefer no military activity in Ukraine.
And if Russia is forced into military action, one also assumes as best guess that Russia will
reshape the map to a better end for all. It could just be that Russia managed to communicate
this to the US, and that the US managed to hear.
@74 Yes but that doesn't really address b's question. Why was this allowed to happen in
the first place? We know all about Nuland and her cookies and encouragement from Washington.
But why was the Minsk agreement broken? Why do the Ukies keep lobbing shells into
Donbass?
Those troops are bored. I'm sticking with my vodka theory.
Just to clarify: Russia has already officially stated (many years ago) that it doesn't
want any other piece of the Ukraine (i.e. any other piece beyond Crimea). It wants the
Ukraine to survive in the form of a federalized State with the DPR and LPR enjoying high
levels of autonomy (a la Spain).
Ukraine is not profitable to Russia. It would drain its coffers were it to have to conquer
and absorb it entirely.
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, and they gave it some
relief from its chronic negative population problem - all of that without having to advance
one inch over continental Ukraine.
Germany vetoed any more provocations by the US or nato against the Donbass/Crimea that
would clearly call in massive Russian support. Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation;
an end of that part of the story - and there are several hundred thousand people in the
Donbass that now have Russian passports. Russia won't stand for any of it. No matter how much
the dumb Ukrainians or the lackey Poles or their US/nato masters huff and puff and
bellow.....
it is also not in the slightest German interests for a war to break out right in the
middle of Europe that might escalate into a nuclear confrontation, nor is it in their
national interest to lose the Nord Stream 2 project... at all.
I don't know about France's position in all this but either France or Germany could/would
exercise veto over any nato troops/intervention in the Ukraine.
time to return to the Minsk agreements. in spite of the incredible stupidity of the US
foreign policy Establishment and those jackass war-mongers Blinken, Nuland and Austin et.
al.
Do you really expect the Amerikastani Empire's puppet Ukranazi coup regime to say "we will
attack"? Instead it will attack and then claim Russia attacked it. Just like Hitler's
Gleiwitz radio station false flag attack that started WWII.
Zelensky in Istanbul. Erdogan to refuse to recognize Crimea as Russian territory..
Saw a tweet today saying something along the lines of Russia preventing flights to Turkey
this summer for "Covid" reasons, read between the lines..
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, ...
Posted by: vk | Apr 11 2021 1:20 utc | 77
This is rather sketchily related to reality.
1. Ukraine is not a "black hole for the IMF". They got a smallish credit, and now they are
being denied extensions on rather preposterous grounds, and Ukraine is charged for the unused
credit line. Contrary to Nulands boasting, the West keeps Ukraine on a leash with a rather
skimpy budget.
2. There is no clear distinction between migration patterns. The one time I was in Russia,
the tourist guide on a one-day bus trip was from Rivne -- in Poland in years 1918-39. And as
Polish medical workers go to Spain etc., Ukrainian once fill the vacant positions, and they
may come from any place. Ditto with the "quality of workers". Poland has more of seasonal
jobs in picking crops (while Poles do it further West) than Russia, Russia perennially seeks
workers ready to accept extra pay in less than benign climes. The closest to truth is
scooping engineers and highly qualified workers from factories that before worked for Russian
market, including military, replaced with Russian factories and, when needed, Ukrainian
know-how. That is pretty much accomplished -- predominantly from the Eastern Ukraine. As a
result, the remaining workforce is so-so from east to west.
It's been made clear that a Ukrainian attack on the D & L republics would be met with
a direct Russian intervention into the conflict and likely would result in the loss of the
whole of the disputed oblasts to the separatist republics. Russia has no intention of
eliminating Ukraine or occupying Kyiv, but that kind of defeat in the east would spell the
end of what political stability remains in Ukraine and likely lead to a new Maidan against
Zelensky and possibly further secessions. That's the real downside of this for Russia.
Ukraine is threatening to immolate itself as a form of brinksmanship.
Failing that death wish, only if Moscow somehow agrees to stay out of the war does this
have the remotest possibility of achieving what the Kyiv government needs. Otherwise it will
not attack.
@ Lozion | Apr 11 2021 2:18 utc | 81 with the link about the Ukraine/Turkey meeting
today..thanks
Interesting position by Erdogan and I would think it would effect Turkey's purchase of
Russian defense equipment but who knows where the complexity balance resides in the ME.
Lots of tinder just waiting for a spark to point the blame at for world conflagration. I
will believe this situation is cooling when I read about the US ships turning around and not
going into the Black Sea.
Erdoğan has several goals in Ukraine. Show Russia that he is strong and important for
Russia as he has influence on Ukraine. Show the USA that he is an active participant of NATo.
Sell his military drones to whoever wants them as well as other turkish products.
He appears as a king maker and gets business and approval from russia,the EU and the Usa to
avoid a war. A very successful move needed to rehabilitate Erdoğan seriously in trouble
with both the usa and the EU...
The western press is portraying the events of the past few weeks as representing an
unmotivated unilateral Russian troop buildup.
Canada's Globe and Mail yet again deliberately deceives its readers with omission-plagued
reporting which the author must know is wrong. This includes describing the Minsk agreements
as "the Kremlin's version of how to make peace" which are being utilized in an "enforcement
operation" featuring a "coercive use of force" meant to "induce Kyiv, Berlin and Paris" to
accept "Moscow's terms." Awful reporting by any objective measure.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ukrainian-commander-sees-parallels-with-2014-as-russian-military-build/
Meanwhile, a Heritage Foundation flunky describes "spontaneous" Russian deployments
designed to "keep Ukraine out of organizations such as the EU or NATO".
Russia should be opposed because: "Modern Ukraine represents the idea in Europe that each
country has the sovereign ability to determine its own path, to decide with whom it has
relations, and how and by whom it is governed." https://www.arabnews.com/node/1840341
Both reporters make the same observation in opening paragraphs, supporting the notion that
these pieces are derived from a distributed script or collection of talking points:
1) "For weeks, Russian social media accounts have been flooded with videos showing long
convoys of tanks, troop trucks and artillery pieces "
2) "Dozens of videos in social media posts show hundreds of Russian tanks and armored
vehicles pouring into the region."
I have a feeling, it's only a feeling right now, that the looted black hole that's
Ukranazistan after 7 years of "freedom " is such a drain that the EUNATO gangsters behind the
Maidan would love to palm the ruins off to Russia. "Here, you broke it, you own it."
"
MOSCOW, April 11 (Xinhua) -- Russia does not seek a war with Ukraine but is concerned for the
Russian-speaking population in the country's eastern Donbass region, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said Sunday.
"No one is going to move towards a war, and no one at all accepts any possibility of such
a war," Peskov told a Russian TV program.
"Russia has never been a party to this conflict (between Kiev and insurgents in Donbass).
But Russia has always said that it will not remain indifferent to the fate of Russian
speakers who live in the southeast of Ukraine," he added.
According to the spokesman, Kiev refuses to fulfill its responsibilities under the Minsk
agreements on a Donbass settlement, with government forces intensifying "provocative actions"
in the region.
Russia, Germany and France are "bewildered" by Kiev's recent claims that the Minsk
agreements are useless, Peskov said, adding that there are no alternatives to the pacts for a
peaceful settlement of the conflict.
Political advisers of the Russian, German, French and Ukrainian leaders are working
towards holding a summit on eastern Ukraine, he said.
"
but I do see this situation more as having put the Maidan-coalition on the back-foot and
having to disentangle themselves, rather than a carefully pre-planned and coordinated
operation.
Thank you and I humourously appreciated your allusions to the asylum that has captured
Ukraine. The Maidan Murder Coalition has discovered its karma that was always lying in wait.
These villainous rsoles will seriously collapse under the weight of it all, particularly the
sniper trick shooters on the Maidan crowds.
I loved this line: "Everyone can recall a wide-spread (spread most likely by some overly
zealous, but not very literate, Russian "patriots") rumor about DDG-75 USS Donald Cook having
her electronics "burned" by a couple of intrepid Russian Su-24s in April of 2014, who
allegedly forced this American ship to fast return to Constanta, where, allegedly some of her
crew expressed a desire to abandon the ship. NYT and other US media, not without
justification, called those rumors to be Russian "propaganda". They have a point."
Which seems as good a moment as any to plug my new product (!!). Since that picture of
Col. Brittany visiting Donbass in uniform of 72th mechanized division with a prominent skull
badge reminded me so of the sketch 'Are we the Baddies' it is time to market my new velcro
badges with rainbows and BLM logos. Stick them anywhere to show you're part of the right
camp! If you shoulder badges may offend leftist softies, just stick these badges on top of
them for the perfect photo op! HTS already ordered a large batch. Now 20% off and buy two get
one free!
Turkey wants to build on its successes in Nagorno Karabach to sell its weapon systems to
Ukraine. Whether they also explicitly wish the conflict to explode is less clear.
Erdogan needs money, cash. The same seems to be true of most if not all Western
politicians. But some, like Erdogan and Bibi, need lots of money.
Putin on the other hand, does not need cash. He has a healthy fiat currency at his
disposal and sells a lot of food, oil, lumber, weapons etc. internationally.
I don't think Ukraine is going to be a good source of cash for Erdogan, or Bibi. They need
a lot of cash too.
So there is a massive build-up on both sides in Ukraine? ( The following comment was
provoked by info from a tweet that the Ukrainians have "found" a secret plan by the Kremlin
for a union with Donbas .. unconfirmed )
What if......?
... The Russians and the Dondbas/Luhansk actually DO declare a union with Russia? There is no
"need" for the Russians to physically "invade" the area. They can just sit there and wait for
the Ukrainians to do something. Then IF Zelensky decides, it is he who has to "start"
the conflict. As a plan it is the perfect reversal of the usual Russian "aggression".
Zelensky's bluff called?
A "union" is just another way of saying "it is ours EVEN IF the title is nominally someone
elses, stuff you".
The massive forces on the "frontlines" are there to remind the Ukes and their backers what
"might" happen, IF they "invade" Donbas/Luhansk. What can they do about it? Make rude noises
in the background?
The US, Israel and Turkey are all examples of one country simply "taking over" parts of
another country - without any legality whatsoever. US in NE Syria, Turkey with it's advance
of 32km all along a new frontline, with a wall between itself and Syria. Israel with the
Golan. None of them have the slightest legal reason to be there. (Chinese claim the
Spratleys, which is a legal fig-leaf).
Lateral thinking by Putin? Would he even need a legal fig-leaf?
It is an interesting idea, and I would not want to say it will not happen, but it seems
un-Putin-like to me based on past performance. He's been very comfortable with frozen
conflicts in the past. And I think he probably still wants Ukraine as a buffer, friendly but
not Russia, and to keep it whole minus Crimea.
This way he would still "keep" Ukraine on a tether, and avoid being accused of
aggression.
OK, it may go that way but the silence (from Putin) and the refusal of the Russians to
give more than vague reasons for their actions, does mean that the west's MSM have nothing to
froth at the mouth about- Let Zelensky stew in his own juice.
As well as the regular Army and volunteers, He is going to end up with seven thousand
ex-jihadists employees, multiple "mercenaries" from the US and the other parts of the world,
orders for Drones, arms etc. BUT he is losing $3 billion revenue from gas (the transit of
which has been "slowing down") since the 1st April. I don't know what he has contracted to
supply to those futher along the pipeline. Plus the debts to the WB and IMF.
So how long can he keep up the expense of having a standing army of 105'000 or more at the
ready?
The Russians can wait them out. If they just don't "talk" or give any PR leeway to the
west, then with the attention span of the goldfish in the EU and US citizens, it will drop
once again from view. (20 seconds for a goldfish otherwise they would get bored going round
and round in a bowl ?)
Diesen in his book, Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia , provides
the rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's actions in Ukraine, that are actually aimed at NATO
members, which it fears will be enticed by Russia and fracture the alliance:
"This susceptibility to outside sabotage of regional unity [NATO] can be mitigated by
centralizing power by, for example, instigating more overt military tensions to strengthen
alliance unity." [Pg. 22]
This also serves to provide additional energy to the Russophobic Narrative and the
unfounded rationale for anti-Russian sanctions. The Empire must at all costs continue NATO's
viability for that ensures the Empire's geoeconomic and geopolitical control of the EU. The
same is true in East Asia where the anti-China narrative must be continued to keep Japan and
South Korea under the Empire's thumb, although South Korea is slowly slipping away.
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, ...
Posted by: vk | Apr 11 2021 1:20 utc | 77
This is rather sketchily related to reality.
1. Ukraine is not a "black hole for the IMF". They got a smallish credit, and now they are
being denied extensions on rather preposterous grounds, and Ukraine is charged for the unused
credit line. Contrary to Nulands boasting, the West keeps Ukraine on a leash with a rather
skimpy budget.
2. There is no clear distinction between migration patterns. The one time I was in Russia,
the tourist guide on a one-day bus trip was from Rivne -- in Poland in years 1918-39. And as
Polish medical workers go to Spain etc., Ukrainian once fill the vacant positions, and they
may come from any place. Ditto with the "quality of workers". Poland has more of seasonal
jobs in picking crops (while Poles do it further West) than Russia, Russia perennially seeks
workers ready to accept extra pay in less than benign climes. The closest to truth is
scooping engineers and highly qualified workers from factories that before worked for Russian
market, including military, replaced with Russian factories and, when needed, Ukrainian
know-how. That is pretty much accomplished -- predominantly from the Eastern Ukraine. As a
result, the remaining workforce is so-so from east to west.
Now it looks more and more like a deliberate provocation. With Ukraine striving to get
attention and the USA striving to stop NS2.
Notable quotes:
"... The new 2020/2024 Russia/Ukraine transit gas contract is 'pump or pay' in that Russia pays $7B over 5 years regardless of whether gas is shipped or not. So it doesn't matter if the volume drops. I am actually surprised that it has given the still harsh weather in Europe. ..."
"... Meanwhile more figures are out on NS2 and it looks, given good weather, that both Fortuna and AC could finish pipe laying in both Danish and German waters by the end of May. So operational by the end as of year as stated by Gazprom looks on the cards, if not earlier. ..."
"... I suspect that the US and its NATO lapdogs are playing a distraction game. And I think that the Russian government knows this; but also realizes that the Western nations are cirrently in the grips of madcap rulers. Thus Russia is not taking any chance. One can bet that, as the whole empire crashes, it would like to bring down as much of humanity down with it as it can. The future of the earth is not bright. ..."
"... The Oil Shock only added to the 1973-75 recession. The Oil Shock was political in nature, and somewhat coordinated with the USG itself. The deeper causes of the early 70s economic crisis, and of the end of Bretton Woods, was declining profitability across all advanced capitalist states. See Robert Brenner's book, The Economics of Global Turbulence. ..."
"... Nuland et al may be trying to show themselves loyal agents of Israel, testing whether Russia can be distracted from Syria, or pretending to raise the cost of NS2. Russia and China could make balanced moves in the Caribbean to tame the bullies, but may see no advantage in counterthreats. ..."
"... This will be followed by an attack on the two Republics, dead bodies everywhere, un indisputable reason to convince the Germans with to scrap Nord-2. ..."
"... I am wondering if this might be an advantage for Russia and other countries in the mid to long term, that their companies are forced to master all the complex technologies involved as fast as possible? Maybe they will even become competitors to their western equivalents? ..."
First the Ukraine said it would use force to
recover the renegade Donbass region as well as Crimea. It then moved heavy troops towards the
contact lines. The ceasefire at the contact line was broken multiple times per day. Several
Ukrainian soldiers died while attempting to remove a minefield in preparation of an
attack.
It became clear that a war in Ukraine's east was
likely to soon braek out. A successful war would help Ukraine's president Zelensky with
the ever increasing domestic crises. A war would also give the U.S. more
influence in Europe . The U.S. and NATO promised "unwavering support for Ukraine's
sovereignty".
Russia gave several verbal warnings that any Ukrainian attack on the renegade provinces of
Luhansk and Donetsk or Crimea would cause a serious Russian intervention. There was never a
chance that the U.S. or NATO would intervene in such a war. But it was only after Russia
started to move some of its troops around that sanity set in. It dawned on the Ukrainian
leadership that the idea of waging war against a nuclear armed superpower was not a good
one.
Late yesterday it suddenly decided to file for peace (machine translation):
KIEV, April 9 - RIA Novosti. "Liberation" of Donbass by force will lead to mass deaths
of civilians and servicemen, and this is unacceptable for Kiev, said Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ruslan Khomchak.
"Being devoted to universal human values and norms of international
humanitarian law, our state puts the lives of its citizens in the first place," the General
Staff's press center quoted him as saying.
According to Khomchak, the Ukrainian authorities consider the political and diplomatic
way to resolve the situation in Donbass a priority. At the same time, he added that the
Armed Forces of Ukraine are ready for an adequate response both to the escalation of the
conflict and to "the complication of the military-political and military-strategic
situation around the country."
MOSCOW, April 9 - RIA Novosti. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the
need for a new truce in Donbass after visiting the contact line.
The head of state wrote on Facebook that shooting at the front lines had become "a
dangerous routine." "After several months of observing a complete and general ceasefire, we
returned to the need to establish a truce," Zelensky said.
As the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ruslan Khomchak emphasized
earlier, the use of force to "liberate" Donbass is unacceptable for Kiev, as it is fraught
with casualties among the civilian population and military personnel. At the same time,
last week he said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will strengthen the grouping of troops
in the Donbass and in the Crimean direction - in response to the "build-up" of Russian
forces on the border with Ukraine.
It seems that order has come from Washington to stand down - at least for now. U.S.
reconnaissance flights near Russia's border continue . One should
therefore consider that the sudden call for a renewed ceasefire might be a ruse.
But if it is not why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?
Posted by b on April 10, 2021 at 14:44 UTC |
Permalink
It would be so beneficial to Russia in so many ways to fix the Ukraine
problem once and for all, that America is now backpedalling fast and hoping the Russians do
not get their fix. They want this to continue to be a set of problems for Russia. Avoiding a
war would be great for all, but if the West thinks they can resume this contentious scenario,
they will find they are wrong. I am willing to bet that most common citizens of ukraine are
sick of all this vitriol and tension, crashing economy, and other hardships. Maybe the
majority will finally speak up and get their say.
The new 2020/2024 Russia/Ukraine transit gas contract is 'pump or pay' in that Russia
pays $7B over 5 years regardless of whether gas is shipped or not. So it doesn't matter if
the volume drops. I am actually surprised that it has given the still harsh weather in
Europe.
Meanwhile more figures are out on NS2 and it looks, given good weather, that both
Fortuna and AC could finish pipe laying in both Danish and German waters by the end of May.
So operational by the end as of year as stated by Gazprom looks on the cards, if not
earlier.
At the same time, last week he said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will strengthen
the grouping of troops in the Donbass and in the Crimean direction - in response to the
"build-up" of Russian forces on the border with Ukraine.
If war is really unacceptable to Ukraine why aren't they pulling back their forces?
1) Because the "Russian aggression' propaganda must continue until Nord Stream 2 is
terminated.
2) Because the threat of a war with NATO-supported Ukraine must be sustained to deter
Russia in Idlib and elsewhere.
The only deterrent US ships provide is the type that Russia wants to avoid engaging the US
directly for fear of an eventual nuclear exchange. Otherwise, those ships provide no
challenge to their military capabilities.
I submit the ships are there to encourage Zelensky to take a risk thinking the US has his
back. But it appears even he isn't this dumb and this whole thing is going to blow over as I
predicted a week or two ago.
So, was it always about bluff, theater and optics? ... Or did they simply lose their will
to die young? I guess Zelensky is a bad-joke comedian after all. He gets the local nazis off
his neck (for a while) by being a bold bad-ass boy and passing ideological laws (far from
reality); and then goes listen to the frontline generals as they explain the suicidal meaning
of his comic bluster. Being an actor, it's all just a stage for a gig, it seems. So, now he
tells his pet nazi thugs that Ruslan Khomchak has their phone numbers. Perhaps now that
Phil-the-(UK)Greek has died the Nato biolabs will be working on the next 'Plan B'
reincarnation-virus pandemic mix. Sputnik-V 2.0 better be ready soon.
Maybe I missed it but there were elections in Ukraine last Sunday and
"The new Verkhovna Rada (parliament) of the Ukraine, elected on Sunday, will have an
overwhelming national mandate to negotiate peace terms to end the five-year civil war.
"Sluha Narodu ("Servant of the People"), the party of President Volodymyr Zelensky, having
won more than 43% of the votes countrywide, will now command majorities of both the
party-list and the single-constituency seats in the new parliament; 253 seats altogether out
of 422, or a "mono-coalition" as the party is calling the result, or as the hostile Ukrainian
media term it, "a landslide [which] has never occurred in the contemporary history of Ukraine
and it is more typical for post-Soviet Asian dictatorships..."
"...This beats earlier pollster predictions that Zelensky would be forced into a coalition
with Holos ("The Voice"), a US-invented spoiler organization of Lvov region (Galicia) led by
pop singer, Svyatoslav Vakarchuk. He ended up with less than 6% of the national votes, fewer
than forecast. Holos has proved to be neither the voice of youth, nor an organization without
oligarch support (it was backed by Victor Pinchuk), nor a political party at all.
"Polling better than predicted was the Donbass (Donetsk, Lugansk regions) party,
Opposition Platform led by Victor Medvedchuk, which ended up with 13% nationally; 48% in
Lugansk; 42% in Donetsk; 24% in Odessa; and 19% in Nikolaev. If the additional votes of the
eastern Opposition Bloc of Boris Kolesnikov and Vadim Novinsky are counted with Medvedchuk's
aggregate, together they have drawn majorities of 53% to 54%, putting Zelensky's party in the
east in a minority.
"This is the first time democracy has defeated a US Government-installed putsch and junta
in Europe since the election of Andreas Papandreou's Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK)
in 1982."
According to John Helmer "President Volodomyr Zelensky (right) is suffering from memory
failure, mood swings, and other neurological disorders after his hospitalisation for Covid-19
five months ago..." The obvious theory is that Zelensky was playing for time while giving the
ultra fascists and their Canadian sponsors free rein until the elections gave the Ukrainian
people- powerless political flotsam and jetsam, tossed around by Ottawa Nazis, Anglo
imperialism and a corrupt oligarchy which has been robbing everyone in sight, blind since
time immemorial a chance to indicate that it would be an extremely dumb move to attack
Russia. Amongst other reasons, because the average Ukrainian would very likely side with the
Russians against their ancient persecutors the Poles and Balts.
b wrote
"
It seems that order has come from Washington to stand down - at least for now. U.S.
reconnaissance flights near Russia's border continue. One should therefore consider that the
sudden call for a renewed ceasefire might be a ruse.
But if it is not why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?
"
Good question. It fits with the characterization of late empire flailing at trying to
exert/maintain control over global narratives. Empire keeps hoping that Russia and China back
down because they have no other options than bullying. This is just the latest example of the
bully being faced up to.....thank you Mr. Putin!....we just hope the bully goes down without
taking all the rest of us with it.
I suspect that the US and its NATO lapdogs are playing a distraction game. And I think
that the Russian government knows this; but also realizes that the Western nations are
cirrently in the grips of madcap rulers. Thus Russia is not taking any chance. One can bet
that, as the whole empire crashes, it would like to bring down as much of humanity down with
it as it can. The future of the earth is not bright.
If Ukraine doesn't start their self-destruction by launching war before end of June then I
will believe the danger has passed this year and only because the crazies in the US are
hesitating to push the final button.
But if it is not why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?
The only plausible explanation is that time isn't in favor of the Ukraine (and maybe the
USA). Time is running up.
We should stop seeing capitalism as this unmovable, eternal and indestructible system, and
the USA as this eternal and indestructible empire with endless resources. Both
presuppositions are entirely false: capitalism and the USA are historically specific
phenomena, and they will - 100% certainty - collapse and disappear eventually.
In politics, time is always relative. You know you won't last forever, but you know you
don't need to: you just need to last longer than your political enemy. The fact that USA
outlived the USSR gave it almost 17 years of incontestable supremacy, even though, analyzing
the numbers, we know that the economic apex of the American Empire (its "golden age") was
between Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson. The absence of its geopolitical rival resulted in
the fact that the American Empire reached its pinnacle during Bill Clinton and George W.
Bush, not at the time its people was the most happy, during 1945-1969.
But geopolitical apex doesn't always translate automatically to economic apex. The USA
also suffered a lot with the Oil Crisis of 1974, after which it quickly started to
financialize and deindustrialize, in a process that was best symbolized by the Nixon Reforms
(the creation of the Petrodollar in 1971 with the secret talks with the Saudi royal family
and the deal with China in 1972). This crisis was masked solely by the fact that the USSR
suffered even more with the Oil Crisis than the USA, resulting into a relative
ascension. This relative ascension can be verified by the fact that Ronald Reagan was the
most popular POTUS of the post-war USA: his reign was, by all economic metrics, a monumental
failure, but it was during his watch that the USSR started to collapse.
Signs of cracks in the USA were already evident when George H. W. Bush wasn't re-elected
because of a tax revolt by the electorate. During Bill Clinton, the American Empire gained a
lot of breathing space thanks to the absorption of the vital space left by the ex-USSR
countries, which were ransacked by the American and, to a lesser extent, German, capitalists
(Victoria Nuland's husband, for example, got extremely rich with the privatization of the
communications services in ex-Yugoslavia, hence her particular interest in Eastern Europe
affairs). But even during Bill Clinton we could already see some dark clouds, e.g. the
infamous "twin deficits" increase. Bill Clinton also governed long enough to see the crisis
of the Asian Tigers (1997) and the Dotcom Crisis (2000). The dark clouds that would result in
the storm of September 2008 were already there, gathering.
Analyzing the economic data, we can clearly see that the USSR wasn't the only one in an
age of stagnation: since 1990, only China and SE Asia genuinely grew. If the 21st Century is
to be consolidated as the "Asian Century", then a historian of the 22nd Century will have to
go back to that year (or even earlier, to the mid-1980s) to try to understand the Asian rise.
Growth elsewhere (when it happened) was either vegetative or fruit of a relocation (i.e. rise
in inequality, bankruptcy of some sectors in favor of others) of wealth. During the 2000s,
almost all the economic growth can be exclusively traced back to China (Russia's and Brazil's
commodity booms, SE Asia's continued dynamism due to China's outsourcing or financing of
American debt).
The 2008 crisis ended Neoliberalism as a hegemonic ideology. Today's world is still very
much neoliberal, but only because the global elites don't know what to do and, either way,
it's being implemented in a very distorted way, very far from its ideological purity of the
1990s. No one takes neoliberalism seriously anymore, even among the high echelons of the
economics priesthood. Some remnants of neoliberal thought are still alive in the form of some
living fossils in Latin America, but its end if fait accompli.
It is in this world that the Ukraine chose to align with the American Empire. To put it
simply, it chose the wrong side at the wrong time: it chose the West in an era that's
shifting to the East. The euphoria of the fall of socialism masked the degeneration of
capitalism that was started at the same time and it particularly impacted the Warsaw Pact
(Comecon) and the Western ex-USSR nations.
The Ukraine debacle has two aspects. First of all: the Maidan color revolutionaries
clearly envisioned a neonazi, pro-Western Ukraine in its territorial integrity, i.e. with
Crimea, Luhansk and Donbas. They didn't see the pro-Russians being well-organized enough to
be able to quickly fall back to Russia (Crimea being the most spectacular case, rapidly
organizing a referendum and fully integrating with Russia). Those losses are big: without
Crimea, Ukraine essentially lost any significant Black Sea influence, and without Donbas +
Luhansk, it practically lost all its industry and economy. Donbas specifically was a huge
blow to the Ukrainians: since the Tsarist era, it was the most industrialized and advanced
region of the Russian Empire (even more than Moscow and St. Petersburg) and it continued to
be so during the Soviet Era - three of the main Soviet General-Secretaries of the post-war
era came from the region (Krushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev).
Secondly, Ukraine, by choosing capitalism, has put itself withing the capitalist metabolic
clock. The era of the Marshall Plan is gone. The USA needs wealth and it needs now. It will
have to pay tributes to its new metropolis, and the price is high. The USA will settle for
nothing less than the entire Ukraine - including the rich regions of the Donbas basin, plus
the Crimea (over which its powerful Navy will be able to project into Russian territory). It
also won't settle for anything less than a fully NATO-integrated, IMF-controlled Ukraine.
That's the price for a full accession to the capitalist club post-2008.
In this sense, Ukraine's time is very short, as it is sucking the IMF dry (financial black
hole) and it will collapse soon. The patience of the Empire is short and is getting shorter.
As is common with capitalist societies, the Ukraine is also starting to devour itself as it
collapses with the lack of vital space: the liberal elites governing it are having to ask
themselves how can they get out of this mess without being murdered by the neonazi base that
sustains it; at this point, they're more worried about avoiding another Night of the Long
Knives than in reconquering the Donbas and Crimea.
The only good aspect I see in the dissolution and extinction of the Ukraine is that it can
finally put to rest the myth that Nazism is a brutal, but highly efficient, "system": there's
not such a thing - and never was - as a "Nazi system". Germany already was the second
industrial superpower by the time Hitler rose to power; he never elaborated any kind of
economic theory or even policy, instead delegating it to the already existing (Weimarian)
industrial elite. Hitler was just a very powerful cheerleader who dreamed in being an epic
movie. There was never such a thing called "national socialism" - it was just the name of the
Bavarian party that already existed when Hitler crossed the border; it was by mere chance of
destiny that he came from Austria (Southern border) and not Denmark (Northern border),
France/Alsace-Lorraine (Western border) or Poland-Sudentenland (Eastern border). Nazism is
not a system, it is just crazy liberalism, and I hope the white supremacists and
traditionalists in the West take note of that - if they don't want to be crushed.
MarkU , Apr 10 2021 17:28 utc |
27Prof , Apr 10 2021 17:33 utc |
28
VK The Oil Shock only added to the 1973-75 recession. The Oil Shock was political in nature,
and somewhat coordinated with the USG itself. The deeper causes of the early 70s economic
crisis, and of the end of Bretton Woods, was declining profitability across all advanced
capitalist states. See Robert Brenner's book, The Economics of Global Turbulence.
It is more than 24 hours since the initial announcement of a stand down and it would be
nice to see some confirmation. Troops withdrawing would be confirmation. If it is happening
in is not reported. What we get tends to be like the NYT item cited by John H @ 20. Nothing
in that article but fantasy and delusion. The ongoing narrative crowds out facts until
nothing is left. No one is as bad as NYT, still it is hard to trust anything we read.
Keeping an army in the field indefinitely is difficult. At minimum the troops must be fed
and must be kept busy. Does Ukraine have the wherewithal to do that? I tend to doubt that,
and yes, I am speculating. We will find out much later how bad desertion has been. We will
find out much later how the hodgepodge of conscripts, mercs, Special Forces, and NATO got
along. Reporting from 2014 had it that 600 NATO of every flavor were captured in the
Debaltsevo cauldron. If you believe that. I can't see how Ukraine musters and fields another
army after this if it is in fact over. More likely future armies will resemble what US
manipulates in Syria -- Turks, Uighurs, jihadis from whole planet, mercs.
Domestic politics in Uke have to be crazy. No one can possibly know what is happening
except the US Embassy. And they have their brains fogged by a lifetime of NYT fiction. No
good locals for them to work with. If there was anyone good we would have seen them by
now.
One must be awestruck with the talent the neo cons have for nation destruction. What they
created in Ukraine is a virtual post nuclear war. Neither the EU or Russia want this
basket-case-failed-Nazi state. Like the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, it has fortified its
enemy whom it intended to weaken. Now, Putin has a Hezbollah type ally in the Donetsk and
Lugansk region, and it has Russian Crimean back to the Motherland.
Nuland et al may be trying to show themselves loyal agents of Israel, testing whether
Russia can be distracted from Syria, or pretending to raise the cost of NS2. Russia and China
could make balanced moves in the Caribbean to tame the bullies, but may see no advantage in
counterthreats.
Such an utter humiliation of the US to pursue such foolish and racist FP, admitting its
complete control by money power in all federal branches and mass media.
As others here suggest, it's possible to read this as a success for the neocons. Ukrainian
gov't troop movements set off Russian troop movements, which are then portrayed as
aggressive, justifying whatever. It is very hard to believe that they seriously contemplated
an attack on Russia's doorstep, or in its antechamber. But the question remains as to how far
Zelensky's can has been kicked down the road.
I am wondering if this might be an advantage for Russia and other countries in the mid
to long term, that their companies are forced to master all the complex technologies involved
as fast as possible? Maybe they will even become competitors to their western
equivalents?
Usually, when governments decide about big industry projects, they demand that their
national companies get some orders to profit from the project. Now, it seems reversed. The
German government is still not openly against Nord Stream 2, but it has to be finished
without some of the companies originally involved.
A pipe bearing the Nord Stream 2 logo at a plant in Chelyabinsk, Russia, Feb. 26, 2020. PHOTO: MAXIM SHEMETOV/REUTERS Listen to this article 5 minutes 00:00 / 05:07 1x Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. me title= NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
The Kremlin has demonstrated time and again its willingness to use energy trade to advance its geopolitical
ambitions. It would be unwise, if not reckless, for Europe to increase its dependence on
Gazprom
,
Russia's
state-owned energy company, and give Moscow direct control over which countries are supplied with gas and which
can be cut off.
The current contract between Gazprom and Ukraine's gas-transit operator guarantees the flow of westward exports
via Ukraine until the end of 2024. But make no mistake: The day Nord Stream 2 is completed, that promise will be
worthless. Even if some transit through Ukraine persists, Ukraine will be subject to the Kremlin's whims.
The fighting in the Donbas, where Russia operates through its proxies, mercenaries and even regular troops, has
continued unabated for more than seven years. The gas pipeline has been spared from shelling -- Russia needs
uninterrupted gas flows through Ukraine as much as we do. This mutual dependence is a deterrent that Nord Stream 2
will remove.
Ukraine is grateful to the U.S. Congress, which recognized the true nature of this pipeline project, and the
European Parliament, which voted 10-to-1 on Jan. 21 to demand a halt to construction with a resolution on the
arrest of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny in Moscow.
Germany and Europe already have access to a massive gas-transit network spanning the Black and Baltic seas,
Belarus and Ukraine. The existing capacity is more than 50% higher than current consumption of Russian gas in the
European Union. Even if the demand increases as Germany is working to phase out nuclear and coal power generation,
there is no commercial need for another pipeline.
While Germany has little to gain, Ukraine stands to lose billions of dollars in transit revenue if the second
Baltic Sea gas link is built -- a fact that Nord Stream 2 apologists often present as the only basis for Ukrainian
opposition. The economic effect will be significant, but the claim is deliberately misleading. Ukrainian soldiers
will be putting their lives on the line if Russia decides to escalate the conflict in the Donbas after it no
longer needs to consider the effect on gas exports.
Ukraine understands the need to strengthen the trans-Atlantic alliance and the desire to find a solution that
works for both Washington and Berlin. It is, however, incumbent on the Kremlin first to demonstrate respect for
international law. The ball is in Moscow's court. It can and should end hostilities in the Donbas region, withdraw
its troops from the Crimean Peninsula and restore Ukrainian sovereignty.
President Biden was right to call the pipeline "a bad deal for Europe." As the project inches closer to
completion, Ukrainians can't help but recall Mitterrand's words from nearly 30 years ago. Ukraine was tricked,
just as the French president predicted. Let us not repeat history but learn from it. We must come together and
reject Nord Stream 2 once and for all.
Mr. Reznikov is Ukraine's deputy prime minister for reintegration of the temporarily occupied territories.
V
V Lee
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
The Ukrainian kleptocracy will see their cut shrink or disappear when gas will start flowing via Nord Stream 2. Not "a
bad deal for Europe" just for Ukraine.
A Koster
SUBSCRIBER
17 hours ago
Did i mention Turkey's role in Syria ?
It's interesting that everyone conveniently fails "to mention the role that gas line geopolitics
played in the "fallout" between Erdogan and Assad; as soon as Assad vetoed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline
that would have brought massive wealth to his family's energy transshipment business (BMZ Ltd), Assad
instead signing on to the Iran-Iraq-Syria "Friendship Pipeline", the friendship was ended and the war
on Assad commenced"
A Koster
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
This article is about one thing.. absolutely nothing to do with a risk to Ukraine's national security
'Ukraine stands to lose billions of dollars in transit revenue if the second Baltic Sea gas link is built"
And Turkey is in there like a dirty shirt.. see "Russia Warns of Full-Scale War in Eastern Ukraine, Blames
Kyiv".. like it was with Azerbaijan as they slaughtered thousands of Christians in Armenia.. and all for the
first find in the Caspian Sea by Azerbaijan since Russia's breakup.. HINT: they wanted.. not needed.. a
direct route west for a pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey.. which they got in a Russia brokered peace deal
So i guess congratulations are in order to Biden's NATO as they loyally keep working on enlarging the EU and
keeping the oil baron families of Erdogan and Alyiev filthy rich
James Schumaker
SUBSCRIBER
1 hour ago
I suggest you look up the Budapest Memorandum. The U.S. gave no guarantees. Like Russia, it gave assurances. I also
suggest you stop falling for pro-Trump talking points and look at what Trump actually did with regard to Ukraine. He
tried to extort its President into digging up dirt on his main political opponent by threatening to withdraw military
aid. That's what he was impeached for -- the first time.
RODNEY SMITH
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Where does Burisma stand on the issue? Will be Biden's brief.
Jens Praestgaard
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Otto von Bismarck's maxim for the newly formed German state was to always keep cordial relations with Russia. NordStream
2 is a step towards normalization of the German/Russian relationship after 120 years of failure.
Jim Mcdonnell
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Bismarck's policy made sense in 19th Century Europe, and had Kaiser Wilhelm II not scuttled it we would be
living in a very different world. But he did scuttle it, and the world has changed - largely in ways Bismarck
sought to prevent - a great deal, as has Europe.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Bismarck's thoughts about Germany's geopolitical situation are still relevant today. He argued that the
map that matters for German politicians is the map of Europe [and since 1945 that frame has been enlarged,
has included the US and Canada]. That Germany needed to pay particular attention to relationships with its
neighbors. That the country was to small to dominate Europe, and should rely on a system of stable alliances
to ensure stability, Ukraine and Russia are neighbors, Bismarck would have seen relationships with both
countries as relevant. Communication channels need to be kept open, those relationships need to be
managed. One neighbor, Russia, is an authoritarian state and since 2014 more openly aggressive. It needs
to be contained and challenged. The US has not been a reliable partner in doing that in the last 4 years
under Trump. That might change under a Biden, but will he be able to make and lock in the appropriate policy
decisions? We'll see.
John Bute
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Germany has made a terrible strategic mistake by abandoning nuclear power to become more and more dependent on Russian
natural gas. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power and about 10% from fossil fuel. Only moderate
increases in hydro power and renewable energy will make it fossil fuel independent.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
German voters make their own decisions about climate change and definitely don't look for US advice. Power
plants burning coal and producing nuclear energy are coming off the grid. Natural gas will continue to be
important in that mix for quite some time. The Green Party's power is growing. It successfully expanded its
electoral base in 2 state elections this spring with broad support from middle class voters. After all,
environmentalism is a full belly movement. The Greens will challenge the German Conservatives, Merkel's
Christian Democrats, in September at the ballot box in national elections and other state elections. And Merkel
will not be on the ballot. Her CDU, which has been consistently the most pro-American party in Europe, finds
that pro-American stance is now a big liability. 4 years of the Trump regime. which treated Germans as clients,
changed the political landscape. Fewer Germans see the US is as a reliable partner, and that is now true even
in Merkel's party.
SCOTT CORE
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
Germany may view the US as an unreliable partner but they still rely on the US for economic and military
protection. Perhaps Germans have replaced the US with NATO in their minds and ignored the fact that the US
is the majority of NATO. Where Russia to threaten Germany where do you think Germany would turn? France? UK?
China?
So Germans are free to trash Trump for asking them to provide a modicum of their own protection but in the
end they will look to the US should they be threatened either economically by a cutoff of gas from Russia or
a military threat from Russia.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
20 hours ago
Look at Gallup polling data or the Pew Research Center's data in its Global attitudes program. In many countries Trump
ranked even below Xi or Putin. He was perceived as the bigger threat--unstable, angry, without a strategic vision, just
a ventilator of his emotions, a middle schooler craving attention, a clown. Yet he made these huge claims, all lies,
that the US was respected and listened to. The polling data tells us otherwise. Trump's lying and the hubris that fell
from these lies, that is unprecedented.
And now; THE LOSER. The Mouse-of-Mar-a-Lago. But, the Republican Party still follows him.. The man will be remembered as
the worst president the US ever had, ranking even below the corrupt Harding and the imbecile Buchanan. The lowest of the
low. And as THE LIAR [-->Trump should register that as a trademark]. History books won't be kind to him and the suckers
that still gobble up his lies even now after the putsch or whatever you want to call the Capitol "riot." Barnum was
right!
michael ring
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
England and France have their own nuclear deterrents. Europeans just want cheap steady supply of energy. Russia is in
the Middle East because Hillary and Obama destroyed Syria and Libya. Bush put us in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years!
Trump started the withdrawal. Let's hope sleepy preacher Biden continues it.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
A little reality check: At the very moment when Washington supposedly champions energy independence and warns European
allies against becoming too dependent on Moscow, American refineries are buying more Russian oil than ever before.
Check out the article by Javier Blas on the Bloomberg News site, published Mar. 24, 2021: "U.S. Thirst for Russian
Oil Hits Record High Despite Tough Talk."
David Thomson
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Puerto Rico buys Russian LNG because there are no American-built LNG tankers. Thanks to the Jones Act, we can't ship
LNG from Texas to PR.
Eugene Boutz
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
(Edited)
Ukraine is composed of three *identities* which have nothing in common and want nothing in common.
There are the Russian speakers in the East and along the Black Sea, the people surrounding Lviv in the West which want
to be European and the denizens of Kiev who tend to favor the values and views of the Chancellor of Germany in the '30s.
Ukraine already has a tripartite schism and is most likely headed for a tripartite split once the Russian Federation,
having had its absolute fill of Kiev's games, obtains Beijing approbation to bring the matter to a conclusion with
weaponry of which Kiev can only dream.
The United States is not going to fight a nuclear war with Russia over the interests of the Kiev faction nor does
Germany want it to.
Nor do I.
Nor do you.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
(Edited)
The Germans are not going to cave. They will finish the pipeline. It is now 96 % built. The West Europeans started
importing Russian gas more than 40 years ago. Ronald Reagan failed when he tried to stick it to the Germans with
sanctions. And so will Cancun Ted. The old pipeline system that runs through Ukraine has been reverse-engineered with EU
funds about a decade ago. Ukraine has already been reliably supplied from the West when the Russians cut supplies. The
talking points in this piece are based on Cancun Ted's hallucinations, and not the facts on the ground. For a factual
analysis see Eugene Rumer's long piece published today in Defense News "Punishing Germany for Nord Stream 2 does nothing
to stop Putin." Rumer is the director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace. He previously worked as a national intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia for the U.S. National Intelligence
Council. He actually knows what he is talking about.
William Wahl
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Just put Hunter on it. He'll fix this right up.
michael ring
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Biden has been on the wrong side of every foreign policy decision in his entire career in Washington. Mitterrrand
was a bureaucrat who started his rise in vischy France. Ukraine is in a tough spot. So is Russia. They
have been fighting for 7 years. Body counts go up,citizens do not like it. Russia will not sacrifice one
pipeline for another. Ukraine and Russia can agree to no NATO troops on their border and tensions will go
down.
bruce miller
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
And who talked Ukraine into giving up their nukes? Well we did. Or rather, Slick and his pals did. Bet
the Ukrainians wish they'd kept a bunch. Just for old time's sake.
michael ring
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
What bargaining power would they be?No person or government in their right mind would use them. This is
about land grabbing.
GreatCaesar'sGhost called it: Ukraine is a tool to shut down Nordstream. Ukraine will push until Russia does something, then Germany shuts down Nordstream, shooting
themselves in the foot.
Puppyteethofdeath 1 hour ago
There's always the chance that election fraud will bring the Green Party to rise in Germany
also.
They'll gladly get rid of Nordstream 2 and destroy the German economy.
NATO commissars chase Ukrainian conscripts into RU artillery and machinegun fire until
they lose control over their units, which immediately flee the battlefield (as usual).
If V.V. Putin feels merciful, there's no Buratino rocket barrages on troop concentration
points, as happened during Ilovaisk debacle.
Now, hopefully NATO will puff up and use their vaunted Israeli drones during the attack,
so RU can study the remains.
You never, ever attack entrenched, prepared and boresighted Russians in tank country, without
air superiority, because if you do you get Kursk.
In the best case.
In worst, and most probable case, NATO will get another Saur Mogila disaster.
@Zarathustra urriculum. The Russians must stop protecting the Jews who control the
narrative everywhere. Jews must no longer control more than 10% of the media. They are only
1-2% of the population.
Like the Jews, Galician Ukrainians are always victims. What they did to the Poles during
the German occupation is forgotten.
The zionists are in control in the Ukraine and if they start a war with Russia the Ukraine
is going to be destroyed, Russia has warned Ukraine over and over but being the typical
zionists that they are, they will accept nothing but destruction and bloodshed as long as it
is someone elses blood and destruction.
The zionists have destroyed Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and America.
@alwayswrite ous Regions/Republics had the legal right to secede from the given SSR they
were attached to. Furthermore, once USSR dissolved, any legal basis for a given (former) SSR
to have sway on the given Autonomous Soviet Republic ended.
@Miro23 Germans are surely going to become tired of all this CIA/Neo-con BS.
Merkel and Macron know just what the US is playing at. If the Ukraine does get the deserved
thrashing, that it is literally begging for, then of course there will be German and French
knee jerk condemnations along with the ritual imposition of token sanctions. However this
dangerous episode, will likely harden the resolve of both countries to escape the grip of the
flailing hegemon, which is now in its death throes. So perhaps in the slightly longer term, the
whole episode will backfire on the US and big time at that.
Russia might feel that war in Ukraine is inevitable and perhaps it would be better now,
rather than later.
@Levtraro ganovich, henchman to Stalin, but with an agenda of his own, had his troops and
secret-police agents seize essentially ALL the food stocks from perhaps 2 million peasant
families, resulting in death by starvation for multi-millions.
Thirdly, the heaviest battles in the Second World War were mostly fought in Ukraine. Again,
the death totals of the civilian population were huge. The land was ravaged. Essentially the
entire population were deeply traumatized.
Consequently one should not wonder that to the average Russian Ukrainians appear to be dazed
and dumbed-down. So next time you see your Russian friends, kindly remind them that their
brethren to the south and west should be regarded and treated with considerable compassion.
Good comment. Basically what I have been saying since Maidan. I understand why it has not
happened but the time has definitely come. I think the demarcation would be Odessa, Kherson,
Mykolaev and then north along the Dnipro including Khortiskia and up to East Sumy. I know it
sounds warmongerish but I hope this happens. Get this shit over with. There is so much
happening in this country that discriminates against ethnic Russians more each day.
No, it isn't; it's worse. The Ukrainian army suffers huge non-combat losses every day:
accidents from drinking or narcotics, desertion, suicides. Their commanders are incompetent and
super-dumb as well as first-rate scumbags.
They well remember the Russian reconquest after the revolution and Holodomor.
That they do not remember, for that never happened, at least, not as described. What they do
remember, however, are the caldrons in 2014-2015 and their horrendous losses.
"They well remember the Russian reconquest after the revolution and Holodomor. Ukraine will
not be easily swallowed again."
Ummmmm . it would appear that the grandchildren of the architects of the Holodomor are the
ones currently in power in Ukraine. Pretty amazing level of cucking and submission if you ask
me.
@Levtraro vernment of Ukraine and that the current regime is nothing more than a puppet
state which does NOT represent the best interests of the Ukrainian people and particularly of
those particularly Russian speaking folks in Crimea and the Donbass region.
The illegitimate regime in Kiev is almost entirely Khazarian Talmudist dominated and in
cahoots with the fascistic Uniates in Galicia. That group should be entirely divorced from any
future Ukrainian state as their history has a long involvement with Western Roman Catholic
cultures and consequently is an alien entity within the body politick of Ukraine, Belarus or
Russia. Let them go their own way and not infect their neighbors to the south and east with
their culturally indigestible attitudes.
Turkey Confirms 2 US Warships To Enter Black Sea As Ukraine Posturing Grows
BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, APR 09, 2021 - 10:29 AM
Turkey's foreign ministry on Friday confirmed
that it's granted permission for US warships to use the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to enter the Black Sea at a moment
tensions with Russia over Ukraine are spiraling higher with tit-for-tat threats. Given it revealed the initial notification
was two weeks ago, a pair of American warships are
expected imminently to enter the
Black Sea
.
The foreign ministry
said
in a statement
while referencing the treaty that regulates passage through the straits: "A notice was sent to us 15 days
ago via diplomatic channels that two U.S. warships would pass to the Black Sea in line with the Montreux Convention.
The
ships will remain in the Black Sea until May 4.
"
Typically the US gives 14-days notice prior
to sending warships into the Black Sea, according to the long established treaty with Turkey regarding use of the Bosporus to
enter the waters.
And Reuters notes the significance of the
timing
as follows
: "The United States has informed Turkey that two of its warships will pass through Turkish straits to be
deployed in the Black Sea until May 4, Ankara said on Friday, as Russia has bulked up its military forces on Ukraine's eastern
border."
Late Thursday an unnamed US defense official
had told CNN the warships would be deployed
"in the next few weeks in
a
show of support for Ukraine
,"
and further the deployment would "send a specific message to Moscow that the US is
closely watching," according to the
report
.
Importantly, all of this comes just days
after Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky personally urged NATO to
immediately
expand its Black Sea presence.
He had said in a phone call with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg,
"Such
a permanent presence
should be a
powerful
deterrent to Russia
, which continues the large-scale militarization of the region and hinders merchant
shipping," the
president's
press service
indicated in a readout.
Zelensky had also traveled to the site of frontline renewed fighting in the Donbas region on Thursday in a show of support to
Ukrainian national forces who are clashing with Russia-backed separatists.
While American vessels have long operated in the Black Sea, even semi-regularly conducting drills there, this time the US
ships are being sent there
specifically as a "warning" to Moscow
.
But Russia's Defense Ministry on Thursday announced naval maneuvers of its own,
confirming
that it's
moving more than 10 navy vessels from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea
in
order to conduct naval exercises.
With the rival naval build-up on the Kremlin and Ukraine's doorstep, and with the mutual amassing of troops on either side of
the border...
what could go wrong?
Bdubs
49 minutes ago
And Trump
was the bloodthirsty war monger?
Is there
ANYTHING the left disparages the right for that is not a psychological projection?
These f-ers
need therapy.
Misesmissesme
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Man, we're doing everything we can to turn Ukraine into Poland circa 1939.
Maybe we can find an Archduke to assassinate so we can turn the clock all the way back to 1914.
USAllDay
1 hour ago
remove
link
Joe
sent his kid to Ukraine to blow lines. He'll send yours to blow up.
GreatCaesar'sGhost
1 hour ago
No nato troops will ever set foot in Ukraine. They're trying to pressure Russia into doing something
so they can force the Germans to stop nordstream. The Ukrainians can't win here and they're being used.
Not good.
BeePee
1 hour ago
There
were NATO advisors in Ukraine. Even that should be stopped.
Selling arms to Ukraine, most likely will continue. That's what companies do.
GreatCaesar'sGhost
58 minutes ago
The
Ukrainians are being pushed to make a move against Donbass and even Crimea. It is a poor country buying
expensive weapons, doesn't end well.
Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of war – with dire consequences for the whole
of Eurasia. Let's cut to the chase, and plunge head-on into the fog of war.
On March 24, Ukrainian President Zelensky, for all practical purposes, signed a declaration of war
against Russia, via decree No. 117/2021.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks
during a joint press conference with European Council President in Kiev on March 3, 2021.
Photo: AFP / Sergey Dolzhenko
The decree establishes that retaking Crimea from Russia is now Kiev's official policy.
That's exactly what prompted an array of Ukrainian battle tanks to be shipped east on flatbed
rail cars, following the saturation of the Ukrainian army by the US with military equipment
including unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank systems and
man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).
More crucially, the Zelensky decree is the proof any subsequent war will have been prompted
by Kiev, debunking the proverbial claims of "Russian aggression." Crimea, since the referendum
of March 2014, is part of the Russian Federation.
It was this (italics mine) de facto declaration of war, which Moscow took very
seriously, that prompted the deployment of extra Russian forces to Crimea and closer to the
Russian border with Donbass. Significantly, these include the crack 76 th Guards Air
Assault Brigade, known as the Pskov paratroopers and, according to an intel report quoted to
me, capable of taking Ukraine in only six hours.
It certainly does not help that in early April US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, fresh
from his former position as a board member of missile manufacturer Raytheon, called Zelensky to
promise "unwavering US support for Ukraine's sovereignty." That ties in with Moscow's
interpretation that Zelensky would never have signed his decree without a green light from
Washington.
On March 8, 2021, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during observance of
International Women's Day in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP /
Mandel Ngan
Controlling the narrative
Sevastopol, already when I visited in December 2018 , is one of
the most heavily defended places on the planet, impervious even to a NATO attack. In his
decree, Zelensky specifically identifies Sevastopol as a prime target.
Once again, we're back to 2014 post-Maidan unfinished business.
To contain Russia, the US deep state/NATO combo needs to control the Black Sea –
which, for all practical purposes, is now a Russian lake. And to control the Black Sea, they
need to "neutralize" Crimea.
If any extra proof was necessary, it was provided by Zelensky himself on Tuesday this week
in a
phone call with NATO secretary-general and docile puppet Jens Stoltenberg.
NATO
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gives a press conference at the end of a NATO Foreign
Ministers' meeting at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels on March 24, 2021. Photo: AFP /
Olivier Hoslet
Zelensky uttered the key phrase: "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass" –
which means, in practice, NATO expanding its "presence" in the Black Sea. "Such a permanent
presence should be a powerful deterrent to Russia, which continues the large-scale
militarization of the region and hinders merchant shipping."
All of these crucial developments are and will continue to be invisible to global public
opinion when it comes to the predominant, hegemon-controlled narrative.
The deep state/NATO combo is imprinting 24/7 that whatever happens next is due to "Russian
aggression." Even if the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) launch a blitzkrieg against the Lugansk
and Donetsk People's Republics. (To do so against Sevastopol in Crimea would be certified mass
suicide).
In the United States, Ron Paul has been one of the very few voices to
state the obvious: "According to the media branch of the US
military-industrial-congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to
clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more 'Russian aggression.'"
What's implied is that Washington/Brussels don't have a clear tactical, much less strategic
game plan: only total narrative control.
And that is fueled by rabid Russophobia – masterfully
deconstructed by the indispensable Andrei Martyanov, one of the world's top military
analysts.
A possibly hopeful sign is that on March 31, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian
Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Mark Milley, talked on the phone about the proverbial "issues of mutual interest."
Days later, a
Franco-German statement came out, calling on "all parties" to de-escalate. Merkel and
Macron seem to have gotten the message in their videoconference with Putin – who must
have subtly alluded to the effect generated by Kalibrs, Kinzhals and assorted hypersonic
weapons if the going gets tough and the Europeans sanction a Kiev blitzkrieg.
French
President Emmanuel Macron speaks as German Chancellor Angela Merkel looks on after a
German-French Security Council video conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris, on February 5,
2021. Photo: AFP / Thibault Camus
The problem is Merkel and Macron don't control NATO. Yet Merkel and Macron at least are
fully aware that if the US/NATO combo attacks Russian forces or Russian passport holders who
live in Donbass, the devastating response will target the command centers that coordinated the
attacks.
What does the hegemon want?
As part of his current Energizer bunny act, Zelensky made an extra eyebrow-raising move.
This past Monday, he visited Qatar with a lofty delegation and clinched
a raft of deals , not circumscribed to LNG but also including direct Kiev-Doha flights;
Doha leasing or buying a Black Sea port; and strong "defense/military ties" – which could
be a lovely euphemism for a possible transfer of jihadis from Libya and Syria to fight Russian
infidels in Donbass.
Right on cue, Zelensly meets Turkey's Erdogan next Monday. Erdogan's intel services run the
jihadi proxies in Idlib, and dodgy Qatari funds are still part of the picture. Arguably, the
Turks are already transferring those "moderate
rebels" to Ukraine. Russian intel is meticulously monitoring all this activity.
A series of informed discussions – see, for instance, here and here
– is converging on what may be the top three targets for the hegemon amid all this mess,
short of war: to provoke an irreparable fissure between Russia and the EU, under NATO auspices;
to crash the Nord Steam 2 pipeline; and to boost profits in the weapons business for the
military-industral complex.
So the key question then is whether Moscow would be able to apply a Sun Tzu move short of
being lured into a hot war in the Donbass.
On the ground, the outlook is grim. Denis Pushilin, one of the top leaders of the Lugansk
and Donetsk people's republics, has stated that the chances of avoiding war are "extremely
small." Serbian sniper Dejan Beric – whom I met in Donetsk in 2015 and who is a certified
expert on the ground – expects a Kiev attack in early May .
The extremely controversial Igor Strelkov, who may be termed an exponent of "orthodox
socialism," a sharp critic of the Kremlin's policies who is one of the very few warlords who
survived after 2014, has unequivocally
stated that the only chance for peace is for the Russian army to control Ukrainian
territory at least up to the Dnieper river. He stresses that a war in April is "very likely";
for Russia war "now" is better than war later; and there's a 99% possibility that Washington
will not fight for Ukraine.
On this last item at least Strelkov has a point; Washington and NATO want a war fought to
the last Ukrainian.
Rostislav Ischenko, the top Russian analyst of Ukraine whom I had the pleasure of meeting in
Moscow in late 2018, persuasively argues
that, "the overall diplomatic, military, political, financial and economic situation powerfully
requires the Kiev authorities to intensify combat operations in Donbass.
"By the way," Ischenko added, "the Americans do not give a damn whether Ukraine will hold
out for any time or whether it will be blown to pieces in an instant. They believe they stand
to gain from either outcome."
Gotta defend Europe
Let's assume the worst in Donbass. Kiev launches its blitzkrieg. Russian intel documents
everything. Moscow instantly announces it is using the full authority conferred by the UNSC to
enforce the Minsk 2 ceasefire.
In what would be a matter of 8 hours or a maximum 48 hours, Russian forces smash the whole
blitzkrieg apparatus to smithereens and send the Ukrainians back to their sandbox, which is
approximately 75km north of the established contact zone.
In the Black Sea, incidentally, there's no contact zone. This means Russia may send out all
its advanced subs plus the surface fleet anywhere around the "Russian lake": They are already
deployed anyway.
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks on as Novator Design Bureau
director-general Farid Abdrakhmanov and Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko shake hands
during a signing ceremony for government contracts in Alabino, Moscow region, Russia. on June
27, 2019. Photo: AFP / Alexei Druzhinin / Sputnik
Once again Martyanov lays down the law when he predicts, referring to a group of Russian
missiles developed by the Novator Design Bureau: "Crushing Ukies' command and control system is
a matter of few hours, be that near border or in the operational and strategic Uki depth.
Basically speaking, the whole of the Ukrainian 'navy' is worth less than the salvo of 3M54 or
3M14 which will be required to sink it. I think couple of Tarantuls will be enough to finish it
off in or near Odessa and then give Kiev, especially its government district, a taste of modern
stand-off weapons."
The absolutely key issue, which cannot be emphasized enough, is that Russia will not
(italics mine) "invade" Ukraine. It doesn't need to, and it doesn't want to. What Moscow will
do for sure is to support the Novorossiya people's republics with equipment, intel, electronic
warfare, control of airspace and special forces. Even a no-fly zone will not be necessary; the
"message" will be clear that were a NATO fighter jet to show up near the frontline, it would be
summarily shot down.
And that brings us to the open "secret" whispered only in informal dinners in Brussels, and
chancelleries across Eurasia: NATO puppets do not have the balls to get into an open conflict
with Russia.
One thing is to have yapping dogs like Poland, Romania, the Baltic gang and Ukraine
amplified by corporate media on their "Russian aggression" script. Factually, NATO had its
collective behind unceremoniously kicked in Afghanistan. It shivered when it had to fight the
Serbs in the late 1990s. And in the 2010s, it did not dare fight the Damascus and Axis of
Resistance forces.
When all fails, myth prevails. Enter the US Army occupying parts of Europe to "defend" it
against – who else? – those pesky Russians.
That's the rationale behind the annual US Army
DEFENDER-Europe 21 , now on till the end of June, mobilizing 28,000 soldiers from the US
and 25 NATO allies and "partners."
This month, men and heavy equipment pre-positioned in three US Army depots in Italy, Germany
and the Netherlands will be transferred to multiple "training areas" in 12 countries. Oh, the
joys of travel, no lockdown in an open air exercise since everyone has been fully vaccinated
against Covid-19.
Pipelineistan uber alles
Nord Stream 2 is not a big deal for Moscow; it's a Pipelineistan inconvenience at best.
After all the Russian economy did not make a single ruble out of the not yet existent pipeline
during the 2010s – and still it did fine. If NS2 is canceled, there are plans on the
table to redirect the bulk of Russian gas shipments towards Eurasia, especially
China.
Connecting German infrastructure for Nord Stream 2 is in place. In this handout photo
released February 4, 2020, by the press service of Eugal, a view shows the Eugal pipeline, in
Germany. The Eugal pipeline, which will receive gas from Nord Stream 2 in the future, has
reached full pumping capacity, and the second line of the pipeline has been introduced. Photo:
AFP / Press-service of Eugal / Sputnik
In parallel, Berlin knows very well that canceling NS2 will be an extremely serious breach
of contract – involving hundreds of billions of euros; it was Germany that requested the
pipeline to be built in the first place.
Germany's energiewende ("energy transition" policy) has been a disaster. German
industrialists know very well that natural gas is the only alternative to nuclear energy. They
are not exactly fond of Berlin becoming a mere hostage, condemned to buy ridiculously expensive
shale gas from the hegemon – even assuming the egemon will be able to deliver, as its
fracking industry is in shambles. Merkel explaining to German public opinion why they must
revert to using coal or buy shale from the US will be a sight to see.
As it stands, NATO provocations against NS2 proceed unabated – via warships and
helicopters. NS2 needed a permit to work in Danish waters, and it was granted only a month ago.
Even as Russian ships are not as fast in laying pipes as the previous ships from Swiss-based
Allseas
, which backed down, intimidated by US sanctions, the Russian Fortuna is making steady
progress, as noted by analyst Petri Krohn: one kilometer a day on its best days, at least 800
meters a day. With 35 km left, that should not take more than 50 days.
Conversations with German analysts reveal a fascinating shadowplay on the energy front
between Berlin and Moscow – not to mention Beijing. Compare it with Washington: EU
diplomats complain there's absolutely no one to negotiate with regarding NS2. And even assuming
there would be some sort of deal, Berlin is inclined to admit Putin's judgment is correct: the
Americans are "not agreement-capable." One just needs to look at the record.
Behind the fog of war, though, a clear scenario emerges: the deep state/NATO combo using
Kiev to start a war as a Hail Mary pass to ultimately bury NS2, and thus German-Russian
relations.
At the same time, the situation is evolving towards a possible new alignment in the heart of
the "West": US/UK pitted against Germany/France. Some Anglosphere exceptionals are certainly
more Russophobic than others.
The toxic encounter between Russophobia and Pipelineistan will not be over even if NS2 is
completed. There will be more sanctions. There will be an attempt to exclude Russia from SWIFT.
The proxy war in Syria will intensify. The hegemon will go no holds barred to keep creating all
sorts of geopolitical harassment against Russia.
What a nice wag-the-dog op to distract domestic public opinion from massive money printing
masking a looming economic collapse. As the empire crumbles, the narrative is set in stone:
it's all the fault of "Russian aggression."
Well, I'm hoping the Ukrainians will finally remember Bernard Lewis's warning about the
U.S. and realize they are being used like a Kleenex: "America is harmless as an enemy but
treacherous as a friend."
Americans have had it and will never tolerate sending combat troops into a Russia/Ukraine
conflict no matter how much rah-rah let's you and him fight we'll hold your coat for you,
faux patriotism the lugenpresse throw at them. Those of us who volunteered for the US
military in the past have learned our lesson.
"The problem is Merkel and Macron don't control NATO." I don't know how a decision is made
whether NATO will go to war or not but if Germany and France have no say in whether their
soldiers will be sent to war or not, that must by a very scary thought for them.
I found the following analysis interesting and I think it makes sense. It suggests France
and Germany have a say in matters and that they oppose any offensive Ukraine has in mind. The
commentator analyzes the diplomatic language and Germany and France appear to be fed up.
Without coming out and saying so directly, they see things more as Russia does than Ukraine.
It's very unfortunate things have developed this way for Ukraine. In addition, if Merkel
wants to be perceived as a complete failure as chancellor in Germany, only then will she let
NS2 be stopped from being completed. This analysis suggests there may be some strain between
France and Germany versus the USA.
I do have to disagree. If Ukraine start a war Russia must take back all eastern part of
Ukraine that has prevalent Russian population. Odessa and Zaporozhie is particularly
important. Russia must also tale all Kiev area back.
1. Senior Ukrainian officers were once Soviet officers. They, and most of their troops,
don't want to fight Russians and know it's foolish. The Ukrainian army will crumble if they
come in contact with regular Russian troops. It's not that they are cowards, but sane. It
would be like Canadian troops ordered to attack across the American border.
2. The American empire is furious and concerned that its long-time puppet disobeyed
orders. Germany wants Russian gas and the empire wants that pipeline stopped. Not only to
hurt Russia, but to teach the Germans a lesson. If fighting occurs in the Ukraine, would the
Germans dare to buy natgas from evil Russians?
3. Most importantly, Israel controls the American government. A major goal is the
destruction of Syria to allow the expansion of Greater Israel, as explained in the video
below. This nearly succeeded until the Russians intervened. Fighting in Ukraine would divert
Russian military resources from Syria so that nation can be destroyed, or Russia may give up
Syrian support as part of a grand peace deal.
The Biden administration is fully supportive of finishing off Syria and Lebanon, then
moving on to destroy Iran. The new talks about Iran's nuclear program will go nowhere. It's
just a show so Biden can say he tried.
It makes all the difference when the revolving-door regulator-capture reframing is not
"USA/Nato vs Russia" -- but rather the more accurate "Raytheon (et al) vs Russia."
The modern truth is: Russia and China have governments in control of policy and industry.
The USA (and therefore also its yapping poodle collection) have Industry setting policy and
running government for their 1%-er shareholder benefits.
Part of me wants to think that the Ukies will want to fold at the last moment. Yet all
this apparent evidence points to their going for it and promptly getting their collective
noses smashed in. Those who speculate in meta-political geo-strategic analysis cannot make
sense of the moves by the largely incompetent shot-callers and their even more incompetent
minions who cut the orders to their chessmen.
Heavy pressure by the equally incompetent regime in the Di$trict of Corruption, where
carrot and stick are equally in play, is as Escobar points out, the force behind this nearly
automatic death-sentence for the Kiev regime and the poor slobs who make up the draftee
elements in the Ukrainian military.
Again, geopolitically, one wonders at the deeper string-pullers within the Pentagram, the
CIA and the mass media of mind-control and message-massaging. Is this essentially a move to
keep the American people–most particularly the edjumacated managerial and technical
classes who make up the core of the alleged "middle-class"–"on message and in
line"?
Yes, the WarDefense industry (aka Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex") insist on
ongoing wars and threats of war to maintain their profit margins for the prime owners of that
false economic basis,prime actors such as the Rottenchild Crime Clan and the rest of the
parasites clustered in City of London and Wall $treet.
How will the canny and ever wary Russians proceed? Will they operate in the manner that
Escobar proposes, by not directly employing the considerable ground-forces which now stand on
alert just to the eastwards of their mutually agreed upon Swiss-cheese border with the
Novorussians in Donetsk and Luhansk? Or will Russian strategy be somewhat more comprehensive
by liberating the rest of the primarily Russian-speaking parts of eastern and southern
Ukraine which had largely backed the overthrown legitimate government of that bedizened
composite nation and are still smarting under the heels of the Galician fascists and the
smaller grouping of Russophobic Ukrainian nationalists who still harbor nightmares about the
Bolshevik/Stalinoid Holodomar? There are, after all human considerations which may influence
Kremlin policy.
Should Russia decide to make a move, it is my projection that they would never be likely
to even attempt to occupy central Ukraine and would set a stop-line well to the east of Kiev.
Something that bemusingly intrigues me is the Belarus factor. It would appear that the Minsk
regime, smarting from the attempted coup by the Poles, Baltic states and Ukraine backing of
"pro-Westerners, may be mobilizing to get into the action and perhaps readjust their
boundaries somewhat southwards. This could indicate a countering move by the Uniates in
Galicia to make common cause with their Roman Catholic brethren in the afore-mentioned Poland
along with Lithuania and remove their lands of control from a shattered Ukraine and form a
confederation with their neighbors to the west.
There is little doubt in my mind that Russia has numerous human assets in central and
southwestern Ukraine, who along with elements of a disintegrating Ukie military, would unite
to overthrow the rotten regime in Kiev and establish a markedly neutral smaller but more
cohesive Ukraine–a natural though smaller nation which could serve as an essential
buffer between a strengthening Russia and a collection of NATO nations which would then
comprise a hodgepodge of hawks and doves, a discombobulated collection of politico-economic
entities attempting to swim their ways to calmer shores or to maintain some semblance of
"Great Reset" programming in the face of popular resistance to lockdowns and mandated
AstraGenica jabbings.
Worst possible scenario is that someone in the Pentagon-dominated NATO command complex
loses their cool and initiates a conflict that could result in planet-wide chaos and
destruction. One would hope that cooler heads will take a few hits to their expansionist
fantasies and decide to make the best of a failed bit of adventurism and bide their time --
if they feel they have any time remaining before globalist economies hit the skids, leading
to a potential collapse to the myth of progress.
Everyone gets American logic. It's the Ukrainian logic that is truly baffling. Just how
stupid do the Ukrainians have to be to attack when anyone with a brain knows what will be the
outcome?
It makes all the difference when the revolving-door regulator-capture reframing is not
"USA/Nato vs Russia" -- but rather the more accurate "Raytheon (et al) vs Russia."
The modern truth is: Russia and China have governments in control of policy and industry.
The USA (and therefore also its yapping poodle collection) have Industry setting policy and
running government for their 1%-er shareholder benefits.
You can't do any Normal business with a Crime Syndicate like the USA/ EU and or Israel.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others. Russia is so close to being self sufficient , they could
turn their back on the West and it's cut throat allies , and just look to the East until the
West implodes. They will have to destroy all armies within close proximity to their borders,
including the Ukrainian/Mercenary one. Moscow must still have Jew Oligarchy baggage, that is
making money on Wall Street and those ties need to break apart or come to a Pro Russian
agreement or else. Rename Kyiv to Berlin 1944, and Lviv to Dresden and take it from there
– and don't look back anymore. And PS : on way to Lviv, Agent Orange every F..n
Monsanto/Bayer, Dupont and Cargil farm – like they did to Vietnam.
Behind the fog of war, though, a clear scenario emerges: the deep state/NATO combo
using Kiev to start a war as a Hail Mary pass to ultimately bury NS2, and thus
German-Russian relations.
Yes but also the Ukraine needs to save those gas transit fees that will go kaput if NS2 is
completed and operational, so it is the Ukraine the one with the most immediate incentive to
start a war. Though they need just a small war, a little war to force the hands of the
Germans to cancel NS2. Problem is the Russians have promised to give the Ukrainians more than
what they bargained for. To save those gas transit fees the Ukrainians may end losing the
country to a puppet installed by the Kremlin.
Escobar, besides not naming the Jew, does not mention which side Israel is likely to
support. We can be pretty certain that whichever side Israel supports is going to be the
victor in this conflict. Turkey is also important because of the Bosphorus, and Turkey and
Israel are working together to exploit the Leviathan gas field to the detriment of Cyprus and
Syria, so Israel can jerk Turkey around like a pitbull on a chain.
The US has been moving drones into Ukraine and they now are right on the border with
Crimea. The US Marines also have a large presence in Romania, also likely including all kinds
of drones. The Israelis are among the planet's leaders in drone technology, and surely own
even more patents. Israel provides much of its drone technology to Turkey, and the
Azerbeijanis used Turkish and Israeli drones in their short war with Armenia. During this
short war the Azerbeijanis shot up all kinds of Russian equipment with their drones including
Pantsir's and ZSU-23's.
The US also has all kinds of stealth drones and missiles, likely that is one area where
they lead the entire planet.
If this assessment is correct (in Russian but comes out OK in Google translate), then the
US / NATO have to get involved to compensate for the lack of a Ukrainian air force –
and in fact the rest of their obsolete equipment.
Personally, I can't imagine US or NATO troops on the ground in the Ukraine – and I
don't see any planning for it, so what's the idea?
One possibility seems to be 1) to start the fighting 2) then start the real game, which
is a massive anti-Russian media barrage "heroic Ukrainian patriots", "Russian atrocities",
"killer Putin" etc. sufficient to finish with Nord Stream 2, divide Russia from
France/Germany, plus reanimate NATO and sanction Russia. Basically to force Europe back into
US hegemony, and away from independent decision making.
They won't have any problem with the UK (their most slavish follower) but at some point
the French and Germans are surely going to become tired of all this CIA/Neo-con BS.
[German Industrialists] are not exactly fond of Berlin becoming a mere hostage,
condemned to buy ridiculously expensive shale gas from the hegemon .
German Industrialists and financiers have been repeatedly shaken down by the hegemon for
fines related to a number of "infractions." The scuttlebutt I've heard from a number of them
is that it got old a long time ago; what point is it to participate in the US market when
your profits are repeatedly clawed back as "fines," and those in the US with whom you compete
are given a leg up not just in the US, but on the world stage. Left to most industrialists,
Germany might have gone its own way years ago. Oddly enough, it is the
Ossivergeltungswaffe who dithers over breaking ranks with the "ally" that openly spied
on her.
And even assuming there would be some sort of deal, Berlin is inclined to admit Putin's
judgment is correct: the Americans are "not agreement-capable." One just needs to look at
the record.
The most recent example would be the Doha agreement on the US withdrawal of forces and
personnel from Afghanistan. Apparently the Pentagon recently awarded a number of contracts
for contractor services in that country for some time well past the "agreed" withdrawal date,
strongly suggesting the agreement to leave was a ruse.
Unfortunately we live in a world where history is/was erased, facts don't matter or they
can be twisted to fit anything no matter how ridiculous, the present is what I say it is.
Thus US and its vassals are just interested in their today's narrative.
Ukrainian leadership is hopelessly incompetent and corrupt so will do anything Biden's gang
tells them. It's simply a depressing scenario.
Blinken poking the Ukies to attack is a Hail Mary to stop NS2. Maybe it will work,
maybe not. But a few hundred or a few thousand dead Ukies is worth the Russian boogeyman
psy-op for the empire.
""Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of War blah blah""
Contrary to what Pepe asserts the rest of the world will not give a shit. Memories of
Chechnya? The sooner Putin over runs the place the better. You can bet the Ukrainian ruling
elite, for all their gumption, have their jets all fuelled and ready with flight plans for
the US via Switzerland...
"NATO puppets do not have the balls to get into an open conflict with Russia."
Sadly not so sure.
Some has it`s own agenda, like POland, Lithuania. Not even NATO/ US are in full control over
that, and needs no more than a misstep. Like activate some system which is potentionally
dangerous for Russia.
Or in different NATO/ US bases elsewhere in continental Europe.
"to provoke an irreparable fissure between Russia and the EU, under NATO auspices"
"When all fails, myth prevails. Enter the US Army occupying parts of Europe to "defend" it
against – who else? – those pesky Russians."
This sounds to be the real goal.
For long since the US is jealous to Europe as it became more and more equal in economic and
political power, and prevail better even with this "global pandemic".
EU wants more independence, US wants it`s colony to more obidient and follow commands.
If not just occupy, but "let" Europe partly destroyed even better: the treat of dominance
reduced, and again can be the "nice savior" who helps and "brings democracy".
So seems far too real in the Ukrainian conflict Ukraine is just a side character.
Good point. They simply can't "win" anything by attacking.
The (((US))) will provide plenty of encouragement and support as long as they get
mountains of Ukrainian corpses in return. Those corpses can then be photographed and the
photos broadcast all over the world as "proof" that Putin is Hitler. Basically, Ukrainians
are being funnelled into the meat grinder for a globohmo psyop opportunity. What a way to
die...
Are you referring to the Ukraine fiasco? Would that it were so that it was just a
distraction. Just apply some reverse engineering to how Germany and Russia have a pretext to
link up energy-wise when Ukraine was a perfectly serviceable transit point until NeoCon filth
started working their magic.
Indeed, let's not worry: German Chancellor Merkel spoke to President Putin yesterday and
apparently told him she wanted to see immediate de-escalation or else she might not sell Russia
any German cars; or buy Russian vaccine; or complete Nord-Stream 2 and tie the German economy
into Russian gas supplies. Isn't realpolitik a German word originally?
"Destiny guides our fortunes more favourably than we could have expected. Look there,
Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do
battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich
ourselves. This is noble, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such
an evil race wiped from the face of the earth."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"The ones you can see over there," answered his master, "with the huge arms, some of which
are very nearly two leagues long."
"Now look, your grace," said Sancho, "what you see over there aren't giants, but
windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and
turn the millstone."
"Obviously," replied Don Quixote, "you don't know much about adventures."
Or labour vs. capital; or realpolitik. But Happy Friday!
GreatCaesar'sGhost 1 hour ago
No nato troops will ever set foot in Ukraine. They're trying to pressure Russia into doing
something so they can force the Germans to stop nordstream. The Ukrainians can't win here and
they're being used. Not good.
USAllDay 56 minutes ago
Germans need the gas and Russia needs the revenue. These are facts that can not
change.
GreatCaesar'sGhost 53 minutes ago
US has gas to sell. Greater Israel and their Saudi partners believe that after they
overthrow Assad they will have gas to sell. I'm not sure the constantly virtue signaling
German government will buy Russian gas if there's a war.
BeePee 43 minutes ago
Russia already sells gas. This will continue. Mistake to destablize Russia's economy.
GreatCaesar'sGhost 53 minutes ago
US has gas to sell. Greater Israel and their Saudi partners believe that after they
overthrow Assad they will have gas to sell.
I'm not sure the constantly virtue signaling German government will buy Russian gas if
there's a war.
land_of_the_few 51 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
They should just mock them mercilessly.
Formation flypasts with rainbow colored smoke, Village People blasting from frigates
buzxing them, that kind of thing.
> Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine, much as their leaders and press seem to lose
sleep endlessly over it.
This is about blocking North Stream 2. Ukrainian government is a puppet in a bigger
geopolitical game and will do what they are told to do.
If they were ordered to invade Donbass Russia might intervene. I think Russia movement of
troupes was a pre-preemptive move to block a joint plan of the USA and some Eastern(Poland) and
Western European states to create a crisis and bury North Stream 2 by the attempt to retake the
territory by force (Georgian scenario).
While writing resolutions in which they essentially declare war on Russia (retaking Crimea
by force as a new Ukrainian government policy) Ukrainian government clearly understands that
any significant military move in Donbass might be the end of Ukraine as we know it. So they are
afraid to do anything without strong Western support, including military. That's why Biden
administration made a statement about the support of Ukrainian sovereignty and, at the same
time, probably pushing Ukrainians to make a move in Donbass.
There are two parts of Ukraine with different history and affiliations: Eastern Ukraine and
Western Ukraine.
The regime in Kiev represents Western Ukrainian nationalism and it is/was to a certain
degree resented in Eastern Ukraine (where manufacturing is concentrated) as provincial,
incompetent and corrupt. It is controlled by a handful of oligarchs -- a classic neoliberal
oligarchic republic so to speak.
That does not mean that Eastern Ukraine would welcome Russians now (after seven years of
anti-Russian propaganda by the government), but please do not write about things you have no
clue: in 2014 the situation was different with several uprisings against Provisional government
in Eastern Ukraine.
IMHO it was Putin's decision to limit Russia role that led to the current situation. As far
as I know the only large city which supported Provisional government in the East in 2014 was
Dnepropetrovsk ( the home town of oligarch Kolomoyskyi, and nationalistic politicians Kuchma
and Tymoshenko.)
IMHO Putin has the ability to occupy all Eastern Ukraine without a single shot and establish
separate "Eastern Ukrainian republic" government. But he decided not to do as the it would
result in crushing Western sanctions (which was Washington's policy from the very beginning
(google Nulangate); and that's why 2014 EuroMaidan putsch was organized and financed by the USA
with Poland, Germany and Sweden in supporting roles).
Add to this the necessary to feed pensioners (mentioned above) and the amount of money
necessary to resurrect the manufacturing which would compete with Russian's own. Which Russia
probably could not afford at the time.
REPLYHOLE IN HEAD IGNORED04/04/2021
at 4:44 am
> Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine, much as their leaders and press seem to lose
sleep endlessly over it.
This is about blocking North Stream 2. Ukrainian government is a puppet in a bigger
geopolitical game and will do what they are told to do.
If they were ordered to invade Donbass Russia might intervene. I think Russia movement of
troupes was a pre-preemptive move to block a joint plan of the USA and some Eastern(Poland) and
Western European states to create a crisis and bury North Stream 2 by the attempt to retake the
territory by force (Georgian scenario).
While writing resolutions in which they essentially declare war on Russia (retaking
Crimea by force as a new Ukrainian government policy) Ukrainian government clearly understands
that any significant military move in Donbass might be the end of Ukraine as we know it. So
they are afraid to do anything without strong Western support, including military. That's why
Biden administration made a statement about the support of Ukrainian sovereignty and, at the
same time, probably pushing Ukrainians to make a move in Donbass.
There are two parts of Ukraine with different history and affiliations: Eastern Ukraine
and Western Ukraine.
The regime in Kiev represents Western Ukrainian nationalism and it is/was to a certain
degree resented in Eastern Ukraine (where manufacturing is concentrated) as provincial,
incompetent and corrupt. It is controlled by a handful of oligarchs -- a classic neoliberal
oligarchic republic so to speak.
That does not mean that Eastern Ukraine would welcome Russians now (after seven years of
anti-Russian propaganda by the government), but please do not write about things you have no
clue: in 2014 the situation was different with several uprisings against Provisional government
in Eastern Ukraine.
IMHO it was Putin's decision to limit Russia role that led to the current situation. As
far as I know the only large city which supported Provisional government in the East in 2014
was Dnepropetrovsk ( the home town of oligarch Kolomoyskyi, and nationalistic politicians
Kuchma and Tymoshenko.)
IMHO Putin has the ability to occupy all Eastern Ukraine without a single shot and
establish separate "Eastern Ukrainian republic" government. But he decided not to do as the it
would result in crushing Western sanctions (which was Washington's policy from the very
beginning (google Nulangate); and that's why 2014 EuroMaidan putsch was organized and financed
by the USA with Poland, Germany and Sweden in supporting roles).
Add to this the necessary to feed pensioners (mentioned above) and the amount of money
necessary to resurrect the manufacturing which would compete with Russian's own. Which Russia
probably could not afford at the time.
REPLY HOLE IN HEAD IGNORED 04/04/2021
at 4:44 am
A senior official from Nord Stream 2 AG, the project company leading the Nord Stream 2 Russia to Germany natural gas
pipeline project,
has
reported
an uptick in "provocative" activity from warships and planes in the
area where the pipeline is being built
.
"Higher activity of naval vessels, airplanes and helicopters and civilian vessels of foreign states is observed in the work
area after restarted construction of the offshore segment of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, whose
actions
are often clearly provocative
," said Nord Stream AG official Andrei Minin,
according
to the Russian news agency TASS
.
Above: the pipe-laying vessel Fortuna, which is operated by the Russian company KVT-RUS
and recently targeted by US sanctions. Image via Reuters
Minin said a 1.5-mile safety zone is established around the construction area where vessels are not supposed to enter.
"Nevertheless, naval vessels of foreign countries are constantly registered near service ships performing work," he said.
He added that a Polish antisubmarine warfare airplane is
"regularly flying around
the work area at a small height and closely to the pipelay vessel."
Minin said in one provocation,
an unidentified submarine was above surface within
one mile of the pipeclay vessel Fortuna
, a ship that was
hit
with US sanctions on January 19th.
Minin said the activity indicates "obviously planned and prepared provocations."
Besides warships and planes, he said fishing vessels have also come dangerously close to the construction area.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been in the crosshairs of the US for years, but despite sanctions and threats, Nord Stream
AG reported on Thursday
that
the project is now 95 percent complete
. Construction restarted in December 2020 after being suspended due to threats of
US sanctions.
Although it's not clear if the US is involved in these provocations, it is likely. Washington seems willing to take extreme
measures to
stop
the project and is
threatening to sanction its ally Germany
. Besides
the US, another country keen to stop the project is Ukraine,
which
stands to lose up to $3 billion
a year in gas transportation fees if the pipeline is complete.
The original Nord Stream consists of two lines that run from Vyborg, Russia, to Lubmin, Germany, near Greifswald. The new
project would add two more lines, doubling the amount of natural gas Russia could export to Germany.
play_arrow
Be of Good Cheer
1 hour ago
$3
billion loss to the Biden Crime Family. No wonder he wants to stop NS2.
NoPension
1 hour ago
^^^^^!!!
Pair Of Dimes Shift
45 minutes ago
10% to the big guy would be $300M.
Damn right the big guy's handlers are pissed.
Rid'n Dirty
1 hour ago
The
US spends over $1 trillion on "defense" with over 800 bases worldwide, yet we have no control over who
illegally takes up residence here. America has become an ugly hegemon run by Wall Street and other
corporate whores. Almost 2/3rds of the world is under some type of US sanction designed to wreck
economies and starve innocent people (Houthis, Syrians and Iranians).
Let's see if Germany can do what's best for its economy for the first time since 1945.
Based Fren
1 hour ago
It's so tiresome. We just have to stick our finger in everyone else's business.
naro
1 hour ago
Have you heard of the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Wars is their oxygen.....they are looking for
wars wherever they can find it.
ManOnFirst
59 minutes ago
a
Polish fishing vessel rammed a construction ship and blamed a faulty engine for the incident. I really
hate the Poles. They are the whiniest, most cowardly country in the world. They lament the fall of
their empire 1000 years ago and think they could still be a superpower if only the big, bad Russians
weren't so mean. Oh, and the big, bad Germans too.
SoDamnMad
27 minutes ago
I'm
surprised the Russians didn't throw a 3 liter gasoline jug with a burning rag taped to it down on that
fishing vessel. Your telling me no steerage and no engine control. Two can play this game. Poles best
not try to lay any communication cables in the next 20 years.
Games Without Frontiers
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Globalists from the US doing everything they can to prevent a more independent EU. The further away you
can get from a dying and dangerous empire the better.
2banana
1 hour ago
Established by whom?
Oh,
you just made that sh!t up in international waters in one of the most heavily used trade routes in the
world.
Minin said a 1.5-mile safety zone is established around the construction area where vessels are not
supposed to enter. "Nevertheless, naval vessels of foreign countries are constantly registered near
service ships performing work," he said.
Games Without Frontiers
1 hour ago
It's international waters but safety zones are always established on this type of industrial project,
it's hard to enforce in open waters but the West looks like a bunch of tools as usual.
not-me---it-was-the-dog
43 minutes ago
(Edited)
remove
link
....
Shipping
and shipping lanes In Danish waters, the proposed NSP2 route will run inside and along the TSS Bornholmsgat for
approximately 42 km close to the Swedish EEZ. The TSS Bornholmsgat carries most of the ship traffic to/from the
Baltic Sea and experiences over 50,000 ship passages per year. The proposed NSP2 route additionally crosses the
TSS Adlergrund in the Danish and German EEZs, which has approximately 7,000 ship movements per year. Safety
exclusion zones will be implemented around slow-moving construction vessels. Only vessels involved in the
construction of NSP2 will be allowed inside the safety zone; therefore, all other vessels not involved in
construction activities will be requested to plan their journeys around the safety zone. The shipping lanes
crossed by the proposed NSP2 route in Danish waters provide sufficient space and water depth for ships to plan
their journey and safely navigate around possible temporary obstructions. The impact on ship traffic associated
with the imposition of a safety zone is assessed to be minor and associated with local and temporary changes to
the traffic scheme. Therefore, it is assessed that there will be no significant transboundary impacts on Baltic
Sea ship traffic caused by the NSP2 project in Danish waters.
so....umm....since the work is being done in danish waters, well, gosh, i would guess the exclusion zones are set
up with......wait for it......danish authorities. and the last bits in german waters will require german
authorities to set up the exclusion zone.
Ukraine gets 3B a year in transit fees for Russian gas...
rejectnumbskull
15 minutes ago
Besides the US, another country keen to
stop
the
project is Ukraine,
which
stands to lose up to $3 billion
a year in gas transportation fees if the pipeline is complete.
Did
you not read this sentence in the article correctly?
Military actions might be suicidal for Ukraine. But this exactly what the USA wants in order
to achieve its geopolitical objectives.
The danger for Ukraine in Georgia war scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... Yesterday (Ist April) the Russians stopped sending Gas via Ukraine. ..."
"... A hot war in eastern Ukraine/Crimea appears unlikely. Ukraine no doubt perceives that such a conflict means almost certain defeat. Military defeat would likely raise existential issues for Ukraine and its leadership, given the present adverse economic conditions. The Ukrainian leadership has very little to gain by waging a war and has much to lose. ..."
"... Assuming the truth of reports of a Russian military buildup along its relevant borders, such a buildup appears to be more of a warning to Kiev - and to the U.S. - not to make any rash moves. ..."
Cute /funny, but for me this points to the script that the "west" has laid out before
hand: Washington has dialed up an attack by Ukraine, has been concentrating ukrop forces
along the line of contact, and has kept its media muzzled, total media blackout, until the
Russians respond. Then let loose with the media to make it appear that the Russians are
threatening Ukraine. And per the 08/08/08 Georgia attack, if they push the button and attack
donbass, and the Russians respond, blame it on Russian aggression. Russia attacks!! Russian
aggression!! Who's to know it isn't so? They'll all be singing from the same hymn sheet. Not
like in '08 when the EU was still semi autonomous. If Washington doesn't order an attack,
then they can still point to Russia massing troops and score a propaganda victory as Russia
is intimidating poor Ukraine. Russian aggression!! And "sell" more weapons to Ukraine and
move more "advisors" in. The cost? Who cares? They'll just keep the printing press
rolling.
"Vyacheslav Nikonov: ...How dangerous is the situation in Ukraine in light of the ongoing
US arms deliveries, the decisions adopted in the Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday, and the
statements made by the Ukrainian military, who are openly speaking about a war? Where do we
stand on the Ukrainian front?
Sergey Lavrov: There is much speculation about the documents that the Rada passed and
that President Zelensky signed. To what extent does this reflect real politics? Is it
consistent with the objective of resolving President Zelensky's domestic problem of
declining ratings?
I'm not sure what this is: a bluff or concrete plans.
According to the information published in the media, the military, for the most part, is
aware of the damage that any action to unleash a hot conflict might bring.
I very much hope this will not be fomented by the politicians, who, in turn, will be
fomented by the US-led West. ...
Like President Vladimir Putin said not long ago; but these words are still relevant,
– those who try to unleash a new war in Donbass will destroy Ukraine. "
Yesterday (Ist April) the Russians stopped sending Gas via Ukraine.
The day before Zelensky "invited" NATO into Ukraine for military exercises. In the face of the amassing of Russian troops near Ukraine's borders, setting up joint
exercises involving Ukraine Army and Allied forces, including joint air patrols with NATO
aviation in Ukraine's airspace, will help stabilize the security situation in the region,
Mashovets has told his counterpart.
UNIAN:
https://www.unian.info/politics/donbas-kyiv-invites-nato-to-hold-joint-military-drills-11374195.html
(Disclaimer; I don't know much about this site)
(The day before that there was a top level meeting of NATO "to discuss the situation in
Ukraine, which might have provoked/told Zelnsky to do the former).
Talking of provocation; here is a "twit" showing a Polish, it looks like fishing vessel,
ramming a supply ship to NordStream II pipe layers. Gangster warfare? https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1377821400325480451
Although b says that the "Russian threat" is overdone, this buildup is certainly part of
the problem as the US wants NATO in Ukraine. Therefore the more the threat is hyped the more
they can use it to "justify" changing the facts on the ground.
One side observation is that Biden is totally absent. This situation is being run by the
US High Command (Milley et al) and others who always want moar war for the cash it brings
in. The US Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Chairman of the JCS, and National
Security Advisor have all had phone calls with their Ukrainian counterparts over the past
three days, and General Milley spoke with General Gerasimov.
Ukraine - and the West's - main problem with Russia over the Donbass is that Russia is NOT
a party to the Minsk agreement. With both France and Germany, it is a guarantor.
The signatures on the Minsk document are that of Ukraine and the so-called republics.
Ukraine can create as many laws stating it is in an 'International armed conflict' with
Russia as it likes, it does not alter the fact that no such conflict exists, nor has it been
brought to the Security Council.
But the Minsk accord HAS been approved by the Security Council.
"On March 29, the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) adopted a draft of so-called
resolution on the situation in Donbass. It seems that there is noting new in such a
document, however, it puts at stake Kiev's obligation on implementation of the Minsk
Agreement...
Such a document is not the first to be adopted in Ukraine in the last years. However,
this draft has a specific feature. It is for the first time that Ukrainian Rada adopted the
draft statement, which says that the war in Eastern Ukraine is a Russian-Ukrainian armed
conflict.
Previously, the phrase "aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine" was used
in Kiev's official documents. Today, the war in Donbass was designated as an international
armed conflict, that is, war.
Such a definition has significant juridical impact. This statement completely blocks
Kiev's implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Paragraph 2 of the Package of Measures
clearly defines that the parties to the conflict are Kiev on the one hand, Donetsk People's
Republic and Lugansk People's Republic (LDPR) on the other.
Today the Ukrainian Parliament officially declared, at the highest level, that the
parties to the conflict are Ukraine and Russia.
The resolution ensures the immediate forwarding of the text of this statement to the
national governments and parliaments of foreign states, international organizations and
their parliamentary assemblies."
The propaganda may never change but that doesn't mean the events can't be different this
time. There's video of large amounts of heavy weapons heading to the border.
A few weeks ago the US sent 350 tonnes of armoured humvees etc to Odessa. Then On 23rd
March video shows Ukraine sending trainloads of tanks etc. On 24th March Kiev passed a decree
claiming a right to retake Crimea. It's always said so but this seemed to really ratchet up
the rhetoric as it virtually commits the government to trying to retake Crimea by force.
Several videos from 29th March show different Russian trains with scores of tanks etc
heading across the Kerch bridge to Crimea, and to the Donbas border. Plus other videos of
numerous helicopters & endlessly long lines of tanks & armoured vehicles on roads as
well.
This is a buildup not seen since the hit war days of 2014.
Meanwhile a NATO Fleet enters the Black Sea for exercises with Ukraine.
A hot war in eastern Ukraine/Crimea appears unlikely. Ukraine no doubt perceives that
such a conflict means almost certain defeat. Military defeat would likely raise existential
issues for Ukraine and its leadership, given the present adverse economic conditions. The
Ukrainian leadership has very little to gain by waging a war and has much to lose.
Assuming the truth of reports of a Russian military buildup along its relevant
borders, such a buildup appears to be more of a warning to Kiev - and to the U.S. - not to
make any rash moves.
True, there is a possibility of war. Hot heads in Kiev and Washington appear always to
want war. But insofar as Washington is concerned, its domestic agenda presently appears to
hold far greater sway than does a failing outpost on the periphery of Washington's
influence.
At this juncture, then, the possibility of a significant conflict seems low by
comparison.
You are completely ignoring the overall picture. The US wants to stop Nordstream 2 and
roping NATO into a war situation with NATO would make it almost impossible to continue.
Already physical provocation is being used against the pipe-laying ships (see Stonebird's
post (2))
Personally I blame all this shit on the Nazi scum moved to the United States by Washington
after World War 2 and "weaponised". Desperate to destroy Russia and no doubt keen to acquire
Lebensraum, these Hitler fanboys and their handlers in Washington are doing everything they
can to apply Hitler's racial beliefs to Russia and make them seem like others when Russians
are as European as Hungarians, the British and the Irish and certainly more European than
Americans, Canadians and Australians. This is to make war with Russia more acceptable among
Europeans. Perhaps the Hitler fanboys in Washington need to work to improve their understand
of the Napoleonic Wars and World War 2 .
As Field Marshall Montgomery (a decent but fallible and somewhat egotistical British general)
said in 1959:
Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have
tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know
whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land
armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.
A few years later he repeated his Rules of War and even claimed ownership for himself:
The United States has broken the second rule of war. That is: don't go fighting with your
land army on the mainland in Asia. Rule One is, don't march on Moscow. I developed those
two rules myself.
They are rules that the Hitler Fanboys and "Lost China" morons in Washington should have
tattooed on their foreheads along with a free prefrontal lobotomy.
BTW, who are the more civilised:
The use of the procedure increased dramatically from the early 1940s and into the 1950s; by
1951, almost 20,000 lobotomies had been performed in the United States and proportionally
more in the United Kingdom. The majority of lobotomies were performed on women; a 1951
study of American hospitals found nearly 60% of lobotomy patients were women; limited data
shows 74% of lobotomies in Ontario from 1948–1952 were performed on women. From the
1950s onward, lobotomy began to be abandoned, first in the Soviet Union and Europe.
.
The idea of "weaponized immigration" in the sense of bringing in immigrant hostile to their
source state and using them to overthrow their source state was applied by Washington and
largely publicized by Yasha Levine.
As some of us are superannuated, it is good to know the views of
younger generation . Top general of Ukraine addressed the deputies of Verkhovna Rada
(parliament), declared readiness of Ukrainian army to attack with the aim of "re-integrating
the temporarily not-under-control territories", but then he somberly added the perspective of
huge civilian casualties, and then started to described Russian forces currently to the
north, east and the south of Ukraine. That was taking some time, so Anna Kolesnik, at 26 one
of the youngest deputies of the ruling party, texted "We are listening to Khomchak. We need
to get out from this country."
Looks like Zelensky signed a document or Decree No. 117/2021 the other day, to recapture
the Donbas and Crimea which could also be seen as a declaration of war towards Russia, more
in the link below:
Look at the videos of massive troop build ups. Also the conscription in both the Donbas
republics & Ukraine Donetsk & Lugansk militia veterans of 2014/15 returning from
Russia to region.
To say nothing is going to happen this time seems wishful thinking.
Of course US and European concern about Russian military build-up along Russia's borders
with European nations serves a purpose: justifying even more NATO military build-up along the
other side of the Russian border which in turn generates profit for US, British and EU arms
corporations and their shareholders in the banking and finance industries (and politics as
well), and helps NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg to think he is important.
Several nations that have borders with Russia probably need the money that NATO soldiers
might spend (mostly on entertainment like watching pole-dancing performers) while stationed
on their territories. Latvia and Lithuania among others haven't done too well since joining
the EU with something like 18 - 20% of their people living in poverty and many families
dependent on remittances sent by their relatives working overseas. Instead of their resident
Russian-speaking population being a bridge between their economies and the Russian economy,
these countries prefer to deny their Russian-speaking minorities social welfare benefits and
the right to vote, unless they can speak and read their host nations' languages at
postgraduate level, and to harass them in various petty ways.
As for Ukraine, the Zelensky govt has its work cut out trying to get Crimea back so the US
military can take over the base at Sevastopol and turn the Black Sea into a US lake, and to
clear out the Donbass region of those pesky Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and make
it secure for oil and natural gas exploration and exploitation. The Bidens depend on Zelensky
to get those oil and natural gas resources so they can get their cut.
Anna Kolesnik, cited by Piotr Berman @ 12 has it exactly. The emigres are already
arriving. Ukraine is and has been entirely a failed state. The Uke army is a joke. So they
have a new boatload of Humvees. Probably already sold. Humvees were going to stop T72 and up.
Right. High probability Ukraine simply vanishes, local residents invite stability and the
Russian army.
The normalcy bias expressed by host and commenters is extreme. Start believing in defeat.
Defeat is going to change your outlook.
"So what made the Russians suddenly move a massive invasion force toward Ukraine?
Well, it turns out that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky essentially signed a
declaration of war against Russia on March 24th. The document that he signed is known as
Decree No. 117/2021, and you won't read anything about it in the corporate media.
I really had to dig to find Decree No. 117/2021, but eventually I found it. I took
several of the paragraphs at the beginning of the document and I ran them through Google
translate
In accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution of Ukraine, I decree:
1. To put into effect the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine
of March 11, 2021 "On the Strategy of deoccupation and reintegration of the temporarily
occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol"
(attached).
2. To approve the Strategy of deoccupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied
territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (attached).
3. Control over the implementation of the decision of the National Security and Defense
Council of Ukraine, enacted by this Decree, shall be vested in the Secretary of the
National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.
4. This Decree shall enter into force on the day of its publication
.
President of Ukraine V.ZELENSKY
March 24, 2021
Basically, this decree makes it the official policy of the government of Ukraine to retake
Crimea from Russia. Of course the Russians will never hand over Crimea willingly because they
consider it to be Russian territory, and so Ukraine would have to take it by force."
That was more than a week ago. See how much Ukraine has done about it so far? That is as
much as they are able to do. Also quoted in #17 by imo, Mike Whitney/ZH "I really had to dig
to find Decree 117"... That would be because you have been trained to look away. That decree
was well reported, just not in the house organs of the idiots.
Martyanov has a new post up. Worth reading. He cites Michael Hudson on the overwhelming
influence Russian Jews have had on US policy. I would add Polish Jews. Zbig Brezinski gets
mentioned. Ever taken a look at his pamphlet, The Grand Chessboard? It has been required
reading for all students at Thomas Pickering School (State Department) for a generation.
Theme is Ukraine is center of universe. And this is because Zbig is a Polish aristocrat with
lost family estate on outskirts of Lvov. Any fool knows emigre info is useless and emigre
aristocrat most useless of all. Any in US policy establishment who should have known better
were blinded by Russophobia. (Just a note, spellcheck on this box changed my spelling to
'Lviv' multiple times before allowing old spelling. The thought control is total.)
The deployed Russian forces are not about overwhelming the Uke army. It is an occupation
force. They will be taking territory.
I don't see mention of Ukrainian build up and increased aggression on the border of Donbass.
That's why Russian troops are building up. They are posturing defensively. It's US-backed
Zelensky that is taking the aggressive position here.
77 millions that voted for Biden are not all "f....s". Everyone has some priorities,
imperfect choices etc.
That of course applies to countries, something that "responsible media" never considers,
but this is not a good role model for us.
Russia has to rely on her resources, so defending them from military and/or financial
takeover or even nuclear blackmail is a vital interest. While there are no perfect choices,
they try to choose the better ones. And not leaving people who speak Russian to repressions
and even massacres is another vital interest.
In the current situation, Russia clearly needs a deterrence for any possible blitzkrieg
type of plan by Ukraine. But pre-emption would not be the best choice.
In turn, Ukrainian government/elite has to bet on a patron and at least make some
appearance of diligently following what the patron wants. And for that, they need to
raise/maintain tensions with Russia (and China? hard is our fate now that we are
underlings).
I'm sure oldhippie means that if the Ukies are subservient enough to the US to actually
attack, this will almost certainly be reminiscent of Georgia (rather than just some cruise
missile strikes, as some had speculated). The buildup means Russia is prepared to sweep into
the Ukraine, and probably make a special point of killing as many Nazi battalions as
possible, along with any Ukie troops who don't surrender quickly enough. I don't see them
entering Kiev, just like they didn't try to take Tblisi, but I imagine they will try to take
most of the pro-Russian territory in the East and possibly even South, until Kiev begs for a
cease-fire (just like last time), but this time the conditions of cease fire will likely be
much more strongly enforced, and then I would imagine Russia will try to establish some
assemblage of peace-keeping troops from countries they can trust (maybe Shanghi Coalition?)
so that they can withdraw their troops as soon as possible, for political reasons. Not that
it will help, but then again, I think Russia sees they'll be damned if they do, damned if
they don't, so they might as well do it. But they damn sure don't want to take ownership of
the Ukraine, just like they didn't want to own Georgia.
The Dems and Republicans are two heads of the same hydra, voting for one or the other is a
charade played on the American people and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The US is
a state run for the benefit of the economic elite that owns the media and from which the
political elite is chosen/sponsored and which is aligned with the military elite. Presidents
will come and go, policy pretty much stays the same, its the same as CEOs of corporations -
if they don't follow profit maximization they will be booted out.
The US elites all went to the same schools (or military academy) where they were
inculcated with "American Exceptionalism" and the need for "America to be the Global
Policeman", ending up with mediocrities such as Blinken and Pompeo that thrash around as the
world moves to multipolarity and the US becomes just another important nation. It will take
at least decades for the US elite to get their heads around this, the British still haven't
as seen by their wasting of resources on showy projects such as the two useless aircraft
carriers (know as "targets" by submariners and missile batteries) to assuage its "size"
envy.
Granted I am just an armchair observer but I have been watching since before the Maidan coup.
Something feels different this time, as if the positions of the players involved have changed
somehow. I realize that the multipolar world has been incubating for some time now and that
Russia, China et.al. have been waiting patiently for USA to collapse from exhaustion, but I
rather doubt that it will do so with a wimper. There may come a time when the RF armed forces
may opt to use a quick bone crushing response to say 'enough'. While this is never an great
option to have to take due to potential reprecussions, it can sometimes be better than being
slowly swallowed by the serpeant of Mission Creep.....
"Our rhetoric [over Donbass] is absolutely constructive," Peskov said in reply to a
question. "We do not indulge in wishful thinking. Regrettably, the realities along the
engagement line are rather frightening. Provocations by the Ukrainian armed forces do take
place. They are not casual. There have been many of them."
Ukraine's economy is collapsing. Even the IMF (USA) is getting tired of giving it free
money:
Prospects for Ukraine this year to receive even the second tranche of the IMF under the $ 5
billion credit line, which Kiev agreed with the Fund last June, remain vague. Although
according to the schedule, Ukraine should have already mastered the second and third
tranches for a total of $ 1.35 billion and is about to receive the fourth tranche in the
amount of $ 0.55 billion, in fact, the first June tranche of 2.1 billion is still the only
one.
Commenting on this situation on television, Ukrainian Finance Minister Sergei Marchenko
said this week: "The IMF does not give money, because, unfortunately, as a country, we have
crumpled up some obligations and must renew them."
[...]
So far, budget holes have been bridged by historically record borrowings in December
last year (over $ 6 billion) and an increase in interest rates on domestic borrowings this
year. But last year's reserves and domestic borrowing are insufficient either to cover the
$ 9 billion budget deficit or to service the external public debt, which will cost at least
$ 8.1 billion this year (excluding the cost of securing new loans).
The IMF, by the way, is not interested in getting its money back - they already knew the
black hole they were entering into when the coup happened in 2014 - but in social
engineering: the American Empire wants a brand new province:
According to the aforementioned Sergei Marchenko, the IMF puts forward five main conditions
for returning to consideration of the issue of allocating the second tranche of the loan.
First , the Fund requires the restoration of liability, including criminal
liability, for the declaration of false information by officials and other persons for whom
such is provided in the framework of anti-corruption procedures. This type of
responsibility was actually abolished by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) in
October last year as part of the recognition of a number of provisions of the
anti-corruption law as unconstitutional. Although almost the entire so-called
anti-corruption infrastructure in a format imposed by the West contradicts the
Constitution, the judges are concerned about this problem mainly because of the
infringement of their rights. Since then, Zelenskiy has effectively blocked the work of the
KSU, making a number of decisions that clearly go beyond his constitutional powers. And
last December, the Verkhovna Radaeven restored responsibility for declaring inaccurate
data. But within the framework of the struggle for control over the anti-corruption
infrastructure, the "seven-embassy" (the ambassadors of the G7 countries) did not even
think that responsibility had been restored.
Secondly , we are talking about the restoration of the so-called independence of
the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), that is, the accountability of the body to
Western curators, their actual appointment and accountability of the head of NABU, etc. and
imply the legal consolidation of the full control of the West over the entire
anti-corruption infrastructure, which in its essence is a parallel structure of government
in the state. After amending the law on NABU and recognizing as unconstitutional the
appointment of Artem Sytnik, a protege of the West, by the head of NABU Zelenskiy never
dared to fire him. But even such a manifestation of loyalty to the "seven-embassy" seemed
not enough.
Thirdly , the Fund demands urgently to "reform" the High Council of Justice, that
is, to transfer the judicial branch of power under the control of the West - by analogy
with anti-corruption bodies. In this issue, Ukraine is showing the greatest resistance so
far. Moreover, it comes both from the judges themselves and from representatives of other
branches of government. For obvious reasons: the surrender of the judicial system will
destroy even the miserable remnants of sovereignty, and most importantly, it will carry
serious risks both for judges and for various top-level officials.
Fourth and fifth - issues of the gas market and the electricity market. In the
context of these markets, the Fund is interested in the abolition of tariffs [n.t. -
probably it means here "subsidies"] for the population with a corresponding increase in
prices. The Ukrainian, let's say, elites just do not care about the problems of the
population - that is why the refusal to regulate gas prices for the population last year
became one of the first fulfilled requirements of the IMF. However, when winter came, gas
prices skyrocketed and social protests broke out across the country , and gas price
regulation had to be urgently returned. Of course, only for a while - first until April,
now until May. But the Fund did not like this either: just the other day, the head of the
IMF office in Ukraine, Jost Lyngman, called a return to gas price control in an ineffective
way of subsidizing households. Exactly the same applies to electricity prices - the tariff
for the population was raised in winter, but the Fund wants the regulated tariff to
disappear altogether. The Ukrainian authorities are, of course, ready to meet the IMF
halfway on these issues. But so that social protests do not completely reset her
ratings.
The article also mentions that Ukraine effectively cannot borrow elsewhere in the "free
market" because its bonds are rated "junk" (this we already knew, since it's been so for some
years now) and that its "borrowing rates" (interest rates) are at 12% (bonds) and 6.5%
(central bank's). In other words, Ukraine will disappear as a sovereign country, one way
(outright loss of the Eastern regions, reduction to a impoverished para-Polish rump state) or
the other (become a proto-colony of the USA a la Puerto Rico). My guess is Zelensky is
calculating an all-out war to reconquer the richer eastern regions, followed by a triumphal
accession to NATO, to be the only way out for Ukraine as a nation-state.
If Ukraine attacks the eastern provinces, there will be a repeat of Georgia 2008. The Russian
counter will be ferocious.
But Ukraine is just a puppet for America, which will use, abuse and even lose Ukraine for
*other purposes*.
Those other purposes are fortifying European subordination to NATO, cancelling Nord Stream
2 and breaking any German and French rapprochement with Moscow. US hegemony is in fact
conditional on a climate of hostility between Europe and Russia in general, and between
Germany and Moscow in particular. Hence the need to provoke Germany to cancel NS2. The
Navalny operation didn't work, and the sanctions didn't work either. So it's on to Plan C,
which might sacrifice Ukraine for the greater project of US empire.
In the bigger picture, the strategy is to globalize NATO against China. This is the Biden
regime's specific strategy of provoking minor conflicts to fortify alliances and bloc
politics for taking on China and Russia. Ukraine is just disposable trash in this game.
That Merkel and Macron just met with Putin is further evidence of the unlikeliness of war.
Frau Merkel in particular has an interest in preventing a war because it is Germany who needs
the Nordstream pipeline (to Washington's displeasure); the Russians can just as easily sell
their natural gas to China if Nordstream falters. Thus the Germans are more likely to exert
pressure on Ukraine to forebear than they are to let Ukraine loose the dogs of war.
I agree with you, oldhippie @ 20. And thanks to b and other posters here who have kept us
well apprised of the events in Ukraine as the buildup commenced on the Ukrainian side,
supported by US munitions.
Actually, as far as I can understand it, if the Russians do enter Ukraine it will be at
the behest of the Ukrainians themselves, just as it was in Crimea. They will be as supportive
as possible of the Donbass, which is already back in the Russian Federation in every way
except the formal declaration.
But Russia wants the country of Ukraine to remain whole. That's a big ask, but it surely
must include all areas like Odessa in order to be viable as a member of the Federation. I
don't know if that is possible yet, but rule by force has existed for so long under such
duress there, that I do believe the entire civilian population would be happy to have this
happen. And in will come the Russian aid, pouring in on tanks if need be, to a population
weary of hardship.
Russia certainly doesn't want to be on a war footing with Ukraine, since it considers the
citizenry to be its own people historically speaking, as Putin has said many times. It will
not force the issue; it can be patient. But if its troops do enter, they will only do so if
they are welcome; and I think that welcome mat is fast being woven, as fast as Penelopes in
the Donbass can weave it. And as for the rest of Ukraine, plenty of Penelopes there as
well.
It may not be Ukraine will enter the Federation immediately - there will have to be talks
and so much restructuring politically speaking before that can happen. But if the hand of
Russia is still extended in friendship to places like the US, it most certainly would be to a
sane and peaceful Ukrainian government.
This time the buildup is very real. But NATO has no reason to be "concerned", as it is
they who have the initiative. Russia will only move in response to a Ukrainian attack on
Donbass. Ukraine will only attack after it gets approval or direct orders from
Washington.
Work on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is progressing fast. I estimate that pipelaying
may be finished by the end of May. To prevent it from happening, Ukraine has to attack in
April. Rumors claim that the planned date of the attack is April 15, 2021. The problem on the
Ukrainian side is that there is no sensible war plan, apart from attacking Donbass and then
immediately withdrawing to defensive position on the western shore of the Dnieper River.
Christelle Néant from Donetsk published this on March 16th, citing Ukrainian
sources.
In an enlightening article, the Ukrainian media outlet Strana revealed that not only is
the Ukrainian army preparing for an offensive in the Donbass, but that there is an
emergency plan to stop the attack if Russia were to send its own army in. This information
is nothing less than a debunking of seven years of Ukrainian propaganda, which claims that
Ukraine is fighting Russia in the Donbass.
The article is based on sources in the Ukrainian army and the Defence Ministry, and
begins by questioning the reality of Kiev's preparation for an offensive against the
Donbass.
Strana's sources on the front line confirm that there is no longer a ceasefire, nor a
withdrawal of troops and equipment. The source even makes it clear that it was Ukraine that
first violated this provision of the Minsk package of measures, and that the DPR and LPR
(Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics) did so only afterwards, in response to the
violation by the Ukrainian army.
...
BUT, because there is a but in this kind of rather too pretty plan, if Russia sends its
army to intervene then the Ukrainian army will have to give up its offensive against the
Donbass and withdraw.
"In this case, the AFU offensive will be stopped. With a high degree of probability,
the troops will then have to withdraw, so as not to fall again into cauldrons," says the
Strana source in the Ukrainian Defence Ministry.
In other words, for the Ukrainian army's offensive in the Donbass to work, Russia must
not intervene. The problem for Kiev is that Russia has no intention of letting several
hundred thousand of its citizens die on its border without reacting. A problem that
Strana's source is well aware of.
J.Swift#38
Nice riff on 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'!
Excellent take on the situation as it has unfolded. I agree with your observations re: a
change in tone coming Russia and China in regard to their criticizms of the USA. It's likely
that they have indeed run the numbers on both how much damage they can absorb and what their
counter move would be as compare to the long drawn out decline that seems to be atking
forever.
The line (or really one of the several) is when the USA get more directly involved and
sustains losses at the hands of Russian forces. Nobody really wants to find out what happens
when the The Darkness behind the might of the Pentagram has a hissy fit. The yapping dog
might just beable to run the numbers itself and see the outcome as being very disadventageous
to itself and it's minions. Who am I kidding, the USA doesn't care a whit about it's
minions....
I believe you are right. A war is unlikely, but with madmen in Washington you never know.
Some of them would like to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
But, Russia is moving substantial troops and equipment to the Ukrainian border to deter
the Kiev authorities from invading the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk
People's Republic (LNR) - so this is real not a made-up story (it is not what 'normal' troop
movements as the b's article implies). Russia is drawing a red line and it should be seen as
such!
Russia's actions will probably be enough to dissuade Kiev but what have they got to lose?
The Kiev regime is failing, its economy is in freefall, disaster beckons - a glorious
military defeat might be considered preferable to inevitable social and economic
collapse.
Kiev may also have well-founded belief that the US/West will be forced to support them
militarily to keep the secrets of western involvement in the downng of MH17 out of Russian
hands.
Thank you for all the compliments. I am not and will not be angry with librul for more
than one moment, in the past. Same Biden/Trump barbs are tossed daily on a face to face
basis. It has become how Americans are.
Ghostship does make some good points. Not theoretical to me. Here in Chicago FuhrerTag is
still celebrated at many bars. Large group sings of Horst Wessex song occur for a variety of
occasions. When at University of Illinois (70s) there was a sizable contingent of OUN
children in the History Department. They freely Indulged in Sieg Heil and Slava Ukraina to
greet each other publicly. There was also an Ustache contingent who did return to Croatia,
not to fight but to govern. Shall we say that these groups were insane. Some did go to
military careers.Some did go to State Department. Some did go to think tanks. If the subject
is Russia clinical insanity is not a career impediment in America.
For two days I owned the Rainbow, Bugsy Siegel's old joint 1900 N. Damen. . That was
Ukrainian Village. My money was refunded. The alternative was death. Yes, they put guns in my
face. Yes, they could do that. No, I do not like these people.
None of us predicts future with any accuracy. Will keep pointing out that downsides for
Russia will vanish with victory. They have a lot of choices in how they could construct that
victory. Every choice US/NATO has available is nothing but a defeat.
It is a very important reminder as to how insane and mindless the neo con hatred is of
Russia and Putin. It is indeed alarming that this rabid hatred controls the neo cons and what
passes for us foreign policy. How can on expect rational policy when the people in charge are
completely irrational.
If nothing else, just note the quote in the article from Hudson-it is beyond alarming as
to the description by hudson of the mindless and controlling irrationality of the neo cons in
the dimo biden admin!
I watched a video by Alexander Mercouris China Warns Ukraine on Crimea Ties which
shows how coordinated this present crisis may be, as Washington may be maneuvering its
Ukrainian proxy into nationalizing a corporation there that manufactures a variety of turbine
engines, built to power both warships and aircraft. Zelensky is applying pressure on both
China and Russia at once. The Russians have overcome some manufacturing problems and have had
to build up their own stocks of turbines for military use. Responding to Zelensky's seizure
of their assets and investments in Ukraine, the Chinese have sent an economic mission that
involves serious investments in Crimea .
A coordinated threat to the culturally Russian Donbas and Lugansk region and the
nationalizing of Chinese assets will place China and Russia again on the same path in their
diplomatic response. It would not be a surprise if China officially recognizes Crimea as part
of the Russian Federation.
To be fair, the neocon's feel that way about everyone - they embrace the role of paranoid
imperialist because that's a relatively accessible way to get funded in the DC policy world.
The striking thing is the hubris - they're just going to fight everyone all at the same time
and it will somehow be okay in the end, no cost to them.
Russia doesn't need "troops" to defend Donetz and Luhansk; Russian can destroy Ukrainian
forces using stand-off weapons and then DNR and LNR forces can easily cope with what remains.
Russian doesn't need forces to "occupy" Donetz and Luhansk because these areas will remain
under the control of the republics. What Russia needs "troops" for is to advance and capture
Kiev and this is what Russia's troop deployments threaten. If the conflict starts in Ukraine
then Russia will demonstrate its ability to do whatever it wants in all areas of Ukraine;
then Russia will withdraw and leave what is left for the West/EU and US to deal with.
Rationally, nothing will happen because Kiev will be deterred. But, many elements in the
Kiev regime may desire war because they believe the West will (because they "have to")
support them (or, as I already said, glorious defeat may seem preferable to the slow-burn
collapse of their regime). The US/West may encourage Kiev because they are posturing for war
and the plandemic is envisaged as the best time for such an event (I feel the likelihood of
this is underestimated), or compelling a demonstration of Russian "aggression" may have
overriding propaganda value (regardless of the outcome for the Kiev regime) for their own
populations (everyone can really hate on Russia for the next 10 years - hate is a great
unifier).
All of this is to be expected after weeks and weeks of UAF buildup along the Donbass
border. In fact, they've been shelling villages in the Donbass for some time now since they
re-instigated aggression in February. Even today they were shelling the infamous Donetsk
airport. On top of that you've got US aerial vehicles flying around the Black Sea right
underneath Crimea and next to Krasnodar. Kiev's posturing has signaled their supposed
willingness to attack the Donbass and attempt to retake Crimea, so Russia's reaction to
protect Russian citizens would be entirely reasonable.
The defense ministers of Ukraine and the United States held their second conversation in a
month and a half on the situation in Donbass. According to Andriy Taran, the Americans
promised Kiev "support measures" in the event of a direct military conflict between Ukraine
and Russia.
The US will not come to the aid of Ukraine. That is a pipe dream, pun intended.
@JohninMK et al:
On the surface this seems to be a continuation of the provocation game, which has been the
tactic since the beginning. The Ukies are definitely upping the ante by threatening Crimea. I
can only assume that they are deep into thinking wishfully that the USA will "come to rescue"
when they poke the bear. But in both their cases I have to wonder: with WHAT? The Ukies dont
have an effective army as demonstrated by mass defection and surrender last bout. Other than
"punishment battallions" there do not seem to be many troops willing to fight. As for the
USA, they are not shock troops, they are an occupation force. So then is it to be some sort
aerial ballet of stand-off weapons over the skies of the Donbass??
As stated above, the Western MSM is going to shriek like flock of terrified Karens no
matter what Russia does so they may as well earn it. My mind wanders over the demonstration
of the Iskander in Syria most recently. Ten or so of those simultaneously in the right places
would bring a Ukrops offensive to sudden halt if there were the will to do so.....
Zelensky is making de-escalation noises. Bit late for that. Should this all ratchet down
it will be the end of Zelensky. Bear in mind he is there only because there is no one else.
As an actor and a comedian he has been impersonating a President. He did that for the sitcom
cameras and then he did it in real life.
It will also be the last time Ukraine ever pretends to field an army. Conscripts will make
their way home somehow, they won't be played again. Heavy equipment and ammo will be
auctioned off cheap to any who can arrange transport. Transport will be questionable, arms
will be sold very cheap.
Ukraine army is heavily larded with mercs and Wahabi jihadis from all over the planet.
Idiots could still start something big even if the "leadership" calls it off. Shelling has
been happening all day up and down the line. Artillery is mostly mercs. Russia is holding
fire so far, one shell chances to fall on a concentration of Russian troops and it is on.
Poles and other idiots could also blow this up. Way too many moving pieces and no one in
charge, either in Kiev or Washington.
If this excitement just ends Ukraine will go from a comic opera government to no
government at all. Russia will move in for humanitarian reasons. Western Ukraine will die or
flood to Europe.
I see we are back to the "fog of war".
There has been artillery/mortar fire around Horlivka and elsewhere. (50 shells) These
mortar attacks were conducted by the 58th motorised rifle brigade of the Armed Forces of
Ukraine from the areas of Avdeevka and Pervomaisky.
A Global Hawk is presumed to have flown over both Donetsk and Luhansk - various altitudes to
test the Russian radars. This is the same type that was shot down by Iran. Maybe the US wants
to order a few more replacements?
One vid that is supposed to show a train full of Tor systems of the 56 airborne has already
been debunked as filmed a long way away on the other side of Russia, (The 56th do not have
Tors)
It is clear that there is a definite push to provoke a Russian reaction. The threats about
Crimea mean that any movement in that area will be taken seriously, as "several" high ranking
Russian Generals have arrived there. Russian Generals lead from the front, not the back as do
the UK or US versions. (see Syria)
It is the details that are showing that this will escalate (Burning houses and villages)
and civilians in bunkers. I was going to show you the picture of an old man still in the
firing area, because he has nowhere else to go . Someday the human cost must be
counted.
***
Interesting tie ups with the BRI and Afghanistan from Karlof1's post @70. One mention of a
canal between the Sea of Azof and the Caspian, via Russsia. The "anything but Suez"
canal?
More than that, I realised that the Saudi Arabian NOEM (Straight Line road) across the
Gulf of Aqaba to Sharm el-Sheik, will eventually give it access to the Med via Egypt and
Africa, without going through Israel. (Or Lebanon, Syria or Turkey)
Syria is in a mess because of lack of fuel. Their stolen fuel is/was bought by Israel
cheaply. Are you sure that the EverGiven WAS an accident?
*****
Biden has Zelenskys back - if he is thinking of his back pocket there is nothing left in
it.
I'm sure oldhippie means that if the Ukies are subservient enough to the US to actually
attack, this will almost certainly be reminiscent of Georgia (rather than just some cruise
missile strikes, as some had speculated). The buildup means Russia is prepared to sweep into
the Ukraine, and probably make a special point of killing as many Nazi battalions as
possible, along with any Ukie troops who don't surrender quickly enough. I don't see them
entering Kiev, just like they didn't try to take Tblisi, but I imagine they will try to take
most of the pro-Russian territory in the East and possibly even South, until Kiev begs for a
cease-fire (just like last time), but this time the conditions of cease fire will likely be
much more strongly enforced, and then I would imagine Russia will try to establish some
assemblage of peace-keeping troops from countries they can trust (maybe Shanghi Coalition?)
so that they can withdraw their troops as soon as possible, for political reasons. Not that
it will help, but then again, I think Russia sees they'll be damned if they do, damned if
they don't, so they might as well do it. But they damn sure don't want to take ownership of
the Ukraine, just like they didn't want to own Georgia.
A fair and balanced analysis, as far as it goes.
We must remember the Stavka is in charge....
What makes the most sense to them??? Where should the cease fire line be??? The best place
to put it is the midline of the Denieper River. It is a natural boundary. It is wide enough
so anything less than 155 mm artillery can't reach across. It resolves permanently water
supply to Crimea.
NATO will use this action to censure, villify, and sanction Russia. She might as well get
something for that.
Will this happen?? Last year, I'd say no.... but now.... anything goes...
I thought Biden would not start a war until next year to save the 2022 mid-term elections. My
speculation is that Merkel is standing firm on Nord Stream 2 so the Biden administration is
going to use the Ukrainians to start up a war against Russia to physically shut down the
construction of the pipeline and introduce sanctions like against SWIFT, Aeroflot, etc.
During a meeting with Defense Minister of Ukraine Andriy Taran and the leadership of the
Armed Forces of Ukraine, the defense attaches of the United States, Canada and the United
Kingdom assured Ukraine of the support in defending its sovereignty and territorial
integrity. "US, Canada's, and UK Defense Attaches met with Minister of Defense [of Ukraine]
Taran, Deputy Minister Petrenko, Deputy Minister Polishchuk, Joint Forces Commander
Lieutenant General Naiev, and Colonel Budanov," the U.S. Embassy posted on Twitter. The
Embassy assured Ukraine of support in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity:
"We stand with Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity and are
watching the situation in Ukraine closely."
The story is number one or two all over the place (The Hill, Politico, Reuters, The
Washington Times,...).
No mention of Ukraine except perhaps in minor side stories.
"Biden holds first call with Ukrainian president amid Russian buildup"
By NATASHA BERTRAND and LARA SELIGMAN
04/02/2021 09:39 AM EDT
Updated: 04/02/2021 11:24 AM EDT
President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke on Friday morning
for the first time since Biden took office, amid reports of a Russian military buildup in
eastern Ukraine that has alarmed U.S. and Ukrainian officials.
The leaders spoke for 30 to 40 minutes, according to a person with knowledge of the
call. A White House readout of the conversation said Biden "reaffirmed the United States'
unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of
Russia's ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea."
Nice work on pulling all the puzzle pieces together, b!
The really big problem will be weaning the Outlaw US Empire from its addiction to
Unilateralism, which is its primary mode of operation aside from a very brief interlude when
FDR was POTUS, devised the UN and its Charter, and got the Senate to ratify it so it would
become an integral part of the USA's fundamental law of the land.
All one need do to see the gravity of the bolded text is to examine the Outlaw US Empire's
behavior since FDR died--The USA immediately transformed into the Outlaw US Empire on 22
October 1945 when the UN Charter came into full force and the Empire was already in grave
violation of its fundamentals.
That those millions of violations have never seen the inside of a courtroom doesn't mean
they never occurred or aren't now happening globally.
"Nord Stream AG Says Warships, Submarines and Helicopters Tried to Disrupt Pipeline's
Construction":
"However, it seems that in March threats to the pipeline multiplied and became more
'real'.
"The construction site of Nord Stream 2 has been suffering harassment by various vessels
and aircraft in recent months, which nearly led to damage to the pipeline itself, according
to Nord Stream AG representative Andrey Minin. He stressed that the disturbances were
'clearly planned and thoroughly prepared provocations,' devised to stop the joint
Russian-European project in its tracks ." [My Emphasis]
Unilateral Act of War anyone?!! Yes, its the Poles once again.
IMO, it's sad b omitted mentioning the newly formed Friends of the UN Charter Group in his
article since it aims at drowning the "Unilateral, rules based international order" once and
for all time. My promotion of it isn't going to be enough. If all but the Neoliberal nations
become members, then they can jointly aver that there's only one system of international Law
and its based on the UN Charter and all relevant treaties thus shutting up the Outlaw US
Empire regardless its protests. Of course, a movement within the Empire that says the same as
the Friends would go a long ways to getting us where we as humans want to go to--a peaceful
planet that's concerned about the wellbeing of humans and all they need for support instead
of making the rich ever richer through the terror of unremitting Class War.
And if you don't think that War isn't based on Terror, then you haven't seen migrant
families busted up with the little kids being kidnapped and all put into concentration camps.
( China is
beginning to bark up that very inhuman tree watered so well by the Outlaw US Empire.)
"As it stands, Russia is very much focused on limitless possibilities in Southwest Asia,
as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made it clear in the 10th Middle East conference at the
Valdai club [Link at Original]. The Hegemon's treats on multiple fronts – Ukraine,
Belarus, Syria, Nord Stream 2 – pale in comparison."
Awhile ago, I posted the following acutely correct adage: The USA treats business as war,
while treating war as business. I added what Coolidge was misquoted as saying in 1925--The
business of America is business (He actually said, "the chief business of the American people
is business.") So when the POTUS says its just business, you should prepare for war.
Back to the linked article. While reading it ought to be easy to see why the BRI
interconnectivity is seen as a huge threat to the two Outlaw Maritime Empires--UK/US--who
initially set forth the parameters of the Great Game. (BTW,
Lavrov's Great Game program interview English transcript is now complete.) They have no
seat at the table whatsoever. You'll also see why the Outlaw US Empire will try to remain in
Afghanistan forever as well as the reason why it can't admit the real reason for being
there--to interdict the BRI and the development boom it promises to bring to a great many
impoverished people throughout Eurasia. Talk about Human Rights!
But it looks like all the Empire's efforts will amount to little more than a mosquito
attacking an elephant for there's no way it can stop BRI or Eurasian integration; at best, it
can merely delay it and earn the enmity of the planet, including its own people. Clearly,
India will cease its role in the Quad as staying locks it out from what it needs
most--development that uplifts its impoverished tens of millions. And the loss of India means
the certain loss of the Great Game for the Outlaw Empire.
In the grand scheme of things, Ukraine is merely a tsetse fly as is NATO ultimately. The
real prize lies with the geoeconomic riches BRI and Eurasian Integration will generate and
being a partner with it, not an adversary.
More content below More content below More content below More content below More content below
More content below More content below More content below
BERLIN, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Gas contributes only a fraction of Germany's energy consumption,
and Russian gas only a fraction of that, so it is wrong to say that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
will make Germany dependent on Russian energy, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said.
Asked about the flagship Kremlin project, which has been heavily criticised by the United
States and some European countries, Scholz on Monday restated the German government's position
that the pipeline was a private investment and should not be the target of U.S. sanctions.
The poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, blamed by most Western governments on
Russian state actors, has led to renewed calls for the nearly complete pipeline, built by
state-owned Gazprom, to be cancelled.
Critics of the pipeline say it increases Germany's reliance on Russian energy and deprives
transit countries Poland and Ukraine of crucial leverage over the giant country to their east.
(Reporting by Thomas Escritt; Editing by Maria Sheahan)
When Biden called Russian President a soulless "killer" on
ABC News, Putin responded with the most deft bit of diplomacy I've seen in quite a while, openly challenging Fungal Joe to a
publicly broadcast debate of substantive issues, which Biden, of course, declined.
There can be no question now that
all the disparate interests within
The
Davos Crowd
are aligned at this point
(see
this
month's Newsletter
for more discussion on this).
All guns point at Russia.
Putin tried to defuse the situation with an offer that was at once an epic troll of Biden,
who is clearly no match for his Russian counterpart cognitively, and a warning to Americans that this situation has gotten far more
dangerous than they are being told.
And sometimes you win simply by taking the high road. Make no mistake the fact that Putin went here this early in Biden's presidency
is a bad sign. It tells us things are horrific between the world's most prominent nuclear powers and that there's been zero
diplomatic effort put forth by the Biden administration since the election.
The problem is rapidly becoming that indiscriminate use of all weapons all the time --
diplomatic, economic, military, propaganda -- creates a kind of dopamine addiction.
In order to keep the public interest in
the threat they have to keep raising the stakes and the rhetoric to eventually absurd levels.
As I like to say all the time, it's the first rule of screenwriting :
Be forever raising the
stakes lest the audience gets bored.
But there comes a point where people begin to realize that they are being asked to back a war where the existential threat to the
elite's power is transferred onto them. Remember folks, government's fight and spend billions propagandizing you into believing
their wars are for your own good.
It's rarely the case, if ever. More often than not the war being ginned up in the media and by government officials is one that
either feathers their own nest directly, supports the goals of other powerful folks indirectly, or covers up past corruption.
The brewing conflict in
Ukraine is all of these and more.
The project to add Ukraine to NATO and the EU is a long-held dream of neocons
like Victoria Nuland and neoliberals like Biden. It's an important cog in the World Economic Forum's desire to expand the EU to both
encircle Russia thereby disrupting any dreams of Eurasian integration which could form a bulwark against their brave new world.
What's got Biden's Depends in a bunch is that he's neck-deep in the corruption in Ukraine. In
Obama's own words, Ukraine is Joe's project. And Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky is not fully subsumed into the morass of
Biden's (and the rest of the usual suspects') problems.
Putin's deft and cordial handling of Biden's indiscriminate use of language was masterful here. Biden's initial remarks are, at
best, him trying to hold onto the Amy Poehler demographic (see reruns of Parks and Recreation for her slavish obsession with him as
Vice-President) as a vibrant, macho man, while he implements every bad idea that that same demographic rejected from all the other
Democrats during primary season.
But we can all see he's nothing of the sort. He's a barely coherent, rapidly fading bully with no discernible achievements in life
other than being available to be a placeholder for someone else's plans.
So, it was never a question as to whether Biden would ever talk to Putin under those
conditions. They can't even get him to talk with reporters for real, having to green screen him into backgrounds to make it look
like he's out in the world, doing stuff.
And don't get me started on that embarrassment of a press conference held the other day. Running for re-election in 2024? This guy's
not going to be alive in 2024. Then again, since he didn't run in 2020, what does it actually matter?
Elections are just Hollywood productions anymore anyway.
Biden's counter is to now invite Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping the big Climate Summit
in late April
where the WEF controls the agenda and Biden's anti-diplomatic corps led by the completely over-matched
Secretary of State Antony Blinken can further embarrass the U.S. on the world stage.
Since both Putin and Xi told the WEF to go scratch on both Climate Change, Agenda 2030 and,
most
notably from Putin, the Fourth Industrial Revolution
, I don't see how this summit ends any better than virtual Davos did earlier
this year.
In fact, with Biden's approach to both China and Russia so far, this summit is shaping up to be a colossal waste of time while also
threatening everyone the world over with what they can expect policy-wise from the West until someone finally puts these insane
people out of our misery.
With each day that passes the U.K., for example, under tyrant Boris Johnson sinks further into a complete totalitarian nightmare
(see
here
,
here
,
here
,
and
here
from the last 24 hours) thanks to COVID-19, while ramping up the anti-Russian rhetoric to eleven.
But, back to Ukraine, because it's tied directly to all this climate change nonsense. Putin
understands as well that Biden will allow every escalation in Ukraine because he's shackled by it and they need to complete the job
started with the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich in 2014.
That means we'll see something far worse than Victoria Nuland's latest Cookie Campaign for freedom. We're going to see a war for
the Donbass soon, likely right after Orthodox Easter and the end of the snow melt.
Putin tried to go directly to the people to end this destructive spiral to the bottom, because he knows where this ends.
It will be a confrontation that one side will have to commit to completely or allow it's bluff to be called. The game Biden's
handlers have played to this point has been a massive escalation of rhetoric while continually moving real pieces into position for
a real conflict. I just don't see cooler heads prevailing here because there is no upside for the U.S., the EU and the WEF if China
and Russia stand their ground and Biden et.al. back down.
Russia has to be
destroyed or subjugated if the Great Reset is to happen and Europe is to remain a relevant global player.
That
means control of the Black Sea, which means taking back Crimea. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently reiterated publicly
that Russia has had zero diplomatic contact with the European Union since the 2014 vote by Crimea to rejoin Russia.
Diplomacy is nearly over between the major powers. Biden's simple refusal to talk to Putin
publicly is a major event.
In the end everything we've lived through since COVID-19 began boils down to the need to destroy the global economy built on oil and
coal, otherwise all major energy production stays under Eurasian control as it strengthens not Atlanticist as it peaks in global
power and their grand dreams wither.
Time is getting short for this to happen. Public opposition to this program is rising. It happens now or not at all.
If there is a war in the Donbass this spring it won't be a happy ending which extends U.S.
primacy into the future but the moment when we realized its acceleration into irrelevancy.
In both the current major conflicts between Russia and the US Psychopaths In Charge, Russia holds the moral high
ground. In Ukraine the US promoted, financed, helped organize, and encouraged the overthrow of a democratically
elected government. When the citizens of Crimea exercised their natural right of self determination and voted to
return to being a part of Russia, the US called it a coup. In Syria, the US has illegally invaded a sovereign nation
without that nation's sovereign government's permission or request. Russia got both. Not only does Russia hold the
moral high ground, but the legal high ground as well.
vic and blood
PREMIUM
3 hours ago
Well
stated.
The
role reversal is complete. We are now the Evil Empire.
gmrpeabody
1 hour ago
" . In
Ukraine the US promoted, financed, helped organize, and encouraged the overthrow of a democratically elected
government. "
Marine
General Smedley Butler knew his forces were being used back in the thirties to enforce American bankster
interests in central and South America.
eyewillcomply
1 hour ago
(Edited)
"We are now the Evil Empire."
As
soon as we allowed the cousins of the same Bolsheviks who made Russia into a communist basket case to
control our currency and thus, government, we became an "Evil Empire". It has been a slow process and hard
to recognize early on. The founding principles of the United States are moral and admirable. What we have
morphed into at the behest of this satanic cabal is the exact opposite of that ethos.
chunga
3 hours ago
Many
people hate the US and have many very valid reasons to fight and kill all of us.
BlindMonkey
2 hours ago
(Edited)
A
large swath of Americans just want to live life as a people. They harbor no ill will to other people's,
we just want our space in the world respected. Of these, they also have a beef with the insane people
that have got us to this point.
jeff montanye
2 hours ago
the u.s. government has not been mine since vietnam.
dead hobo
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Funny,
but look at the big picture. How could all these foreign horrors be contemplated if only a few people voted
for Biden? Agree the election was stolen, but it still took a massive number of Libtards and Woketards to
provide enough actual votes to make the fake votes count.
We are
seeing what happens when a massive amount of Accumulated Stupid runs daily life in the US. No amount of talk
will make a difference and most people don't read. Combined, this makes them impervious to common sense.
Things will get worse, then much worse, before they get better. This is a big deal. Democrats are going all
in at 110% effort because they know they will fail and and never get another chance if they don't take over
now. Expect outrageous takeovers followed by more outrageous takeovers. We haven't seen anything yet. Expect
to be Amazed.
chunga
2 hours ago
I'm
afraid those people will not be exempt from the harmful, malicious actions of the US govt and do not deserve
to be. I put myself in this category.
Sandmann
23 minutes ago
Most
Americans are great and generous people but so were most people in the Soviet Union
Lordflin
2 hours ago
You
don't seriously believe we would sit on the sidelines of such a conflict...
When
was the last time that happened...?
Deep
State wants war... and they are now firmly in charge in a capital protected by armed troops and razor
wire...
JPHR
3 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
This
article seems mistaken in treating Biden as somehow being in charge nor is this Harris.
The
most concerning aspect of this fake presidency is that non-elected and not accountable people behind the
scenes are running this farce.
The US
always selects weak corrupt leaders as front men for their color revolutions abroad and it should not be a
surprise that the color revolution at home now follows exactly that very same pattern.
Carlin was RIGHT
2 hours ago
(Edited)
It is
not just the author of this article that is mistaken, it is also 95% of the murican public. What you see on
your tee veee and read in media is 100% pure theatre - all agenda driven, of course.
Dumfknation will begrudgingly go along with ANYTHING tptb dictates - that has been proven beyond any doubt
over the last year. So expect nothing but misery and quite possibly death for the foreseeable future,
because (((they))) most certainly have NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for you happiness and prosperity, and only seek
to make the world a better place for (((them))).
Sandmann
4 hours ago
Much
of the Hitler-Stalin War was fought in Ukraine. Ukraine was always the centre for Soviet weapons production
to ensure The West stayed away.
Brzezinski set up a cat's paw which he hoped would ensnare Russia but it will destroy USA. The West kept
Bandera groups funded and armed in Ukraine into 1950s. Poland wants to seize Gailicia. The simple fact is
Ukrainians are emigrating for work to Poland and Turkey and Western Europe if they can get forged papers.
Ukraine is dead - US wants to force West Europeans to pay transport levies to Ukraine for Russian gas
instead of North Stream so Europeans fund Ukraine corruption and backfunding to US Democrats.
Russia
will fight when it is ready as will China. Seems stupid to risk Atlanta or Dallas or LA or Chicago for Kiev
Craven Moorehead
3 hours ago
The
Soviet Union economically collapsed trying to match NATO military strength, too much of their resources and
productivity were directed to military, the West effectively outspent them.
Now
the tables have turned, The US may be on the road to the same fate, and the current government of morons may
just bring it about
BlindMonkey
2 hours ago
remove
link
The Ukraine war might be kept under wraps solely because Russia has clearly signaled they will enter it. An
attack is a suicide play for Ukraine. I don't expect this to stop the warhawks from trying but Zelensky
must know this is a death trap for him.
If this kicks off, expect Poland to be sacrificed to try to
take Kaliningrad in retribution.
SwmngwShrks
1 hour ago
remove
link
I
remember being in school in 2014, in a UN class specifically, learning about how the US backed coup in the
Ukraine led to them wanting to join the EU. However, as part of the treaty during the dissolution of the
USSR, if any of the barrier states went to join the EU, Russia would annex Crimea, as its only warm-water
port.
This
is what happened, and what was executed, however it was propagandized here in the US that Russia had
"invaded" Crimea. It explains why reporters on scene found the locals welcoming the Russians.
The
thing is, I remember so explicitly finding this on the web, because I was surprised it was true. I read the
actual treaty, and can no longer find it online, anywhere. Sigh, down the memory hole, thanks Brave New
World.
Savvy
24 minutes ago
It's hard to believe the Americans could be so short sighted, but Ukraine was 'liberated' to control
Russia's access to the EU market. Pretty stupid if so because that's when construction on NS2 began and
Ukraine is a US quagmire now. Another shining example of US intervenyionism.
SoDamnMad
2 hours ago
remove
link
Search
for the "March of the Immortal Regiment" on Youtube and understand that if you attack either the Crimea or
the Donbass you will fight seasoned soldiers as well as civilians ready to smash your face in with a
shovel. Unlike the US woke crowd those that chose Russia are not willing to lay down for the corrupt
private Nazi militias of Ukraine. The shipment of up-armored humvess are worthless in this fight. Half the
stuff will be stolen and wind up on the black market. No more mister nice guy. "Remember, you asked for
it."
deep-state-retired
3 hours ago
remove
link
With
the successful Biden Coup and full media / tech blackout of election fraud the Globalists are ready to take
on one of the last few nation states. They think like Napoleon and Hitler just kick in the door and the
house will collapse. We will see.
de tocqueville's ghost
1 hour ago
(Edited)
the
industrialized military complex and deep state stole our vote and election...they need war to survive. Biden
was always their "boy"...he voted yay for every war in the last 42 years. They had to get rid of Trump...he
wasn't starting any wars.
We knew Biden would start beating the war drums soon after being in the WH, and he is.
JackOliver5
3 hours ago
(Edited)
Luongo
is not too sharp - THIS is about the energy future - NATURAL GAS !
So was
the deal between Iran and China today !
Russia
already has over over 1000 CNG service stations - Iran will provide CNG pipelines to China - the Rothschilds
will have NO place in this NEW world !
THAT
is why we are seeing what we are seeing NOW !
Time
will prove that I am right !
Five_Black_Eyes_Intel_Agency
4 hours ago
(Edited)
The
psychopathic cabal loves creating frozen conflicts that they can "switch on" - such as the one in Ukraine.
The only problem is that they always keep choosing losers as their friends.
The
CIA and MI6 are working hard on "switching on" the Ukraine conflict, because peddling conflict is all they
know. Russia will wipe the floor with them.
The
world is waking up fast to the US-UK-israeli racket of depravity. The world except those pitiful vassals
still stuck in the honeymoon phase with their oppressors like the EU.
Propaganda Ripper
2 hours ago
(Edited)
At
this point, if you are politically correct, you cheer for World War 3. What could be more normal in a world
gone mad ?
US Banana Republic
2 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Russia
AND China need to make sure the US has skin in this game.
When I
was IN Ukraine recently for three months a friend asked when the continental US was last involved in a real
war. It was, of course, the US Civil War and that ended in 1865. The US is far removed from the people it
disturbs and massacres. We have no problem singing how proud we are to be Americans because we are situated
in a place that we can do anything to anybody and they can't touch us. That needs to end.
I
don't know exactly how but Russia and China need to make the US pay some consequences for this ********
aggression.
Oldwood
2 hours ago
When you say "US", exactly WHO are you referring?
When you say "Chinese" who are you referring.
Most people of this planet are dominated by their leadership.
otschelnik
3 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Donbass is another example of a successful 'frozen conflict' tactic which the Russians use in ethnicly
charged border conflicts or strategically important territories. North Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transdnestr are
some of the other ones. There's one big chanage in that now a lot of the residents of the Donbass region
have obtained Russian passports under an expedited system, about 400,000 reportedly by the beginning of the
year. Unlike US politicians Putin is not limited by time. This can go on for decades.
Russia
is keeping their options open, and they're willing to withdrawl from Donbass if the region is given autonomy
in Ukraine if they can keep Crimea. This is their favorite option but that's not acceptable for the Ukraine
government. If that doesn't work they can go all the way and annex Donbass too and have the forces to go
all the way to the Dnepr river. Ukraine can't do anything, they're too weak.
The
neocon's running the Biden administration would definitely like to push Ukraine into a hot war with Russia
but our NATO allies are not going to support it.
vasilievich
2 hours ago
If I
may ask, how do you know what Russia is willing to do?
otschelnik
22 minutes ago
Listen to Lavrov and read between the lines.
SoDamnMad
2 hours ago
"if
they can keep Crimea". I stopped reading after that. The road and railway links over the Kerch Strait told
me they were there for good.
BinAnunnaki
1 hour ago
remove
link
Can
Putin annex Donestsk and not expect full western sanctions, esp. on energy or is that a bluff?
Will
Merkel let her people freeze for Eastern Ukraine?
indus creed
30 minutes ago
(Edited)
At the
minimum Russia will take the eastern portion and the entire southern region, thus cutting Ukraine off from
the Black Sea.
MILITARY SITUATION IN EASTERN UKRAINE ON MARCH 28, 2021 (MAP UPDATE)
European Monarchist
1 hour ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Biden
is just like Obama, an unsophisticated and blundering WARMONGER.
El_Puerco
1 hour ago
Who
Are the Secret
Puppet-Masters
Behind
Biden's
War?
European Monarchist
59 minutes ago
(Edited)
Who
knows, but here is my list of likely suspects: the military industrial complex, the CIA, the deep state,
Mossad, hubris, dementia, and demons.
The Vel
1 hour ago
I like
this article. Some wonderful quotes:
'
They can't even get him to
talk with reporters for real, having to green screen him into backgrounds to make it look like he's out in
the world, doing stuff.'
- Check
In the
end everything we've lived through since COVID-19 began boils down to the need to destroy the global economy
built on oil and coal, otherwise all major energy production -
Check
If
there is a war in the Donbass this spring it won't be a happy ending which extends U.S. primacy into the
future but the moment when we realized its acceleration into irrelevancy. -
Check
Mate
That's
the key point of covid - it will take the US Federal Government into irrelevancy along with Dementia Joe.
And all you good folks and me will get to witness this transition to
irrelevance
(if
you don't die off from the vaxx sooner).
BubbaBanjo
1 hour ago
remove
link
Ukraine would be very wise to find a diplomatic way to be a neutral nation and not be a pawn. Russia will
take the pawn if it is played. Nothing will stop that. A pawn needs to know its role in the game.
Aquamaster
10 minutes ago
Always
remember, Biden did not put anyone into his administration based on qualifications. Most were picked for
either their racial, sexual, or LBGTQ... bonafides. The rest were picked as paybacks for financial, and
media/tech support during the campaign. Also, many are Obama retreads, and we know how poorly they performed
in those eight years of the Obama reign of error.
This
is going to be a horrible four years and I have no doubt that OBidens ideologues will blunder us into at
least one war. Hopefully it won't be WW3.
flyonmywall
23 minutes ago
The
idiot-in-chief is being told by his handlers that they can win this without American boots on the ground,
with cannon fodder provided by conscript Ukrainians.
When
the Russians finally unleash their armor divisions, they will cut through their opposition like a hot knife
through butter, while being covered by the Russian aerospace forces.
If
these idiots unleash long range misiles, World War 3 will be just around the corner.
Aquamaster
7 minutes ago
Indeed. We saw this exact thing happen in the ill fated Georgia conflict during the Bush presidency.
QABubba
2 hours ago
remove
link
Putin
is, and has been, playing a waiting game. With each year that passes the West gets weaker and Eurasia gets
stronger. The goal is with deft diplomacy to stretch this period out long enough for the balance of power
to become obvious.
Again, whoever thought that Russia would pay billions in transit fees to Poland and Ukraine for them to turn
around and spend with Lockheed, Ratheon. etc., to buy weapons to point at Russia was an idiot. A first
class idiot. The kind of idiot that will be the death of us.
Tom Green Swedish
2 hours ago
WIth
each year Putin becomes older and weaker. He will age out, and they will fall. I don't like Russia. Who
would?
Victor999
1 hour ago
Lots of people like Russia - all over the world. And lots of people absolutely hate America - all over
the world. How do you explain that? And if you knew anything about Russia, you would understand why you
should fear the day that Putin finally steps down.
blumenthal
2 hours ago
(Edited)
In
contrast to the attempted coup in Turkey, in which Erdogan acted decisively, it was a serious mistake on
Yanukovich's part not to deploy the military in Ukraine. The Russians made a subsequent mistake by not
marching straight into the capital Kiew. Now it will be much more difficult to control the situation in
Ukraine. A further conflict will escalate very quickly, because the Russians have a lot at stake and China
will not hesitate for long.......
Propaganda Ripper
2 hours ago
(Edited)
Yanukovich did not deploy the military in Ukraine because he was threatened with sanctions... The result is
that he almost got himself (and his family) killed. It was a very narrow escape from Kyiv.
BinAnunnaki
2 hours ago
remove
link
Remember this all happened while Putin was concluding a successful Olympics
morefunthanrum
2 minutes ago
Zerohedge and the Republicans are awful sympathetic to trumps buddy putin....why is that?
TRUMP WON
2 minutes ago
Putin
loves his country...
Biden
does not.
Only a
few years difference in their ages... Jesus, what a contrast.
One,
sharp as a tack... the other, a urine-soaked imbecilic pedo clown
rtb61
1 hour ago
The
Ukraine no longer seems willing to self destruct being part of Europe a lie, they should never have shot
down the passenger jet, they will never be forgiven for that.
Right
now the worst thing the USA could do to Russia, dump the Ukraine back on them and force Russia to pay to fix
and and create chaos with regard to the Crimea.
The
Ukraine is a mess and getting worse, it is a booby prize for whom ever gets stuck with it. The Ukraine even
managed to say the stupidest thing they could, when they said the Crimea returned to Russia, really stuck
their foot in there. Should never have said that because yes, it was stolen by a Ukrainian leader of the
Soviet Union and logically at the end of the Soviet Union should have demanded it's return to Russia because
soviet union evil.
The
Ukraine government should have never said, the Crimea returned to Russia because they immediately lost their
case in doing so.
Global Hunter
1 hour ago
remove
link
The
pro-Soros, pro NATO Ukrainians (baby Russians) who are rebelling against their Russian brethren shot the
plane down ya stooge.
fosfor 37
2 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Many
thanks to Biden and Nuland for the Russian Crimea!
Vladymyr Zhirinovsky - The division of Ukraine will take place in the near future
The
flight of Viktor Yanukovych from Kiev turned out to be the most profitable option for Russia. Otherwise, one
would have to spend a lot of money and be left without Crimea.
"Why
didn't Yanukovych stay in Kiev? How would we take Crimea if Yanukovych stayed in Kiev? We would have thrown
an army into Kiev, we would have given a lot of money, Yanukovych would have sat there and continued to rule
Ukraine, and Crimea would have remained Ukrainian and died. Yanukovych played along with us. Now Biden is
playing along with us. Let him continue to help the allegedly Ukrainian army. "
Zhirinovsky presented the ongoing actions as a multi-step combination for the creation of Novorossiya.
"It is
beneficial for us that Biden gave the command through his Ukrainian accomplices to launch an attack on
Donbass. Yes, we will crush this entire army completely, and a movement will begin towards the creation of
Novorossia, the entire South-East of Ukraine, and the North - we will see. Maybe we'll come to an agreement
with the Germans and the Poles, maybe we'll do a little differently there. "
Let it Go
3 hours ago
remove
link
Biden putting more weapons into
the hands of those unmotivated to fight for their corrupt state is merely adding fuel to this fire and doing
more harm than good.
Remember Ukraine is a financially failed state and while we can point to its
potential, its massive oil and gas reserves by all rights should belong to the Ukrainian people. These
reserves do not belong to people like Joe and hunter Biden.
More
on this subject in the article below.
Recall
all the "concern" that Trump might be blackmailed by those who had dirt on him...(Russia)
never
happened
So
what of Biden and Burisma, Ukraine, Hunter, China deals, money wired, ...??
Any
stories that might be told, or withheld, on the Bidens?
Southern_Boy
21 minutes ago
I
believe living anywhere near the DC Swamp will become rather dangerous (it's probably dangerous now because
of BLM/Antifa and the "woke" mobs) once the nuclear ballistic missile exchange starts. Even the big blue
cities and state capitals are probably going to be targets.
The
globalist elites of the Medical-Military Industrial Complex really believe the homeland is invulnerable to
and will never be subjected to a real damaging attack.
Don't
forget the historical wild card is Pakistan, India and Iran with nuclear and biological weapons of mass
destruction.
gzorp
24 minutes ago
(Edited)
After
the nazis bounced Kennedy's brains (and your democracy) off the trunk of his limo on 11/22/63, the Right of
Return side as opposed to Containment side won the argument. There would be no cooperation with the Soviet
Union... Nixon (Dulles/nazi protege) used the ukrainian (Bandera faction) Romainian Iron Guard, Croation
Ustashi etc . to get the ethnic vote for the Republipigs promosing right of return to their countries for
the nazi collaborators given refuge here in the US. Brought into the Republipig party as an official wing of
the party by HW Bush when he was chairman of the Republipig party as the "Ethnic Outreach" wing of the
party. Seen the USSA returning any former nazis to Croatia or Ukraine?...
Kat Daddy
49 minutes ago
(Edited)
If a
plebiscite is called in the Donbass, the people will vote to join the Russian Federation. Any actions taken
by NATO and the Atlanticist interests will appear illegal under international law. So much for promoting
democracy and humanitarian interests. There need not be a war, but I know you're secretly hoping for one.
Germany is showing signs of an independent Russia policy. The main issue between the United
States, Europe, and Russia now is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would carry gas from Russia
to Germany. The Biden Administration may impose
sanctions on companies that help build it, which
risks a blowup with Berlin .
Most Republicans want
even sterner measures . Senator Ted Cruz is
delaying confirmation of some of President Biden's officials unless he takes action.
Hostility towards Russia is one of the few issues that unite Republicans and Democrats
– along with support for
citizenship for illegal immigrants ,
interference in Syria, keeping
troops in Afghanistan , and thwarting
China . We can't count on Republicans or Democrats to stand up for Americans, but we can
count on support for invading the world and inviting the world. This combination of an
aggressive foreign policy and indifference towards citizens is why some call the current regime
the
Globalist American Empire (GAE). It may be based in Washington DC, but it has nothing to do
with the historic American nation or its interests.
However, what I call the " American Paradox "
may doom this "empire." It is run by people who seem to care nothing for the country; the
empire is built on sand.
...., the US neurotic dynamic is to escalate blindly until it achieves control. This is
the dynamic that must be defeated.
Yes that's problem all right, but can you ever defeat that dynamic given that the gorilla
owns 10,000 nukes and has no moral qualms whatsoever of using them? Until a near perfect
anti-nuke defense system is developed I surmise the world would just have to live with, and
get used to, the juvenile antics of King Kong because it has stated time and again it would
escalate all the way up to using its nukes, because that's what they are for according
to a former Sec. of State.
I'm a pessimist on this issue. I'm afraid we'll just have to endure and live with a wild
beast for a while to come.
i've been a reader of moa for quite a few years now, but never contributed to the forum.
mostly because after a while i found what i wanted to say anyway, and why pile on?
I really enjoy the civility of the forum, and it's internationality. And of course b's
insights. as a German myself I share many points of view with him in matters i have knowledge
in, or think that i do.
For example i think that trump sure might be seen as a disaster by many, but it was a gift
to Europe, and Germany in particular, because he opened the eyes of many, many people here
who for decades thought murrica is our friend, our big brother, who will always protect us
from the evil of the world - namely communism, Russia and lately china. a majority of the
people here, as well as in the rest of the so called "western world" have been brainwashed
for about 7 decades to think that way, even when America committed the most obvious, heinous,
horrible crimes against humanity and our civilization as a whole.
there was always a spin, "human rights", "democracy", "free trade" and so on, values that
had to be "defended" - when in reality it was always an offensive aggression or even a
"pre-emptive strike". people just swallowed what the media fed them and went on with their
daily chores.
Trump changed that, suddenly the ugly side of the empire became visible, and i will always
be grateful for that. because now it cannot be hidden anymore. it wasn't just the unruly
behaviour of a "new rich" and uneducated bully who accidentally became president.
politically, the general attitude was always the same, trump only worded it much more
obvious, making it harder for politicians and media to spin. that's why our politicians and
media (for the most part fed by trans-atlantic "think tanks") hated him almost more than
Americans themselves - he made their lies obvious and transparent. if it wasn't so sad, it
sometimes was almost funny to see them squirm, having to explain why our friend and protector
suddenly became so selfish and hostile.
All of them welcomed of course the new Harris administration, being so progressive, just
and friendly again - only to witness a change of paradigm they probably didn't even think
trump was capable of, or willing to: i think in later years, this week will mark the
"official" beginning of the new cold war era. this behaviour against Russia and china was not
a slap, but a punch in the face and will NEVER be forgiven nor forgotten. the only question
for europe is: does it finally have the balls to emancipate and stand up against the bully?
or will it submit and become a collateral damage of it's downfall? in form of a nuclear
wasteland maybe?
I think that Nord stream II is a turning point. If Germany caves in here, there's little
hope to get rid of the leash for it and the whole of Europe.
If it stands tall, europe might become a buffer instead of a frontline. knowing and seeing
our politicians, i'd say it doesn't look good.
"... Nord Stream 2 is of vital importance to Germany's energy security. The German public was rather hostile to President Trump and Biden's victory was seen with relief. But when it sees how Biden pursues the same policies, and with a similar tone, it will turn on him ..."
"... Since Washington is now in conflict with a goodly part of the public it sees that creating foreign policy crises and enemies as an excellent course of action to shore up support. Americans are always ready to react against enemies no matter how slender the proof of the wrongdoing ascribed to the enemy. There is never a penalty to pay for lying in the US if you are in the mainstream media or in the political arena. Since the CIA controls much of the European media and their ruling class it would take quite a lot for Europeans to drop their status as vassal states. ..."
Nord Stream 2 is of vital importance to Germany's energy security. The German public
was rather hostile to President Trump and Biden's victory was seen with relief. But when it
sees how Biden pursues the same policies, and with a similar tone, it will turn on him .
<-- b
However "hostile", Germany contributed to uni-lateral Trumpian sanctions, and so far,
North Stream 2 is the only beacon of independence. Take Ukraine: Germany and France form half
of Normandy Four, and provided name for Steinmeier formula. Ukraine resolutely resists
proceeding with any obligations under that formula. Germany is silent on that and support
annual extensions of sanctions, not to mention sanctions on Syria, Venezuela and whatever EU
sanctions.
Syria is an interesting example. It could be actually popular among German voters to
facilitate reconstruction in that country and return of the refugees to their homeland. Iran
and Russia are potentially good customers for German industry. Independence of German banks
and other companies from whimsical sanctions from USA would help too.
Seemingly, ingrained masochism is hard to overcome.
Thanks for posting Pepe's comments, some of which are in his current article I linked to
on the open thread. In my comment related to Pepe's article I noted his excerpt of Chinese
academic Jisi and this specific part:
"the Americans are eager to deal with problems before they are ready to improve the
relationship."
That observation is consistent with that of an entity that only wants its orders obeyed
and seeks no relationship or friendship with any other entity since it sees itself as Top
Dog, and #1 in every way. As with the Nord Stream project, we see the Gangster mentality--Do
as I say or else!
Not only does the Emperor have no clothes or much of a working memory, he's got erectile
disfunction too that's well beyond the ability of Viagra to fix.
So here we have Blinken, Winken and Nod providing direction for failing empire
Blinken is obvious
Winken is that behind the scenes, wink, wink, nod, nod (there ain't no class structure here)
type VP and
Nod is the new normal as US President.
I am sure they will try to take America to new places, yet to be dreamt of....will the
brainwashed of the West follow?
About Germany and Nord Stream II.....To a degree that I am not sure of, Germany is like
Japan, a fully owned colony of empire....this may be the time that the Germany nut gets
cracked wide open....interesting times indeed.
Where are the details of Blinken telling China how to behave? I can hardly wait for the
next act of Blinken, Winken and Nod
"Why, after so many bad words towards it, would China help the U.S. with solving the North
Korea problem? It has zero incentive to do so."
This (as well as the Germany/NS2 thing) sounds like a rather naive view. Western headlines
are for western internal consumption. And what's happening behind the scene, what incentives
are offered and what threats are made in exchange for what specific actions, we simply don't
know.
I notice a lot of accusations that Washington is "stupid" but that's not true. You have to
understand how Washington works before you make such statements. The Deep State knows that it
can control the minds of most Americans by inventing "truths" without any need to prove
anything.
Since Washington is now in conflict with a goodly part of the public it sees that
creating foreign policy crises and enemies as an excellent course of action to shore up
support. Americans are always ready to react against enemies no matter how slender the proof
of the wrongdoing ascribed to the enemy. There is never a penalty to pay for lying in the US
if you are in the mainstream media or in the political arena. Since the CIA controls much of
the European media and their ruling class it would take quite a lot for Europeans to drop
their status as vassal states.
Remember, Washington can throw endless amounts of money around and fund everything from
terrorism, crime waves, sexual indiscretions a la Epstein (the CIA had it's own whorehouse
which my father pointed out to me decades ago--it was in Roslyn Virginia and it used underage
girls and boys to improve its soft-power).
So far, no one has paid a penalty for lying or corrupt practices in Washington if they
were "made" men or women (Trump never got that far).
As long as Europe, Japan and some other countries continue to be vassal states the US can
and will get away with anything. Nordstream 2 is the issue that may change all that. Once
Germany rebels the rest may follow.
germany breaking rank will be first big turn in nato. nordstream is a non negotiable issue
for germany. meanwhile the US is not agreement capable. on anything and the vaccine hoarding
is a big F U in EU to so called allies. all the pieces are set. just need time to let it all
play out. the global south woke to it before the slower europeans can see the world anew.
as for the US china alaska meeting, it does seem to me that the US administration and deep
state or whatever you want to call it are not coordinated or fully aligned with each other.
the timing of the US sanctions on hk officials seem designed to thwart any possible dialogue.
as if some elements are working to ensure the meeting resolves nothing.
the china global times calls this move the US stick that comes down before any negotiation
and says it's a continuation of trump era tactics. maybe. I see it more as designed to make
the meeting fail instead of designed to achieve anything such as extracting concessions from
china. not being agreement capable because it is sabotaged from within.
but at this pt in the crumbling empire it is perhaps foolish to analyze its tactics in
terms of means and ends. its only 'rationale' at this pt is to just keep doing what it's
doing. sanctions wars threats coercion and moral grandstanding. it only knows it is right and
there is nothing else besides.
About Vlora to be an Alternative to NS2. Just a Fake from Radio France International, paid
for by french gov. France is now full play in US hand. Macron want NS2 [and soon NS1..] to be
shut down.
Nord Stream 1 is 55 Md.M3/y
Nord Stream 2 too.
110Md.m3/year
The biggest ship to deliver US GNL in Europe is 260.000 m3. 1m3 GNL is 600m3 natural
gaz.
It's me or my computer? 3 ship per day? How many ship necessary? 60? 80?
Not an economy, a nightmare.
American capitalism was plunder and is now parasitism.
In order to get energy, Germany need Russia. Nord Stream is a direct tie in order to avoid
"reliable" intermediate like Ukraine or Poland.
In order to get everything under control US need [reliable intermediate] to cut the tie
between [oil/gas fields] from Middleeast or Russia and Germany, the sole country in Europe
with Great industrial/technical capacity.
Several Russia watchers - Patrick
Armstrong , Andrei Martyanov and
Andrei
Raevsky - are musing about a renewed attack by the government of Ukraine on its eastern
Donbass region. The Donbass separated in 2014 after the U.S. driven coup in Kiev installed an
anti-Russian government which then waged a war on its ethnic Russian east.
"I would like to warn the Kiev regime and the hotheads that are serving it or manipulating it
against further de-escalation and attempts to implement a forceful scenario in Donbass,"
[Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova] said, commenting on the statement of
head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Contact Group for settlement in Donbass Leonid
Kravchuk on some "radical steps" of Kiev if Russia refuses to recognize itself as a conflict
side in eastern Ukraine.
...
Zakharova recalled that the Minsk Agreements clearly outline the conflict sides in Donbass as
Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. "The unwillingness of Ukrainian negotiators to recognize this fact
and their refusal to find agreements with Donbass is the reason that hinders the
establishment of long-lasting peace in the region," the diplomat noted.
[T]he Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) recently plunged the country into one of its
deepest crises in its 30-year history. Specifically, on October 27, 2020, the Court declared
that the main elements of Ukraine's anti-corruption legislation, adopted between 2014 and
2020, were unconstitutional. In response, President Zelensky introduced legislation calling
for the early termination of all Constitutional Court judges. Later, in December, he
suspended the chairman of the Court for two months.
The result was widespread chaos in Ukraine's political system. Zelensky's actions were of
questionable legality and provoked harsh criticism from all political sides. The
ramifications of the Court's decision include the cancellation of over 100 pending corruption
investigations, a development that potentially could endanger future EU-Ukraine trade and
economic cooperation Ukraine under the 2014 Association Agreement.
After the 2014 Euromaidan coup an 'independent' National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) was
created to oversee the investigation and prosecution of corrupt state officials. The NABU has
since been used by the U.S. embassy to bring criminal cases against those oligarchs it dislikes
and to cover for those it likes. The constitutional court found that NABU is a criminal
investigation agency outside the control of the executive branch which is a contradiction to
the Ukrainian constitution.
The crisis has since escalated:
President Zelensky has now taken several provocative steps, including proposing legislation
that voids the Constitutional Court's anti-corruption rulings and begins the process of
dismissing and replacing those justices who supported that decision. None of these actions
are supported under present-day Ukrainian law. The rhetoric between the president and the
Constitutional Court is also escalating, with Constitutional Court Chairman Tupitskyi warning
that the president's actions threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Calls for
impeachment proceedings are being raised in the Rada, and Zelensky yet again escalated the
crisis on February 3, 2021 by blocking pro-Russian TV channels controlled by Victor
Medvedchuk. The legality of the latter action was even questioned by the EU, who told
Zelensky that while Ukraine possessed the right to protect itself from disinformation, it
still had to comply with international standards and "fundamental rights and freedoms."
The pressure on Zelensky is growing as he tries to navigate the fine line of obeying the
law as written while simultaneously claiming that the very integrity of the country is at
stake. And Zelensky's problems are only mounting, with the Cabinet of Ministers recently
calling for the dismissal of the head of NABU and the IMF delaying the next tranche of
financial support, in part because of Ukraine's failure to implement a comprehensive
anti-corruption program.
A war against the eastern separatist could be a Hail Mary attempt by Zelensky to regain some
national and international support.
But nothing will happen on the frontline without the consent or even encouragement from
Washington DC. The Biden administration is filled with the same delusional people who managed
the 2014 coup in Kiev. They may believe that the NATO training the Ukrainian army received and
the weapons the U.S. delivered are sufficient to defeat the separatist. But the state of the
Ukrainian military is worse than one might think and
the separatist will have Russia's full backing. There is no question who would win in such a
fight.
If the US is not careful it is going to give the Russians another opportunity to show to the
World their military prowess, the flexibility of their Military District system allowing
multi front operation and their unfailing support for an ally. As well as potentially letting
the Russians show to Europe that they have nothing to fear, if they stop at 30 miles or so
and basically go back home. All whilst the US demonstrates the opposite, but then reinforcing
DC may trump the World.
Posted by b on March 13, 2021 at 17:30 UTC | Permalink
If Ukraine is not careful, they could easily lose all their territory up to the Dnieper
River. With Russian support the separatists could launch offensives and gain massive
territory west. If pro-Russian separatists managed to capture that much territory, that would
solve alot of problems for Russia.
1. A land bridge to Crimea.
2. No more water/power distribution problems to Crimea.
3. Less chances for the ongoing sabotage efforts against Crimea from the northern border.
4. Permanent exclusion of Ukraine from NATO unless Ukraine simply gives up and recognizes all
the lost as sovereign independent republics. A win/win for Russia.
"A war against the eastern separatist could be a Hail Mary attempt by Zelensky to regain
some national and international support." It would be an odd way to 'regain national
support', as he was elected on precisely the opposite platform, the peace platform.
Meh. Whatever the calculations - to suppress pro-peace opponents and compete against the
pro-war parties for their electorate? - it seems unlikely to succeed. A case of totally
fucked up attempt at populism, methinks.
"Just a few weeks ago I wrote a column entitled "The Ukraine's Many Ticking Time Bombs" in
which I listed a number of developments presenting a major threat to the Ukraine and, in
fact, to all the countries of the region. In this short time the situation has deteriorated
rather dramatically. I will therefore begin with a short recap of what is happening.
First, the Ukrainian government and parliament have, for all practical purposes, declared
the Minsk Agreements as dead. Truth be told, these agreements were stillborn, but as long as
everybody pretended that there was still a chance for some kind of negotiated solution, they
served as a "war retardant". Now that this retardant has been removed, the situation becomes
far more explosive than before.
Second, it is pretty obvious that the "Biden" administration is a who's who of all the
worst russophobes of the Obama era: Nuland, Psaki, and the rest of them are openly saying
that they want to increase the confrontation with Russia. Even the newcomers, say like Ned
Price, are clearly rabid russophobes. The folks in Kiev immediately understood that their bad
old masters were back in the White House and they are now also adapting their language to
this new (well, not really) reality.
Finally, and most ominously, there are clear signs that the Ukrainian military is moving
heavy forces towards the line of contact. Here is an example of a video taken in the city of
Mariupol:
Besides tanks, there are many reports of other heavy military equipment, including MLRS
and tactical ballistic missiles, being moved east towards the line of contact. Needless to
say, the Russian General Staff is tracking all these movements very carefully, as are the
intelligence services of the LDNR."
Because the establishment was successful at installing one of their own into the White
House. In fact, the empire's need to secure total victory in Ukraine was part and parcel of
why Biden had to "win" regardless of how blatant the scamming of the election ended up
being.
Not only will the wars in Ukraine and Syria heat up to a boil again, but we will begin to
see terrorist attacks in western China start up once more after several year hiatus. We all
knew that this is what would come of a Biden win.
Ukraine still has a flotilla of functioning nuclear power plants. The Zaporozhye complex is
the largest in Europe by far. Anything goes wrong and Chernobyl comes back, in spades. So
what if we have a little war and Russia stops at Donbass, the rump of Ukraine is in chaos?
An atomic bomb requires 3 kilos of fissile material. A reactor will have tons. Hundreds of
tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. There is a lot to be said for stability. Lots of
trouble with high stakes poker.
I agree, and further to your points, I suspect Russians are engaged in a long term project
of re-absorbing Ukraine minus the Catholic oblasts. The tactic is intermittent episodes of
limited war, in response to a Ukrainian provocation, real or manufactured, or imagined -
followed by the loss of more territory by Ukraine.
The most interesting thing about this story is ... Myanmar.
Since the coup in that country began the Fake News (most MSM news) has given Myanmar
saturation coverage. EVERY "news" broadcast in Oz AND the so-called International News has
led with some tosh about Myanmar. It's an effing rowdy riot for Christ's sake. Guess how
surprised I wouldn't be to hear that MI6 & CIA are behind Myanmar? It's a Boring, same
every day, story and it's going nowhere.
Imo, Myanmar was always cover for prep for something more nefarious elsewhere. And
anything with shooting involved would be MORE nefarious than Myanmar. Now the real stories
are seeping out.
I hope they start with Ukraine. Putin is an asshole. But he's my kind of asshole and certain
people, who don't listen, are going to wish they hadn't been born. And when VVP has finished
with Ukraine, some of them may as well not have been born.
What ever I read I never hear the views of the people of Ukraine - the country is at risk of
being broken up by the actions of all governments since independence. I bet the Hungarians
and Poland are watching closely as they also have interests in Ukraine.
You people need to get your stories straight. If Biden is so senile, then manipulating him
slows down the full-court press and makes all policies erratic, the product of the last
person to whisper in the ear. (Which is why Dr. Jill would be Edith Wilson and Nancy Reagan.)
Plus, saving the zombie corps are higher on his agenda. Most of all of course, the theory
that Biden has already ordered the MSM to bury the bodies in Ukraine means he has zero need
to do favors for anyone there. (There is zero evidence Hunter was selling real favors,
instead of scamming crooked Ukrainians who thought they could buy influence. But it is an
article of faith, a tenet of Trumpian theology, that Ukraine was something, something,
something and therefore Biden is a traitor.)
It is in fact the transitional period that is apt to allow all unresolved disasters to
boil over while no one (not literally) is watching. Only a fool ever thought Ukraine and
Syria could continue indefinitely. (Putin may be that big of a fool, if he ever had an
endgame he's never showed any sign of it.) The economic crisis and the epidemic and the US
elections I think have tended to put people into a holding pattern to see how things develop.
But now, the epidemic is starting to shake out---the end of the beginning is in sight!---and
the world depression is entering a new phase with threatened mass bankruptcies and now is the
time to present the new US administration with a fait accompli.
In Syria, Trump had four years to end things but deliberately committed to stealing the
oil. Putin never had a plan I think to lever out the US and Turkey or even the Kurds, so he
never had a hope of ending the war in Syria. It can't go on forever.
Kharkov province came within a hair of joining Lugansk and Donetsk in rebelling. But it
is the only contiguous territory that can plausibly be joined. Odessa is majority Russian but
it is isolated. Artificially dividing the westernmost provinces from the rest of Ukraine will
not resolve the problem, not even if they were sacrificed to Poland. Poland's appetites
include western Belarus and Kaliningrad and probably parts of Lithuania too. One problem with
re-drawing borders in Europe is German revanchism for Silesia and Prussia. It may not be loud
now, but it's astonishing how fast these ideas come back.
Some updates. There is a battle in the area of #Donetsk airport. The #Ukrainian Armed
Forces
are shelling DPR positions with heavy weapons.
Around 19.30 local time, a series of kicks took place in the direction of the DAP.
I would expect a False Flag to start thing off. (The shelling has been going on for
months, but seems to be more serious this time round.)
The Russians are ready. 6 Divisions said to be on high alert. Structural subdivisions
of electronic warfare (EW) of special forces of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have
been redeployed to the territory of the #DPR & #LPR
Electronic suppression & electronic protection goes to all points of contact with
#Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The Ukranians started flying Bayraktar TB2 drones (As used against Armenia) (Two drones
"Rece" downed (?unconfirmed) and a US drone seen in the vicinity.)
An Inhabitant of Donbas thinks that this time the Ukrainians will go for city centers.
(Thinking about the mess they made by going through the rural areas and finishing in
"cauldrons") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iixZn9r8z8
(26 minutes)
Turkey's deputy foreign minister [annexation of Crimea]: "The situation in Crimea
continues to threaten regional security." "We adopt a clear, coherent policy. We strongly
support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. We don't recognize illegal
annexation."
The Ukes have slightly more then 100'000 men and the Donbas has about 30'000.
There are three (?) Nato force ships in Odessa. (Minesweepers, if my memory is correct -
older report) The US destroyers have left. But. The US has a carrier in the Med, and the
Charles de Gaulle (carrier) is also around.
I wonder who is pulling Ukrainian President Zelensky's strings as his actions as described
by B in his post don't match what the fellow has been doing (basically faffing about and
trying to please everybody since he was elected in 2019) up to now. There must be several
puppetmasters pulling him this way and that: the CIA and SBU certainly, the US State Dept
certainly, and Zelensky must also be feeling some heat now Uncle Creepy Joe and son Hunter
over Hunters past involvement with Burisma Holdings.
Biden does not have any policies. At this point, it should be clear that the term
"Biden" be used to designate the consortium of neocon and neoliberal technocrats, both
veterans from the Obama-admin and neophytes who are operating in place of a failing
POTUS.
Biden is a whimpering, pathetic character who should be left alone to handle his fleeting
mind in dignity. But we all know this is not what he truly deserves.
They would not allow him to do this, however, and he was instrumental in being the most
milktoast and boilerplate candidate where only pure hatred of the other (deplorables) would
suffice to win 2020.
Biden was essential to win. Now he is the equivalent of a 6' ft+ doorstop or
paperweight.
thanks b... and many good insights from the posters starting @ 1 and moving down, excepting
little stevies comment on putin.. can't have everything...
@ Gerhard | Mar 13 2021 18:22 utc | 9.. uranus is on an 84 year cycle... thanks for the
data..
@ 23 jen... i was wondering about that myself... who is pulling zelenskys strings?? if
biden can get rid of the chief prosecutor as vp to help his son out, i suspect he can do a
wee bit more now as president... i don't think he is that bright though, and others behind
the scene are pulling the strings here...
@22 stonebird - I watched the linked video. The Texan said that the Ukrainians bought winter
fuel from Belarus. Is Lukashenko still playing both sides? How sad. I wouldn't want to be on
a commercial jet flying over Ukrainian territory right now. Especially one manufactured by
Boeing.
Boeing...Boeing...gone.
God help the fine people of the DNR LNR.
RIP Givi, Motorola, Zharakansheko and all the patriots.
I am not sure if "the state of Ukrainian army" is properly illustrated by the link. The
military is almost 300,000 strong and 60,000 is deployed on the Donbass frontline. They
suffer quite a bit of losses, almost all "non-combat". For example, food poisoning, stepping
or driving over mines laid by their colleagues, poisoning with improperly made samogon
(moonshine), few killed when a samogon still exploded (strong alcohol has to be separated
from propane flames, or it explodes, "still" as a noun is a device to distill alcohol), one
soldier was so stoned that walked over the other side -- somehow not stepping on the mines,
other stoned soldiers fight with each other etc. etc.
Somehow this war machine survives on 500 million dollars per month (a half what Polish
military consumes).
"The row was triggered by a 5 March report written by the think tank's two senior members,
Dr. Mathew Burrows and Dr. Emma Ashford, urging the Biden administration to 'avoid a
human-rights-first approach' towards Moscow and warning that new anti-Russia sanctions would
only 'further damage productive relations for the sake of an effort that is unlikely to
succeed.'
"On 9 March, 22 think tank's staffers and fellows issued a tough statement distancing
themselves from Burrows and Ashford and arguing that the report in question "misses the
mark." The statement was signed by individuals known for their longstanding criticism against
Moscow, including Swedish economist Anders Aslund and former US ambassadors John E. Herbst,
Alexander Vershbow, and Daniel Fried."
Each paper is linked at the original. There's much to chew on as the Pragmatists/Realists
make their move. I'll be back later to stick my oar in, although it ought to be clear who're
the sane and insane.
@Jen: "and Zelensky must also be feeling some heat now Uncle Creepy Joe and son Hunter over
Hunters past involvement with Burisma Holdings."
About a year ago (February 6, 2020) the investigating judge of the Pecherskyi district
court of Kyiv city I.V. Lytvynova ordered to open a criminal investigation of "the big guy"
Joe. Case number 62020000000000236.
But as far as I know, Mr Shokin, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general removed by "the
big guy" Joe (Burisma's krysha ), is still there, hasn't had a car accident or
anything like that. So, for "the big guy" Joe (and The Family) Ukraine is still somewhat
dangerous. To be handled with care.
There will be no war between Ukraine and Russia. Russia is playing for time, knowing that the
West is getting weaker and will be in worse position later. NS 2 is also not yet completed.
Why would one want to start a war now if they will be in better position later?
What may happen though, in the case of provocation, is that the rebels may get newer,
fancy weapons, inflicting heavy casualties on the Ukrainian Army.
Same with Taiwan. No one is going to attack it right now. It could still happen, but
around 2050, when China is at peak power, and not today.
@Passer by,
that NS2 is not operational only means that Europe can't afford a long, serious crisis
there.
Russia still could: being able to pump gas to Europe non-stop is hardly a critical factor.
But of course the Putin administration repeated many times that it will not fight Ukraine.
So, yes, it's unlikely.
The approach there appears to be 'wait and see'. "If you wait by the river long enough,
the bodies of your enemies will float by."
"Our calls for vigilance and boldness were heard in the US Congress, which pressed on
with measures designed to stop this dangerous, divisive project. We call on US
President Joe Biden to use all means at his disposal to prevent the project from
completion", the pair added.
They think they have a voice in the US Congress? Should apply for Statehood then.
The ministers suggested that if completed, the project will add to Russia's drive "to try
to convince the Ukrainian public that the West doesn't care about its own principles, and
ultimately, about the security and prosperity of Ukraine".
But wasn't the critique against socialism from the Soviet space that it was "utopian",
i.e. that it put its "principles" (ideology) before economic fundamentals?
Poland, Ukraine Urge Biden to Do His Best 'to Put an End' to Nord Stream 2 Project
vk @ 109. Congress of the USA to interfere with the completion of Russian-German Nord stream
II project because the LNG cartel in USA governed Texas, Lousisana , Oregon want to require
every man women and child in Europe to pay monopoly prices for LNG. As I see it failure of
Nord Stream II will be extremely dangerous to the survival of the solar and wind renewable
energy efforts; its a do it or die situation for dominate energy is the goal of the LNG
cartel...
Incisive and grim. As Mr. Putin observed, Presidents come and go but the policy stays the
same. But wait! I think there's more
WRT Iran. Iran recently announced that their sales of oil had increased substantially,
without, of course identifying how much or with whom. If they are doing these transactions in
national currencies, there's nothing other than piracy that the US can do, making the US more
dependent on our vassals to carry our water here. But
In other news, the EU has decided to stop supporting Guido. If some of the OAS vassals get
the idea that they, too, can stand on at least their two knees, maybe Mr. Maduro can get a
bit more of a break. The US is sure to be wroth.
PACE decided to pass a non-binding resolution of more sanctions against Russia for the
Navalny fiasco while Frau Merkel (and her likely successor) remains clear that Nord Stream II
must be finished. The German FM pointed out that they could face serious court battles since
the Pipeline consortium which includes other EU countries has all the permits they
require.
The results are in aaaaannnnnddd – thanx to Covid, for the first time in history
China had more Direct Foreign Investment (DFI) than the US. The US better hope that doesn't
keep up ..
@42 I'm sure Maduro would take dollars.....or gold. Of course buying Venezuelan oil from an
evil brutal socialist dictator would be a major climb down.
The USA doesn't pay for oil or gas. It takes over the mining company, demands the project
be funded by local or national borrowing from USA banks with sovereign guarantees, sells the
product to a separate US company that pays peanuts to the miner and then onsells for a major
markup (transfer pricing). Its called modern day stealing of other countries resources.
Look at the report on keystone that you cited at #39 where
The Canadian province that invested $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money in the controversial
Keystone XL project is now considering the sale of pipe and materials to try to recoup some
funds.
"If the project ends, there would be assets that could be sold, such as enormous
quantities of pipe," Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said in a press conference Monday.
Meanwhile the directors and shareholders got their fat checks and dividends from the
municipal loan funds ;)
The USA will not pay in gold until it is on its knees - it simply will not pay. See how
the USA 'bought' Tik Tok: blatant extortion/theft. The same as was done to Japan's high tech
in the 60's 70's or whenever. Thieves.
Policy to stop Nord Stream 2 will continue under Biden, although here we're told
Biden will extend New START Treaty by the same person, Biden's nominee for Secretary of
State, Antony Blinken.
Defense nominee Austin was also covered in this article where we can see he reads from
the same playbook as those who went before him. So it seems like continuity of its dystopic
imperial policy will be what we see from the Outlaw US Empire, although we'll soon see if
that also applies to Trump's Farewell boast that he was proud not to have started any "new"
wars.
@42 I'm sure Maduro would take dollars.....or gold. Of course buying Venezuelan oil from an
evil brutal socialist dictator would be a major climb down.
The USA doesn't pay for oil or gas. It takes over the mining company, demands the project
be funded by local or national borrowing from USA banks with sovereign guarantees, sells the
product to a separate US company that pays peanuts to the miner and then onsells for a major
markup (transfer pricing). Its called modern day stealing of other countries resources.
Look at the report on keystone that you cited at #39 where
The Canadian province that invested $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money in the controversial
Keystone XL project is now considering the sale of pipe and materials to try to recoup some
funds.
"If the project ends, there would be assets that could be sold, such as enormous
quantities of pipe," Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said in a press conference Monday.
Meanwhile the directors and shareholders got their fat checks and dividends from the
municipal loan funds ;)
The USA will not pay in gold until it is on its knees - it simply will not pay. See how
the USA 'bought' Tik Tok: blatant extortion/theft. The same as was done to Japan's high tech
in the 60's 70's or whenever. Thieves.
Hi b, Jim Kunstler has an interesting piece this week on the impact of EROI on the US
recovery or lack thereof in the US shake sector. Just not enough cheap energy to get their
economy going. Will Germany hold up against Trumps last minute sanctions against
Nordstream if Biden maintains them? If Germany doesn't won't that put Germany in the same
over expensive boat as US and lead to economic stagnation? Especially if all Russia's
cheap energy ends up in China, which it almost certainly will.
"Why do the USA, UK and Europe so hate Russia? How it is that Western antipathy, once
thought due to anti-Communism, could be so easily revived over a crisis in distant Ukraine,
against a Russia no longer communist? Why does the West accuse Russia of empire-building,
when 15 states once part of the defunct Warsaw Pact are now part of NATO, and NATO troops now
flank the Russian border? These are only some of the questions Creating Russophobia
iinvestigates. Mettan begins by showing the strength of the prejudice against Russia through
the Western response to a series of events: the Uberlingen mid-air collision, the Beslan
hostage- taking, the Ossetia War, the Sochi Olympics and the crisis in Ukraine. He then
delves into the historical, religious, ideological and geopolitical roots of the detestation
of Russia in various European nations over thirteen centuries since Charlemagne competed with
Byzantium for the title of heir to the Roman Empire. Mettan examines the geopolitical
machinations expressed in those times through the medium of religion, leading to the great
Christian schism between Germanic Rome and Byzantium and the European Crusades against
Russian Orthodoxy. This history of taboos, prejudices and propaganda directed against the
Orthodox Church provides the mythic foundations that shaped Western disdain for contemporary
Russia. From the religious and imperial rivalry created by Charlemagne and the papacy to the
genesis of French, English, German and then American Russophobia, the West has been engaged
in more or less violent hostilities against Russia for a thousand years. Contemporary
Russophobia is manufactured through the construction of an anti-Russian discourse in the
media and the diplomatic world, and the fabrication and demonization of The Bad Guy, now
personified by Vladimir Putin. Both feature in the meta-narrative, the mythical framework of
the ferocious Russian bear ruled with a rod of iron by a vicious president. A synthetic
reading of all these elements is presented in the light of recent events and in particular of
the Ukrainian crisis and the recent American elections, showing how all the resources of the
West's soft power have been mobilized to impose the tale of bad Russia dreaming of global
conquest. "By hating Russia, one hurts oneself. Swiss journalist Guy Mettan pieces together
the reasons of detestation of the Kremlin and of a rhetoric that goes back to Napoleonic
times despite the long list of aggressions perpetrated in the meantime by the West. And he
explains why pushing Moscow toward Asia is a very serious error." -Panorama, Italy "Like
Saddam Hussein's mythical weapons of massive destruction in 2003, Peter the Great's fake will
has been used to justify the aggressions and invasions that the Europeans, and now the
Americans, still carry out against Russia." -Liberation, France
"Not at all, the center of russophobia will now be Germany. In is not a surprise that
Russia recently declared that the center of russophobia in the EU are now France and
Germany."
Nord Stream 2 will be completed contrary to the opinions of four to five commenters on
here. This is Germany & Russia that you are talking about. Sanctions did not stop the
Crimean bridge. It makes no economic sense to deny European/West Asian (Russian produced)
Liquid natural gas in order to subsidise 'transit fees' to Ukraine. The U.S.Congress'
sanctions here are untenible, but don't expect Germany & Russia to publish how they will
do it until completion.
Reuters gleeful that Gazprom announced the possibility Nord Stream 2 won't be completed
due to "political pressure." But such a warning is part of all standard potential risks
announcements accompanying any prospectus--a fact Reuters ignored--which in this case is for
the issuance of Eurobonds, although I question the judgement in making them dollar
denominated.
Its not contrary to my opinion, but you appear to be young and naive person. There is
nothing new in that German policy, for example it supported the building of pipelines from
the USSR over President Reagan objections. Which does not mean that it wasn't enemy of the
USSR - its destruction was the key for taking control of Eastern Europe and turning it into
Germany's Latin America.
Someone can hate you and may want to make money at the same time too. But as soon as there
is weakness, they will pounce on you and stab you in the back.
As for the pipeline, it will remain under a puppet russian government. No loss there
too.
What the EU wants is to subdue Russia and later dismember it, taking hold of the
population and natural resources.
In the mean time, there is nothing wrong with making some money too. As the EU worships a
good living too.
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
"... Imagine for a while that Pompeo and Netanyahu were able to ignite the huge conflict with Iran which they have been trying to do for years. The wider Middle East would become a land of ruins, and on top of that we would have also the corona crisis. It would be the end for the Chinese project One belt One road and a very promising beginning for Trump’s programme of “decoupling” from China. The same could happen if we go to a Greek-Turkish war, the most probable result of which is enormous destruction in both states and also in Cyprus. Given the destructive capacity of the Greek and Turkish weapons and the impossibility of destroying them by a surprise first strike, the two countries, if they go to war, risk going back two or three hundred years. A conflict around Iran, or between Greece and Turkey would also put enormous pressure on Russia. ..."
"... Spreading Chaos is another way of staging world war when you cannot use ‘normal’, ‘frontal’ methods of war. The policy of Trump and his allies contributes greatly to preparing for world war by attacking the very institutions of bourgeois democracy, any kind of national or international rule, by attacking the very principles of Logic, Logos and Science, necessary in order to transform human societies into herds of wild animals, in a sui generis repetition of the Nazi experiment. ..."
"... The way to get Greece and Turkey to war is by sending them ‘false signals’, either encouraging and supporting them, or implying a threat from the other country. Somebody was able to persuade Ankara to down the Russian jet in 2015, which was a case of extreme miscalculation. It is easier to make a miscalculation regarding Greece and Turkey, and there is an enormity of contradictory signals emanating from the US and Israel towards the two capitals. ..."
"... PS. The above article provides a possible explanation of the present Greek-Turkish crisis. A second explanation is that big oil multinationals want to provoke a crisis in order to exploit the hydrocarbons of the region, but we have no serious indications that big reserves really exist and are exploitable economically. A third explanation, not mutually excluded from what we have analyzed, is that third forces are trying to provoke a war in order to overthrow Erdogan and also have all the other consequences we described. ..."
Twenty years ago, I was covering the Munich Security Forum as a journalist and I took an interview from Brent Scawcroft,
National Security Adviser for President Bush (the father). I believe he was one of the men who played a huge role in pushing
Boris Yeltsin to the crisis which culminated into the bombing of the Russian parliament in October 1993, thus opening the way to
the biggest looting in the history of mankind, the so-called Russian privatisations. I asked Scawcroft what the US policy
towards Russia and China should be . He answered: “We need to have better relations with Moscow and Beijing, than they can have
between themselves”.
The way for the Empire to dominate in the Eastern Mediterranean, imposing its pax or pushing for war, is by having better
relations with Athens and Ankara than they can have between themselves. Now they don’t have any at all.
Maidan Square, Kiev, 2014
The plane carrying the three EU Foreign Ministers, the French, the German and the Polish, had just taken off from Kiev when
the agreement they had negotiated for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian crisis collapsed and the carnage began
in the Ukrainian capital. This was followed by the civil war and the unimaginable destruction of European-Russian relations.
The Ukrainian coup was a huge blow to Russia and the Ukraine, which is now in an extremely miserable state, a harbinger of
Nazi militias and mafia groups, but also, indirectly, to Europe, which, destroying its relations with Russia at the behest of
the Americans, is not only ridiculed, but has deprived itself of the possibility of an independent policy, an achievement which
it is now going to ‘complete’ with the Navalny affair, if it leads to the cancelling of the strategic pipeline project
NordStream II.
‘Fuck the EU’ was not only a phrase from Neocon Assistant Secretary of State Nuland to Ambassador Pyatt (then in Kiev, now
in Athens); it was in reality one of the main purposes of the Maidan operation, that is the inauguration chapter of the new Cold
War. Some weeks ago, Mike Pompeo repeated the Nuland coup, by using his influence on the Greek FM Dendias and on the Egyptian
dictator Sissi to blow up the moratorium between Greece and Turkey the German chancellor Merkel had negotiated. ‘Fuck Germany
and its moratoriums’!
The Coming War
The destruction of the Ukraine, Ukrainian-Russian and European-Russian relations was a very big step in the direction of
preparing for world war against Russia and China. This is the central plan that defines many of the individual crises and
episodes around the globe; and if one does not understand this, one cannot understand anything. As for Trump’s friendship with
Russia, we are afraid that it is of no more value than Hitler’s friendship with Stalin or the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
The war with China and Russia is the main project of the extremist, radical wing of the Western capitalist establishment. But
such a war cannot happen easily and it will not take a frontal form as WWI and WWII, because of the existence of nuclear
weapons. But it will take all other possible forms.
Imagine for a while that Pompeo and Netanyahu were able to ignite the huge conflict with Iran which they have been trying
to do for years. The wider Middle East would become a land of ruins, and on top of that we would have also the corona crisis. It
would be the end for the Chinese project One belt One road and a very promising beginning for Trump’s programme of “decoupling”
from China. The same could happen if we go to a Greek-Turkish war, the most probable result of which is enormous destruction in
both states and also in Cyprus. Given the destructive capacity of the Greek and Turkish weapons and the impossibility of
destroying them by a surprise first strike, the two countries, if they go to war, risk going back two or three hundred years. A
conflict around Iran, or between Greece and Turkey would also put enormous pressure on Russia.
Spreading Chaos is another way of staging world war when you cannot use ‘normal’, ‘frontal’ methods of war. The policy of
Trump and his allies contributes greatly to preparing for world war by attacking the very institutions of bourgeois democracy,
any kind of national or international rule, by attacking the very principles of Logic, Logos and Science, necessary in order to
transform human societies into herds of wild animals, in a sui generis repetition of the Nazi experiment.
You cannot wage war on Russia or China by any form of ‘liberal capitalism’. To wage such a huge war you need a totalitarian
regime in the West, and this is the real programme, the historic mission of Trump, Pompeo, Thiel, Netanyahu etc.
The way to get Greece and Turkey to war is by sending them ‘false signals’, either encouraging and supporting them, or
implying a threat from the other country. Somebody was able to persuade Ankara to down the Russian jet in 2015, which was a
case of extreme miscalculation. It is easier to make a miscalculation regarding Greece and Turkey, and there is an enormity of
contradictory signals emanating from the US and Israel towards the two capitals.
For example, a very strange article in the Foreign Affairs magazine states that the red line behind which Ankara
will not be permitted to go is south of Crete. This red light is indirectly a green light for Turkey to go to the east or
south-east of Crete. If Turkey sends its ships there the Greek government will be under tremendous pressure from both public
opinion and the Armed Forces to react. This is not something Foreign Affairs can ignore, making us wonder if in fact some
people want a war between Greece and Turkey to overthrow Erdogan, to weaken Turkey for decades, to attack Chinese projects and
the EU. We could multiply such examples, including Trump’s encouragement of Erdogan. Insofar as the Turkish President does not
want to go to a full rupture with the West, he is better prepared to accept as genuine any encouraging signals from Washington.
But they can be a trap, as happened for example with Milosevich or Sadam.
Russia, NATO and a Greek-Turkish war
The other day a friend told me that a conflict between Greece and Turkey would only harm NATO: only the Russians would
benefit, so it could not happen.
I replied that he was wrong. ‘If you are preparing for a world war, you do not even care so much about NATO. Instead you have
to tear down all the institutions of bourgoies society and of the liberal capitalist order, including the EU, maybe even NATO
itself, because they are not really made for such a war. They are certainly made to contain Russia, but not to play Russian
roulette with the very existence of the world. A world war will not be decided by a Senate, no matter how oligarchic it will be.
For such decisions you need Nero, Caligula, Heliogabalus. Such are Trump, Bolsonaro, Pompeo, Netanyahu and those behind them.
They would certainly prefer a Russia-Turkey conflict and have already tried to provoke it. But it is not easy.
A conflict with Greece is their second best alternative, because Greece has the means to destroy Turkey by destroying itself.
A war between the two countries will destroy them and would set them back 200 or 300 years.
It is doubtful, after all, that Russia would benefit from such a development, even if it would be a blow to NATO. First,
because Moscow would see the destruction of Hellenism, the main strategic ally of Russia in the Mediterranean for a thousand
years. Governments and regimes can change, but losing a nation is another matter.
Second, Moscow will likely see, as a result of a war, a pro-Western dictatorship set up in Ankara. Having contributed to the
destruction of a historic country like Greece, Turkey would not have the slightest future. It would be considered the outcast of
all civilised nations, like Germany after World War II.
And of course, the big victims of the war will be China, with the One Belt, One Road plans and Europe itself.
This is the Chaos Strategy. It remains to be seen whether her opponents also have a strategy or not.
PS. The above article provides a possible explanation of the present Greek-Turkish crisis. A second explanation is that
big oil multinationals want to provoke a crisis in order to exploit the hydrocarbons of the region, but we have no serious
indications that big reserves really exist and are exploitable economically. A third explanation, not mutually excluded from
what we have analyzed, is that third forces are trying to provoke a war in order to overthrow Erdogan and also have all the
other consequences we described.
According to the regulator, the direct pipeline from Russia to Germany impedes competition
on European Union energy markets and "violates the interests of consumers." The fine
amounts to 10 percent of Gazprom's annual revenues – the maximum allowed penalty. Other
companies participating in the construction of Nord Stream 2 have been fined $100 million.
UOKiK gave Gazprom and its partners 30 days to terminate financing agreements and
"restore" competition.
"The construction of Nord Stream 2 is a clear violation of market regulations," UOKiK
head Tomasz Chróstny said in Warsaw on Wednesday, as cited by Bloomberg. Gas prices for
consumers must be "the result of fair competition, and, once Nord Stream 2 is operational,
it's likely that gas prices will increase and there'll be a risk of interruption to
supplies," he said.
Warsaw has long been opposing the expansion of the gas link directly connecting Russia with
Germany, Europe's biggest market for the fuel, arguing it would deepen Europe's dependence on
Russian energy. Meanwhile, many European nations have stressed that they want to diversify
their energy sources, and Nord Stream 2 could be one of the ways to achieve that.
In 2019, Poland's President Andrzej Duda met US President Donald Trump to discuss the
possibility of halting the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project. Warsaw also inked
several contracts with American companies to replace Russian supplies. The intention was to
make Poland the future center for the re-export of US liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the
region, according to US Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher.
The US administration has repeatedly criticized the Nord Stream 2 project, aiming to derail
it in order to boost sales of American LNG to Europe.
The construction of the project's two pipelines, which will extend from the Russian coast to
Germany and on to other European countries through the Baltic Sea, is nearing completion. It
will have the capacity to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year, and Berlin has
insisted it will help Germany meet its growing energy demand as it phases out coal and nuclear
power.
Yes, the earth keeps spinning no matter who "wins" the election.
Armenia, apparently the skies are clear of turkish drones with a little help from Russian EW,
so the Artsakh army is deploying armor again to defend Shusha, they almost lost control of
the road to their capital Stepanakert.
Another relevant piece of information, the Ukros smelling victory by their satrap Biden
last night heavily attacked Donetsk, a taste of things to come.
Posted by: vk | Nov 6 2020 16:33 utc | 76
That's a good one, Evo calling for Almagro, the OAS will take care of Georgia and
Pensilvania.
Uncle Volodya says, "Just because evil liars
stand between us and the gods
and block our view of them
does not mean that the bright halo
that surrounds each liar
is not the outer edges of a god, waiting
for us to find our way around the lie."
The Kyiv Post has always been pretty nationalistic, and never had too much time for
Russia. It has an inconsistent record on the Ukrainian oligarchy, showing occasional flashes of
frankness in which it castigates the idle rich, and depressing runs of puff pieces in which it
canonizes Petro Poroshenko and gnashes its teeth with righteous anger at his detractors.
Several of its regular writers are activists, and their material shows it. Overall, it is the
newspaper of record for Kiev's apologists, and draws a reliable audience of Russophobic
Maidanites hoarsely crying "Yurrup!!!", as if it were some sort of magic answer to all their
problems. But if the paper's material is often delusional, the comments section takes
rollie-eyed psychosis to a whole new level. This is where you get to interact with the
low-information voter, likely from a Ukrainian diaspora in North America, who buys the western
propaganda line wholly and eagerly. Making any remark which appears defensive of Russia is like
a red rag to a bull.
Here, every once in awhile, you run across a different kind of commenter – not just
the usual "Shut your mouth, you Putin troll asswipe!!" who assumes the right to proselytize his
own opinions to his heart's contentment, but will entertain no notion of a dissenting opinion
without shouting that it must have been paid for by Putin and anyone who expresses such
opinions is an employee of the FSB. Get it? Everyone who argues for a free and undivided
Ukraine delivered whole and breathing to Yurrup and its austerity agenda is a patriot who
sounds off because it's the right thing to do; everyone else is paid to lie. Occasionally, you
run across a true apologist; one who is apparently not ignorant, but one who applies his/her
intellect to running interference for the Kiev junta and doing battle on its behalf through
insults, fabrications and assumption of a certain mantle of authority, while devising excuses
for those actions by Kiev that he/she cannot explain away.
I recently did run across just such a person. Attracted to the article "
Ukraine Overturns its Non-Bloc Status. What Next With NATO? " by the sheer zaniness of the
Ukrainian leadership – which keeps bulling ahead with trying to referendum itself into
NATO despite its ongoing border disputes so that it can immediately pull NATO into an Article 5
war with Russia – I read it, and then perused the comments.
I was moved to get involved in the discussion by a comment from Michael Caine – not
the British actor, I'm pretty sure; this individual is not particularly literate but
compensates with stubbornness – who seemed sincere enough, but is fixated on the idea
that Russia (personified, of course, by Putin, as it is whenever it does anything the western
world does not like) has broken international law by acceding to Crimea's request to join the
Russian Federation. This process is invariably described in the Anglospheric press as
"annexation", and we can hardly blame Michael, because high-profile chowderheads all the way up
to and including President Obama have expressed the same opinion, which is completely
unsubstantiated. As we have often discussed, the lifeblood of law is precedent, and a precedent
was established on unilateral declarations of independence with the acceptance of that premise
for the independence of Kosovo. Poland's opinion just happened to be the first I came across,
written by then-Foreign-Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, and it announced smugly that a unilateral
declaration of independence is outside international law and
therefore unregulated by that authority. A state-in-being, saith Radek, is a matter of reality
rather than law, and if you have a population which is distinct by virtue of its language,
customs and cultural attributes, which has its own government, civil institutions and financial
institutions, you are – or you can be – a state by way of a unilateral declaration
of independence.
The Polish opinion was pivotal to the broad recognition of Kosovo, because Poland was the
first East European and the first Slavic nation to recognize it. However – and this is
important – not one other world opinion which supported the recognition of Kosovo
challenged Poland's contention that a unilateral declaration of independence is not an
instrument regulated by international law. Even The Economist , no friend of Russia and
Putin, declared in
advance of the vote that if Crimea chose to detach itself from Ukraine's rule, no court
would be likely to challenge it, while RFE/RL – still less a friend of Russia and Putin
– opined that the Budapest Memorandum (the document in which all the thunderers that
Putin has broken international law vest their hopes) is a diplomatic document rather than a
treaty, and while it is international law, is not
enforceable . Even, if you can imagine, The Hague weighed in,
expressing the legal opinion ,
"Therefore, is the Crimean Parliament vote to join the Russian Federation illegal? The
answer here is no, albeit with the above clarifications and observations. Can the Crimean
population legally exercise its right to external self-determination? The author is of the
opinion that − on the basis of existing international case law − this question can
neither be answered affirmatively or negatively."
All this went about four feet above Mr. Caine's head, because my polite request that he
elaborate on specifically which international law Mr. Putin (who apparently managed the
"annexation" of Crimea singlehandedly) broke received the response that Putin had violated the
law that says Thou Shalt Not Steal, not to mention that other bad one, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
These are ummm not international laws. Although they apply to all observers of the Christian
faith, these are Commandments, and I have yet to see a lawyer hold forth in an international
court on a case in which the Book Of Authorities and Precedents is a stone tablet, although I
should not speak too soon. You never know.
At about this point, The Apologist entered the fray. Under the banner of Swift69, and
plainly one of the protagonists for The Budapest Memorandum, he announced that there was no
unilateral declaration of independence because it was all engineered in Moscow, which allegedly
is a fact that everyone admits.
In point of fact, the Crimean Parliament and City Council of Sevastopol did declare Crimea's
independence, in writing ( here's the
English translation ), and specifically citing the unilateral declaration of independence
of Kosovo as precedent. That was actually in advance of the referendum, which asked respondents
if they did or did not favour Crimea applying to join the Russian Federation. So far as I am
aware nobody has admitted or otherwise affirmed in any way that Crimea's declaration of
independence originated in Moscow. Russia admitted in April 2014 that it had conducted advance polling in Crimea to determine the level of support for
independence, an issue which had been raised on and off since the 90's. Kind of hard to
interpret that as unacceptable interference in a reality that seems to see nothing wrong with
political-activist NGO's operated in Moscow and paid by American think tanks attempting to
amass support for overthrowing and replacing the Russian government, what?
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD
Up to this point it was just an amusing academic tussle – Clash Of The References, if
you will, although Swift69 actually didn't supply any. But it turned ugly from there.
I wrote, " Meanwhile Ukraine has no room at all to be preaching about international law,
nor do any of its defenders. Indiscriminate attack such as firing short-range ballistic
missiles into civilian population centers is a war crime. "
Swift69 replied, " Ballistic Missies"( sic ) – the word "ballistic" simply
means that it is "on a ballistic trajectory." Every bullet ever fired and every grad ever
launched is a "ballistic missile." While you're clearly trying to use the term to elicit
sympathy based on people's association of the word n the phrase "intercontinental ballistic
missile" or somesuch, it's nonsense. Use of ballistic weapons is no more a "war crime" than use
of gravity is "into civilian centers." what nonsense. "Many of the shocking cases, particularly
those published by the Russian media are greatly exaggerated There's no convincing evidence of
mass killings or graves." – Amnesty International report."
Let's just ponder that for a moment. Swift69 is implying an equivalency between a bullet
which might kill two or three people if it ricochets and hits more than its intended target,
and a fucking ballistic missile
which has a warhead that weighs more than half a ton (1,058 pounds). CNN
reported live that U.S. officials had confirmed Ukrainian forces fired "several" Tochka-U
(SS-21 Scarab) missiles "into areas controlled by pro-Russian separatists". The same source
reported it could kill "dozens". The Tochka-U has a Circular Error Probability (CEP) of 160
meters. That means even in the unlikely event that you were aiming it at a cluster of 20 armed
combatants – from as much as 70 km away – you could only count on the weapon
landing somewhere within 160 meters of them. The Ukrainians fired them into cities in
Donbass. And this shitbag is saying I merely tacked on the word "ballistic" to make it sound
scary, and to win sympathy for those it was fired at which they did not really deserve. Take a
look at the crater – that look like a bullet hole to you?
So, let's review. In fact, Indiscriminate Attackis
a war crime, in accordance with Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 12.
Indiscriminate Attack is defined as attack which is (a) not directed at a specific military
objective, (b) employs a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific
military objective, or (c) employs a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be
limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are
of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without
distinction.
Explain to me, if you can, how you can fire a ballistic missile with a circular error
probability of 160 meters (524 feet) into a city which contains both civilians and
paramilitaries, and be reasonably confident you will not kill or injure any civilians, or even
that you know from as far away as 70 km from the city that is your target, what you are
shooting at? How are you going to limit the effects of your attack with a 1000 lb+ warhead so
that it only kills military combatants?
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD REPORT THIS AD
Even the bullet Captain Sarcastic implied was also a "ballistic missile" could get you in
front of a war crimes tribunal, if you just loosed off some of them into a crowd which was a
composite of civilians and combatants without attempting to differentiate between the two. The
weapon is not the concern – aimed shots in a scenario in which you are attempting to
confine your fire to military targets is. Love of God, how hard is that to grasp?
Swift69 goes on to accuse me of sensationalizing further with the implication that the
Ukrainian army is firing into civilian population centers, and proceeds to conflate that with
an Amnesty International report which accused Russia of propagandizing mass graves, saying
there was no credible evidence of that. The two issues have nothing to do with one another. I
said the Ukrainian army is firing heavy weapons into Donbass cities at a range beyond which it
can discriminate between civilian and military targets, and that considerable loss of life and
tremendous damage has resulted. That is absolutely an
accurate portrayal of the state of affairs .
For a grand finale, Swift69 proceeds to attack the source of an article which reports that
Ukrainian forces or agents of the Ukrainian government have cut off the civilian populations of
cities in eastern Ukraine from water and food and medicines in an attempt to force their
surrender, and that this is also a war crime. That's a good tactic, and I use it sometimes
myself – if you're not comfortable that you can refute what was said, imply the person
who reported it is a lunatic. In this instance, I think there is plenty of corroborating
evidence that forces acting on Kiev's direction did just what I accuse
them of doing .
Kiev is committing war crimes against Ukrainian citizens with the vociferous approval of the
Kyiv Post , the tacit approval of the leadership of NATO countries and the slobbering
whitewash of Kiev's loony-fringe supporters. Shamelessly, right under your nose, and in the
clear presence of condemnatory evidence that should have the lot of them swinging from the
gibbet.
Take Nord Stream II. If Trump hadn't taken the oath, it would have been up and running
years ago. Would that it were so that this was a gift to Russia and Germany, but it's much
worse than that. Why isn't anyone else curious as to who got what in return?
The blockage of Nordstream 2 is about The Dark Heart of Europe not Russia...
This is one of Putin's few serious errors. He would be much better off pushing gas
projects that flowed east...
Europe is a glove on the US hand and is easily led around by its nose by the CIA and MI6
that infest the MSM and run one false flag after another.
Politicians in the EU are mediocre creatures that crave the dollars stuffed into their
pockets by the US. They are enjoying the ride while it lasts until they go down with the
US.
The woman speaking above is a certain Col. Brittany Stewart, Military Attaché to
the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. Yet another American woman doing a man's job! The Russian Ministry
of Defence was none too pleased with Colonel Stewart's little performance:
On October 16, the Defence Attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow was invited to
the Russian Federation Ministry of Defence Main Directorate for International Military
Cooperation.
The US Department of Defence representative was informed about the position of the
Russian Ministry of Defence with regards to a recent statement made by the Military
Attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Air Force Col. Brittany Stewart, on the joint
efforts of the US and Ukrainian Armed Forces in countering so-called "Russian
aggression".
The American side was briefed on the false claims of the statement and its provocative
nature, which compels the Ukrainian side to a military resolution of the internal conflict in
the Donbass.
The above mentioned statement is contradictory to previous declarations made by
Pentagon officials on a settlement of the situation in the Ukraine by peaceful means
only.
[Edited by Moscow Exile because of grammatical and punctuation errors in the above-linked
Russian -English statement, although the Russian Ministry of Defence did spell "defence"
correctly! :-)]
"We congratulate the defenders of the Ukraine. Thank them for their self-sacrifice and for
taking risks every day", she says in an East Slav dialect, noting that during their visit to
the Ukraine, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Bigan and US Secretary of State Michael
Pompeo had visited memorials to fallen soldiers, "because it was these soldiers who had
sacrificed themselves to help protect the democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Ukraine".
"The USA is and will be your indestructible partner", emphasized the Colonel Stewart.
"... "Maas added that Germany takes decisions related to its energy policy and energy supply 'here in Europe', saying that Berlin accepts ' the fact that the US had more than doubled its oil imports from Russia last year and is now the world's second largest importer of Russian heavy oil .'" [My Emphasis] ..."
Heavy oil is needed for the chemical industry (as opposed to transport). The three biggest
producers of heavy oil are Iran, Venezuella and Russia.
The US produces mostly light oil, thus it needs to import the heavy oil. Since the US
sanctioned Iran and Venezuella, the only significant option remaining is Russia. It would be
ironic if they are buying iranian oil sold to Russia.
"Maas added that Germany takes decisions related to its energy policy and energy
supply 'here in Europe', saying that Berlin accepts ' the fact that the US had more than
doubled its oil imports from Russia last year and is now the world's second largest
importer of Russian heavy oil .'" [My Emphasis]
Now isn't that the interesting bit of news!! The greatest fracking nation on the planet
needs to import heavy oil (likely Iranian, unlikely Venezuelan) from its #1 adversary. As for
the end game, I've written many times what I see as the goal and don't see any need to add
more.
By handing out a €6.5 billion fine against Gazprom, Warsaw has obviously and massively
miscalculated because it did not only antagonize the Russian energy company as was intended,
but also European partners of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project , which the Polish government
obviously had not considered.
Even leaders within the European Union were shocked at the huge fine that Poland is
attempting to impose against Nord Stream 2.
It may very well be that the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)
has lost itself when deciding on the price of the fine against Gazprom. But regardless of that,
UOKiK has apparently also exceeded its jurisdiction . As the Düsseldorf-based energy
supplier Uniper reports, the existing agreements on Nord Stream 2 have nothing to do with a
joint venture, which is why the Polish laws on merger controls do not apply to them. The
initial plans were to finance the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline through the
establishment of a joint venture. For this, however, the companies involved should have
received a permit in all the countries in which they operate, as well as from Poland, the only
EU state that blocked this decision. The decision for it not to be a joint venture was made
without further ado so as not to waste time or money in a dispute with Polish authorities.
The pipeline partners designed an alternative financing model for Nord Stream 2 and instead
of joining Nord Stream 2 AG (Company) as a co-partner, the European energy companies are
participating in the project as lenders so that Polish antitrust laws do not apply to them.
However, Gazprom, the majority shareholder of Nord Stream 2 AG, has given its European partners
shares in the company as a mortgage for the financing provided. If the loans from the Russian
side are not paid, the European corporations automatically become the owners of Nord Stream 2
AG. Referring to this fact, the Polish antitrust authorities have declared the European partner
companies to be quasi-shareholders in the pipeline project.
With this UOKiK also justifies the exorbitant fine against Gazprom and the fines of around
€55 million against Uniper (German), Wintershall (German), Engie (French), OMV (Austrian)
and Shell (English-Dutch). Neither Gazprom nor Nord Stream 2 are financially at risk at the
moment and the Russian group has already announced that it will take the fine to court.
Poland is of course now aware that their attempts to fine the Nord Stream 2 project will
amount to nothing. The aim of the Polish government is not so much to force a large sum of
money from Gazprom in the long term, but rather to bury the pipeline project entirely. And this
is the part where Warsaw has grossly miscalculated, not only European reactions, but Russian
determination.
The goal to cancel Nord Stream 2 also explains why Polish authorities published their
decision last week. Relations between the EU and Russia are extra strained because of the
Navalny case and the situation in Belarus. France and Germany are working on new sanctions
against Russia for the Navalny case and continue to apply pressure against Belarus.
Another question is how effective these measures will be. Sanctions have long degenerated
into ambiguity as it is the usual way the West deals with Moscow. Russia has learnt how to
adjust their economy accordingly, meaning that sanctions have turned into a farce. The West is
regularly expanding its blacklists of sanctioned companies and private individuals, but there
has been no significant effect. Political forces with a keen interest in the failure of Nord
Stream 2 are plentiful in the West and they are currently advancing the Navalny case in the
hope that it will cut the EU from Russia more strongly or permanently. This will not occur as
Europe desperately needs Russian energy, which is why Nord Stream 2 is such a critical project
for all involved.
Poland plays the main role in trying to cancel Nord Stream 2 and the decision by UOKiK is
just another push to finally get Europe to abandon the pipeline project. According to a joint
declaration by France and Germany, measures are currently being prepared for those alleged to
be responsible in the Navalny case and their participation in the so-called Novichok
program.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Despite these measures, Western Europe is bringing its energy project which is important for
its own future out of the danger zone, while Poland is attracting even more displeasure from EU
giants through its own operation. A penalty against Gazprom may be a Russian problem, but fines
against leading corporations from Germany, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria
are guaranteed to leave many of Europe's biggest capitalist angered. The effort Warsaw is
making to thwart Nord Stream 2 is visibly turning opposite to what they expected as there is
little doubt the Nord Stream 2 project will come to fruition and completion.
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.
Selfishness may be exalted as the root and branch of capitalism, but it doesn't make you
look good to the party on the receiving end or those whose sympathy he earns. For that, you
need a government prepared to do four things, which each have separate dictums based on study,
theorization, and experience. Coercion: Force is illegitimate only if you can't sell it.
Persuasion: How do I market thee? Let me count the ways. Bargaining: If you won't scratch my
back, then how about a piece of the pie? Indoctrination: Because I said so. (And paid for the
semantics.)
Predatory capitalism is the control and expropriation of land, labor, and natural resources
by a foreign government via coercion, persuasion, bargaining, and indoctrination.
At the coercive stage, we can expect military and/or police intervention to repress the
subject populace. The persuasive stage will be marked by clientelism, in which a small
percentage of the populace will be rewarded for loyalty, often serving as the capitalists'
administrators, tax collectors, and enforcers. At the bargaining stage, efforts will be made to
include the populace, or a certain percentage of it, in the country's ruling system, and this
is usually marked by steps toward democratic (or, more often, autocratic) governance.
At the fourth stage, the populace is educated by capitalists, such that they continue to
maintain a relationship of dependency.
The Predatory Debt Link
In many cases, post-colonial states were forced to assume the debts of their colonizers. And
where they did not, they were encouraged to become in debt to the West via loans that were
issued through international institutions to ensure they did not fall prey to communism or
pursue other economic policies that were inimical to the West. Debt is the tie that binds
nation states to the geostrategic and economic interests of the West.
As such, the Cold War era was a time of easy credit, luring postcolonial states to undertake
the construction of useless monoliths and monuments, and to even expropriate such loans through
corruption and despotism, thereby making these independent rulers as predatory as colonizers.
While some countries were wiser than others and did use the funds for infrastructural
improvements, these were also things that benefited the West and particularly Western
contractors. In his controversial work Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins reveals
that he was a consultant for an American firm (MAIN), whose job was to ensure that states
became indebted beyond their means so they would remain loyal to their creditors, buying them
votes within United Nations organizations, among other things.
Predatory capitalists demand export-orientations as the means to generate foreign currency
with which to pay back debt. In the process, the state must privatize and drastically slash or
eliminate any domestic subsidies which are aimed at helping native industry compete in the
marketplace. Domestic consumption and imports must be radically contained, as shown by the
exchange rate policies recommended by the IMF. The costs of obtaining domestic capital will be
pushed beyond the reach of most native producers, while wages must be depressed to an absolute
bare minimum. In short, the country's land, labor, and natural resources must be sold at
bargain basement prices in order to make these goods competitive, in what one author has called
"a spiraling race to the bottom," as countries producing predominantly the same goods engage in
cutthroat competition whose benefactor is the West.
Under these circumstances, foreign investment is encouraged, but this, too, represents a
loaded situation for countries that open their markets to financial liberalization.
"... 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."
18 September 2020 07:55 The Russian Embassy has demanded clarification from the United States about an NBC
report
The Russian Embassy in Washington has demanded an explanation from the US authorities
about an NBC TV report, which mentions US support for "Ukrainian units" in the
Crimea.
This has been reported in social networks on the official page of the diplomatic
mission.
In American journalists' material, it was said that the United States was arming
certain groups that were acting against Russian forces in the Crimea.
The point that the embassy is emphasizing is that Washington is supporting the
activities of terrorists in Russia. Diplomats admit that the channel may be wrong, but demand
that the United States clarify whether they are involved in organizing terrorist attacks
against the residents of Crimea.
Ukrainian units fighting Russian occupying forces in the Crimea?
For the liberation of Crimeans living under the yoke of post-Soviet Russian
imperialism?
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.
"... This fully contradicts the sequence of events outlined in the Minsk agreements whereby restoring Ukrainian armed forces' control on the border with Russia is possible only after an amnesty, agreeing on the special status of these territories, making this status part of the Ukrainian Constitution and holding elections there. Now they propose giving back the part of Donbass that "rebelled" against the anti-constitutional coup to those who declared these people terrorists and launched an "anti-terrorist operation" against them, ..."
"... On the contrary, Alexander Turchinov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others like them attacked these areas. The guilt of the people living there was solely in them saying, "You committed a crime against the state, we do not want to follow your rules, let us figure out our own future and see what you will do next." There's not a single example that would corroborate the fact that they engaged in terrorism. It was the Ukrainian state that engaged in terrorism on their territory, in particular, when they killed [Head of the Donetsk People's Republic] Alexander Zakharchenko and a number of field commanders in Donbass. So, I am not optimistic about this. ..."
Question: Here I am listening to you and wondering how many people care about this? Why is
it that no one understands this? Is this politics that is too far away from ordinary people who
are nevertheless behind it? Take Georgia or Ukraine. People are worse off now than before, and
despite this, this policy continues.
Will the Minsk agreements ever be implemented? Will the situation in southeastern Ukraine
ever be settled?
Returning to what we talked about. How independent is Ukraine in its foreign policy?
Sergey Lavrov: I don't think that under the current Ukrainian government, just like under
the previous president, we will see any progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements,
if only because President Zelensky himself is saying so publicly, as does Deputy Prime Minister
Reznikov who is in charge of the Ukrainian settlement in the Contact Group. Foreign Minister of
Ukraine Kuleba is also saying this. They say there's a need for the Minsk agreements and they
cannot be broken, because these agreements (and accusing Russia of non-compliance) are the
foundation of the EU and the US policy in seeking to maintain the sanctions on Russia.
Nevertheless, such a distorted interpretation of the essence of the Minsk agreements, or rather
an attempt to blame everything on Russia, although Russia is never mentioned there, has stuck
in the minds of our European colleagues, including France and Germany, who, being co-sponsors
of the Minsk agreements along with us, the Ukrainians and Donbass, cannot but realise that the
Ukrainians are simply distorting their responsibilities, trying to distance themselves from
them and impose a different interpretation of the Minsk agreements. But even in this scenario,
the above individuals and former Ukrainian President Kravchuk, who now heads the Ukrainian
delegation to the Contact Group as part of the Minsk process, claim that the Minsk agreements
in their present form are impracticable and must be revised, turned upside down. Also, Donbass
must submit to the Ukrainian government and army before even thinking about conducting reforms
in this part of Ukraine.
This fully contradicts the sequence of events outlined in the Minsk agreements whereby
restoring Ukrainian armed forces' control on the border with Russia is possible only after an
amnesty, agreeing on the special status of these territories, making this status part of the
Ukrainian Constitution and holding elections there. Now they propose giving back the part of
Donbass that "rebelled" against the anti-constitutional coup to those who declared these people
terrorists and launched an "anti-terrorist operation" against them, which they later
renamed a Joint Forces Operation (but this does not change the idea behind it), and whom they
still consider terrorists. Although everyone remembers perfectly well that in 2014 no one from
Donbass or other parts of Ukraine that rejected the anti-constitutional coup attacked the
putschists and the areas that immediately fell under the control of the politicians behind the
coup. On the contrary, Alexander Turchinov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others like them attacked
these areas. The guilt of the people living there was solely in them saying, "You committed a
crime against the state, we do not want to follow your rules, let us figure out our own future
and see what you will do next." There's not a single example that would corroborate the fact
that they engaged in terrorism. It was the Ukrainian state that engaged in terrorism on their
territory, in particular, when they killed [Head of the Donetsk People's Republic] Alexander
Zakharchenko and a number of field commanders in Donbass. So, I am not optimistic about
this.
Question: So, we are looking at a dead end?
Sergey Lavrov: You know, we still have an undeniable argument which is the text of the Minsk
Agreements approved by the UN Security Council.
Question: But they tried to revise it?
Sergey Lavrov: No, they are just making statements to that effect. When they gather for a
Contact Group meeting in Minsk, they do their best to look constructive. The most recent
meeting ran into the Ukrainian delegation's attempts to pretend that nothing had happened. They
recently passed a law on local elections which will be held in a couple of months. It says that
elections in what are now called the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics will be held only
after the Ukrainian army takes control of the entire border and those who "committed criminal
offenses" are arrested and brought to justice even though the Minsk agreements provide for
amnesty without exemptions.
Question: When I'm asked about Crimea I recall the referendum. I was there at a closed
meeting in Davos that was attended by fairly well respected analysts from the US. They claimed
with absolute confidence that Crimea was being occupied. I reminded them about the referendum.
I was under the impression that these people either didn't want to see or didn't know how
people lived there, that they have made their choice. Returning to the previous question, I
think that nobody is interested in the opinion of the people.
Sergey Lavrov: No, honest politicians still exist. Many politicians, including European
ones, were in Crimea during the referendum. They were there not under the umbrella of some
international organisation but on their own because the OSCE and other international agencies
were controlled by our Western colleagues. Even if we had addressed them, the procedure for
coordinating the monitoring would have never ended.
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."
"... The former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the UAF Yury Dumansky stated on the air of the " NewsOne " TV channel that Kiev is guided by the decisions of the US concerning the question of resolving the conflict in Donbass ..."
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard21:40:3211/04/2018ria.ru
The former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the UAF Yury Dumansky stated on the air of the "
NewsOne " TV channel
that Kiev is guided by the decisions of the US concerning the question of resolving the
conflict in Donbass.
The demands of the President Petro Poroshenko concerning the deployment of UN peacekeepers
in the east of the country will directly be agreed with the special representative of the US
State Department for Ukraine Kurt Volker , stressed Dumansky.
"We are in the conditions of the negotiation process. Not we, Ukraine, but a third
external player who presents America – Volker – decides for us. And he solves the
problem with the Russian Federation at the level of negotiations," noted the
Lieutenant-General.
And it is only after, according to the military, that Poroshenko undertakes measures
coordinated with the US for the solving of the conflict in Donbass.
"And then the corresponding processes are launched -- what we observe directly -- the
president's trips to Turkey, Germany where one of the questions concerning solving this
conflict are being raised," noted Dumansky.
Kiev in April, 2014, started a military operation against the self-proclaimed LPR and the
DPR, which declared their independence after a coup d'etat in Ukraine.
The issue of solving the situation in Donbass is discussed also during contact group
meetings in Minsk, which since September, 2014, adopted already three documents regulating
steps to de-escalate the conflict. However, firefights between the parties of the conflict
still continue.
Now the Ukrainian authorities try to obtain the introduction of UN peacekeepers in the East
of Ukraine. According to Kiev, "blue helmets" should be deployed on all the territory of
Donbass up to the border with Russia.
Vladimir Putin supported the idea of sending a peacekeeping mission to the East of Ukraine.
However, according to him, their task includes only ensuring the security of OSCE staff, and
they have to be based on the contact line.
"... 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.
A couple of lessons for Belarus, if it has a government capable of learning from the
mistakes of others rather than insisting upon making them itself before learning; the first
– Ukraine.
The Biggest Little Country In Yurrup has just voted, in an extraordinary meeting of the
Verkhovna Rada, to beg the EU for a further loan of $1.2 Billion. For that mess of pottage,
it will accept enhanced external governance.
"With this memorandum, Ukraine undertakes to increase the role of international
structures in the judicial system, law enforcement agencies, and state-owned enterprises'
executive boards (with the restoration of their cosmic salaries)."
Of course, that's the selfish Russian perspective; it comes from Stalker Zone. The
'reality' as Ukrainians see it might be a lot more lighthearted, like going on an adventure
with some foreign friends! And it might not even happen, considering the Ukrainian plan to
get half the money up front, without having to satisfy any of the conditions, although even
the full $1.2 Billion seems to me a bargain price to gain control of Ukrainian state
institutions. If I had $1.2 Billion lying around doing nothing, I might buy them myself.
When you think about it, it is amazing how willing eastern Europeans are to believe the
siren song of western capital investment, since as soon as they control the company, they
break it up and sell it, and the locals are left with nothing but western newspapers to keep
their bums from freezing. But it happens over and over.
It's the lottery mentality, most of the poor saps will only get poorer but the chance of
winning big (especially if you have a few connections) overwhelms logic and common sense. It
what makes capitalism so attractive – dreams of big wealth and leaving your poor slum
behind make the most miserable life somehow tolerable.
And it what makes socialism so boring – you may be, on average, better off but
little prospect for that life-changing jackpot.
There is more to it than that but the dreams of a big payday explains much of why so many
Eastern Europeans put up with, if not embrace, capitalism BS.
The carrot always seemingly just out of reach works for most until the day you die. And if
you do reach the carrot, you will soon realize that it is rotten.
Trying to make ends meet, you're a slave to the money then you die.
– Bittersweet Symphony
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.
On July 21 st , Ukrainian businessman and politician David Zhvania revealed some
open secrets of the Ukrainian politics, including crimes that former Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko had carried out. The irony of the situation is that Zhvania was, at one point, the
leader of Poroshenko's campaign headquarters.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JChtKpaulOs
He said that Euromaidan was ruled by criminal groups led by the people who were leading the
parties that came into power following the coup – the BPP (Bloc of Petro Poroshenko) and
the National Front.
He also said that he had participated in giving multimillion-dollar bribes to European
officials in exchange for their support to Poroshenko's election as president.
The former member of Ukrainian parliament, in his video message, said that Ukraine is
threatened with a new coming to power of Poroshenko.
"A creeping revenge is taking place in the country – Zelensky's rating falls, and
Poroshenko and his entourage are again striving for power. I cannot look at it calmly, so I
decided to give this press conference. Warn the citizens of Ukraine not to make a mistake. Tell
everyone. who is Poroshenko and his entourage.
This is a criminal group that from the very beginning participated in the Maidan solely for
the sake of seizing power and personal enrichment," Zhvania said.
He said that following the 2014 Maidan, an organized criminal group took power in Ukraine,
and he admitted that he was part of it.
According to Zhvania, it was this criminal group that financed the protests and thwarted any
options for agreements with the authorities (the Yanukovich government), which were designed to
avoid escalation.
"I was also a member of the organized criminal group, which seized power in 2014 on the wave
of popular protests. We financed the Maidan, we fueled protest moods in the media, thwarted the
government's peace initiatives, conducted separate negotiations with deputies of the Party of
Regions, and negotiated with foreign embassies.
The organized criminal group included Martynenko, Poroshenko, Turchynov, Yatsenyuk,
Klitschko. Each of whom has attached its own group. Turchinov, for example, brought Pashinsky
and Parubiy," Zhvania said and added that he was ready to testify on this matter.
After the coup victory, Zhvania's group engaged in political corruption to secure the
presidency for Poroshenko.
"I and Klimkin (note: Klimkin later became the foreign minister) directly participated in
the transfer of 5 million euros through the Ukrainian Embassy in Germany for one high-ranking
European official at that time in order to ensure support for Poroshenko as a candidate for the
presidency of Ukraine from the EU. I am ready to provide the circumstances of this to the
investigating authorities," Zhvania claimed.
In his opinion, Poroshenko became president as a result of the consensus of the oligarchs.
And he took on certain obligations to them, which in most cases he carried out.
According to Zhvania, during his tenure as president, Poroshenko acquired approximately $3.4
billion in bribes.
The former politician hoped that President Zelensky "will have enough political will to
bring the case of Poroshenko and his entourage to an end."
"Poroshenko today, on the eve of local elections, may try to run for mayor. Before Maidan,
it was his dream – he humiliatingly begged Yanukovych for the right to run for mayor of
Kiev, was ready to give a bribe for this. Yanukovych did not allow, and Poroshenko did not dare
to disobey," Zhvania said and promised to reveal more in the following weeks.
The Euromaidan in 2014 was not a spontaneous protest, but was financed by political
circles to overthrow Yanukovych.
Any peace initiatives were thwarted by a group that included Martynenko, Poroshenko,
Turchynov, Yatsenyuk and Klitschko.
Zhvania and Klimkin gave 5 million euros in bribes to a European official to lobby for
Poroshenko's interests as a presidential candidate in 2014.
David Zhvania is a well-known Ukrainian businessman from Georgia. Long-term business partner
of the deputy of several iterations of Parliament Nikolay Martynenko.
Zhvania was also a member in four different Ukrainian parliament configurations. In 2004, he
was an ally of Yushchenko, was a member of the Our Ukraine bloc, and took part in the Orange
Revolution. In 2005, he served as Minister of Emergency Situations in the government of Yulia
Tymoshenko.
In 2006 he went to the Verkhovna Rada from "Our Ukraine" and Yushchenko, but he had a
falling out with him.
In 2010, he became friends with the Yanukovych team.
In the 2012 elections, he entered parliament as a self-nominated and non-partisan candidate
in 140 constituencies. He was a member of the Party of Regions faction, but left it in 2013
when the Revolution of Dignity began.
In the 2014 elections, he was one of the heads of the electoral headquarters of the Petro
Poroshenko Bloc. People's Deputy Aleksandr Onishchenko stated that he transferred money to
Zhvania for a seat in the parliament of the 8th convocation.
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.
"We are alarmed by continuous attempts to misuse the Ukrainian justice system for
politically motivated persecution of political opponents," said lawmakers from the informal
Friends of European Ukraine group in a statement on Friday (3 July).
After the peaceful power transition of 2019 election in the post-Soviet country,
"current attempts to prosecute political opponents pose a risk of democratic backsliding,"
the group of MEPs added.
Ukraine's former president, Petro Poroshenko, is suspected of abuse of office by
illegally pressuring the then-chief of Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service, Yehor Bozhok,
into appointing Serhiy Semоchko as his deputy.
Poroshenko is involved in 24 investigations, with three others recently closed, and
denies any wrongdoing, calling the probes selective justice 'at the orders of [Volodymyr]
Zelensky', the current president .
The 50-member group, which does not have formal standing, was created in September last
year with the goal of providing political support and to promote Ukraine's economic
integration with the EU
####
Unfortunately there is more at the link except the names of MEPs.
A Ukrainian oligarch has his own MEP lobby group! Why should we be surprised? I can't find
a list of members (this is not the old 2014-19 group and this European Parliament page has
not been updated with the new group of the same name) but Auštrevičius is the
chaiman. There's also the Friends of Ukraine with the like of Fogh Rasmussen, Versbow,
Rifkind, Cox, Bildt etc. on the Rasmussen site.
No matter how corrupt, murderous or just plain nasty, it is more important to keep the
u-Kraine close to the EU, close to NATO etc. for strategic purposes. It's just another
western chapter of looking the other way for their 'son of a bitches.'
"... Russia heavily subsidised Ukrainian energy imports for decades – gas and oil. In a similar fashion, Russia is doing this with Belarus until the present time. Russia is the only possible consumer of what Ukraine used to manufacture – a market that has disappeared. Gas turbines used to be made in Ukraine. Now, this has moved to Russia. Of course, the skilled Ukrainians went to Russia with their know-how. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge the USSR was the only empire that actually subsidized its colonies – Poland, East Germany, Ukraine etc. Russia is far better off without them. ..."
"... Ukrainian supermarkets are overflowing with French/German/Italian products. European supermarkets are devoid of Ukrainian products. ..."
Only a complete and utter incompetent (or a rabid Ukrainian nationalist) can call Ukraine
an independent state. It is de-facto a colony of the West. A debt slave.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer, more
Western-oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests
over those of Russia's.
This was not about supporting Ukrainian aspirations for a freer, more Western-oriented
country. It is about kicking out Russia from Ukrainian markets and plundering Ukraine all by
themselves. Mainly by Germany and the USA -- to major players of Euromaydan color revolution.
For Germans this is return to "Drang nach Osten" on a new level, on the level of neoliberal
neocolonialism.
They used Western nationalists as their fifth column, but Western Ukrainian suffered from
the results no less then people in Eastern Ukraine. Many now try to move to Kiev, Kiev region
and further East in order to escape poverty and unemployment. Seasonal labor to Russia
(mainly builders) diminished rapidly. Train communication now is blocked, and for Western
Ukraine only Poland now represents a chance to earn money for the family to survive the
winter.
For the USA this is first of all about selling Ukraine expensive weaponry, wasting
precious Ukrainian resources on permanent hostility with Russia (with Donbas conflict as a
real win to further the USA geopolitical ambitions -- in line with the "Full spectrum
dominance" doctrine) , cornering Ukrainian energy market (uranium supplies for power
stations, etc.), destruction, or buy-out of a few competing industries other than extracting
industries and maquiladoras, getting better conditions for the EU exports and multinationals
operating in Ukraine (and initially with plans for re-export products to Russia tax free) and
increasing the country debt to "debt slave" level.
In other words this is a powerful kick in a chin by Obama to Putin. Not a knockdown, but
very close.
For Ukraine first of all that means rapid accumulation of a huge external debt --
conditions of economic slavery, out of which there is no escape. Ukrainian people paid a very
dear price for their Euromaydan illusions. They became mass slave labor in Poland.
Prostitutes in Germany. Seasonal picker of fruits in some other EU countries (GB, France). A
new European blacks, so to speak.
The level of fleecing Ukraine by the USA after Euromaidan can be compared only with
fleecing of Libya. The currency dropped 300%, and 80% Ukrainians now live in abysmal poverty,
while neoliberal oligarchs allied with the West continue to plunder the country. Gold
reserves were moved to the USA.
If I had to choose between two colonizers, I probably would prefer Russians. They are
still colonizers, but they are less ruthless and brutal colonizers.
@likbezIf I had
to choose between two colonizers, I probably would prefer Russians. They are still
colonizers, but they are less ruthless and brutal colonizers.
I agree with 90% of what you wrote, but I would like to correct the above.
Russia heavily subsidised Ukrainian energy imports for decades – gas and oil. In
a similar fashion, Russia is doing this with Belarus until the present time. Russia is the
only possible consumer of what Ukraine used to manufacture – a market that has
disappeared. Gas turbines used to be made in Ukraine. Now, this has moved to Russia. Of
course, the skilled Ukrainians went to Russia with their know-how.
To the best of my knowledge the USSR was the only empire that actually subsidized its
colonies – Poland, East Germany, Ukraine etc. Russia is far better off without
them.
Ukrainian supermarkets are overflowing with French/German/Italian products. European
supermarkets are devoid of Ukrainian products.
@Mr. Hack Only a
complete and utter incompetent (or a rabid Ukrainian nationalist) can call Ukraine an
independent state. It is de-facto a colony of the West. A debt slave.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer, more
Western-oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests
over those of Russia's.
This was not about supporting Ukrainian aspirations for a freer, more Western-oriented
country. It is about kicking out Russia from Ukrainian markets and plundering Ukraine all by
themselves. Mainly by Germany and the USA -- to major players of Euromaydan color revolution.
For Germans this is return to "Drang nach Osten" on a new level, on the level of neoliberal
neocolonialism.
They used Western nationalists as their fifth column, but Western Ukrainian suffered from
the results no less then people in Eastern Ukraine. Many now try to move to Kiev, Kiev region
and further East in order to escape poverty and unemployment. Seasonal labor to Russia
(mainly builders) diminished rapidly. Train communication now is blocked, and for Western
Ukraine only Poland now represents a chance to earn money for the family to survive the
winter.
For the USA this is first of all about selling Ukraine expensive weaponry, wasting
precious Ukrainian resources on permanent hostility with Russia (with Donbas conflict as a
real win to further the USA geopolitical ambitions -- in line with the "Full spectrum
dominance" doctrine) , cornering Ukrainian energy market (uranium supplies for power
stations, etc.), destruction, or buy-out of a few competing industries other than extracting
industries and maquiladoras, getting better conditions for the EU exports and multinationals
operating in Ukraine (and initially with plans for re-export products to Russia tax free) and
increasing the country debt to "debt slave" level.
In other words this is a powerful kick in a chin by Obama to Putin. Not a knockdown, but
very close.
For Ukraine first of all that means rapid accumulation of a huge external debt --
conditions of economic slavery, out of which there is no escape. Ukrainian people paid a very
dear price for their Euromaydan illusions. They became mass slave labor in Poland.
Prostitutes in Germany. Seasonal picker of fruits in some other EU countries (GB, France). A
new European blacks, so to speak.
The level of fleecing Ukraine by the USA after Euromaidan can be compared only with
fleecing of Libya. The currency dropped 300%, and 80% Ukrainians now live in abysmal poverty,
while neoliberal oligarchs allied with the West continue to plunder the country. Gold
reserves were moved to the USA.
If I had to choose between two colonizers, I probably would prefer Russians. They are
still colonizers, but they are less ruthless and brutal colonizers.
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.
The EU should reconsider its 'all or nothing' approach on sanctions imposed on Russia for
its role in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as its annexation of Crimea, a
new report from the International Crisis Group suggests. The Brussels-based think tank calls
for the easing of certain sanctions in exchange for Russian progress towards peace in
Ukraine.
"Inflexible sanctions are less likely to change behaviour," said Olga Oliker, Europe
and Central Asia programme director. "Because of that, we urge considering an approach that
would allow for the lifting of some sanctions in exchange for some progress, with a clear
intent to reverse that rollback of sanctions if the progress itself is reversed."
.A major roadblock in the implementation of the Minsk deal has been the sequence of
events supposed to bring an end to the conflict that has so far claimed more than 13,000
lives.
Kyiv wants to first regain control over its border with Russia before local elections
in the war-torn region can be held, while Moscow believes that elections must come
first
####
Door. Horse. Barn. Bolted.
The Intentional Critics Grope is yet again a $/€ short in the reality department.
You would think the Editor Gotev (the last two paras by him) would mention that the Minsk
agreement clearly states elections come first and that Kiev has singularly refuse the other
conditions of the agreement, but that really would be asking too much. From a professional
journalist.
It's the same shit we got with the US-North Korea 4 point nuclear agreement where
de-nuclearization of the region is the final stage yet it didn't take Washington and
ball-licking corporate media to parrot 'denuclearization' as the first point as suddently
decided by the Ovum Orifice.*
They try it on again about every six months, just to see if the Russian negotiators have
changed and if the new ones are dimwitted. I'm sure it is crystal clear to the Kremlin that
if it gave Ukraine back exclusive control of the border, it would (a) call up troops and set
up a cordon to make it impossible for eastern Ukraine to be reinforced, and (b) launch an
all-out military push to re-take the breakaway regions. The west would then shout "Safe!!!",
and the game would be over – Ukraine is (almost) whole again, praise Jeebus. There
would be a propaganda storm that Russia was 'trying to meddle in the peace process' while
Kuh-yiv rooted out and either imprisoned or executed all the 'rebel' leaders, and the west
– probably the USA – would provide 'peacekeepers' to give Ukraine time to restore
its complete control over the DNR and LPR. Then, presto! no elections required, we are all
happy Ukrainians!
They knew 'inflexible sanctions were less likely to change behaviors' when they first
agreed to impose them – but they were showing their belly to Washington, and don't know
how to stop now. Serves them right if they are losing revenue and market share.
I don't think Russia is very interested, beyond polite diplomatic raising of the eyebrows, in
relaxing of sanctions under conditions the EU is careful to highlight could be reapplied in a
trice, as soon as anyone was upset with Russia's performance. Because that moment would be
literally only a moment away. The UK can be counted on to register blistering outrage at the
drop of a hat, and while its influence on the EU will soon be limited, dogs-in-the-manger
like Poland can always be relied upon to throw themselves about in an ecstasy of victimhood.
It would be impossible to set up any sort of dependable supply chain, as the interval between
orders would never be known with any degree of certainty. Fuck the EU. Russia is better off
to press on as it has been doing. The EU has to buy oil and gas from Russia because the
logistics and price of American supplies make them economically non-competitive, and best to
just leave it there. The EU will bitch, but it will continue to buy, whereas any other
commerce would be subject to theatrical hissy fits.
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.
"... In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're
trying to build a completely new society.' ..."
"... And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. ..."
I'd never heard of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) until today, even though it turns out that one of its members
has the office next door to mine. Its
website says that
it seeks to respond to the challenge of East-West tensions by convening 'former and current officials and experts from a group of
Euro-Atlantic states and the European union to test ideas and develop proposals for improving security in areas of existential common
interest'. It hopes thereby to 'generate trust through dialogue.'
It's hard to object to any of this, but its latest
statement , entitled 'Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region', doesn't inspire a lot of
confidence. The 'twelve steps' the EASLG proposes to improve security in Eastern Ukraine are generally pretty uninspiring, being
largely of the 'set up a working group to explore' variety, or of such a vaguely aspirational nature as to be almost worthless (e.g.
'Advance reconstruction of Donbas An essential first step is to conduct a credible needs assessment for the Donbas region to inform
a strategy for its social-economic recovery.' Sounds nice, but in reality doesn't amount to a hill of beans).
For the most part, these proposals attempt to treat the symptoms of the war in Ukraine without addressing the root causes. In
a sense, that's fine, as symptoms need treating, but it's sticking plaster when the patient needs some invasive surgery. At the end
of its statement, though, the EASLG does go one step further with 'Step 12: Launch a new national dialogue about identity', saying:
A new, inclusive national dialogue across Ukraine is desirable and could be launched as soon as possible. Efforts should be
made to engage with perspectives from Ukraine's neighbors, especially Poland, Hungary, and Russia. This dialogue should address
themes of history and national memory, language, identity, and minority experience. It should include tolerance and respect for
ethnic and religious minorities in order to increase engagement, inclusiveness, and social cohesion.
This is admirably trendy and woke, but in the Ukrainian context somewhat explosive, as it implicitly challenges the identity politics
of the post-Maidan regime. Unsurprisingly, it's gone down like a lead balloon in Kiev. The notorious website Mirotvorets even
went so far as to add former
German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger to its blacklist of enemies of Ukraine for having had the temerity to sign the EASLG statement
and thus 'taking part in Russia's propaganda events aimed against Ukraine.' Katherine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group
commented on Twitter, 'As the idea of dialogue
becomes more mainstream, backlash to the concept grows fiercer.' 'In Ukraine, prominent pro-Western politicians, civic activists,
and media, have called Step 12 "a provocation" and "dangerous",' she added
Quinn-Judge comes across as generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian narrative about the war in Donbass, endorsing the idea that
it's largely a product of 'Russian aggression'. But she also recognizes that the war has an internal, social dimension which the
Ukrainian government and its elite-level supporters refuse to acknowledge. Consequently, they also reject any sort of dialogue, either
with Russia or with the rebels in Donbass. As Quinn-Judge notes in another Tweet:
An advisor to one of Ukraine's most powerful pol[itician]s told us recently of his concern about talk of dialogue in international
and domestic circles. 'We have all long ago agreed among ourselves. We need to return our territory, and then work with that sick
– sick – population.'
This isn't an isolated example. Quinn-Judge follows up with a couple more similar statements:
Social resentments underpin some opposition to disengagement, for example. An activist in [government-controlled] Shchastye
told me recently that she feared disengagement and the reopening of the bridge linking the isolated town to [rebel-held] Luhansk:
'I don't want all that trash coming over here.'
In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what?
We're trying to build a completely new society.'
And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. You can fiddle with treating Donbass' symptoms as much as you like, à la EASLG,
but unless you tackle this fundamental problem, the disease will keep on ravaging the subject for a long time to come. In due course,
I suggest, the only realistic cure will be to remove the patient entirely from the cause of infection.
All that you have described above is very sad, but not very surprising – which is itself very sad. I think Patrick Armstrong is
right that a lot of the reason Ukraine is not and has never been a functional polity is because much if not most of the population
cannot accept that the right side won WWII.
Contempt and loathing towards the Donbass is a pretty popular feeling amongst Ukrainian svidomy. E.g., one of the two regular
pro-Ukrainian commenters on my blog.
To his credit, he supports severing the Donbass from Ukraine (as one would a gangrenous limb – his metaphor) as opposed to
trying to claw it back. Which is an internally consistent position.
Same guy who doesn't consider Yanukovych as having been overthrown under coup like circumstances, while downplaying Poland's
past subjugation of Rus territory.
In Part I and II we saw how much truth is there in Herr Karlin's claim of being a model of the rrrracially purrrre Rrrrrrrussian
plus some personal views.
Part III (this one) gives a peek into his cultural and upbringing limits, which "qualify" him as an expert of all things Russian,
who speaks on behalf of the People and the Country.
" I left when I was six, in 1994 , so I'm not really the best person to ask this question of – it should probably be directed
to my parents, or even better, the Russian government at the time which had for all intents and purposes ceased paying academics
their salaries.
I went to California for higher education and because its beaches and mountains made for a nice change from the bleakness of
Lancashire.
I returned to Russia because if I like Putler so much, why don't I go back there? Okay, less flippancy. I am Russian, I
do not feel like a foreigner here, I like living in Moscow, added bonus is that I get much higher quality of life for the buck
than in California ."
"I never went to school, don't have any experience with writing in Russian, and have been overexposed to Anglo culture ,
so yes, it's no surprise that my texts will sound strange."
The Russian branch of Carnegie Endowment did a piece on this issue. It mostly fits your ideas, but the author suggests it was
a compromise, short-term solution – what steps can be taken right now, without crossing red lines of either side – but compromise
is unwelcome among both parties. The official Russian reaction was quite cold too.
Upon a quick perusal of the website of the org at issue, Alexey Arbatov and Susan Eisenhower have some kind of affiliation
with it, thus maybe explaining the compromise approach you mention.
This matter brings to mind Trump saying one thing during his presidential bid – only to then bring in people in key positions
who don't agree with what he campaigned on.
In terms of credentials and name status, the likes of Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Cohen and Jim Jatras, are needed in
Trump's admin for the purpose of having a more balanced foreign policy approach that conforms with US interests (not to be necessarily
confused with what neocons and neolibs favor).
Instead, Trump has been top heavy with geopolitical thinking opposites. He possibly thought that having them in would take
some of the criticism away from him.
The arguably ideal admin has both sides of an issue well represented, with the president intelligently deciding what's best.
On the BBC and on other media there are films of Ukrainians attacking a bus with people evacuated from China. These people
even wanted to burn down the hospital where the peoplew were taken (along with other unrelated patients)
This is a sign of a degraded society – attacking people who may or may not be ill!!!
Ukraine will eventually break up
The nationalist agenda is just degrading the society.
-The economy is failing
-People who can, are leaving
-The elected government has no control over the violent people who take to the streets
It's clear Zelensky is a puppet no different to Poroshenko – this destroys the idea that democracy is a good thing.
It's very sad that the EU and the Americans under Obama – empowered these decisive elements and then blame Russia.
Crimea did the right thing leaving Ukraine – Donbass hopefully will follow.
"And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass"
[ ]
Only them?
[ ]
Yesterday marks yet another milestone on the Ukrainian glorious шлях перемог and long and arduous return to the Family
of the European Nations. The Civil Society ™ of the Ukraine rose as one in the mighty CoronavirusMaidan, against the jackbooted
goons of the crypto-Napoleon (and agent of Putin) Zelensky. Best people from Poltava oblast' (whose ancestors without doubt, welcomed
Swedish Euro-integrators in 1709) and, most important of all, from the Best (Western) Ukrajina, who 6 years ago made the Revolution
of Dignity in Kiev the reality and whom pan Poroshenko called the best part of the Nation, said their firm "Геть вiд Москви!"
to their fellow Ukrainian citizens, evacuated from Wuhan province in China
The Net is choke full of vivid, memorable videos, showing that 6 years after Maidan, the Ukraine now constitute a unified,
эдiна та соборна country. You all, no doubt, already watched these clips, where a brave middle-aged gentleman from the
Western Ukraine, racially pure Ukr, proves his mental acuity by deducing, that crypto-tyrant (and "не лох") Zelensky wants to
settle evacuees in his pristine oblast out of vengeance, because the Best Ukrajina didn't vote for him during the election. Or
a clip about a brave woman from Poltava oblast, suggesting to relocate the Trojan-horse "fellow countrymen" to Chernobol's Zone.
Or even the witty comments and suggestions by the paragons of the Ukrainian Civil Society, " волонтэры ":
Shy and conscientious members of the Ukrainian (national!) intelligentsia had their instincts aligned rrrrrright. When they
learned about that their hospital will be the one receiving the evacuees from Wuhan, the entire medical personell of that Poltava
oblast medical facility rose to their feet and sang "Shenya vmerla". Democracy and localism proved once again the strongest suit
of the pro-European Ukraine, with Ternopol's oblast regional council voting to accept the official statement to the crypto-tyrant
Zelensky, which calls attempts to place evacuees on their Holy land "an act of Genocide of the Ukrainian People" (c)
That's absolutely "normal", predictable reaction of the "racially pure Ukrainians" to their own fellow citizens. Now, Professor,
are you insisting on seeking or even expecting "compromise" with them ? What to do, if after all these years, there is
no such thing as the united Ukrainian political nation?
"Ukraine's democracy is flourishing like never before due to the tireless efforts of grassroots, pro-democracy, civil-society
groups. Many Ukrainians say their country is now firmly set on an irreversible, pro-Western trajectory. Moreover, the country
has also undertaken a top-to-bottom cultural, economic, and political divorce from its former Soviet overlord.
Today, Ukraine is a democratic success story in the making, despite Russia's best efforts to the contrary."
– Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal's foreign
correspondent based in Ukraine
Was anyone aware that in 1991 in the Ukraine almost 100% of the population had indoor running
water, but as of 2014 that was down to 87%? I'm talking of the western portion of the Ukraine
here and not the part being attacked by neo-Nazis where it is unsurprising that
infrastructure is being destroyed.
I was curious what happened to the Ukraine's infrastructure since the Soviet Union was
dissolved so I asked some Ukrops what was up. Apparently Putin himself has been sneaking into
the Ukraine at night and stealing the plumbing right out of people's houses. I kid thee not!
Putin did it! Ukrops wouldn't lie about that, would they?
If you think what Putin is doing to America is bad, then just be thankful you are not in
Ukropistan! Over there Putin causes people to stub their toes on the furniture when they get
out of bed to take a leak at night. He tricks people into not bringing their umbrellas on
days that it rains. He even causes babies to foul their diapers right after they were
changed. Putin's evil knows no bounds!
"... Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada, rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the real story. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Versions of this article first appeared on ..."
The impeachment hearings and trial of Donald Trump were filled with talk of Russian
aggression against Ukraine and threats to the United States. But what would it be like if we
switched the roles of Russia and the U.S.?
Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada,
rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces
embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the
provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand
what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the
real story.
T he United States has "invaded" Canada to support the breakaway Maritime provinces that are
resisting a Moscow-engineered violent coup d'etat against the democratically elected
government in Ottawa.
The U.S. move is to protect separatists in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia after Washington
annexed Prince Edwards Island in a quickly arranged referendum .
The Islanders voted over 90 percent in favor of joining
the United States following the Russian-backed coup. Moscow has condemned the referendum as
illega l.
Hard-liners in the U.S. want
Washington to annex all three Maritime provinces, whose fighters are defying the coup in Ottawa
after Moscow installed an unelected prime minister.
Russian-backed Canadian federal troops have
launched so-called "anti-terrorist" operations in the breakaway region to crush the
rebellion, shelling residential areas and killing hundreds of civilians.
The violent coup.
The Canadian army are joined by Russian-supported neofascist battalions that played a crucial role in the
overthrow of the Canadian government. In Halifax, the extremists have burned alive at least 40
pro-U.S. civilians who had taken refugee in a trade union building.
Proof that Russia was behind the overthrow of the elected Canadian prime minister is
contained in a
leaked conversation between Georgiy Yevgenevich Borisenko, foreign ministry chief of
Moscow's North America department, and Alexander Darchiev, the Russian ambassador to
Canada.
According to a transcript of the leaked conversation,
Borisenko discussed who the new Canadian leaders should be six weeks before the coup took
place.
Russia moved to launch the coup when Canada decided
to take a loan package from the IMF that had fewer strings attached than a loan from
Russia.
Russia's Beijing ally was reluctant to back the coup. But this seemed of little concern to
Borisenko who is heard on the tape saying, "Fuck China."
Minister handing out cookies in the square.
Weeks before the coup Borisenko was filmed visiting protestors who had camped out in
Parliament Square in Ottawa demanding the ouster of the prime minister. Borisenko is seen
giving out cakes to
the demonstrators.
The foreign ministers of Russian-allied Belarus and Cuba also marched with the protestors
through the streets of Ottawa against the government. Russian media has portrayed the
unconstitutional change of government an act of "democracy." Russian senators have met in
public with extreme right-wing Canadian coup leaders,
praising their rebellion.
Borisenko said in a speech that Russia had spent $5 billion
over the past decade to "bring democracy" to Canada.
Senator meeting far-right coup leaders.
The money was spent on training "civil society." The use of non-governmental organizations
to overthrow foreign governments that stand in the way of Russia's economic and geo-strategic
interests is well documented, especially in a 1991 Washington Post column,
"Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups ."
The United States has thus moved to ban
Russian NGOs from operating in the country.
The coup took place as protestors violently clashed with police, breaking through barricades
and killing a number of officers. Snipers fired on the police and the crowd from a nearby
building in Parliament Square in which the Russian embassy had set up offices
just a few floors above, according to Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Son Gets Job After Coup
Russian lawmakers
compared President Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler for allegedly sending U.S. troops into the
breakaway provinces and for annexing Prince Edward Island in an act of "American aggression."
The Maritimes have had long ties to the U.S. dating back to the American Revolution.
Russia says it has intelligence proving that U.S. tanks have crossed the Maine border into
New Brunswick, but have failed to make the evidence public. They have revealed no satellite
imagery. Russian news media only reports American-backed rebels fighting in the Maritimes, not
American troops.
Washington denies it has invaded but says some American volunteers have entered the Canadian
province to join the fight.
Russia's puppet prime minister now in charge in Ottawa has only offered as proof six American passports of
U.S. soldiers found in New Brunswick.
Son gets job on energy company board after his father's government backs violent coup.
The Maritime Canadian rebels have secured anti-aircraft weapons enabling them to shoot down
a number of Royal Canadian Air Force transport planes.
A Malaysian airlines passenger jet was also shot down over Nova Scotia killing all on board.
Russia has accused President Obama of being behind the incident, charging that the U.S.
provided the anti-aircraft weapon.
Moscow has refused to release any intelligence to support its claim, other than
statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Canada's economy is near collapse and is dependent on infusions of Russian aid. This comes
despite a former Russian foreign ministry official being installed as
Canada's finance minister, only receiving Canadian citizenship on her first day on the job.
Despite installing a Russian to run Canada's economy, President Putin told the U.N. General
Assembly that Russia had
"few economic interests" in the country. But Russian agribusiness companies have already
taken stakes in Albertan wheat fields. And Ilya Medvedev, son of Russian Prime Minister
Dmitri Medvedev, as well as a Lavrov family friend
joined the board of Canada's largest oil company just weeks after the coup.
Russia's ultimate aim, beginning with the imposition of sanctions on the U.S., appears to be
a color revolution in Washington to overthrow Obama and install a Russian-friendly American
president.
This is clear from numerous statements by Russian officials and academics. A former Russian
national security advisor whom Putin consults on foreign policy said the United States should be
broken into three countries.
He has also
written that Canada is the stepping stone to the United States and that if the U.S. loses
Canada it will fail to control North America.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
mary floyd , February 15, 2020 at 13:20
The most important takeaway in this article for me was that the US should be broken into
three separate entities!
That would work well for most Americans. All in all, this is a great piece, Mr. Lauria!
Dao Gen , February 15, 2020 at 02:28
Joe, you are The Truth. The only thing you left out, no doubt for reasons of space and
time, was the immortal statement made by a leading member of the Russian Duma, who said
during a stirring and well-received speech that, “Canada is our crucial first line of
defense against the US. If Canada weren’t there to stop the Americans, we’d have
to fight them right here on our own doorstep.”
A very creative way of making the point. Still do not understand the depth of what often
appears to be heart felt hate for Russia by very powerful and smart people. Remember reading
a comment by Phil Girardi early in the Trump tour when he remarked at the depth of dislike of
Russia within the spook community. He wrote he was surprised and had, I think, been part of
that community.
Eddie S , February 15, 2020 at 14:51
RE: “…depth of dislike of Russia within the spook community”.
While I have no ‘special knowledge’ of the so-called ‘intelligence
community’, there’s a few reasons for this that come to-mind:
— Job preservation. The most obvious. The US wouldn’t need ~80% of those spooks
if there
weren’t big scary Russians/Chinese/Iranians/N.Koreans constantly plotting against
the
peaceful, benevolent US.
— Spooks believe in what is mainly a distractionary ploy by US oligarchs/plutocrats.
These
wealthy interests don’t want to lose some of their wealth to social reforms, so they
constantly
financially support scare-mongering, which some spooks unquestioningly accept.
— The profession tends to attract some of the more paranoid elements in our society,
so
they’re inclined that way by nature/personality.
robert e williamson jr , February 14, 2020 at 17:51
Well one thing for sure we would not be seeing a female anchor on CNN bemoaning the fact
the because of the coronavirus many popular kids toys might not be available here in the U.S.
for the up coming holidays (?).
Yes it did happen, hell I couldn’t make that up.
DARYL , February 14, 2020 at 15:45
…or better yet, substitute Central America for Ukraine, and Panama(canal) for
Crimea, then you have the makings of an even more salient parallel.
Realist , February 14, 2020 at 15:42
The difference is that under your scenario the world would be a smoking heap of
radioactive ashes already as the exceptional nation, unlike the ever cautious Russians, would
have immediately made bombastic threats and then launched military attacks to protect its
“security interests.” (Warring to “protect” security interests has
replaced invasion and occupation to save souls.) Things would have escalated from there to
its predestined thermonuclear climax, as they will in the real world if Uncle Sam
doesn’t get a grip on his uncontrolled aggression, demanding whatever he wants whenever
he wants it at the point of a gun. The world seems to be circling the drain whether or not
Washington is allowed to micromanage the affairs of Russia, China, Iran and every last duchy,
principality and people’s republic in addition to its own monumental mess it calls
domestic affairs. We’ve only got two political parties in this madhouse and they are
both equally bent on destroying civilisation if they can’t rule it all, which seems to
be the only point they agree on. Each party thinks it preferable to allow an obscenely rich
oligarch (what else should we call Trump or Bloomberg?) from the other side to rule rather
than a “communist” like Bernie Sanders or a “naive peacenik” like
Tulsi Gabbard to be elected president. If the space aliens land tomorrow and start recruiting
colonists to populate newly terraformed planets in other solar systems, sign me up. Yeah,
it’s become that absurd down here.
Simply imperial rot and corruption of power on all sides.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an exclusive on those qualities.
Mark Thomason , February 14, 2020 at 12:37
This is a useful approach. It needs added to it the language and culture element: as if
the part that wants out of the Moscow coup shares our own language and culture, while the
rest of Canada does not, and the rest of Canada had gone on a spree to suppress that language
and culture. It is hard to find a parallel in Canada to those facts, but it is what happened
in Ukraine.
It is important to understanding to put oneself in the shoes of the other guys. It was
once called walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins, and given a Native wisdom
attribution.
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.
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.
Poroshenko has asked the US for help with criminal cases in the Ukraine, writes
media
05:31
MOSCOW, 1 Jul – RIA Novosti.The former President of the Ukraine Petro
Poroshenko is in Istanbul, where he has turned to American companies to lobby for protection
from criminal cases, reports "
Ukraine News " with reference to sources.
It has been noted that in the Ukraine changes have been made as regards the criminal
cases against Poroshenko. In particular, in May 2019, the former-president's lawyer Igor
Golovan stated that these criminal cases would not entail any legal consequences, but now
Poroshenko's entourage realizes that the criminal prosecution of the former president has
noticeably intensified and may have consequences.
Therefore, according to the newspaper, in Turkey Poroshenko has started to lobbying
U.S. companies, in particular, the BGR group, for assistance in resolving these
cases.
"He is well aware that everything that happens in the RRG (State Bureau of
investigation – trans. ed.) is taken very seriously, and he intends to defend himself
against attacks. He can, for example, be expecting public support in Washington if there is
an attempt made to arrest him", said the source.
In addition, the publication cites the words of Ukrainian political scientist Alexei
Yakubin, who has noted that Poroshenko could repeat the "Saakashvili scenario".
"For example, he'll leave for treatment in London, where part of his entourage has
entrenched itself. But this model complicates the public protection of his business assets
within the country, which assets might be seized", he said.
The case against Poroshenko
Poroshenko has previously been involved in eleven criminal cases, in particular, as regards
his abuse of power and his official position in the distribution of posts in "Tsentrenergo",
his treason in connection with the incident in the Kerch Strait, his usurpation of judicial
power and his misappropriation of the TV channel "Direct", his falsification of documents in
the formation of Deputy factions in 2016, and his illegal appointment of a government, and
the seizure of power.
In addition, as a witness, he was questioned about civilian deaths during the
Euromaidan protests in 2014.
Poroshenko himself, speaking at the party congress of "European Business", said that he
is responsible only before the Ukrainian people and is not afraid of persecution.
Quite right, old man; keep your chin up. I daresay they're staying in quite prestigious digs
in Istanbul, as befits visiting royalty. He seems to be labouring under a misapprehension
that he is valuable somehow to Washington, whereas that would only be true if Washington were
unwilling to work with Zelenskiy, and wanted him out of the way. So far as I can see,
Washington is quite satisfied with Zelenskiy so far, while the people would not countenance a
Poroshenko return. So he's not really much use, is he? Especially if the USA wishes to
publicly support Zelenskiy's supposed battle with official corruption.
I could see them having a quiet word with Zelenskiy, maybe leave the old man out of it,
what do you say? But Washington is already accused – with substantial justification, I
would say – of running the show in Ukraine, and there are limits to how much obvious
interfering it can do; especially after Biden's bragging about getting the state prosecutor
fired.
Yes, I was sort of getting at the probability that Clan Poroshenko is just installed in a
very nice hotel. I doubt he will want to be plunking down money for an actual property so
long as the status of his assets still in Ukraine is still up in the air. I should imagine
the Ukrainian government will take steps, if it has not already, to prevent his simply
withdrawing their cash value.
The thing about the pindosi, though, is that they always hedge their bets .
I vangize that they will pressure Zel to pardon Porky. So that they have a spare.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.
I doubt it, simply because it would kick the timbers right out from under Zelenskiy's
anti-corruption platform, which is the issue on which he was voted in, and there would be no
way to do it under the radar. The Ukrainian people must be following Porky's flight with
great interest, and inferring that it means he has something to hide. Therefore an abrupt
discontinuing of the pursuit, and a refocusing elsewhere, would tell them accountability is
not attributed to the powerful and wealthy. Which is uhhh exactly the opposite of Zelenskiy's
message.
They are not helping Ukraine citizen of which after 2014 live in abject poverty. So in now
way this an aid. They are arming Ukraine to kill Russians and maintain a hot spot on Russian
border.
The USA, specifically Brennan, Nuland and Biden create civil war out of nothing pushing far
right nationalist to suppress eastern population by brute forces (they burned alive 200 hundred
or more people on Odessa and killed people in Mariupol before Donbass flared up)
They are despicable MIC bottomfeeders. Neocon calculation is that Russia will not respond to
this provocation, because it is too weak after the economic rape of 1991-2000. While Putin is a
very patient politician they might be wrong.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com, ..."
"... "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States." ..."
"... "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are corrupt." ..."
"... " remains skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure." ..."
"... "Most foreign aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO [nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." ..."
"... James Bovard is the author of " ..."
"... Attention Deficit Democracy ..."
"... The Bush Betrayal ..."
"... Terrorism and Tyranny ..."
"... ," and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at ..."
The campaign to convict and remove President Donald Trump in the Senate hinges on delays in
disbursing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Ukraine was supposedly on the verge of great progress until
Trump pulled the rug out from under the heroic salvation effort by U.S. government bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, Congress has devoted a hundred times more attention to the timing of aid to
Ukraine than to its effectiveness. And most of the media coverage has ignored the biggest
absurdity of the impeachment fight.
The temporary postponement of the Ukrainian aid was practically irrelevant considering that
U.S. assistance efforts have long fueled the poxes they promised to eradicate –
especially
kleptocracy, or government by thieves .
A 2002 American Economic Review analysis concluded that
"increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption" and
that "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United
States."
Then-President George W. Bush promised to reform foreign aid that year,
declaring , "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are
corrupt." Regardless, the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in
handouts to
many of the world's most corrupt regimes .
Then-President Barack Obama, recognizing the failure
of past U.S. aid efforts, proclaimed at the United Nations in 2010 that the U.S. government
is "
leading a global effort to combat corruption ." The following year, congressional
Republicans sought to restrict foreign aid to fraud-ridden foreign regimes. Then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton wailed that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption
tests "has
the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars into
sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was
"one of the
most corrupt countries on earth ." John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), declared that "U.S.
policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption" in Afghanistan.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has provided more than $6 billion in aid to
Ukraine. At the House impeachment hearings, a key anti-Trump witness was acting U.S. ambassador
to the Ukraine, William B. Taylor Jr. The Washington Post hailed Taylor as someone who "
spent much of the 1990s telling Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical to
their long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law, in his
role as the head of U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries." A New York Times
editorial
lauded Taylor and State Department deputy assistant secretary George Kent as witnesses who
"came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted
their lives to serving their country."
After their testimony spurred criticism, a Washington Post headline
captured the capital city's reaction: "The diplomatic corps has been wounded. The State
Department needs to heal." But not nearly as much as the foreigners supposedly rescued by U.S.
bureaucrats.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 31 that the International Monetary Fund, which has
provided more than $20
billion in loans to Ukraine, " remains
skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't
successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with
systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure."
The IMF concluded that Ukraine continued to be vexed by " shortcomings
in the legal framework, pervasive corruption, and large parts of the economy dominated by
inefficient state-owned enterprises or by oligarchs." That last item is damning for the U.S.
benevolent pretensions. If a former Soviet republic cannot even terminate its government-owned
boondoggles, then why in hell was the U.S. government bankrolling them?
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows
that corruption
surged in Ukraine in the late 1990s (after the U.S. decided to rescue them) and remains at
abysmal levels. Ukraine is now ranked as the 120th most
corrupt nation in the world -- a lower ranking than received by Egypt and Pakistan, two
other major U.S. aid recipients also notorious for corruption.
Actually, the best gauge of Ukrainian corruption is the near-total collapse of its citizens'
trust in government or in their own future. Since 1991, the nation
has lost almost 20% of its population as citizens flee abroad like passengers leaping off a
sinking ship.
And yet, the House impeachment hearings and much of the media gushed over career U.S.
government officials despite their strikeouts. It was akin to a congressional committee
resurrecting Col. George S. Custer in 1877 and fawning as he offered personal insights in
dealing with uprisings by Sioux Indians (while carefully avoiding awkward questions about the
previous year at
the Little Big Horn ).
Foreign aid is virtue signaling with other people's money. As long the aid spawns press
releases and photo opportunities for presidents and members of Congress and campaign donations
from corporate and other beneficiaries, little else matters. Congress almost never conducts
thorough investigations into the failure of aid programs despite their legendary pratfalls. The
Agency for International Development ludicrously evaluated its programs in Afghanistan based
on their "burn rate" – whether they were spending money as quickly as possible,
almost regardless of the results. SIGAR's John Sopko "found a USAID lessons-learned report from
1980s on Afghan reconstruction but nobody at AID had read it
."
After driving around the world, investment guru Jim Rogers declared: "Most foreign
aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO
[nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." After the Obama
administration promised massive aid to Ukraine in 2014,
Hunter Biden jumped on the gravy train – as did legions of well-connected
Washingtonians and other hustlers around the nation. Similar largesse assures that there will
never be a shortage of overpaid individuals and hired think tanks ready to write op-eds or
letters to the editor of the Washington Post whooping up the moral greatness of foreign aid or
some such hokum.
When it comes to the failure of U.S. aid to Ukraine, almost all of Trump's congressional
critics are like the "
dog that didn't bark " in the Sherlock Holmes story. The real outrage is that Trump and
prior presidents, with Congress cheering all the way, delivered so many U.S. tax dollars to
Kiev that any reasonable person knew would be wasted. If Washington truly wants to curtail
foreign corruption, ending U.S. foreign aid is the best first step.
paying billions to corrupt Jewish Ukranians is just another way to support Israel.
Christian Zionists understand and approve of this. So what's the big deal? It's free money.
Money that grows on trees. What does it cost to print billions of free money by a few
electronic entries? Nothing. We should print more. Free **** is a beautiful thing.
We can postpone judgment day for at least another decade or so. By then, all the smart
Harvard educated guys and gals at Goldman Sachs and Wall Street will figure out how to kick
the can down the road for another decade or so.
When it all collapses, half of India and Africa and central America will already have
replaced what used to be the American population. The few remaining Americans aside from the
immigrants will be unrecognizable anyway. many will have left. Many more will have been
reduced by failure to procreate and replace themselves. Christians will be a despised,(even
the idiotic Zio-Christians who looked the other way on important issues as long as we were
bombing and killing for their beloved Israel) We will have a dying population as many will
have chosen the gay LGBTQ lifestyle and we are replaced by subservient obedient, uneducated
immigrants who are happy to work for $8 an hour and live in a single room apartment they
share with other immigrant families.
Ukraine was a failed state since day one and it got much worse since US/EU instigated
coup. I don't see any light at the end of tunnel. Zielensky is a more friendly face, but
that's it. He obviously doesn't have power to change the course. He can promise anything
while abroad, but he has to appease the nazis at home or they will get rid of him. In other
words Ukraine is doomed.
Zielensky is more than friendly face...he signed many deals with Putin and behave as
responsible politician who wanna bring normalization and peace. Same forces overthrow
Yanukovitch will try it with Zielensky, because they not wanna peace, but their interest is
war....so Zielensky is in danger.
Ukraine has biggest potential of all countries. Has richest on a planet soil, educated
European population, is poor so money go long way. And of course bridge to forcing Russia
being our ally, and adhere to nationalism, vs being corrupted by globalists.
No ****, it's absurd. The Wretched City was practically unanimous in the screeching about
sending weapons to Ukraine because Crimea voted to join Russia, something they describe up
there as being "annexed". Especially so now because since then Iraq voted to kick the US out
of their country and has been ignored, themselves being "annexed".
This is something that is accepted to a certain degree as a result of Bob Mueller.
Crimea is military important for their security...that why they had naval base there..they
cant afford lose this point and Black Sea....
Soviets were not willing to colonize these satelites like Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. they
were relevant after ww2 and Russians were scared of another war...day they become irrelevant
thanks of new weapons they abandon these states.
I know they are corrupted one...but USA is careless toward Ukraine fortunes...they use
them to provoke conditions to create cold war two...military industry need big enemies for
sake of hundreds bilions usd profits...how would you explain your citizens you pay one third
of budget and no enemies??? so Deep state want cold war two.
More than milion Ukrainians left to Russia...while EU has closed Ukrainian borders...so
who care more of Ukrainian people?
Russians were victims of all of this...red line was Crimea...and Putin did
right...otherwise Russian nuclear security would be doomed if you allow NATO troops to
Crimea.
US politicians not do it first time...did you know most wealthy Kosovian is Magdalene All
Bright?? i live in postcommunist state and whole my life witness western proxies stealing all
valuable stakes here....Communism created state ownership of big industries...domestic
politicians alongside western snakes steal it very ugly way.IN SO CALLED PRIVATIZATION..wheather it is Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania etc. even information networks are owed by westeners....we are absolutely
blackmailed.
Russians and partly Ukrainians did not allow foreigers to entry ...they tried it..here and
there something got, whole 90s was going on this big fight among Russians and plus western
snakes for stakes....Putin created order in it alongside Russian oligarchy and
normalization....that why Russians like him.
Are these idiotic Democrats and Russia haters crazy?
Russia has a population and GDP roughly the same as Mexico and they're on the other side
of the planet (unless you're in Alaska). There is exactly zero chance Russia will invade or
attack Western Europe or the USA.
The USA should be concerned with the USA, and not whether Russia will act to safeguard its
border.
When Soviet Union left...military industry for sake of their profits needed to create big
enemy....they created terrorism and islamic wars......now as it failing apart they need new
enemies..big one to explain you why is necessary to give one third of your taxes into
military toys...so they create conflicts around China and Russia with hope to dig in into
cold war two.
Russians and Chinese have not big corporate bussines behind their military...their
spending is tiny compared to US military industry profits....so they have no interest in
wars...while US seek them.
Be aware Americans...your military is not only milking you, but risking of whole humanity
throwing into military disasters even as an accidents . Putin explained it many
times...computer supersystems can be activated so easily if some misteps happen...
If Quid Pro Que is legal, then the swamp is drained. The swamp isn't doing anything wrong.
They have been following the law all this time. Ask the president.
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!
"... Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship with a weak partner government like this? ..."
"... The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up making the Ukrainian government's argument for them ..."
"... To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy. It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do. ..."
"... These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the problem. ..."
"... Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S. security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course, our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security. ..."
ormer ambassador William Taylor wrote an op-ed on Ukraine in
an attempt to answer Pompeo's question about whether Americans care about Ukraine. It is not
very persuasive. For one thing, he starts off by exaggerating the importance of the conflict
between Russia and Ukraine to make it seem as if the U.S. has a major stake in the outcome:
Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against
Russian attack. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. The relationship between the United States
and Ukraine is key to our national security, and Americans should care about Ukraine.
Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the
West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in
this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with
Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to
our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to
our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if
that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about
our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship
with a weak partner government like this?
The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up
making the Ukrainian government's argument for them. The danger of exaggerating U.S. interests
and conflating them with Ukraine's is that we fool ourselves into thinking that we are acting
out of necessity and in our own defense when we are really choosing to take sides in a conflict
that does not affect our security. This is the kind of thinking that encourages people to spout
nonsense about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If we view
Ukraine as "the front line" of a larger struggle, that will also make it more difficult to
resolve the conflict. When a local conflict is turned into a proxy fight between great powers,
the local people will be the ones made to suffer to serve the ambitions of the patrons. Once
the U.S. insists that its own security is bound up with the outcome of this conflict, there is
an incentive to be considered the "winner," but the reality is that Ukraine will always matter
less to the U.S. than it does to Russia.
If this relationship were so important to U.S. security, how is it that the U.S. managed to
get along just fine for decades after the end of the Cold War when that relationship was not
particularly strong? As recently as the Obama administration, our government did not consider
Ukraine to be important enough to supply with weapons. Ukraine was viewed correctly as
being of
peripheral interest to the U.S., and nothing has changed in the years since then to make it
more important.
Taylor keeps repeating that "Ukraine is the front line" in a larger conflict between Russia
and the West, but that becomes true only if Western governments choose to treat it as one. He
concludes his op-ed with a series of ideological assertions:
To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major
powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy.
It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do.
These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers
awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a
particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric
like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject
illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the
problem.
Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but
the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the
U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of
arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S.
security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course,
our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that
the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security.
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
That too. Ukraine is a split country on pro/anti-Russian attitudes
Rather strong and somewhat anachronistic statement. Ukraine was split prior to 2014.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbas means Ukraine can no
longer be characterized as "split." Probably 1/4 of the population can be considered to be
politically friendly to Russia. Given, say, Latvia's ethnic Russian population, that country is
nowadays probably more "split" than Ukraine.
@AP d in
a frozen conflict zone. After they were fucked by industrial collapse and job loss. Before
that they were fucked by wars, famines and the Bolsheviks. They really can't seem to catch a
break.
Europeans seem to be on the precipice of disaster everywhere. It would be nice to band
together, rather than die while getting hung up on the narcissism of small differences.
Probably just wishful thinking on my part though. I guess Americans can't understand how
important it is for Ukrainians on one side of the Dniepr to show how different they are from
Ukrainians on the other or how different they are from Russians for that matter.
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.
"... The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted (which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair. ..."
"... But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed before 2014. I would say there is less unity now. ..."
"... Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate, but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) ..."
"... The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling you something. ..."
"... The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down. De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky is trying to do) ? ..."
I feel like robber barons in Kyiv have harmed you more through their looting of the country than impoverished Eastern Ukrainians,
who were the biggest losers in the post-Soviet deindustrilization, have harmed you by existing and dying of diseases of poverty
and despair.
It reminds me of how coastal shit-libs in America talk about "fly-over" country and want all the poor whites in Appalachia
to die. I'm living in a country whose soul is totally poisoned. A country that is dying. While all this is happening, whites have
split themselves into little factions focused on political point scoring.
I doubt people like Zelensky, Kolomoisky, Poroshenko and all the rest are going to turn Ukraine into an earthly paradise. They're
more likely to be Neros playing harps, while Ukraine burns.
Looks like your understanding of Ukraine is mostly based of a short trip to Lvov and reading neoliberal MSM and forums. That's
not enough, unless you want to be the next Max Boot.
Ukraine is a deeply sick patient, which surprisingly still stands despite all hardships (Ukrainians demonstrated amazing, superhuman
resilience in the crisis that hit them, which greatly surprised all experts).
The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central
heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations
and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted
(which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair.
And, what is really tragic Ukraine now it is a debt state. Usually the latter is the capital sentence for the county. Few managed
to escape even in more favorable conditions (South Korea is one.) So chances of economic recovery are slim: with such level of parasitic
rent to the West the natural path is down and down. Don't cry for me Argentina.
And there is no money to replace already destroyed due to bad maintenance infrastructure, but surprisingly large parts of Soviets
era infrastructure still somehow hold. For example, electrical networks, subway cars. But other part are already crumbling.
For example, in Kiev that means in some buildings you have winter without central heating, you have elevators in 16-storey buildings
that work one or two weeks in month, you have no hot water, sometimes you have no water at all for a week or more, etc). Pensioners
have problem with paying heating bills, so some of them are forced to live in non-heated apartments.
And that's in Kiev/Kyiv (Western Ukrainians love to change established names, much like communists) . In provincial cities it
is a real horror show when even electricity supply became a problem. The countryside dwellers at least has its own food, but the
situation for them is also very very difficult.
Other big problem -- few jobs and almost no well paid job, unless you are young, know English and have a university education
(and are lucky). Before 2014 approximately 70% of Ukrainian labor migrants (in total a couple of million) came from the western part
of the country, in which migration had become a widespread method of coping with poverty, the absence of jobs and low salaries.
Now this practice spread to the whole county. That destroyed many families.
The USA plays its usual games selling vassals crap at inflated prices (arms, uranium rods, coal, locomotives, cars, etc) , which
Ukrainians can't refuse. Trump is simply a typical gangster in this respect, running a protection racket.
The rate of emigration and shrinking population is another fundamental problem. Mass emigration (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
) is continuing even after Zelensky election. Looting by the West also continues unabated. This is disaster capitalism in action.
Add to those problems inflated military expenses to fight the civil war in Donbass which deprives other sectors of necessary funds
(with the main affect of completely alienating Russia) and "Huston, we have a problem."
May be this is a natural path for xUSSR countries after the dissolution of the USSR, I don't know.
But the destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic: they wanted better life and got a really harsh one. Especially pensioners
(typical pension is something like $60-$70) a month in Kiev, much less outside of Kiev. How they physically survive I do not fully
understand.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbass means Ukraine can no longer be characterized as "split."
I agree that there is a substantial growth of anti-Russian sentiments. It is really noticeable. As well as growth of the usage
of the Ukrainian language (previously Kiev, unlike Lvov was completely Russian-language city).
And in Western Ukraine Russiphobia was actually always a part of "national identity". The negative definition of national identity,
if you wish. See popular slogan "Hto ne skache toi moskal" ("those who do not jump are Moskal" -- where Moskal is the derogatory
name for a Russian). Here is this slogan in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rfqr9afMc
;-)
But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different
ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed
before 2014. I would say there is less unity now.
Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both
categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate,
but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) .
"Donetskie" (former Donbass dwellers, often displaced by the war) are generally strongly resented and luxury cars, villas, etc
and other excesses of neoliberal elite are attributed mostly to them (Donbass neoliberal elite did moved to Kiev, not Moscow)
, while "zapadentsi" are also, albeit less strongly, resented because they often use clan politics within institutions, and often
do not put enough effort (or are outright incompetent), as they rely on its own clan ties for survival.
This sentiment is stronger to the south of Kiev where the resentment is directed mainly against Western Ukrainians, not against
"Donetskie" like in Kiev. And I am talking not only about Odessa. Western Ukrainians are now strongly associated with corrupt ways
of getting lucrative positions (via family, clan or political connections), being incompetent and doing nothing useful.
What surprise me is that this resentment against "zapadentsi" and "Poloshenko clan" is shared by many people from Western Ukraine.
The target is often slightly more narrow, for example Hutsuls in Lviv (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls )
The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist
and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's
why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling
you something.
The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down.
De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders
from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky
is trying to do) ?
Ukraine will probably eventually lose a large part of its chemical industry because without subsidies for gas it just can't complete
even taking into account low labor costs. And manufacturing because without Russian market it is difficult to find a place for their
production in already established markets, competing only in price and suffering in quality (I remember something about Iraq returning
Ukrainians all ordered armored carriers due to defect is the the armor
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705221053859853-armored-vehicles-defects-extent
/). Although at least for the Ukrainian arm industry there is place on the market in countries which are used to old Soviet armaments,
because those are rehashed Soviet products.
Add to this corrupt and greedy diaspora (all those Jaresko, Chalupas, Freelands, Vindmans, etc ) from the USA and Canada (and
not only diaspora -- look at Biden, Kerry, etc) who want their piece of the pie after 2014 "Revolution of dignity" (what a sad joke)
and you will see the problems more clearly. Not that much changed from the period 1991-2014 where Ukraine was also royally fleeced
by own oligarchs allied with Western banksers, simply now this leads to quicker deterioration of the standard of living.
None of Eastern European countries benefited from a color revolution staged by the USA. This is about opening the country not
only to multinationals (while they loot the county they at least behave within a certain legal bounds, demonstrating at least decency
of gangsters like in Godfather), but to petty foreign criminals from diaspora and outside of it who allies with the local oligarchs
and smallernouveau riche and are siphoning all the county wealth to western banks as soon as possible. Greed of the disapora is simply unbounded.
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2016/08/26/the-ukrainian-diaspora-as-a-recipient-of-oligarchic-cash/
Of course, Ukrainian diaspora is not uniform. Still, outside well-know types from the tiny Mid-Eastern country, the most dangerous
people for Ukraine are probably Ukrainians from diaspora with dual citizenship
Of course the USA do not care, but the trend ofter 2014 color revolution financed and
organized by the USA (with Germany Poland and Sweden in supporting roles) is devastating...
@Anatoly
Karlin Donbass people ran with the territories. In addition, half a million Ukrainian
citizens got Russian citizenship in 2019. Optimists put Ukrainian population at 35 million,
pessimists at 22-24 million, but half a million in a single year is a huge number in either
case.
Finally, my interest in the opinions of me (or anything else, for that matter) of various
"svidomy" and "svyadomy" personages is about the same as my interest in the opinions of
cockroaches or ants. In one case, what they fought for has already befallen them, in the
other – the same thing is likely to happen. In both cases Russia should not burden
itself with unnecessary dead weight.
A report by a research unit of the German Bundestag, just released in Berlin, has defied the
narrative of the European Union, NATO and the US, with the conclusion that since the Ukraine
civil war began in early 2014, there has been no reliable evidence of Russian troop invasion or
intervention by regular Russian military forces in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.
After a review of the press, official public releases and reports, as well as European court
rulings, the Bundestag's experts have described the outcome with the German phrase, ohne
belastbares Faktenmaterial – "without reliable fact material."
The Bundestag report, which runs to 17 pages and was completed on December 9, has been noted
in the German-language media. To date, however, it has been ignored by the Anglo-American
press, including the alt-media.
The new German report is entitled "Intervention in civil war zones: The role of Russia
during the east Ukraine conflict". It was prepared by the foreign, international law and
defence department (WD-2) of the Scientific Services Bureau of the Bundestag.
In a preface to the report, the authors say they "support the members of the German
Bundestag with mandate-related activity. Their works do not express the view of the German
Bundestag, its individual organs, or the management of the Bundestag." Responsibility for the
research reporting is "the technical responsibility of the authors as well as the department
management." No authors have been identified by name.
The full German report can be read at the
official website link. No official English translation is available.
For five years Ukrainian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists have been fighting against
each other in the Donbass/Donets Basin," the report says. " The territorial conflict shows
classical identifiers of a non-international (internal) armed conflict. About the extent,
quality and magnitude of the military involvement of Russia during the Ukraine conflict, there
are few reliable facts and analyses aside from the numerous speculations, part-contradictory
reports and press announcements, and denials from different sources. Altogether, however, the
picture of the situation is not unequivocal."
"Also, the Federal [German] Government holds no reliable knowledge, according to its own
information apparently, on how much influence today Russia actually exercises on the
separatists in the East Ukraine that can be described as credible."
The report summarizes western media reports, social media posts, as well as NATO press
releases in order to cast doubt on their veracity. "Reliable information about the parts of the
region of the Ukrainian-Russian border not controlled by Kiev is rare." The German researchers
are also sceptical of claims published by the monitoring mission of the area from the
Organization for Security and Economic Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which "has, in spite of its
comprehensive mandate, only limited access to this area."
For background details of the anti-Russian leadership of the OSCE's special monitoring
mission (SMM) in Ukraine, read
this .
"The question of whether pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region are currently under
control and directed from Moscow, or whether regular Russian troops still remain on Ukrainian
territory cannot be answered without reliable factual material, in particular without the
appropriate and reliable secret service intelligence."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"... I have the feeling , just the suspicion , that they contributed to the Ukrainian disaster out of their genetic Drang nach Osten Nordic greed , is that right ? ..."
"... Anyway since the Ukrainian disaster the cohesion of the EU is going going down . Germany which was gifted with the German reunification , is less and less trusted specially in south Europe , and even less in the EU far west , in England which is going out of the EU . ..."
"... As a curiosity in 1945 the Zionists asked Stalin to give Crimea to the jews , Stalin refused . https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/164673/crimea-as-jewish-homeland ..."
"... is 2019 and life in Ukraine is barely better than it was 25-50 years ago, population has actually dropped from its peak in early 1990's. Millions of Ukrainians live abroad (I know some of them) and have – to be polite – at best an ambivalent attitude towards their homeland. Almost all of them prefer to be somewhere else, even to become someone else. ..."
"... I don't agree with the facile name-calling that sees Nazis everywhere and exaggerates throw-away symbolism. But Ukraine has not been functioning and it can't go like this much longer. Not because it will collapse, it won't, but because during an era of general prosperity Ukraine can't be a unstable exception (oh, I get it, they are better than Moldova, good for them.) ..."
"... Rebellions against geography are doomed. Projecting one's personal frustrations on external enemies (Kremlin!) has never worked. Ukraine needs rationality – accepting that they will not be in EU, that attempting to join Nato would destroy Ukraine, and that they can't beat Russia in a war. And following advise of half-mad and half-ignorant well-wishers from Washington or Brussels is a road to ruin. Nulands, Bidens and Tusks will never live in Ukraine, they really deeply don't care about it. They have no skin in that game, it is just entertainment for them. ..."
"... During WWII, Germany actually established settlements in Crimea. Think about it: there is a massive war, you have like 1-2 years, short on transport and resources, and you start sending settlers to Crimea – that's how much drang-nach-osten types wanted it. And the Turks, etc This must be driving them absolutely nuts. ..."
"... The mexicans say : when God created Mexico He gave Mexico everything ; land , mountains , plains , tropical forests , deserts , two oceans , agriculture , gold , silver , oil . then God saw how beautiful and perfect Mexico was and He though that He should also give something bad to the country to prevent the sin of pride , and then he populated Mexico with pure pendejos ,( idiots ) . ..."
"... If you want a decent analysis of current events in the Ukraine, which is what The Saker provides, I guess you'll just have to put up with his terminology. ..."
"... My experience is that Ukrainians individually are far from being pendejos . But they are unable to act as a group or as a nation. (Well, they 'act', but it mostly somehow fails.) ..."
"... Maybe it is the relative shallow and heterogenous history of Ukraine. Or – and this is what I have observed – a fundamental inner disloyalty to the Ukraine as a homeland. When one observes the assorted Porkys, Timoshenkas, Yanuks, the oligarchs, but also the crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about to leave Ukraine or are thinking about leaving. Societies can't be built with one foot always at the airport, or in an old car in a 5-km column waiting on the border of Poland. Or Russia. ..."
@Alfred I had the same thoughts. Zelenskii should show a similar coffin with the text
"This one is still empty" and then start rounding up the terrorists. He finally has a good
excuse.
Thank you Saker and Unz for the very interesting article .
I wonder what has been the role of Germany in the Ukrainian disaster . ...I have the
feeling , just the suspicion , that they contributed to the Ukrainian disaster out of their
genetic Drang nach Osten Nordic greed , is that right ?
Anyway since the Ukrainian disaster the cohesion of the EU is going going down . Germany
which was gifted with the German reunification , is less and less trusted specially in south
Europe , and even less in the EU far west , in England which is going out of the EU .
Most of the people in the EU would like to keep collaborating with the US , of course ,
but also with Russia and with the rest of the world . Most of the people in the UE are scared
of the dark forces operating in Ukraine trying to provoke a war with Russia .
The stupid name-calling like the term "ukronazi" makes this article look like a rant like
North Korean communiques or the ravings of some Arab despot's propagandist. It is not better
than calling "The Saker" a "Moskal", "Sovok" or "Putler's stooge" etc. He should keep this
lingo to directly "debating" "Ukronazis" on twitter or youtube commentst etc. not for an
article that is supposed to be a serious analysis.
I understand that it is hard for a Russian nationalist to accept that the majority of
Ukrainians don't want to belong to their dream Russkiy Mir, they were seduced by the West,
which is more attractive with all its failings, because mostly of simple materialistic
reasons.
Ukrainians happily go to EU countries that now allow them in as guest workers. The
fact, like it or not that majority of them chose the West over Russkiy Mir despite being very
close to Russians in culture, language, history etc. He is still in the first stage of grief
it seems.
All in all, Ukrainians are probably way above average in most human characteristics. The
area of Ukraine is by planetary standards one of the best available: arable land, great
rivers, Black see, pleasant and liveable.
But it is 2019 and life in Ukraine is barely better than it was 25-50 years ago,
population has actually dropped from its peak in early 1990's. Millions of Ukrainians live
abroad (I know some of them) and have – to be polite – at best an ambivalent
attitude towards their homeland. Almost all of them prefer to be somewhere else, even to
become someone else.
Now why is that? A normal society would have enough introspection to discuss this, to look
for answers. Throwing a temper-tantrum on a big square in Kiev every few years is not looking
for a solution. That is escapism, Orange-this, Maidan-that, 'Russians bad', 'we are going
West', 'golden toilets', and always 'Stalin did it'.
I don't agree with the facile name-calling that sees Nazis everywhere and exaggerates
throw-away symbolism. But Ukraine has not been functioning and it can't go like this much
longer. Not because it will collapse, it won't, but because during an era of general
prosperity Ukraine can't be a unstable exception (oh, I get it, they are better than Moldova,
good for them.)
Rebellions against geography are doomed. Projecting one's personal frustrations on
external enemies (Kremlin!) has never worked. Ukraine needs rationality – accepting
that they will not be in EU, that attempting to join Nato would destroy Ukraine, and that
they can't beat Russia in a war. And following advise of half-mad and half-ignorant
well-wishers from Washington or Brussels is a road to ruin. Nulands, Bidens and Tusks will
never live in Ukraine, they really deeply don't care about it. They have no skin in that
game, it is just entertainment for them.
Or alternatively you can pray that Russia collapses – good luck waiting for
that.
There is not much 'drang' left in Germany, so I think this is mostly fingers on the map
post dinner empty talk.
in 1945 the jewery asked Stalin to give Crimea to the jews , Stalin refused
Crimea is a jewel, but has one big problem: not enough water. But that's also true about
Israel, maybe there is a deep genetic memory of coming out of a desert environment.
During WWII, Germany actually established settlements in Crimea. Think about it: there is
a massive war, you have like 1-2 years, short on transport and resources, and you start
sending settlers to Crimea – that's how much drang-nach-osten types wanted it.
And the Turks, etc This must be driving them absolutely nuts.
The mexicans are able to make fun of themselves , that`s a good thing . They have a joke
which aplies also to Ukraina ( and other countries )
The mexicans say : when God created Mexico He gave Mexico everything ; land , mountains ,
plains , tropical forests , deserts , two oceans , agriculture , gold , silver , oil . then
God saw how beautiful and perfect Mexico was and He though that He should also give something
bad to the country to prevent the sin of pride , and then he populated Mexico with pure
pendejos ,( idiots ) .
@AWM "Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references?
If you want a decent analysis of current events in the Ukraine, which is what The Saker
provides, I guess you'll just have to put up with his terminology.
The world won't miss a thing if Curmudgeon or AWM goes off in a huff, to sit on his toilet
and read the "one joke per dump" volume lodged on the tank and stops reading The Saker's very
thorough analysis as a protest action!
@AnonMy experience is that Ukrainians individually are far from being pendejos .
But they are unable to act as a group or as a nation. (Well, they 'act', but it mostly
somehow fails.)
Maybe it is the relative shallow and heterogenous history of Ukraine. Or – and this
is what I have observed – a fundamental inner disloyalty to the Ukraine as a homeland.
When one observes the assorted Porkys, Timoshenkas, Yanuks, the oligarchs, but also the
crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about to leave Ukraine or are thinking
about leaving. Societies can't be built with one foot always at the airport, or in an old car
in a 5-km column waiting on the border of Poland. Or Russia.
Another good article – thanks – Yep, the US/EU NWO is not going to let their
"West Ukraine Isis" battalions and intel gang lose their funding , arms trafficking ops, or
terrorist reputation. This is a no win situation in Ukraine and the West knows it –
Even if NovoRossiya gets some independence, the Ukraine Isis will/can reek havoc and murder
for a long time along the border. The modern Cheka { Ukraine Isis } has been modified for the
security of the new Farmland owners – Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont and the rest of the
Globalist Corporations and their ports close to Odessa.
One point of contention since it wasn't made clear in this article – Novorussia
consists of Luhansk and Donetsk, but not Kharkov. While Kharkov has more Russians than most
other provinces of Ukraine do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
All of Ukraine's doomsayers have been crying about Ukraine's demise for the lat 25
years, yet the fact is that it' s getting stronger and stronger every year,
USA diaspora keeps on delivering.
Shoutout to quarter/half Poles USA citizens LARPing as Ukrainian patriots in the
comments.
Ukraine is now a pawn in a big geopolitical game against Russia. Which somehow survived 90th when everybody including myself has
written it off.
That's why the USA, EU (Germany) and Russia pulling the country in different directions. But the victory of Ukrainian nationalists
is not surprising and is not solely based on the US interferences (although the USA did lot in this direction) pursuit its geopolitical
game against Russia. Distancing themselves from Russa is a universal trend in Post-Soviet space. And it often takes ugly forms.
So Ukraine in not an exception here. It is part of the "rule". Essentially the dissolution of the USSR revised the result on WWII.
And while the author correctly calls Ukrainian leader US stooges, they moved in this direction because they feel that it is necessary
for maintaining the independence. In other words anti-Russian stance is considered by the Ukrainian elite as a a pre-condition for mainlining
independence. Otherwise people like Parubiy would be in jail very soon. They are tolerated and even promoted because they are useful.
It repeats the story of Baltic Republics, albeit with a significant time delay. There should be some social group that secure independence
of the country and Ukrainian nationalists happen to be such a group. That's why Yanukovich supported them and Svoboda party (with predictable
results).
Notable quotes:
"... The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations. ..."
"... Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort? ..."
"... The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. ..."
"... US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts. ..."
"... US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS. ..."
"... This is : ..."
"... Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11. ..."
"... There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom. ..."
"... A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list. ..."
"... An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west. ..."
"... The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them. ..."
"... I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties. ..."
"... "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". ..."
"... But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy? ..."
"... A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression. ..."
"... I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption. ..."
"... What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. ..."
"... Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis. ..."
The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize
the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants
of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional
negotiations.
Who is the United States government and media supporting? The Nazis . You think I'm joking. Here are the facts, but we must go
back to World War II
:
When World War II began a large part of western Ukraine welcomed the German soldiers as liberators from the recently enforced
Soviet rule and openly collaborated with the Germans. The Soviet leader, Stalin, imposed policies that caused the deaths of almost
7 million Ukrainians in the 1930s--an era known as the Holomodor).
Ukrainian divisions, regiments and battalions were formed, such as SS Galizien, Nachtigal and Roland, and served under German
leadership. In the first few weeks of the war, more than 80 thousand people from the Galizien region volunteered for the SS Galizien,
which later known for its extreme cruelty towards Polish, Jewish and Russian people on the territory of Ukraine.
Members of these military groups came mostly from the organization of Ukrainian nationalists aka the OUN, which was founded in
1929. It's leader was Stepan Bandera, known then and today for his extreme anti-semitic and anti-communist views.
CIA documents just recently declassified show strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.
Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side
of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President.
And who were helping lead
this effort?
Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy was the founder of the Social National
Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader,
Oleh Tyahnybok was
one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests. . . .
Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is
Dmytro Yarosh , the leader of the Right
Sector – a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who
previously boasted they were ready for
armed struggle to free Ukraine.
The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology.
We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia,
which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our
eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine.
US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor
Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints
if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such
facts.
But Viktor Yushchenko is not an American who speaks a foreign language. He is very much a Ukrainian nationalist and steeped in
the anti-Semitism that dominates the ideology of western Ukraine. During the final months of his Presidency, Yushchenko made the
following declaration:
In conclusion I would like to say something that is long awaited by the Ukrainian patriots for many years I have signed a decree
for the unbroken spirit and standing for the idea of fighting for independent Ukraine. I declare Stepan Bandera a national hero of
Ukraine.
Without hesitation or shame, Yushchenko endorsed the legacy of Bandera, who had happily aligned with the Nazis in pursuit of his
own nationalist goals. Those goals, however, did not include Jews. And here is the ultimate irony--Bandera was born in Austria, not
the Ukraine. So much for ideological consistency.
US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open
and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets.
One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS.
This is :
a USAID program with other National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated groups: the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In 2010, the reported disbursement
for CEPPS in Ukraine was nearly $5 million.
The program's efforts are described on the USAID website as providing "training for political party activists and locally elected
officials to improve communication with civic groups and citizens, and the development of NGO-led advocacy campaigns on electoral
and political process issues."
Anyone prepared to argue that it would be okay for Russia, through its Foreign Ministry, to contribute several million dollars
for training party activists in the United States?
What we do not know is how much money was being spent on covert activities directed and managed by the CIA. During the political
upheaval in April 2014 (Maidan 2), there was this news item:
Over the weekend, CIA director John Brennan travelled to Kiev, nobody knows exactly why, but some speculate that he intends to
open US intelligence resources to Ukrainian leaders about real-time Russian military maneuvers. The US has, thus far, refrained from
sharing such knowledge because Moscow is believed to have penetrated much of Ukraine's communications systems – and
Washington isn't about to hand over its surveillance secrets to the
Russians.
Do you think Americans would be outraged if the head of Russia's version of the CIA, the SVR or FSB, traveled quietly to the United
States to meet with Donald Trump prior to his election? I think that would qualify as meddling.
Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not
talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian
citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign
and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending
and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous
to our nation's safety and freedom.
Good post pt.. thanks... i never knew ''the wife of former President Viktor Yushchenko was an American citizen and former senior
official in the US State Department.'' That is informative.. i recall following this closely back in 2014.. the hypocrisy on display
in the usa at present is truly amazing and frightening at the same time.. it appears that the public can be cowed very easily..
On the twitters, you would be accused of "whatabouttism" - which is the crime of excusing Putin's diabolism by pointing out
American interference with the internal politics an elections of other nations. A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes
to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list.
An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the
Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi
state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf.
Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced
in the Slavic sphere as well as the west.
It's not only the US. The EU borg are also meddling. In my country we had a referendum about Ukraine. The population voted "Against"
on the question: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine?"
This was the only referendum that was done since it was implemented in 2015. A second one is being organized on the Intelligence
and Security Services which has controversial parts with regard to access to internet traffic.
This referendum will take place on March 21, 2018 and will probably be voted against because of the controversial elements
(in part because there is still living memory of our Eastern neighbors in the second world war)
These 2 will probably be the last. Our house of representatives have voted yesterday to end the referendum law (with a majority
vote of 76 out of 150 representatives!)
So much for democracy. The reason stated that the referendum was controversial (probably because they voted against the EU
borg). Interesting is that the proposal was done by the party that wanted the referendum as a principal point. This will almost
certainly ensure that the little respect left for traditional parties is gone and they will not be able to get a majority next
elections.
The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader
Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy
Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them.
I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the
victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority
of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people
from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans
until late in the fifties.
Even in the nineties anybody who travelled in Ukraine could feel the tension between East and West. The Russians were certainly
aware of it and mindful not to rip the country apart they cut the Ukrainians an enormous amount of slack. Of course they supported
"their" candidates and shoveled money into their insatiable throats. Only to be disappointed time and again. "Prorussian"
Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People
forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic".
Really the West should have been content with things as they were.
But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As
a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like
asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy?
Really the West (not only the US -the Eu is also guilty) is to blame. It is long past time to get down from the high horse
and stop spreading chaos and mayhem in the name of democracy,
An informative column. The coup & later developments soured me on the MSMedia. I'm an initiate into modern Russian
history: NATO in the Ukraine = WW3!
Some additional history:
A Ukrainian nation did not exist until after WW1; one piece was Russian, another Polish and another Austrian. The Holodomor
is exaggerated for political purposes; the actual number dead from famine appears to be 'only' 2M. It wasn't Soviet bloody mindedness,
it was Soviet agricultural mismanagement; collectivizing agriculture drops production.
They did this right before the great drought of the 1930s - remember the dustbowl. There was a famine in Kazakestan at the
same time; 1.5M died.
The Nazis raised 5 SS divisions out of the Ukraine. As the Germans were pushed back they ran night drops of ordnance into the
Ukraine as long as they could. The Soviets had to carry on divisional level counter insurgency until 1956. After the war, Gehlen,
Nazi intelligence czar, kept himself out of jail by turning over his files, routes & agents to the US. He also stoked anti Soviet
paranoia.
The Brits ended up with a whole Ukr SS division that they didn't want, so they gave it to Canada. Which is why Canada has such
cranky policy around the Ukraine!
A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers
of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk
This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression.
I'm sure you'd like us to ignore Bandera. I bet he liked children and dogs. Just like Hitler. Bandera was a genuine bad
guy. There is no rehabilitating that scourge on society. Nice try though.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your final comment is sarcasm. When you have two senior US Government officials
who will and will not constitute a foreign government, you have gone beyond meddling. It is worse.
The media is hysterical. Today, Putin's Facebook Bot Collaborator contacted the Kremlin before his mercenaries attacked Americans
in Syria.
I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This
is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption.
A World War is near. The realists are gone. The Moguls are pushing Donald Trump pull the trigger. Either in Syria with an assault
to destroy Hezbollah (Iran) for good or American trainers going over the top of trenches in Donbass in a centennial attack of
the dead.
Hallelujah and jubilation! We're in full agreement on this subject. What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A
remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's
bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval
base.
I would definitely want to see a full account of what support we provided to the nazi thugs of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. We
have a long history of meddling, at least twice as long as the Soviet Union/Russia. But that does not mean we should stop investigating
the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Just stop hyperventilating over it. It no more deserves risking a war than our
continuing mutual espionage.
Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian
sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government.
Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis.
As a result of this rebellion, the Russian majority in Crimea overwhelming voted to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which
they had been part of for over 150-years. While our government continues to provide military aid to Israel, which used force of
arms take over the West Bank, it imposed sanctions against Russia when the people of Crimea voted to join their former countrymen.
Mind boggling.
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.
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.
Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Being almost 100% sure that Israeli cornering East Mediterranean gas reserves was a done
deal
and after Cyprus gerrymandered its EEZ under UNCLOS -- and Greece signing up
as pipeline terminus in Europe -- Trump put this cart before horse -- and sanctioned
Nord Stream. Europe was to get Israeli gas. Then Turkey and Libya declared EZZ,
and pipeline cannot go!
Also. there will be other claimants to reserves -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza.
Nice try -- but Israel will not be supplying Germany gas any time soon.
Like it was earlier noted, the "New Detente" isn't perfect, as seen most recently by the US'
decision to impose sanctions on
the companies involved in Nord Stream II's construction, but once again, the state of relations
in general are still comparatively better than their nadir in mid-2014 immediately after the
EuroMaidan coup and Crimea's reunification with Russia. The US is still trying to "contain"
Russia with mixed success, while Russia is undertaking its best efforts to break out of this
"containment" noose and even "flip" some of the US' traditional partners such as Turkey, so the
New
Cold War probably won't end anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, did anybody reasonably
expect that it would, but just like during the Old Cold War, there comes a time when the
involved parties believe that it's in their best interests to proverbially take a break and
enter into a period of detente. It seems as though that phase is only now just beginning but
which has finally borne some fruit after Trump promised to pursue this outcome all throughout
the 2016 campaign.
One can argue over why that hasn't already happened to the extent that he promised (or even
if he was fully sincere in the first place), but the point to focus on in the here and now is
that some tangible progress has finally been made concerning the future of Russia's
trans-Ukrainian gas supplies to the EU. From the looks of it, all the relevant players --
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US -- have concrete interests in seeing that this agreement is
upheld. It's convenient for Russia to continue using existing pipelines, Ukraine wants to get
paid for its transit role, the EU desires reliable but cheap gas imports, and the US recognizes
that this outcome perpetuates the geostrategic role of its Ukrainian proxy that it could then
leverage as a "bargaining chip" for reaching a more substantive "New Detente" with Russia
sometime next year or the one afterwards. That said, while each player has their interests,
they don't exactly trust one another for different reasons, which means that the "New Detente"
might still be offset if any of them decides to play the spoiler or is undermined by their
"deep states".
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
"... Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia. ..."
"... North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks, according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%. ..."
"... Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty... The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies. ..."
"... "As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday. ..."
"... According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe." ..."
"... Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday. ..."
"... They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will win out in the end. ..."
"... The Great Gas Game: Vesti Presents a New Documentary Film About Pipelines and Power youtube.com ..."
"... Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria, ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide. ..."
"... Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only 2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners. ..."
"... to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use of fracking. ..."
own goalnoun: (in soccer) a goal scored inadvertently when the ball is struck into the goal by a player on the defensive team.
Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every
legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia.
So what is the
net effect of all of these sanctions?
The Russian stock market has reached record highs this year but still has room to climb further in coming months before paring
gains towards the end of 2020, a Reuters poll of market experts found... The rouble-based MOEX index has reached an all-time high of 3,009.1 in November, taking its year-to-date gain to over 25%, and
is seen finishing this year at 3,000.
That's not exactly what Washington had in mind.
However the real kicker is
this .
North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks,
according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%.
So what is happening is that Washington is punishing Europe for cooperating with Russia, while turning a blind eye to when their
Wall Street donors cooperate with Russia.
As you may have guessed, this has created some hard feelings
.
Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty...
The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business,"
a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Imagine that: countries making their own policy decisions that don't align with Washington's interests? What's the world coming
to?
Allseas, a Dutch-Swiss private company, is going to be significantly harmed by the newest sanctions, and it will delay the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline (but it will only delay it).
However, there is a
bright side
to all of this.
While it costs Moscow hundreds of millions in lost income and additional investments, the country is benefitting on a geostrategic
and political level.
For a mere $9.5 billion, NS2's price tag, Moscow has unintentionally managed to drive another wedge between key Western allies.
Berlin is furious about the sanctions and its already fraught relations with Washington are set to escalate even further. According
to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe."
What is certain is that NS2 will be completed eventually. Most of the work on the 1,230 kilometer or 765 mile long pipeline has
already been finished. Also, the vast majority of the $9.5 billion in investments have already been spent.
Much like our GWOT, we've reached a point in sanctions where staying the course just makes things worse.
It isn't just Russia. The Muslim world is looking for an
alternative trading system to avoid sanctions that Washington hasn't even threatened yet.
Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against
any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday.
..."I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, referring
to the Islamic medieval gold coin.
"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." The leaders agreed they needed do more business among themselves and trade in each other's currencies.
You know that you are using sanctions too much when other nations expect to be sanctioned by you before you even consider doing
it. As for the gold dinar, this is what was proposed by Libya's former leader Gaddafi, and also what got him eventually
killed .
The most recent batch of Clinton emails reveals perhaps the most bizarre morsel of Blumenthal-baked intelligence to date. An April
2, 2011 memo titled "France's client/Q's gold" quotes "knowledgeable individuals" with insider information about French President
Nicolas Sarkozy's motivation for bombing Libya. The military campaign, the anonymous sources say, was designed to quash plans
by Gaddafi to use $7 billion in secret gold and silver to prop up a new African currency. The French worried the move would undercut
the currency guaranteed by the French treasury, known as CFA franc, that's widely used in West Africa and acts as a strong link
between France and many of its former African colonies. After French intelligence officials got wind of this secret plan, the
Blumenthal memo reports, Sarkozy freaked out: "This was one of the factors that influenced [his] decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya."
Kruschev Many remember the quote "We will bury you". I think he was quoting someone else. Lenin?
But they forget the second sentence. "And the capitalists will sell us the shovel."
Greed is indeed a sickness, a mental illness. Not ordinary greed, but Scrooge McDuck greed. The need to have more more more,
when it cannot possibly make any difference in your life.
Not like the guys I worked with that volunteered for every Holiday, every overtime opportunity. The money did make a difference
there, although one can question whether it is worth it. But pursuing an extra billion when you already have tens of billions?
How much is enough? How high is up.
EDIT:
I'm reminded of the old sitcom "Mama's Family". Dim bulb son, Vinton, hears of a new larger lottery jackpot and says, "Wow! Imagine
how many lottery tickets you could buy with that much money!"
EDIT2:
Like an alcoholic that just drinks more and more until he passes out.
@entrepreneur
that capitalism selects for people with this mental illness. A person with a healthy view of life will never be selected as fortune
500 CEO.
excessive are the mountains of paper they accumulate are still stimulated by acquiring more. #1
And whether it be newspapers solidly packing every room in their homes to a depth of 6 feet, leaving barely a 12" crawl space
between the top of the stacks and the ceiling, or be it a pile of money, more than they and their extended family and descendants
can spend in 100 years, it is hoarding, a mental illness.
They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for
a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will
win out in the end.
Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria,
ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project
involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide.
Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those
investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the
project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only
2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia
could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners.
At the end of WWII most of Europe used coal for energy. The US had a goal to convert Europe to oil, since the US was the major
world exporter of oil. One of the stated reasons was to make Europe dependent on US oil and give the US political leverage over
European countries. So this whole thing is about the US projecting their geopolitical dominance schemes to Russia. As it has turned
out, for more than 70 years Russia and previously the USSR has never done that as a policy. The reason being that once you do
that you lose trust as a trade partner. But this is even worse as the US is interfering in trading among European partners that
has nothing to do directly with the US.
to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the
Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US
has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use
of fracking.
The oil shortage of the 1970's brought about the end of power generation using oil. The US, a major exporter of coal, was pushing
the use of American coal for energy security in Europe
since WWII.
Trump Makes American Coal Great Again -- Overseas
U.S. coal exports have exploded. Can that continue?
April 4, 2018
...
The export boom is the one part of Trump's pledge to help the coal sector that is coming true.
Production ticked up a bit last year after a disastrous 2016 but is still at the lowest level since 1978. And despite plenty
of promises to bring back jobs to coal country, coal mining employment only grew by some 1,100 jobs last year; mining employment
is down about 40 percent since 2012. Meanwhile, closures of coal-fired power plants continue apace, with more than two dozen
plants shutting down early last year alone, which means less domestic demand for coal.
...
And the Trump administration's other policies don't look like they'll end up helping coal much either. The push to increase
exports of natural gas to Europe, Asia, and Latin America undermines the overseas market for U.S. coal, since both can be used
to generate electricity. And as U.S. coal is shipped abroad, its price at home tends to rise slightly -- making coal even less
attractive as a power source there.
"Unfortunately, most of the policies the Trump administration is pursuing inside and outside of energy do not help domestic
coal production," Book says.
It's official: "Freedom gas" is the Worst Phrase of the Year, according to the Plain
English Foundation. But where does the expression come from? EURACTIV did not have to look
far to get the answer
So where does the whole story come from?
On 1 May, EURACTIV's energy and climate reporter Frédéric Simon attended
a briefing with US energy secretary Rick Perry in Brussels. He recalls the events
below.
The four journalists in the room had spent about an hour asking Perry a basic question:
why would Europeans choose to pay for expensive LNG imported from the US when they have
access to cheap Russian gas?
"But my surprise soon turned to dismay when Perry suddenly took a grave face and
started talking about the Normandy landings during WWII for which commemorations were planned
days after."
Here's what Perry went on to say: Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi
Germany occupation, "the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European
continent," the US energy secretary told reporters that day.
"And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied
natural gas," he added. "So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation," he said in
reference to Fred's suggestion about 'Freedom gas' .
####
Quite instructive about the mindset (f/king nuts) they are over in the States. They really
do live in their own universe where no-one picks up their dogs' (and their own) crap. They
neither notice the smell nor link to the slipperyness underfoot to their own actions. They
don't care either.
They like to talk about the European "blood-debt" to the USA.
I don't know what they think a large number of unfortunate young men were doing on Gold,
Juno and Sword beaches in June, 1944, or indeed that there were such beaches. Even moreso,
they are apparently unaware of the over 22 million Soviet citizens who died 1941-1945 during
what is known as "The Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland, 1941-1945"..
Analysts have identified a way to increase the export of Gazprom to bypass the Ukraine The
Eugal pipeline built to deliver gas from "Nord Stream-2 " to end users, will be operating
in 2020, despite US sanctions. "Gazprom" will redirect gas to this pipeline from "Northern
stream-1", experts say
The capacity of the Eugal onshore gas pipeline, built specifically for delivering gas from
the Nord Stream-2 offshore gas pipeline to end users, may allow Gazprom to increase supplies to
Europe bypassing the Ukraine, despite the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions
against laying the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline. , said experts interviewed by RBC.
The Gascade Gastransport operator,
controlled by Gazprom and the German Wintershall Dea , will commission the first of two Eugal
pipelines with a capacity of 30.9 billion cubic metres per year from January 1, 2020 (total
pipe capacity should be 55 billion cubic metres), which will go from German Greifswald on the
Baltic Sea to the south to the border with the Czech Republic, the Eugal press service said on
December 20. And the next day it became known that the European pipe-laying company Allseas had
suspended the construction of Nord Stream-2 (which should pump 55 billion cubic meters per
year) in the Baltic Sea.
Eugal will lay another 36 billion cubic metre capacity OPAL landline, built to pump gas from the first
Baltic gas pipeline of Gazprom and partners, Nord Stream-1, which achieved at full capacity 55
billion cubic metres per year back in October 2012. Since 2013, Gazprom could only use 50% of
OPAL capacity because of restrictions, and in 2016, the company received permission to connect
to 90% of the pipeline capacity. However, in September 2019, Gazprom was forced to reduce gas
pumping through OPAL, and then through Nord Stream-1, because of a decision of the European
Court of Justice, which, in lawsuit filed by Poland, limited supply by almost half – from
90 to 50% of capacity , or up to 18 billion cubic metres per year.
"The launch of Eugal will ensure a full load of Nord Stream-1. About 20 billion cubic
metres of gas per year can be delivered via a new land gas pipeline, which volume was lost
because of restrictions imposed as a result of Poland's victory in court", said Mikhail
Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, to RBC. The remaining 17–20 billion
cubic metre Gazprom can pump through a second branch from the offshore gas pipeline
NEL , which runs only through
Germany to the west of Greifswald, so Poland could not achieve restrictions on its
capacity.
At the peak of capacity, OPAL pumped up to 103 million cubic metres of gas per day owing to
a decision of the European Court to decrease transit to 50 million cubic metre. Last week, it
fell to 12 million cubic metres per day. This is due to an increase of 115 million cubic metres
per day in supplies to the NEL gas pipeline, as well as an increase in transit to Europe
through the territory of the Ukraine, Korchemkin points out.
"Now most of the gas from Nord Stream-1, which continues to operate at its design capacity,
is sent to the markets of northwestern Europe through NEL, that is, the limitation of the use
of OPAL by the decision of the European Court has practically had no affect on the load of Nord
Stream", added Deputy General Director of the National Energy Policy Fund, Alexey Grivach.
According to him, after the introduction of Eugal, part of the gas can go to Central Europe
through a new onshore gas pipeline, depending on the current market needs and the optimization
of Gazprom's export portfolio.
Despite the impending U.S. sanctions, the possibility of using Eugal to pump Gazprom's gas
was recognized in November by Arno Bux, chief commercial officer of gas transmission operator
Fluxys, which is a minority shareholder in Gascade. According to him, since 2020, from 80 to
90% of the Eugal capacity has already been booked for 20 years at auctions. "Since the
transportation facilities are reserved on a ship-or-pay basis (" transport or pay "), the
potential delays of the Nord Stream-2 project do not affect Eugal's revenues", he told
Interfax, noting that the flows from the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 can be routed through
Eugal.
"We cannot predict the volumes that will be transported through Eugal, because it
depends on requests from transport customers", Gascade spokesman Georg Wustner told RBC on
December 23, declining to specify whether gas supplies from Nord Stream-1 will begin on
January 1 through a new onshore pipeline. A representative of Gazprom Export declined to
comment; the press service of Nord Stream AG (operator of the Nord Stream-1 project) did not
respond to a request from RBC.
Lavrov on the 22nd appeared on what looks to be an interesting program on Russia's Channel
One--
"The Great Game Show" with a transcript at the link. Most of the questions deal with
Lavrov's recent trip to the Outlaw US Empire and his meetings with Trump and Pompeo. I found
Lavrov's remarks about Congress most revealing as they're very similar to what he says about
the tiny Russophobic nations other NATO nations seem to feel they can't break with the
overall consensus despite its being idiotic. His response is related to the illegal sanctions
laid against the construction of Nord Stream 2:
"They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these
threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest.
Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security.
Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including
those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.
"I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented,
and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.
"US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but
the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now
shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and
the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including
absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians."
As you read the transcript, you'll realize that this is a very serious program where the
truth of the overall situation is being revealed and remarked upon in a manner that would be
unimaginable here within the Outlaw US Empire, and I presume the program is viewed by a
majority of Russians. It should certainly be read in relation to what Putin said at
his presser on
the topics covered and at the Informal CIS Summit .
Many are busy with their plans for the holidays, and the combined transcripts will take
4-6 hours to read, so perhaps bookmark them to read before New Year when more time's
available.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
"Gazprom has purchased a pipe-laying ship which would allow the company to build undersea
pipelines despite sanctions. The new vessel may be used to build the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline to Europe."
Apparently the Russians think several steps ahead of the Americans.
This article has all one
needs to know about Russia/Gazprom's ability to finish the job abandoned by the Swiss
cowards, although their ships are apparently still on station. Yes, there'll be a delay, but
that won't matter much. Pissing off the Germans was the absolute wrong move!
@80 Jen It is much too late for the Danes to step in and stop Nord Stream 2.
Their permission was required because the pipe enters their economic zone, but once that
permission was given then the pipelaying started on the basis of "good faith". If the Danes
attempted to renege then I would imagine that it would be Russia and Germany who would tie up
Denmark in legal red-tape, not the other way around, and by the time this got to court the
pipeline would be completed and the gas would be flowing.
The USA's only hope now is that its sanctions scare off companies like Allseas, but that
hope relies on the western conceit that Russia is too technologically backward to be able to
take over and finish the job.
But the Russians are very capable, and extremely wily: if you look at my original post you
will see a link from 2016 where the Russians are already spelling out exactly what they
intend to do.
They acquired a suitable pipeline-laying ship at last three years. They admitted at the
time that they acquired it that it made no economic sense for them to acquire such a
ship.
Economics be damned. They bought it because they had to consider the possibility that the
USA is run by a bunch of duplicitous shits.
As I'm following the case closely, a few supplements.
The problem with the high tech Russian pipelaying vessel is that it is deployed in the Far
East and would need months to get to the scene. The Russian Fortuna lacks the technical
permission from the Danes to work in their waters, but it is suspiciously idling at the
German Coast. NorthStream 2 could ask Denmark to get a special allowance for the Fortuna to
work, and that is not so far-fetched as it seems because Denmark has a new government since
last June.
The Fortuna will at least finish the German part of the pipeline. A German court yesterday
has turned down a complaint by environmentalists who are worried about wintering birds.
The sanctions are a huge strategical blunder of the USA. Yes, the Germans are pissed off,
from the bosses of the chemical industry to the "ordinary people". You can almost hear the
tectonic subterranean crack that moves Germany away from the Anglosphere towards Russia.
In German politics, the Transatlanticians are now in the defensive. The most powerful
transatlantic institutions are IMO the various intelligence services, BND, BfV and so on.
They have certainly initiated the "scandal" about the murdered Georgian djihadist (you
remember, two Russian diplomats were expelled immediately) in order to sabotage the Normandy
talks and NordStream 2 and push Merkel to distance herself from Russia. This has failed,
obviously. Stupid white men.
An excellent show from last week. However still relevant with some reminders from the 80s
that are quintessential irony. Sanchez's journalistic delivery is impressive.
Rapoza's latest effort, for Forbes, is his review of the Russia/Ukraine gas deal that
everyone is talking about. His take, in summary, is that Russia did not really have to give
up very much, it would be to Ukraine's advantage to stop fucking around and concentrate now
on the issues, that Ukraine dropped a very large amount in claims in return for not very much
money (although he does not say how likely Ukraine would have been to win them in court, and
my personal opinion is not very), that Nord Stream II will be completed with not a
significant amount of delay, and that Russia can implement the same no-gas-through-Ukraine in
five years if it does not like the way things are going.
As usual, the range of interpretations of gas agreements is wide and full of water. Most of them have hidden recognition of
groundlessness, because even a simple reading of the document requires above average schooling.
Here is this document, where it is written in black and almost white that the parties agreed on such and such conditions:
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians for domestic consumption, although,
to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against
the background of the absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be extremely
inappropriate.
Why?
Because
Gazprom
is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic phenomenon for immature structures and
individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic
at all. There is no word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not Gazprom.
However, the
Naftogaz
fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on the other hand: the board (8 people) will not have
to return millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize according to the results of the
Stockholm Arbitration
. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant
(not to be confused with capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is comparable to all assets, especially
since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5
billion (according to the Chairman of the Board
Kobolev
), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom. Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom
at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit
system of Ukraine, taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "
Nord
Stream-2
" and, secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject of
negotiations:
Point 2.2.3 The organising company [Naftogaz] will contact LLC "Operator of gas transit system of Ukraine" for the
reservation of capacities of the gas transit system of Ukraine
Provided that at the time of reservation by NCSREPU [National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public
Utilities] a
competitive tariff
recognised by the Organising Company and corresponding to the level of gas
transportation tariffs applied in the countries of western and central Europe will be established.
Point 3.2 The Ukrainian side
will take all necessary measures
(create all necessary conditions) by
29.12.19:
for ensuring reliable legal protection of the interests of the client of services [Gazprom] on transit,
predictability, transparency, economic validity, and stability of tariff formation
;
What went on behind the scenes went almost unnoticed:
1. Ukraine's demand for imported gas, which is still falling due to the decline in production capacity, will be covered
from the volumes approved by the agreement (65 billion m3 in 2020 and 40 billion m3 in the following 4 years). The volume of
imports according to various estimates remains at about 20 billion m3 per year. Tariffs will not be applied on all the Russian
gas that Ukraine will consume from pumping on the gas transit system and will be implemented on the territory of Ukraine at
its own expense. The volume subject to a transit tariff will be determined by the difference between the entrance to the
Ukrainian gas transit system and the exit to Europe.
2. All preliminary talk about gas discounts for Ukraine was not included in the agreement. Thus, the price of gas remains
the subject of bargaining and is inevitably dependent on the transit tariff: the higher the price of transit – the higher the
price of gas and, accordingly, vice versa.
3. In fact, the issue of direct gas supplies to Ukraine is not worth discussing at all. I.e., in the event of a
non-agreement on the price, all gas will come to Europe, Ukraine will earn from transit, but these earnings will be offset by
the increased price of gas on the reverse. Thus, even in the event of pumping all gas to Europe, earnings from transit,
according to experts, will not even cover the cost of servicing the Ukrainian gas transit system.
Lastly, Gazprom – which is not Russia, but behind whose back Russia certainly stands, and was opposed by both Ukraine and
the European Union, represented by the European Commission, as well as the United States with its global interests – managed,
at a minimum, to minimise its tactical losses and preserve strategic Russian interests.
The gas war appears to have retreated, but the most interesting thing is yet to come.
I linked a Russian newspaper article above which analysed the deal and in which it was
pointed out that the $3 billion that Gazprom coughed up is 1% of the annual turnover of that
company. And another thing that the article pointed out was that the deal is between Gazprom
and Naftogaz notRussia and the Ukraine. In return for that $3 billion,
which will be pocketed by many Yukitard bastards, I am sure, Gazprom's never ending
altercations with the Yukie gas outfit over compensation and claims and counter-claims have
had a line drawn under them. I suppose that's really why the Porky bloc in the rada is taking
action against the deal: they fear that their nice little earner is being stifled, in that
penalties imposed by arbitration courts against Gazprom have seemingly ended.
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians
for domestic consumption, although, to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries
immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against the background of the
absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be
extremely inappropriate.
Why?
Because Gazprom is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic
phenomenon for immature structures and individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly
forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic at all. There is no
word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not
Gazprom.
However, the Naftogaz fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on
the other hand: the [Naftogaz] board (8 people) will not have to return
millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize
according to the results of the Stockholm Arbitration. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the
claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is
less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant (not to be confused with
capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is
comparable to all assets, especially since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian
gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5 billion (according to the
Chairman of the Board Kobolev), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom.
Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing
the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit system of Ukraine,
taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "Nord Stream-2" and,
secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject
of negotiations
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam, Lebanon,Somalia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending wars are expensive
was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
"... November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization, from far-right to far-left. ..."
"... After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution. ..."
"... Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik, will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting land]," said Bortnik, ..."
"... "But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2] ..."
"... Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. ..."
"... For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share" was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate. ..."
"... Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates. ..."
November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the
IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural
lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular
decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization,
from far-right to far-left.
After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only
asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from
the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill
on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish
the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution.
Ukraine's fertile soil up for grabs
It has long been known that Ukraine's soil is very fertile. Indeed, during WW2 the invading Nazis made a point of appropriating
quantities of it; forcing POWs to collect the top soil and load it onto trains en route to Germany. Now these same lands could fall
into the hands of international agro-holdings.
Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power
under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik,
will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting
land]," said Bortnik,
"But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model
is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At
least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition
under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2]
Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable
to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. Obviously,
their financial desperation will mean that many will have to sell their land at a low price, certainly well below the market value.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the poorest country on the continent of Europe and Ukrainian agricultural land remains the cheapest. Moreover,
the lands may be bought up as repaying large loans collected by the Kiev government following the Euromaidan coup in 2014.
This scheme of buying up Ukraine's land is connected with the ongoing corruption scandal in the US: the one related to Joe Biden
and the gas company 'Burisma'. At the end of November, Ukrainian MPs (non-factional people's deputy Andrey Derkach; a deputy from
the Batkivshchyna Party Aleksey Kucherenko; and a deputy from the ruling Servant of the People party, Aleksandr Dubinsky) revealed
it at the press-conference [3].
The point here is that the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Nikolay Zlochevsky , an owner of "Burisma" gas company, in 2014
introduced a number of Western politicians to the board of directors of his company, which helped him to avoid accusations of corruption.
Hunter Biden , son of former US Vice President Joe Biden , received monthly large payments for his "consultancy services". As a result
Ukraine's General prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the corruption schemes of the company, was forced – under
pressure – to resign by Joe Biden, who even boasted about it in the US media.
Ukrainian MPs have now claimed at a press-conference that the money used to bribe the son of the former Vice President of the
United States was in fact stolen. "Biden received money, the source of which is not the successful activity of Burisma, brilliant
business moves, or recommendations. It is the money of the citizens of Ukraine. It was obtained by criminal means," said the MP Andrey
Derkach. The ultimate goal of all this fraud, in which the Bidens were deeply involved, will be the bankruptcy of Ukraine in 2020-2021,
through the formation of a pyramid of public debt.
Laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine
According to Ukrainian deputies, this was a part of a bigger laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine via Latvian banks
and the fund 'Franklin Templeton Investments,' which is close to the United States Democratic Party. The founder of the foundation,
John Templeton Jr., was one of the main sponsors of the campaign of former US President Barack Obama.
For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share"
was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's
general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton
Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate.
The principle of this scheme is that with the assistance of American funds, the laundered money was legalised and invested in
government bonds at 6-8% in dollars and 15-17% in Ukrainian currency (hryvnia). This is leading to enormous growth in the Ukrainian
public debt and eventually the bankruptcy of the country's economy.
Eventual bankruptcy of the economy
Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these
debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards
the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates.
According to him, bankruptcy on the debts could happen by the end of 2020 or 2021.
And this scheme is connected with land privatization, as adopted by Kiev in November in accordance with the IMF demand. "DGBs
are a financial instrument by which the state owes all its property when paying off the DGB. And if the land market is opened, the
state will have no other valuable property, with the exception of land," said Dubinsky, demanding the suspension of debt payments
to international creditors.
As a result of this unpopular land reform and the widespread violations of labour rights, Ukraine's trade-unions called a general
strike [5] for November 14 and began preparations. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, a strike committee was
formed at the all-national level. This committee was joined by trade unions, individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, agricultural
producers and farmers.
Management fires workers, pays themselves millions in bonuses
On November 14, Ukrainian railroad workers protested [6] in front of the Presidential office in Kiev against the announced plans
to fire some 50% of railroad personnel. The workers demanded the railroad management should resign instead. The deputy head of the
railroad trade-union, Alexander Mushenok, recently said [7] that currently "only 20 workers are employed where 60 workers are needed."
At the same time the workers claim that the top-level management of the company are paying themselves millions in bonuses. One of
the IMF demands requires that the Kiev authorities privatize the railroad system as well. In practice, this means that the few profitable
routes will be privatized by western companies, while the majority of non-profitable routes – to poorly developed provinces – will
remain state-owned, making the railway transport even less profitable.
The entire course of privatization, as promoted by the IMF, can be summarized by the principle 'privatization of profits, nationalization
of losses." And the new Kiev government is far too dependent to protest against the imposition of this policy; however, this will
effectively mean that this government will lose its credibility and trustworthiness among the people.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
Looks like both Yovanovich and Hill are connected to Soros and did his bidding instead of pursuing Trump policies as for
Ukraine. Yovanovich was clearly dismiied due to her role in channeling damaging to Trump information during 2016 elections,
the fact that she denies (as she denied the exostance of "do not procecute list"). And nothing can be taken serious from a
government official until she denied it.
Notable quotes:
"... Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a hate figure on the far right. ..."
"... This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros." ..."
"... "My entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties." ..."
"... "When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to "this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well." ..."
"... Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role. ..."
Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security
Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including
antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a
hate figure on the far right.
In her testimony to Congress, Hill described a climate of fear among administration
staff.
The UK-born academic and biographer of Vladimir Putin said that the former ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was the target of a hate campaign, with the aim of driving her from
her post in Kyiv, where she was seen as an obstacle to some corrupt business interests.
Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine in May on Trump's orders. In a 25 July conversation
with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump described Yovanovitch as "bad news"
and predicted she was "going to go through some things". The former ambassador has testified
she felt threatened by the remarks.
Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, led calls for Yovanovitch's dismissal, as did two of Giuliani
business associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. All three are under scrutiny in hearings being
held by House committees looking at Trump's use of his office to put pressure on the Ukrainian
government to investigate his political opponents.
"There was no basis for her removal," Hill testified. "The accusations against her had no
merit whatsoever. This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be
baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros."
"I had had accusations similar to this being made against me as well," Hill testified. "My
entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls,
conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been
giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with
all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties."
She added that the former national security adviser, HR McMaster "and many other members of
staff were targeted as well, and many people were hounded out of the National Security Council
because they became frightened about their own security."
"I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbours
reported somebody coming and hammering on my door," Hill said, adding that she had also been
targeted by obscene phone calls. "Now, I'm not easily intimidated, but that made me mad."
"When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to
"this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to
basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well."
In Yovanovitch's case, Hill said: "the most obvious explanation [for the smear campaign]
seemed to be business dealings of individuals who wanted to improve their investment positions
inside of Ukraine
itself, and also to deflect away from the findings of not just the Mueller report on Russian
interference but what's also been confirmed by your own Senate report, and what I know myself
to be true as a former intelligence analyst and somebody who has been working on Russia for
more than 30 years."
Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy
theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role.
The list contains some (but not all) of the key participants of the 2014 coup d'état
against President Yanukovich. There are 13 names in the list: MPs Serhiy Leshchenko, Mustafa
Nayem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Serhiy Berezenko, Serhiy Pashynsky; ex-Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk; ex-Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Hontareva; ex-First Deputy of the
National Security and Defense Council Oleg Hladkovsky; judge of the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine Makar Pasenyuk; candidate for presidency Anatoly Hrytsenko; singer Svyatoslav Vakarchuk;
journalist Dmytro Hordon and ex-Head of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin.
Pashynsky was involved in Snipergate. Yatsenyuk was the marionette chosen by Nuland to head
the Provisional government after Yanukovich will be overthrown.
Almost all of these people from the list were involved in various sort of scandals during
the last five years. Particularly, Oleg Hladkovsky was recently dismissed from his post due to
the corruption scandal in the defense sphere. Serhiy Leshchenko became known for the purchase
of the flat for $275,253 and the number of information attacks at well-known politicians and
businessmen. Serhy Pashynsky was tied to the hostile takeover of a confectionary factory in
Zhytomyr.
In its turn, the U.S. Department of State stated that the
words of Lutsenko are not true and aims to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. Thus, there are certain concerns that the actual list might be fake.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The House is holding its second public hearing with former US envoy
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch centring around her ouster which, according to her, is pertinent
to the impeachment probe against Trump. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
flatly denied allegations that she circulated a list of potential corruption targets in Ukraine
that the United States did not want prosecuted, according to testimony at the opening of
hearings in the House impeachment probe of President Donald Trump on Friday.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a do not prosecute list
was a fabrication", Yovanovitch said. "Mr Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general
who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr
Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead I
advocated the US position that rule of law should prevail."
US President Donald Trump in a series of tweets on Friday
criticised former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's performance while she was
testifying in the impeachment hearing against him. He defended his decision to replace
Yovanovitch - appointed by his predecessor Barak Obama - as the US ambassador to Ukraine, where
she served from August 2016 until May 2019.
....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The U.S. now has a very
strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is
called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for
Ukraine than O.
During Friday's Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko a "do not prosecute list" in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on
left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko "acknowledged that the list never existed" in
April.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a "Do Not Prosecute" list
was a fabrication,"
Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee . "Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian
prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I
did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not
prosecute."
"That is such a lie," Glenn Beck said on Friday's show. "She should be held for
perjury."
During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats' corruption in Ukraine, Glenn
debunked what he called "the most misleading fabrication I've ever seen by the mainstream
media."
Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John
Solomon reported Lutsenko's claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of
"people whom we should not prosecute" during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon's article
was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.
When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch "gave" him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him
anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn't prosecute.
"They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down
himself -- are you kidding me?" Glenn exclaimed. "This is how the media is fact-checking and
debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine's republic. They are planting
dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that
reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning
parts of this entire case."
If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV . With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch
great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations
that let BlazeTV tell the stories
the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what
the media doesn't want you to see.
Read More
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that
aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute
list during their first meeting.
"Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave
me a list of people whom we should not prosecute," Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told
Hill.TV last week.
"My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president
nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,"
he continued.
The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an
outright fabrication."
"We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The
United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General's Office
(PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in
the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for
genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive
projects."
Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.
Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was
actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never
received."
"At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance
worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue," he said. " At that
time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil
servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption
policy."
"Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that
we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy
did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually
rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor
general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied
there was no problem."
"The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen
for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it," he said.
Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents
Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as
ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.
"... Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but many of us will never know... ..."
"... They certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for "the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism. ..."
In my July 25th article " Zelenskii's dilemma " I pointed
out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii's crushing victory over Poroshenko: while
a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers
of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:
The various "oligarchs" (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters Arsen Avakov's internal security forces including some "legalized"
Nazi death squads The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii) The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups
inside the Ukraine The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine The so-called "Sorosites"
(соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop
of Ukrainian blood and then run
These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed
and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot
shrinks with every passing day,
Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these
groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii's presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii
was, indeed, in " free fall ": instead of becoming
a "Ukrainian Putin" Zelenskii became a "Ukrainian Trump" – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element,
whose only "policy" towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then
even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about "Ze" being little more than a "Poroshenko 2.0".
More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.
... ... ...
Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the "Russian" one. I have
outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:
The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy
nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their
word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
... ... ...
Some of the threats made by these Ukronazis are dead serious and the only person who, as of now, kinda can keep the Ukrainian
version of the Rwandan " Interahamwe " under control would probably be Arsen Avakov, but since he himself is a hardcore
Nazi nutcase, his attitude is ambiguous and unpredictable. He probably has more firepower than anybody else, but he was a pure "
Porokhobot " (Poroshenko-robot) who, in many ways, controlled Poroshenko more than Poroshenko controlled him. The best move
for Zelenskii would be to arrest the whole lot of them overnight (Poroshenko himself, but also Avakov, Parubii, Iarosh, Farion, Liashko,
Tiagnibok, etc.) and place a man he totally trusts as Minister of the Interior. Next, Zelenskii should either travel to Donetsk or,
at least, meet with the leaders of the LDNR and work with them to implement the Minsk Agreements. That would alienate the Ukronazis
for sure, but it would give Zelenskii a lot of popular support.
Needless to say, that is not going to happen. While Zelenskii's puppet master Kolomoiskii would love to stick this entire gang
in jail and replace them with his own men, it is an open secret that powerful interest groups in the US have told Zelenskii "don't
you dare touch them". Which is fine, except that this also means "don't you dare change their political course either".
...are going through the famous Kübler-Ross stages of griefs: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance: currently,
most of them are zig-zagging between bargaining and depression; acceptance is still far beyond their – very near – horizon. Except
that Zelenskii has nothing left to bargain with.
Thank you for a rational article about Ukraine. The sad thing is that it might take years to reach the "acceptance" phase.
It would take someone like Hitler to clean out the stables. Arrest is not a viable option as they will bribe their way out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs. That is the only way to put an end to their mischief and it would be a deterrent
to their replacements.
Personally, I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel. Another
country that is still in the "denial" phase. Its military and political leaders know full-well that their strategic aims have
all failed. The boot is now firmly on the other foot.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous it has all become, the UK no longer accepts medical degrees awarded by universities in Crimea.
Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but
many of us will never know...
I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel.
You got that right – what it's all about is building a New Khazaria. But they're neither giving up on their Greater Israel
project between the two rivers, and hence more wars, conflict and chaos to drive out the native Arabs from the Middle East.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
@AWMThey certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for
"the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part
of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism.
@bob sykes Kolomoiskii is the real hidden owner/controller of the company that bribed the Bidens. He has a finger in lots
of pies. His pretense to leaning towards Russia is his way to try to get the Americans to stop attempts to get at the many millions
that he stole from his own Ukrainians bank – fake loans to his companies.
Of course, the Russians understand all of that. This theater is aimed at the Americans – not at the Russians.
For the Ukrainian state to break up, there need to be some forces interested in a break-up. You won't find such forces inside
the Ukraine.
What is Ukrainian South-East? In pure political terms, "South-East" is a bunch of oligarchs, who are all integrated into Ukrainian
system, and have no reason to seek independence from Kiev, especially if it means getting slapped with Western sanctions.
Even the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
It's worth pointing out that the so-called "Novorossia movement" started out as Akhmetov's project to win concessions from
new Kiev regime. It was then quickly hijacked by Strelkov, a man who actually wanted to break up the Ukraine, and it is because
of Strelkov, that Donetsk and Lugansk are now de-facto independent. Without similar figures to lead secessionist movements elsewhere
in the Ukraine, this break-up that Saker keeps talking about will never happen.
His ratings must be sky-high, because otherwise I cannot imagine why Fox would allow him to continue to use their network as
a medium to broadcast common sense.
Of course the Dems are making it so easy.
Schiff, Kent, Taylor, Yanovitch -- what a pathetic, nauseating crew.
@Alfred I had the same thoughts. Zelenskii should show a similar coffin with the text
"This one is still empty" and then start rounding up the terrorists. He finally has a good
excuse.
Thank you Saker and Unz for the very interesting article .
I wonder what has been the role of Germany in the Ukrainian disaster . ...I have the
feeling , just the suspicion , that they contributed to the ucranian disaster out of their
genetic Drang nach Osten Nordic greed , is that right ?
Anyway since the Ukrainian disaster the cohesion of the EU is going going down . Germany
which was gifted with the german reunification , is less and less trusted spetially in south
Europe , and even less in the EU far west , in England which is going out of the EU .
Most of the people in the EU would like to keep collaborating with the US , of course ,
but also with Russia and with the rest of the world . Most of the people in the UE are scared
of the dark forces operating in Ukraine trying to provoke a war with Russia .
The stupid name-calling like the term "ukronazi" makes this article look like a rant like
North Korean communiques or the ravings of some Arab despot's propagandist. It is not better
than calling "The Saker" a "Moskal", "Sovok" or "Putler's stooge" etc. He should keep this
lingo to directly "debating" "Ukronazis" on twitter or youtube commentst etc. not for an
article that is supposed to be a serious analysis.
I understand that it is hard for a Russian nationalist to accept that the majority of
Ukrainians don't want to belong to their dream Russkiy Mir, they were seduced by the West,
which is more attractive with all its failings, because mostly of simple materialistic
reasons. Ukrainians happily go to EU countries that now allow them in as guest workers. The
fact, like it or not that majority of them chose the West over Russkiy Mir despite being very
close to Russians in culture, language, history etc. He is still in the first stage of grief
it seems.
All in all, Ukrainians are probably way above average in most human characteristics. The
area of Ukraine is by planetary standards one of the best available: arable land, great
rivers, Black see, pleasant and liveable.
But it is 2019 and life in Ukraine is barely better than it was 25-50 years ago,
population has actually dropped from its peak in early 1990's. Millions of Ukrainians live
abroad (I know some of them) and have – to be polite – at best an ambivalent
attitude towards their homeland. Almost all of them prefer to be somewhere else, even to
become someone else.
Now why is that? A normal society would have enough introspection to discuss this, to look
for answers. Throwing a temper-tantrum on a big square in Kiev every few years is not looking
for a solution. That is escapism, Orange-this, Maidan-that, 'Russians bad', 'we are going
West', 'golden toilets', and always 'Stalin did it'.
I don't agree with the facile name-calling that sees Nazis everywhere and exaggerates
throw-away symbolism. But Ukraine has not been functioning and it can't go like this much
longer. Not because it will collapse, it won't, but because during an era of general
prosperity Ukraine can't be a unstable exception (oh, I get it, they are better than Moldova,
good for them.)
Rebellions against geography are doomed. Projecting one's personal frustrations on
external enemies (Kremlin!) has never worked. Ukraine needs rationality – accepting
that they will not be in EU, that attempting to join Nato would destroy Ukraine, and that
they can't beat Russia in a war. And following advise of half-mad and half-ignorant
well-wishers from Washington or Brussels is a road to ruin. Nulands, Bidens and Tusks will
never live in Ukraine, they really deeply don't care about it. They have no skin in that
game, it is just entertainment for them.
Or alternatively you can pray that Russia collapses – good luck waiting for
that.
There is not much 'drang' left in Germany, so I think this is mostly fingers on the map
post dinner empty talk.
in 1945 the jewery asked Stalin to give Crimea to the jews , Stalin refused
Crimea is a jewel, but has one big problem: not enough water. But that's also true about
Izrael, maybe there is a deep genetic memory of coming out of a desert environment.
During WWII, Germany actually established settlements in Crimea. Think about it: there is
a massive war, you have like 1-2 years, short on transport and resources, and you start
sending settlers to Crimea – that's how much drang-nach-osten types wanted it.
And the Turks, etc This must be driving them absolutely nuts.
The mexicans are able to make fun of themselves , that`s a good thing . They have a joke
which aplies also to Ukraina ( and other countries )
The mexicans say : when God created Mexico He gave Mexico everything ; land , mountains ,
plains , tropical forests , deserts , two oceans , agriculture , gold , silver , oil . then
God saw how beautiful and perfect Mexico was and He though that He should also give something
bad to the country to prevent the sin of pride , and then he populated Mexico with pure
pendejos ,( idiots ) .
@AWM "Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references?
If you want a decent analysis of current events in the Ukraine, which is what The Saker
provides, I guess you'll just have to put up with his terminology.
The world won't miss a thing if Curmudgeon or AWM goes off in a huff, to sit on his toilet
and read the "one joke per dump" volume lodged on the tank and stops reading The Saker's very
thorough analysis as a protest action!
@Anon My experience is that Ukrainians individually are far from being pendejos .
But they are unable to act as a group or as a nation. (Well, they 'act', but it mostly
somehow fails.)
Maybe it is the relative shallow and heterogenous history of Ukraine. Or – and this
is what I have observed – a fundamental inner disloyalty to the Ukraine as a homeland.
When one observes the assorted Porkys, Timoshenkas, Yanuks, the oligarchs, but also the
crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about to leave Ukraine or are thinking
about leaving. Societies can't be built with one foot always at the airport, or in an old car
in a 5-km column waiting on the border of Poland. Or Russia.
Another good article – thanks – Yep, the US/EU NWO is not going to let their
"West Ukraine Isis" battalions and intel gang lose their funding , arms trafficking ops, or
terrorist reputation. This is a no win situation in Ukraine and the West knows it –
Even if NovoRossiya gets some independence, the Ukraine Isis will/can reek havoc and murder
for a long time along the border. The modern Cheka { Ukraine Isis } has been modified for the
security of the new Farmland owners – Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont and the rest of the
Globalist Corporations and their ports close to Odessa.
One point of contention since it wasn't made clear in this article – Novorussia
consists of Luhansk and Donetsk, but not Kharkov. While Kharkov has more Russians than most
other provinces of Ukraine do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
All of Ukraine's doomsayers have been crying about Ukraine's demise for the lat 25
years, yet the fact is that it' s getting stronger and stronger every year,
USA diaspora keeps on delivering.
Shoutout to quarter/half Poles USA citizens LARPing as Ukrainian patriots in the
comments.
@Felix KeverichEven the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the
Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
Follow the money my friend!
Some provinces send much more money to Kiev then they get back in "services". So long as
more loans from the EU, The USA and the IMF were forthcoming, that situation was not too bad.
Now, the spigot is being closed. Hence the sad face of Mr Z when he met Trump in
Washington.
This means that the provinces that are losing most from this internal transfer are going
to be strongly motivated to stop sending money to Kiev. Kiev will lose control and that will
fragment the country.
The Donbass was a big contributor to Kiev and got little in return – that was a
major reason for their dissatisfaction. Everyone there could see that Kiev sent the money
west and kept much for itself.
If the French provinces were to stop sending money to Paris, the Yellow movement would be
totally unnecessary.
@awry About 2.5 million Ukrainians have "emigrated" (you could also say "fled") to the RF
since 2014.
Per Bloomberg most of the outflow not to Russia has been to countries of Eastern Europe, esp.
Poland.
@AP "Ukraine was historically a marsh of Poland for centuries before it was a historical
marsh of Russia"
That was mostly Galicia and Volhynia. It is a tiny part of today's the Ukraine. In these
areas, the Poles were landowners, the Jews their rent/tax collectors and the peasants were
Ukrainian-speaking Slavs. Now, they are planning to sell the best farmland to "foreigners"
(i.e. Jews) and the Slavs will become serfs once again.
@Mr. Hack The problem with your argument is that the 'war' in the east was entirely
predicable. So was Crimea leaving and joining Russia. The people in charge in Kiev –
presumably with 3-digit IQ – would think about it, plan for it, etc They obviously
didn't. Instead they provided a needed catalyst to make it worse by voting in February 2014
to ban Russian language in official use, and the idiotic attacks on Russian speakers like in
Odessa, that were neither prevented nor punished. The other side – in this case Russia
and Russian speakers living in Donbas and Crimea – rationally took care of their own
interests. Post-Maidan Kiev handed them all they could on a silver platter while busying
themselves with silly slogans and videos of golden saunas.
Russia is actually one of the least susceptible countries to an economic collapse in the
world – it is largely self-sufficient, has enormous resources that others will always
buy, and has a very minimal percentage of its economy that deals with foreign trade. What
they are susceptible to is the loss of value for their currency – and that has already
largely happened since 2014. When it comes to energy, the countries that are low-cost
producers are least impacted – who you should worry about are the numerous higher-cost
producers like US shale, coal miners, or LNG gas that have huge upfront fixed costs and
built-in high transportation costs. Russia and Saudis will be fine.
Back to the drawing board, what exactly is the plan in Kiev? If they know that having a
war costs them investments, how do they end that war? It is highly unlikely that it would end
with a victorious Kiev army conquering Donetsk (or Crimea). So what's the plan?
It's amazing how spectacularly inept all these interventions over the last decades have been.
Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, the coup in Turkey but also Ukraine.
And I know that in the ME, the Isrseli policy, as iterated by Michael Orin is to let all
sides bleed each other to death, and that part has been relatively successful until
recently.
But in Ukraine, they were going to consolidate their control over the country from Kiev
and force-march the Russians out of Sevastopol. And that part didn't work at all, except as
leverage to impose sanctions on Russia; but the long term goal of using Ukraine to overthrow
Putin is now stuck in the Donbas.
My point being that it is the great fortune of the world that these criminal nitwits and
fools in the State (War) Department and their helpers in the "intelligence" community are so
arrogant and incompetent.
@Anon Merkel (who herself was studying in Donetsk for few months) definitely has a hand
in ze EuroUkrainian mess.
Afterall she met with Right Sector representatives one dayt before the final, bloody part
of the coup started. And that meeting of "reporting on delivering at our commitments and
asking Merkel about her delivery of her commitments" both with the next day start of "offence
at the government" was announced by Right Sector yet another day before, 16 February
2014.
However i have reservations about Merkel representing German peoples, especially some
alleged "genetical" trend of them to invade eastwards.
It was public, that Merkel's everything including public phone is spied upon by USA
"intelligence community", and Merkel considered it normal and proper.
So it is clearly stated what she considers her allegiance and whom she considers her
employees. Not citizens of Germany.
"Each of these countries is as inorganic and disunited as Ukraine, or worse, made up as they
are of various racial and ethnic groups who don't identify with each other."
I am dubious about this suggestion. But more importantly, Ukraine or the Ukraine has had a
violent revolution about every ten years. You simply cannot develop a stable government,
economy or safe social system if you you overturn the the government via violence every ten
tears.
That is the key differences and essential to any successful government, and more so for a
democracy that holds as innate belief, a tolerance for difference even competing ideas held
by its population. It is as if the only the only we are exporting is revolution as solution
to differences.
@Mr. Hack > Russia has never been able to lead with a carrot, but only with a stick.
Russia offered dozen billions of loans and years ahead orders for Ukrainian industries.
Those that Yatzenyuk begged to be re-started when he destroyed democratic government of
Ukraine.
EuroMaidan tried to stole the carrot from Ukraine, and while it succeeded in stealing what
Ukraine already picked, about 10%, the rest was kept safe of usurpers' reach, and so they
started looting Ukrainian economy instead. Hrivna fallen 3-fold – more than ruble.
> Positive outside influence into Ukraine's internal development in the form of
investments and economic development
EuroMaidan usurpers stopped real and ongoing investments from China and Russia by looting
what investments arrived into Ukraine already. But at least they got $5 billions of
investments from Nulland.
I like how "economic development" is listed as "outside influence". I thought that any
state or nation would claim being capable of their own economic development, but for
EuroMaidania it is quoted as some miracle that can only be given from outside.
> foreign investments being delayed until the war in the east is resolved
And that was why EuroMaidan usurpers invaded Donbass and started the war. To preclude
investments from the West after they stopped investments form China and Russia.
> create a chaotic situations
EuroMaidan proponent blaming chaotic situations. Precious. "Bees against honey"
movement.
> Since the West changed the dynamics of the energy game around the world
Did it? how exactly? By making Ukrainian pipelines liability no one wants to touch with a
pole?
> It's learned to better feed itself, and that's about it
But that is exactly what Ukraine knew how to do, and what EuroMaidania can not do.
While Russia is gaining this experience – EuroMaidania was and is destroying it, for
the sake of being "not like Russia". Way to go!
> One more jolt like in 2014
You mean the one when rouble fallen two-fold and hrivna three-fold?
Guess if the West could do it again – they would. But they can't.
> where are Russia's automobiles, televisions, medical equipment, computers,
pharmaceuticals etc; within the world markeplace?
Russia is not packaging consumer goods. Russia is sending technologies, which others pack
as consumer goods.
Ukraine could become one of those salesmen, packing Russian technologies into pretty wraps
and selling around.
EuroMaidan usurpers feared that and prevented that.
EuroMaidan even destroyed Antonov company, which was one of just 4 companies in the world
capable of building large airframes. Ensuring AirBus+Boeing+Tupolev/Ilyushin would have one
competitor less. And as Antonov was el-cheapo vendor with strategy based on dumping –
it was especially dangerous for Russian company, of the three. Thank you, guys, for removing
this riddance out of Russian pathway. You did great service!
@Hapalong Cassidy Beckow> the crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about
to leave Ukraine or are thinking about leaving.
You do not need to "have a feeling"
The promise of "visa-less living and working in EU" was exactly what EuroMaidan crowd
paraded as their aim and treasure, somehow magically warranted by the "Deep Association" that
Yatzenyuk and Poroshenko later dragged feet for months, trying to delay signing of this
economy suicide pact.
They were very public and honest about it. They claimed Yanukovich was somehow putting
ball and chain on them all by giving the second thought to orders from Brussels. Aid in
leaving Ukraine was the price they sold Ukrainian economy for. Ther were never shy in 2014 to
speak about it.
Hapalong Cassidy> While Kharkov has more Russians than most other provinces of Ukraine
do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
There is a point. Kharkov in North-East and Odessa in South-West were trading cities,
routing the official and smuggled goods streams and hosting the largest foreign goods
markets. This clearly had impact upon mindsets of citizens and even more of cities
elites.
People in Kharkov went to the streets right after the coup commited and without support
they were at least equally numerous to all-Ukraine sponsored gathering of EuroMaidan #2.
But their leaders did not seek for independence, Kharkov city mayor Kernes openly shook hands
with Andrey "White Fuhrer" Byletsky and expressed his care about his (not Kharkov citizens)
safety in the night of Rymarskaya street murders, 2014 March 14th AFAIR.
People in Kharkov went against nazi from westernmost Ukraine regions (and even policemen)
and stormed those out of their district government building. Who else did then?
They had a huge impulse, but they also focused the most efforts from usurpers to deflect
and dissipate it. And little free resources the usurpers had back then.
Month later, in April, Kharkov was exhausted and pacified. But other regions of Ukraine were
overlooked those two months.
However, it was that first month which gave people in Donetsk and Lugansk both time and
examples to understand what is really going on (it was almost unbelievable that something
like that can actually happen in XXI century in Europe, wasn't it?) and learn their Ukrainian
elites are prostituting them, and then find some other leaders which would have enough skin
in the game to not sell them out.
You may rightly say Kharkov citizens did not resist for long. But have to admit the
resistance of Donbass and Lugansk was in significant part based upon time Kharkov bought them
in March and April 2014, and upon self-exposing that Kharkov's fleeting but furious
resistance forced EuroMaidan usurpers into.
"All, repeat, ALL the steps taken to sever crucial economic and cultural links between Russia
and the Ukraine were decided upon by Ukrainian leaders, never by Russia who only replied
symmetrically when needed.
Even with international sanctions directed at her, Russia successfully survived both the
severance of ties with the Ukraine and the AngloZionist attempts at hurting the Russian
economy. In contrast, severing economic ties with Russia was a death-sentence for the
Ukrainian economy which has now become completely deindustrialized."
No wonder saker deletes posts to his website containing info like these:
The top trade partner of *the* Ukraine is Russia. So his thesis is a little 'shoddy math'
ish. The links have not been severed as he pretends.
" the severance of ties with Russia " The Ukraine is more tied to Russia than any other
country, by recent trade volumes (as well as in traditional culture). Saker doesn't like
these facts to muddy up his thesis.
This means that the provinces that are losing most from this internal transfer are going
to be strongly motivated to stop sending money to Kiev.
You don't get it. Ukraine's South-Eastern provinces are inanimate objects . They
have no consciousness, no self-interest or free will. They don't decide anything.
Donbass never decided to break away from the Ukraine. That choice was made for it by
Strelkov, when he and his men occupied Slovyansk and began an armed confrontation.
@Anon The Ukraine used to export something like $20 billion worth of goods to Russia
annually. It's now closer to $5 billion, and Ukrainians are a lot poorer as a result.
@Felix Keverich The point is saker maintains it is completely de-industrialized. It is
'dead'. Total trade of >40 B all partners, isn't dead by a long shot. See what he says?
'Death sentence'. Far from it. A decrease isn't death. No doubt there has been a plunge. But
saker is over stating it. Russia is still a center of gravity for the Ukraine.
I am so sick and tired of hearing the term nazi this and nazi that when referring to the
situation in the Ukraine. The term nazi died in 1945 and should be left dead and buried. It
was a stupid word created by the British during the war because of their inability to
pronounce the German name for the NSDAP. The British and American media have a fetish for the
word and will call any "right-wing" movement "nazi" if given any opportunity. This shows
their total lack of creativity to come up with anything new and their deep obsession with
anything to do with Hitler which borders on religious worship. I say get rid of the usage of
the word on this site unless one is referring to the actual NSDAP party that existed until
1945.
@AWM You are an absurd cretin. Of course referring to current Ukraine as being controlled
by Nazi's is 100% accurate.
Ukronazis and Hitler Nazi's have many alignments with eachother:
1. Bizarre, fundamentally paganist usage of ahistoric/religious images from a millenia ago
as national symbols that should have had no connection to national identity of either state
in the 1930's or now ( swastika and Tryzub) even the UPA flag has more sense about it to any
"Ukrainian " state
2. Mass arrests and persecution of political opponents I'm fairly sure that Ukronazi's
have arrested ( and maybe even killed) far more people in their first 5 years, that the
Nazi's ever did in their 6 year, pre-war time in charge
3. Mass killing and torture of the people of the Donbass- now take on board this is with
Russia fighting the war of fighting the war that they are not even there and Russia/DNR/LNR
basically conducting huge talks with west/Banderastan and making huge concessions every time
they have been in a a hugely advantageous position or made a big breakthrough in the war.
Even Nazi's wouldn't have used such a lousy pretext for instigating war against the people of
Donbass – although at least the Nazi's could govern their state ukrops can't govern f
** k all without it descending into farce
4. Above average representation of freaks and/or highly camp idiots Goebbels, Goering and
Ribbentrop versus Avakov, "Yats" the yid, Poroshenko, Turchynov and many more – a
lamentable contest
5. Neither would have got off the ground without Anglo-American funding
Just because the Nazi's in the 30's and 40's were more competent does not take away the
similarities
Structural bottlenecks and slow reform progress lead to anemic growth in Ukraine
The rate of economic growth in Ukraine remains too low to reduce poverty and reach income
levels of neighboring European countries. Following the 16 percent cumulative contraction of
the economy in 2014-15, economic growth has recovered to 2.4 percent in 2016-17 and 3.3
percent in 2018. Faster economic growth for a sustained period of time is needed to reduce
poverty which remains above pre-crisis levels. More needs to be done if Ukraine's aspiration
is to become a high-income country and to close the income gap with advanced economies. Today
Ukraine is far from that goal. In terms of GDP-per-capita, Ukraine remains one of the poorest
countries in the region -- at levels of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia. Ukraine's GDP per
capita in purchasing power parity terms is about three times lower than in Poland, despite
having similar income levels in 1990.
At the growth rate of recent years, it will take Ukraine more than 50 years to reach income
levels of today's Poland. If Ukraine's productivity growth and investment rate remains at the
low levels observed in recent years, overt the medium-term the growth rate will converge to
almost zero per annum -- productivity growth is offset by declining contribution of labor as
Ukraine undergoes the demographic transition. Boosting total factor productivity growth to 3
percent per year and investment to 30 percent of GDP would result in sustained growth of
about 4 percent per year over the medium- to long-term. Given declining total population this
translates to GDP per capita growth of about 4.5 percent per year. These trends will not
improve on their own, they can happen only through the implementation of appropriate policies
that boost productivity and increase the returns on factors of production.
1. It does not split trade to industries. Hi-tech big added value and lo-tech slim added
value – falls into the same "total"
2. It only shows one snapshot, not YoY dynamics.
3. The column "Export Product" shows exactly the same value – literally, 100% –
for ALL the countries, all the rows. I wonder what we should deduce from it
2012 – $19,8B
2013 – $17,6B – the start of the coup
2014 – $15B – the coup won power but did not entrenched yet and did not had time
yet to enforce its ideals
2015 – $9.8B – the work started
2016 – $4.8B – 80% of 2012 exports are cut off, EuroMaidan means business
2017 – $3.6B – 82% of 2013 exports are cut off, coming to plateau ?
2018 – $3,9B – a slight rebound, plateau reached
@bob sykes I'd dismiss this, as Putin is apparently doing. Kolomoisky is looking who else
would provide money that he can steal. He, Porky, and others of their ilk stole Western loans
so blatantly, that even US-controlled IMF is balking at giving Ukraine more money. So,
Kolomoisky hopes that Russia will, so that he has more to steal. I hope that his hopes are in
vain.
The entire Ukraine farce can be explained as a simple project
Khazaria 2.0.
I met a Jew (American) in Ukraine over 20 years ago.
He told me the plan Jews were returning to historically Jewish cities in Ukraine by the
hundreds buying up for kopecki on the Gryvnia anything they could.
Media outlets, banks, factories, beachfront land, farmland, apartments, etc.
The idea? Make Ukraine the next EU Country, and benefit from the huge potential of
Ukraine.
I agreed with him at the time, that Ukraine had huge potential, I was there as an engineer
working for German companies but his lust for what could be 'looted' disgusted me.
This is a standard CIA scenario, used in Sarajevo and Deraa before Kiev. So, Ukrainians
bought an old stale show, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
But the Georgian snipers brought in 2014 to Kiev by Saakashvili started dying in
suspicious circumstances, so those who are still alive rushed to Belarus and started deposing
their testimony. They implicated a lot of Ukies, including former speaker Parubii, former MP
Pashinsky, etc. It was well known (to those who did not keep their eyes wide shut for
political reasons) that the sniper fire in 2014 on Maidan was from the building controlled by
the coup leaders, who later tried to blame Yanuk for it. That's why post-coup Ukrainian
authorities got rid of the trees on Maidan: bullet holes in those trees indicated where the
fire was coming from. But this recent testimony implicated particular people, who (surprise,
surprise!) happened to be among the coup leaders.
@Truth3 The truth is that you are absolutely right. 'Ukrainians' boasted that they are
the 'Khazars' since Mazeppa and Orlyk of the 'Constitution of Bendery' fame, while parading a
distaste for 'the adherents of deceitful Judaism' and noisy adherence to Orthodoxy.
Look at this entry of the http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and see if
anything changed:
"After Mazepa's death, on 16 April 1710, Orlyk was elected hetman, with the backing of
Charles XII of Sweden, in Bendery. The chief author of the Constitution of Bendery, he
pursued policies aimed at liberating Ukraine from Russian rule. He gained the support of the
Zaporozhian Host, concluded a treaty with Charles XII* in May 1710, and sought to make the
Ukrainian question a matter of international concern by continuing Mazepa's attempts at
establishing an anti-Russian coalition ** . Orlyk signed a treaty with the Crimean khan
Devlet-Girei in February 1711, negotiated with the Ottoman Porte, which formally recognized
his authority over Right-Bank Ukraine and the Zaporizhia in 1712, conducted talks with the
Don Cossack participants in Kondratii Bulavin's revolt who had fled to the Kuban, and even
contacted the Kazan Tatars and the Bashkirs. In 1711–14 he led Cossack campaigns
against the Russians in Right-Bank Ukraine. Despite initial victories they ultimately failed,
because of Turkish vacillation and because the pillaging, raping, and taking of many civilian
captives by Orlyk's Crimean Tatar allies resulted in the loss of public and military support
on the Right Bank".
Nowhere does the 'first "European" constitution' speak about 'ukrainians', but of 'Exercitu
Zaporoviensi genteque Rossiaca" (Zaporozhian Host and the Ruthenian people) living in
"Parva Rossia"/Little Russia.
* putting Ukraine under the protection of the King of Sweden.
** an plot of 'European' and Islamic powers with an intense 'Masonic-Kabbalistic' coloring
(and Jewish financial support) against Russian 'Tsardom' and 'Patriarchal' Church. 'Ukraine'
was an anti-Russian project from the get go. Brzezinski's quip: "Ukraine, a new and important
space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an
independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a
Eurasian empire" reflects only the revival of the old plan in new circumstances.
@Seraphim " Brzezinski's quip: "Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian
chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot "
Old Zbieg was as lunatic as Pole can be and as cunning as Jew can be (was he?).
The Poles were so desiring to became Slavic superpower, and on the height of their might
in 15th century – they could become. They occupied Russian lands – oh, that
mythical Kievan Rus oppressed by Moscow for centuries. And they even occupied Moscow for few
months – more than unified Europe managed to do under both Napoleon and Hitler
combined! Polska was really stronk then.
.well, they ate themselves from inside and sold their statehood to all the foreign bidders
while boasting about Polish pride. Like ukropeans do today. They lost their strength, they
lost their eastern colony, and for a while they even lost Poland itself.
They could never move over it.
Zbieg – coming from Galicia, the last shrink of Poland-occupied lands – had
this specifically Polish resentment burning in him. And he managed to make USA fight Polish
fights. Managed to use American incompetence in history and geography to sell them that idea
that the Ukraine – the borderlands between Poland and Russia have "geopolitical"
importance. For USA, no less. Wow!
Okay, USA invested at very least $5B into buying Ukrainian warchiefs, and we don't know
how much more was added by EU and Germany. They now have this "geopolitical asset" as Zbieg
urged them to do. What are they gonna do with it now? How do they gonna make Ukrainians pay
back the money they spent? Old Zbieg preached about the world "paid by Russia to fight
against Russia". This is that very "Russia, occupy the Ukraine finally, we are tired of
fruitless waiting!" whining they repeat again and again. But if this won't work, just like it
did not work yet, how do they think to make Ukrainians pay for it? Or whom else? I wonder
@Arioch "> My point is the ukraine isn't dead. It isn't dying.
In which quality? As a swath of land inhabited by few peasants here and there – it
surely will remain.
As an economically vibrant country, one of UN founders, with economy larger than German and
closing on France – what it used to be – it is dead.
As a laws-bound polity it is dead since 2014, though was dying even before.
As STEM engineering and education stronghold it was in USSR – it is dead.
As one in just four in the whole world producers of really large airplanes – it is
dead.
As one of the few ICBM producers – it is dead, know-how sold to Saudi.
As one of the few turbojet engines producers – it is dead, know-how sold to China.
As one of the reliable and well known tanks and APCs producer – it is dead, even
USA-occupied Iraq does not buy this trash.
As the country, living from the geographic rent, just providing roads and hotels for cargo
traffic, it is almost dead. Bridges are collapsing, roads – neither for cars nor
railways – are not maintained."
Bravado, anyone can see.
Dead countries don't produce electricity. Real economists look at things like this. Not
just at industrial reorganization. That is the only point you have. Industrial
reorganization. Not death of industry.
@Anon BTW, most *live* countries of the world do not produce ICBMs, nor jet engines, nor
APCs etc, nor super heavy aircraft. The military industrial complex remnants from the SU are
not industries that most of the planet's countries have. Specialties. Those can not be
measures of whether a country is living or dead. Use some real measures.
@Anon Actually a good point. Mass cargo logistics and energy generation. Indeed.
The thing here is, that as of now the Ukraine is enjoying its privileged position from
times Ukrainians ruled USSR (IOW, after Stalin died in 1953 and of few coup leaders Khruschev
became top dog in 1956). The Ukraine is reeking with then top-tech nuclear power plants, that
very few of other USSR republics had (one in Ignalina in Baltics, one in Armenia, and dozen
in Russia, that is all. Ukraine was #2 with huge gap).
There is a switch, though. What do you do with electricity you produced?
And, what kind of electricity you produce?
The second question is tangential to "green energy" fad.
The generation is split to "base" generation, which covers required minimum and should be
steadily generating around the clock, and "maneuvering" generation which can be turned on and
off in a matter of few minutes, to accommodate with daytime traits, like "people awoke in
between 7-8am, took shower, cooked breakfast and departed to school/work".
In general, base generation is predictable, thus does not need big reserves, can use economy
of scales and cut costs. Maneuvering one has to increase costs, dealing with unpredictable
mode changes and extra wearing it puts on the equipment and employees.
The first question, as you can not pour electricity into a tank and keep it for months
there, can be roughly split to
1) use at home, for things like washing, cleaning, entertaining (TV, computers), air
conditioning in summer and heating in winter.
2) use in industries, this is perhaps what "real economists" look for. Those should had less
daily spikes, they might even have near constant consumption around the clock.
3) export to the countries, who need it, but does not want to build their own power
plants
The export is significant thing. There is so called Byrshtyn Island, a constellation of
power plants in Western Ukraine, that was cut off from Ukrainian grid and plugged to Polish
grid, to act as maneuvering damper for Polish citizens' daylight cycles.
You chart shows that between 2014 and 2015 there was strong (about 2000 GWH) decrease in
production, which remained more or less stable after that. It also shows huge seasonal
variation.
It probably means Ukrainian industries and households enjoy a lot of winter-time heating, but
very little of summer-time AC. Just like it was built during USSR times.
Ukrainian electricity export seems rising. Were there new power plants put to service? I
did not heard. Then it means that domestic consumption shrunk.
There was also a streak of Nuclear Power Plants accidents in the news of 2017-2019.
This can stem from two factors:
1) increased reliance on NPP as other power plants go belly-up, especially forcing those
giant NPPs into maneuvering modes, which they were not designed for. You can find news
sources that Ukrainian NPPs were being tested to 105% of normative capacity and to
maneuvering modes, the modes that just do not make sense when together.
2) decreased maintenance
Anyway, those NPPs are of old Soviet design of 1980-s, they are closing to end of life.
We'll see if new ones will be built. Or if they will just be used regardless of aging until
some hard failure, "run to the ground". And what will come after.
Of course, as long as they operate – no mater how harmful to locals – EU will
buy cheap energy.
And since EuroMaidan government is living on debts, it will have no choice than to sell. Even
if domestic power consumption will get zero, the EU will buy the power.
But I do not think EU would invest into building new power plants there when Soviet ones
finally crack.
@Anon Indeed, only Airbus and Boeing can produce super-heavy aircrafts.
China and Russia are contenders. Ukraine used to be, but stepped out.
Does it mean, USA and France are hell-bent over their military industrial complex?
Maybe.
Does it make them run worse?
Bombardier and EmBraer factories are bought by Airbus and Boeing, not vice versa.
Avro of Canada once used to be a pillar, now is memory.
And all the other countries have to kiss up to political powers that allow them purchasing
Boeing and Airbus jets and maintenance as a privilege for their lapdogging.
Iran wanted to buy Airbus badly, how did it work out?
So, yeah, specialties. Those specialties that can not be replaced – for master
races.
And those that can easily – for lapdogs.
New Zealand can produce good beef. But so can Brazil and Argentina. And Ukraine too.
But Brazil can not produce irreplaceable large cargo aircrafts. And even mid-size they can
not produce independently.
All nations are completely artificial along with the gods, ideologies, fiat money & all
the rest if the human fictions. If humans went extinct overnight would the US, Russia et al
still exist? No, nor would their thousands of gods.
That little trick with the maps can be done with many countries. The US is a fine example.
1st map = 13 colonies – keep adding new maps for every new state they added after
France paid for & won US independence & include the theft/conquest of Mexican
territory & Hawaii.
The Ukraine is a huge basket case made much worse by the US, but your (Orlov too) Rabid
Russian nationalism blinds you. IOW, like the empires propagandists, you too are spinning a
narrative, albeit more truthful than empires, but a narrative (emotional) nonetheless.
@Dr Scanlon Maybe we just compare real Ukraine with what it was promised to become?
Michael Saakashvili, 2014-08-26, "Exactly one year from today Ukraine would send
humanitarian aid to Russia. Mark my words.". I am still trying to find that aid around me, no
luck
There also was a much more extended timetable, year by year, how Ukraine would rocket to
the future and how Russia would fall down to middle ages. Wanted to re-read it but could not
find.
@Anon Or yea, sure. Even Ukrainian statistics (which in terms of reliability might be
somewhat better than Nostradamus, at least sometimes) report 53 births for 100 deaths, with
the population shrinking due to this differential alone by more than 200,000 per year. If you
count in emigration, the picture becomes very bleak. Millions work in Russia, Poland, and
elsewhere. Mind you, temporary emigration for work easily becomes permanent. For example, I
have a cousin who used to live in Lvov. He worked in Russia for 20+ years, and since 2014
never visited Ukraine. I guess he is still counted, as he remains a Ukrainian citizen.
@Mr. Hack OK, let's go to the original of the constitution 'ratified' by "His Majesty the
King of Sweden" (cum consensu S-ae R-ae Maiestatis Sueciae, Protectoris Nostri/with the
consent of His Majesty the King of Sweden, our protector):
"It is no secret that Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky of glorious memory, with the
Zaporozhian Host, took up arms and began a just war against the Polish Commonwealth for no
other reason (apart from rights and liberties) except their Orthodox faith, which had been
forced as a result of various encumbrances placed on it by the Polish authorities into union
with the Roman church. Similarly, after the alien new Roman religion had been eradicated
from our fatherland, he with the said Zaporozhian Host and Ruthenian [Rossiaca] people,
sought and submitted himself to the protection of the Muscovite tsardom for no other
reason than "that it shared the same Orthodox religion". Therefore, if God our Lord, strong
and mighty in battle, should assist the victorious armies of His Royal Majesty the King of
Sweden to liberate our fatherland from the Muscovite yoke of slavery, the present newly
elected Hetman will be bound by duty and put under obligation to take special care that no
alien religion is introduced into our Ruthenian [Rossiacam] fatherland. Should one, however,
appear anywhere, either secretly or openly, he will be bound to extirpate it through his
authority, not allow it to be preached or disseminated, and not permit any dissenters,
MOST OF ALL THE ADHERENTS OF DECEITFUL JUDAISM, to live in Ukraine, and will be bound to make
every possible effort that only the Orthodox faith of the Eastern confession, under
obedience to the Holy Apostolic See of Constantinople, be established firmly for ever
and be allowed to expand and to flourish, like a rose among thorns, among the neighbouring
countries following alien religions, for the greater glory of God, the building of churches,
and the instruction of Ruthenian [Rossiacis] sons in the liberal arts. And for the greater
authority of the Kievan metropolitan see, which is foremost in Little Russia [Parva Rossia],
and for a more efficient administration of spiritual matters, His Grace the Hetman should,
after the liberation of our fatherland from the Muscovite yoke, obtain from the Apostolic See
of Constantinople the original power of an exarch in order thereby to renew relationship with
and filial obedience to the aforementioned Apostolic See of Constantinople, from which
it , was privileged to have been enlightened in the holy Catholic faith by the preaching of
the Gospel".
"neque ignotum est, gloriosae memoriae Ducem Theodatum Chmielniccium cum Exercitu
Zaporoviensi non ob aliam causam praeter iura libertatis commotum fuisse iustaque contra
Rempublicam Polonam arma arripuisse, solum pro Fide sua Orthodoxa, quae variorum
gravaminum compulsu a potestate Polonorum coacta fuerat ad unionem cum Ecclesia Romana;
post extirpatam quoque e patria Neoromanam exoticam Religionem, non alio motivo cum eodem
Exercitu Zaporoviensi genteque Rossiaca protectione Imperii Moscovitici dedisse et libere se
subdidisse, solum ob Religionis Orthodoxae unionem. Igitur modernus neoelectus lllustrissimus
Dux, quando Dominus Deus fortis et potens in praeliis iuvabit felicia sacrae S-ae R-ae
Maiestatis Sueciae arma ad vindicandam patriam nostram de servitutis iugo Moscovitico
tenebitur et debito iure obstringetur singularem volvere curam fortiterque obstare, ut nulla
exotica Religio in patriam nostram Rossiacam introducatur, quae si alicubi clamve , palamve
apparuerit, tune activitatem suam extirpandae ipsi debebit, praedicari ampliarique non
permittet, asseclis eiusdem, PRAESERTIM VERO PRAESTIGIOSO IUDAISMO cohabitationem in Ucraina
non concedet et omni virium conatu sollicitam impendet curam, ut sola et una Orthodoxa Fides
Orientalis Confessionis sub obedienta S-tae Apostoiicae sedis Constantinopolitanae in
perpetuum sit firmanda, atque cum amplianda gloria Divina, erigendis ecclesiis exercendisque
in artibus liberalibus filiis Rossiacis dilatetur, ac tanquam rosa inter spinas, inter vicina
exoticae Religionis Dominia virescat et florescat. Propter vero majorem authoritatem
primariae in Parva Rossia sedis Metropolitanae Kiiovensis faciliorique in Spiritualibus
regimine, impositam sibi idem Illustrissimus Dux vindicata patria nostra de iugo Moscovitico
geret provinciam circa procurandam et impertiendam a sede Apostolica Constantinopolitana
Exarchicam primitivam potestatem, ut hoc actu renovetur relatio et filialis patriae nostrae
obedientia ad praefatam Apostolicam sedem Constantinopolitanam, cuius praedicatione Evangelii
in Fide Sancta Catholica illuminari firmarique dignata est".
ТHЕ PYLYP ORLYK CONSTITUTION,
1710@http://www.lucorg.com/block.php/block_id/26
@Anon > Also, check construction spending – click on 10 year
.now how can i account there for the fact, that UAH in 2013 costed three times more than
UAH in 2015 ?
> Farming is an industry.
Grain industry – is low added value one, it is highly competitive market because
grain from any country on Earth is just grain.
USSR used to buy grain, as it sponsored bread production and peasants all around were
buying bead to feed their hens, goats, pigs, etc. Official meat production was large too.
It is definitely better to export at least something than nothing. But it also is better
to export high added value goods.
Before WW1 a minister of Russian Empire said "Let our peasants starve but we will export
all the grains we contracted" – few years later Russian Empire ceased to exist.
In 1931 and 1932 Stalin tenfold decreased then banned grains export breaking the
contracts. 15 years later USSR won WW2.
Franlky, it is just weird that Ukraine and Russia together produce most world's traded
grain, like there is no other fertile soil on Earth. Also Russia and Ukraine are both to the
north from USA, so USA should be able to produce more grains in its warmer climate. Why isn't
USA world #1 grains exporter?
and EU just whimsically bans Ukrainian meat beyond some arbitrary quota.
EU will easily find where to buy meet.
Can Ukraine reciprocate by banning Airbus or Boeing purchases? I wonder
EU can pressure Ukrainian government, and Ukraine can do little in defense.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Semyon Vindman (né Aleksandr Semyonovich Vindman) and his
identical twin brother, Yevgeny, were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, Soviet Union. After the death of their mother, the three-year-old twins
and their older brother, Leonid, were brought to New York in December 1979 by their father,
Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's 'Little-Odessa' neighborhood. The twins appear
briefly with their maternal grandmother in the Ken Burns documentary The Statue of Liberty.
Vindman speaks fluent Russian, Ukrainian (& probably Hebrew).
I will posit that Vindman holds citizenship in: Ukraine, USA, & Israel. Dual-Citizens
violate US Law, to wit the 1940s Nationality Act. I will NOT delve into the tangled
loyalties, ambitions and/or 'greatness' expectations of Colonel Vindman in this post.
Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this
capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and Moscow, Russia. Returning to
Washington, D.C. he was then a politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from
September 2015 to July 2018.
The Honorable Gordon David Sondland, United States Ambassador to the European Union, is
probably ending his stint, today.
Ambassador Sondland was born to a Jewish family in Seattle, Washington, the son of Frieda
(Piepsch) and Gunther Sondland. His mother fled Europe before the Second World War to
Uruguay, where after the war she reunited with his father, who had served in the French
Foreign Legion. In 1953, the Sondlands relocated to Seattle where they opened a dry-cleaning
business. Sondland has a sister 18 years his senior. He attended the University of Washington
but dropped out and became a commercial real estate salesman.
Does Ambassador Sondland hold dual-citizenship? Dual citizenship violates the 1940
Nationalities Act.
@Arioch Germans will likely be fleeing Germany in fairly large numbers as the Islamic /
African takeover picks up steam. Same for Swedes from Sweden (soonest), French from France,
English from England.
Ukraine is emptying out and has cheap land and space for new housing to be built, or old
houses to be replaced or thoroughly renovated. The Western Europeans need somewhere safer and
more civilized to run now that they have invited hostile invaders into their countries. It
could be a match made in heaven.
Ukraine could offer only permanent residency, not citizenship, and it could require that
white euro refugees pay in advance for a year or two years of good private medical and dental
insurance so that they don't burden the already-broke Ukrainian treasury.
Let the Germans and other euro reinvigorate the Ukrainian economy -- possibly for a steady
two decades or more -- by buying supplies and hiring workers and machinery to build or
renovate several million houses. They have savings and pensions and can afford a lot in
Ukraine. The Ukrainian treasury would take in massive receipts in VAT and other taxes paid by
the euro permanent residents and by newly employed Ukrainians working on the refugees' new
homes.
Ukrainian hospitals and dental offices could upgrade their equipment, staff, training, and
capabilities enormously with the ongoing infusion of western euro refugee funds.
The euro refugees needn't change the demographic and cultural composition of Ukraine much
longer-term, because they will, at least at first, mostly be people age 55-60 and up who can
afford to retire and give up their careers in their home countries to flee East. They'll be
beyond their childbearing/raising years. And, if the Ukrainians are wise, the western euros
will never be eligible for citizenship (I.e. they will never be able to vote the same suicide
for Ukraine as many of them allowed in their home countries).
Far, far better for Ukrainians to (1) have their own children and (2) stop antagonizing
russia and work out favorable energy and other trade deals. But since neither of those is
happening or seems likely in the near future, Ukraine should seek a steady infusion of
peaceful, reasonably intelligent, culturally compatible white Europeans to help occupy the
territory (instead of hostile aliens, the alternative) and spend billions of Euros from
Ukrainian businesses and shops.
Odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is when a country's government
misappropriates money it has borrowed from another country. A nation's debt is considered
odious debt when government leaders use borrowed funds in ways that do not benefit its
citizens, and to the contrary, often oppress them. Many believe individuals or countries
doing the lending must have known, or should have known, of the oppressive conditions upon
offering the credit.
@RadicalCenter Putin would be too old in ten years. What Russia needs is a decent
successor, as intelligent and far-sighted as Putin, who would be interested in the country
more than in his pocket, like Putin. While traitorous scum like Gorby or Yeltsin has no
chance, the greatest danger is that someone nationalistic but not particularly smart rises to
the top.
Putin understands the key thing: Russia does not need to do anything about the Empire or
its EU vassals, they are their own worst enemy. As the saying goes, when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere.
As far as Baltic vaudeville states are concerned, to the best of my knowledge (which might
be faulty: I only visited Russia three times in the last 28 years, spending less than two
months total there), most Russian residents are not interested in the Baltics.
Now that the port at Ust-Luga works at almost full capacity, Baltics aren't even useful
economically: Russian exports mostly bypass them. Besides, placing NATO troops into these
"countries" creates a significant financial and military burden on NATO, which is in the best
Russian interests.
So, from Russian perspective, the same rule applies to Baltics and Ukraine (whatever
remains of it in 5-10 years): "you broke it – you own it". So, the West would have to
do something about those territories. Considering current policies of the EU, they will be
populated by Muslims and Africans. Russian attitudes changed a lot in the last decades
regarding Baltics and in the last five years regarding Ukraine: a lot of Russians believe
that even Muslims and Africans are smarter than aborigines of those wannabe countries, so
would make more sensible neighbors.
@Malacaay "Ukrainian Republic" in 1914 ??? With presidents, parliaments, elections, sure,
sure.
And having western borders in 1914 exactly by the line draw by Georgian dictator
Jugashvili-Stalin 25 years later?
With Lwow being in 1914 city not of Poland (independent Poland in 1914 is yet another gem)
but of the said Ukrainian Republic? And Transcarpatian Ruthenia too?
Wow, so in 1939 Jugashvili-Stalin just restored well known internationally borderlines of
the glorious 1914 Ukrainian Republic, right?
@Arioch You consider Ukraine to be irrelevant, so why spend so much time on it??? Odd
isn't it. Methinks you protesteth too much. You haven't proven Ukrainians can't do science,
that they don't have a technical culture, and you haven't shown that grain production is
irrelevant. You're just insulting farmers, and basic industry. Insult your own stomach. Don't
eat bread. Food is power. All industrial economies are based on agriculture. You dismissing
it is just sour grapes.
Pretend the Ukraine is dead. That's your business. Ukraine hasn't lost the ability to do
science, engineering, etc. What do you think they do in universities there? Is there no
higher education there? I'm not going to believe that. You're just spinning. Spin away. It's
obvious you're just dismissing real activity there.
The finality with which you dismiss the logistics possibilities of the Ukraine is odd. It
is a valuable resource. The country can take up the logistics possibilities in the future.
They haven't disappeared. And that is what your argument is based on. Pretending that
something can never ever be operational again ever, for any reason, even when the
possibilities are obviously still there. Germany bounced back after the war. Russia bounced
back after the 90s. But Ukraine? According to you, Ukrainians can't ever have any future
possibilities. You dismiss the real activity that is there, and you dismiss future
possibilities. So you can read the future? Do you also pretend to have super human ability to
know the future? You don't like facts, just theatrics. Lots of arm waving and shouting and
gesticulating. No proofs. If it is dead in your books, why are you wasting so much effort to
prove it, without actually giving any proof? You really do protest too much.
@Mr. Hack Why would I be disappointed in seeing your puppet master Kolomoisky, the
'Zhidobandera', and his puppet playing the presidents, Zelenski admitting (grudgingly) that
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations"?
K: "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you [the U.S.] are
forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it."
And begging for money from Russia?
@Anon First, participation or results of International Mathematical Olympiad that both of
your links deal with do not necessarily reflect the state of science in the country. First,
math is only one of the real sciences (others include physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
Second, the results of kids reflect the potential of young people, not the state of
scientific research in the country. Remaining scientists in Ukraine (there aren't many of
them left, unless you count bullshitters like Vyatrovich as scientists) bitterly complain
that the government does not fund science at the level that can help it survive.
BTW, many branches of Russian science (e.g., biochemistry and cell biology that I know
best) do not perform at the level that would put them on the map. There are very few
world-class biochemical or cell biological labs in Russia today, even fewer than in Soviet
times. In Ukraine today there are none, zero, zilch, nada. There used to be some decent labs
in Ukraine before 1991, but they either died out or the quality of their research went way
down. Those who awarded PhD to the girl I mentioned above are not scientists, at least not
the honest ones. They are qualified to sweep floors in college, at best.
@AnonFromTN More protesteth too much. More slurs, insults, hearsay, flailing away with no
data of any kind.
Those kids have real capabilities. Not simply 'potential of young people'. dismissing them
won't make them go away. 'Out damn'd spot'. Too bad the facts won't go away. To have kids
with strong math ability means you have to have institutions and teachers with strong
education capability. They don't learn to cut it in math by playing in the streets. Obviously
they will have no difficulty doing engineering calculations, and doing computer science and
physical sciences.
Making comparisons to the former SU is not valid for me. Comparison to other similar sized
economies makes more sense. Ukraine population is similar to Colombia, Spain, Argentina,
Uganda, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq. Looking at those countries, the capabilities of Ukraine don't
look too bad. Certainly not looking like Ukraine is dead.
Why would any one think that Ukraine must be compared to much larger economies??? The
other guy was doing that too. saker is way off to make such comparisons.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a valid
comparison. The economics are too different.
It's obvious what is going on is simply a political, prejudicial smear and dismissal of the
Ukraine and Ukrainians rather than any kind of balanced assessment of capabilities and
reality
@Anon Yes, those kids certainly had good teachers. It is quite likely that their math
teachers were educated in the Ukrainian SSR. I hear from a lot of people in Russia that the
quality of the teachers who graduated in Soviet times tends to be better than of those who
graduated later. I got my school education in Ukrainian SSR and can't complain about it.
Today Lugansk, where I went to school, is in Lugansk People's Republic, and judging by recent
polling of the population, its chances or returning to Ukraine are about as great as my
chances of living 500 years. Ukrainian bomb hit the school I went to, and Ukrainian shell hit
the library where I used to borrow books when I went to school. Luckily, a few years ago
Ukrainian troops were pushed by freedom fighters far enough from Lugansk, so they can't shell
it any more.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a
valid comparison.
Sorry, but Ukraine started by Ukrainian SSR becoming independent. It had what it had, and
lost what it lost, including a big chunk of the population and economy.
You are welcome to believe anything you want. People have a long history of believing the
most preposterous things. However, even fervent beliefs don't change the reality. That's why
all societies have lunatic asylums.
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
"... So the Ukrainians traded their corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with it). ..."
"... Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down (American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"). ..."
"to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and
resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true
offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less
untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation)."
This may be even worse than Lawrence depicts. It is clear that Vindman in his opening
remarks made it clear that the consensus policy of experts (like John Bolton) had been
following an agenda from the Obama administration (or before, but implemented under Obama,
Biden and Nuland) and it is verboten to change anything, despite constitutionally these
people at best only having advisory roles to the President (and constitutionally the
President can ask for their opinions in writing; CYA even back then!) The Ukrainian Americans
involved in the coup (national security from Vindman's perspective) are deeply committed
since 2014, and they expect to reap the benefits with no interference from Trump. And the
Democrats/ Ukraine-Americans "running the show" are probably much more corrupt than
Ukrainians governing their country before 2014.
I have started Oliver Bullough's "Money Land" and was aghast at the luxury items
Yanukovich had stolen through corruption and accumulated at his many properties. Surely with
so much money going to corrupt Yanukovich and his henchmen, the coup would have been a
blessing for the Ukrainian people! Right? I was shocked to find that after the overthrow of
Yanukovich in 2014, the median per capita household income in Ukraine, which had risen
steadily from $2032 in 2010 to $2601 in 2013, had dropped over 50% to $1110 to $1135 in 2015
and 2016, and has only risen to $1694 in 2018 (ceicdata.com).
So the Ukrainians traded their
corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt
neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their
pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with
it).
Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such
bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in
loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in
skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down
(American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
stephen t johnson #77: "Whatever military assistance Russia gives the rebels is
about making sure they don't go too the left in fighting the fascists and making sure there are
no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukrainian fascism."
Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the "embarrassment" of an
exodus into Russia? Your whole paragraph stirs propagandistic bits of excuse-mongering into an
illogical mash. Look, Ukraine is a long complicated discussion but a simple overview is that
most of the country wants to ally with the EU and the eastern portion wants to ally with
Russia. Yes, there is a lot of corruption. Yes, Euromaidan (pro-EU) was probably 1/3 far right.
Yes, there are fascist parties. But the majority of the people want democracy and not fascism.
Instead these poor people got Zelensky being extorted by yet another thug.
(Vindman is correct, this is another disaster by Trump with longterm consequences for US
foreign policy. While the US Republicans have also gone thug, saying it's no big deal.)
If the Steinmeier formula holds and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority
votes for kicking out Putin, do you think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars?
Accompanying the annexation of Crimea was Putin's long letter to the international community
justifying his action because there were "nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and
anti-Semites" who are committing "pogroms and terror". This now appears to be mostly fiction
(perhaps enhanced by Putin's agent provocateurs).
stephen
t johnson #77: "Whatever military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they
don't go too the left in fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave
of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukrainian fascism."
Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the "embarrassment" of an
exodus into Russia? Your whole paragraph stirs propagandistic bits of excuse-mongering into an
illogical mash. Look, Ukraine is a long complicated discussion but a simple overview is that
most of the country wants to ally with the EU and the eastern portion wants to ally with
Russia.
Yes, there is a lot of corruption. Yes, Euromaidan (pro-EU) was probably 1/3 far right.
Yes, there are fascist parties. But the majority of the people want democracy and not fascism.
Instead these poor people got Zelensky being extorted by yet another thug. (Vindman is correct,
this is another disaster by Trump with long term consequences for US foreign policy.
While the
US Republicans have also gone thug, saying it's no big deal.) If the Steinmeier formula holds
and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority votes for kicking out Putin, do you
think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars? Accompanying the annexation of Crimea
was Putin's long letter to the international community justifying his action because there were
"nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites" who are committing "pogroms and
terror".
Lee Arnold@80 "Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the
"embarrassment" of an exodus into Russia? "
Yes, Putin does not want wholesale expropriation of oligarchs, as he does not stand for
that in Russia (selective prosecution sufficient to appear to be a defender of the people and
serve as a stick -- accompanied by carrots -- to negotiate oligarch support. Also, Putin
doesn't even want to pay pensions, he certainly doesn't want the embarrassment of refugees
neglected, or worse, costing.
This point rests on the premise Putin isn't a right-winger, which is absurd.
"If the Steinmeier formula holds and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority
votes for kicking out Putin, do you think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars?"
https://www.rferl.org/a/what-is-the-steinmeier-formula-and-did-zelenskiy-just-capitulate-to-moscow-/30195593.html
This source may not be right-wing enough for your tastes, of course. But for the rest of us,
it suggests that an if centered on the Steinmeier formula is disingenuous in itself.
It's not even clear that Zelensky hasn't rejected the Steinmeier formula! The problem with
re-unifying the country is the fascist regime is quite hostile to what it sees as unUkrainian
elements, namely Russian speakers. National purity are favorite fascist principles but none
of the rest of us are required to accept them. Your belief that an election supervised by the
fascist regime is free and fair is wrong, no matter what you imply. And frankly, the notion
the OSCE is surely neutral is dubious too.
There was never any reliable evidence of any significant numbers of regulars moving into
Donetsk and Lugansk, because no, media reports are not reliable when addressing official
enemies. It is almost certain there are advisors and mercenaries, copying the US model, but
they are not what is generally meant by an invasion. They have not stakes out a separate
territory as the US territory did in Syria. There are military reasons for setting up a
perimeter, for mission security if nothing else. In short, there is in fact quite simple
reasons for thinking, yes, Putin would stop spending money on Donetsk and Lugansk, and save
on weapons and withdraw his advisers.
Further, the casualties in the Russian Army's officer corps by the way would end up being
known to the Russian Army, and eventually everyone else concerned. But they're not. Equally,
the large numbers of regulars alleged would have been in the recent prisoner exchange, but
they weren't. Some of those as I recall had been arrested merely for subversion, not taken
prisoner of war. Casualties of course are not the only costs to Putin, there also being the
money and weapons. The thing is of course, these are all excellent reasons for Putin to
withdraw. You are tacitly presuming the conclusion, that Putin is a crazed warmonger unable
even to calculate self-interest. Substituting scorn for analysis is not becoming.
"Yes, there are fascist parties." This is entirely misleading. There are fascist armed
formations incorporated into the Ukrainian army, financed privately.
I can't actually read the article as it's paywalled but it's conservative enough to carry
weight here.
There's the bit about Haaretz, which is like the anti-socialists ginning up anti-semitism
smears against Corbyn. I say the stylized swastika on the stage with the PM of Ukraine shows
us more than an old letter. I have no idea how you can say the people murdered when a
building was set on fire and democratic mob drove people back in, don't somehow count as
"pogroms and terror."
But you missed a trick in pointing out "Jewish" opposition to "Putin." (The people in
Donestsk and Lugansk are no one? Except maybe pre-corpses?) Ihor Kolomoyskiy, the primary
funder/founder of the Azov battalion, definitely wants no part of "Putin."
Most of this discussion is rarely about the left, but here arises a major marker
distinguishing the left, which is anti-fascism. You're pro-fascist.
nastywoman@79 was so stung the comment was actually intelligible. Unfortunately, asserting
something which isn't nonsense -- unlike nastywoman's usual incoherence -- without a shred of
argument is naked hostility, not an argument. The gored ox bellows loud!
FILE PHOTO: Judges at the UN's highest court are seen during a hearing in a case launched
by Ukraine which alleges Moscow is funding pro-Russian separatist groups in Ukraine, in
The Hague, Netherlands June 3, 2019. REUTERS/Eva Plevier
Reading a summary of the ruling, Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf said conditions had been met
for the case to be heard in full, with the 16-judge panel rejecting Russian objections by a large
majority.
The International Court of Justice found that on the basis of anti-terrorism and
anti-discrimination treaties signed by both countries it has jurisdiction to hear the case over
Russia's alleged support for separatists in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
At a hearing in June, Moscow had asked judges to dismiss the suit, saying Kiev was using it as
pretext for a ruling on the legality of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Addressing that point, Yusuf said Ukraine had not asked the court to rule "on the status of
Crimea or on violations of the rules of international law" other than those contained in the United
Nations anti-discrimination and anti-terrorism treaties.
Kiev says Russia's support for separatist forces violated a U.N. convention banning the
funding of terrorist groups.
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
Obama Bin Biden and the crooked clan need to get back in the game somehow so they can rip
off another 3 billion in US tax payer loans. What were they up to 44 Billion in fraudulent
loans to Ukraine?
Interesting how they want to Impeach Trump over Ukraine, don't you think?
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the
US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of
the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit
of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas,
sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low;
and the Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to
produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for heating and
cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma)
had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating;
and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering
prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his
projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a
partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually
its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners
into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He
had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it
didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand
dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the
Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six
hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US
taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars,
according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and
installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma,
but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep
his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself.
Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and
now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another
case, Firtash case.
"... As for the rest of Ukraine, even though they lost something, they get something valuable in return: it's called neutral status between east and west. A subdued, federalized Ukraine led by Zelensky, in many ways, makes Ukraine "Finlandized." That is good for the Ukrainian people. It means they retain their independence, but peacefully accept that Russia controls their foreign policy. That position benefited Finland between 1945 and 1991. Finland is now a peaceful and prosperous country, and it is no longer living under influence of Russia or the Soviets. If "Finlandization" led to happiness for the Finns, it can do the same for Ukraine. ..."
"... Finland did not fight against Swedish language and peacefully uses it, while it is "legacy of Swedish occupation" and less than 10% of Finnish people can speak it. Ukrainian Nazis are deprived of wisdom, they are fighting with Russian language and own people. So, if you haven't brain, nothing will help you. ..."
"... after Maidan, Nuland directly stated that the United States spent 5 billion on "building democracy in Ukraine." The United States invested 5 billion in a coup, but is Poland to blame? why? if Poland had really done that, then western Ukraine would have become part of Poland immediately after the Maidan, but this did not happen. After the Maidan, Biden was photographed in a pride chair, but not the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;) ..."
When Russia is led by truly capable leaders, it can beat any foreign power in war or geostrategic conflict. Today Russia is
led by a great man who is starting to look more and more like another Suvorov.
And everyone knows who Suvorov was.
Just read today's headlines concerning Syria. Russia ordered Turkey to stand down its offensive. Russian troops are now functioning
as peacekeepers in-between the Turkish and Syrian armies. The Kurds have signed allied themselves with Russia and Assad.
..while Americans of all stripes scratch their heads wondering what went wrong, and then check CNN and their FB feeds in a
hopeless bid to understand what's going down. Just.... hilarious....
What disturbs me the most is that Americans are being misled into believing that they "lost" something in Syria. In reality,
America "lost" nothing in Syria. That's because the US was never established in Syria to begin with. America has long been established
in Syria's neighbors, Israel, SA, Turkey, and to a lesser degree Iraq. But not Syria.
Basically, America got involved in Syria for aggressive, illegitimate, and unnecessary reasons. We were there to further the
over-ambitious geopolitical ambitions of our ME allies. That's why America launched a minor invasion of eastern Syria, and armed
and funded rebels, jihadis to try to violently overthrow Assad. And when that didn't work, the US POTUS justifiably pulled out
US troops and stopped supporting the rebels.
So, America didn't ever have anything to gain or to lose in Syria. Nothing at all.
Meanwhile, all the hawkish American newspapers -- which includes much of MSM -- are now complaining that Trump allowed Russia
to "take" Syria, and to "humiliate" and "drive out" America from that country. What hogwash! What propaganda and lies!
Russia has been in Syria for nearly 50 years. That means Russia's the chief ally of Syria, and as such, is a guarantor peace
and stability in the country. Also, Russia definitely has something to lose in Syria if Assad gets overthrown. So, in the end,
Russia wasn't trying to "take over Syria," as lying US media suggests. Russia was just protecting itself, protecting Assad, and
trying to impose peace on the region.
Check out Newsweek's totally dishonest story on this is subject. The article was published today. It's a shame so many
naive Americans believe these lies about America's alleged "role" in Syria.
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people. If you're talking about Butinterests in
terms of money, no -- we don't have any. But in terms of principles, yes, we were justified in entering that area of the country.
And we made a difference. Or else the Russians wouldn't be rushing in to take the place we left. We were getting a lot out
of very little engagement.
Russia has never been a guarantee for peace and stability anywhere; it has always been a guarantee of more support for Russia.
Whenever necessary, instabillity was sown, and inconvenient parties, whether or not former allies, were abandoned.
Plus, there is the nagging issue of the Kurds having helped us in the fight against ISIS. Letting this out of the picture is
as dishonest as you try to make parts of the MSM be.
But hey -- have your own opinions. Write a book about them while you're at it.
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people. If you're talking about Butinterests in
terms of money, no -- we don't have any. But in terms of principles, yes, we were justified in entering that area of the country.
sorry what???
In fact, Assad is the legitimate, democratically elected president of Syria. have you decided in the USA that you have the
right to decide who is bad and who is good?
The United States has worked hard to overthrow legitimate power in Syria. for 7 years of NATO's joint operation in Syria, ISIS
captured 70% of the territory of this country. Of course, with the active support of the United States, it supplied weapons to
everyone who was ready to fight against the Syrian army. but the "evil" Russia came and ruined everything. for 5 years of military
operations in Syria, ISIS were defeated and switched to guerrilla warfare. solved the problem between the Kurds, Turks and Syrians.
US plans have completely collapsed. or not?
Congress is currently making a decision to bring tanks into Syria to protect oil fields from terrorists. Really??? it looks
like American democracy is black and actually called oil! all these hundreds of thousands of murdered women and children in Syria
just so that the United States could continue to steal oil from Syria!
"the greatest power in the world" turns out to be an ordinary thief! do not you disgust?
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people.
Define what you mean by "monster to his own people." And explain to me why 30% of Syrians -- a huge chunk of whole -- have
always been solidly behind Assad.
If you're talking about the Assad regime's barrel bombing, yes, that's monstrous. But Assad didn't start doing that until the
civil war was fulling raging. That war, mind you, didn't broaden and deepen until America stepped in to fund and arm Assad's enemies.
Had America had stayed out of Syria and allowed Assad to stamp out the initial protests and acts of rebellion, then there would
have been no civil war. Therefore, America's involved escalated Syria's civil disorder all the way up to the level of a full fledged
war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I really don't understand how American Triumphalists and messianic spreaders of American democracy can justify what they did
in Syria. Essentially, America consciously took a chance in Syria, choosing to support the rebels on the off chance that they
might topple Assad. America knew that the price of failure in this reckless gambit would be the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of Syrians.
Why did America do this? America's action in Syria were driven by the desire to turn the country into a strategic asset. America
chose to pursue this goal on behalf of its regional allies (all Syrian enemies), Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. That's
all. Never mind "principles." We're talking geopolitical ambitions here. Blind ambitions.
It's a mysterious to me as to why you blame the war on Russia. After all, Russia's been in Syria for nearly 50 years. During
that time, Syria was stable, and experienced no civil war. But as soon as America began meddling in Syria, war broke out. Russia
worked with Assad to try to stomp out that war. America worked with the rebels to expand it.
Ukraine power captured it's country in own trap. They can't stop civil war in Donbass because then they will need to explain
somehow why they killed Donbass people (Ukraine Nazis power hate Donbassians, but at the same time pretends to call them their
own citizens) for so many years. Admit truth means acknowledge own crimes. So, the only way they have is continuing lying about
"liberation" (means genociding) of Donbass.
But rest assured: Ukraine is beaten and the Ukrainians know it. They can feel it. That's why they elected Zelensky, who
may be a sensible guy.
Implementation of the peace plan in Donbass will turn the region into a virtually independent part of Ukraine. Russia will
be able to influence Ukrainian politics through its connections in Donbass. That means Russia will have gained exactly what it
fought for: veto power over Ukraine's attempts to join the EU and NATO.
As for the rest of Ukraine, even though they lost something, they get something valuable in return: it's called neutral
status between east and west. A subdued, federalized Ukraine led by Zelensky, in many ways, makes Ukraine "Finlandized." That
is good for the Ukrainian people. It means they retain their independence, but peacefully accept that Russia controls their foreign
policy. That position benefited Finland between 1945 and 1991. Finland is now a peaceful and prosperous country, and it is no
longer living under influence of Russia or the Soviets. If "Finlandization" led to happiness for the Finns, it can do the same
for Ukraine.
Finland did not fight against Swedish language and peacefully uses it, while it is "legacy of Swedish occupation" and less
than 10% of Finnish people can speak it. Ukrainian Nazis are deprived of wisdom, they are fighting with Russian language and own
people. So, if you haven't brain, nothing will help you.
But rest assured: Ukraine is beaten and the Ukrainians know it. They can feel it. That's why they elected Zelensky, who may
be a sensible guy.
your optimism is due to ignorance of the peculiarities of Ukrainian political life;) Let's start with a short introduction
to Ukrainian political life. Who is Zelensky? this is a representative of the oligarch Kolomoisky. exactly the same oligarch as
Parashenko has ruled Ukraine for the past 5 years. For 5 years, Parashenko has robbed banks and enterprises of other oligarchs
in Ukraine, now Kolomoisky will do the same through his representative Zelensky.
Now about the peace process in the Donbas ... The armed coup in 2014 was carried out by the forces of Ukrainian Nazis and over
the past 5 years, the Ukrainian Nazis have firmly established themselves in the Verkhovna Rada and, most importantly, in the army
and law enforcement agencies. these structures are controlled by Avakov, not Zelensky. Zelensky cannot withdraw troops, and even
more so "Ukrainian volunteers" from punitive battalions Aidar, Azov, etc. Zelensky does not control these formations and has no
leverage over them. all he can do is put forward an additional requirement of 7 days without shelling. Naturally, the shelling
is not embellished and no one withdraws the troops. Even if Zelensky really wanted to end the war, there simply isn't any opportunity
for this. all that he can do is populism and tell that he will return Crimea :))))
Mr Gvosdev sounds like one of those Eastern European svidomites . They combine this unwavering faith in the power of
Washington on top of a deep, irrational hostility to Russia.
How is "collapse of Russian economy" going to happen exactly? Judging by the casual manner in which Gvosdev talks about it,
I think he imagines president Biden flipping some switch in his cabinet, and the economy of vast country shutting down in an instant.
How does a Western economic war on Russia can help its proxies seize power? It didn't work like this in Iran or Venezuela,
it's even less likely to happen in Russia. If anything the opposite is likely to happen: pro-Western 5th column in Russia will
be eradicated.
You know that the Ukraine is doomed when your "optimistic scenario" requires Russia to drop dead essentially.
Russia's economy is functioning very close to autarky. That means Russia could survive expulsion from SWIFT.
As for for your reference to China, your point is anything but clear. China is forming a strategic alliance with Russia pointed
directly at the US. If you don't realize this, you haven't been reading the news. It would behoove you to know that China and
the US have long been drifting in the direction of a conflict for supremacy in Pan-Pacific affairs. The US has lots of weapons
systems set up in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Beijing is determined to make the US withdraw those military assets from China's
borders. China is also wary of the US's messianic impulse to spread democracy anywhere it can. China blames America for the Hong
Kong disturbances, which Beijing thinks of as America's latest attempt at a "color revolution."
Meanwhile, Russia poses no such threat to China. If anything, Russia makes an ideal junior ally for China in the latter's growing
tendency to constantly subvert the US as the world's superpower. So, I am confused as to what kind of threat you think China poses
to Russia?
Perhaps you believe that China wants to take Siberia from Russia. Do you really believe China has the ability to do so? If
that's what you're thinking, you are willfully blind to the fact that Russia remains a nuclear weapons superpower. If war broke
out between China and Russia (which is very unlikely), which country would do more damage to the other? Think about it: Russia
is a massive open land mass that is not densely populated, and it is full of nuclear missile launch sites. China is a population
dense nation consisting of far less territory than Russia. Who would suffer more in an exchange of nuclear missiles? I think the
answer is clear. For this reason, Beijing is not thinking about war with Russia, or making Russia "collapse," as you say.
Wow, I can write comments here. I am russian, so I can tell the Mordor's version. The article is generally objective, but the
author was cunning in a few points
1) The principal reason why Yanukovich refused to sign the agreement with Europe was the duty free zone with Russia. Russians
sad: ok, You will sign the agreement with Europe, but we have high customs duties with europeneans, so we will break our free
trade zone agreement. Russia was the biggest export market for Ukraine and ukranians understood that they will lose a lot of money.
But Maidan decided differently.
2) Today the Russian primary strategy for Ukraine is do nothing and wait, we have no any influence in this country. We understand
that Europe and USA will not feed this country a lot of time. Internal contradictions will ruin this country before our intervention
3) But we support new government of Zelensky because he has an opportunity to implement Minsk agreements (may be). It will
be enough to close this deal and move on
But we support new goverment of Zelensky because he has an oportunity to implement Minsk aggreements (may be). It will be enough
to close this deal and move on
I do not agree with this. how Zelensky can end the war when the security forces and the army are controlled by Avakov and the
punitive battalions do not even know who controls?
the support of any government in Ukraine is due to the fact that our countries still have a fairly large turnover. while we trade
with ukraine will cooperate ..
But now Poland and other Central European states were similarly interested in changing their position -- from being Euro-Atlantic
frontline states to shifting that line further east
I believe that this is a big reason why Maidan occured. It is also a big reason for the war in Ukraine today. The Poles have
had a hand in this issue from the very beginning. Poland is literally an aggressor state at this point, stoking trouble in Ukraine.
America's greatest sin in all of this has been to allow itself to be influenced by Poland and the Baltic states. Just like
America allowed itself to be led by the nose by its "allies" in the Syrian War. We're talking about two conflicts that have very
little to do with America's best interests, and which could result in disaster (nuclear exchange with Russia) if something goes
wrong.
It's absolutely nuts for anyone to think that nuclear equipped Russia would allow Poland and America to have their way in Ukraine,
which is virtually Russia's front porch. By supporting our Polish "ally," the US has come close to creating a Cuban Missile Crisis
in reverse. In 1963 the Russians provoked America. Since 2014, America has been provoking Russia. It could get much worse.
I believe that this is a big reason why Maidan occured. It is also a big reason for the war in Ukraine today. The Poles have
had a hand in this issue from the very beginning. Poland is literally an aggressor state at this point, stoking trouble in
Ukraine.
but after Maidan, Nuland directly stated that the United States spent 5 billion on "building democracy in Ukraine." The
United States invested 5 billion in a coup, but is Poland to blame? why? if Poland had really done that, then western Ukraine
would have become part of Poland immediately after the Maidan, but this did not happen. After the Maidan, Biden was photographed
in a pride chair, but not the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;)
Okay, I can see where you're coming from. But still, the Russians were readying to station missiles in Cuba, just miles from
America's borders. That means the Russians must have known -- or should have known -- that they were risking war with the US.
That's my point.
Now America's doing the same thing as the USSR did in 1963. America is setting the stage to establish bases, radars, and missiles
in Ukraine. That's what preparing Ukraine for NATO membership is all about. Therefore, America must know -- or should know --
that it is risking war with Russia. In a major way.
Agree with the thrust of your agrument. The US knows it is stoking conflict with their actions (ie Donbass), but since they
are not directly in the firing line (barring major escalations) they simply don't care. They want to discomfort and undermine
Russia, drive a wedge between Russia and Germany/France, and force the Eurotrash into compliance with US diktat as a demonstration
of US power over its minions.
Re the Cuban Missile Crisis, on the balance it wasn't really a climb-down by the Soviets, but it is usually interpreted that
way, especially as anti-Krushchev factions in the USSR were succesful in portraying it that way as part of their palace coup.
The US remoived its misiles from Turkey, promised not to update them with new ones, and undertook not to repeat any more "Bay
of Pigs" attempts at overthrowing Castro by force of arms. All the Soviets needed to do was halt their mobilisation and similarly
agree not to base missiles. On the balance, the Soviets played brinkmanship well and won real concessions in exchange for very
little. Krushchevs problem was really that he marketted the ploy very poorly and was able to be portrayed as a loser by his political
enemies, and Westeners have happily repeated the narratives ever since.
And what? US placed their missiles in every corner of the Globe, including Soviet/Russian borders. Why USSR can't place it's
missiles in Cuba?
BTW, what Gary Powers did in his U-2 in the sky above Ekaterinburg 01.05.1960?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
My point is that each power is expected to respect the other's buffer zones. That's how the powers have gotten along historically.
If and when one side disrespects the other's buffer zone, major trouble is right around the corner.
Generally, in these confrontations between the nuclear superpowers, the side with the less to lose is the first to back down.
That side is always the one that has overreached. In 1963 it was the Soviets who overreached. It's looking increasingly clear
that since 2014, it's the US that's overreached.
The US will find a graceful way to end the Ukraine-NATO expansion issue, something amounting to a face-saving American retreat
from the region. Putin will likely make it easy for America to pull out without loss of prestige.
In general, you are right, but in 60's it was not Soviets, who overreached. It was US planes intervened in Soviet airspace,
not vice versa. It was US, who firstly placed missiles in Turkey in 1961, not USSR in Cuba in 1963.
Ukraine is not going anywhere, because of 115 Mrd. outstanding Debt. Ukraine lost 85% of their Industrial Base in the last
5 Years. Most of them working for Russian Companies. Those Companies get Advanced Payments from Russia till 2014 worth about 10
Mrd. for Material and Salaries. That Money is not coming again. Russian Companies replace 90% of all Ukraine deliveries during
the last 5 Years - more modern and especially with far better time frames. Ukraine has a minor Cash Reserve of 7 Billion USD.
Whatever happens to Ukraine we can be sure of one thing, through our contributions via the World Bank, the IMF and Obama's
loan guarantees, the one million dollars a day paid by U.S taxpayers directly into the pockets of Ukrainian Oligarchs will continue
in perpetuity.
I doubt Putin is in any hurry to relieve us of that 'honor' the man is a master of playing the U.S for a sucker.
You are correct on most counts. However, I think that Putin wants the US to scale down its Ukraine involvement ASAP. That's
because Russia's nightmare is NATO expansion into Ukraine. Therefore, the sooner the US backs away, the less likely Russia will
have to fight a future war in order to keep NATO off of its front yard. Nobody, including Putin, wants war.
Ukraine needs internal stability, this means peace treaty with rebels and some kind of minimal agreement with Russia. Country
needs to buy time, it is too much to expect to fight war, to do reforms and fight corruption and to develop all at the same time.
NATO expansion to East proved to be big destabilizing factor for Ukraine, its geopolitical situation is difficult. It will
always need to balance and make concessions between Eastern and Western interests.
New president looks very promising, hopefully he will be able to bring country back to stability and push it more toward faster
economical development and national reconciliation.
You make some good points regarding stability within the country. The amount now spent on fighting the war in Donbas will not
go down as Ukraine will need to continue to rebuild their military to include new fighters and new ships for the navy however
the killing will stop. Any agreement made with Putin should be made with eyes wide open as Russia has no honor so agreements are
worthless only a potent enough military will guarantee Ukraine's peace.
Peace at any cost is not acceptable and any plan that allows complete autonomy should be a no go, it would be better to just
build a wall along the existing line and rid the country of a fifth columnist element. If the plan allows for local elections,
local use of Russian, local police forces not military but police that is acceptable. These elections must allow for all residents
who resided in the area prior to the war to vote and for all Ukrainian political parties to participate.
Zelenskiy has made corruption a key to his election and it is imperative that he takes some bold action(s) soon to set the
tone. I am a little concerned that he has selected some less than pure individuals to be part of his presidential team, apparently
he hasn't picked up on how bad the optics are by having a lawyer that worked for Kolomosky as your chief of staff?
Cracking down on the oligarchs would allow Ukraine to have a standard of living like Poland within a very few years and many of
the Ukrainians that now work in Poland could come home an make as much money.
The presidential vote proved that at least 73% of Ukrainians agreed that a new beginning was needed hence Zelnskiy being elected.
The reason IMHO that "national reconciliation" hasn't been achieved is the continued Russian interference/influence in Ukraine.
It hasn't been long enough for Ukraine as an independent nation to come to terms with the past history. This part of the world
has seen millions killed over the past 100+ years, the country hasn't come to grips with that there is still finger pointing and
until that is dealt with the reconciliation will be difficult.
The desire to join NATO is all on Russia and it's continuous interference in Ukraine. In all reality NATO is a long way off
as Ukraine needs to do a lot to bring the country up to NATO standards including in the corruption realm.
This part of the world has seen millions killed over the past 100+ years
Ukraine has been used an invasion route by Western aggressors who want to conquer Russia. That's resulted in Russia suffering
millions killed in the 20th century, and hundreds of thousands more killed in earlier wars.
You keep failing to see matters from Russia's perspective. You only think about Ukraine's most selfish national interests.
You've got to understand that any security arrangement in that part of the world will have to be a shared security plan. It will
have to consider and respect Russia's concerns. NATO is not the answer here. Militarization of a Ukraine led by far-right wing
nationalists is not the answer either.
Ukraine's only path to peace and security is to accept the status of Finlandization.
If the plan allows for local elections, local use of Russian, local police forces not military but police that
is acceptable.
It's too late for that. Remember, the Ukrainian ATO invaded Donbass and killed many thousands of innocent local people. For
this reason, Donbass will never allow the Ukrainian military onto its soil.
Yes, I read what you said. That's why I highlighted "military" in my quote. You are saying that Donbass Russians are expected
to allow themselves to be occupied by the Ukrainian military, as if they are conquered, humiliated people. I am saying that Russia
and Donbass will never let that happen.
Let's not overlook that it appears very much like the war is ending now, with Ukraine submitting to the terms set by Donbass
and Russia. That means Zelensky will have to drink his poison soup and allow the Donbass militia to have exclusive and unrestricted
military rights within Donbass, and along the region's borders. That's unavoidable.
Even if you go by Minsk II which plainly does not allow for a Separatist Military there is zero chance that Ukraine will agree
to anything resembling a "military". This territory will be under Ukrainian sovereignty and the border will be under Ukrainian
sovereignty. The autonomy will be for language, education, elections of local councils, cultural endeavors etc...
It is the thugs in charge who are supported by the Kremlin are the ones that envision some quasi country within Ukraine. If
you were to go out into the villages the average person wants the war to end and life to go back to as close to what it was before
this all started. The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections are to
be held without Russian and mercenary gun toting thugs walking the streets. They are the ones that are worried as their world
will come to an end if real peace comes to past.
If you were to go out into the villages the average person wants the war to end and life to go back to as close to what
it was before this all started. The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections
are to be held...
You are in denial of the facts. Respected international polling agencies have taken polls inside the rebel held portion of
Donbass. The results confirm that the people there want nothing to do with the Ukrainian government, and that they identify themselves
as an extension of Russia.
The only open question among the Donbass people is whether they want to be annexed by Russia (many do), or whether they want
to remain in Ukraine as a completely autonomous region, running all of their own affairs (many like this idea too).
But under no circumstances do the Donbass people want the Ukrainian army to enter their territory, establish bases or outposts,
and then garrison the border with Russia. Why would the Donbass people have fought for five hard, victorious years only to accept
this ignominious outcome? It makes no sense. Donbass and Russia won. Ukraine lost. The winners will not let the losers take military
control of their homeland. No possible way.
From the way your posts read, it's obvious you are way, way oversold on anti-Russian propaganda.
Who says that the Ukrainian Army is going to go into this area of Donbas? Th border will be secured by Ukrainian Border personnel
as it is on every other part of the border. Ukraine is currently decentralizing services and responsibility in the rest of the
country withheld control coming from Kyiv. A modified version of that for occupied Donbas to include local elections, language,
education and local law enforcement is what they should expect. In exchange Kyiv promises to rebuild destroyed infrastructure
and provide economic assistance to the area.
If that isn't good enough then as I said build a wall and cut them lose and let Putin take on the burden which he doesn't want.
Money coming form Russia to rebuild will be a long time in coming and what they have now is pretty much what they can expect for
the future. Of course the educate and most of the young have left the area an only the poor pensioners who had no where to go
are left.
Even if you go by Minsk II which plainly does not allow for a Separatist Military there is zero chance that Ukraine will
agree to anything resembling a "military"
You're living in a dream world if you think this. The reality is that Ukraine has lost the war. Zelensky wouldn't dare to implement
Minsk II unless he were leading a defeated nation, a nation that was throwing in the towel. We're talking about a complete capitulation.
That's what Minsk II means.
I am certain that Zelensky fully expects that once Minsk II is implemented, Ukraine will be somehow be maneuvered into accepting
that the Donbass military is in charge of Donbass and the abutting section of the Russian-Ukraine frontier.
Most likely, after Donbass holds internationally ratified elections per Minsk II, the newly elected officials will claim that
they are officially part of Ukraine's government. From there, they will claim that the Donbass rebel militia, therefore, is officially
an extension of Ukraine's national army. Then, finally, the Donbass leaders and Russia will say that "returning control of the
border to Ukraine" means, in reality, putting the border under the control of the Donbass militia.
Possibly the Donbass militia will wear Ukrainian army uniforms, just for show. But believe me: there's no way the victors in
this war are going to settle for surrendering military control of their territory to a despised, alien military force (i.e., the
Ukrainian army).
There's no possible way that Putin, Russia, or the Donbass rebels would have pushed the Minsk II Accords on Ukraine unless
it one of the treaty's unstated implications is that the Ukrainian military is ejected from the region permanently. That's what
Russia and Donbass fought to achieve. It's unthinkable that they would settle for anything less.
I'm certain that Zelensky and everyone else understands this.
It will not happen Minsk II will not be implemented. Th eUkrainian foreign minister already stated what will be the approach
in the Normandy talks an edit isn't Minsk II.
"The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections are to be held without
Russian and mercenary gun toting thugs walking the streets."
What nonsense. You really think that voters in Donetsk & Lugansk would to reward Kiev authorities with their support in light
of the atrocities the "volunteer" battalions have dished out to civilians over the last 5 years???
You can cry about "thugs" or "mercenaries" all you like (in a futile attempt to de-legitimise the views of the seperatists)
but your bias is clear when you whitewash the crimes of Banderites and Neo-Nazis. Or maybe you would prefer to adopt the US MSM
ploy and simply pretend that these factions don't exist, or that no warcrimes have been committed?
You really think that voters in Donetsk & Lugansk would to reward Kiev authorities...
You make a valid point. I'd add also that the rebel controlled areas are the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk where the ethnic
Russian demographic majorities are heaviest. That means there's virtually zero chance that any elections held in that zone will
favor Kiev.
...as Ukraine will need to continue to rebuild their military to include new fighters and new ships for the navy...
Impossible. That's because there aren't enough Ukrainians who feel nationalistic enough to be willing to lay down their lives
in war for Ukraine. The reason for this problem is that a huge minority of Ukrainians are ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians
who won't fight Russia. Many other Ukrainian people are ambivalent about national identity, and will not honor their military
obligations.
In some ways, Ukraine's military problem today is akin to that suffered by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WW1. The Austro-Hungarian
state was multi-national, and much of its population did not share the political and national values of the rulers in Vienna and
Budapest.
Multi-national countries always have trouble fielding political reliable militaries. Even the Soviet Union, a superpower, had
a bottom one-third of military recruits (most from Cental Asia) that simply weren't politically reliable.
Ukraine's military future looks very grim. Only if Kiev grants independence to the non-Ukrainian regions will the country finally
have a population of people who share the same national and political values. That will have to precede Ukraine building any kind
of competent army.
The presidential vote proved that at least 73% of Ukrainians agreed that a new beginning was needed hence Zelnskiy being
elected.
That Ukrainian majority is exhausted and demoralized by the Donbass War. They want peace at any cost, even if that means granting
virtual independence to Donbass. Even if that means allowing Russia to use Donbass as an agent through which it can influence
Ukraine's domestic political situation. That's the "new beginning" that Ukrainians have in mind.
There's no way Zelensky can be in power while simultaneously continuing the Donbass War. Ukrainians elected him to get the
country out of that agony.
My wife is Ukrainian and they will not accept Russia running things through a Fifth column in Donbas. They might as well just
wall it off and be done with it makes zero sense to allow your rendition.
Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt
by
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/03/2019 - 07:00
0
SHARES
Authored by James Bovard at
jimbovard.com
,
Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption...
And there are few better examples than Ukraine - just don't tell the House impeachment
hearings.
Barricade with the protesters at Hrushevskogo street on January 26, 2014 in Kiev,
Ukraine.Sasha Maksymenko / cc
Counting on foreign aid to reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure
alcoholism.
After closed House of Representatives impeachment hearings heard testimony on
President Trump's role in delaying U.S. aid to Ukraine, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
declared:
"
Numbers
don't lie
. It's even more clear now that President Trump is not the anti-corruption crusader
he claims to be."
Most of the press coverage has tacitly assumed that American assistance is vital to
fighting corruption in Ukraine.
But that ignores foreign aid's toxic record and Ukraine's
post-Soviet history.
A
2002 American
Economic Review analysis
concluded that
"increases in [foreign] aid are associated
with contemporaneous increases in corruption,"
and that "corruption is positively
correlated with aid received from the United States."
That was the year President George W. Bush launched a new foreign aid program, the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).
Bush declared, "I
think
it makes no sense to give aid
, money, to countries that are corrupt." But the Bush
administration continued delivering billions of dollars in handouts to many of the world's most
corrupt regimes. By 2004, the State Department had codified what amounted to backtracking: "
The
MCA is an incentive-based supplement to other U.S. aid programs."
The Bush team found excuses
to give MCA aid to some of the world's most corrupt governments as well, including Georgia.
In 2010, President Barack Obama proclaimed at the United Nations that America was "
leading
a global effort to combat corruption
."
Obama's "aides said the United States in the
past has often seemed
to
just throw money at problems
," the
Los Angeles Times
reported. But the reform charade
was exposed the following year when the Obama administration fiercely resisted congressional
efforts to curb wasteful aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that restricting handouts
to nations that fail anti-corruption tests "has
the
potential to affect a staggering number
of needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of American tax dollars into
sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was "one of
the
most
corrupt countries on earth
."
And the deluge of aid the Afghan government received only
worsened the corruption. As John Sopko, the heroic Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), observed, "
We
need to understand how
US policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption.
We must recognize the danger of dealing with characters or networks of unsavory repute, tolerating
contracting abuses, accepting shoddy performance and delivering unsustainable projects."
The closed House impeachment hearings last week heard from acting U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine
William B. Taylor Jr., who testified that he "
had
authority over the bulk
of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and
to help it defeat corruption."
The
Washington Post
lauded Taylor as someone who "
spent
much of the 1990s telling
Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical to their
long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law
, in his
role as the head of U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries."
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows that
corruption
surged in Ukraine during the late 1990s
and remains at obscene levels
(though recent
years have shown slight improvements). Taylor was ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, when
corruption sharply worsened despite
hundreds
of millions of dollars in U.S. aid
. Ukraine is now ranked as the
120th
least
corrupt
nation in the world
-- lower than Egypt and Pakistan, two other major U.S. aid recipients. What
Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder is to the NFL, Taylor appears to be to the anti-corruption
cause.
Bribing foreign politicians to encourage honest government makes as much sense as
distributing free condoms to encourage abstinence.
Rather than encouraging good governance
practices, foreign aid is more likely to produce kleptocracies, or governments of thieves. As a
Brookings Institution analysis observed, "The history of
U.S.
assistance is littered
with tales of corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own
pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects."
And both American
politicians and bureaucrats are want to continue the aid gravy train, regardless of how foreign
regimes waste the money or use it to repress their own citizens.
If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would have become a rule of law paradise long ago. The
country's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, may be sincere in his efforts to root out corruption.
But it is an insult to both him and his nation to pretend that Ukraine cannot clean up its act
without help from Donald Trump.
The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid.
"... In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted. ..."
"... Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor. ..."
"... I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil - they didn't. ..."
"... I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. ..."
"... And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. ..."
"... How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement. ..."
Recently Ukraine has been thrown into the spotlight as Democrats gear up to impeach President Donald Trump. More important, though,
is its role in damaging America's relations with Russia, which has resulted in a mini-Cold War that the U.S. needs to end.
Ukraine is in a bad neighborhood. During the 17th century, the country was divided between Poland and Russia, and eventually ended
up as part of the Russian Empire. Kiev then enjoyed only the briefest of liberations after the 1917 Russian Revolution, before being
reabsorbed by the Soviet Union. It later suffered from a devastating famine as Moscow confiscated food and collectivized agriculture.
Ukraine was ravaged during Germany's World War II invasion, and guerrilla resistance to renewed Soviet control continued for years
afterwards.
In 1991, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. gave Ukraine another, more enduring chance for independence. However, the new nation's development
was fraught: GDP dropped by 60 percent and corruption burgeoned. Ukraine suffered under a succession of corrupt, self-serving, and
ineffective leaders, as the U.S., Europe, and Russia battled for influence.
In 2014, Washington and European governments backed a street putsch against the elected, though highly corrupt, pro-Russian president,
Viktor Yanukovych. The Putin government responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.
Washington and Brussels imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided military aid to Kiev.
The West versus Russia quickly became a "frozen" conflict. Moscow reincorporated Crimea into Russia, from which it had been detached
in 1954 as part of internal Soviet politics. In the Donbass, more than a score of ceasefires came and went. Both Ukraine and Russia
failed to fulfill the 2016 Minsk agreements, which sought to end the conflict.
In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from
their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political
division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged
Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists
have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted.
The most important geopolitical impact has been to poison Russia's relations with the West. Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine
cannot be justified, but the U.S. and Europe did much to create the underlying suspicion and hostility. Recently declassified documents
reveal the degree to which Western officials misled Moscow about their intention to expand NATO. Allied support for adding Georgia
and Ukraine, which would have greatly expanded Russian vulnerability, generated a particularly strong reaction in Moscow. The dismemberment
of Serbia with no consideration of Russia's interests was another irritant, along with Western support for "color revolutions" elsewhere,
including in Tbilisi. The ouster of Yanukovych finally triggered Putin's brutal response.
Washington and Brussels apparently did not view their policies as threatening to Russia. However, had Moscow ousted an elected
Mexican president friendly to America, while inviting the new government to join the Warsaw Pact, and worked with a coalition of
Central American states to divert Mexican trade from the U.S., officials in Washington would not have been pleased. They certainly
wouldn't have been overly concerned about juridical niceties in responding.
This explains (though does not justify) Russia's hostile response. Subsequent allied policies then turned the breach in relations
into a gulf. The U.S. and European Union imposed a series of economic sanctions. Moreover, Washington edged closer to military confrontation
with its provision of security assistance to Kiev. Moscow responded by challenging America from Syria to Venezuela.
It also began moving towards China. The two nations' differences are many and their relationship is unstable. However, as long
as their antagonism towards Washington exceeds their discomfort with each other, they will cooperate to block what they see as America's
pursuit of global hegemony.
Why is the U.S. entangled in the Ukrainian imbroglio? During the Cold War, Ukraine was one of the fabled "captive nations," backed
by vigorous advocacy from Ukrainian Americans. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they joined other groups lobbying on behalf of ethnic
brethren to speed NATO's expansion eastward. Security policy turned into a matter of ethnic solidarity, to be pursued irrespective
of cost and risk.
To more traditional hawks who are always seeking an enemy, the issue is less pro-Ukraine than anti-Russia. Mitt Romney, the Republican
Party's 2012 presidential nominee, improbably attacked Russia as America's most dangerous adversary. Hence the GOP's counterproductive
determination to bring Kiev into NATO. Originally Washington saw the transatlantic alliance as a means to confront the Soviet menace;
now it views the pact as a form of charity.
After the Soviet collapse, the U.S. pushed NATO eastward into nations that neither mattered strategically nor could be easily
protected, most notably in the Balkans and Baltics. Even worse were Georgia and Ukraine, security black holes that would bring with
them ongoing conflicts with Russia, possibly triggering a larger war between NATO and Moscow.
Ukraine never had been a matter of U.S. security. For most of America's history, the territory was controlled by either the Russian
Empire or the Soviet Union. Washington's Cold War sympathies represented fraternal concerns, not security essentials. Today, without
Kiev's aid, the U.S. and Europe would still have overwhelming conventional forces to be brought into any conflict with Moscow. However,
adding Ukraine to NATO would increase the risk of a confrontation with a nuclear armed power. Russia's limitations when it comes
to its conventional military would make a resort to nuclear weapons more likely in any conflict.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush's aggressively neoconservative administration won backing for Georgian and Ukrainian membership in
NATO and considered intervening militarily in the Russo-Georgian war. However, European nations that feared conflict with Moscow
blocked plans for NATO expansion, which went into cold storage. Although alliance officials still officially backed membership for
Ukraine, it remains unattainable so long as conflict burns hot with Russia.
In the meantime, Washington has treated Ukraine as a de facto military ally, offering economic and security assistance. The U.S.
has provided $1.5 billion for Ukrainian training and weapons, including anti-tank Javelin missiles. Explained Obama administration
defense secretary Ashton Carter: "Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States."
Equally important, the perception of U.S. backing made the Kiev government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, less willing
to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia. Thus did Ukraine, no less than Russia, almost immediately violate the internationally
backed Minsk accord.
Kiev's role as a political football highlights the need for Washington to pursue an enduring political settlement with Russia.
European governments are growing restless; France has taken the lead in seeking better relations with Moscow. Germany is unhappy
with U.S. attempts to block the planned Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has campaigned
to end the conflict.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I credit Mr. Bandow for his largely fair and accurate description of the events in Ukraine of five years ago, and for his ultimate
policy proposal for the US to extricate itself from its close involvement in the area. However, I'm a little confused by what
exactly the author means by "Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine" and "Putin's brutal response" (aside from the treatment of
dissidents and journalists as he specifically mentioned) to the Maidan Revolution.
Was it aggressive and brutal for Russia to support separatists in the Donbass who were facing the prospect of legal discrimination
and violence by a criminal, neo-fascist government in Kiev, not to mention de-industrialization, the gutting of the agriculture
sector and the forced economic migration of an enormous number of its young workers (assuming that Ukraine's economic deal with
the EU followed the script of every other Easter European's country's deal with the EU)? If Yanukovych had fled to the Donbass
and proclaimed himself still the freely elected (though certainly corrupt) President of the nation, Russia's support for the region
would have even had a shiny brass legal fig leaf, wouldn't it?
As for the supposed "conquest" of Crimea, that's a rather strong word to use considering that all of two members of the Ukrainian
military were killed, and 60-80 of them detained, while 15,000 defected to Russia. Compared to the violence in Kiev and Odessa,
what happened in Crimea almost qualifies as a bloodless coup. But then Mr. Bandow shies away from using the word "hegemony" to
describe the foreign policy of the United States, figuratively putting the word in the mouths of those bad men (which they are)
in Moscow and Beijing. It's a pity that Mr. Bandow felt the need to make linguistic concessions to the foreign policy establishment
in what was otherwise a useful and balanced piece.
Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings
in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to
escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history
of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique.
And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are
conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot.
How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
The Ukraine situation is complex to be certain, but ending military aid and letting Russia clean up seems like a bad idea.
This week we saw Russian forces occupy US bases abandoned when Trump ordered our troops to withdraw from the Turkish border.
And now the author is arguing we should do something similar in the Ukraine.
When did Russian appeasement become so important to conservative foreign policy?
Mate, Russians were in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. US troops are there illegally (no Congress mandate, no
international mandate, no invitation). US is an occupying, destabilizing, terrorist protecting force in Syria and Americans should
look beyond their self esteem before commenting on this "shameful" retreat. US does not have the right to put its troops wherever
it fancies.
This win or loose mentality will be the death of you. Who do you think is threatening the US, when it has the biggest moats
protecting its shores? The only thing that is happening is that the hegemonic role, that of controlling everyone's economy for
its own elites benefit is being denied.
This is what you are complaining mate, the the rich Americans cannot get richer? Do you think they will share with you, or
that, like the good English boys of the past, you will not be able to land a job with East India Co. and despoil the natives for
a while?
If the US were smart then they would lead some sort of negotiation where eastern Europe and Ukraine and Russia were allowed only
mutually agreed defensive weapons systems. A demilitarization of say 200 miles on each side of the Russia border. The strategy
should be to encourage trade between Eastern Europe and Russia where Russia has influence but is not threatening. It may be slow
to build that trust but the real question is whether the US and Europe and NATO want peace with Russia or whether they are using
fear of Russia to keep eastern Europe united with the US and Europe. This may be the case but the future will have China as a
greater threat than Russia (China will even be a threat to Russia). Any shift in Russian relations will take decades of building
trust on both sides.
Good article and excellent history of facts. If I recall during the last Bush administration W hosted a Putin and his then spouse,
at a visit at his ranch. Putin informed W," the Ukraine belongs to Russia. end of sentence.
The author forgot the critical role of Sevastopol in the Crimea. It is Russia's only warm water port and there was no way that
it was going to allow this area to become a NATO naval base. Secretary of State Clinton and her sidekick for Ukraine, Victoria
Nuland should have known this before they started supporting the overthrow of the pro-Russia government in Kiev.
If you look at a historical atlas, you won't find an independent country called Ukraine before 1991. When my parents were born,
near what is now called Lviv, the area was called Galicia and Lemberg was its provincial capital. A gold medal issued in 1916
in honor of Franz Josef's 85th birthday noted that he was the Kaiser of Austria, Hungary, Galicia and Lodomeria.
When the old Soviet Union agreed to allow East and West Germany to reunify, it was with the understanding that NATO would not
extend membership to former Soviet block countries and that there would be no NATO bases in these areas either. NATO and the US
broke their oral commitment to Russia a few years later.
The US should get out of the business of trying to spread democracy in third world countries and interfering in the affairs
of foreign governments. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world. We don't even have the ability to make many of our own
central cities safe for Americans. Think Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, all four of which appear on Wikipedia's
list of the 50 murder capitals of the world (per thousand population).
The only mistake Merry makes is his erroneous statement that Trump held up aid to Ukraine to
pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the Ukrainian firm that made $1,750,000
payments to the corrupt Biden and his corrupt son. The transcript of the telephone call between
Trump and the Ukrainian president shows no Quid Pro Quo, and the Ukrainian president says there
was none. The Quid Pro Quo was entirely on Biden's part when he told the president of Ukraine
to fire the prosecutor investigating the firm that was paying him and his son seven figures in
protection money or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. You can watch it here:
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html
Moreover, even it Trump did threaten to withhold aid from a country that was covering up
corruption by a US vice president and his son, that is the US president's right. There is no
reason whatsoever that a president should permit US taxpayers' money to be given to a
government that covers up corruption by a vice president of the United States.
Biden's son has admitted that he used poor judgment taking money from a firm in order to
protect it from prosecution.
Even if Trump did what the Democrats allege, which he did not, there is nothing illegal or
unethical about it whatsoever. Compared to the tactics US prosecutors use to convict the
innocent, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine is far above the highest ethics
known to US prosecutors.
Why aren't the Democrats complaining about the criminally illegal treatment of Julian
Assange and Manning? The reason is that the Democrats, the most utterly corrupt political
organization on the face of the Earth, are bought and paid for by the Deep State. The Democrats
are dog excrement to the core. They are traitors to America and to our Constitutional order.
The entire party should be arrested and put on trial for sedition to overthrow the government
of the United States.
In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to
investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens' interest, the notes say, the prosecutor
also said he "was warned to stop" by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to
Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did
not respond to a request for comment.
Recounting Shokin's version of events, the notes say he "was called into Mr. Poroshenko's
office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter
Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to
Ukraine." Poroshenko later told Shokin that "he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was
being withheld by Joe Biden," the Giuliani interview notes say.
Trump has claimed that Vice
President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he was investigating
his son's employer.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair," the president said, referring to Shokin in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine's
president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That call triggered the current impeachment crisis after a CIA
whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden in
return for military aid.
A Politico
investigation in 2017 found that officials in Poroshenko's government helped Hillary
Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, notably Paul Manafort,
who before joining the Trump campaign was a political consultant for ousted Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Poroshenko's administration insisted at the time that Ukraine stayed neutral in the
race.
"Most of the press coverage has tacitly assumed that American assistance is vital to
fighting corruption in Ukraine."
Then I must have missed most of the press coverage. First of all, most of the reporting
I've seen has been about Trump's attempts to convince Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump's
political opponents. The purpose of the aid package is a minor part of the story, but when it
has been discussed the reporting I've seen has indicated that the purpose of the aid package
that Trump held up was to help the Ukrainian military, not to fight corruption. So I can't
help wondering: where does James Bovard gets his news?
Then you've missed the point of this article. It's neither about the purpose of that aid.
It's about the aid as such leading to corruption. Do you really think Ukrainians will have
any troubles with selling those weapons out to some Middle Eastern or African caudillos? Or
maybe you think that a single penny from the sums obtained as a result of that sellout will
end up in the hands of their average citizens, and not in those of local mobsters and
oligarchs?
I believe I am reading this right: That providing foreign aid is always going to lead to
corruption. That what Trump did with Ukraine is basically drinking the same sauce others have
in the past and anyone else will do in the future. That then suggests that the solution is to
close the tap and end using foreign aid because, whatever the initial motive, it's too
corrupting an influence.
In that... honestly that's the best argument I've heard against foreign aid. Typically I
hear arguments from economic standpoints, which seemed silly when many of the targetted
examples are in the millions-pennies by US standards.
But putting it from a control standpoint: that leadership, present or future, will either
use foreign aid as a cover for corrupt means or take an active use of foreign aid as a wedge
against a foreign country.
I can hear a counterargument that "we are a superpower. We should be helping others." And
the response I hear in my head is "given our inability to truly help others without such
corruption and how we abuse the status, maybe we really do need to let that title go." It
means giving it up to Russia or China, but we aren't doing a good job holding them back, even
if we should be doing so.
Ignoring the world really isn't an option. But our priority should probably be to focus on
home as we can and better ourselves rather than ruining yourselves while ruining everyone who
brushes with us.
So yeah. I can see the idea behind pulling back from these foreign aid elements.
The "just don't tell the House impeachment hearings." did seem rather clickbaity. It
suggests this is an argument against the impeachment hearings as if their mistaken believe in
supporting foreign aid is a mark against the hearings themselves. The article itself doesn't
seem to go that route. "just don't tell congress" would've done far better. But that's a
nitpick combined with all of this impeachment discussion leaving me rather kneejerky.
Not only Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, it's also the poorest on the
continent. It became such after all American aid and after all, much, much bigger IMF loans.
Which makes one kind of suggest that the known level of corruption there is only a tip of the
iceberg.
But, getting back home, I just love those "closed impeachment hearings". Paraphrasing the
famous quotation, why so closed? Afraid that, being it open, any half-literate first-year law
college student (not to mention Rudy and the DoJ) would tear the so-called "evidence"
asunder?
It became such after all American aid and after all, much, much bigger IMF loans
I feel like you're glossing over some other major events that have happened in the South
and East of the country which have contributed to the sluggish economic development and
hampered the corruption fight...
The open hearings will come, Alex. They're closed because those are the rules Republicans
abided by with the Benghazi hearings. However it's going to take a lot more than Rudy and the
DoJ to combat testimony from Trump-appointed ambassadors who've been plucked from retirement
to help with Ukraine and say that there was a quid pro quo.
So what's the point here, foreign aid to corrupt governments is standard American policy,
so Presidential corruption in distributing that aid is no big deal.
"The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end foreign aid."
This is a point that can and has been argued. I remember having just that debate in
relation to aid to Africia in the '80s.
However, the House is investigating Presidential coruption in the distribution of that aid
and that would seem to be a different matter.
If you think Trump cares about corruption in Ukraine, I have a Trump U course to sell
you.
Trump tried to extort a foreign leader to help him win an election, this is beyond dispute
to anyone who isn't ignoring the facts. He wanted the president of Ukraine to make a public
announcement that he was investigating Hunter Biden. Whether the investigation would turn up
anything was irrelevant, Trump knew an appearance of Biden corruption could work wonders for
him.
Oh yes... The purported presence of the "evidence" of the said "extortion" is precisely
why the House hearings are closed. And, of course, Trump's most vital necessity was kicking
the weakest of his opponents out of the race, so that Democrats could pick someone with
better chances, instead of the continuation of the DNC's idiotic course aimed at nominating
that one at all costs, which persists even now.
Just like the corrupt aid we have been giving to dictatorships since WW II ended. The
difference is the president in previous decades did not use the aid as a bribe to foreign
leaders to conduct nefarious investigations on US citizens. I can only imagine the columns
TAC would write if Obama called the Saudi Crown Prince in 2010 and told him that military aid
is contingent on information about their business dealings with the Bush family because Jeb
might run in 2012.
Then where's the evidence of that "bribe" having even happened? As of yet we have only a
clownery called "closed hearings" and the idea that Trump would be interested in getting rid
of the weakest of his possible opponents which defies the mere principles of logic.
Hogwash. Tell us how "Russian interference" has forced the Ukrainian junta to be as
corrupt, brutal and incompetent as it has been since it became a full-fledged US puppet?
A better use of our hard-earned tax dollars would be for the US government to put its own
house in order before addressing problems of "corruption" abroad.
Corruption is incidental to the political control that foreign aid provides to the US. In
other words, it's a feature and not a bug. The exception to this rule is Israel, where US
foreign aid is turned around to exert influence on American politicians. Again, a feature and
not a bug.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this situation to change.
Charitable (non-government) aid typically nurtures corruption, too
Arm's-length dealing is the cure and the preventive, and it's the only one.
I know - sounds cruel, doesn't it?
I usually do - just ask my children
U.S. Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt
Our 'democracy building' assistance to certain countries--including Ukraine--has produced kleptocracies, or
worse.
By
James Bovard
•
October 30, 2019
Barricade with the protesters at Hrushevskogo street on January 26, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine.
Sasha
Maksymenko
/
cc
Counting on foreign aid to reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure
alcoholism. After closed House of Representatives impeachment hearings heard testimony on President Trump's role in
delaying U.S. aid to Ukraine, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared: "
Numbers
don't lie
. It's even more clear now that President Trump is not the
anti-corruption crusader he claims to be."
Most of the press coverage has tacitly assumed that American assistance is vital to fighting corruption in Ukraine. But
that ignores foreign aid's toxic record and Ukraine's post-Soviet history.
A
2002 American Economic Review analysis
concluded that "increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption," and that
"corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States."
That was the year President George W. Bush launched a new foreign aid program, the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). Bush declared, "I
think it makes no sense to give aid
, money, to
countries that are corrupt." But the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in handouts to many of
the world's most corrupt regimes. By 2004, the State Department had codified what amounted to backtracking: "
The
MCA is an incentive-based supplement to other U.S. aid programs."
The Bush
team found excuses to give MCA aid to some of the world's most corrupt governments as well, including Georgia.
In 2010, President Barack Obama proclaimed at the United Nations that America was "
leading
a global effort to combat corruption
." Obama's "aides said the United States
in the past has often seemed
to just throw money at problems
," the
Los Angeles Times
reported. But the reform
charade was exposed the following year when the Obama administration fiercely resisted congressional efforts to curb
wasteful aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption
tests "has
the potential to affect a staggering number
of
needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of American tax dollars
into sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was "one of the
most corrupt countries on earth
." And the
deluge of aid the Afghan government received only worsened the corruption. As John Sopko, the heroic Special Inspector
General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), observed, "
We
need to understand how
US policies and practices unintentionally aided and
abetted corruption. We must recognize the danger of dealing with characters or networks of unsavory repute, tolerating
contracting abuses, accepting shoddy performance and delivering unsustainable projects."
The closed House impeachment hearings last week heard from acting U.S. ambassador to
the Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr., who testified that he "
had
authority over the bulk
of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the
Russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption." The
Washington Post
lauded Taylor as someone who "
spent
much of the 1990s telling
Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical
to their long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law, in his role as the head of
U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries."
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows that
corruption surged in
Ukraine during the late 1990s
and remains at obscene levels (though recent
years have shown slight improvements). Taylor was ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, when corruption sharply
worsened despite
hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid
.
Ukraine is now ranked as the
120th
least
corrupt nation in the world
-- lower
than Egypt and Pakistan, two other major U.S. aid recipients. What Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder is to the NFL,
Taylor appears to be to the anti-corruption cause.
Bribing foreign politicians to encourage honest government makes as much sense as
distributing free condoms to encourage abstinence. Rather than encouraging good governance practices, foreign aid is
more likely to produce kleptocracies, or governments of thieves. As a Brookings Institution analysis observed, "The
history of
U.S. assistance is littered
with tales of
corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects."
And both American politicians and bureaucrats are want to continue the aid gravy train, regardless of how foreign
regimes waste the money or use it to repress their own citizens.
If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would have become a rule of law paradise long ago. The country's new president,
Volodymyr Zelensky, may be sincere in his efforts to root out corruption. But it is an insult to both him and his nation
to pretend that Ukraine cannot clean up its act without help from Donald Trump. The surest way to reduce foreign
corruption is to end foreign aid.
"... Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him. ..."
"... Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure. ..."
"... These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot. ..."
"... Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally just a few hours before MH370 went missing ..."
"... Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable papers..How democracy working in Libya? ..."
"... Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do the homework all of you readers. ..."
"... All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because that's exactly what they're doing. ..."
"... She was never supposed to lose. ..."
"... DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Biden Family foundation. ..."
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one.
During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen,
and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and
Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural
gas, sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians got used to pay
pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for
heating and cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and
very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president
Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and
heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices, President Poroshenko
demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be
considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai
Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's
appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma
trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and
150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't
be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son.
Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko
was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could
not keep his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave
evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers
in connection with another case, Firtash case.
... ... ...
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is
Amos J. Hochstein, a protege of former VP Joe Biden, who has served
in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine.
Together with an American citizen Andrew Favorov, the Deputy Director
of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by
Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go
via Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while the margin is collected
by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price
will be paid by the Ukrainians, while profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party.
A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta,
producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian
ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with
Audrius Butkevicius, the former Minister of Defence (1996
to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now
is a member of the notorious Institute for Statecraft, a UK
deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations, subversion of the democratic process and promoting
Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war. In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed
to the Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of his troops from Lithuania.
Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In 1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000
USD from a senior executive of a troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested on receipt of the bribe, had been
sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated the feat in 2003 during the Rose
Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought
to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars' grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught fire; allegedly
thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind:
the previous one, equally huge, torched Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios
investigated the fires, he discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't destroyed
by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the
hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this
enormous operation was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the Minister of Defence
Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr Biden. (They say Mr Matios
was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably
just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians.
The Plundering Of Ukraine By Corrupt American Democrats. Whats new. The plundering of Syria - the Golan. Genie oil - Every
leading democrat name is on that Shareholder's list. Plundering of Serbia. Kosovo, its Gold mines and Minerals. Speciality per
Madeleine Albright . Wesley Clark and the Clintons. Sniff around where the Libyan gold went....not Fort Knox
These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look
like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot.
Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally
just a few hours before MH370 went missing .
Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable
papers..How democracy working in Libya?
Fantastic article. Thanks for Israel. Thanks God, whatever you believe or not, majority of the World citizens are good and
friendly. Were did not nuke each other despite 1% of our corrupted elites. They hold about 90% of media, can give Hollywood Oscar
Price or Nobel Price to my lovely dog. If I paid them.
Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today
the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay
to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do
the homework all of you readers.
You will NOT see once micron of this on the lame stream Media.....nor out of the mouths of Dems anywhere.....THIS info if true
should ensure the Dem corrupt Party is dissolved and a new one using pro-USA model is erected.
That we have seen little of this story in the Wall Street Journal nor Fox News shows just who controls those networks for sure.....This
story MUST become a part of the Congressional record....ASAP.....and ALL these folks no matter which Party MUST be held accountable
for lost US Funds...OUR TAX DOLLARS. Imagine what could be done with 3 BILLION for OUR Vets or the homeless......yet you see little
exposure of this corruption any where in US papers or even conservative outfits...????
All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being
indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because
that's exactly what they're doing.
DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine: Biden Family foundation.
Corrupt American Democrats AND Corrupt American Republicans . . . who gave Standing Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia,
United States Capitol for the Murders and Burning Humans Alive. United States President Trump never received 5 minute Standing
Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia, United States Capitol by the Capitalist Political Party composed of two factions:
Corrupt American Republicans AND Corrupt American Democrats.
So Shamir says that Tsarev is claiming Daniluk is the "whistleblower"? A foreigner can be a whistleblower?
And " Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was informed that there is an
order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev." ?? An order to arrest Daniluk in Washington, is that the claim? Why and who would
arrest him in Washington?
We would all be better off, including the Ukrainians, if they had stayed with Russia, where they were.
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
I do not think that Ukraine demand are all that bad if other conditions such as grating the region special status and the level
of autonomy similar to Crimea in the past are fulfilled. With Russian language restored in status as a regional language. Plus total
unconditional amnesty. All three are prerequisite for successful reintegration and in those condition t make sense: (1) the
LNR/DNR dissolve themselves, (2) that they have to leave the Ruble zone and switch back to the Grivna, (3) that the local military
forces have to be disbanded and, finally, (4) that Kiev wants the total control of the LDNR/Russian border. But also should be
a strict prohibition of any member of paramilitary battalions to enter the autonomous region under the penalty to prison
sentence for several years to prevent revenge killings.
The problems with Ukrainian economy are structural and the absence of economic detente with Russia alone can be undoing of
Zelensky government. Further accumulation of IMF credits is the only way forward. Add to this almost total breakdown of economic
ties with Russia because of EuroMaydan and subsequent Western Ukraine nationalist coup d'état, and you have Catch 22 situation for
him. Add to the pressure from the USA and the impression is the there is no way of this situation . BTW Poroshenko despite all
his rhetoric somehow managed to preserve his chocolate factory in Russia ;-)
...First, Trump, Macron and Merkel apparently told Zelenskii that he had to sign the so-called Steinmeier formula, which
basically spells out the sequence of confidence-building and de-escalation measures foreseen by the Minsk Agreements.
Now, you would be excused for thinking that this is a no-brainer. After all, the Minsk Agreements were ratified by the
UNSC (which makes them mandatory, no "if" or "buts" about this!) and it was Poroshenko who agreed to the Steinmeier
formula.
Heck, in 2016 he sure did not have a problem with it, but in 2019 he now calls the self-same formula a Russian
invention and that there is no such thing as a Steinmeier formula, see for yourself (in Ukrainian only):
Zelenskii's problem can be summed up in a simple sentence: the non-existing Nazis. Well, at least in the past all the
Neo-Nazis
cum
Jew-haters were constantly trying to convince us that there are no Nazis in the Ukraine;
apparently, my use of the term Ukronazi really set them off. Then came the election in which an absolute majority of
Ukrainians rejected Poroshenko's drive for war and voted for Zelenskii. If the Ukrainian people voted en masse to elect
an anti-war/pro-peace Jew, surely the Ukronazis were just a small minority of fringe individuals, right?
Wrong! Very very wrong!
And if those who were whitewashing the Ukrainian Nazis (obviously to obfuscate their real ideology and power) had
paid closer attention they would have seen signs of real Nazi power all over this election.
First, there was the remarkable change in tone in Zelenskii's rhetoric. Just like so many politicians (including
Trump!), he radically changed his tune and clearly tried to say one thing when speaking to the general Ukrainian public
and quite another when meeting with the Nazis or nationalist exiles in the USA.
You could say that there is a "Nazi deep state" in the Ukraine which, just like the other deep states out there,
can weather any elected president and quickly reassert its control over whomever the people elected.
You don't believe me when I say that he actually hosted the Ukronazis "fringe minority"? Fine, see for yourself:
In the photo above, Zelenskii is sitting with your typical gang of Ukronazi skinheads, including members of the infamous
Azov death-squad, and he is trying really hard to charm them while they, very publicly, have threatened him with a new
Maidan.
And this is not an isolated case or a fluke.
Zelenskii's prime minister went to a concert for an openly Nazi "Scream" music group called Sekira Peruna and thanked
the crowd of veterans of the "anti terrorist operation" (i.e. thugs from the Ukronazi deathsquads) for being there and
for saving the Ukraine. I did not find any English language translation of the typical lyrics of Sekira Peruna, but I
assure you that they contain all the obligatory nonsense which the Nazi ideology is built upon (see
here
for a
very good article with more details on this event and the Nazis involved).
Check out what their concert posters look like (shown here on the right) or, even better, check out the website of
this group:
http://sokyraperuna.com/
'Nuff said, I think.
So what is going on here?
Basically, exactly what I predicted as soon as Zelenskii was elected in my article "
Zelenskii's
dilemma
" in which I wrote: (emphasis added)
The Nazi-occupied Ukraine is not a democracy, but a plutocracy combined with an ochlocracy
.
The oligarchs are still there, as are the neo-Nazis mobs and death squads. And that creates an immense problem for
Zelenskii: this new Rada might well represent the views of a majority of the Ukrainian people, but
the real
power in the country is not concentrated in the Rada at all: it is in the streets
( ) The people of the
Ukraine desperately want peace. For the time being, the Rada reflects this overwhelmingly important fact. I say "for
the time being" because what will happen next is that the various forces and individuals who currently support
Zelenskii have done so just to gain power. They do not, however, have a common ideological platform or even a common
program. As soon as things go south (which they will inevitably do) many (most?) of these folks will turn against
Zelenskii and side with whoever can muster the biggest crowds and mete out the most violence. Now that he got
elected, Zelenskii quasi-instantly switched to the exact same rhetoric as what got Poroshenko so severely defeated.
Why? Because Zelenskiii is afraid that the neo-Nazi mobs and death squads will be unleashed against him at the very
first opportunity. In fact, the neo-Nazis have already begun promising a new Maidan. The truth is that
Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will
of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the people
: tertium non datur! So far, Zelenskii has apparently
decided that talking is all he is going to do simply because his triumphant electoral victories have landed him in
the middle of an immense minefield, and
any steps he takes from now on could cost him very dearly
.
Right now, in the short term, the neo-Nazi mobs represent a much bigger danger to Zelenskii than the (disorganized,
demoralized and generally apathetic) people. But this will inevitably change as the economic and political situation
gets worse
.
We see exactly that scenario unfolding before our eyes. Zelenskii took not one, but three very real, if small, steps.
First, he ordered a pullback of some regular Ukrainian armed forces from a few important segments of the line of
contact, then he agreed to a relatively minor prisoner exchange and, finally, he ordered the Ukrainian delegation to
sign the Steinmeier formula. The prisoner exchange went okay for both sides. The Ukronazis soon categorically rejected
any withdrawal and they publicly promised to immediately re-occupy any village vacated by the regular army and they
rejected what they call the "Russian" or "Putin" formula. So far there were a few attempts to block the thugs of the
Azov battalion, but after a few minor clashes, the Azov people passed the police line. And now, the Nazi organized mass
protests in 300 Ukrainian cities. I could post lots of videos here, but that would take a lot of space. If you want to
get a feel for what took place today, go to YouTube and copy-paste the following search query "протесты в украине" into
the search bar, and then use the filter option and chose "this week": you will easily get many hours of video and you
don't even need to understand a word of Ukrainian to immediately get it.
There is another very important factor which you will almost never see on these videos or on any public statements
and that is that there are a number of civil and even criminal cases currently being brought to trial in the Ukraine
against a host of officials of the
ancient régime
including even against Poroshenko (11-14 separate
investigations just for him already!) These men (Poroshenko, Parubii, Turchinov, etc.) now have absolutely no choice but
to try to overthrow Zelenskii.
Just like the US Dems need a coup against Trump (in the form of an impeachment or something else) because the
Clinton-Biden gang now risks real, hard, jail time, so do the former Ukronazi leaders now need a coup against Zelenskii
or they go to jail.
Initially, it appeared that Trump had given Poroshenko some personal security guarantees, but everybody knows how
much the US President's security "guarantees" are worth (just ask the Kurds!). So Poroshenko did not flee the country.
It now appears that some of the people behind Zelenskii (aka Kolomoiskii) are out to get the "Poroshenko clan &
Associates" – Poroshenko has to either topple Zelenskii or run away abroad. There are also rumors that the US "deep
state" (as opposed to the Trump Administration) is now putting pressure on Zelenskii to stop these investigations. Thus,
the current battle between Trump and the Neocons and their "deep state" has now spilled over into the Ukraine and it
appears that various US interest groups are now creating local Ukrainian surrogates whom they will use in their struggle
against each other.
Furthermore, a real possibility opened up now that all sorts of previously buried issues will be investigated by
the Ukrainian prosecutors including:
An official and true investigation to find out who opened fired on the police and demonstrators during the
Euromaidan
MH-17
Ukronazi atrocities in the Donbass
Human rights violations in the Ukraine (where over 1000 political prisoners are still being held) starting with
innumerable cases of horrible torture of detainees (in secret torture camps,
à la
CIA, including an
especially infamous one in Mariupol).
Poroshenko's role in the "Crimea Bridge provocation"
All the many murders of journalists and opponents to the Nazis beginning with the murder of Oles Buzina
A quasi infinite list of war profiteering, corruption, fraud, etc. etc. etc.
Simply put: there is no way that the Ukronazis will just stand by and let those investigations proceed. And while
it is true that numerically the Ukronazis are a small minority in the Ukraine, there is plenty enough of them to terrify
Zelenskii and his handlers, especially considering that they are 1) well armed 2) many have frontline combat experience
and 3) that they are willing not only to engage in "regular" violence, but also to commit atrocities and engage in
terrorism (they did plenty of both in the Donbass).
Zelenskii does have a number of things going for him: first, the mandate of the people (though his popularity is
already down from 73% to 66% – which is still very big), his legal prerogatives as the President and Commander in Chief
and the support of Kolomoiskii's strong network of international connections, especially in Israel.
But that is all rather theoretical so far.
All Zelenskii has done, besides hosting the skinheads in his office, was to make a 14 hour long interview with a
group of reporters. Yes, fourteen hours. Alas, all he achieved was to show that he is a much better actor than
politician. In fact, most experts seem to agree that in his role as President Zelenskii is a total failure who speaks a
lot, says a lot of silly things when he does, and seems to be absolutely unable to take any real action.
At the time of writing (Wed 16th) the leader of the Ukronazis has given Zelenskii 10 days to yield to all the
demands of the opposition. If not, he has promised to trigger a new Maidan and bring millions of people to the streets.
Yup. The "tiny" "fringe" and otherwise "non-existing" Nazis have now given Zelenskii an ultimatum.
Zelenskii is in free fall: Trump, Macron and Merkel are demanding that he abide by the decisions of the UNSC, the
Minsk Agreements and the Steinmeier formula. The Russians have clearly indicated that unless tangible and real progress
is made in the implementation of this formula, there will be nothing else to discuss. The Ukraine is basically bankrupt
and desperately needs both Novorussian coal and Russian gas
. Furthermore, only a removal of the self-defeating
barriers and boycotts imposed by the former regime against any trade or even communications with Russia could begin to
kick-start the economy of what is now clearly a failed state.
Yet the Nazis will oppose any and all such measures, with violence if needed. As for Zelenskii, he appears to be in a
no win situation: no matter what he does next, things will only get worse. Thus the most likely outcome of all these
processes will be, in the short term, further futile attempts by Zelenskii to appease the Nazis (thereby alienating the
general population), in the middle term a violent confrontation, followed in the long term by (the probably inevitable)
break-up of the Ukraine into separately much more viable parts.
UPDATE
: I just heard that the Ukraine is now demanding that 1) the LNR/DNR dissolve themselves,
2) that they have to leave the Ruble zone and switch back to the Hrivna, 3) that the local military forces have to be
disbanded and, finally, 4) that Kiev wants the total control of the LDNR/Russian border.
Well, good luck with that, folks! I hope they are not holding their breath (they aren't – they are just trying to
find a pretext to renege on their legal and political obligations )
"... How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook expansion.. NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the target area. ..."
"... Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. ..."
"... Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to mind. ..."
"... A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion? ..."
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
"... Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage. ..."
"... And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary Clinton. ..."
"Will he be convicted in the Senate? Who cares so long as he slowly roasts in the court of
public opinion."
Do you not see how unlikely it is that a story which demonstrates the utter corruption,
personally, of Joe Biden and, institutionally, of the Obama regime will, as it unwinds, turn
the people against Trump?
Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off
of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with
a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage.
And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any
Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary
Clinton.
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
Read More • Replies: @Mikhail
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of
unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. And as is the case in developing countries, what
we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was
not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. How the civil unrest spun out of control the second in ten years,
can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
All so very true. The crux of the matter is the word competition. US doesn't like that, as a monopolist entity (the world would
be hegemonic power). So you get Cold War 2.0 in overdrive now. Just think Great Britain, Russia, and Germany, at the end of 19th
century beginning of 20th. All three monarchies, with cousins in power, with more or less parliamentarian structures in place,
competing for a place under sun. And UK fretting that will loose its place...
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire. ..."
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
recently met in Minsk to revive the agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They
set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage of Ukrainian
legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong
opposition from nationalists, passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid
legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security
concerns. The U.S. and its allies should formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the
transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances, Moscow
would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine
protects local autonomy while Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted.
Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation, since the country would likely
be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of
Crimea while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent
referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object.
Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern
Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would certainly be
better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
Read More • Replies: @Mikhail
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
Precious! After all those years Ukraine tried to force Gazprom to prolong transportation
contracts, including in western Courts, now it is EUROCOMMISSION that plays their 3rd Energy
Package card, but how!
After Zelensky so daringly kissed up to Trump and talk dirt about Merkel and Macron
– EC says the prolongation of Gazprom-NaftaGaz contract is "not legally possible" and
that Ukraine has to kill and "unbundle" NaftaGaz, and when they done – only then the
new pipes-only company would be free to try negotiate a new unrelated contract for gas
transportation.
The Holy Grail of Ukrainian foreign economics is dead, backstabbed by EU.
What a fine present to President Ze :-DDDD
"... Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor. ..."
"... I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil - they didn't. ..."
"... I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. ..."
"... And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. ..."
"... How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement. ..."
Time to Extricate From Ukraine Kiev has become a drag on Trump, but if we don't watch out, it could turn into a geopolitical
threat to everyone. By Doug Bandow •
October 17, 2019
Recently Ukraine has been thrown into the spotlight as Democrats gear up to impeach President Donald Trump. More important, though,
is its role in damaging America's relations with Russia, which has resulted in a mini-Cold War that the U.S. needs to end.
Ukraine is in a bad neighborhood. During the 17th century, the country was divided between Poland and Russia, and eventually ended
up as part of the Russian Empire. Kiev then enjoyed only the briefest of liberations after the 1917 Russian Revolution, before being
reabsorbed by the Soviet Union. It later suffered from a devastating famine as Moscow confiscated food and collectivized agriculture.
Ukraine was ravaged during Germany's World War II invasion, and guerrilla resistance to renewed Soviet control continued for years
afterwards.
In 1991, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. gave Ukraine another, more enduring chance for independence. However, the new nation's development
was fraught: GDP dropped by 60 percent and corruption burgeoned. Ukraine suffered under a succession of corrupt, self-serving, and
ineffective leaders, as the U.S., Europe, and Russia battled for influence.
In 2014, Washington and European governments backed a street putsch against the elected, though highly corrupt, pro-Russian president,
Viktor Yanukovych. The Putin government responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.
Washington and Brussels imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided military aid to Kiev.
Advertisement
The West versus Russia quickly became a "frozen" conflict. Moscow reincorporated Crimea into Russia, from which it had been detached
in 1954 as part of internal Soviet politics. In the Donbass, more than a score of ceasefires came and went. Both Ukraine and Russia
failed to fulfill the 2016 Minsk agreements, which sought to end the conflict.
In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from
their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political
division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged
Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists
have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted.
The most important geopolitical impact has been to poison Russia's relations with the West. Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine
cannot be justified, but the U.S. and Europe did much to create the underlying suspicion and hostility. Recently declassified documents
reveal the degree to which Western officials misled Moscow about their intention to expand NATO. Allied support for adding Georgia
and Ukraine, which would have greatly expanded Russian vulnerability, generated a particularly strong reaction in Moscow. The dismemberment
of Serbia with no consideration of Russia's interests was another irritant, along with Western support for "color revolutions" elsewhere,
including in Tbilisi. The ouster of Yanukovych finally triggered Putin's brutal response.
Washington and Brussels apparently did not view their policies as threatening to Russia. However, had Moscow ousted an elected
Mexican president friendly to America, while inviting the new government to join the Warsaw Pact, and worked with a coalition of
Central American states to divert Mexican trade from the U.S., officials in Washington would not have been pleased. They certainly
wouldn't have been overly concerned about juridical niceties in responding.
This explains (though does not justify) Russia's hostile response. Subsequent allied policies then turned the breach in relations
into a gulf. The U.S. and European Union imposed a series of economic sanctions. Moreover, Washington edged closer to military confrontation
with its provision of security assistance to Kiev. Moscow responded by challenging America from Syria to Venezuela.
It also began moving towards China. The two nations' differences are many and their relationship is unstable. However, as long
as their antagonism towards Washington exceeds their discomfort with each other, they will cooperate to block what they see as America's
pursuit of global hegemony.
Why is the U.S. entangled in the Ukrainian imbroglio? During the Cold War, Ukraine was one of the fabled "captive nations," backed
by vigorous advocacy from Ukrainian Americans. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they joined other groups lobbying on behalf of ethnic
brethren to speed NATO's expansion eastward. Security policy turned into a matter of ethnic solidarity, to be pursued irrespective
of cost and risk.
To more traditional hawks who are always seeking an enemy, the issue is less pro-Ukraine than anti-Russia. Mitt Romney, the Republican
Party's 2012 presidential nominee, improbably attacked Russia as America's most dangerous adversary. Hence the GOP's counterproductive
determination to bring Kiev into NATO. Originally Washington saw the transatlantic alliance as a means to confront the Soviet menace;
now it views the pact as a form of charity.
After the Soviet collapse, the U.S. pushed NATO eastward into nations that neither mattered strategically nor could be easily
protected, most notably in the Balkans and Baltics. Even worse were Georgia and Ukraine, security black holes that would bring with
them ongoing conflicts with Russia, possibly triggering a larger war between NATO and Moscow.
Ukraine never had been a matter of U.S. security. For most of America's history, the territory was controlled by either the Russian
Empire or the Soviet Union. Washington's Cold War sympathies represented fraternal concerns, not security essentials. Today, without
Kiev's aid, the U.S. and Europe would still have overwhelming conventional forces to be brought into any conflict with Moscow. However,
adding Ukraine to NATO would increase the risk of a confrontation with a nuclear armed power. Russia's limitations when it comes
to its conventional military would make a resort to nuclear weapons more likely in any conflict.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush's aggressively neoconservative administration won backing for Georgian and Ukrainian membership in
NATO and considered intervening militarily in the Russo-Georgian war. However, European nations that feared conflict with Moscow
blocked plans for NATO expansion, which went into cold storage. Although alliance officials still officially backed membership for
Ukraine, it remains unattainable so long as conflict burns hot with Russia.
In the meantime, Washington has treated Ukraine as a de facto military ally, offering economic and security assistance. The U.S.
has provided $1.5 billion for Ukrainian training and weapons, including anti-tank Javelin missiles. Explained Obama administration
defense secretary Ashton Carter: "Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States."
Equally important, the perception of U.S. backing made the Kiev government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, less willing
to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia. Thus did Ukraine, no less than Russia, almost immediately violate the internationally
backed Minsk accord.
Kiev's role as a political football highlights the need for Washington to pursue an enduring political settlement with Russia.
European governments are growing restless; France has taken the lead in seeking better relations with Moscow. Germany is unhappy
with U.S. attempts to block the planned Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has campaigned
to end the conflict.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I credit Mr. Bandow for his largely fair and accurate description of the events in Ukraine of five years ago, and for his ultimate
policy proposal for the US to extricate itself from its close involvement in the area. However, I'm a little confused by what
exactly the author means by "Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine" and "Putin's brutal response" (aside from the treatment
of dissidents and journalists as he specifically mentioned) to the Maidan Revolution.
Was it aggressive and brutal for Russia to support separatists in the Donbass who were facing the prospect of legal discrimination
and violence by a criminal, neo-fascist government in Kiev, not to mention de-industrialization, the gutting of the agriculture
sector and the forced economic migration of an enormous number of its young workers (assuming that Ukraine's economic deal
with the EU followed the script of every other Easter European's country's deal with the EU)? If Yanukovych had fled to the
Donbass and proclaimed himself still the freely elected (though certainly corrupt) President of the nation, Russia's support
for the region would have even had a shiny brass legal fig leaf, wouldn't it?
As for the supposed "conquest" of Crimea, that's a rather strong word to use considering that all of two members of the
Ukrainian military were killed, and 60-80 of them detained, while 15,000 defected to Russia. Compared to the violence in Kiev
and Odessa, what happened in Crimea almost qualifies as a bloodless coup. But then Mr. Bandow shies away from using the word
"hegemony" to describe the foreign policy of the United States, figuratively putting the word in the mouths of those bad men
(which they are) in Moscow and Beijing. It's a pity that Mr. Bandow felt the need to make linguistic concessions to the foreign
policy establishment in what was otherwise a useful and balanced piece.
Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings
in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad
to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history
of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique.
And as is the case in developing countries,
what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian
public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot.
How the civil unrest spun out of control the second
time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief
is false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent
and jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a
communist monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary
would be more adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations
in which the US was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or
China are a to be kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without
tensions. But seriously, as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
The Ukraine situation is complex to be certain, but ending military aid and letting Russia clean up seems like a bad idea.
This week we saw Russian forces occupy US bases abandoned when Trump ordered our troops to withdraw from the Turkish border.
And now the author is arguing we should do something similar in the Ukraine.
When did Russian appeasement become so important to conservative foreign policy?
Mate, Russians were in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. US troops are there illegally (no Congress mandate,
no international mandate, no invitation). US is an occupying, destabilizing, terrorist protecting force in Syria and Americans
should look beyond their self esteem before commenting on this "shameful" retreat. US does not have the right to put its troops
wherever it fancies.
This win or loose mentality will be the death of you. Who do you think is threatening the US, when it has the biggest moats
protecting its shores? The only thing that is happening is that the hegemonic role, that of controlling everyone's economy
for its own elites benefit is being denied.
This is what you are complaining mate, the the rich Americans cannot get richer? Do you think they will share with you,
or that, like the good English boys of the past, you will not be able to land a job with East India Co. and despoil the natives
for a while?
If the US were smart then they would lead some sort of negotiation where eastern Europe and Ukraine and Russia were allowed
only mutually agreed defensive weapons systems. A demilitarization of say 200 miles on each side of the Russia border. The
strategy should be to encourage trade between Eastern Europe and Russia where Russia has influence but is not threatening.
It may be slow to build that trust but the real question is whether the US and Europe and NATO want peace with Russia or whether
they are using fear of Russia to keep eastern Europe united with the US and Europe. This may be the case but the future will
have China as a greater threat than Russia (China will even be a threat to Russia). Any shift in Russian relations will take
decades of building trust on both sides.
Good article and excellent history of facts. If I recall during the last Bush administration W hosted a Putin and his then
spouse, at a visit at his ranch. Putin informed W," the Ukraine belongs to Russia. end of sentence.
The author forgot the critical role of Sevastopol in the Crimea. It is Russia's only warm water port and there was no way that
it was going to allow this area to become a NATO naval base. Secretary of State Clinton and her sidekick for Ukraine, Victoria
Nuland should have known this before they started supporting the overthrow of the pro-Russia government in Kiev.
If you look at a historical atlas, you won't find an independent country called Ukraine before 1991. When my parents were
born, near what is now called Lviv, the area was called Galicia and Lemberg was its provincial capital. A gold medal issued
in 1916 in honor of Franz Josef's 85th birthday noted that he was the Kaiser of Austria, Hungary, Galicia and Lodomeria.
When the old Soviet Union agreed to allow East and West Germany to reunify, it was with the understanding that NATO would
not extend membership to former Soviet block countries and that there would be no NATO bases in these areas either. NATO and
the US broke their oral commitment to Russia a few years later.
The US should get out of the business of trying to spread democracy in third world countries and interfering in the affairs
of foreign governments. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world. We don't even have the ability to make many of our
own central cities safe for Americans. Think Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, all four of which appear on Wikipedia's
list of the 50 murder capitals of the world (per thousand population).
Some interesting estimates of the numbers of foreign fighters that participated in the Donbass War
from 2014-2019 from a report [PDF]
by the Soufan Center. (h/t
Kholmogorov)
Kiev-controlled Ukraine served as a destination for would-be murderers seeking impunity for
years. However, inviting foreign scum will help it about as much as it helped ISIS. Maybe
even less: some foreign and domestic ISIS bandits had ideology beyond raping and looting,
Ukrainian bandits in Donbass do not. "True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away
from the front in Ukraine itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they
can be maimed or killed.
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure, on the battlefield and in bed.
@Korenchkin If
you go by quintessence of Nazi ideology "my tribe is better than your tribe", every nation
has its Nazis, including Russia.
To its credit, tribal nationalists never got more than ~7% electoral support in
Russia.
After Ukrainian experience showed that any country can be quickly ruined by primeval
tribal nationalism, their support in Russia dropped to below 2%. But it still isn't zero.
Then again, ~1% of any population are schizophrenics, 2-3% are gays/lesbians, etc., so single
digit representation of any kind of deviation is not threatening country's survival.
@Mr. Hack I
asked the questions first, but I'll be generous and explain this to you on the fingers.
1. I used the term "Banderists" in the context of Ukraine's volunteer battalions –
that is, where foreigners have the most realistic chance of getting accepted.
2. Polls show Ukrainians to generally be 50/50 on Bandera, but obviously, that number will be
much higher amongst the rather self-selected sample that are volunteer battalion members. At
least 80%, if not 90%.
3. Poles obviously couldn't care less for Bandera. Polish *nationalists* – even less
so.
4. Nationalists are the likeliest foreigners to participate in the Donbass.
5. Do you now see why this would be a pertinent point to mention in the specific context of
why 10x fewer Poles fight for the Ukraine relative to Georgians, despite having 10x the
population?
I'm not sure if 14 fighters is a big enough sample size to justify lumping Canada into the
dreaded "Russophobe" category. But the 10 pro-Ukrainians to 4 pro-Russians ratio closely
mirrors that of self-declared ethnic Ukrainians (1,359,655) to Russians (622,445) in Canada.
Though many, possibly even a majority of those "Russians" are actually Jews. The Ukrainian
lobby has been disturbingly powerful in Canada for a long time (multiculturalism was their
bright idea), while the Russian lobby is seemingly invisible.
There are signs and symbols of Ukrainian nationalism everywhere (banks, festivals, flags,
bumper stickers etc), while similar Russian symbols are basically non-existent. The Uke to
Russkie ratio may be only 10-4, but it feels more like 10-1, or even 100-1.
I expected more Russians from the Baltics. Apparently, they and Serbs were early arrivals in
Girkin's group. Perhaps the ethnic Russians were counted as Russian?
Quite a few White Russians emigrated to France. The Whites were well supported by ethnic
Russians in the Donbass during the Civil War.
Many Irish Nationalist commentators supported Russia (enemy's enemy) but the table shows
Ireland Pro Ukraine (anti-imperialist a stronger driver?). The Russian settlers in the
Donbass are such an obvious parallel to the Orangemen.
1. Chechens would be the obvious answer. I recall reading there were 2x as many Chechens
fighting for Ukrainians than for Russians.
2. Svidomy Ukrainians in Russia.
3. And, as mentioned, Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists (~60%-70% on Ukraine's side, at
least initially). The other brands of Russian nationalists were overwhelmingly
pro-Russian.
@AnonFromTN
More foreign "scum" on Donbas side than Ukrainian side. As one would expect. It's not all bad
however, Donbas should be kept apart from Ukraine.
"True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away from the front in Ukraine
itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they can be maimed or
killed.
Ukrainian-American Paslawsky fought and died in the war.
A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the only American known to have fought
alongside Ukrainian forces against pro-Russian separatists has been killed in eastern
Ukraine.
Mark Gregory Paslawsky, 55, died while fighting with the volunteer Donbas Battalion.
Paslawsky, who fought under the nom de guerre "Franko," was killed on August 19 during
fighting in the town of Ilovaysk, near the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, according to a Facebook
post by Ukrainian Interior Ministry adviser Anton Herashchenko.
Paslawsky was born in 1959 in New York and grew up in a tight-knit Ukrainian-American
family in New Jersey. He moved to Ukraine around two decades ago and informed his family
earlier this year that he planned to volunteer for the Ukrainian Army, according to his
brother, Nestor Paslawsky.
::::::::::::::
The American fighting for Donbas, "Cowb0y", meanwhile was some sort of petty criminal in
the USA. Like Motorola in Russia, of course.
@Philip Owen
Well the Serbs played a major role in the defence of the territory that is today the Donbas
(not particularly well known among modern Russians). So Serbian nationalists have an extra
cause in regards to the Donbas
Slavo-Serbia or Slaveno-Serbia, was a territory of Imperial Russia between 1753-64. It was
located by the right bank of the Donets River between the Bakhmutka River
(Бахмут) and Luhan
(Лугань) rivers. This area today constitutes the
territories of present-day Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. The
administrative centre of Slavo-Serbia was Bakhmut (Bahmut).
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure
Not mutually exclusive. If you feel that you're leading a meaningless life and you are
looking for adventure, something radically different from a cubicle job or whatever, might as
well do something like join a war where you get to defend innocent people.
Considering ex ISIS fighters are often left to go free and claim benefits it was interesting
to see the fate of the fella who went to the Donbass and didn't even fight.
@anonymous
coward So was South Africa but didn't stop there being close ties between loyalists and
the apartheid government, a few Ulstermen were in the the government and there was the shared
settler Calvinist outlook. The IRA had quite close links to Croats, don't know if loyalists
had the same with Serbs. MP Ian Paisley junior is somewhat of a Russophile.
@SveVid This is
all true, but all those people are completely and utterly assimilated into Ukrainians /
Russians and have been for much longer than living memory. Most people in Serbia (except
history nerds etc) have no idea about this history. A much more plausible explanation for
Serbs going to fight in the Donbass would make some reference to Russian (and also Greek btw)
volunteer units fighting with the Serbs in the 1990s and contacts established during that
time.
@Anatoly Karlin
Mazepa is way up there and he joined the early 17th century Swedish invasion of Russia that
ended with the defeat at Poltava. That effectively ended Sweden as a great power. Seems like
Ukrainians have a thing for worshipping losers allied with anyone west of them, so there is
some hope for Porky's eventual rehabilitation.
Carl Bildt's ancestors were there in high stockings among the vanquished at Poltava
– the Bildts never forgave the humiliation, those Swedes can be sneaky. That explains
the persistent anti-Russian attitudes among the Nordics. Swedes also tend to be
simple-minded, nobody swallows the current globo-homo propaganda as eagerly or looks for
Russian submarines hiding behind every whale.
By and large Austria and Croatia are the only surprises – here, the history of the last
century is a bit complicated. "Altösterreicher" is a popular euphemism for "Galician
Jew" i.e. the current Kiew regime. The Croats are more probably channeling their recent
hatred for the Serbs. [Not really] funny what the separation of East and West Rome is still
doing to a people.
"... The head of the White House, Donald Trump, declared that American policy towards the Ukraine was senseless of and added that Moscow should be a friend of Washington, and that no one cared about the Ukrainians. The day before, Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid said that the European Union was experiencing fatigue from the Ukraine. ..."
The head of the White House, Donald Trump, declared that American policy towards the
Ukraine was senseless of and added that Moscow should be a friend of Washington, and that no
one cared about the Ukrainians. The day before, Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid said that
the European Union was experiencing fatigue from the Ukraine.
US President Donald Trump considers US actions in the Ukraine senseless, which actions
at the same time aggravate relations with Russia, The Washington Post reports, citing a
former senior White House official.
According to the newspaper interlocutor, the president takes the position that
"Russians should be our friends".
"What we do in the Ukraine is pointless and annoying Russia", he said, describing the
president's opinion.
Earlier, former US Vice President Joe Biden called on Trump to publish a transcript of
a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
"... Ukraine have never kept to the ceasefire and have been destroying settlements -- once they get control of the border – Donbass is finished. ..."
"... You mention the killing in Mariupol. The assassinations will continue and the people of Donbass will be made to pay. ..."
"... Five years has shown that real hatred has been unleashed – this is not going to go away. ..."
"... the Steinmeir formula is a con to hasten the end of Donbass. This was the guy who signed the agreement with Yanukovich on early elections etc and then stood back when he was overthrown. ..."
"... I also agree. This is a trap. No treaty should be signed unless DPR/LPR are guaranteed to control the border with Russia. ..."
"... The best defense against that would be the vote, which must take place first and under OSCE supervision, without Ukrainian meddling or coercion. If the vote indicated that a majority wants to return to Kiev's control, then that's what should happen. But I don't see it going that way. ..."
Major issue with this formula is "The transfer of the border"
Ukraine have never kept to the ceasefire and have been destroying settlements -- once they
get control of the border – Donbass is finished.
You mention the killing in Mariupol. The assassinations will continue and the people of Donbass will be made to pay.
Five years has shown that real hatred has been unleashed – this is not going to go
away.
Germany in my view plays a double game – they want this to happen – the Steinmeir formula is a con to hasten the end of Donbass. This was the guy who signed the
agreement with Yanukovich on early elections etc and then stood back when he was
overthrown.
We'll see. According to the Minsk Agreement, the elections and the autonomous status were
supposed to be settled before the border was returned to Ukrainian control. That has always
been an issue for Kuh-yiv. It wants to be trusted to have control over the Donbas before the
other elements are fulfilled. But as His Nibs Shaun Of The Dead Walker has pointed out before
now, 'the border' in that region is largely an illusion, and checkpoints are for those who
have to travel by road. Military units, especially heavy armor, do not.
I think what is most likely to happen is little troublesome uprisings across a broad
front, initiated by Azov Battalion and other Ukie militias and making use of 'loyal'
Ukrainians in Donbas and Lugansk.
This would create a governance problem for the regions, and
be portrayed in the western press as an earnest desire among the inhabitants to return to
Ukraine, 'now that the Russians have gone'.
The best defense against that would be the vote,
which must take place first and under OSCE supervision, without Ukrainian meddling or
coercion. If the vote indicated that a majority wants to return to Kiev's control, then
that's what should happen. But I don't see it going that way.
But what of the Russian army that has supposedly been entrenched in the Donbass these past
few years?
Surely, the Russian Army will not allow this ethnic cleansing to happen, for that surely
is what will happen, albeit "ethnic" is not the right word, even though the brain-dead Nazi
"true Slavs" from the West believe it is.
"Our actions have to become offensive and have the disintegration of the Russian
Federation as a conscious ultimate goal. This is the only effective long-term solution that
the vast majority of countries will benefit from.
attempts to pacify Russia lead only to the growth of its arrogance, as was was the case
with the return of the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe.
Attempts to reach an agreement in a civilised way with the Russian Federation are also
doomed to fail, "since such a decision contradicts the main expansionist thinking of the
Kremlin regime".
"The Russian Federation, in its present borders and with its present resources, is never
capable of becoming a normal civilised state", said the diplomat.
Aleksandrovich emphasises that "ways of disintegrating the Russian Federation don't demand
conducting military operations".
The ambassador lists a number of tools via which it is possible to "pacify Russia":
1. personal sanctions against bosses with the freezing of assets and a ban on
entrance;
2. tight restrictions for energy, bank, and financial-military and technical sectors;
3. a ban on the sale of modern technologies;
4 .a collapse in oil prices.
"There comes a time when the last evil empire has to fall," summarized the Ukrainian
diplomat.
In his recent interview, Oleksandr Oleksandrovych claimed Russia 'uses Serbia to
destabilize situation in Western Balkans and thereby destroy Europe'
09:15, 3 November 2017
Ukrainian ambassador's views on Russia-Serbia relations and Russia's role in
continental security, all the more expressed publicly, are unacceptable. Ivica Tonchev, the
State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia said this as quoted by
Frontnews International, commenting on the statement recently made by the Ukrainian
diplomat.
'The main role of ambassadors is to do everything to improve bilateral relations,
primarily political and economic, as well as all other forms of cooperation. The Ambassador
of Ukraine to Serbia, Oleksandr Oleksandrovych, seems to be constantly forgetting this, since
all his activities are reduced to fruitless attempts to break relations between the Republic
of Serbia and the Russian Federation. In the latest series of scandalous interviews he gave,
he said that the Republic of Serbia does not pursue an independent foreign policy, that is,
it is in the hands of Russia, thus destabilizing the entire region of the Western Balkans,
thereby 'destroying Europe,' Tonchev said.
He also called on the Ukrainian government to take action on the Ambassador and his
unacceptable behavior so that Serbia 'was not forced to make the usual steps in such
situations.'
In recent interviews with Serbian media, Ukraine's Ambassador to Serbia Alexander
Alexandrovich said that Russia is using Serbia to destabilize the situation in the region, in
particular, encouraging separatism in Bosnia and trying to influence Macedonia. The
ambassador also mentioned the Serbian mercenaries fighting on the side of the Russian armed
formations in Donbas.
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych: he might be better suited to playing Count Dracula in horror
movies.
In fact, the ambassador stepped so much out of line in November 2017 that even
Rumpleklimkin, then Banderastan Foreign Minister, was forced to call him to hold
consultations in Kiev because of his statements to the Serbian media.
At the same time, Ivica Toncev, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Serbia, stated that the Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksandr Oleksandrovych's statements concerning
Russian influence on Serbia were unacceptable and threatened him with possible consequences
in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
Novosad is a graduate of the humanitarian lyceum in Kiev, and in 2011 she ended a
bachelor degree at the National University "Kiyevo-Mogilyansky Academy" as a "political
scientist". Two years later she received a master's degree in the Dutch Maastricht. She
studied in Spain and the Czech Republic, and was a scholar of the Soros fund. In addition, as Novosad wrote on Facebook, she took part in the Ukrainian-Canadian administrative program,
within the framework of which she attended a special course ran by the Canadian
authorities.
I.e., as we see, Anna Novosad is the classical representative of the new "Ukrainian
elite", which was raised and brought up abroad and which already is almost not connected to
Ukraine even at the mental level. And the reset of the Ukrainian authorities in the form of
"Zelensky's victory" was started to a large extent for the mass invasion of such artificially
grown mankurts that are supposed to completely remove people with a Soviet past and any ties
(family, friendly, business) with Russia from the country's governance structures.
And they absolutely do not need either knowledge of Ukrainian, knowledge of national
history, or understanding of what's admissible. Even intellectual qualities aren't especially
required from them, because their task is relaying the will of their masters and to control
their implementation.
And Farion doesn't like her because she can't talk the shitkicker Slav dialect as good as
she can. In fact, it's debatable whether Novosad can talk Yukie with any competence at
all.
Yes, what's the matter with her? Real Ukrainians ride sturdy ponies and wear their hair in
the khokol style. Government superiors are referred to as 'Hetman'. And there's a lot of
kneeling. The age of machines is an utter betrayal of Kievan ideals.
If this not of the Biden run, I do not know what can be. He now has an albatross abound his neck in the form of interference
in Ukrainian criminal investigation to save his corrupt to the core narcoaddict son. Only the raw power of neoliberal MSM
to suppress any information that does not fit their agenda is keeping him in the race.
But a more important fact that he was criminally involved in EuroMaydan (at the cost to the USA taxpayers around five billions) is swiped under the carpet. And will never be discussed
along with criminality of Obama and Nuland.
As somebody put it "with considerable forethought [neoliberal MSM] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will
faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a
wage as possible."
For days we've been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States after a whistleblower
lodged an 'urgent' complaint about something Trump promised another world leader - the details of which the White House has refused
to share.
Here's the scandal; It appears that Trump, may have made promises to newly minted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - very
likely involving an effort to convince Ukraine to reopen its investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, after Biden strongarmed
Ukraine's prior government into firing its top prosecutor - something Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have pursued for months
. There are also unsupported rumors that Trump threatened to withhold $250 million in aid to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists.
And while the MSM and Congressional Democrats are starting to focus on the sitting US president having a political opponent investigated,
The New
York Times admits that nothing Trump did would have been illegal , as "while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities
with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community
to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit."
Moreover, here's why Trump and Giuliani are going to dig their heels in; last year Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl
Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn't fire their top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin - who was leading a wide-ranging
corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board Hunter Biden sat on.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them
and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the
conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired . And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on
Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
In short, there's both smoke and fire here - and what's left of Biden's 2020 bid for president may be the largest casualty of
the entire whistleblower scandal.
And by the transitive properties of the Obama administration 'vetting' Trump by sending spies into his campaign, Trump can simply
say he was protecting America from someone who may have used his position of power to directly benefit his own family at the expense
of justice.
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are acting as if they've found the holy grail of taking Trump down. On Thursday, the House
Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) interviewed inspector general Michael Atkinson, with whom the whistleblower
lodged their complaint - however despite three hours of testimony, he repeatedly declined to discuss the content of the complaint
.
Following the session, Schiff gave an angry speech - demanding that acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire share
the complaint , and calling the decision to withhold it "unprecedented."
"We cannot get an answer to the question about whether the White House is also involved in preventing this information from coming
to Congress," said Schiff, adding "We're determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is to make sure
that the national security is protected."
According to Schiff, someone "is trying to manipulate the system to keep information about an urgent matter from the Congress
There certainly are a lot of indications that it was someone at a higher pay grade than the director of national intelligence," according
to the
Washington Post .
On thursday, Trump denied doing anything improper - tweeting " Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand
that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself. "
"Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on
such a potentially 'heavily populated' call. "
Giuliani, meanwhile, went on CNN with Chris Cuomo Thursday to defend his discussions with Ukraine about investigating alleged election
interference in the 2016 election to the benefit of Hillary Clinton conducted by Ukraine's previous government. According to Giuliani,
Biden's dealings in Ukraine were 'tangential' to the 2016 election interference question - in which a Ukrainian court ruled that
government officials meddled
for Hillary in 2016 by releasing details of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's 'Black Book' to Clinton campaign staffer Alexandra
Chalupa.
And so - what the MSM doesn't appear to understand is that President Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden over something
with legitimate underpinnings.
Which - of course, may lead to the Bidens'
adventures in China , which Giuliani referred to in his CNN interview. And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which may have helped his son Hunter - who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Journalist Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
Journalist Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion
Meanwhile, speculation is rampant over what this hornet's nest means for all involved...
The latest intell hit on Trump tells me that the deep-state swamp rats are in a panic over the Ukrainian/Obama admin collusion
about to be outed in the IG report. They're also freaked out over Biden's shady Ukrainian deals with his kid.
Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which
expanded to $1.5 billion
Lets clarify this a bit. The 1 billion came from the RED CHINESE ARMY, lets call spade a spade here. And why? To buy into (invest
in ) DARPA related contractors. The RED CHINESE NAVY was so impressed with little sonny's performance (meaning daddy's help),
that they handed over an additions 500,000.
Without daddy's influence as VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that FREE PLANE RIDE on Air Force TWO with daddy holding
sonny's little hand, little sonny never would have gotten past the ticket booth.
"House Democrats are also looking into whether Giuliani flew to Ukraine to 'encourage' them to investigate Hunter Biden and
his involvement with Burisma."
LOL looking into someone looking into a crime that may have been committed by a Democrat... they're some big brained individuals
these dummycrats.
Putting him in the hot seat would be to ask why he sponsored a coup and backed a neo Nazi party. When he starts to lie, put
up images of the party he back wearing inverted Das Reich arm bands and flying flags. Now that would be real journalism.
The Bidens show precisely that power corrupts. They both need to be investigated and then jailed. To the countries of the world
that depend on the USA for any kind of help, they had to deal with Joe 'what's in-it-for-me' Biden? What a disgrace for America.
I think every sitting President, Vice President, senator, and representative needs a yearly lie-detector test that asks but
one question: "did you do anything in your official duties that personally benefited you or your family?"
Didn't you ever wonder how so many senators and representatives end up multi-millionaires after a couple terms in office?
Why the fuuk do we have have to put up with this jackass. All the talk on cable, etc, is all ********. Trump is a fuuking crook,
and Barr is his bag man,. He has surrounded hinmself with toadies, cowards , incompetents and a trash family. Rise up, call your
representatives, March on DC get this crook out of office.
Call anyone you can think of, challenge them to overcome their cowardice, including members of congress, cabinet, your governor
Same could be said for the Democrats and all their Russian collusion lies and Beto wants to FORCE people to sell their weapons
to the government, right.......
" ...The complaint <against the president> involved communications with a foreign leader and a "promise" that Trump made, which
was so alarming that a U.S. intelligence official <who monitored Trumps call> who had worked at the White House went to the inspector
general of the intelligence community, two former U.S. officials said. ..."
What this tells:
1. If president Trump is monitored this way our spooks know the number of hairs in our crotches...
2. If we convicted on promises most in congress would be hung by the neck til dead for treason for not following the constitution...
Anybody that thinks that Trump, having had Roy Cohn as his mentor, and working in cut-throat NY real estate for years, AND
having dealt with political snakes for many years..would allow himself to be taped saying something on a call that he KNOWS the
Intel Community is listening in, is not paying attention.
This will backfire on the Dems and the media. Trump set them all up again..
My guess is the Dems will be hounding the IC for the complaint, will call Barr and the DNI in an investigation ran live on
CNN and MSNBC..that will show how corrupt Biden was. Everytime you hear Alexandra Chalupa's name come up, look for the MSM to
go ballistic..she is the tell in this one also. It cannot be allowed for the plebes to find out how Manafort was setup, Ukraine
assisted the DNC in the fake Russian election interference farce..hey, guess what, guess who is an ardent Ukraininan nationalist?
The head of Crowdstrike. Chalupa and Alparovich, the names that will bring down more dirty Dems than anyone in history.
For days we've been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States
Trump is a traitor, but he does not work for either Ukraine nor Russia but instead he works for Israel first and foremost!
He even admits it himself. Lol he doesn't even give a shite when Israel taps his phone :)
House Democrats are also looking into whether Giuliani flew to Ukraine to 'encourage' them to investigate Hunter Biden and
his involvement with Burisma.
This bunch of filthy swine should be looking up each others asses for answers. Actually the Ukrainians have been screaming
for over a year at the DOJ and FBI to take the evidence they have. But the rotten to the core Democrat socialist lefties wanted
to block it.
A retired Australian diplomat who served in Moscow dissects the emergence of the new Cold
War and its dire consequences.
I n 2014, we saw violent U.S.-supported regime change and civil war in Ukraine. In February,
after months of increasing tension from the anti-Russian protest movement's sitdown strike in
Kiev's Maidan Square, there was a murderous clash between protesters and Ukrainian police,
sparked off by hidden shooters (we now know that were expert Georgian snipers) , aiming at
police. The elected government collapsed and President Yanukevich fled to Russia, pursued by
murder squads.
The new Poroshenko government pledged harsh anti-Russian language laws. Rebels in two
Russophone regions in Eastern Ukraine took local control, and appealed for Russian military
help. In March, a referendum took place in Russian-speaking Crimea on leaving Ukraine, under
Russian military protection. Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, a request promptly
granted by the Russian Parliament and President. Crimea's border with Ukraine was secured
against saboteurs. Crimea is prospering under its pro-Russian government, with the economy
kick-started by Russian transport infrastructure investment.
In April, Poroshenko ordered full military attack on the separatist provinces of Donetsk and
Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine. A brutal civil war ensued, with aerial and artillery bombardment
bringing massive civilian death and destruction to the separatist region. There was major
refugee outflow into Russia and other parts of Ukraine. The shootdown of MH17 took place in
July 2014.
Poroshenko: Ordered military attack.
By August 2015, according to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
estimates, 13,000 people had been killed and 30,000 wounded. 1.4 million Ukrainians had been
internally displaced, and 925,000 had fled to neighbouring countries, mostly Russia and to a
lesser extent Poland.
There is now a military stalemate, under the stalled Minsk peace process. But random fatal
clashes continue, with the Ukrainian Army mostly blamed by UN observers. The UN reported last
month that the ongoing war has affected 5.2 million people, leaving 3.5 million of them in need
of relief, including 500,000 children. Most Russians blame the West for fomenting Ukrainian
enmity towards Russia. This war brings back for older Russians horrible memories of the Nazi
invasion in 1941. The Russia-Ukraine border is only 550 kilometres from Moscow.
Flashpoint Syria
Russian forces joined the civil war in Syria in September 2015, at the request of the Syrian
Government, faltering under the attacks of Islamist extremist rebel forces reinforced by
foreign fighters and advanced weapons. With Russian air and ground support, the tide of war
turned. Palmyra and Aleppo were recaptured in 2016. An alleged Syrian Government chemical
attack at Khan Shaykhun in April 2017 resulted in a token U.S. missile attack on a Syrian
Government airbase: an early decision by President Trump.
NATO, Strategic Balance, Sanctions
An F-15C Eagle from the 493rd Fighter Squadron takes off from Royal Air Force Lakenheath,
England, March 6, 2014. The 48th Fighter Wing sent an additional six aircraft and more than 50
personnel to support NATO's air policing mission in Lithuania, at the request of U.S. allies in
the Baltics. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Emerson Nunez/Released)
Tensions have risen in the Baltic as NATO moves ground forces and battlefield missiles up to
the Baltic states' borders with Russia. Both sides' naval and air forces play dangerous
brinksmanship games in the Baltic. U.S. short-range, non-nuclear-armed anti-ballistic missiles
were stationed in Poland and Romania, allegedly against threat of Iranian attack. They are
easily convertible to nuclear-armed missiles aimed at nearby Russia.
Nuclear arms control talks have stalled. The INF intermediate nuclear forces treaty expired
in 2019, after both sides accused the other of cheating. In March 2018, Putin announced that
Russia has developed new types of intercontinental nuclear missiles using technologies that
render U.S. defence systems useless. The West has pretended to ignore this announcement, but we
can be sure Western defence ministries have noted it. Nuclear second-strike deterrence has
returned, though most people in the West have forgotten what this means. Russians know exactly
what it means.
Western economic sanctions against Russia continue to tighten after the 2014 events in
Ukraine. The U.S. is still trying to block the nearly completed Nordstream Baltic Sea
underwater gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Sanctions are accelerating the division of the
world into two trade and payments systems: the old NATO-led world, and the rest of the world
led by China, with full Russian support and increasing interest from India, Japan, ROK and
ASEAN.
Return to Moscow
In 2013, my children gave me an Ipad. I began to spend several hours a day reading well
beyond traditional mainstream Western sources: British and American dissident sites, writers
like Craig Murray in UK and in the U.S. Stephen Cohen, and some Russian sites – rt.com,
Sputnik, TASS, and the official Foreign Ministry site mid.ru. in English.
In late 2015 I decided to visit Russia independently to write Return to Moscow , a
literary travel memoir. I planned to compare my impressions of the Soviet Union, where I had
lived and worked as an Australian diplomat in 1969-71, with Russia today. I knew there had been
huge changes. I wanted to experience 'Putin's Russia' for myself, to see how it felt to be
there as an anonymous visitor in the quiet winter season. I wanted to break out of the familiar
one-dimensional hostile political view of Russia that Western mainstream media offer: to take
my readers with me on a cultural pilgrimage through the tragedy and grandeur and inspiration of
Russian history. As with my earlier book on Spain 'Walking the Camino' , this was not
intended to be a political book, and yet somehow it became one.
I was still uncommitted on contemporary Russian politics before going to Russia in January
2016. Using the metaphor of a seesaw, I was still sitting somewhere around the middle.
My book was written in late 2015 – early 2016, expertly edited by UWA Publishing. It
was launched in March 2017. By this time my political opinions had moved decisively to the
Russian end of the seesaw, on the basis of what I had seen in Russia, and what I had read and
thought during the year.
I have been back again twice, in winter 2018 and 2019. My 2018 visit included Crimea, and I
happened to see a Navalny-led Sunday demonstration in Moscow. I thoroughly enjoyed all three
independent visits: in my opinion, they give my judgements on Russia some depth and
authenticity.
Russophobia Becomes Entrenched
Russia was a big talking point in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the initially
unlikely Republican candidate Donald Trump's chances improved, anti-Putin and anti-Russian
positions hardened in the outgoing Obama administration and in the Democratic Party
establishment which backed candidate Hillary Clinton.
Russia and Putin became caught up in the Democratic Party's increasingly obsessive rage and
hatred against the victorious Trump. Russophobia became entrenched in Washington and London
U.S. and UK political and strategic elites, especially in intelligence circles: think of
Pompeo, Brennan, Comey and Clapper. All sense of international protocol and diplomatic
propriety towards Russia and its President was abandoned, as this appalling Economist
cover from October 2016 shows.
My experience of undeclared political censorship in Australia since four months after
publication of 'Return to Moscow' supports the thesis that:
We are now in the thick of a ruthless but mostly covert Anglo-American alliance
information war against Russia. In this war, individuals who speak up publicly in the cause of
detente with Russia will be discouraged from public discourse.
In the Thick of Information War
When I spoke to you two years ago, I had no idea how far-reaching and ruthless this
information war is becoming. I knew that a false negative image of Russia was taking hold in
the West, even as Russia was becoming a more admirable and self-confident civil society, moving
forward towards greater democracy and higher living standards, while maintaining essential
national security. I did not then know why, or how.
I had just had time to add a few final paragraphs in my book about the possible consequences
for Russia-West relations of Trump's surprise election victory in November 2016. I was right to
be cautious, because since Trump's inauguration we have seen the step-by-step elimination of
any serious pro-detente voices in Washington, and the reassertion of control over this
haphazard president by the bipartisan imperial U.S. deep state, as personified from April 2018
by Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Adviser Bolton. Bolton has now been thrown
from the sleigh as decoy for the wolves: under the smooth-talking Pompeo, the imperial policies
remain.
Truth, Trust and False Narratives
Let me now turn to some theory about political reality and perception, and how national
communities are persuaded to accept false narratives. Let me acknowledge my debt to the
fearless and brilliant Australian independent online journalist, Caitlin Johnstone.
Behavioural scientists have worked in the field of what used to be called propaganda since
WW1. England has always excelled in this field. Modern wars are won or lost not just on the
battlefield, but in people's minds. Propaganda, or as we now call it information warfare, is as
much about influencing people's beliefs within your own national community as it is
about trying to demoralise and subvert the enemy population.
The IT revolution of the past few years has exponentially magnified the effectiveness of
information warfare. Already in the 1940s, George Orwell understood how easily governments are
able to control and shape public perceptions of reality and to suppress dissent. His brilliant
books 1984 and Animal Farm are still instruction manuals in principles of
information warfare. Their plots tell of the creation by the state of false narratives, with
which to control their gullible populations.
The disillusioned Orwell wrote from his experience of real politics. As a volunteer fighter
in the Spanish Civil War, he saw how both Spanish sides used false news and propaganda
narratives to demonise the enemy. He also saw how the Nazi and Stalinist systems in Germany and
Russia used propaganda to support show trials and purges, the concentration camps and the
Gulag, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, German master race and Stalinist class enemy
ideologies; and hows dissident thought was suppressed in these controlled societies. Orwell
tried to warn his readers: all this could happen here too, in our familiar old England. But
because the good guys won the war against fascism, his warnings were ignored.
We are now in Britain, U.S. and Australia actually living in an information warfare world
that has disturbing echoes of the world that Orwell wrote about. The essence of information
control is the effective state management of two elements, trust and fear , to
generate and uphold a particular view of truth. Truth, trust and fear : these are the
three key elements, now as 100 years ago in WWI Britain.
People who work or have worked close to government – in departments, politics, the
armed forces, or top universities – mostly accept whatever they understand at the time to
be 'the government view' of truth. Whether for reasons of organisational loyalty, career
prudence or intellectual inertia, it is usually this way around governments. It is why moral
issues like the Vietnam War and the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq were so distressing for
people of conscience working in or close to government and military jobs in Canberra. They were
expected to engage in 'doublethink' as Orwell had described it:
Even in Winston's nightmare world, there were still choices – to retreat into the
non-political world of the proles, or to think forbidden thoughts and read forbidden books.
These choices involved large risks and punishments. It was easier and safer for most people to
acquiesce in the fake news they were fed by state-controlled media.
'Trust, Truth and False Narratives'
Fairfax journalist Andrew Clark, in the Australian Financial Review , in an essay
optimistically titled "Not fake news: Why truth and trust are still in good shape in
Australia", (AFR Dec. 22, 2018), cited Professor William Davies thus:
"Most of the time, the edifice that we refer to as "truth" is really an investment of
trust in our structures of politics and public life' 'When trust sinks below a certain point,
many people come to view the entire spectacle of politics and public life as a sham."
Here is my main point: Effective information warfare requires the creation of enough
public trust to make the public believe that state-supported lies are true.
The key tools are repetition of messages, and diversification of trusted
voices. Once a critical mass is created of people believing a false narrative, the lie locks
in: its dissemination becomes self-sustaining.
" Power is being able to control what happens. Absolute power is being able
to control what people think about what happens. If you can control what happens,
you can have power until the public gets sick of your BS and tosses you out on your ass. If
you can control what people think about what happens, you can have power forever. As
long as you can control how people are interpreting circumstances and events, there's no
limit to the evils you can get away with."
The Internet has made propaganda campaigns that used to take weeks or months a matter of
hours or even minutes to accomplish. It is about getting in quickly, using large enough
clusters of trusted and diverse sources, in order to cement lies in place, to make the
lies seem true, to magnify them through social messaging: in other words, to create credible
false narratives that will quickly get into the public's bloodstream.
Over the past two years, I have seen this work many times: on issues like framing Russia for
the MH17 tragedy; with false allegations of Assad mounting poison gas attacks in Syria; with
false allegations of Russian agents using lethal Novichok to try to kill the Skripals in
Salisbury; and with the multiple lies of Russiagate.
It is the mind-numbing effect of constant repetition of disinformation by many eminent
people and agencies, in hitherto trusted channels like the BBC or ABC or liberal Anglophone
print media that gives the system its power to persuade the credulous. For if so many diverse
and reputable people repeatedly report such negative news and express such negative judgements
about Russia or China or Iran or Syria, surely they must be right?
We have become used to reading in our quality newspapers and hearing on the BBC and ABC and
SBS gross assaults on truth, calmly presented as accepted facts. There is no real public debate
on important facts in contention any more. There are no venues for dissent outside contrarian
social media sites.
Sometimes, false narratives inter-connect. Often a disinformation narrative in one area is
used to influence perceptions in other areas. For example, the false Skripals poisoning story
was launched by British intelligence in March 2018, just in time to frame Syrian President
Assad as the guilty party in a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma the following month.
The Skripals Gambit
The Skripals gambit was also a failed British attempt to blight the Russia –hosted
Football World Cup in June 2018. In the event, hundreds of thousands of Western sports fans
returned home with the warmest memories of Russian good sportsmanship and hospitality.
How do I know the British Skripals narrative is false? For a start, it is illogical,
incoherent, and constantly changes. Allegedly, two visiting Russian FSB agents in March 2018
sprayed or smeared Novichok, a deadly toxin instantly lethal in the most microscopic
quantities, on the Skripals' house front doorknob. There is no video footage of the Skripals at
their front door on the day. We are told they were found slumped on a park bench, and that is
maybe where they had been sprayed with nerve gas? Shortly afterwards, Britain's Head of Army
Nursing who happened to be passing by found them, and supervised their hospitalisation and
emergency treatment.
Allegedly, much of Salisbury was contaminated by Novichok, and one unfortunate woman
mysteriously died weeks later, yet the Skripals somehow did not die, as we are told. But where
are they now? We saw a healthy Yulia in a carefully scripted video interview released in May
2018, after an alleged 'one in a million' recovery. We were assured her father had recovered
too, but nobody has seen him at all. The Skripals have simply disappeared from sight since 16
months ago. Are they now alive or dead? Are they in voluntary or involuntary British
custody?
A month after the poisoning, the UK Government sent biological samples from the Skripals to
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons , for testing. The OPCW sent the
samples to a trusted OPCW laboratory in Spiez, Switzerland.
Lavrov Spiez BZ claims, April 2018
A few days later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dramatically announced in Moscow
that the Spiez lab had found in the samples a temporary-effect nerve agent BZ, used by U.S. and
UK but not by Russia, that would have disabled the Skripals for a few days without killing
them. He also revealed the Spiez lab had found that the Skripal samples had been twice tampered
with while still in UK custody: first soon after the poisoning, and again shortly before
passing them to the OPCW. He said the Spiez lab had found a high concentration of Novichok,
which he called A- 234, in its original form. This was extremely suspicious as A-234 has high
volatility and could not have retained its purity over a two weeks period. The dosage the Spiez
lab found in the samples would have surely killed the Skripals. The OPCW under British pressure
rejected Lavrov's claim, and suppressed the Spiez lab report.
Let's look finally at the alleged assassins.
'Boshirov and Petrov'
These two FSB operatives who visited Salisbury under the false identities of 'Boshirov' and
'Petrov' did not look or behave like credible assassins. It is more likely that they were sent
to negotiate with Sergey Skripal about his rumoured interest in returning to Russia. They
needed to apply for UK visas a month in advance of travel: ample time for the British agencies
to identify them as FSB operatives, and to construct a false attempted assassination narrative
around their visit. This false narrative repeatedly trips over its own lies and contradictions.
British social media are full of alternative theories and rebuttals. Russians find the whole
British Government Skripal narrative laughable. They have invented comedy skits and video games
based on it. Yet it had major impact on Russia-West relations.
The Douma False Narrative
I turn now to the claimed Assad chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018.This falsely
alleged attack triggered a major NATO air attack on Syrian targets, ordered by Trump. We came
close to WWIII in these dangerous days. Thanks to the restraint of the then Secretary of
Defence James Mattis and his Russian counterparts, the risk was contained.
The allegation that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used outlawed chemical weapons
against his own people was based solely on the evidence of faked video images of child victims,
made by the discredited White Helmets, a UK-sponsored rebel-linked 'humanitarian' propaganda
organisation with much blood on its hands. Founded in 2013 by a British private security
specialist of intelligence background, James Le Mesurier, the White Helmets specialised in
making fake videos of alleged Assad regime war crimes against Syrian civilians. It is by now a
thoroughly discredited organisation that was prepared to kill its prisoners and then film their
bodies as alleged victims of government chemical attacks.
White Helmets
As the town of Douma was about to fall to advancing Syrian Government forces, the White
Helmets filled a room with stacked corpses of murdered prisoners, and photographed them as
alleged victims of aerial gas attack. They also made a video alleging child victims of this
attack being hosed down by White Helmets. A video of a child named Hassan Diab went viral all
over the Western world.
Hassan Diab later testified publicly in The Hague that he had been dragged terrified from
his family by force, smeared with some sort of grease, and hosed down with water as part of a
fake video. He went from hero to zero overnight, as Western governments and media rejected his
testimony as Russian and Syrian propaganda.
In a late development, there is proof that the OPCW suppressed its own engineers' report
from Douma that the alleged poison gas cylinders could not have possibly been dropped from the
air through the roof of the house where one was found, resting on a bed under a convenient hole
in the roof.
I could go on discussing the detail of such false narratives all day. No matter how often
they are exposed by critics, our politicians and mainstream media go on referencing them as if
they are true. Once people have come to believe false narratives, it is hard to refute
them.
So it is with the false narrative that Russian internet interference enabled Trump to win
the 2016 U.S. presidential elections: a thesis for which no evidence was found by [Special
Counsel Robert] Mueller, yet continues to be cited by many U.S. liberal Democratic media as if
it were true. So, even, with MH17.
Managing Mass Opinion
This mounting climate of Western Russophobia is not accidental: it is strategically
directed, and it is nourished with regular maintenance doses of fresh lies. Each round of lies
provides a credible platform for the next round somewhere else. The common thread is a claimed
malign Russian origin for whatever goes wrong.
So where is all this disinformation originating? Information technology firms in Washington
and London that are closely networked into government elites, often through attending the same
establishment schools or colleges like Eton and Yale, have closely studied and tested the
science of influencing crowd opinions through mainstream media and online. They know, in a way
that Orwell or Goebbels could hardly have dreamt, how to put out and repeat desired media
messages. They know what sizes of 'internet attraction nodes' need to be established online, in
order to create diverse critical masses of credible Russophobic messaging, which then attracts
enough credulous and loyal followers to become self-propagating.
Firms like the SCL Group (formerly Strategic Communication Laboratories) and the now defunct
Cambridge Analytica pioneered such work in the UK. There are many similar firms in Washington,
all in the business of monitoring, generating and managing mass opinion. It is big business,
and it works closely with the national security state.
Starting in November 2018, an enterprising group of unknown hackers in the UK , who go by
the name 'Anonymous', opened a remarkable window into this secret world. Over a few weeks, they
hacked and dumped online a huge volume of original documents issued by and detailing the
activities of the Institute for Statecraft (IfS) and the Integrity initiative
(II). Here is the first page of one of their dumps, exposing propaganda against Jeremy
Corbyn.
We know from this material that the IfS and II are two secret British disinformation
networks operating at arms' length from but funded by the UK security services and broader UK
government establishment. They bring together high-ranking military and intelligence personnel,
often nominally retired, journalists and academics, to produce and disseminate propaganda that
serves the agendas of the UK and its allies.
Stung by these massive leaks, Chris Donnelly, a key figure in IfS and II and a former
British Army intelligence officer, made a now famous seven-minute YouTube video in December
2018, artfully filmed in a London kitchen, defending their work.
He argued – quite unconvincingly in my opinion – that IfS and II are simply
defending Western societies against disinformation and malign influence, primarily from Russia.
He boasted how they have set up in numerous targeted European countries, claimed to be under
attack from Russian disinformation, what he called 'clusters of influence' , to
'educate' public opinion and decision-makers in pro-NATO and anti-Russian directions.
Donnelly spoke frankly on how the West is already at war with Russia, a 'new kind of
warfare', in which he said 'everything becomes a weapon'. He said that 'disinformation is the
issue which unites all the other weapons in this conflict and gives them a third
dimension'.
He said the West has to fight back, if it is to defend itself and to prevail.
We can confirm from the Anonymous leaked files the names of many people in Europe being
recruited into these clusters of influence. They tend to be significant people in journalism,
publishing, universities and foreign policy think-tanks: opinion-shapers. The leaked documents
suggest how ideologically suitable candidates are identified: approached for initial screening
interviews; and, if invited to join a cluster of influence, sworn to secrecy.
Remarkably, neither the Anonymous disclosures nor the Donnelly response have ever been
reported in Australian media. Even in Britain – where evidence that the Integrity
Initiative was mounting a campaign against [Labour leader] Jeremy Corbyn provoked brief media
interest. The story quickly disappeared from mainstream media and the BBC. A British
under-foreign secretary admitted in Parliamentary Estimates that the UK Foreign Office
subsidises the Institute of Statecraft to the tune of nearly 3 million pounds per year. It also
gives various other kinds of non-monetary assistance, e.g. providing personnel and office
support in Britain's overseas embassies.
This is not about traditional spying or seeking agents of influence close to governments. It
is about generating mass disinformation, in order to create mass climates of belief.
In my opinion, such British and American disinformation efforts, using undeclared clusters
of influence, through Five Eyes intelligence-sharing, and possibly with the help of British and
American diplomatic missions, may have been in operation in Australia for many years.
Such networks may have been used against me since around mid-2017, to limit the commercial
outreach of my book and the impact of its dangerous ideas on the need for East-West detente;
and efficiently to suppress my voice in Australian public discourse about Russia and the West.
Do I have evidence for this? Yes.
It is not coincidence that the Melbourne Writers Festival in August 2017 somehow lost all my
sign-and-sell books from my sold-out scheduled speaking event; that a major debate with
[Australian writer and foreign policy analyst] Bobo Lo at the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne was
cancelled by his Australian sponsor, the Lowy institute, two weeks before the advertised date;
that my last invitation to any writers festival was 15 months ago, in May 2018; that Return
to Moscow was not shortlisted for any Australian book prize, though I entered it in all of
them ; that since my book's early promotion ended around August 2017, I have not been invited
to join any ABC discussion panels, or to give any talks on Russia in any universities or
institutes, apart from the admirable Australian Institute of International Affairs and the
ISAA.
My articles and shorter opinion commentaries on Russia and the West have not been published
in mainstream media or in reputable online journals like Eureka Street, The Conversation,
Inside Story or Australian Book Review . Despite being an ANU Emeritus Fellow, I
have not been invited to give a public talk or join any panel in ANU (Australian National
University) or any Canberra think tank. In early 2018, I was invited to give a private briefing
to a group of senior students travelling on an immersion course to Russia. I was not invited
back in 2019, after high-level private advice within ANU that I was regarded as too
pro-Putin.
In all these ways – none overt or acknowledged – my voice as an open-minded
writer and speaker on Russia-West relations seems to have been quietly but effectively
suppressed in Australia. I would like to be proved wrong on this, but the evidence is
there.
This may be about "velvet-glove deterrence" of my Russia-sympathetic voice and pen, in order
to discourage others, especially those working in or close to government. Nobody is going to
put me in jail, unless I am stupid enough to violate Australia's now strict foreign influence
laws. This deterrence is about generating fear of consequences for people still in their
careers, paying their mortgages, putting kids through school. Nobody wants to miss their next
promotion.
There are other indications that Australian national security elite opinion has been
indoctrinated prudently to fear and avoid any kind of public discussion of positive engagement
with Russia (or indeed, with China).
There are only two kinds of news about Russia now permitted in our mainstream media,
including the ABC and SBS: negative news and comment, or silence. Unless a story can be given
an anti-Russian sting, it will not be carried at all. Important stories are simply spiked, like
last week's Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivistok, chaired by President Putin and attended by
Prime Ministers Abe, Mahathir and Modi, among 8500 participants from 65 countries.
The ABC idea of a balanced panel to discuss any Russian political topic was exemplified
in an ABC Sunday Extra Roundtable panel chaired by Eleanor Hall on July, 22 2018, soon after
the Trump-Putin Summit in Helsinki. The panel – a former ONA Russia analyst, a professor
of Soviet and Russian History at Melbourne University, and a Russian émigré
dissident journalist introduced as the 'Washington correspondent for Echo of Moscow radio'
spent most of their time sneering at Putin and Trump. There were no other views.
A powerful anti-Russian news narrative is now firmly in place in Australia, on every topic
in contention: Ukraine, MH17, Crimea, Syria, the Skripals, Navalny and public protest in
Russia. There is ill-informed criticism of Russia, or silence, on the crucial issues of arms
control and Russia-China strategic and economic relations as they affect Australia's national
security or economy. There is no analysis of the negative impact on Australia of economic
sanctions against Russia. There is almost no discussion of how improved relations with China
and Russia might contribute to Australia's national security and economic welfare, as American
influence in the world and our region declines, and as American reliability as an ally comes
more into question. Silence on inconvenient truths is an important part of the disinformation
tool kit.
I see two overall conflicting narratives – the prevailing Anglo-American false
narrative; and valiant efforts by small groups of dissenters, drawing on sources outside the
Anglo-American official narrative, to present another narrative much closer to truth. And this
is how most Russians now see it too.
The Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki in July 2018 was damaged by the Skripal and Syria
fabrications. Trump left that summit friendless, frightened and humiliated. He soon surrendered
to the power of the U.S. imperial state as then represented by [Mike] Pompeo and [John] Bolton,
who had both been appointed as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser in April 2018
and who really got into their stride after the Helsinki Summit. Pompeo now smoothly dominates
Trump's foreign policy.
Self-Inflicted Wounds
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Gage Skidmore)
Finally, let me review the American political casualties over the past two years –
self-inflicted wounds – arising from this secret information war against Russia. Let me
list them without prejudging guilt or innocence. Slide 20 – Self-inflicted wounds:
casualties of anti-Russian information warfare.
Trump's first National Security Adviser, the highly decorated Michael Flynn lost his job
after only three weeks, and soon went to jail. His successor H R McMaster lasted 13 months
until replaced by John Bolton. Trump's first Secretary of State Rex Tillerson lasted just 14
months until his replacement by Trump's appointed CIA chief (in January 2017) Mike Pompeo.
Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon lasted only seven months. Trump's former campaign
chairman Paul Manafort is now in jail.
Defence Secretary James Mattis lasted nearly two years as Secretary of Defence, and was an
invaluable source of strategic stability. He resigned in December 2018. The highly capable
Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman lasted just two years: he is resigning next month. John Kelly
lasted 18 months as White House Chief of Staff. Less senior figures like George Papadopoulos
and Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen both served jail time. The pattern I see here is that
people who may have been trying responsibly as senior U.S. officials to advance Trump's initial
wish to explore possibilities for detente with Russia – policies that he had advocated as
a candidate – were progressively purged, one after another . The anti-Russian U.S.
bipartisan imperial state is now firmly back in control. Trump is safely contained as far as
Russia is concerned .
Russians do not believe that any serious detente or arms control negotiations can get under
way while cold warriors like Pompeo continue effectively to control Trump. There have been
other casualties over the past two years of tightening American Russophobia. Julian Assange and
Chelsea Manning come to mind. The naive Maria Butina is a pathetic victim of American judicial
rigidity and deep state vindictiveness.
False anti-Russian Government narratives emanating from London and Washington may be laughed
at in Moscow , but they are unquestioningly accepted in Canberra. We are the most gullible of
audiences. There is no critical review. Important contrary factual information and analysis
from and about Russia just does not reach Australian news reporting and commentary, nor –
I fear – Australian intelligence assessment. We are prisoners of the false narratives fed
to us by our senior Five Eyes partners U.S. and UK.
To conclude: Some people may find what I am saying today difficult to accept. I understand
this. I now work off open-source information about Russia with which many people here are
unfamiliar, because they prefer not to read the diverse online information sources that I
choose to read. The seesaw has tilted for me: I have clearly moved a long way from mainstream
Western perceptions on Russia-West relations.
Under Trump and Pompeo, as the Syria and Iran crises show, the present risk of global
nuclear war by accident or incompetent Western decision-making is as high as it ever was in the
Cold War. The West needs to learn again how to dialogue usefully and in mutually respectful
ways with Russia and China. This expert knowledge is dying with our older and wiser former
public servants and ex-military chiefs.
These remarks were delivered by Tony Kevin at the Independent Scholars Association of
Australia in Canberra, Australia on Wednesday.
Watch Tony Kevin interviewed Friday night on CN Live!
Tony Kevin is a retired Australian diplomat who was posted to Moscow from 1969 to 1971,
and was later Australia's ambassador to Poland and Cambodia. His latest book is Return to
Moscow, published by UWA Publishing.
Bruce , September 17, 2019 at 08:58
Excellent article. It's very interesting to see how the state and its media lackey set the
narrative.
Most of this comment relates to the Skripals but also applies to other matters (the
Skripals writing was some of Craig Murray's finest work in my opinion). One of the hallmarks
of a hoax is a constantly evolving storyline. I think governments have learned from past
"mistakes" with their hoaxes/deception where they've given a description of events and then
scientists/engineers/chemists etc have come in and criticised their version of events with
details and scientific arguments. Nowadays, governments are very reluctant to commit to a
version of events, and instead rely on the media (their propaganda assets) to provide a
scattergun set of information to muddy the waters and thoroughly confuse the population. The
government is then insulated from some of the more bizarre allegations (the headlines of
which are absorbed nonetheless), and can blame it on the media (who would use an anonymous
government source naturally). Together with classifying just about everything on national
security grounds, they can stonewall for as long as they want.
The British are masters of propaganda. They maintained a global empire for a very long
time, and the prevailing view (in the west at least) was probably one of tea-drinking cricket
playing colonials/gentlemen. But you don't maintain an empire without being absolutely
ruthless and brutal. They've been doing this for a very long time.
When we hear something from the BBC or ABC, we should think "State Media".
That's probably why its got a nice folksy nickname of "aunty" .build up the trust.
Society is suffering the extreme paradox; there is the potential for everyone to have a
voice, but the last vestiges of free speech have been whittled away. Fake news is universal,
assisted by the fake "left". It is impossible to get published any challenge to even the most
outlandish versions of identity politics. As the experience of Tony Kevin exemplifies, all
avenues for dissent against hegemonic orthodoxies are closed off.
Disinformation is now an essential weapon in waging hot and cold wars. Cold War historians
are well informed on false flags, "black ops", and other organised dirty tactics. I do not
know what happened to the Skripals, and while it is legitimate to bear in mind KGB
assassinations, despite the enormous resources at its disposal, the English security state
has been unable to construct a credible case. Surely scepticism is provoked by the leading
role being played by the notorious Bellingcat outfit.
Zenobia van Dongen , September 17, 2019 at 00:29
Here is part of an eyewitness account:
"After the Orange Revolution which began in Kiev, the country was divided literally into two
parts -- the supporters of integration with Russia and the supporters of an independent
Ukraine. For almost 100 years belonging to the Soviet Union, the propaganda about the
assistance and care from our "big brother" Russia, in Ukraine as a whole and the Donbass in
particular has borne fruit. At the end of February 2014, some cities of the Southeast part
were boiling with mass social and political protest against the new Ukrainian government in
defense of the status of the Russian language, voicing separatist and pro-Russian slogans.
The division took place in our city of Sloviansk too. Some people stood for separation from
Ukraine, while Ukrainian patriots stood for the unity of our country.
On April 12, 2014 our city of Sloviansk in the Donetsk region was seized by Russian
mercenaries and local volunteers. From that moment onward, armed assaults on state
institutions began. The city police department, the Sloviansk City Hall, the building of the
Ukraine Security Service was occupied. Armed militants seized state institutions and
confiscated private property. They threatened and beat people, and those who refused to obey
were taken away to an unknown destination and people started disappearing. The persecution
and abduction of patriotic citizens began."
Michael McNulty , September 16, 2019 at 11:36
Watching Vietnam news coverage as a kid in the '60s I noticed the planes carpet-bombing
South East Asia were American, not Russian. And as I only watched the footage and never
listened to the commentary (I was waiting for the kids programs that followed) the BS they
came out with to explain it all never reached me. I saw with my own eyes what the US really
was and is, and always believed growing up they were the belligerent side not Russia. Once
the USSR fell it was clear there were no longer any constraints on US excesses.
dean 1000 , September 15, 2019 at 18:17
Doublethink, not to mention doublespeak, is so apt to describe what is happening. If
Orwell was writing today it would have to be classified as non-fiction.
Free speech is impossible unless every election district has a radio/TV station where
candidates, constituents, and others can debate, discuss and speak to the issues without
bending a knee to large campaign contributors or the controllers of corporate or government
media. It may start with low-power pirate radio/TV broadcasts. No, the pirate speakers will
not have to climb a cell tower to broadcast an opinion to the neighborhood or precinct.
If genuine free speech is going to exist it will start as something unauthorized and
unlawful. If it sticks to the facts it will quickly prove its value.
Excellent article. The only exhibit missing was reference to Bill Browder's lies.
Browder's rubbish has been exposed by intrepid journalists and documentary makers such as
Andrei Nekrasov, Sasha Krainer and Lucy Komisar but to read or listen to our media, you'd
think BB was some sort of human rights hero. That's because BB's fairy tale fits nicely into
the MSM's hatred of Putin and Russia. Debunk Browder and a major pillar of anti-Russia
prejudice collapses. Therefore, Browder will never face any serious questions by the MSM.
John A , September 16, 2019 at 09:18
judges of the European Court of Human Rights published a judgement a fortnight ago which
utterly exploded the version of events promulgated by Western governments and media in the
case of the late Mr Magnitskiy. Yet I can find no truthful report of the judgement in the
mainstream media at all. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-magnitskiy-myth-exploded/
MSM propaganda by omission. Anything that doesn't fit the government narrative gets zero
publicity.
I have stopped following australian mainstream media including the darlings of the 'left'
ABC/SBS over a decade ago, completely. My disgust with their 'coverage' of the 2008 GFC was
more than enough. Since 2008-9 things have deteriorated drastically into conspiracy theory
propaganda by omission la-la land *it seems*, given I don't tune in at all.
The author has a well supported view. I find it a little naive in him thinking that the
MSM has that much power over shaping public opinion in australia.
People who want to be informed do so. The half intelligent conformists on hamster wheel of
lifetime mortgage debt have 'careers' to hold onto, so parroting the group think or living in
ignorance is much easier. The massive portion of australian racists, inbred bogans and idiots
that make up the large LNP, One Nation etc. voting block are completely beyond salvation or
ability to process, and critically evaluate any information. The smarter ones drool on about
the 'UN Agenda 21' conspiracy at best. Utterly hopeless.
I don't expect things to change as the australian economy is slowly hollowed out by the
rich, and the education system (that has always been about conforming, wearing school uniform
and regurgitating what the teacher/lecturer says at best) is gutted completely. Welcome to
australistan.
Fran Macadam , September 14, 2019 at 19:21
Note that the prohibition against false propaganda to indoctrinate the domestic population
by the American government was lifted by President Obama at the tail end of his
administration. The Executive Order legalizes all the deceptive behavior Tony itemizes in his
article.
Josep , September 17, 2019 at 04:10
I thought it was Reagan who did that by abolishing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. At least
in terms of television and radio (?) broadcasts.
Thank you Tony for your thoughtful talk (and interview on CN Live! too).
What's encouraging is this cohort of what might be called 'millennial journalists' coming
through willing to do 'shoe-leather' journalism and stand up to smears and flack for
revealing uncomfortable facts and truth. They're the online 5th estate holding the 4th to
account (to steal Ray McGovern's apt view), and they're congealing against the onslaught.
Some include Max Blumenthal and Rania Kahlek (both now being pilloried by MSM and others
for visiting Syrian government held areas and reporting that life isn't hellish as MSM would
have everyone believe heaven forbid); Vanessa Bealey who's exposed a lot of White Helmet
horrors and false-flag attacks in Syria (and being attacked by all and sundry for exposing
the White Helmets in particular); Abby Martin whose Empire Files are excellent and always
edifying; Dan Cohen who has written the best expose of the actors behind the Hong Kong
rioting and co-authored the best expose of the background of Guaido et al.; Whitney Webb of
Mint Press whose series on Epstein is overwhelming and likely a ticking timebomb; Caitlin
Johnstone of course; and Aaron 'Buzzsaw' Mate who made his first mark with a wonderful
takedown interview of Russiaphobe MI6 shill Luke Harding. Others too of course, with most
appearing or having written pieces on CN. John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Greg Palast, et al. won't
drop off their twigs disappointed.
This, along with the fact that MSM -- that cowed and compromised fourth estate --
increasingly is held in such laughable contempt by most people under about 50 yr, is highly
encouraging indeed. Truth is the new black.
nwwoods , September 15, 2019 at 11:49
The Blogmire is an excellent resource for detailed analysis of the Skripal hoax. The
author happens to be a long-time resident of Salisbury, and is intimately familiar with the
topography, public services, etc., and a very thorough investigator.
John Wright , September 14, 2019 at 18:35
I'm not surprised that Mr. Kevin is being isolated and shunned by the Australian
establishment. Truth and truth tellers are always the first casualties of war. I do hope that
his experience will encourage him to increase his resistance to the corrosiveness of
mendacious propaganda and those who promulgate it.
Truth is the single best weapon when fighting for a peaceful future.
If Australia is to flourish in the 21st century, it really needs to understand Russia and
China, how they relate to each other, and how this key alliance will interface with the rest
of the world. Australia and Australians simply cannot afford to get sucked down further by
facilitating the machinations of the collapsing Anglo-American Empire. They have served the
empire ably and faithfully, but now need to take a cold hard look at reality and realign
their long-term interests with the coming global power shift. If not, they could literally
find themselves in the middle of an unwinnable and devastating war.
* * *
The first Anglo-American Russian cold war began with the Russian revolution and was only
briefly suspended when the West needed the Soviet people to throw themselves in front of the
Nazi blitzkrieg in order to save Western Europe. Following their catastrophically costly
contribution to the victory on the Continent, the Russians were greeted with an American
nuclear salute on their eastern periphery, signalling their return to the diplomatic and
economic deep freeze.
While the Anglo-American Empire solidified and extended its hold on the globe, the
enlarged but war-ravaged and isolated Soviet Union hunkered down and survived on scraps and
sheer will until its collapse in 1989. Declaring the cold war over, and with promises to help
their new Russian friends build a prosperous future, the duplicitous West then ransacked
their neighbors resources and sold them into debt peonage. The Russians cried foul, the West
shrugged and Putin pushed back. Unable to declaw the bear, the west closed the cage door
again and the second cold war commenced.
* * *
The first cold war was essentially an offensive war disguised as a defensive war. It
enabled the Anglo-American Empire to leverage its post-war advantage and establish near total
dominance around the globe through naked violence and monetary hegemony.
Today, with its dominance rapidly slipping away, the Anglo-American Empire is waging a
truly defensive cold war. On the home front, they fight to convince their subjects of their
eternal exceptionalism with ever more absurd and vile propaganda denigrating their
adversaries . Abroad, they disrupt and defraud in a desperate attempt to delay the demise of
the PetroDollar ponzi.
The Russians and the Chinese, having both been brutally burned by the Western elites, will
not be fooled into abandoning their natural geographic partnership. They are no longer
content to sit quietly at the kids' table taking notes. While they may not demand to sit at
the head of the table, it is clear that they will insist on a round table, and one that is
large enough to include their growing list of friends.
If the Americans don't smash the table, it could be the first of many peaceful pot
lucks.
John Read , September 15, 2019 at 02:11
Well said. Great comments. Thanks to Tony Kevin.
Mia , September 14, 2019 at 18:33
Thank you Tony for continuing to shine light on the pathetic propaganda information bubble
Australians have been immersed in .. you demonstrate great courage and you are not alone
??
Peter Loeb , September 14, 2019 at 12:58
WITH THANKS TO TONY KEVIN
An excellent article.
There is a lack of comments from some of the common writers upon whose views I often
rely.
Personally, I often avoid the very individual responses from websites as I have no way
of checking out previous ideas of theirs. Who funds them? With which organizations are
they
affiliated? And so forth and so on.
Peter Loeb, Boston, Massachusetts
Peter Sapo , September 14, 2019 at 10:24
As a fellow Australian, everything Tony Kevin said makes perfect sense. Our mainstream
media landscape is designed to distribute propaganda to folk accross the political spectrum.
Have you noticed that the ABC regurgitates stories from the BBC? The BBC has a long history
(at least since WW2) of supporting government propaganda initiatives. Based on this fact, it
is hard to see how ABC and SBS don't do the same when called upon by their minders.
Francis Lee , September 14, 2019 at 09:48
I just wonder where the Anglo-Zionist empire thinks it is going. It should be obvious that
any NATO war against Russia involving a nuclear exchange is unwinnable. It seems equally
likely the even a conventional war will not necessarily bring the result expected by the
assorted 'experts' – nincompoops living in their own fantasy world. The idea that the
US can fight a war without the US homeland becoming very much involved basically ended when
Putin announced the creation of Russia's set of advanced hypersonic missile system. But this
was apparently ignored by the 'defence' establishment. It was not true, it could not possibly
be true, or so we were told.
Moreover the cost of such wars involving hundreds of thousands of troops and military
hardware are massively expensive and would occasion a massive resistance from the populations
affected. It was the wests wars in Korea, and Indo-China that bankrupted the US and led to
the US$ being removed from the gold standard. The American military is rapidly consuming the
American economy, or at least what is left of it. From a realist foreign policy perspective
this is simply madness. Great powers end wars, they don't start them. Great powers are
creditor nations, not debtor nations. Such is the realist foreign policy view. But foreign
policy realists are few and far between in the Washington Beltway and MIC/NSA Pentagon and
US/UK/AUSTRALIAN MSM.
Thus the neo-hubris of the English speaking world is such that if it is followed to its
logical conclusion then total annihilation would be the logical outcome. A sad example of not
very bright people who face no domestic opposition, believing in their own bullshit:
"American elites proved themselves to be master manipulators of propaganda constructs But
the real danger from such manipulations arises not when those manipulations are done out of
knowledge of reality, which is distorted for propaganda purposes, but when those who
manipulation begin to sincerely believe in their own falsifications and when they buy into
their own narrative. They stop being manipulators and they become believers in a narrative.
They become manipulated themselves." (Losing Military Supremacy – Andrei,
Martyanov)
Or maybe just the whole thing is a bluff. Those policy elites maybe just want to loot the
US Treasury for more cash to be put their way.
John Wright , September 15, 2019 at 19:15
The self-serving Israeli Zionists know that the American cow is running dry and their days
of freely milking it are coming to an end. They have an historic relationship with Russia
and, leveraging their nuclear arsenal, know they can make a deal with the emerging
China-Russia-centric global paradigm to extort enough protection to maintain their armed
enclave for the foreseeable future. Their no so hidden alliance with the equally sociopathic
Saudis will become even more obvious for all to see.
Israel, like China and Russia, knows how to play a long game. Thus, Israel will
consolidate its land grab with the just announced expansion into the Jordan Valley and
quietly continue as much ethnic cleansing as possible while the rest of the world is
preoccupied with the incipient global power shift (True victims of history, the Palestinians
have no real friends). While they will bemoan the loss of their muscular American stooge,
Israel enjoyed a very lucrative 70 year run and will part with a pile of useful and deadly
toys. They're also fully aware that no one else will ever let them take advantage to the
degree they've been able to with the U.S.A. (Unlimited Stupidity of Arrogance?)
Eventually, the social schizophrenia that is the state of Israel will catch up with them
and they will implode. Let's hope that breakdown doesn't involve the use of their nuclear
arsenal.
Yes, the U.S. Treasury will continue to be looted until the last teller turns the lights
out or the electricity is shut off, whichever comes first.
The Western transnational financial elites will accept their losses, regroup and make
deals with the new bosses where they can; but their days of running the game unopposed are
over.
Today is a good day to learn Mandarin (or Russian, if you prefer to live in Europe).
Bill , September 16, 2019 at 03:36
Very well said and I agree with a lot of what you say.
Tiu , September 14, 2019 at 06:01
Won't be too long before writing articles like this will get you busted for "hate-speech"
(e.g. anything that is contrary to the official version prescribed by the "democratically
elected" government) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/uk-tony-blair-think-tank-proposes-end-free-speech
Personally I always encourage people to read George Orwell, especially 1984. We're there, and
have been for a long time.
geeyp , September 14, 2019 at 01:15
Tony Kevin – Nice rundown of what ails society. You have a fine writing style that
gets the point across to the reader. Kudos and cheers.
Michael , September 13, 2019 at 22:34
The 'modernization' of the Smith Mundt Act in 2013 "to authorize the domestic
dissemination of information and material [PROPAGANDA] about the United States intended
primarily for foreign audiences" was a major nail in the Democracy coffin, consolidating the
blatant ruling of the US Police State by our 17 Intelligence Agencies (our betters). The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 lead to ownership of (>80%) of our media (the MSM by a
handful of owners, all disseminating the same narratives from above (CIA, State Department,
FBI etc) and squelching any dissenting views, particularly related to foreign policies.
Tony's article sadly just confirms the depth and breadth of our Global Stasi, with improved,
innovative and (mostly) subtle surveillance, and the controlling constant interference with
alternate viewpoints and discussions, the real basis for free societies. It is bad enough to
be ruled by neoliberal psychopathic hyenas and jackals, soon we won't be able to even bitch
about what they are doing.
Tom Kath , September 13, 2019 at 21:42
The most impressive article I have read in a very long time. I congratulate and thank
Tony.
I have myself recently addressed the issue of whether it is a virtue to have an "open mind".
– The ability to be converted or have your mind changed, or is it the ability to change
your own mind ?
Tony Kevin clearly illustrates the difference.
Litchfield , September 13, 2019 at 16:11
Great article.
Please keep writing.
Do start a website, a la Craig Murray.
There are people who are proactively looking for alternative viewpoints and informed
analysis.
How about starting a website and publishing some excerpts of your book there?
Or, sell chapters separately by download from your website?
You could also have a discussion blog/forum there.
John Zimmermann , September 13, 2019 at 16:02
Excellent essay. Thanks Mr. Kevin.
rosemerry , September 13, 2019 at 15:37
At least Tony Kevin was an Australian ambassador, not like Mike Morrell and the chosen
russop?obes the USA assumes are needed as diplomats!! Now he is treated as Stephen Cohen is-
a true expert called "controversial" as he dares to go by real facts and evidence, not
prejudice.
If instead of enemies, the West could consider getting to understand those they are wary
of, and give them a chance to explain their point of view and actually listen and reflect on
it.
(Dmitri Peskov valiantly explained the Russian official response as soon as the "Skripal
poisoning" story broke, but it was fully ignored by UK/US media, while all of Theresa May's
fanciful imaginings were respectfully relayed to the public).
geeyp , September 14, 2019 at 23:26
As you usually are with your comments, you are spot on again, rosemerry.
Martin - Swedish citizen , September 13, 2019 at 14:46
Excellent article!
I find the mechanics of how the propaganda is spread and the illusion upheld the most
important part of this article, since this knowledge is required to counter it.
When (not if) the fraud becomes more common knowledge, our societies are likely to
tumble.
Pablo Diablo , September 13, 2019 at 14:45
Whoever controls the media, controls the dialogue.
Whoever controls the dialogue, controls the agenda.
' The present risk of global nuclear war is as high as it ever was in the Cold War.' And
possibly higher. The Cold War, though dangerous, was the peace. The world has experienced
periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the
two Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna,
to name a few. The Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One.
That conflict was followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was
followed by the United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are
they will not prevent a third world war. The powers that are leading us towards conflagration
see this as a re-run of the first Cold War. They are dangerously mistaken. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Guy , September 13, 2019 at 13:21
With so many believing the lies ,how will this mess ever come to light . I don't reside in
Australia but anywhere in the Western world the shakedown is the same .In my own house ,the
discussion on world politics descends into absolute stupidity . As one can't get past the
constant programming that has settled in the minds of the comfortable with the status quo of
lies by our media. There are intelligent sources of news sources but none get past the
absolutely complete control of MSM.So the bottom line is ,for now ,the lies and liars are
winning the propaganda war.
He speaks the truth. Liars and dissemblers have won over the minds and hearts of so many
lazy shameful citizens who will not accept the truth Tony Kevin wants to share with the
world.
Washington resumes military assistance to Kyiv. According to American lawmakers, Ukraine
is fighting one of the main enemies. "Contain Russia": what the US pays for Ukraine
Anyone or article who spells Kiev as Kyiv can be safely ignored as western anti-Russia
propaganda. It's a true tell.
Robert Edwards , September 13, 2019 at 12:53
The Cold war is totally manufacture to keep the dollars flowing into the MIC – what
a sham . and a disgrace to humanity.
Cavaleiro Marginal , September 13, 2019 at 12:52
"The key tools are repetition of messages, and diversification of trusted voices. Once a
critical mass is created of people believing a false narrative, the lie locks in: its
dissemination becomes self-sustaining."
This had occurred in Brazil since the very first day of Lula's presidency. Eleven years
late, 2013, a color revolution began. Nobody (and I mean REALLY nobody) could realize a color
revolution was happening at that time. In 2016, Dilma Rousseff was kicked from power
throughout a ridiculous and illegal coup perpetrated by the parliament. In 2018 Lula was
imprisoned in an Orwellian process; illegal, unconstitutional, with nothing (REALLY nothing)
proved against him. Then a liar clown was elected to suppress democracy
I knew on the news that in Canada and Australia the police politely (how civilized ) went
to some journalist's homes to have a chat this year. Canadians and Aussies, be aware. The
fascism's dog is a policial state very well informed by the propaganda they call news.
Robert Fearn , September 13, 2019 at 12:48
As a Canadian author who wrote a book about various tragic American government actions,
like Vietnam, I can relate to the difficulties Tony has had with his book. I would mail my
book, Amoral America, from Canada to other countries, like the US, and it would never arrive.
Book stores would not handle it, etc. etc.
Josep , September 17, 2019 at 05:21
Not to disagree, but some years ago I read about anecdotes of anti-Americanism in Canada,
coming from both USians and Canadians, whether it be playful banter or legitimate criticism.
I believe it is more concentrated among the people than among the governmental elites (with
the exception of the Iraq War era when both the people and the government were against it).
And considering what you describe in your book and the difficulty you've faced in
distributing it abroad, maybe the said people are on to something.
Stephen , September 13, 2019 at 11:44
This interview by Abby Martin with Mark Ames is a little dated but is a fairly accurate
history. I post it to try and counter the nonsense.
Outstanding article and analysis. Thank you Sir! Jeremy Kuzmarov
Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2019 at 10:17
Thank you, sir. A far better peroration than I could have produced but what I have
concluded nonetheless.
Skip Scott , September 13, 2019 at 10:10
Fantastic article. Left unmentioned is the origin of the west's anti-Russia narrative.
Russia was being pillaged by the west under Yeltsin, and Russia was to become our newest
vassal. Life expectancy dropped a full decade for the average Russian under Yeltsin. The
average standard of living dropped dramatically as well. Putin reversed all that, and enjoys
massive popular support as a result. The Empire will never tolerate a national leader who
works for the benefit of the average citizen. It must be full-on rape, pillage and plunder-
OR ELSE. Keep that in mind as we watch the latest theatrical performances by our DNC
controlled "Commander in Chief" wannabes.
Realist , September 17, 2019 at 05:48
?The ongoing success of the "Great Lie" (that Washington is protecting the entire world
from
anarchy perpetrated by a few bad actors on the global stage) and all of its false narrative
subtexts
(including but far from limited to the Maidan, Crimea, Donbass, MH-17, the Skripals,
gassing
"one's own people," piracy on the high Mediterranean, etc) just underscores how successful
was
the false flag operation known as 9-11, even as the truth of that travesty is slowly
being
unraveled by relentless truth-seekers applying logic and the scientific method to the
problem.
Most Americans today would gladly concur, if queried, that Osama bin Laden was most
certainly
a perfidious tool of Russia and its diabolical leader, Mr. Putin (be sure to call him "Vlad,"
to
conjure up images of Dracula for effect). The Winston Smith's are rare birds in America or
in
any of its reliable vassal states. Never mind that the spooks from Langley (and the late
"chessmaster") concocted and orchestrated all these tales from the crypt.
Lily , September 13, 2019 at 07:54
Great summary of the developement of a new cold war. The narrative of the Mainstream Media
is dangerous as well as laughable. I am glad to hear the Russian reaction to this bullshit
propaganda. As often the people are so much wiser than their government – at least in
the West.
During the Football WM a famous broadcaster of the German State TV channel ARD, who is a
giftet propagandist, regrettet publicly the difficulty to convince the stubborn Germans to
look at Russia as an enemy because they have started to look at Russia as a friend long
ago.
Contrary to the people and the big firms who are completely against the sanctions against
Russia and 100 % pro Northstream the German government with Chancelor Merkel is one of the
top US vassalles. Even the Green Party which started as an environmental and peace party are
now against North Stream and in favour of the filthy US fracking gas thanks to NATO
propaganda although Russia has never let them down. Most of "Die Grünen" party have been
turned into fervent friends of our American occupants which is very sad.
Thank you Tony Kevin. It has been great to read your article. I cant wait to read your
book 'Return to Moscow' and to watch your interview on CN Live.
Godfree Roberts , September 13, 2019 at 07:37
Good summary of the status quo. From my experience of writing similarly about China,
precisely the same policies and forces are at work.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced the end of the war in Syria and the
country's return to a state of peace. "Syria is returning to normal life": Lavrov announced
the end of the war
You hit several nails squarely on the head with your excellent article Tony. Thank you for
the truth of how the media is in Australia. It is indeed chilling where all this is leading.
The blatant lies just spewed out as fact by both ABC and SBS. They, in my opinion are nothing
but stenographers for the Empire, of which Australia is a fully subservient vassal state,
with no independence.
I try to boycott all Australian presstitutes . Oops, I mean 'media' now. Occasionally, I do
slip up and watch SBS or The Drum or News on ABC.
Virtually all my news comes from independent news sites like this one.
I have been accused of being a 'Putin lover', a Russian troll, a conspiracy theorist, while
people I know have claimed that "Putin is a monster whose murdered millions of people".
On and on this crap goes. And the end result? Ask Stephen Cohen. Things are very surreal now.
Sadly, you've been made an Unperson Tony.
Robyn , September 13, 2019 at 04:08
Bravo, Tony, great article. I enjoyed your book and recommend it to CN readers who haven't
yet read it.
The world looks entirely different when one stops reading/watching the MSM and turns to
CN, Caitlin Johnstone and many others who are doing a sterling job.
Cascadian , September 13, 2019 at 03:52
I don't know which is worse, to not know what you are (reliably uninformed) and be happy,
or to become what you've always wanted to be (reliably informed) and feel alone.
Realist , September 14, 2019 at 00:19
Knowing the truth has always seemed paramount to me, even if it means realising that the
entire world and all in it are damned, and deliberately by our own actions. Hope is always
the last part of our essence to die, or so they say: maybe we will somehow be redeemed
through our own self-immolation as a species.
Deb , September 13, 2019 at 02:54
As an Australian I have no difficulty accepting what Tony Kevin has said here. He should
do what Craig Murray has done start a website.
Ukraine is mainly the result of attempt of the USA to encircle Russia well as EU design for economic
Drang nach Osten -- attempt to displace Russia in xUSSR
republics.
So they pushed Ukraine into the pat that Baltic republic were already known for.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a "first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000 civilians. ..."
"... In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept. ..."
"... She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience." ..."
"... Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion" in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War. ..."
"... NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." ..."
"... To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of [Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II." ..."
"... Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military. ..."
"... American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches emblazoned on their sleeves. ..."
On Saturday September 7, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a prisoner swap which has brought
hope of improved relations between the two countries and an end to the 5-year long conflict in
Eastern Ukraine.
A peace accord is being planned for later this month in Normandy involving Ukraine, Russia,
France and Germany.
Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a
"first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000
civilians.
The Ukraine War remains largely unknown to the American public even though the United States
has had a great stake in it.
The war started after a coup d'états in Ukraine in February 2014, which overthrew the
democratically elected pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovuch.
In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for
independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept.
The United States was a heavy backer of the coup and dirty war that unfolded in the
East.
Victoria Nuland, the head of the State Department's European desk, traveled to Ukraine three
times during the protests that triggered the coup, handing out cookies to demonstrators.
She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and
later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime
Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience."
Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion"
in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on
the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War.
Ukraine has long been considered an important bridge between Eastern and Western Europe and
holds lucrative oil and gas deposits.
NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step
towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not
just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to
the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of
[Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II."
Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the
1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration
further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military.
It was supplied with counter-artillery radars, anti-tank systems, armored vehicles and
drones in a policy expanded upon by Trump.
Before and after the Ukrainian military's campaign began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA
Director John Brennan, and Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev, followed by a flow of senior
Pentagon officials.
A back-door arms pipeline was set up through the United Arab Emirates and Blackwater
mercenaries were allegedly deployed.
American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket
propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including
with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches
emblazoned on their sleeves.
Obama's National Security adviser, Samantha Power, claimed that the [Ukrainian] governments
"response [to alleged provocations by eastern rebels] [was] reasonable, it is proportional, and
frankly it is what any of our countries would have done."
The Ukrainian military and allied warlord and neo-Nazi militias were not acting reasonably
or proportionally, however, when they carried out artillery and air attacks on cities and
struck residential buildings, shopping malls, parks, schools, hospitals and orphanages in
Eastern Ukraine, and tortured and executed POWs in what amounted to clear war crimes.
NYU Professor Stephen Cohen notes that even TheNew York Times , which mainly
deleted atrocities from its coverage, described survivors in Slovyansk living "as if in the
Middle Ages."
That the American public knows nothing of these events is a sad reflection of the
superficiality of our media and decline in the quality of international news coverage.
It is also a testament to the failing of the political left, which has embraced the cause of
immigrant and Palestinian rights and fighting climate change, legitimately, but neglected the
plight of the Eastern Ukrainian people. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jeremy Kuzmarov
"... Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has long pushed for Kiev to investigate Vice President Joe Biden's attempt in 2016 to get the country's top prosecutor removed at a crucial moment during an ongoing investigation into Burisma Holdings -- the Ukrainian natural gas company advised at the time by Biden's son Hunter. ..."
"... As the The New York Times reported previously, during the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden "threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine's leaders did not dismiss the country's top prosecutor" -- Viktor Shokin -- "who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite." ..."
Also interesting is that Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has long pushed for
Kiev to investigate Vice President Joe Biden's attempt in 2016 to get the country's top
prosecutor removed at a crucial moment during an ongoing investigation into Burisma Holdings --
the Ukrainian natural gas company advised at the time by Biden's son Hunter.
As the The New York Times
reported previously, during the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden
"threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine's leaders did
not dismiss the country's top prosecutor" -- Viktor Shokin -- "who had been accused of turning
a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite."
Crucially last week Giuliani was reported to have again raised the issue with Ukrainian
officials , according to CNN
.
As CNN cynically put it in its
latest report , this suggests "the former New York mayor is making a renewed push for the
country to investigate Trump's political enemies."
But then again maybe it's as simple as the US not actually having a deep national security
interest in propping up Ukraine's military at a moment when international missile treaties with
Russian are unraveling and the war in Donbass is at a bloody stalemate.
The looming potential for a controversial cut in aid to Ukraine will make Trump's upcoming
meeting with still relatively new "political outsider" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy set for
next week all the more interesting. A final decision on the military aid is expect after this
crucial meeting.
More reason for Pappy Biden to pull out of race. Now he does not stand a chance to defeat
Trump because Hunter corruption in Ukraine and China will be center stage during election.
Obviously "lock them up " will be the battle cry. With China's latest backpedaling on tariff
retaliation, Trump can only be defeated from within Republican party by new impeachable
revelations.
Wait, so does the US still want to split China and Russia?
At G7 Macron and Trump both were talking up Putin and wanting to allow Russia back into
G8.
Then i read another interesting article about Macron inviting Putin to France:
"The dynamics of the New
Cold War might undergo a dramatic transformation if the geopolitical game-changer of a
“New Detente” between Russia and the West succeeds, which is becoming
increasingly possible as proven by recent events.
President Putin’s meeting earlier this week with his French counterpart in Paris
saw Macron repeatedly emphasizing Russia’s European
identity in a clear sign that this rapprochement is making visible progress. Macron is
motivated to play the role of mediator between the US and Russia for two main reasons, namely
that he wants to position France as a possible replacement to inevitably post-Merkel Germany
as the EU’s leading country and also to reach an accommodation with Moscow in Africa
after the completion of the country’s “
African Transversal ” earlier this summer
began to
threaten Paris’ interests in the continent. Putin responded extremely positively and reminded Macron of their
two Great Powers’ decades-long shared desire to forge “a common Europe from
Lisbon to Vladivostok”, reaffirming that Russia regards itself more as a European
country than a “Eurasian” or Asian one, which has important implications for
International Relations.
Both the Mainstream and Alternative Medias
had hitherto exaggerated the nature of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership for their
own reasons, with the former wanting to portray it according to the paradigm of the so-called
“Russian threat” in order to justify a more muscular American military buildup
against them while the latter imagined that the two were “allies” jointly working
together without any disagreements whatsoever in order to accelerate the emerging Multipolar
World Order that would presumably be “anti-American”. The reality of their
relations is a lot less sexy and it’s that Russia was pushed into reorientating its
strategic focus as a result of the West’s anti-Russian sanctions following
Crimea’s reunification, which served as the catalyst for Moscow’s decision to
embrace Beijing. Russia probably wouldn’t have undertaken this move had it not been for
American pressure, but it felt compelled to since it didn’t want to remain a
“junior partner” in the US’ “New World Order”, instead
endeavoring to return to its historical role as a Great Power among equals.
In pursuit of this, it’s much easier for Russia to simply reintegrate into a
reformed “New World Order” than to build an entirely new one from scratch
alongside China, which is why the possibility of a “New Detente” is so enticing
to its leadership, though provided of course that the West is sincere in finally treating
Russia as an equal Great Power"
BASTARDS! If i had a DIME for every time Obama EXPLOITED vulnerable Americans for his road
and pony show I would be a rich woman.
I'll never forget Obama interview in prison with a few younger African American kids.
Talkin to then as if he knew what they were going through. His black *** raised WHITE and who
had ZERO clue what it was to live black and supporting the very oppressive system that jailed
them in the first place. All that after he bailed out banks and then QE under the Fed for his
wealthy CITI, Goldman and *** friends.
The level of "experts" is pretty dismal. While some quotes are apt, the general level is horrible for such an important
topic., Not a single one put Putin career in context of ascendance of neoliberalism from 1990 to 2007 and then crash and decline
with the USA economics entering the period of secular stagnation. not a single one.
Most of those are neocons or some king of imperialists who believe in God given right for the USA to dominate the globe. That's
another problem.
Notable quotes:
"... Henry Kissinger : Starting with American support for the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, Putin has gradually convinced himself that the U.S. is structurally adversarial. By “structural,” I mean that he may very well believe that America defines its basic interest as weakening Russia, transforming us from a potential ally to another foreign country that he balances with China and others. ( The Atlantic, 11.10.16 ) ..."
"... Thomas Graham and Rajan Menon : In Moscow’s reading, the United States had masterminded the revolution [in Ukraine] to install a pro-Western figure as president over the candidate endorsed by Putin. Putin soon came to view the revolution in Ukraine as a dress rehearsal for regime change in Russia itself. ..."
"... In Putin’s view, the United States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further. ( The Washington Post, 02.05.15 ) ..."
Henry Kissinger : Starting with American support for the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine in 2004, Putin has gradually convinced himself that the U.S. is structurally
adversarial. By “structural,” I mean that he may very well believe that America
defines its basic interest as weakening Russia, transforming us from a potential ally to
another foreign country that he balances with China and others. (
The
Atlantic, 11.10.16 )
Thomas Graham and Rajan Menon : In Moscow’s reading, the United States had
masterminded the revolution [in Ukraine] to install a pro-Western figure as president over the
candidate endorsed by Putin. Putin soon came to view the revolution in Ukraine as a dress
rehearsal for regime change in Russia itself. Putin believed it was part of the United
States’ larger effort to construct a unipolar world based on its values and interests, a
world that it could dominate with little regard for other major powers. In response Putin began
working to fortify Russia against Western influence and interference. (
The Boston
Review , 09.12.17)
Steven Pifer : Putin sees Russians & Ukrainians as one people. Said so in
Kyiv in 2013. Does not understand he thereby denies Ukrainian history, culture. (
Twitter ,
05.26.17)
Roger McDermott and Stephen Cimbala : Putin’s actions in Crimea were not
entirely sui generis : They were preceded by a context of demands upon Russia from
its post-Cold War military and geostrategic setting, compared to that of the Soviet Union.
Putin’s policy is not the result of psychodrama. It is the product of his having lived
in strategic history and his (and our) understanding of that history. (
The Journal of Slavic
Military Studies , 10.14.16)
Anatol Lieven : Russia’s restraint in Ukraine shows that there is no
serious reason to fear that Mr. Putin is ready to create a new, worse international crisis by
attacking the Baltic states or Poland. (
New York Times ,
03.18.16)
Steven Pifer : A weak Ukrainian government incapable of meeting the challenges
before it ensures that the Maidan model will have little attraction for the Russian populace.
This consideration could mean that Mr. Putin wants a failed Ukrainian state. (
Testimony before U.S.
Senate , 03.04.15)
Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy : The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems
straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladimir
Putin’s “calculus.” … We strongly disagree [with calls on the West to
provide military support to Ukraine]. The evidence points in a different direction. If we
follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught
in an escalating military conflict with Russia. (
The Washington Post, 02.05.15 )
Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy : Our problem is that we do not fully understand
Putin’s calculus, just as he does not understand ours. In Putin’s view, the United
States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to
weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian
armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial
sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been
transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any
concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further. (
The Washington Post, 02.05.15 )
The net result on Ukrainian independence was the dramatic rise of political influence of western Ukraine which was suppressed in
the USSR. under Yutchenko they came to power and they regained it after Yanukovich demise. And their interests and their
desire to colonize Eastern Ukraine do not correlate will with the desires of the Eastern Ukrainian population. So Ukraine
remains a divided country with the differences being patched by continuing war in Donbass. So in way continuation of the
war is in the best political interests of Western Ukrainian nationalists. Kind of insurance which simplify for them to stay in
power. While politically they lost in recent Presidential elections the presence of paramilitary formations ensure that they
still have considerable political power including the power of veto.
Whether hardship inflicted on population after EuroMaydan will eventually help to restore the balance and raise political
influence of Eastern Ukraine because Western Ukrainian nationalists are now completely politically discredited due to the dramatic
drop in the standard of living after EuroMaydan is difficult to say. In any case Ukraine now is a debt slave and vassal of the
USA with the USA embassy controlling way to much to consider Ukraine to be an independent country. Few countries manage to dig
themselves out of this hole.
For such countries rise of anti-colonial movement is a possibility, but paradoxically Western Ukrainian nationalists side
with colonial power representing in a way fifth column (and they did played the role of fifth column during EuroMaydan giving
power to rabid neoliberals like Yatsenyuk, who was essentially an agent of the USA, who wanted to privatize everything for
cents on the dollar as long as he and his circle get cramps from it, ordinary Ukrainians be damned ). Understanding that the USA is
the most dangerous partner to have, in many ways no less dangerous then Russia is still pending for the Ukrainian neoliberal elite,
part of which ( Kushma, Victor Pinchuk) clearly are plain-vanilla
compradors.
Notable quotes:
"... Three decades of Ukrainian independence have brought little in the way of economic development or other strong reasons to embrace a Ukrainian identity. At the same time, Russia has become a far more prosperous, orderly place that exudes confidence and power since Vladimir Putin came to power. Millions of eastern Ukrainians have gone to Russia as guest workers – and more recently as war refugees . Today, the Ukrainian diaspora in Russia is by far the world's largest. ..."
"... The western regions of Ukraine, on the other hand, were part of European states like Austria-Hungary and Poland until World War II, when they were annexed by the Soviet Union. Now, people overwhelmingly speak Ukrainian as their first language, take a suspicious (and historically grounded) view of Russia, and tend to look west for their inspiration ..."
"... Millions of Ukrainians go to Poland and beyond as guest workers, and their impressions help to fuel the certainty that Ukraine needs to seek a European future. ..."
"... Not coincidentally, the enthusiasm and conviction of western Ukrainians have disproportionately driven two pro-Western revolutions on the Maidan in Kyiv in the past 15 years, with little visible support from populations in the country's east. ..."
"... "People in the western Ukraine are different from us. It's not just language, or anything simple like that. They took power away from a president our votes elected, and they want to rip us out of our ways, abandon our values, and become part of their agenda," says Maxim Tkach, regional head of the Party of Life, the pro-Russian group that was the front-runner in parliamentary elections here in Mariupol. ..."
"... "When they started that Maidan revolution, they said it was about things we could support, like fighting corruption and ending oligarchic rule. But none of that happened. They betrayed every single principle they had shouted about. Instead, they want us to change the names of our streets and schools, honor 'heroes' like Stepan Bandera that our ancestors fought against. These are things we can't accept. ... ..."
"... "If there had been no Maidan, we would still have Crimea. There would have been no war. There would be no pressure on us to change our customs, our language, or our church . It was this aggressive revolution, by just part of the country, that caused these problems," he says. "Russia is Russia. It is acting in its own interests, but why do we need to antagonize it?" ..."
"... But while the two nearby separatist statelets, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, may be backed by Russia, they emerged from deep local roots. That is a clear observation from one of the most exhaustive studies of the war to date, Rebels Without a Cause , published last month by the International Crisis Group. ..."
"... The war has done great and possibly irreparable damage to Ukraine's economy , and the longer it continues, the harder it may be to ever reintegrate the former industrial heartland of Donbass with the rest of the country. ..."
"... Mr. Tkach, the regional party head, says the idea of victory is a dangerous chimera, and what most people around here want is peace and restoration of normal relations with Russia. ..."
"... "Of course we need to negotiate directly with" the rebel republics, he says. "These are our people. We understand them. Perhaps we need a step-by-step process, in which they are granted some special status. What would be wrong with that? They have also suffered, had their homes shelled by Ukrainian forces, lost their loved ones. Trust needs to be restored, and that might take some time." ..."
"... But he is adamant that those territories need to be recovered for Ukraine. "The task before us is to bring them back to Ukraine, and Ukraine to them. It must be accomplished through compromise and negotiation, because everyone is tired of war. Once we have done this, and have peace, then we can talk about Crimea." ..."
"... Mr. Tkach says so too. "We wish Zelenskiy well, but we really doubt that he can make peace happen. Our party has the connections and the right approach, and we think it will be necessary to bring us into the process." He's talking about dealing with the Russia that exists just across the Sea of Azov and a few miles down the road ..."
Almost every conversation in Ukraine these days will touch upon the grinding, seemingly endless war in the eastern region of Donbass.
People speak of overwhelming feelings of pain and weariness. And they express near-universal hopes that the new president, Volodymyr
Zelenskiy, will finally do something to end it.
Here in Mariupol, where the front line is a 10-minute drive from downtown, those conversations tend to be intense.
But depending on whom you talk to, the path to peace can look very different.
Much of the population around here speaks Russian, is used to having close relations with nearby Russia, and can't imagine any
peace that would impose permanent separation. Many people have family, friends, and former business associates living just a few
miles away on the other side of the border. More than half of voters in the Ukrainian-controlled part of Donetsk Region, of which
Mariupol is the largest city, expressed those instincts in July 21 parliamentary elections by voting for two "pro-Russian" political
parties. Both of them would like to forge a peace on Moscow's terms and return at least this part of Ukraine to its historical place
as part of the Russian sphere of influence.
But there are also many who espouse an emerging Ukrainian identity, who see the 2014 Maidan "Revolution of Dignity" as a breaking
point that gave Ukraine the chance to escape the grasp of autocratic Russia and embrace a European future. They want nothing to do
with Russian-authored peace plans, say there is no alternative to fighting on to victory in the Donbass war, and want to
quarantine Ukraine from its giant neighbor – at least until Russia changes its fundamental nature.
Despite the two groups' shared desire for peace, their starkly different visions for what that peace would entail could prove
a major obstacle for ending the war in eastern Ukraine.
Looking east, looking west
These divisions are rooted in Ukrainian history. The country's eastern regions have been part of Russian-run states for over 300
years. Three decades of Ukrainian independence have brought little in the way of economic development or other strong reasons to
embrace a Ukrainian identity. At the same time, Russia has become a far more prosperous, orderly place that exudes confidence and
power since Vladimir Putin came to power. Millions of eastern Ukrainians have gone to Russia as guest workers – and more recently
as
war refugees . Today, the Ukrainian diaspora in Russia is by far the world's largest.
The western regions of Ukraine, on the other hand, were part of European states like Austria-Hungary and Poland until World War
II, when they were annexed by the Soviet Union. Now, people overwhelmingly speak Ukrainian as their first language, take a suspicious
(and historically grounded) view of Russia, and tend to look west for their inspiration. In 1990, living standards in Ukraine and
Poland were about equal. Since Poland joined the European Union in 2004, its living standards have doubled and it has become a vibrant
European state. Millions of Ukrainians go to Poland and beyond as guest workers, and their impressions help to fuel the certainty
that Ukraine needs to seek a European future.
The Party of Life, of which local businessman Maxim Tkach is a regional head, argues that peace can be achieved in eastern
Ukraine only by following a Russia-favored plan for the region.
Not coincidentally, the enthusiasm and conviction of western Ukrainians have disproportionately driven two pro-Western revolutions
on the Maidan in Kyiv in the past 15 years, with little visible support from populations in the country's east.
"People in the western Ukraine are different from us. It's not just language, or anything simple like that. They took power away
from a president our votes elected, and they want to rip us out of our ways, abandon our values, and become part of their agenda,"
says Maxim Tkach, regional head of the Party of Life, the pro-Russian group that was the front-runner in parliamentary elections
here in Mariupol.
"When they started that Maidan revolution, they said it was about things we could support, like fighting corruption and ending
oligarchic rule. But none of that happened. They betrayed every single principle they had shouted about. Instead, they want us to
change the names of our streets and schools,
honor 'heroes' like Stepan Bandera that our ancestors fought against. These are things we can't accept. ...
"If there had been no Maidan, we would still have Crimea. There would have been no war. There would be no pressure on us to change
our customs, our language, or
our church . It was this aggressive revolution, by just part of the country, that caused these problems," he says. "Russia is
Russia. It is acting in its own interests, but why do we need to antagonize it?"
"The majority who want to be Ukrainian"
Maria Podibailo, a political scientist at Mariupol State University and head of New Mariupol, a civil society group founded to
support the Ukrainian army, offers a completely different narrative. She originally came from Ternopil in western Ukraine and has
made Mariupol her home since 1991.
She says there were no separatist feelings in Mariupol, or the Donbass, until after the Maidan revolution when Russian agitators
started traveling around eastern Ukraine, spreading lies and stirring up moods that had never existed before. Local pro-Russian oligarchs
wielded their economic power to support separatist groups, while passive police and security forces allowed Russian-led separatists
to seize public buildings and hold anti-Ukrainian protests in Mariupol. It wasn't until the arrival of the Ukrainian army – first
in the form of the volunteer Azov Battalion – that the separatists were driven out and the front line was pushed back from the city
limits in 2014, she says.
"That is why we support the army, and only trust the army," she says.
Ms. Podibailo's university-sponsored opinion surveys in 2014, after the rebellion began, found that a three-quarters majority
of local people supported a future as part of Ukraine, not Russia. That majority was subdivided into several visions of what kind
of Ukraine it should be, but only 12% wanted to join Russia, and 8% wanted Donbass to be an independent republic – a point often
overlooked in the simplistic pro-Russian versus pro-Western scheme in which these events are frequently portrayed.
"That's when we knew we were on the right track," she says. "We were not a beleaguered minority at all. We were part of the majority
who want to be Ukrainian."
But while the two nearby separatist statelets, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, may be backed
by Russia, they emerged from deep local roots. That is a clear observation from one of the most exhaustive studies of the war to
date,
Rebels Without a Cause , published last month by the International Crisis Group.
"We cannot talk to the leaders of these so-called republics. How could we possibly trust them?" says Ms. Podibailo. Her view is
that, after victory, the population of the republics should be sorted out into those who collaborated with the enemy and those who
were innocent victims, as happened after World War II.
"There is no way for this war to end other than in Ukrainian victory. I have never heard of a war that ends leaving things the
same way, or just through some talks. People say it might take a long time, and the threat will last forever because we have such
a neighbor.
"But we have the United States behind us, we have the West behind us, and they are attacking Russia from the other side with sanctions.
We will win," she says.
"These are our people"
Mr. Tkach, the regional party head, says the idea of victory is a dangerous chimera, and what most people around here want
is peace and restoration of normal relations with Russia.
"Of course we need to negotiate directly with" the rebel republics, he says. "These are our people. We understand them. Perhaps
we need a step-by-step process, in which they are granted some special status. What would be wrong with that? They have also suffered,
had their homes shelled by Ukrainian forces, lost their loved ones. Trust needs to be restored, and that might take some time."
But he is adamant that those territories need to be recovered for Ukraine. "The task before us is to bring them back to Ukraine,
and Ukraine to them. It must be accomplished through compromise and negotiation, because everyone is tired of war. Once we have done
this, and have peace, then we can talk about Crimea."
One of the leaders of the Party of Life – which came in a distant second in the national parliamentary elections – is Ukrainian
oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, who has strong connections to the Kremlin and whose daughter has Mr. Putin as her godfather. Attending
the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum along with Mr. Putin this spring, Mr. Medvedchuk was introduced as "a representative
of the Ukraine that can make a deal."
Mr. Tkach says so too. "We wish Zelenskiy well, but we really doubt that he can make peace happen. Our party has the connections
and the right approach, and we think it will be necessary to bring us into the process." He's talking about dealing with the Russia
that exists just across the Sea of Azov and a few miles down the road.
It's very sad that Ukraine is just a pawn in dirty geopolitical games of the USA, the EU and Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... In 3-5 years we could have an interesting scenario in Ukraine with land (its main wealth) owned by foreign investors and a large % of population with Russian or Polish and other EU passports. As always with ideology, the result is the exact opposite of what that ideology claims: the dictatorship of proletariat impoverished and killed proletariat, Nazis dramatically shrunk German lebensraum, liberals obsession with ' liberty and universal brotherhood ' is leading to censorship, suppression and group hostilities. But here we are and the ideological idiocy that Maidan-Ukrainians embraced might not be reversible. This is not good for anybody. ..."
"... For Ukraine these are all irreversible losses, but from Western perspective, these are little victories: Russia was forced to spend more. As the West does not give a hoot about Ukraine, the US and its vassals can freely celebrate these victories. ..."
"... So, it all depends on the point of view. The West never cared about aborigines, so their point of view does not come into its calculations. ..."
"... Currently prevailing mood in Russia is that Ukraine, whoever is the power there, gets nothing, nada, zilch. ..."
"... But Ukrainian authorities worked pretty hard to achieve it, and now Ukraine has to live with this new reality. It won’t be pretty. The US was simply following its standard policy: leave a pile of shit, declare victory, and leave, waiting for someone else to clean up. ..."
"... Now there is only one way Russia would clean up: if the EU pays full price for it. As this is unlikely, the aborigines are going to bear the brunt of the consequences. ..."
miscalculation that the rotten West will help them instead of use them to create a
festering sore on Russian border for just a few billion dollars in loans.
A possibly a fatal miscalculation for Ukraine, but there is also an ideology involved. In
Maidan-Ukrainians case that ideology is Ukrainian nationalism combined with a servile Western
worship of almost cargo-cult level. An odd combination that has led to odd result.
West wanted Zelensky to win, the question is why. Tactically, Zelensky neutralized large
Russia-leaning block of voters: the 70% vote would have gone somewhere and they were not
going to vote for Poroshenko or Tymoshenko. So that misdirection was successful. But what was
the point?
Let's look at what Zelensky is actually doing (not the throw-away comedy and
rhetoric): he is trying to allow sale of Ukrainian land to foreign investors. My guess is
that he will push it through and that will his main legacy. Buying up Ukrainian arable land
has been a wet dream for many in the West since 1991. Zelensky could deliver on it, and then
move on.
In 3-5 years we could have an interesting scenario in Ukraine with land (its main wealth)
owned by foreign investors and a large % of population with Russian or Polish and other EU
passports. As always with ideology, the result is the exact opposite of what that ideology
claims: the dictatorship of proletariat impoverished and killed proletariat, Nazis
dramatically shrunk German lebensraum, liberals obsession with ' liberty and universal
brotherhood ' is leading to censorship, suppression and group hostilities. But here we
are and the ideological idiocy that Maidan-Ukrainians embraced might not be reversible. This
is not good for anybody.
Why does the Saker think that Ze had any choice? He is a puppet, a stuffed shirt brought to
”power” by Kolomoisky and allied oligarchs. The only goal was to chase Porky and
allied thieves from the trough to be able to steal more.
Now, the people of Ukraine had choice. But they blew it again, like many times before:
each Ukrainian “president” is worse than his predecessor. As the saying goes,
“fool me once, shame on you…” Ukrainians let themselves be fooled six
times already, so there is no doubt where the shame goes.
It was said that the nationalism is the last resort of a scoundrel. But it isn’t the
only one. Nationalism, stupid unrealistic dreams to feed sheeple, fairy tales about
aggression, and the war create perfect smokescreen for blatant thievery. It continues
unabated, ever since 1991.
Russia does need to make its choice. But it is complicated by the role of Russian thieves
(polite word is oligarchs) in current Russian state. Putin kicked some out. The remaining
ones have enough brains to figure that they need a strong state to protect them, lest their
loot be stolen by Western thieves. So, they are a step ahead of Ukrainian thieves who did not
tumble even to this simple realization. But no more than one step ahead.
The economic reality is that Russian state does not have the resources to restore Ukraine,
even if sane forces come to power there. So, Ukraine would likely keep festering, losing
millions of working age people (like today), possibly losing chunks of territory (as the joke
has it, whoever remains in Ukraine pays off the debt). The problems of that huge Somalia can
only be solved by concerted effort of many European countries and Russia. This is not on the
cards, at least not until Ukies create yet another Chernobyl. Then the EU might decide to
send its US overlords to Hell and pay Russia to take the hand grenade away from the monkey. I
don’t think Putin will live long enough to see that happen.
…EU might decide to send its US overlords to Hell and pay Russia to take the hand
grenade away from the monkey.
How would EU go against its overlord? Even if EU would try, the existential nihilism in
Kiev will prevent compromise. Ideologues can’t admit that their ‘idea’
didn’t work, they prefer destroying everything around. West is also at this point
incapable of admitting an error – they literally can’t do it, the lying has to go
on. That means that even groundwork for any possible compromise can’t be put in place.
This is all the way down with fireworks and it won’t be pretty.
There is such a thing as a catastrophic error and the last 5 years in Ukraine comes pretty
close to it. That is not really fixable. The monkey night as well use the grenade.
Minsk agreement was an incredibly generous deal, if Poroshenko had half a brain he would
had jumped on it and today Donbas would be a remote backwater with autonomy.
That would be true if Porky was interested in Ukraine. As it is, his only interest and
loyalty was and is his personal loot. To keep stealing, he (and allied thieves) needed the
smokescreen of war, fairy tales of “aggression”, and pipe dreams of “greater
Ukraine” for the sheeple. He succeeded in his thievery for five years. Now another gang
of thieves pushed his gang from the trough. End of story.
Are you a teenager unaware of the history of the Maidan regime-change
“revolution?” Here are two most influential Ukranian parties-participants in the
“revolution:” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
The Svoboda Party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine … It
is widely considered a fascist..party….
Time has described it [the Right Sector Party] as a “radical right-wing group
… a coalition of militant ultra-nationalists” with an ideology that
“borders on fascism”.
Die Welt, The New York Times, and Le Monde Diplomatique have described some of
Right Sector’s constituent groups as radical right-wing, neofascist, or
neo-Nazi…
You are a pessimist (or a fatalist). I agree that EU is shamefully subservient to the US,
but when some of their core interests are at stake, even slavish EU can show some teeth. Just
think of Nord Stream-2: the US is jumping out of its skin to damage this project, but Germany
stands remarkably firm.
From Western point of view, Ukie provocation was not a complete failure (even though
it’s a catastrophic failure from Ukrainian point of view): Russia had to spend a lot to
develop the production of military things it used to import from Ukraine, like ships, ship
engines, helicopter engines, spaceship control systems, etc.
Now that it acquired the
capability to produce these things, there will be no going back regardless who rules Ukraine:
it’s industries that used to export to Russia are doomed. These include such giants as Nikolaev shipbuilding plant, Motor Sich in Zaparozie, Antonov aircraft building plant in Kiev,
etc. The same goes for transit.
It is not just natural gas transit everybody talks about.
Russia used to transport ammonia to Odessa, where it was partially exported and partially
converted into fertilizers. The plant that used to do that is dead.
Ukraine tried to sell it
for $5 billion under Yanuk and got no takers, about a year ago it tried to sell it for 10% of
that price, and got no takers again.
There also used to be substantial Russian payments for
transport via the railway going across Eastern Ukraine.
Russia built an alternative bypassing
Ukraine, so they might as well dismantle the rails on their route.
For Ukraine these are all
irreversible losses, but from Western perspective, these are little victories: Russia was
forced to spend more. As the West does not give a hoot about Ukraine, the US and its vassals
can freely celebrate these victories.
So, it all depends on the point of view. The West never cared about aborigines, so their
point of view does not come into its calculations.
That’s true, when it comes to resources, there are always alternatives how to spend
them.
Currently prevailing mood in Russia is that Ukraine, whoever is the power there, gets
nothing, nada, zilch.
Considering how closely Ukrainians are related to Russians, this feat
wasn’t easy.
But Ukrainian authorities worked pretty hard to achieve it, and now Ukraine
has to live with this new reality. It won’t be pretty. The US was simply following its
standard policy: leave a pile of shit, declare victory, and leave, waiting for someone else to
clean up.
Now there is only one way Russia would clean up: if the EU pays full price for it. As
this is unlikely, the aborigines are going to bear the brunt of the consequences.
Saker is naive and badly educated. It is stupid to call Ukraine an oligarchy. All countries on Earth are oligarchies.
The real question is which group of oligarchs is in power. In case of Ukraine those are privatization sharks, the worst kind
of neoliberal financial scum. Often real criminals.
Otto von Bismarck created a powerful German state which exists to this day. While vassal of the USA it is still a state
now. And Merkel role in EuroMaidan definitely reminds Drang
nach Osten in neoliberal packaging. Neocolonialism in its pure form
Ukraine is just a pawn in a bigger geopolitical game of the USA and EU against Russia. That explains in the current state of
Ukrainian economics and the level of Ukrainian population sufferings. Ukrainian
nationalist paradoxically served as the fifth column for the neoliberal oligarchy. The phenomenon similar to the US
nationalists role under Trump.
At the same time despite dismally low standard of living Ukrainian population is showing great resilience in the current
hardships and infrastructure while completely worn out still works. But Ukraine is now completely Latin-Americanized, which was
the goal of the USA from the very beginning for all Soviet space. Ukraine now is a debt slave of the West which
is completely opposite to any nationalist movement goals.
According to
Wikipedia just
5% of population lives of less than $5.50 a day. That's baloney. In reality the percentage is probably two-three times times
higher (average monthly pension is typically less then $1500 grivna which is less then $60) so most of pensioners live on
less then $2 a day. 8 million of the approximately 12 million of Ukrainian pensioners were receiving the minimum pension of
1312 (around $50) while medium pension amounted to 1886 UAH (Pensions
in Ukraine - Wikipedia) And 12 million is 28% of Ukrainian population (around 42-43 million total down from 45.55 before
EuroMaydan ). It is declining around 200 persons daily. On average there are 462,052 births and 662,571 deaths in Ukraine
per year.
While pensioners are definitely starving the situation at least stabilized with grivna around 25 per dollar (something like
300% after the EuroMaydan). So Nuland advantures cost dearly for average Ukrainian.
Notable quotes:
"... These guys are a minority, a pretty small one even, but they have enough muscle and even firepower to threaten any nominal Ukrainian leader. ..."
As I have indicated in a recent article , the Ukraine is not a
democracy but an oligarchy : ever since 1991 the most prosperous Soviet republic
was mercilessly plundered by an entire class (in the Marxist sense of the word) of oligarchs
whose biggest fear has always been that the same "horror" (from their point of view) which
befell Russia with Putin, would eventually arrive at the Ukraine.
Here we need to make something clear: this is NOT, repeat, NOT about nationality or
nationalism. The Ukrainian oligarchs are just like any other oligarchs: their loyalty is to
their money and nothing else. If you want to characterize these oligarchs, you could think of
them as culturally "post-Soviet" meaning that they don't care about nationality, and even
though their prime language is Russian, they don't give a damn about Russia or Russians (or
anybody else, for that matter!). Since many of them are Jews, they have a network of
supporters/accomplices in Israel of course, but also in the West and even in Russia. In truth,
these guys are the ultimate "internationalists" in their own, toxic, kind of way.
Some fine specimens of "ochlocrats"
The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs. Their power is not a democracy either, but an ochlocracy .
These guys are a minority, a pretty small one even, but they have enough muscle and even
firepower to threaten any nominal Ukrainian leader.
Can you stop with the Ukronazi crap, what kind of Nazi Government has a Jewish PM and Jewish
President ?
Azov guys dying in Donbass and the street thugs in Kiev are just cannon fodder, they don't
run shit
The majority of Ukranians don't want to be in this conflict, I don't see the point in
demonizing all of them because of some fascist larpers
People need to move on from the past and stop all that hating others for some past deeds.
Polish or Western Ukrainian hatred for Russians, Russian hatred for Germans, Chinese &
Korean hatred for the Japanese, Indian hatred for the British or the Chinese, Black South
African hatred for Afrikaners. All these are counter productive for the people and are
emotions which can be whipped up by the elites to have commoners die like cannon fodder at
worst or to take away attention towards a past historic enemy to hide their own corruption/
incompetence at best.
People need to see things from the other side as well.
As far as the Satanic Zio elite pigs, they will use any ideology as long as it serves
them. Democracy, Communism, anti-Communism, Islamic fundamentalism, anti-Islam, Jingoistic
Nationalism, Anti-Nationalism/One Worldism, feminism, Hindutva, Buddhist fundamentalism (Sri
Lanka BBS and the secret Zionist hand), Neo-Conservatism, Leftism, Colonialism,
anti-Colonialism as long it suits them. They use them and discard them away when needed. But
this seems to be the most extreme case ever. For the first time the Zio elites are using
National Socialism as an ideology to serve them. The ideology which was probably the greatest
enemy and threat to the Zio elites, in human history. Freakin crazy!!!
More grist for Saker's suckers. The Galicians (and Ukro-Nazi Jews) are behind
everything. In Saker's simplistic mind the Galicians have infiltrated all of Ukrainian
society and run the whole show, when in fact this is just a bunch of nonsense. Well, at least
Saker is putting to use his favorite Ukrainian pejorative do I really need to repeat it
again, ad nauseum?
"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where
is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing
in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They
don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory.
As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they
simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A
stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land
given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is
blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets
which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state
is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying
out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be
as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of
Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine –
in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk
to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly
seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small)
Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and,
frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian
currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the
Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the
North.
It's a of nonsense as usual. This piece is quickly refuted:
ever since 1991 the most prosperous Soviet republic
People who spread this myth are ignorant or liars. It's a common one, though.
In 1990 Ukraine's per capita GDP was $1570.
Russia's was $3485.
Belarus was $2124.
So in Soviet times, Ukraine was the poorest of the three Slavic Soviet Republics. It still
is, the position hasn't changed. It's just fallen further behind.
::::::::
Everything else is just as nonsensical, I won't even bother to detail it, most of the
commenters here are as dumb/ignorant/dishonest (take your pick) as the author pretends to
be.
I don't know where Saker sources his history. Lenin had nothing to do with the creation of
Ukraine.
I live in Western Canada, where Ukrainians come starting in the late 19th century. I'm not
referring to the primarily German speaking Mennonites that left South Central Ukraine, in the
1870s, fleeing religious persecution. By WWI, more than 200,000 were in Western Canada from
all parts of Ukraine. They considered themselves Ukrainians, not Russians, or Galicians. They
were, and to a great extent, still are Ukrainian nationalists. There continues to be friction
with Polish and German local populations, although prior to the "rebirth" of Ukraine, it had
largely subsided. Recent Russian immigrants are shunned as much as the "Poles" and "Germans".
Politically, they are generally left of center, and have been since their arrival, although
in recent decades more have become "conservative" (whatever that means these days). A long
ago former Russian Jewish co-worker who was a late 60s "escapee" from the USSR, told me that
he would never vote for one of our political parties, because there were "too many
Ukrainians" in the party. I asked a "Ukrainian" friend, who I had known since grade school,
what that meant. His explanation was that there had always been tensions between Jews and
Ukrainians, for centuries, because of what Ukrainians believed was exploitation by the Jews.
Other "Ukrainians" and "Jews" have confirmed this.
The reality is, that most people in most countries just want to live their lives in peace,
with a job good enough to provide a decent home and food for the family. That 70% of
Ukrainians want that is not surprising, it's normal. That doesn't mean they aren't
nationalists, and it doesn't mean they are Nazis. However screwed up they are in trying to do
so, Ukrainians are struggling to retain their identity and culture. IMO, they are up against
internationalist forces from all sides, and none are interested in letting that happen.
@Curmudgeon
The Nazi name-calling is over the top, and not just with regard to Ukraine or Galicia.
Historical grievances or revisions are not 'Nazism'. Too many people look at Ukraine and
over-interpret the nostalgia for Bandera or simple national self-assertion.
But I think Saker is right about where this is going. Russian side has local dominance and
that will not change. The only game in town for the last 5 years has been to see if the
Western squeeze of Russia will work faster than the Russian squeeze of Ukraine. By now it is
obvious that it won't.
Kiev has made some fatal mistakes. E.g. Minsk agreement was an incredibly generous deal,
if Poroshenko had half a brain he would had jumped on it and today Donbas would be a remote
backwater with autonomy . So? The state would be intact, taxes would be paid,
passports centrally issued, etc The eastern European dynamic is that any population always
ends up disliking its immediate rulers – how long before local leaders in Donbas would
be challenged by some younger corruption fighters.
The whole Maidan thing was also terribly mismanaged – at its core it was about
getting the best potential deal for Ukraine with EU (and Russia). In the middle of the
negotiation suddenly Maidanistas decided that symbols are more important than reality and
basically folded in front of EU. Consequently Russia walked. Thus Kiev got justa bout the
worst possible combination on non-EU and deep hostility with Russia. Smarter guys would had
handled it much better, playing both sides against each other – raising the stakes.
And let's not even get started on Crimea, while Ukies ate stale cookies, they lost
overnight their most valuable possession – they couldn't anticipate it? Being able to
anticipate is a key to intelligence and in playing any game.
So we can talk about what or who is driving modern Ukraine, oligarchs, Galicians, Jews,
Kiev thugs, Canadians – it doesn't matter, what matters is that they are incompetent.
From Yushenko to Zelensky they are amateurs driven by emotion and greed. There is no
state-forming force, there is no true Ukrainian nationalism that would play up Ukraine's
strengths and manage its weaknesses. Saker is basically right – they are in a no-win
cul-de-sac, at this point any move will make their situation worse. Their best (only?) hope
is a collapse of Russia. Now, how likely is that?
@Felix
Keverich Autism of this degree does not pop out of nowhere
You had Cossacks and Mercenaries from the Ukraine joining up with the Poles, Swedes,
Napoleon, Germans and others. Calling diaspora nationalists stupid is all fine and dandy but
the constant bickering between people in current Ukraine and in Russia stinks of divide and
conquer (which is what Ukraine vs Russia conflicts always were)
Calling them stupid and calling their ethnicity fake(which they make an actual effort to
preserve, such as it is) stinks of hypocrisy when so many Great Russians were willing to tear
their country, religion and people apart in 1917 and join up with the Bolsheviks in the rape
and pillaging
You'd probably get far more progress calling them a branch of Russian civilization, you
can cite Belarus and Siberian Ukraine as examples
It's easy to dogpile on some poor Hohol since they will always be on the defensive, but it's
much harder to understand him and admit your own faults while not backing down from your
standpoint that you are both one people
Serbs often made the same mistakes with Montenegro, and the result is the modern day
shitfest where both it and Ukraine are run by hostile US puppets
The Saker is correct that reality and pragmatism are essential 'when trying to figure out
what is going on and what might happen next.' It is a hard calculation to make in a world
increasingly chaotic and dark. The Minsk Accord is probably the only glimmer of light for
Ukraine, but then all the lights – across the world – are going out. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
However screwed up they are in trying to do so, Ukrainians are struggling to retain
their identity and culture. IMO, they are up against internationalist forces from all
sides, and none are interested in letting that happen.
What you posted is called a generic "to be against everything bad, for everything good".
Living in a world of unicorns and having rainbows as result of bowel movement is, of course,
a worthy aspiration but reality with Ukraine is a teeny-weeny bit more complicated than mere
attempts to "retain their identity and culture". I'll give you a hint, vast swaths of
Ukrainian population (including in the East Ukraine) believe, as an example, that Ukrainian
civilization precedes a Sumerian one. Many, very many, also still believe that valiant
Ukrainian Armed Forces still fight, for the 5th year in a row, mighty Russian Army in the
East. We are talking here about down right mental breakdown on a national level, granted, as
I always say, modern Ukraine did happen, that is coalesced, as a political nation.
In the thirteenth century, both the Ukrainians and the Russians faced more dire threats
than each other.
In the 13th century there were no Ukrainians or Ukraine. There was Russia though, Rus'.
Imagine a US state becoming independent today, from the rest of the US.. like Ohio.. and
people are going to say "the first man on the moon was an Ohioan (Armstrong), not an
American. Sorry, doesn't work like that..
You have to admit that's an impressive combination.
Yes, but it wasn't the Saker who invented it; it does seem to reflect what's going on
there. My only criticism is that he has given more prominence to the Nazis than the Jews,
unless we consider "oligarchs" as a synonym for Jews.
Like you have said in the past he is taking the Russian side. I think it's a fairly good
analysis of the situation if you go beyond his propagandistic terminology and what he leaves
unsaid. Russia really doesn't want to engage directly in the conflict but its best policy
would be to bide its time and to encourage more pro-Russian separatism in Odessa and all
other regions along the coast so as to eventually cut off Ukraine from access to the sea
altogether. That would serve Russian interests best and strengthen its position against NATO,
the EU, and the rump Ukraine, for whatever is to follow. It's a shame for any real Ukranian
nationalists but then they should have been smarter than to join all those colour revolutions
on Maidan organised by the CIA, Soros, Jewish oligarchs, etc.
That's a frozen conflict for now. Let's have another article on UR about the latest from
the US sponsored colour revolution in Hong Kong and what are the best measures that PR China
can take to quell the riots. And it's about time they took back Formosa, but it won't be as
easy as the Russian takeover of Crimea, unless they can send a million Red Army guards there
disguised as tourists to stage a silent putsch.
@Bardon
Kaldian Neonazis is a good term for the people used in the Ukrainian ZUS coup. That is
the people that was used to gain control of Ukraine for ZUS.
This coup in Ukraine, woke me up.
V. Nuland's war cry to bless the coup was "F–k The EU"
She used Neonazis to take over Ukraine.
Wait. She is Jewish. I guess the 6 million story must be bogus. She admitted it, since if
the 6 million story was real. She would have a great fear of a tidal wave of anti-S'ism
overcoming her and her people. She had no fear. Thus, the 6 million story was proved to be
false by V. Nuland. Thanks V. Nuland for freeing the world of that nightmarish propaganda
that has saddled humanity for seventy odd years.
Secondly, she told the world the reality of J. Supremacism by stating " F..k the EU". The
world thought that ZUS loved the EU as its sister in world domination. I guess not. Would V.
Nuland ever say "F..k Israel"? I think not.
Thanks V. Nuland. A new Queen Esther or Queen Victoria.
Yep, agree with Saker – I lived there before , during and now after the Maidan and he's
spot on with most of everything – he has been, since the beginning. Zelinsky has a
dozen or more bosses and he has Zero experience in what he's doing. . Zionist Bankers and
their arms dealers, Nato, Banderas gang,Washington, US Navy, Monsanto/Bayer, Royal Dutch
{shell oil }, Dupont, Lilly Pharma, Cargill, and the list could go on. He'll be lucky if he
isn't in Diapers by the time his term is up, otherwise he will be rich. I see that
Poroshanster is being called out for taking 8 billion bucks out of Ukie-Ville. I wonder how
much Trump and his family will end up stealing?. Thanks Unz Review.
Thus Kiev got justa bout the worst possible combination on non-EU and deep hostility
with Russia. Smarter guys would had handled it much better, playing both sides against each
other – raising the stakes.
As usual, you nailed it Beckow.
Also, Saker often misunderstands things but he is right that Ukraine is in a one way street
mainly because of the out-of-this-World miscalculation that the rotten West will somehow help
them instead of use them to create a festering sore on Russian border for just a few billion
dollars in loans. It is the rest of Ukraine, excluding Donbas, that will have to pay off
these war loans already stolen by the oligarchs.
@Commentator
Mike I recall that at the time of the Zionist coup (We do remember Ms Noodleman's : "fuck
the EU" don't we?) Ukrainian Nazi's were a leading force in kicking things off.
@Mr.
Hack "In Saker's simplistic mind the Galicians have infiltrated all of Ukrainian society
and run the whole show, "
This was not what I read.
The Saker said that oligarchs and Nazi militia groups have enough power to impose their will
and their agenda on the rest of the population.
When I see words like "Nazis" in relation to Ukrainians, I know that article is sh!t
& not worth reading.
This is because you don't know what Raguli(stan) is and you cannot possibly know, because
there are no "books" written yet which would encapsulate this whole phenomenon. Of course,
Ukies have no relation to Fichte and Volkskrieg. Other than that you will find an attentive
audience among local ignoramuses.
Former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko trace to Steele dossier is a real shocker.
Notable quotes:
"... On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled " WhosWho19Sept2016 ." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures, many of whom were Russians. ..."
"... If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI. ..."
"... What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr. ..."
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble. ..."
"... It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day, Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from... ..."
"... So..the Timeline Indicates Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination.. ..."
"... I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos and Archey Declarations? ..."
"... So what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it? ..."
"... Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for his impeachment. ..."
"... They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose. ..."
"... Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'??? ..."
"... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort. ..."
"... So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign influence in a U.S. election! ..."
"... The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest and law enforcement, became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good. ..."
There are many moving pieces in the drama surrounding the Deep State attempt to kill the Trump Presidency. God Bless Judicial
Watch. I think most of the key evidence that has surfaced came courtesy of Tom Fitton, Chris Farrell and their team of tireless workers.
I want to bring you back to
Mr. Felix Sater . He was part of Bayrock, which worked closely with Donald Trump's organization and, most importantly of all,
was an FBI Confidential Human Source since December of 1998.
Thanks to Judicial Watch we have a new dump of Bruce Ohr emails, which include several from his wife, Nellie. There are 330 pages
to wade thru (you can
see
them here ). There
is one item in particular I encourage you to look at:
On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled "
WhosWho19Sept2016
." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures,
many of whom were Russians. This list of individuals allegedly "linked to Trump" include: a Russian involved in a "gangland
killing;" an Uzbek mafia don; a former KGB officer suspected in the murder of Paul Tatum; a Russian who reportedly "buys up banks
and pumps them dry"; a Russian money launderer for Sergei Magnitsky; a Turk accused of shipping oil for ISIS; a couple who lent their
name to the Trump Institute, promoting its "get-rich-quick schemes"; a man who poured him a drink; and others.
The spreadsheet starts on page 301. If you search the document for the name Felix Sater, he will pop up. Now here is the curious
and, I suppose, reassuring thing about this document--Nellie Ohr did not have a clue that Felix Sater was an active FBI informant.
We can at least give the FBI credit for protecting Sater's identity from Nellie Ohr and, more importantly, her husband, DOJ official
Bruce Ohr.
If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don
Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being
used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI.
One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or one of the
other "suspects" she exhaustively listed.
Shifting gears, there are two very important pieces recently posted at The Conservative Tree House that I encourage you to read:
What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the
investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr.
You can find this information in the
Bruce
Ohr 302s that Judicial Watch also secured. Marina Butina was unfairly and unjustly portrayed and prosecuted as a Russian intelligence
agent. It was a damn lie.
I do not ever want to hear another American complaining about an American State Department or CIA employee who is entrapped and
unfairly prosecuted in Russia.
We have done the same damn thing that we have accused the Soviets of doing. The same thing. It is shameful.
The
second piece is the ultimate feel good piece. Kudos to its author, Sundance.
He details how a Federal Judge, infuriated by the FBIs stupidity and mendacity, tells the Bureau to go pound sand. The FBI is
frantically trying to prevent the Archey Declarations from being revealed thanks to a lawsuit brought by CNN (finally, CNN did something
right).
The Archey Declarations provide a detailed description of the memos written and illegally removed from FBI Headquarters by that
sanctimonious twit, Jim Comey. More shoes will be dropping in the coming days.
It appears that Inspector General Horowitz is going to present at least one report on Jim Comey and one report on the FISA abuse
by the FBI.
FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal
into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble.
Finally, Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft put up an important piece today (
see here ). Here is the bottomline, and keep this in mind as you read the piece, on June 20, 2016 the FBI signed off on a deal
with Hillary Clinton's attorney's that gave Hillary's team the right to destroy computers and emails.
It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day,
Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
The fix was in more than a month before Jim Comey appeared on camera to try to explain why he was not recommending prosecution
of Hillary for putting Top Secret information on her unclassified server.
Jim Comey lied when he declared that could not prove "intent."
I am sure that those of you who have never held a clearance and handled Top Secret material probably believed that lie.
But anyone who knows how the TS system is set up knows that the ONLY WAY, I repeat, the ONLY WAY to put TS material on an unclassified
server is to do so intentionally. There is no way to do this mistakenly.
Jim Ticehurst said in reply to Jim Ticehurst... ,
Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from...
So..the Timeline Indicates
Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates
for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination..
creating Phase 2..Operations..
"The Washington Free Beacon ".Has an Editor in Chief ..who is William Kristols Son In Law..And William Kristols ..Father....Irving
Kristol..is Called..."the God Father of Neo Conservatism". William Kristol..was a John McCain supporter..
Thus Fusion GPS..retained Nellie Ohr..(strangly..NO Wiki Profile) who apparently had to Use her husbnd Bruce Ohrs Clearances,,to
continue Her Collaberation with Fusion GPS..
By June 2016 the Strategy was to bring in Christopher Steele..who was know to Bruce Ohr back to 2006.. Strange.. NO early life
BIOS for Bruce or Nellie Ohr..
I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos
and Archey Declarations?
The Gateway Pundit item about the ridiculously unfair and unethical deals made in Hillary Clinton's email scandal investigation
is just further proof of how the Clinton taint infected the FBI. "Crooked" is a very apt epithet, that's for sure. I'd love to
know how much Bill and Hill raked in during her Sec'y. of State racketeering.
You say: "One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or
one of the other "suspects" she exhaustively listed."
This is true, but it is also true that Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make
false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for
his impeachment.
They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose.
Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'???
... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian
presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort.
Why is that significant? Tymoshenko and Hillary Clinton had a simpatico relationship after the former secretary of State
went out of her way in January 2013 to advocate for Tymoshenko's release from prison on corruption charges.
So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher
but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign
influence in a U.S. election!
...
The tales of Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, Yulia Tymoshenko, and those DEA and TSA agents raise a stark warning:
The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest
and law enforcement,
became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good.
The person responsible for securing the release of Yulia Tymoshenko was Chancellor Merkel. Further, that USA opposed Tymoshenko.
quote
As for one of the leaders of the war party in Kiev, Merkel has privately and publicly endorsed every claim of Yulia Tymoshenko,
promoting her release from prison and protecting her campaigns for war against Russia, even though – according to the high-level
German source – “they [Chancellery, Foreign Ministry] have known for years that [Tymoshenko] was a crook.”
endquote
There is a lot more detail Tymoshenko's corruption and Merkel's rescue here:
KIEV: Ukraine 's gas transport company
Ukrtransgaz has upgraded several gas pumping stations so it can provide gas to eastern and
southern regions of the country if there is a disruption in supply from Russia, the company
said on Wednesday.
More than a third of Russia's gas exports to the European Union cross
Ukraine, providing Kiev with valuable transit income.
Ukraine traditionally uses some of the gas pumped by Russia to European consumers for its
own needs in eastern and central regions and then compensates for this by deliveries from gas
storage located in the west of the country.
But the Russia-Ukraine gas transit agreement is due to expire in January and Ukrainian
energy authorities are worried that Moscow could stop gas supplies
through Ukraine, leaving some Ukrainian regions without gas in winter.
"As of today, Ukrtransgaz has implemented all the necessary technical and regulatory
solutions to create a reliable reverse scheme and it is ready for regular operation and can be
activated immediately if necessary," Uktransgaz said in a statement.
It said Ukraine had already reversed gas flows in 2009 when Russian gas giant Gazprom halted gas
supplies to Ukrainian consumers because of a price dispute.
Last month, Russian energy minister and several sources said Russia wanted to strike a
short-term deal with Kiev on gas transit to Europe when the current 10-year agreement expires
to buy time to complete pipelines that will bypass Ukraine.
But Kiev and its European allies want guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit route
for Russian gas to Europe.
In January, European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic floated a proposal for the two
countries to agree a new 10-year transit contract, with a guaranteed minimum yearly transit
volume of 60 bcm and 30 bcm of additional flexibility.
Ukraine's energy firm Naftogaz said last month Kiev was still counting on Sefcovic's
proposal.
The potential for problems with the transit agreement, which brings Kiev around $3 billion
revenue per year, prompted Ukraine to increase its winter gas reserves by 18% compared with
last year to 20 billion cubic meters (bcm).
Naftogaz said this week Ukraine had stored 16.6 bcm of gas by Aug. 10, up from 13.38 bcm at
the same time last year.
Ukraine consumed 32.3 bcm of gas in 2018, 10.6 bcm of which was imported from European
markets outside Russia.
Relations between Kiev and Moscow plummeted after Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea
peninsula in 2014.
Ukraine halted its own purchases of Russian gas in 2015.
KIEV (Reuters) - Detectives from Ukraine's state investigation bureau have summoned former
president Petro Poroshenko for questioning, the bureau said on Thursday.
"We confirmed that he will be questioned," a bureau spokesman said. He declined to give a
reason for the questioning, which will take place on July 17. A spokeswoman for Poroshenko had
no comment but said one might be available later.
James, 26 days ago
I am in Ukraine every year and all people know that Poroshenko used the war to make money. He
created companies that were then used by the Government to buy military equipment and
everyone knows this and waited for the opportunity to have him voted out. Most people here
want only to have a stable government that works for the people, but president after
president they put their hope in has only turned out to become wealthy at the expense of the
people.
There is hope that the new president will enact "real" reforms and government
acquisition reform that gives all businesses an fair opportunity to compete for work.
Poroshenko never got rid of the corrupt judicial officials that enabled crooks to keep doing
what they were doing.
James, 26 days ago
One has to wonder which Western/NATO intelligence agency Poroshenko represented. It was not
for the benefit of representing Ukraine or Russia that is for sure.
Bamboo, 26 days ago
Gee. It looks like the USA has lost its puppet regime. Is Joe Biden's son still getting a
piece of the Ukrainian Pie?
Peter, 26 days ago
Here's a question for poroshenko. What happened to the millions the US gave him to help the
people of his country?
THE AMERICANO, 26 days ago
And a very nice arrest warrant will magically appear out of no where IF he shows up.
David, 26 days ago
I'm wondering if poroshenko was smart enough to request an american passport as a part of
compensation for pushing the country into the democracy?
26 days ago
Poroshenko is a failure of the West meddling in another country's affair for the sole purpose
of hurting Russia.
26 days ago
A person who led Ukraine to prosperity, fighter with corruption, liberator from Russia, and
he is being questioned? How come? :-) I hope you get the sarcasm.
"... Poroshenko has previously been involved in eleven criminal cases, in particular, as regards his abuse of power and his official position in the distribution of posts in "Tsentrenergo", his treason in connection with the incident in the Kerch Strait, his usurpation of judicial power and his misappropriation of the TV channel "Direct", his falsification of documents in the formation of Deputy factions in 2016, and his illegal appointment of a government, and the seizure of power. ..."
"... In addition, as a witness, he was questioned about civilian deaths during the Euromaidan protests in 2014. ..."
"... I could see them having a quiet word with Zelenskiy, maybe leave the old man out of it, what do you say? But Washington is already accused – with substantial justification, I would say – of running the show in Ukraine, and there are limits to how much obvious interfering it can do; especially after Biden's bragging about getting the state prosecutor fired. ..."
Poroshenko has asked the US for help with criminal cases in the Ukraine, writes
media
05:31
MOSCOW, 1 Jul – RIA Novosti.The former President of the Ukraine Petro
Poroshenko is in Istanbul, where he has turned to American companies to lobby for protection
from criminal cases, reports "
Ukraine News " with reference to sources.
It has been noted that in the Ukraine changes have been made as regards the criminal
cases against Poroshenko. In particular, in May 2019, the former-president's lawyer Igor
Golovan stated that these criminal cases would not entail any legal consequences, but now
Poroshenko's entourage realizes that the criminal prosecution of the former president has
noticeably intensified and may have consequences.
Therefore, according to the newspaper, in Turkey Poroshenko has started to lobbying
U.S. companies, in particular, the BGR group, for assistance in resolving these
cases.
"He is well aware that everything that happens in the RRG (State Bureau of
investigation – trans. ed.) is taken very seriously, and he intends to defend himself
against attacks. He can, for example, be expecting public support in Washington if there is
an attempt made to arrest him", said the source.
In addition, the publication cites the words of Ukrainian political scientist Alexei
Yakubin, who has noted that Poroshenko could repeat the "Saakashvili scenario".
"For example, he'll leave for treatment in London, where part of his entourage has
entrenched itself. But this model complicates the public protection of his business assets
within the country, which assets might be seized", he said.
The case against Poroshenko
Poroshenko has previously been involved in eleven criminal cases, in particular, as regards
his abuse of power and his official position in the distribution of posts in "Tsentrenergo",
his treason in connection with the incident in the Kerch Strait, his usurpation of judicial
power and his misappropriation of the TV channel "Direct", his falsification of documents in
the formation of Deputy factions in 2016, and his illegal appointment of a government, and
the seizure of power.
In addition, as a witness, he was questioned about civilian deaths during the
Euromaidan protests in 2014.
Poroshenko himself, speaking at the party congress of "European Business", said that he
is responsible only before the Ukrainian people and is not afraid of persecution.
Quite right, old man; keep your chin up. I daresay they're staying in quite prestigious digs
in Istanbul, as befits visiting royalty. He seems to be labouring under a misapprehension
that he is valuable somehow to Washington, whereas that would only be true if Washington were
unwilling to work with Zelenskiy, and wanted him out of the way.
So far as I can see,
Washington is quite satisfied with Zelenskiy, while the people would not countenance a
Poroshenko return. So he's not really much use, is he? Especially if the USA wishes to
publicly support Zelenskiy's supposed battle with official corruption.
I could see them having a quiet word with Zelenskiy, maybe leave the old man out of it,
what do you say? But Washington is already accused – with substantial justification, I
would say – of running the show in Ukraine, and there are limits to how much obvious
interfering it can do; especially after Biden's bragging about getting the state prosecutor
fired.
Yes, I was sort of getting at the probability that Clan Poroshenko is just installed in a
very nice hotel. I doubt he will want to be plunking down money for an actual property so
long as the status of his assets still in Ukraine is still up in the air. I should imagine
the Ukrainian government will take steps, if it has not already, to prevent his simply
withdrawing their cash value.
The thing about the pindosi, though, is that they always hedge their bets .
I vangize that they will pressure Zel to pardon Porky. So that they have a spare.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.
I doubt it, simply because it would kick the timbers right out from under Zelenskiy's
anti-corruption platform, which is the issue on which he was voted in, and there would be no
way to do it under the radar. The Ukrainian people must be following Porky's flight with
great interest, and inferring that it means he has something to hide. Therefore an abrupt
discontinuing of the pursuit, and a refocusing elsewhere, would tell them accountability is
not attributed to the powerful and wealthy. Which is uhhh exactly the opposite of Zelenskiy's
message.
A person who led Ukraine to prosperity, fighter with corruption, liberator from Russia, and he is being questioned? How come?
:-) I hope you get the sarcasm.
Former president of
Ukraine Petro Poroshenko went to the United Arab Emirates and Germany together with his family.
The politician's family had to use two planes to leave the country.
It is known that ex-president's wife Marina left Kiev for Munich on July 23 together with
her daughters and younger son Mikhail. Petro Poroshenko himself flew on a charter flight from
Kiev to Istanbul along with his eldest son Alexei. According to Izvestia newspaper, the former
head of state then took a flight to Dubai with the same board.
Petro Poroshenko has citizenship of five countries despite the ban for Ukrainian citizens to
have dual citizenship. The ex-president got several identification documents for different
names back in 1996.
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
"... Kolomoisky is the man who controls the recently elected Jewish president Zelensky -- a comedian. ..."
"... Let's not forget that Theresa May is the one who has worked assiduously on trying to overcome the results of the British referendum. She does not believe in democracy. ..."
"... This man most certainly made a substantial offshore payment to Largarde or her companies or her lawyers. That is how it works everywhere. ..."
She robbed the French taxpayer of some 404 billion Euros. The fact that she is not in
prison while protesters are being injured weekly by the French police tells you a lot about
why these people are protesting.
Since then, she has continued with her corrupt behaviour by greatly enriching the
Ukrainian/Israeli oligarch Kolomoisky -- who robbed his own bank.
How Christine Lagarde, Clinton and Nuland Funded a Massive Ukrainian Ponzi
Scheme
Kolomoisky is the man who controls the recently elected Jewish president Zelensky -- a
comedian.
I think the writer pays too much to the attire of May and Lagarde -- The pearls, the tweed
and gingham suits -- when their corruption is totally 21st century. Let's not forget that
Theresa May is the one who has worked assiduously on trying to overcome the results of the
British referendum. She does not believe in democracy. Replies: @Logan
, @George F.
Held
One of the functions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is imposing austerity
measures on the people of poor countries seeking bailouts, so perhaps choosing a corporate
lawyer to run it is fitting.
@Logan
ness tampering. After a high-profile case against public prosecutor Éric de
Montgolfier, he was sentenced in 1995 by the Court of Appeals of Douai to 2 years in prison,
including 8 months non-suspended and 3 years of deprivation of his civic rights.
You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most
charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic
Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.
Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to
discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to
avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs
on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for
cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another
provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that
protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the
profits from their own business.
The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of
Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm
of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it
costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits
from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade,
contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from
the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the
former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles
and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons'
theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of
launch.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia
in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's
their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary
warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and
infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical,
communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have
resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the
existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and
military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The
U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
The US will provide Ukraine with $250 million worth of military equipment, training and
support, the Pentagon announced, saying Ukraine's Navy and marines would be among the
beneficiaries.
The Ukrainian military will get sniper rifles, grenade launchers, counter-battery radar
systems, night vision equipment and communication devices, the Pentagon statement said...
The statement said the package will bring total US security assistance to Ukraine to $1.5
billion since 2014, when a US-backed coup in Kiev ousted Ukraine's elected government.
"... Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sent shock waves in a public speech where he dismissed a Dutch "official" report blaming Russia for the downing of Malaysia Air Flight 17 in July, 2014, weeks after a CIA-led coup toppled the elected President of Ukraine. Despite the downplaying in western mainstream media of the Malaysian leader's comments, it is creating a major new potential embarrassment for ex-Vice President Joe Biden and his Ukraine collaborators such as Igor Kolomoisky, in their flimsy effort to blame Russia for their own misdeeds. ..."
"... By recasting doubt on those Dutch JIT conclusions, Mahathir has potentially opened a can of deadly worms that could come to haunt the Ukrainian government at the time, especially Igor Kolomoisky , the billionaire Ukrainian financial backer of the newly elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky . It potentially could also implicate then-Vice President Joe Biden and many others. ..."
"... Independent investigators into the destruction of MH17 stress the fact that the Dutch-led JIT deliberately excluded Malaysia as well as Russia from their group, but included the CIA-backed coup regime in Ukraine, hardly an unbiased party. Further, all telephone taps the JIT has presented as proof of the guilt of the Russians came from the Ukrainian secret service SBU. Since the CIA-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, the SBU has been involved in repeated fake accusations aimed at Russia, including faked murder of a journalist later revealed to be quite alive . ..."
"... According to a Dutch site, Post Online, Eurocontrol, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, gave information to the Dutch Parliament about the status of Ukraine radar in 2016 informing that the Ukraine air traffic control organization UkSATSE failed to inform Eurocontrol in summer 2014 about the non-operational status of three radar systems in Eastern Ukraine, a grave violation of law. One of the three was taken in the wake of the CIA Ukraine coup in April by a masked band that destroyed the radar facility . ..."
"... Further, in another breach, the Ukrainian UkSATSE refused to permit their air traffic controller at Dnepropetrovsk, responsible for controlling flight MH17, to be questioned. According to Russian reports, the person "went on vacation" and never reappeared . ..."
"... Kolomoisky, who is notorious for hiring thugs and neo-nazis to beat up business and other opponents in Ukraine, reportedly secured the lucrative Burisma post for Hunter Biden, despite Biden's lack of any experience in Ukraine or in oil and gas, in return for Joe Biden lifting Kolomoisky's US visa travel ban. Joe Biden was the Obama Administration point person in charge of the 2014 CIA-orchestrated Maidan Square coup and toppling of the elected President Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... All these pieces of a very murky geopolitical puzzle underscore the dirty role that Ukraine and the Obama administration have played in demonizing Russia as well as the Trump Administration. Most recently, it appears that the US Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his staff, relied on a Ukrainian businessman named Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as the key figure supposedly linked to Russian intelligence, as a key figure to make the case of Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 US elections. ..."
"... Far from a Putin agent, however, new evidence shows that Kilimnik, since at least 2013 was a confidential Ukrainian informant to the US State Department, according to US journalist John Solomon. ..."
"... Increasingly it is looking like the Ukraine and not Russia is the more likely source for interference in the 2016 US election, and not in the way we have been told by the establishment media such as CNN. ..."
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sent shock waves in a public speech where he
dismissed a Dutch "official" report blaming Russia for the downing of Malaysia Air Flight 17 in
July, 2014, weeks after a CIA-led coup toppled the elected President of Ukraine. Despite the
downplaying in western mainstream media of the Malaysian leader's comments, it is creating a
major new potential embarrassment for ex-Vice President Joe Biden and his Ukraine collaborators
such as Igor Kolomoisky, in their flimsy effort to blame Russia for their own
misdeeds.
During a dialogue with the Japanese Foreign Correspondent Club May 30, Mahathir challenged
the Dutch government to provide evidence for their claim that the civilian Malaysian FH17 jet
that crashed in Ukraine was shot down by a Russian-made BUK missile fired from a Russian
regiment based in Kursk. The Malaysian Prime Minister told the Japanese media,
"They are accusing Russia, but where is the evidence? We know the missile that brought
down the plane is a Russian type missile, but it could also be made in Ukraine."
The blunt-spoken Mahathir added,
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians; it could be by the rebels
in Ukraine, it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile ."
He went on to demand that the Malaysian government be allowed to inspect the black box of
the crashed plane, stating the obvious, that the plane belongs to Malaysia, with Malaysian
pilot and there were Malaysians passengers:
"We may not have the expertise but we can buy the expertise. For some reasons, Malaysia
was not allowed to check the black box to see what happened."
He went on to state,
"We don't know why we are excluded from the examination but from the very beginning, we
see too much politics in it, and the idea was not to find out how this happened, but seems to
be concentrated on trying to pin it to the Russians ."
The Malaysian Air MH17 was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down
over the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Only in May 2018 the Dutch-led
Joint Investigation Team issued its report alleging that a BUK missile was used to shoot down
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, claiming that it originated from the 53rd Anti-aircraft Brigade
of the Russian Federation, stationed in Kursk near the Ukraine border.
The Dutch Joint
Investigation Team (JIT) declared that it "has come to the conclusion that the BUK-TELAR that
shot down MH17 came from 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia,"
according to top Dutch investigator Wilbert Paulissen. Paulissen added, "We are convinced that
our findings justify the
conclusions "
The Dutch-led group presented no concrete forensic proof, and Moscow has repeatedly denied
involvement in an act that would make no military or political sense for them. In 2018 the
Russian Defense Ministry provided evidence that the BUK missile which had exploded to destroy
the Malaysian passenger jet had been manufactured in a Russian plant in 1986, and then shipped
to the Ukraine. Its last recorded location was at a Ukrainian military base.
By recasting doubt on those Dutch JIT conclusions, Mahathir has potentially opened a can
of deadly worms that could come to haunt the Ukrainian government at the time, especially Igor
Kolomoisky , the billionaire Ukrainian financial backer of the newly elected Ukrainian
president Volodymyr Zelensky . It potentially could also implicate then-Vice President Joe
Biden and many others.
Open Questions
Independent investigators into the destruction of MH17 stress the fact that the
Dutch-led JIT deliberately excluded Malaysia as well as Russia from their group, but included
the CIA-backed coup regime in Ukraine, hardly an unbiased party. Further, all telephone taps
the JIT has presented as proof of the guilt of the Russians came from the Ukrainian secret
service SBU. Since the CIA-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, the SBU has been involved in
repeated fake accusations aimed at Russia, including faked murder of a journalist later
revealed to be quite
alive .
One of the central issues that the Dutch JIT group never addressed is why, at a time it was
a known warzone, and commercial international flights were told to avoid the airspace in
eastern Ukraine, the MH17 flight was reportedly ordered by Ukraine air traffic control
authorities in Dnepropetrovsk to change course and to fly directly into the war zone. According
to a Dutch site, Post Online, Eurocontrol, European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation, gave information to the Dutch Parliament about the status of Ukraine radar in 2016
informing that the Ukraine air traffic control organization UkSATSE failed to inform
Eurocontrol in summer 2014 about the non-operational status of three radar systems in Eastern
Ukraine, a grave violation of law. One of the three was taken in the wake of the CIA Ukraine
coup in April by a masked band that destroyed the radar
facility .
Further, in another breach, the Ukrainian UkSATSE refused to permit their air traffic
controller at Dnepropetrovsk, responsible for controlling flight MH17, to be questioned.
According to Russian reports, the person "went on vacation" and never
reappeared .
The Kolomoisky Factor
Notably, at the time of the MH17 downing, the Ukrainian governor of the Dnepropetrovsk
Oblast or region, was Igor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky, who is listed as the third richest man in
Ukraine with an empire in oil, coal, metals and banking, was also reported to be directly
linked via offshore entities to control of Burisma, the shady Ukrainian gas company that named
the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden to its
board .
Kolomoisky, who is notorious for hiring thugs and neo-nazis to beat up business and
other opponents in Ukraine, reportedly secured the lucrative Burisma post for Hunter Biden,
despite Biden's lack of any experience in Ukraine or in oil and gas, in return for Joe Biden
lifting Kolomoisky's US visa travel ban. Joe Biden was the Obama Administration point person in
charge of the 2014 CIA-orchestrated Maidan Square coup and toppling of the
elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
Notably, the Mahathir remarks have drawn attention anew to the mysterious circumstances
around the downing of Malaysian Air MH17 in 2014 and the potential role of Kolomoisky and
others, in that. The role of corrupt Ukraine officials backed by the Obama Administration, is
now under scrutiny.
Notably, the new President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, is widely reported to be a
protégé of Igor Kolomoisky. Zelensky became a national name as a comedian on a
Ukraine TV station owned by Kolomoisky, and the latter reportedly provided funds and personnel
to run the comedian's victorious May 2019 election campaign in which he defeated incumbent
Petro Poroshenko, a bitter foe of Kolomoisky. Following Zelensky's election victory, Kolomoisky
returned to Ukraine after exile in Switzerland following a bitter falling out
with Petr Poroshenko in 2015.
All these pieces of a very murky geopolitical puzzle underscore the dirty role that Ukraine
and the Obama administration have played in demonizing Russia as well as the Trump
Administration. Most recently, it appears that the US Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his
staff, relied on a Ukrainian businessman named Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump
campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as the key figure supposedly linked to Russian intelligence,
as a key figure to make the case of Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 US
elections.
Far from a Putin agent, however, new evidence shows that Kilimnik, since at least 2013 was a
confidential Ukrainian informant to the US State Department, according to US journalist John
Solomon. Solomon cites FBI documents including State Department emails he has seen where Kilimnik is described as a "sensitive" intelligence source for the US State Department. The
Mueller report left that embarrassing detail out for some reason. Kilimnik worked for Paul
Manafort who before the 2014 Ukraine coup had served as a lobbyist for Ukrainian elected
president Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions.
Their shadowy acts in Ukraine may soon come to haunt key figures in Ukraine such as
Kolomoisky, as well as people like Joe Biden and family. From the true authorship of the
downing of MH17, which Dutch and other investigators believe was linked to Kolomoisky actors,
to the Ukraine business dealings of Hunter Biden to the true facts of the Mueller "Russiagate"
probe, all could well prove to be a far more revealing investigation for the US Justice
Department than the obviously biased Mueller probe has been.
Increasingly it is looking like
the Ukraine and not Russia is the more likely source for interference in the 2016 US election,
and not in the way we have been told by the establishment media such as CNN.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in
politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics,
exclusively for the online magazine "New
Eastern Outlook" where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
UKRAINE ELECTION. He was invited everywhere, pressed the flesh with everyone, has a whole
wall of ego pictures; in the end he was defeated by Anybody-At-All. I have no idea what
Zelensky will turn out to be and I doubt anyone else does either. But the conclusion is that
the entire "revolution of dignity" fiasco has been rejected: whatever Ukraine the voters want,
it's not the one Nuland & Co gave them.
"... They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing when the need/opportunity will arise. ..."
"... Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying. ..."
"... Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… ..."
"... American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at the slightest “offence” to their worldview. ..."
If Daenerys Targaryen had announced her desire to use her last dragon to torch Moscow and
Saint Petersburg, the Neocons would have lionized her as the womanly exemplar of democracy
and wise foreign policy that produces peace and justice for all.
Neocons are very much the evil they call us to battle.
I had to rub my eyes with incredulity when I read that.
If Russia wants to weaken Ukraine, why did it ever build a pipeline through it in the first
place? Russia didn't stop using the Ukraine pipeline intially for political reasons. It was
because Ukraine was stealing gas meant for pass-through to other European countries and it
wasn't paying its bills. Don't pay your utility bills and see what happens.
Russia does not want to "control" Germany with Nord Stream, it wants to make money. And
Germany wants cheap gas. Strictly business.
And how can Russia control Germany with Nord Stream when it knows that the first time it
shuts off gas for political reasons would be the last. Because Russia knows that Germany will
find alternative suppliers and never come back. The Russians ain't stupid.
Russia wants bilateral trade with Europe without the Global Cop Gorilla perpetually in the
background arrogant calling the shots.
The final reconciliation of Europe and Russia should have occurred 25 years but didn't
because the ham-fisted United States threw up the fear-monger barriers. And that was because
its National Security States wants an existential "enemy" to justify its massive costs.
The sooner Europe ejects the U.S. War Machine from its territories the better. Better for
Europe, better for Russia and better for the American taxpayers.
I am with SteveM here. And I was shocked to see MarkVA’s comment. Mark has proved to
be a respectable commentator, especially on Rod’s Blog, with very astute and sensible
observations. It seems that tribalism is clouding his judgment when observing the world outside
the U.S.
It is well known that the Soviets and the Russians always keep their end of the bargain and
they know if they don’t do so they will end up loosing and being vilified. Whereas the
U.S. always breaks its agreements, it is not thrust worthy (not agreement capable). Imagine
depending on such an economic partner?!
They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG
from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one
knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing
when the need/opportunity will arise.
Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the
open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying.
Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at
the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… And Germany is moving
ahead. It just sacrificed West Bank, and declared the BDS movement illegal as a soap to
Israelis, to burnish its credentials with those blackmailers, so that it will become free to
re-orient its politics and strategic configuration as it needs and wants.
fabian, May 23, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Gas? Where is the problem? Russian gas is cheaper that’s it. Furthermore, there is
another pipeline that’s going to bring gas from the Mediterranean to Europe and another
from Qatar.
And if all else fails and Russia flexes its muscles (which ones by the way) do you think
that the over-indebted America will not sell its gas to the Germans?
And yes, it’s not a good strategy to be too dependent on America. It quickly takes the
goods away when its interests are at stake.
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:14 pm
@MarkVA
>>The Nord Stream I and II gas pipe lines (aka Molotov-Ribbentrop Gas Lines), a
Gazprom initiative, has everything to do with weakening Ukraine and increasing German energy
dependence on Russia;
How could NS increase German energy dependence on Russia? It will be the very same gas which
at the moment flows through the Ukraine.
Surely, NS would decrease anybody’s dependence from the Ukraine. So what?
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:18 pm
@MarkVA
>>Oh, and some lesser European countries were partitioned by the important European
countries. So yes, Europe was quite busy spreading joy and happiness all around:
It’s a bit rich when it’s coming from an American. You’re still in
Plymouth, right?
Kouros, May 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm
@MarkVA (May 23, 2019 at 8:12 pm )
That was a hit with the posting on Ukraine…
To bad it wasn’t accompanied by the Recognition of the US administration that the
Golan Heights, taken from Syria by Israel after a war, against all worlds dictum, now belongs
to Israel.
At least in Crimea, which by administrative fiat was moved within USSR from Russia to
Ukraine in the 1950s, there was a referendum.
And for me, US is Devil Incarnate since it put a target of nuclear missiles on my mother
country. May the curse of a 1000 hells be upon it.
Josep, May 25, 2019 at 5:05 am
Reading sites like Russia Insider gave me the notion that Germany would be better off as
allies with Russia than with the USA. After all, Russia and Germany:
* are on the metric system
* have languages that use grammatical gender
* share the same 220-volt “Schuko” power plugs and sockets
* implement Civil Law, and most importantly
* aren’t separated by a whole ocean.
American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most
outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at
the slightest “offence” to their worldview.
There are strong anti-German currents in American culture and politics, going back to at
least WW1 and also manifest today (no other treaty ally is treated with such dismissive
hostility by the Trump administration as Germany). But they are regarded as completely normal
and rarely get critical attention, whereas German anti-Americanism is treated as a pathology or
some kind of sacrilege…the German-American relationship (calling it
“friendship” is a lie) is profoundly asymmetrical.
Agreed in both counts. The casual anti-white racism thrown about by the likes of such people
(let’s not forget Davids Medienkritik, Little Green Footballs, Grouchy Old Cripple and
Dissident Frogman) is a lot scarier than any jumpscare I’ve encountered. And in the case of
German_reader’s comment, It’d be interesting to consider how Trump reconciles his
hostility towards Germany with his own German heritage.
At one point in the Iraq War, the German news outlet Der Spiegel had readers rate their
opinion of president Bush on their website on a scale of 1 (most favorable) to, if I recall
correctly, 6 (least favorable). After seeing public opinion of Bush in Germany overwhelmingly
“least favorable”, users of FreeRepublic went to this poll and attempted to
gerrymander the results by selecting “most favorable”, deleting their site cookies,
and repeating so as to make it look like more people in Germany supported Bush than opposed. This
was called “freeping”.
The Minister of foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin tried to advertise in press the
fact that he that wrote the resignation which will send to the Verkhovna Rada on May 20 -- the
day of inauguration of the newly elected President of the country Vladimir Zelensky.
The Deputy of the Ukrainian Parliament Evgeny Balitsky told in an exclusive interview to
Federal News Agency that everything that occurs in his homeland recently, reminds flight of
rats from the ship.
"Now all run up, the administration leaves all systems, they, figuratively speaking, take
away even the coffee, slippers and caps from the bar, -- he noted. -- We have never seen such a humiliating
transition of power. It all. We saw similar episodes after (Viktor) Yushchenko and (Viktor)
Yanukovich, but never this behaviour was such rabid, widespread and ugly"
Such, as the representative of party "Oppositional block" called it, "swine behaviour", you know,
"digging out dirt from under nails in public" never occurred before. He noted that the current President of Ukraine
Petro Poroshenko, leaving, appointed new people to several departments.
"He does, you know, things that are not what the President, but any decent man would never
do because this is just too ugly to do - complained the MP. -- It make sense to go beautifully,
humanly, with dignity! And today that rats like Klimkin make statements how much they have done
for people. For us, it's a lost five years. Just lost."
The deputy stressed that Klimkin hardly ashamed of their work. "These people don't know the
word 'shame,' -- Balitsky said. -- These are people who for five years in the country destroyed
the relations with all neighbors. I'm talking not only about the Russian Federation! We
quarreled with Hungarians, Poles, Belarusians! We now have a conflict even with the Americans.
You see, how much harm this gang of American henchmen, have done to our poor country!"
The Deputy of Rada explained that "all these people" -- are corrupt businessmen who used
Ukraine to earn quick money.
"They invested money in the Maidan and came to power to get a royal return on the investment, -- Balitsky added.
-- For these people the word "shame" does not exists, this is a completely foreign concept. And they are now leaving, are trying
figuratively speaking to take the last pair of Slippers from their rooms, everything from the bar, grab from the buffet a couple
of sandwiches, as Zelensky said."
The MP concluded that this is a very humiliating process for all Ukrainians, and he is
personally ashamed of the power and statehood of his country.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko by his decree released Oleksandr Turchynov from the
post of Secretary of the national security and defense Council of Ukraine. This was reported on
the website of the presidential administration.
"To release Turchynov Alexander Valentinovich from the post of Secretary of the national
security and defense Council of Ukraine," the decree says.
Turchynov resigned the day before. The reason for dismissal - termination of powers of the
acting President of Ukraine who appointed Turchinov.
Secretary of the NSDC Turchinov has been working since December 2014. Prior to that, he
worked in the Verkhovna Rada, in the spring of the same year, acting President of Ukraine.
"... In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well. ..."
"... Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine. According to the embassy's website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian Hanna Hopko, who discussed "Ukraine's fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas," and longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Melanne Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign. ..."
"... Almost as quickly as Chalupa's efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas. ..."
"... Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center "put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort." ..."
"... In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she'd been "working with for the past few weeks" with Isikoff "and connected him to the Ukrainians" at the event. ..."
"... A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms. ..."
"... Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country's head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that "only one part of the black ledger appeared." He asked, "Where is the handwriting analysis?" and said it was "crazy" to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington with Trump allies, and said, "of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign." ..."
"... Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov, piled on, trashing Trump on Twitter in July as a "clown" and asserting that Trump is "an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism." ..."
"... Avakov, in a Facebook post, lashed out at Trump for his confusing Crimea comments, calling the assessment the "diagnosis of a dangerous misfit," according to a translated screenshot featured in one media report, though he later deleted the post. He called Trump "dangerous for Ukraine and the US" and noted that Manafort worked with Yanukovych when the former Ukrainian leader "fled to Russia through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump?" ..."
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked
in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant,
for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records,
though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate
Democrats around the world.
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine,
Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching
Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative
journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle
centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign
began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well.
She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 -- months
before Manafort had taken any role in Trump's campaign -- Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign,
"I felt there was a Russia connection," Chalupa recalled. "And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved
in this election," said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was "Putin's
political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections."
he said she shared her concern with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar,
during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very
much on his radar, but that he wasn't particularly concerned about the operative's ties to Trump since he didn't believe Trump stood
much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.
That was not an uncommon view at the time, and, perhaps as a result, Trump's ties to Russia -- let alone Manafort's -- were not
the subject of much attention.
That all started to change just four days after Chalupa's meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired
Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort's
hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative
familiar with the situation.
A former DNC staffer described the exchange as an "informal conversation," saying "'briefing' makes it sound way too formal,"
and adding, "We were not directing or driving her work on this." Yet, the former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the
situation agreed that with the DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko
might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych.
While the embassy declined that request, officials there became "helpful" in Chalupa's efforts, she said, explaining that she
traded information and leads with them. "If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to
follow up with." But she stressed, "There were no documents given, nothing like that."
Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right
directions. She added, though, "they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think
they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It's
a political issue, and they didn't want to get involved politically because they couldn't."
Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining "we were
stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to
interfere into the campaign affairs."
Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote
Ukraine. According to the embassy's website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian
Hanna Hopko, who discussed "Ukraine's fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas," and longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Melanne
Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign.
Shulyar said her work with Chalupa "didn't involve the campaign," and she specifically stressed that "We have never worked to
research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort."
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help
Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. "Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people
who did, then I should contact Chalupa," recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. "They were coordinating
an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa," he said, adding "Oksana was keeping it all quiet,"
but "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.
In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide
an update on an American media outlet's ongoing investigation into Manafort.
Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar that, "If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump's involvement
with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September."
Chalupa confirmed that, a week after Manafort's hiring was announced, she discussed the possibility of a congressional investigation
with a foreign policy legislative assistant in the office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian
Caucus. But, Chalupa said, "It didn't go anywhere."
Asked about the effort, the Kaptur legislative assistant called it a "touchy subject" in an internal email to colleagues that
was accidentally forwarded to Politico.
Kaptur's office later emailed an official statement explaining that the lawmaker is backing a bill to create an independent commission
to investigate "possible outside interference in our elections." The office added "at this time, the evidence related to this matter
points to Russia, but Congresswoman Kaptur is concerned with any evidence of foreign entities interfering in our elections."
•••
Almost as quickly as Chalupa's efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself
the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas.
Within a few weeks of her initial meeting at the embassy with Shulyar and Chaly, Chalupa on April 20 received the first of what
became a series of messages from the administrators of her private Yahoo email account, warning her that "state-sponsored actors"
were trying to hack into her emails.
She kept up her crusade, appearing on a panel a week after the initial hacking message to discuss her research on Manafort with
a group of Ukrainian investigative journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a program sponsored by a U.S. congressional
agency called the Open World Leadership Center.
Center spokeswoman Maura Shelden stressed that her group is nonpartisan and ensures "that our delegations hear from both sides
of the aisle, receiving bipartisan information." She said the Ukrainian journalists in subsequent days met with Republican officials
in North Carolina and elsewhere. And she said that, before the Library of Congress event, "Open World's program manager for Ukraine
did contact Chalupa to advise her that Open World is a nonpartisan agency of the Congress."
Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center
"put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort."
In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended
an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the
event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch
related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she'd been "working with for the past few weeks"
with Isikoff "and connected him to the Ukrainians" at the event.
Isikoff, who accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the Library of Congress event, declined
to comment.
Chalupa further indicated in her hacked May email to the DNC that she had additional sensitive information about Manafort that
she intended to share "offline" with Miranda and DNC research director Lauren Dillon, including "a big Trump component you and Lauren
need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be aware of." Explaining that she didn't
feel comfortable sharing the intel over email, Chalupa attached a screenshot of a warning from Yahoo administrators about "state-sponsored"
hacking on her account, explaining, "Since I started digging into Manafort these messages have been a daily occurrence on my yahoo
account despite changing my password often."
Dillon and Miranda declined to comment.
A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's political department, not a researcher.
She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its
dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties
to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms.
Nonetheless, Chalupa's hacked email reportedly escalated concerns among top party officials, hardening their conclusion that Russia
likely was behind the cyber intrusions with which the party was only then beginning to grapple.
Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus fulltime on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia
. She said she provided off-the-record information and guidance to "a lot of journalists" working on stories related to Manafort
and Trump's Russia connections, despite what she described as escalating harassment.
... ... ...
•••
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging
Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign -- and certainly for Manafort -- can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency -- and publicized by a parliamentarian -- appeared to show $12.7
million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, Yanukovych.
The New York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers' existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were
"a focus" of an investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an
overlapping inquiry.
Clinton's campaign seized on the story to advance Democrats' argument that Trump's campaign was closely linked to Russia. The
ledger represented "more troubling connections between Donald Trump's team and pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine," Robby Mook, Clinton's
campaign manager, said in a statement. He demanded that Trump "disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort's and all other campaign employees'
and advisers' ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump's employees or advisers are currently representing
and or being paid by them."
A former Ukrainian investigative journalist and current parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, who was elected in 2014 as part
of Poroshenko's party, held a news conference to highlight the ledgers, and to urge Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively
investigate Manafort.
"I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law -- we have the proof from these books," Leshchenko
said during the news conference, which attracted international media coverage. "If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he
has to be interrogated into this case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,"
Leshchenko added.
Manafort
denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych's Party of Regions, and said that he had never been contacted about the ledger
by Ukrainian or American investigators, later telling POLITICO "I was just caught in the crossfire."
According to a
series of memos reportedly compiled for Trump's opponents by a former British intelligence agent, Yanukovych, in a secret meeting
with Putin on the day after the Times published its report, admitted that he had authorized "substantial kickback payments
to Manafort." But according to the report, which was
published Tuesday
by BuzzFeed but remains unverified. Yanukovych assured Putin "that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide
clear evidence of this" -- an alleged statement that seemed to implicitly question the authenticity of the ledger.
The scrutiny around the ledgers -- combined with that from
other stories about his
Ukraine
work -- proved too much, and he
stepped down from the
Trump campaign less than a week after the Times story.
At the time, Leshchenko suggested that his motivation was partly to undermine Trump. "For me, it was important to show not only
the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world," Leshchenko
told the Financial Times about two weeks after his news conference. The newspaper noted that Trump's candidacy had spurred "Kiev's
wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,"
and the story quoted Leshchenko asserting that the majority of Ukraine's politicians are "on Hillary Clinton's side."
But by this month, Leshchenko was seeking to recast his motivation, telling Politico, "I didn't care who won the U.S. elections.
This was a decision for the American voters to decide." His goal in highlighting the ledgers, he said was "to raise these issues
on a political level and emphasize the importance of the investigation."
In a series of answers provided to Politico, a spokesman for Poroshenko distanced his administration from both Leshchenko's efforts
and those of the agency that reLeshchenko Leshchenko leased the ledgers, The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. It was created
in 2014 as a condition for Ukraine to receive aid from the U.S. and the European Union, and it signed an evidence-sharing agreement
with the FBI in late June -- less than a month and a half before it released the ledgers.
The bureau is "fully independent," the Poroshenko spokesman said, adding that when it came to the presidential administration
there was "no targeted action against Manafort." He added "as to Serhiy Leshchenko, he positions himself as a representative of internal
opposition in the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko's faction, despite [the fact that] he belongs to the faction," the spokesman said, adding,
"it was about him personally who pushed [the anti-corruption bureau] to proceed with investigation on Manafort."
But an operative who has worked extensively in Ukraine, including as an adviser to Poroshenko, said it was highly unlikely that
either Leshchenko or the anti-corruption bureau would have pushed the issue without at least tacit approval from Poroshenko or his
closest allies.
"It was something that Poroshenko was probably aware of and could have stopped if he wanted to," said the operative.
And, almost immediately after Trump's stunning victory over Clinton, questions began mounting about the investigations into the
ledgers -- and the ledgers themselves.
An official with the anti-corruption bureau told a Ukrainian newspaper, "Mr. Manafort does not have a role in this case."
And, while the anti-corruption bureau told Politico late last month that a "general investigation [is] still ongoing" of the ledger,
it said Manafort is not a target of the investigation. "As he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law
couldn't investigate him personally," the bureau said in a statement.
Some Poroshenko critics have gone further, suggesting that the bureau is backing away from investigating because the ledgers might
have been doctored or even forged.
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country's head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated
with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that "only one part of the black ledger appeared." He asked, "Where is the
handwriting analysis?" and said it was "crazy" to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington
with Trump allies, and said, "of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign."
And in an interview this week, Manafort, who re-emerged as an informal advisor to Trump after Election Day, suggested that the
ledgers were inauthentic and called their publication "a politically motivated false attack on me. My role as a paid consultant was
public. There was nothing off the books, but the way that this was presented tried to make it look shady."
He added that he felt particularly wronged by efforts to cast his work in Ukraine as pro-Russian, arguing "all my efforts were
focused on helping Ukraine move into Europe and the West." He specifically cited his work on denuclearizing the country and on the
European Union trade and political pact that Yanukovych spurned before fleeing to Russia. "In no case was I ever involved in anything
that would be contrary to U.S. interests," Manafort said.
Yet Russia seemed to come to the defense of Manafort and Trump last month, when a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry charged
that the Ukrainian government used the ledgers as a political weapon.
"Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump's election campaign headquarters by planting information according to which Paul
Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, allegedly accepted money from Ukrainian oligarchs," Maria Zakharova said at a news briefing,
according to a transcript of her remarks posted on the Foreign Ministry's website. "All of you have heard this remarkable story,"
she told assembled reporters.
•••
Beyond any efforts to sabotage Trump, Ukrainian officials didn't exactly extend a hand of friendship to the GOP nominee during
the campaign.
The ambassador, Chaly, penned an op-ed for The Hill, in which he chastised Trump for a confusing series of statements in which
the GOP candidate at one point expressed a willingness to consider recognizing Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian territory of
Crimea as legitimate. The op-ed made some in the embassy uneasy, sources said.
"That was like too close for comfort, even for them," said Chalupa. "That was something that was as risky as they were going to
be."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk warned on Facebook that Trump had "challenged the very values of the free world."
Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov, piled on, trashing Trump on Twitter in July as a "clown" and asserting that
Trump is "an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism."
Avakov, in a Facebook post, lashed out at Trump for his confusing Crimea comments, calling the assessment the "diagnosis of a
dangerous misfit," according to a translated screenshot featured in one media report, though he later deleted the post. He called
Trump "dangerous for Ukraine and the US" and noted that Manafort worked with Yanukovych when the former Ukrainian leader "fled to
Russia through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump?"
The Trump-Ukraine relationship grew even more fraught in September with reports that the GOP nominee had snubbed Poroshenko on
the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where the Ukrainian president tried to meet both major party candidates,
but scored only a meeting with Clinton.
Telizhenko, the former embassy staffer, said that, during the primaries, Chaly, the country's ambassador in Washington, had actually
instructed the embassy not to reach out to Trump's campaign, even as it was engaging with those of Clinton and Trump's leading GOP
rival, Ted Cruz.
"We had an order not to talk to the Trump team, because he was critical of Ukraine and the government and his critical position
on Crimea and the conflict," said Telizhenko. "I was yelled at when I proposed to talk to Trump," he said, adding, "The ambassador
said not to get involved -- Hillary is going to win."
This account was confirmed by Nalyvaichenko, the former diplomat and security chief now affiliated with a Poroshenko opponent,
who said, "The Ukrainian authorities closed all doors and windows -- this is from the Ukrainian side." He called the strategy "bad
and short-sighted."
Andriy Artemenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian associated with a conservative opposition party, did meet with Trump's team during
the campaign and said he personally offered to set up similar meetings for Chaly but was rebuffed.
"It was clear that they were supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy," Artemenko said. "They did everything from organizing meetings
with the Clinton team, to publicly supporting her, to criticizing Trump. I think that they simply didn't meet because they thought
that Hillary would win."
Shulyar rejected the characterizations that the embassy had a ban on interacting with Trump, instead explaining that it "had different
diplomats assigned for dealing with different teams tailoring the content and messaging. So it was not an instruction to abstain
from the engagement but rather an internal discipline for diplomats not to get involved into a field she or he was not assigned to,
but where another colleague was involved."
And she pointed out that Chaly traveled to the GOP convention in Cleveland in late July and met with members of Trump's foreign
policy team "to highlight the importance of Ukraine and the support of it by the U.S."
Despite the outreach, Trump's campaign in Cleveland gutted a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that called for
the U.S. to provide "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian incursion, backers of the measure charged.
The outreach ramped up after Trump's victory. Shulyar pointed out that Poroshenko was among the first foreign leaders to call
to congratulate Trump. And she said that, since Election Day, Chaly has met with close Trump allies, including Sens. Jeff Sessions,
Trump's nominee for attorney general, and Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while the ambassador
accompanied Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine's vice prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, to a round of Washington
meetings with Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), an early Trump backer, and Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation, which played
a prominent role in Trump's transition.
•••
Many Ukrainian officials and operatives and their American allies see Trump's inauguration this month as an existential threat
to the country, made worse, they admit, by the dissemination of the secret ledger, the antagonistic social media posts and the perception
that the embassy meddled against -- or at least shut out -- Trump.
"It's really bad. The [Poroshenko] administration right now is trying to re-coordinate communications," said Telizhenko, adding,
"The Trump organization doesn't want to talk to our administration at all."
During Nalyvaichenko's trip to Washington last month, he detected lingering ill will toward Ukraine from some, and lack of
interest from others, he recalled. "Ukraine is not on the top of the list, not even the middle," he said.
Poroshenko's allies are scrambling to figure out how to build a relationship with Trump, who is known for harboring and prosecuting
grudges for years.
A delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians allied with Poroshenko last month traveled to Washington partly to try to make inroads
with the Trump transition team, but they were unable to secure a meeting, according to a Washington foreign policy operative familiar
with the trip. And operatives in Washington and Kiev say that after the election, Poroshenko met in Kiev with top executives from
the Washington lobbying firm BGR -- including Ed Rogers and Lester Munson -- about how to navigate the Trump regime.
Weeks later, BGR reported to the Department of Justice that the government of Ukraine would pay the firm $50,000 a month to "provide
strategic public relations and government affairs counsel," including "outreach to U.S. government officials, non-government organizations,
members of the media and other individuals."
Firm spokesman Jeffrey Birnbaum suggested that "pro-Putin oligarchs" were already trying to sow doubts about BGR's work with Poroshenko.
While the firm maintains close relationships with GOP congressional leaders, several of its principals were dismissive or sharply
critical of Trump during the GOP primary, which could limit their effectiveness lobbying the new administration.
The Poroshenko regime's standing with Trump is considered so dire that the president's allies after the election actually reached
out to make amends with -- and even seek assistance from -- Manafort, according to two operatives familiar with Ukraine's efforts
to make inroads with Trump.
Meanwhile, Poroshenko's rivals are seeking to capitalize on his dicey relationship with Trump's team. Some are pressuring him
to replace Chaly, a close ally of Poroshenko's who is being blamed by critics in Kiev and Washington for implementing -- if not engineering
-- the country's anti-Trump efforts, according to Ukrainian and U.S. politicians and operatives interviewed for this story. They
say that several potential Poroshenko opponents have been through Washington since the election seeking audiences of their own with
Trump allies, though most have failed to do do so.
"None of the Ukrainians have any access to Trump -- they are all desperate to get it, and are willing to pay big for it," said
one American consultant whose company recently met in Washington with Yuriy Boyko, a former vice prime minister under Yanukovych.
Boyko, who like Yanukovych has a pro-Russian worldview, is considering a presidential campaign of his own, and his representatives
offered "to pay a shit-ton of money" to get access to Trump and his inaugural events, according to the consultant.
The consultant turned down the work, explaining, "It sounded shady, and we don't want to get in the middle of that kind of stuff."
Lindemann told the site kp.ru that personally saw letters of bodies of justice of the
self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk national republics (DNR and LNR) according to which 90% of
shells arrived to Donbass from the territory of Ukraine.
"The reports serve as the purest proof that Poroshenko did not want peace for Donbass," the
Deputy concluded.
He told that the Ukrainian army strongly damaged the bridge in the Village Lugansk. Now
through its destroyed spans are thrown wooden stairs, which have to pass civilians, including
the elderly, said Lindemann. According to the Deputy, the authorities can't repair the bridge,
as in this case the Ukrainian army will destroy it again. The politician called Kiev's position
on this issue terrible: the European countries were going to allocate money for repair of the
bridge, but the Ukrainian authorities didn't allow to make it.
Lindemann emphasized that the Tribunal for Poroshenko and his colleagues guilty of a
situation in Donbass, has to be fair. In world history, there were no cases when the current
President fell under the international court of justice with such accusations, so it can only
be possible after Poroshenko will resign the powers of the head of state in May, the Deputy
said.
The German politician called Poroshenko a military junta leader who stole resources from the
armed conflict for personal enrichment. Lindemann expressed the hope that with the coming to
power in Ukraine a new people, the confrontation in the Donbass will cease.
Vasyl Golovanov : ...We live with this President for 5 years. Whether you expected
such result and what, in your opinion, to expect from Vladimir Aleksandrovich.
Viktor Medvedchuk : Vasily, this result was expected. At least he was predictable,
because Poroshenko should not have become and did not become President. And the reason for this
is his policy, which our party has repeatedly spoken about. And not only our party, but
actually opposition forces which in the majority United in questions of criticism of mister
Poroshenko. And they talked about peace in the Donbass, and the cessation of hostilities,
talked about the tariff genocide, national radicalism, the impoverishment of millions of
citizens, criminal lawlessness, social injustice and many other circumstances that pointed to
what characterizes this regime Poroshenko, which for some reason they called "Euro-reformist",
which actually ruined the country in the economy, social sphere, in the crisis of the political
sphere.
And all this had to end, naturally, with Poroshenko's defeat. And this defeat took
place.
... ... ...
In 1991, when Kravchuk became President, he scored 61.6%. It was a record that was never
broken until actually here on April 21, 2019, when Zelensky won. And it is a great
responsibility, to a great deal. Indeed, our country will live with a new President, with a new
power, I hope, I am far from the idea that this power will remain. And what is happening today
- a new team is being formed - comes with the fact that Mr. Zelensky is preparing to take
office. I think she is facing very relevant challenges. The first was the resignation of the
Cabinet of Ministers. Because with incompetent, untrained professionally, populist government
of Mr. Groisman, actually is can be called the government of Mr. Yatsenyuk, the country is
unable to live any longer.
And if Zelensky, who received such massive support, does not change the team, which, of
course, what is expected of him, he will not be able to realize his election promises.
And therefore - this is the main task that must be performed. It's strategic. And that is
what stands before him now and will be for 5 years. It is necessary to justify the trust that
he received. To meet these expectations, and they are very high. Which means the requirements
will be too high. He must be aware of that.
Vasily Golovanov: We will talk about Vladimir Zelensky later. I would also like to
mention Pyotr Alekseevich. In your words, Poroshenko's complete failure is the people's
response to his Russophobic policy. In your opinion, what will Zelensky's policy be?
Viktor Medvedchuk: it Is difficult to talk about what Zelensky's policy will be, but
I do not think he will repeat the mistakes that Mr Poroshenko made. That is, Mr. Poroshenko,
especially in the last months of the election campaign, the last months of activity as
President, really elevated to the rank of the state policy of anti-Russian hysteria and caveman
level Russophobia. This is a fact. He built the whole campaign on that. And here is even his
slogan: "Army. Faith. Language" -- these words and these meanings for the country, for the
Ukrainian people, they are very important. But what he did with them his manipulation of people
psychology and his perversion of populism exceptional - they led to a backlash.
You will notice how Mr. Zelensky won, where he won the most votes. He scored them in the
East - 88%, in the South - 86%. Do you know how much he scored in the Luhansk region? 90%. Do
you know that Luhansk region has always been the most Russian-speaking region after Crimea in
all the years of independence? Tell me, why did it vote?
Vasily Golovanov : It concerns cities, in villages there are Ukrainian speakers too,
even in the Luhansk region.
Viktor Medvedchuk : The Question is different - their attitude. Of course, I am far
from believing that the votes he received are votes only for him, votes against Poroshenko in
the first place.
Vasily Golovanov : The Question of Peter Alekseevich and language is one of the
slogans of his election campaign. We remember: about two weeks before the election he was a
guest of "Freedom of speech" on ICTV, where he said to the question about the language:
"Actually, I am Russian-speaking".
Viktor Medvedchuk : Of course, we know that.
Vasily Golovanov : And how did it happen that the person who hangs out on all boards
- "Army. Faith. Language, " puts the emphasis on it, and it's one of the priorities of his
campaign, at some point... It's as if he confessed to a different faith...
Viktor Medvedchuk : How did it happen that he admitted this during the election
campaign just before the second round? Why would he do that? Perhaps he was beginning to
realize the strategic mistake he had made when he spoke of language.
Because are there any Ukrainians today who are against the fact that the status of Ukrainian
as the only state language is strengthened, developed and provides those opportunities in which
the Ukrainian language should be, first of all, competitive, attractive and have other
qualities that could allow it? No! But at the same time, we cannot ignore or discriminate
against the Russian language and the language of other national minorities.
Moreover, he would not have succeeded, because the Constitution in article 10 has the status
and part 3 of article 10 says that the territory of Ukraine guarantees the free development,
use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities.
Why did he come, as you say, on Monday, before the second round, and told that he was
Russian-speaking? And who did not know that Mr. Poroshenko was Russian-speaking? Do you think
it is that, in different situations spoke in the Ukrainian language? I never spoke with him in
Ukrainian, only in Russian. Well, maybe it's not an indicator, but it means not just focus, not
just the attractiveness of a person, including in the use of language. This is a direct
indication that a person has it inside. Why are you ignoring this?
Yes, you must develop the Ukrainian language. You are the President of Ukraine, but you
should not allow disrespect, mockery and discrimination of other languages, including Russian.
And so this reaction is also a response to what he was doing. That's direct result of his
policies.
Mr. Zelensky, get right and do it! Then, if the Cabinet of Ministers does not listen to you
and sets its resolutions, and even more increases the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, block
its activities! Any decision of the Cabinet can be stopped, blocked and appealed to the
constitutional court for reasons of non-compliance with the Constitution! It's the President's
right! So do not talk about the fact that it is impossible!
And when we talk about reducing tariffs, you will study the structure of these tariffs. My
advice. Although, I do not advocate giving advice and this is not advice, and my vision. And
you ask about the pricing structure of utility tariffs, including the cost of gas. You'll see
that what's in there is props. And it's in the derivatives. About what, about what you said:
Rotterdam+... When this involves the cost of coal, and in parallel or, more precisely, directly
coal is electricity and is laid in tariffs. Dusseldorf + - the cost of gas. And it is laid in
the tariffs for gas, which means - for hot water and heat. And much more, where the derivative
is gas. That's all she wrote. No need to tell stories and send somewhere. It is necessary to
send to itself and as promised, to do so that it would be possible to improve life of our
people.
Vasily Golovanov: Then I also want to talk about gas and coal... If we make this
detour now, or pretend that we are not buying Russian gas, although we are buying Russian gas,
it is simply more expensive in Europe. Then why do we buy fuel? Why is our government so.
Viktor Medvedchuk: Because we buy Russian gas directly. In fact, look, I listened in
one of Your programs, in the "Ukrainian format" somewhere right after the second round, it
seems that you had a discussion, very interesting. Professionals told about it, but they do not
fully understand this scheme. I'm just saying it because I know it. But it said about Velky
kapushany. Look here - Russia, - Ukraine, but the Ukrainian border with Slovakia...That is, in
Europe, velki kapushany, where there is a so-called accounting station. What is done? What's
happening? Gas comes from the territory of Russia, comes to Ukraine - it is a gas
transportation system. It dissolves in this system and goes to different needs. We don't have a
line Russia - Europe on which there is the gas transit, which is operators, recipients and
consumers of Europeans.
No! He's spent here, but it automatically comes to this border and Wielkie Capuano should
count on the Ukrainian side, where they say the gas is out! There is 100 million cubic meters.
And the other counter, here, suggests that the gas came to Europe. So what did? You imagine the
Scam of this scheme. They closed this square. Moreover, this is not the worst thing... That's
when I listened to what was said in the "Ukrainian format", I thought, well, now... The person
who spoke, he, in principle, the professional. I thought he was gonna tell me what it was
about. And he says: "They there gas this drive. Maybe he doesn't even exist." No, not that.
They closed the circle. And this gas in one volume chases on this pipe. Why this is done? In
order to show on the counter that he went to Europe.
For example, his buyer, on paper, is a French operator, gas operator. It is the papers I
wrote - I got 100 million, because this counter is reflected and all - no complaints. And this
gas when came, it already here 100 million, and we already used it here, but bought allegedly
there. And then, when they say: here is the gas on the reverse. What reverse? What is the
reverse? If the gas goes in one direction, how can it go in the opposite direction? Think about
it! Well, gas goes to Europe, we put 89 billion there last year, the year before, left 94
billion there, it goes in one... How can you go, then stop, and go back? Or what? That is,
those who talk about it, just do not know, and those who "vtyuhivayut" us, trying to bend in
the understanding of all, to deceive. This is pure insanity.
It's not just a scheme. They also provide the price Dusseldorf+,1500 km. And these $42,
shoulder the logistics they put into the scheme. That is, in pricing - it's net earnings. Then
they are transferred into the rates and our people are paying. At attention. And so utility
costs are rising, because the cost of gas is growing.
Well I'm still not talking about fraud handled by the NAK "Naftogaz" and Ukrgazdobycha.
Because gas is produced, its cost there 2 700 - 2 900 UAH, up to a hundred dollars. And NAK
"Neftegaz" buys from ukrgasvydobuvannya it under 6 thousand. What is this 100 % profitability?
And where is it? In a poor, impoverished, economically underdeveloped country? 100%
profitability?
I can say: no, this is on the development! For development wells on production growth, as we
have said Groisman pathetic. It is as if he speaks out and says: "For 5 years we need to
increase production so that we do not buy anything." This, approximately, as you can say - it
is necessary to increase the retail space in the Vinnitsa market, here I understand. Here is
indeed for 5 years can be their increase in 2 times. But it is impossible to increase gas
production!
And where did you grow up in production? It produced 15.7 billion. In General, the country
produced 21 billion in 2014, and we have now produced 20.7 billion with private companies by
the end of 2018. So where is this increase in production? And where do you invest? What new
wells, new production? Groysman, who is talking about this, at least interested in this?
Vasily Golovanov: what does the message of the Russian Federation on the ban on the
entry of Russian oil and oil products into our country show us?
Viktor Medvedchuk: You put the question absolutely correctly. What does that mean? I,
Vasily, will expand your question, because the essence of the question is wider. We say that
Russia has imposed sanctions against Ukraine and banned the import of coal, petroleum products
and oil.
Well, about oil - this is a relative understanding, because oil from Russia has not been
supplied since 2007. And for this purpose there were the reasons in which mister Yanukovych and
many others is guilty. We will not talk about this now, but oil products and coal are another
issue. Now, this is a response. After all, what is the economic problem between Russia and
Ukraine? It consists in the fact that Ukraine at some stage joined the sanctions of the
European Union, and Russia introduced counter-sanctions against Ukraine.
Even earlier, we entered the free trade zone with the EU, thereby cutting off the path of
interaction and cooperation within the CIS zone and trade relations with Russia. All of this
has led to the complex that has existed in recent years. When we lose 7 billion export
potential of our products and services in the markets of the Russian Federation.
Now that we are there is limited, what caused such reaction of Russia. They took and banned
what is vital. We are an energy-dependent state. I can say that we depend on two States - on
Russia and Belarus, almost equally.
TRUMP: Well, I think it's incredible when you hear it. These are great reporters, all three,
and when you have them on your trail, that's a problem. These are people that should be getting
Pulitzers, not the ones that got the Pulitzers that got everything wrong.
If you listen to them, they got everything wrong. Go back and read some of their early and
mid articles. They didn't have a clue what was going on and they win Pulitzer Prizes. These are
the ones that should be winning.
It sounds like big stuff. It sounds very interesting with Ukraine. I just spoke to the new
president a little while ago, two days ago, and congratulated him on an incredible race.
Incredible run. A big surprise victory. That's 75 percent of the vote.
But that sounds like big, big stuff. I'm not surprised.
HANNITY: Mr. President, Ukraine is offering this evidence to the United States. Would you
like the United States -- with all this talk about collusion, they are saying they included on
behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. Does America need to see that information in
spite of all of the attacks against you on collusion?
TRUMP: Well, I think we do. And, frankly, we have a great new attorney general who has done
an unbelievable job in a very short period of time. And he is very smart and tough and I would
certainly defer to him. I would imagine he would want to see this.
People have been saying this whole -- the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about
it actually for a long time. You know that, and I would certainly defer to the attorney
general.
And we'll see what he says about it. He calls them straight. That's one thing I can tell
you.
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
"... If Zelenskii sees himself as the spark or leader of a wave of color revolutions in the former USSR, he will find the going with Russia tough, regardless of who the Russian president is ..."
"... Another black swan is that Ukraine now has a Jewish president. This is not evidence of the absence of anti-Semitism, which is robust among Ukraine's substantial number of ultranationalists and neofascists. Anti-semitism has been overshadowed by such radicals' laser-like focus of their xenophobia on ethnic Russians. ..."
"... The fact of a Jewish president -- in addition to the present PM being Jewish -- poses the risk of an uptick in anti-Semitism and in the appeal of the ultranationalist/neofascist message if Zelenskii fails to improve the economy, cut corruption, and/or appears to be 'caving in' to Russian or Western demands to the detriment of Ukraine's interests. ..."
"... The Jewish president will be a prime scapegoat in the case of such failure. These two dynamics – the inexperienced Zelenskii's possible failure and the potential political repercussions of his Jewish roots -- could tip the scales in favor of the ultranationalist wing of the Maidan-in-opposition and shape its calculus as to whether or not to undertake a coup, repeating what worked once in February 2014. ..."
... Zelenskii himself is likely to fight corruption, to be sure, but he is unlikely to challenge the ultranationalists,
neofascists, and their militarized combat organizations. ... Zelenskii is unlikely to offer concessions
that the DNR, LNR or Moscow will find acceptable for resolving the Donbass civil war.
Zelenskii's Victory and the Presidential Elections
Zelenskii's victory signified some decline in the acceptability overall in Ukraine of the
Galician/Western line backed by Poroshenko countrywide' fueled largely by a full rejection in
the east and south. Zelenskii made it a central point of his campaign to bring the ostracized
south and east back in to Ukraine and end the discrimination against the Russian language
fostered by Poroshenko legislation. Thus, Zelenskii won more than 80 percent of the vote in
each of the 11 more Russian-speaking regions in eastern and southern Ukraine and nearly 90
percent in several of them. Poroshenko took only nationalistic Lviv. In the rest of western
Ukraine won, in many of these regions only by a slim majority, but he won nevertheless. He even
took some 60 percent in Poroshenko's native Volhyn region (
https://elections.dekoder.org/ukraine/en?fbclid=IwAR36OdD3lrXL3EKKy9Zfdhk8k36Azgr6nNWLeYH3sYiYX9Ci51O86GVDhow
). To the extent Zelenskii received great support in the east, his election represents a desire
for an end of the slow-burning civil war in Donbass, of the east-west polarization inside the
country, and of alienation of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians as well as for a
normalization of Kiev's relations with Russia. Poroshenko's narrow but nevertheless defeat in
almost all the western regions reflects the Galicians disenchantment with corruption far more
than any significant rejection of Galician Ukrainian nationalism, ultrnationalism and
neofascism in the west.
... ... ...
The Nature of Maidan Ukraine's Hybrid Regime
However, the problem in Ukraine has often been less with its elections being unfree or
unfair ( https://gordonhahn.com/2015/06/21/one-day-in-the-life-of-ukrainian-democracy/
). Most often the problem has been with the rule of law, massive corruption, the theft of the
state by various powerful oligarchs, the lack of a cohesive national identity, and a deeply
polarized society. It is these aspects of Ukraine's authoritarian side, its 'stateness problem'
and political polarization and instability which are rarely understood in the West [see Gordon
M. Hahn, Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold War' (Jefferson:
McFarland, 2018)].
The absence of the rule of law in Maidan Ukraine was in full display on
the eve of the election as the siloviki chose sides in the vote. The SBU supported
Poroshenko by trumping up the noted fake news of hacked emails never shown but allegedly
showing that Zelenskii was Putin's Manchurian candidate ala 'Trump's collusion with the
Kremln.' Doing the bidding of Yiliya Tymoshenko's campaign, the MVD, headed by ultranationalist
Arsenii Avakov, uncovered Poroshenko vote buying schemes.
Similarly, the present and former
Ukrainian general prosecutors' charges of interference in corruption investigations by US Vice
President Joseph Biden and the present US ambassador to Ukraine underscored the point.
Also,
the release of former Maidan war hero Nadia Savchenko also demonstrated this quite clearly.
Either her arrest a little over a year ago for allegedly planning a massive terrorist attack
that would have left many Maidan Rada deputies and civilians dead was based on wholly trumped
up charges or some among the authorities are protecting an ultranationalist terrorist.
Ironically, three days after the presidential vote, a Kievan was arrested on the basis of
charges reminiscent of Russian law as many Maidan regime laws remind one of. Thus, the arrestee
was charged with spreading on the Internet calls for 'separatism' and the overthrow of the
Maidan regime that was established by an illegal and violent seizure of power (
https://vesti-ukr.com/kiev/334060-zhitelju-kievskoj-oblasti-hrozit-10-let-tjurmy-za-posty-v-sotssetjakh
).
A shocking level of official corruption has been characteristic of the Maidan regime's
oligarchical side and was demonstrated even more forcefully during the presidential campaign. Poroshenko's failure to divest himself or 'trustify'
his businesses established a fundamentally corrupt oligarch-presidency...
... ... ...
Historically
speaking, some in the west -- Stepan Bandera's OUN and UPA fascists -- were allied with the
Nazis in World War II; while the grandparents of many in the east fought for the Red Army
against Hitler's forces and after the war repressed the OUN and UPA Banderites. This translates
into a deep societal polarization with the west displaying considerable support for and
tolerance of Galician-Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and neofascism in domestic politics a
pro-Western foreign policy stance and the east supporting a more leftist, quasi-Soviet domestic
order and pro-Russian foreign orientation. This divided has been repeatedly reflected in
presidential and parliamentary elections throughout the history of post-Soviet Ukraine; hence
the political upheavals often surrounding national elections, in particular in the 2004 'Orange
revolution,' precursor to the 2013-14 Maidan revolt. This polarization has helped drive some of
the lack of rule of law, corruption, and stealing of the state as oligarchs scramble to protect
and expand their holdings on the background of deep political polarization between western
Ukraine's Galicia and southeastern Ukraine and regime shifts from western Ukrainian-dominated
governments to southeastern Ukrainian-dominated governments. All this explains and/or is
explained by the Maidan regime's birth event – its original sin -- the 20 February 2014
snipers' terrorist false flag massacre.
Weeks later, Zelenskii commented: "People whom came to power on blood are profiting on
blood" (www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/02/26/7207718/). It appears he understands the essence of
the Maidan regime's original sin. This poses a grave threat to some of the most powerful men in
the regime including the likely organizer of the snipers' plot, Rada Chairman Andriy Parubiy,
and perhaps Poroshenko himself, who appears to have played a role in helping smuggle the
snipers out of Maidan Square, though he appears to have opposed the shooting as a video from
the Maidan headquarters demonstrates.
This issue has the potential to bring the whole
Western-backed house of cards tumbling down.
Maidan v. the People
The magnitude and centrality
of the terrorist snipers' attack coverup for both the Maidan regime and the West's 'new cold
war' narrative portend a bitter and brutal battle to prevent an objective investigation. Thus,
the election of the politically unknown Zelenskii and the prospects of his inauguration and
rule as president have sparked a cold civil war in Kiev. The Maidan regime's forces about to be
relegated to the opposition, particularly after the victory of Zelenskii's new political party
(Servant of the People in September's Rada elections, are poised and are already moving to do
almost everything and perhaps everything to prevent his assuming the powers in Ukraine's
semi-presidential system. Poroshenko and his allies and temporary allies in the Rada have
undertaken several first steps against Zelenskii and his presidency. The most important may be
the a draft law that would institute changes in the balance of power in the political system in
favor of the prime minister and Rada against the president's office. Many of the proposed
changes would empower the prime minister to a level nearly equal to that of the president.
Thus, Article 35 of the new law would require the president to nominate a candidate for the
post of prime minister indicated by a coalition of factions in the Rada. In other words, the
Rada would nominate prime ministerial candidates, and the president would simply submit the
same name much like the king or queen of England plays a purely formal role in the formation of
the UK cabinet
[https://samopomich.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/project.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2QSRvRtMsWcWY-eR4ys0O6x0n_Doy21398U0VenM6J9jw21Hhy1E8sias
(from here on cited as 'Draft Law'), p. 16].
Similarly, the president would be deprived by
Article 36 in the new law of the power to independently submit to the Rada candidates for
nomination to the posts of defense minister and foreign minister, the candidate nomination of
which would have to be agreed upon before submission to the Rada again by a coalition of
deputies' factions ( Draft law, pp. 16-17) . These clauses in the new law appear to be a direct
violation of the Ukrainian Constitution's Article 106, which gives the President the
unrestricted power to make such nominations.
The Rada is also boosted by the draft law's
Article 85.1, which stipulates that in the event of the president's removal from office under
an impeachment process the Rada's chair will execute the office of the presidency (Draft law,
p. 42). This violates the Ukrainian Constitution's Article 112, which gives the role of acting
president in such a case to the PM. At the same time, the PM would receive a series of new
powers in the draft law. Article 39.3 of the draft law stipulates that the president "shall
hold mandatory consultations with the Prime Minister regarding the formation of the personnel
of the National Security and Defense Council" (SNBO), and Article 39.4 allows the Prime
Minister to "initiate a decision before the President on formation of the personnel" of the
SNBO and make changes to it (Draft law, p. 18).
Acting or temporary holders of the offices of
Defense Minister, Foreign Minister, SBU chairman, and National Bank head are to be nominated by
the PM under certain circumstances (Articles 30.4, 30.5, 40.6, and 42.5, respectively, Draft
law, pp. 16-17, 19, and 20, respectively). Also, under the draft law the PM would also receive
the new right to be consulted by the president in cases where two-thirds of a regional
parliament has voted 'no confidence' in the region's administration head, which allows the
president to dismiss him (Article 49. 3, Draft law, p. 24).
Although the President would retain
the power to submit nominations to the posts of Prosecutor General and SBU chair, there is no
mention of his power to appoint and dismiss regional prosecutors and SBU chiefs. The new law
also appears to deprive the Ukrainian President of his present power to appoint the membership
of the National Commission for Implementation of Regulation of Energy and Housing Services
(NKREKU), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and other regulators. Also,
the president would be barred from creating any state administrative bodies such as a
presidential apparatus or chancellery with powers anything more than advisory.
Thus under the
new law the office of the president is deprived of its most important power -- appointment of
the PM -- which now belongs to the majority in the Rada.
Thus, this new law on the presidency
if adopted by the Rada and signed by Poroshenko as he leaves office would effectively transform
Ukraine's semi-presidential system into a parliamentary republic with a powerful PM, whose
authority rivals that of the President.
In and of itself this is not problematic and could even
be regarded as a step in the direction of greater democracy in the sense of strong republican
rule by a legislature of elected representatives of the people, it becomes anti-democratic and
a violation of the rule of law by dint of the facts that several of the law's statutes violate
the constitution. More importantly perhaps, the law violates the spirit of election by
abrogating the recently expressed will of the people who elected a candidate to a particular
office of the president of Ukraine as it existed on the day of the election, with all the
powers the constitution vests in that office.
The imminent 'Maidan-in-opposition' has
undertaken a series of other highly questionable measures to prepare to block or hamper his
presidency. When presidential candidate Hrytsenko criticized the draft law on the presidency
days after its posting on the site of the Galicia-based nationalist party 'Self-Help', led by
the mayor of Lviv (Lvov) Andriy Sadoviy, the Lviv branch of the SBU opened an investigation
against his wife's opinion polling company (www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2019/04/24/7213427/ and
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2019/04/24/7213432/
).
Although the delay is not prohibitive yet it risks preventing Zelenskii from calling new
Rada elections as soon as he assumes office as he has reportedly planned to do. Mid-term
elections cannot be called less than six months before the end of a Rada's convocation. The
present Rada's term ends in early November. The delay of the inauguration may also provide time
for investigative processes against Zelenskii to be completed and used to block his assumption
of office. Thus, three days after the election, the corrupt anti-corruption body, NABU, opened
an investigation int Zelenskii production company (
https://strana.ua/news/198188-nabu-nachalo-rassledovanie-po-kompanii-zelenskoho-iz-za-vozmozhnoj-rastraty-sredstv-hoskino-sytnik.html
).
The new draconian language law adopted by the Rada four days after the voting excludes from
civil service those not fluent in Ukrainian. Zelenskii is not fluent in Ukrainian, and
Poroshenko has vowed to sigh the law; one he himself helped draft and then submitted to the
Rada before the election. Tentative Conclusions and Some Black Swans The Ukraine is on the edge
of a constitutional crisis.
The country remains badly divided between the newly elected and at
present popular president and his support base in the east and south, on the one hand, and Maidan's outgoing president, government and Rada with its support base largely in the west. As
at the beginning of the Maidan protests in fall 2013, there are many Ukrainians who want
positive democratic change. Unfortunately, they are countered by a powerful
oligachic-ultranationalist coalition that has been stealing the state, dividing Ukrainians
along regional, ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines in order to stay in power, and is about
to be relegated to the position of the Maidan-in-opposition.
For now, Zelenskii is the new
Yanukovych minus the corruption and pro-Russian inclinations. His positive image with the
voters can be destroyed with new framing that can come with the ravaging of time in office as
the elan of the victory in the presidential election fades and by effective
Maidan-in-opposition propaganda. With Rada elections set for September, the first five-six
months of Zelenskii's presidency -- should Poroshenko and the Rada radicals allow it to
commence -- will be bogged down in a bitter power struggle that can easily spin out of control.
There is good reason to believe that the Rada leadership, the siloviki , and the
ultranationalists and neofascists in Ukraine's frequently uncivil society will be willing to
repeat a use of violence of February 2014 in order to preserve their power and avoid the risk
of Zelenskii investigations into their corruption and the Maidan's original sin of that
February 2014 snipers' terrorist attack. Zelenskii may very well forego a serious investigation
of the Maidan terrorist attack and a crackdown on the illegal armed formations and activity of
ultranationalists and neofascists like the National Corps and C14. A bridge too far for any
Ukrainian leader, given the weak state and powerful extremist element on the streets.
There are black swans on the horizon. One is Vladimir Putin. He 'welcomed' Zelenskii by
issuing a decree easing requirements for immigration to Russia and the receipt of Russian
passports and pension payments for residents in civil war-torn region of the separatist DNR and
LNR. In this way, he seemed to remind Zelenskii of Russia's now limited, albeit, direct
military presence in the war zone. He further signaled his intent to run a hard bargain by
refusing to congratulate Zelenskii on his presidential election victory unlike in 2014 when
Putin congratulated Poroshenko.
If Zelenskii sees himself as the spark or leader of a wave of color revolutions in the
former USSR, he will find the going with Russia tough, regardless of who the Russian president
is. Russians fear both revolution and foreign interference far more than they do Putin. More
importantly for Ukraine, such a stance will make a resolution of the Donbass conflict impossible.
Another black swan is that Ukraine now has a Jewish president. This is not evidence of the
absence of anti-Semitism, which is robust among Ukraine's substantial number of
ultranationalists and neofascists. Anti-semitism has been overshadowed by such radicals'
laser-like focus of their xenophobia on ethnic Russians.
The fact of a Jewish president -- in
addition to the present PM being Jewish -- poses the risk of an uptick in anti-Semitism and in
the appeal of the ultranationalist/neofascist message if Zelenskii fails to improve the
economy, cut corruption, and/or appears to be 'caving in' to Russian or Western demands to the
detriment of Ukraine's interests.
The Jewish president will be a prime scapegoat in the case of
such failure. These two dynamics – the inexperienced Zelenskii's possible failure and the
potential political repercussions of his Jewish roots -- could tip the scales in favor of the
ultranationalist wing of the Maidan-in-opposition and shape its calculus as to whether or not
to undertake a coup, repeating what worked once in February 2014.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is a Senior Researcher at the
Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, San Jose, California,
www.cetisresearch.org ; an expert
analyst at Corr Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com ; and an analyst at Geostrategic
Forecasting Corporation (Chicago), www.geostrategicforecasting.com .
Dr. Hahn is the author of the four books, most recently Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia,
the West, and the 'New Cold War . Previously, he has authored three well-received books:
The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond
(McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous
think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian
language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
This distant relative on Nikita Krushchev is a despicable and clueless neocon. She does not even understand that under
Poroshenko the standard of living of population dropped more then twice and changes for heating role more then 5 times.
Notable quotes:
"... Zelensky is far from the first charismatic non-politician to win political power in recent years. The most obvious example is the real-estate developer and reality-TV showman Donald Trump. ..."
"... Most Ukrainians now support radical changes to economic, social, and foreign policy. ..."
Ukraine Sends in the Clown Apr 30, 2019
Nina L. Khrushcheva Most Ukrainian voters
arguably know that the comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, whose only claim to fame up to now was playing a teacher-turned-president in
a popular TV series, will not be the real-life president of their dreams. So why did nearly three-quarters of them back him?
KYIV – In the 2000s, The West Wing was everybody's favorite television show about an aspirational US administration – one
that fought terrorism without waging war on an entire region or religion, refused to trample on the rule of law, and generally made
decisions that were in the country's best interest. Many wished the show's calm and collected fictional president, played by Martin
Sheen, could replace America's cowboy president, George W. Bush, and his war-mongering sidekick, Dick Cheney.
In a sense, that is exactly what is happening now in Ukraine. The comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, whose only claim to fame up to
now was playing a teacher-turned-president in the popular TV series Servant of the People , won the presidency in a landslide
earlier this month. But, far from the fantasy of an idealized president, this is yet another example of a distorted reality – all
too familiar to Ukrainians – in which characters, not leaders, define politics.
Zelensky is far from the first charismatic non-politician to win political power in recent years. The most obvious example is
the real-estate developer and reality-TV showman Donald Trump. But in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Russia, and elsewhere, characters
have also used populist rhetoric to appeal to ordinary people who feel ignored by the elites. Another comedian, Beppe Grillo, co-founded
Italy's Five Star Movement, which is now the senior government party, though he stepped aside in January 2018, weeks before the election
that brought his creation to power.
There are nuances to this trend. After Trump won the 2016 presidential election in the United States, I
recalled Brave New World , in which Aldous Huxley conjured a future in which humanity had been destroyed by ignorance
and lust for mindless entertainment. Trump, feasting on burgers as he binge-watches Fox News stories about himself, embodies this
disposition.
Whereas a combination of too much amusement and too little knowledge contributed to Americans' choice of Trump, Ukrainians were
reacting to politicians' betrayal of the ideals of the 2013-14 Maidan Square protests, which sought to get Ukraine out from underneath
Russia's thumb. Chief among the turncoats was President Petro Poroshenko, a Maidan hero who ended up as a manifestation of the old
oligarchic system. Most Ukrainians now support radical
changes to economic, social, and foreign policy.
Thus, with nothing but an appealing TV persona, Zelensky was able to convince voters that his inexperience would be a better bet
than another term of Poroshenko's corrupt leadership. Despite having no political team or discernable policy platform, he won 73%
of the vote – a share normally attained by authoritarians
who stifle their opponents and stuff ballot boxes.
... ... ...
Another Ukrainian friend, a middle-aged scientist, observed that Zelensky's most direct antecedent may be Andriy Danylko – Ukraine's
best-known entertainer, a musical comedian who performs in drag under the stage name Verka Serduchka. In 2007, Danylko tried, unsuccessfully,
to form his own political party.
According to this friend, Ukrainians' embrace of Zelensky was driven by the same revolutionary urge that fueled the protests in
2004 and 2013-14. While the pro-Western Tymoshenko would have delivered the change that Ukrainians want, he explained, this year
voters wanted even more to reject the existing system entirely. The fact that Trump is presiding over a booming US economy only strengthened
their willingness to gamble on a TV character.
But even Zelensky may not be the rebellious choice he seems to be. Some have questioned his relationships with oligarchs – in
particular Igor Kolomoisky, the owner of the TV channel that broadcasts his show. Many suggest that Kolomoisky effectively bought
the election so that he himself could rule Ukraine from behind the scenes....
... ... ...
Ukraine is a symptom, not a specimen. In a world that increasingly resembles Huxley's dystopia...
"... Deputy Chief Anton Hrushetskiy reported findings of 2004 respondents to the question "Which of the following should the president do in the first 100 days?" ..."
"... The list is meaningfully desperate and vengeful against state officials: a touch under 40% wish a slash in utility rates; 35.5% demand a removal of immunity for lawmakers, judges and the president; 32.4% wish for an opening of investigations and a speeding up of current ones into corruption-related crimes and abuses; 23.3% hope for commencing talks with Russia; 18.4% demand a reduction of wages of top officials. All this stands to reason: Zelenskiy offers something others have not: a tabula rasa upon which voters can impose their vision. In contrast, Poroshenko, candy billionaire with an acid aftertaste, offered the usual cluttering: Army, language, faith. ..."
"... Poroshenko offered an ideal target: divisive, army hugging entho-nationalist, with an anti-Russian fixation ..."
"... In the words of head spokesperson at Zelinskiy's election headquarters, Dmitry Razumkov, "The return of the occupied territories of the Donbass and Crimea must proceed exclusively on Ukraine's terms. Russia, as always, is trying to turn everything on its head and do everything backwards – by holding elections first." ..."
"... The stage in Ukraine has been going to seed for some years, manuring away in decay and poverty, bleeding in the Donbass region and plundered by self-enriching elites. ..."
"... For one, parliamentary elections are due in October, leaving the virgin premier with six months of potential obstruction. Poroshenko, for his part, promises to be a vulture in the galley, awaiting any slipups: "I am leaving office, but I want to firmly underline that I am not leaving politics." ..."
Hope is often a devalued currency, but its vigorous circulation can be gathered in the
measurements of public opinion by the Kyiv-based International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)
conducted this month. Deputy Chief Anton Hrushetskiy reported
findings of 2004 respondents to the question "Which of the following should the president
do in the first 100 days?"
The list is meaningfully desperate and vengeful against state officials: a touch under 40%
wish a slash in utility rates; 35.5% demand a removal of immunity for lawmakers, judges and the
president; 32.4% wish for an opening of investigations and a speeding up of current ones into
corruption-related crimes and abuses; 23.3% hope for commencing talks with Russia; 18.4% demand
a reduction of wages of top officials. All this stands to reason: Zelenskiy offers something
others have not: a tabula rasa upon which voters can impose their vision. In contrast,
Poroshenko, candy billionaire with an acid aftertaste, offered the usual cluttering: Army,
language, faith.
The broom for cleaning is being readied. Remarks had been made, some floated from the
quarters of Poroshenko, that the new administration would include elements of the old regime.
Former Finance Minister and advisor to Zelenskiy, Oleksandr Danyliuk, was
adamant on Ukraine's ICTV this would not be the case: "Regarding the comment that Volodymyr
Zelenskiy's new team will include old staff of the Presidential Administration, the Cabinet of
Ministers I'd like to say this is absolutely not true, this is one of the fake news and
bogeyman stories that your [Petro Poroshenko's] headquarters is spreading."
Political regulars and strategists have brought out their calculators and have been left
wanting. Moscow, along with other readers of political entrails, did not see this victory in
the offing. Poroshenko offered an ideal target: divisive, army hugging entho-nationalist, with
an anti-Russian fixation. He could therefore be, over time, worn down, his country packaged as
resoundingly anti-Semitic, fascist and hateful of the Soviet Union's exploits against Nazi
Germany.
Preference would have been for Yuriy Boyko, backed by the pro-Russian Viktor Medvedchuk.
The results did give their party 16% of the vote, making them second behind Zelenskiy's Servant
of the People, which received 26%. Not quite happy days, but perhaps less anxious ones.
From what can be gathered from the new president, some measure of rapprochement towards
their fraternal, giant neighbour might be in the offing, even if accompanied by what he terms
"a very powerful information war" to end the eastern conflict. Baby steps include lifting
restrictions on the use of Russian in the country, which would also entail an end to blocking
cultural exchanges and restrictions on accessing Russian social media networks. But to perceive
a total change on that front would be to wonder in the realms of fantasy. In the
words of head spokesperson at Zelinskiy's election headquarters, Dmitry Razumkov, "The
return of the occupied territories of the Donbass and Crimea must proceed exclusively on
Ukraine's terms. Russia, as always, is trying to turn everything on its head and do everything
backwards – by holding elections first."
The stage in Ukraine has been going to seed for some years, manuring away in decay and
poverty, bleeding in the Donbass region and plundered by self-enriching elites.
It took Zelenskiy to come to the fore by stepping off the screen and, quite literally, onto a live
stage. Whether he is capable of directing his own show, mastering his own brief, as it were,
will be a wonder.
For one, parliamentary elections are due in October, leaving the virgin
premier with six months of potential obstruction. Poroshenko, for his part, promises to be a
vulture in the galley, awaiting any slipups: "I am leaving office, but I want to firmly
underline that I am not leaving politics."
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at
RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] More articles by: Binoy Kampmark
Comedian Volodymyr Zelensky won the Ukrainian presidential elections Sunday with over 73
percent of the vote, in a massive repudiation of the incumbent president, Petro Poroshenko, and
the imperialist-orchestrated 2014 coup that brought him to power.
The "chocolate oligarch" Poroshenko became president in the wake of the operation in
February 2014 that toppled the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovich. Behind the coup
stood the major imperialist powers, above all the US and Germany. Basing themselves on sections
of the Ukrainian oligarchy and upper middle class, they mobilized fascist forces to install a
puppet regime that would be immediately subservient to their economic interests and war
preparations against Russia.
The bourgeois media hailed this fascist-led coup as a "democratic revolution." They were
joined by the middle-class left, including organizations such as the now-defunct International
Socialist Organization, which systematically worked to downplay the role played by the extreme
right and the US State Department in the creation of this "revolution."
The results of the 2014 coup for the working class have been nothing less than
catastrophic. In the past five years, the Poroshenko regime has stood at the forefront of the
imperialist military buildup against Russia. Ukrainian military spending has risen to a
staggering 6 percent of GDP.
The systematic ratcheting up of tensions with Russia by the Kiev regime, most recently with
its reckless provocation in the Azov Sea, have dramatically heightened the danger of a
full-scale war in Europe, which could quickly escalate into another world war. The ongoing
civil war in the Eastern Ukraine has cost the lives of over 13,000 people.
At the same time, the Ukrainian oligarchy has undertaken the most far-reaching attacks on
the already low living standards of the Ukrainian working class since the restoration of
capitalism. Almost one million Ukrainians are now living on the brink of starvation; tens of
thousands are left to freeze in the winter .
For the implementation of these policies, the Poroshenko regime mobilized fascist forces
such as the notorious Azov battalion. The glorification of the Nazi collaborators of the UPA
and the OUN-B, which massacred thousands of Jews, Poles and Ukrainians during World War II, has
become official state policy. References to communism and symbols of the Soviet Red Army, which
defeated the Nazis in the war, have been criminalized. Russian artists and works of art have
been banned from entering the country.
It is these conditions that propelled the vast majority of the Ukrainian population to
either abstain from the elections -- the voter turnout was just 62 percent -- or vote for
Zelensky. Poroshenko was unable to garner any significant support outside a small province in
West Ukraine and the district in Kiev where the country's super rich reside.
Yet whatever his appeals to antiwar sentiments and the enormous anger about social austerity
during the campaign, Zelensky will defend the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchy against the
working class, and work in alliance with imperialism.
Throughout the entire election campaign, Zelensky deliberately concealed his real political
and economic agenda. He instead relied almost exclusively on demagogic appeals to the
widespread hatred of Poroshenko. During the campaign, Zelensky made promises to enter direct
negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a peaceful settlement of the war in East
Ukraine. Yet in an interview published days before the election, he called Putin an "enemy" and
stated that it was "perfectly fine and great" that people considered the Nazi collaborator
Bandera as a "hero."
On April 12, Zelensky met with French President Emmanuel Macron. His team has hired a PR
firm in Washington to arrange meetings with officials of the Trump administration and
influential think tank figures. Zelensky also maintains close connections to the oligarch Ihor
Kolkomoisky, and now seeks to work together with Mikheil Saakashvili, the former president of
Georgia, who had been installed through a US-backed "color revolution."...
A clown beat a high profile member of the established political class, due most likely to the
voters being disgusted by said political class? Uhmm, where have we seen this before?
That completely wrong. You can't prevent the "march of history" even if you understand that it is directed against you.
The collapse of the USSR put in motion forces for the revolution of the results of WWII. And EuroMaydan like previously Baltic
states "Maidans" were the direct result of this dissolution and changed balance of power in Europe with EU now being the
dominant force and the USA dominant geopolitical force.
Still it is true that Ukraine EuroMaydan was the major Putin's defeat and the major victory of the US neocons in general and
Obama as the President in particular. It might well be that this was inevitable as the
trajectory of post-soviet republic is reliable move toward anti-Russian stance as a side effect
of obtaining the independence, but still this was a defeat. It was actually Yanukovich who encouraged and helped to organized and
finance far right forces and the Party in Ukraine. such a pro-Russian President as fame news media in the USA and GB like to
describe him
Poroshenko was the USA SOB. The USA allowed Zelensky to run for office, and allowed him to win. Zelensky is most probably
another USA SOB, although only time will tell. Comedians are usually are people with very high IQ who see the absurdity of
the current life in Ukraine and Poroshenko regime more clearly then others. The question is whether he will be allowed to do
something about it by the USA and EU, who control Ukraine both politically and financially. Biden story of dismissal of the
General Prosecutor of Ukraine (who tried to procedure the firm Biden son got money from ) with ease tells us something about the
nature of the current governance of Ukraine: is is not even a vassal state -- it is a colony.
Nuland success in pushing Ukrainian nationalists to arm uprising against Yanukovich (pissing EU which signed a treaty with
Yanukovich about holding elections, which he would certanly lose, a day before) also can be explained that at this point the USA
controlled vital centers of Ukrainian political power including intelligence agencies, several oligarchs (Poroshenko is one;
Timoshenko is another) and, especially, media. In Ukraine Western NGO have the status of diplomatic missions (with
corresponding immunity), so in no way such a country can be independent in any meaningful sense of this word.
But craziness, aggressiveness and recklessness of the US neocons, who now practice old imperial "might makes right" mode
of operation, gives the world some hope. They most probably will burn the USA geological power it acquired after the
dissolution of the USSR sooner then many expect. Like look at Bolton and Pompeo recent actions.
Notable quotes:
"... "For better or for worse, Putin has put an end to oligarch rule in Russia. Members of Putin's inner circle may be immensely rich, but they know to whom they owe their wealth. By imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Putin sent a clear message to the all-powerful oligarchs that controlled Russia during former president Boris Yeltsin's time: stay out of politics." ..."
The main feeling about the entire topic of the Ukraine is one of total disgust, a
gradual and painful realization of the fact that our so-called "brothers" are brothers only
in the sense of the biblical Cain and the acceptance that there is nobody to talk to in
Kiev.
Russia likes to fashion itself as a "great power". A real great power should have been
able to insert itself in Ukrainian politics, regardless of any brotherly feelings – you
know, like US did.
As a Russian, I feel disgust at our leaders who squandered all of Russia's historic
influence on the Ukraine and gave up – poor neo-Soviet dinosaurs got completely
outmaneuvered.
@Kiza
Read
Try to understand
Read it again
Try to understand
Read it again
Try to understand
"For better or for worse, Putin has put an end to oligarch rule in Russia. Members of
Putin's inner circle may be immensely rich, but they know to whom they owe their wealth. By
imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Putin sent a clear message to the all-powerful oligarchs
that controlled Russia during former president Boris Yeltsin's time: stay out of
politics."
Vladimir Golstein, professor of Slavic studies at Brown University. He was born in Moscow
and emigrated to the United States in 1979.
There are several crimes for which Poroshenko can be investigated and the USA can do nothing
about: one is Odessa massacre which supposedly was financed by Poroshenko. And Kolomysky was also
involved so it remain to be seen if this issues will be raised. Also the power of far right
forces in Ukraine is such that just raising this question might be equal to treason in the eyes
of Ukrainian nationalists. Because such powerful figures as Avakov and Parubiy were also
involved.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainians don’t give a shit about the Poro regime, and are perfectly willing to see it incarcerated. Nor do NatsBatalions really crave to be seen as puppets of DC, Kolo, or Israel, or Brussels. Your take is really simplistic here. ..."
The West is concerned with protecting Poro. Based on WSJ editorials, obsequious legations to
manlet Macron. None of that means jack shit.
DC will have to exercise real power to prevent a cleaning of the house. Word are words.
Rumors are rumors. Z. will act within his mandate and limits placed by rabid opposition. He
will act in keeping with rational need to not fight a US-backed congress, to get shot in the
streets for things too radical. Majority of Ukrainians will be happy to see Poro in prison. DC
can keep this from happening not with words, but with bullets. Strana can claim what it wants,
its claims are patent garbage.
Ukrainians don’t give a shit about the Poro regime, and are perfectly willing to
see it incarcerated. Nor do NatsBatalions really crave to be seen as puppets of DC, Kolo, or
Israel, or Brussels. Your take is really simplistic here.
... ... ...
Z. does have a party. The elections for the Ukranian Parliament is in September. His party,
as a matter of fact, is leading in opinion polls. https://ria.ru/20190416/1552741067.html And it is
doing so together with the party of Boiko.
Logically then, given enough time/space Z. should be in a position to pursue necessary
policies end of the year.
‘The truth is nobody knows what will happen next…There are just too many
parameters to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not
manifested itself yet’, as The Saker forebodingly warns. The pattern of history
suggests the continent is heading for another world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The course of events in Europe and globally predict things will only get worse. Like The
Saker, ‘I also very much hope that I am wrong.’
"... Finally, there is Vladimir Groisman, the current prime minister who has kept a very low profile, ..."
"... He might make a much more effective Ukrainian Gauleiter for the Empire than either Poroshenko or Zelenskii. ..."
"... And let's not forget Avakov and Parubii, who are both soaked in innocent blood, and who will try to hold on to their considerable power by using the various Nazi death-squads under their control. ..."
"... there is still the formidable (and relatively popular) Iulia Timoshenko whose political ambitions need to be kept in check. Thus, Poroshenko with his immense wealth and his connections can still be a useful tool for the Empire's control of the Ukraine. ..."
"... The western calculus might also be wrong: for one thing, Zelenskii cannot deliver anything meaningful to the Ukrainian people, most definitely not prosperity or honesty. Pretty soon the Ukrainian people will wake up to realize that when they elected the "new face" of Zelenskii, they ended up with the "not new" face of Kolomoiskii and everything that infamous name entails. ..."
"... Poroshenko's power base is very rapidly eroding because nobody wants to go down with him. I tend to believe that Poroshenko has outlived his usefulness for the AngloZionists because he became an overnight political corpse. But this is the Ukraine, so never say never. ..."
"... Russians have been extremely cautious, and nobody seems to harbor any illusions about Zelenskii. In fact, just a day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian statements. ..."
"... Slap further economic sanctions on the Ukraine (Russia has just banned the export of energy sources to the Ukraine – finally and at last!). ..."
"... The truth is that nobody knows what will happen next, not even Kolomoiskii or Zelenskii himself. There are just too many parameters to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not manifested itself yet. As for the true aspirations and hopes of the people of the Ukraine, they were utterly ignored: Poroshenko will be replaced by Kolomoiskii, wearing the mask of Zelenskii. Hardly a reason to rejoice ..."
"... But will Zelenskii turn out to be any better? I very much doubt it, even though I also very much hope that I am wrong. ..."
As everybody predicted, Poroshenko completely lost the election. As I wrote in my previous column, this is both amazing (considering
Poro’s immense and extensive resources and the fact that his opponent was, literally, a clown (ok, a comic if you prefer). His defeat
was also so predictable as to be almost inevitable: not only is the man genuinely hated all over the Ukraine (except for the Nazi
crackpots of the Lvov region), but he made fatal blunders which made him even more detestable than usual.
Now one could sympathize with Poroshenko: not only did this “Putin the boogeyman” appear to work fantastically well with the main
sponsors of the Ukronazi coup and with the legacy Ziomedia, but nobody dared to tell Poroshenko that most Ukrainians were not buying
that nonsense at all. The suggestion that all the other candidates are Putin agents is no less ridiculous. The thin veneer of deniability
Poroshenko had devised (the poster was not put up by the official Poroshenko campaign but by “volunteers”) failed, everybody immediately
saw through it all, and this resulted in Poro’s first big campaign faceplant.
Again, this was not officially Poroshenko’s campaign which made this video, but everybody saw through this one too. The quasi-open
threat to murder Zelenskii was received with horror in the Ukraine, and this PR-disaster was Poro’s second faceplant.
Then the poor man “lost it.” I won’t list all the stupid and ridiculous things the man said and did, but I will say that his performance
at the much-anticipated debate in the stadium was a disaster too.
The writing had been on the wall for a while now, and this is why the two candidates were summoned to speak to their masters (face
to face in Germany and France, by phone with Mr. MAGA) and they were told a few things:
Poroshenko was told in no uncertain terms that he could not trigger a war, organize a last-minute false flag, murder Zelenskii
or engage in any other “creative campaign methods.”
The western calculus is simple: try to keep Poroshenko alive (figuratively and politically) and to see how much of the Rada he
can keep. Furthermore, since Zelenskii is extremely weak (he has no personal power base of any kind), Kolomoiskii will have him do
exactly as he is told and Kolomoiskii can easily be told to behave by the Empire.
Finally, there is Vladimir Groisman, the current prime minister who has kept a very low profile, who does NOT have blood
on his hands (at least when compared to thugs like Turchinov or Avakov) and who has not made any move which would blacklist him with
the Kremlin. Groisman is also a Jew (Israel and the Ukraine are now the two countries on the planet in which both the President and
the Prime-Minister are Jews; ironic considering the historical lovefest between Jews and Ukrainian nationalists ). He might make
a much more effective Ukrainian Gauleiter for the Empire than either Poroshenko or Zelenskii. For the time being, Goisman
has already ditched Poroshenko's party and is creating his own.
And let's not forget Avakov and Parubii, who are both soaked in innocent blood, and who will try to hold on to their considerable
power by using the various Nazi death-squads under their control. Finally, there is still the formidable (and relatively
popular) Iulia Timoshenko whose political ambitions need to be kept in check. Thus, Poroshenko with his immense wealth and his connections
can still be a useful tool for the Empire's control of the Ukraine.
The western calculus might also be wrong: for one thing, Zelenskii cannot deliver anything meaningful to the Ukrainian
people, most definitely not prosperity or honesty. Pretty soon the Ukrainian people will wake up to realize that when they elected
the "new face" of Zelenskii, they ended up with the "not new" face of Kolomoiskii and everything that infamous name entails.
Zelenskii might not have another option than to jail Poroshenko, which he semi-promised to do during the stadium debate. Except
that now Zelenskii is saying that he will consult with Poroshenko and might even use him in some official capacity. Yes, campaign
promises in the Ukraine are never kept for more than the time it takes to make them. Finally, Poroshenko's power base is very
rapidly eroding because nobody wants to go down with him. I tend to believe that Poroshenko has outlived his usefulness for the AngloZionists
because he became an overnight political corpse. But this is the Ukraine, so never say never.
Finally, the Empire is also pushing for a reform of the Ukrainian political system to give less powers to the President and more
to the Rada. Again, this makes sense considering that Zelenskii is an unknown actor and considering the fact that Rada members are
basically on the US payroll (across all parties and factions).
What about Russia in all this?
Well, the Russians have been extremely cautious, and nobody seems to harbor any illusions about Zelenskii. In fact, just a
day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian statements. Truly, besides the logical implication
of Poroshenko's poster (that a defeat for him would mean a victory for Putin), nobody in Russia is celebrating. The main feeling
about the entire topic of the Ukraine is one of total disgust, a gradual and painful realization of the fact that our so-called "brothers"
are brothers only in the sense of the biblical Cain and the acceptance that there is nobody to talk to in Kiev. Thus Russia will
have to embark on a policy of unilateral actions towards the Ukraine. These could include:
Decide whether to recognize the outcome of the election or not. I think that it is more likely that Russia will recognize
the fact that most Ukrainians did vote for Zelenskii, but that recognition will imply nothing more than that: the recognition
of a fact.
Accelerate the pace of distribution of Russian passports to citizens of the DNR and LNR republics.
Slap further economic sanctions on the Ukraine (Russia has just banned the export of energy sources to the Ukraine – finally
and at last!).
Declare that since millions of Ukrainians did not vote (inside the Ukraine, in the DNR/LNR and in Russia, and since the Minsk
Agreements are dead (they are de facto if not de jure yet) Russia does not recognize this election and, instead,
recognizes the two people's republics. I don't think that the Kremlin will do that short of an Ukronazi attack on Novorussia (in
which case the Russians will do what they did following Saakashvili's attack on South-Ossetia).
So far, Russian spokespeople have just said that they "respected the vote of the Ukrainian people" and that they will judge Zelenskii
"on his actions, not his words". This approach sure seems balanced and reasonable to me.
Conclusion:
The truth is that nobody knows what will happen next, not even Kolomoiskii or Zelenskii himself. There are just too many parameters
to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not manifested itself yet. As for the true aspirations and
hopes of the people of the Ukraine, they were utterly ignored: Poroshenko will be replaced by Kolomoiskii, wearing the mask of Zelenskii.
Hardly a reason to rejoice
In spite of the large number of electoral candidates, the people of the Ukraine were not given a meaningful choice. So they did
the only thing they could do: they voted to kick Poroshenko out. And that sure must have felt great.
But will Zelenskii turn out to be any better? I very much doubt it, even though I also very much hope that I am wrong.
Zelensky doers not matter much. Other people will define Ukraine both internal and foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... The ordinary Ukrainian people are so sick and tired of the militaristic nationalism as well as endemic corruption in Kiev that they voted for someone, anyone, who appears slightly more reasonable. ..."
"... Zelensky has called for direct talks with Russia to help bring about a political settlement. Potentially, this apparently more engaged attitude in Kiev could be key to restoring peace in the region and furthermore resume normal relations with Russia. Moscow has given a cautious welcome to these developments. His landslide victory is certainly a stunning popular repudiation of the anti-Russian mentality of his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko. ..."
"... This suggests that the new Ukrainian president is a "Poroshenko-Lite". The only change is a softening of the anti-Russian rhetoric that has so dominated the Kiev regime since the 2014 CIA-backed coup which ushered in Poroshenko's presidency ..."
"... Moscow is therefore correct to express caution in the political significance of the new Ukrainian president. The Kremlin said it will await substantive action and policy changes, rather than basing its judgment on the vapid words of a TV star-turned-politician ..."
"... Perhaps the clearest conclusion to be drawn is that Ukrainian citizens expressed not so much support for Zelensky – how could they when his manifesto was so utterly vacuous? – but rather his landslide victory was a massive repudiation of the incumbent president and the anti-Russia mentality in Kiev that was such a hallmark of Poroshenko's presidency. ..."
"... For the past five years, the Kiev-dominated Ukrainian state has been nothing but a puppet regime for Washington, NATO and to a lesser extent the European Union. It has served as a spearhead against Russia with vile provocations and slander. It is in fact an abomination of international law and democratic principles. ..."
"... The problem lies in Kiev being a puppet regime for Washington which functions to push an anti-Russia geopolitical agenda. Zelensky is not a solution; his turn at the presidency is merely an intermission break from the ongoing calamity that is Ukraine. ..."
"... The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. ..."
The ordinary Ukrainian people are so sick and tired of the militaristic nationalism as
well as endemic corruption in Kiev that they voted for someone, anyone, who appears slightly
more reasonable.
The stunning victory of TV funny man Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine's presidential elections
has tempted notions of a new opportunity to resolve the conflict in eastern Donbas region. The
ongoing war has crippled the entire country, caused over 13,000 deaths and resulted in nearly
one million people displaced from their homes.
Zelensky has called for direct talks with Russia to help bring about a political settlement.
Potentially, this apparently more engaged attitude in Kiev could be key to restoring peace in
the region and furthermore resume normal relations with Russia. Moscow has given a cautious
welcome to these developments. His landslide victory is certainly a stunning popular
repudiation of the anti-Russian mentality of his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko.
But there are so many contradictions and paradoxes in Ukraine's recent presidential election
and its outcome that expectations should be reserved.
For a start, the 41-year-old Zelensky who is a popular TV comedian is a complete political
novice. His entire election campaign was vacant in any policy detail. Yes, he did say he wanted
to hold direct talks with Moscow to end the nearly five-year war in eastern Ukraine between
state forces and pro-Russian separatists. But then only days before his election, Zelensky
disparaged Russia as an "aggressor" and described Russian President Vladimir Putin as an
"enemy".
The move this week by Russia to grant citizenship to ethnic Russian people from Ukraine's
breakaway Donbas region was roundly condemned by Washington and the European Union as
undermining Ukraine's sovereignty. Moscow said it was merely fulfilling internationally
recognized legal rights of people with Russian heritage. In any case, Zelensky also joined in
the ill-considered condemnations against Russia over its passport move.
This suggests that the new Ukrainian president is a "Poroshenko-Lite". The only change is a
softening of the anti-Russian rhetoric that has so dominated the Kiev regime since the 2014
CIA-backed coup which ushered in Poroshenko's presidency.
Zelensky has talked previously about implementing the Minsk peace accords signed in 2015,
yet he has also contradicted himself by saying he will not grant the Donbas political autonomy
or accede to an amnesty for combatants – meaning the war against the ethnic Russian
population by the Russophobic Kiev regime will continue. He also – shamefully –
made public comments apparently valorizing the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and the
latter's fascist followers.
Moscow is therefore correct to express caution in the political significance of the new
Ukrainian president. The Kremlin said it will await substantive action and policy changes,
rather than basing its judgment on the vapid words of a TV star-turned-politician. There is an
analogy here with US President Donald Trump and how his ascent to the White House changed
nothing in Washington's hostile policy towards Russia.
Perhaps the clearest conclusion to be drawn is that Ukrainian citizens expressed not so
much support for Zelensky – how could they when his manifesto was so utterly vacuous?
– but rather his landslide victory was a massive repudiation of the incumbent president
and the anti-Russia mentality in Kiev that was such a hallmark of Poroshenko's
presidency.
In other words, the ordinary Ukrainian people are so sick and tired of the militaristic
nationalism as well as endemic corruption in Kiev that they voted for someone, anyone, who
appears slightly more reasonable. Even if that candidate is a comedian with no political
vision.
For the past five years, the Kiev-dominated Ukrainian state has been nothing but a puppet
regime for Washington, NATO and to a lesser extent the European Union. It has served as a
spearhead against Russia with vile provocations and slander. It is in fact an abomination of
international law and democratic principles.
There is no sign that things will change fundamentally under this new president in spite of
his seemingly more reasonable rhetoric. The hopes of Ukrainians for economic improvement,
elimination of corruption by oligarchs and normalization of relations with their compatriots in
Donbas and with Russia will likely be dashed. Voting for comedian Vladimir Zelensky as some
kind of savior for their numerous woes could turn out to be a very cruel joke.
The problem lies in Kiev being a puppet regime for Washington which functions to push an
anti-Russia geopolitical agenda. Zelensky is not a solution; his turn at the presidency is
merely an intermission break from the ongoing calamity that is Ukraine.The views of
individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
In January, 2016, the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to discuss
several ongoing matters
under the guise of coordinating "anti-corruption efforts," reports
The
Hill
's John Solomon.
The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos,
brought some of Ukraine's top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with
members of former President Obama's National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and
Department of Justice (DOJ).
The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants
said it didn't take long -- during the meetings and afterward -- to realize
the Americans'
objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched
Vice
President Joe Biden's family
and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to
then-candidate Trump
. -
The
Hill
The
Obama officials
- likely knowing that lobbyist Paul Manafort was about to
join President Trump's campaign soon (he joined that March),
were interested in reviving a
closed investigation into payments to US figures from Ukraine's pro-Russia Party of Regions
- which both Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta did unregistered work for, according to former
Ukrainian Embassy political officer Andrii Telizhenko.
The 2014 investigation focused heavily on Manafort
, whose firm was tied to
Trump through his longtime partner and Trump adviser, Roger Stone.
Agents interviewed Manafort in 2014 about
whether he received undeclared payments
from the party of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
, an ally of Russia's
Vladimir
Putin
, and whether he engaged in improper foreign lobbying.
The FBI shut down the case without charging Manafort
Telizhenko and other attendees
of the January, 2016 meeting recall DOJ
employees asking Ukrainian investigators from their National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) if they
could
locate new evidence about the Party of Regions' payments to Americans
.
"It was definitely the case that led to the charges against Manafort and the leak to U.S. media
during the 2016 election," said Telizhenko - which makes the January 2016 gathering in DC one of
the earliest documented efforts to compile a case against Trump and those in his orbit.
Nazar Kholodnytskyy,
Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
, told me he
attended some but not all of the January 2016 Washington meetings and couldn't remember the
specific cases, if any, that were discussed.
But he said
he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of
political
meddling in the U.S. election
.
Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort
-- a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions
-- was known to Ukrainian
authorities since 2014
but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly NABU
,
after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman.
"Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the
U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious," said Kholodnytskyy - who specifically instructed NABU not
to share the "black ledger" with the media.
"I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they
had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding
Paul Manafort," he added. "For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that
there is some external influence in this case. And there is some other interests in this case not
in the interest of the investigation and a fair trial."
Manafort joined Trump's campaign on March 29, 2016 and became campaign manager on May 19, 2016.
The ledger's existence leaked on May 29, 2016, while Manafort would be fired from the Trump
campaign that August.
NABU leaked the existence of the ledgers on May 29, 2016. Later that summer, it told U.S.
media the ledgers showed payments to Manafort, a revelation that forced him to resign from the
campaign in August 2016.
A Ukrainian court in December concluded
NABU's release of the ledger was an illegal attempt
to influence the U.S. election. And
a member of Ukraine's parliament has released a
recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger
to help Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Kostiantyn Kulyk - deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general's international affairs office,
said that
Ukraine also had evidence of other Western figures receiving money from
Yanukovych's party
- such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig - but the
Americans weren't interested.
"They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else," said
Kulyk.
Another case raised at the January 2016 meeting
involved the Bidens
-
specifically Burisma Holdings; a Ukrainian energy company which was under investigation at the time
for improper foreign transfers of money.
Burisma allegedly paid then-Vice President Joe
Biden's son Hunter more than $3 million in 2014-15 as both a board member and a consultant,
according
to
bank
records
.
According to Telizhenko,
U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that
Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over
. The Ukrainians did not
agree. But then
Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to
fire
Ukraine's chief prosecutor
in March 2016
, as I previously reported. The Burisma
case was transferred to NABU, then shut down.
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested
the meetings in January 2016, but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions.
Last Wednesday on
Fox and Friends,
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said "
I ask you
to keep your eye on Ukraine
," referring to collusion to
help Hillary Clinton in
the 2016 election
.
What's more,
DOJ documents support Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort
case as the 2016 election ramped up -
including communications between Associate Attorney
General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele, as Solomon writes.
Nellie Ohr and Steele worked in 2016 for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that was hired by
Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to find Russia dirt on Trump.
Steele wrote the famous dossier for Fusion that the FBI used to gain a warrant to spy on the
Trump campaign. Nellie Ohr admitted to Congress that she routed Russia dirt on Trump from Fusion
to the DOJ
through
her husband
during the election.
DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ
prosecutors specializing in international crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger"
documents that led to Manafort's prosecution.
"Reported Trove of documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' Black Cashbox," Nellie Ohr
wrote
to her husband and federal prosecutors
Lisa Holtyn and Joseph Wheatley, attaching
a
news article
on the announcement of NABU's release of the documents.
Politico reported previously that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington assisted the Hillary
Clinton campaign through a DNC contractor, while the Ukrainian Embassy acknowledges that it got
requests from a DNC staffer
to find dirt on Manafort
(though it denies providing
any improper assistance."
As Solomon concludes: "what is already confirmed by Ukrainians
looks a lot more like
assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in
the
Mueller report
."
"... Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016 Washington meetings and couldn't remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed. ..."
"... But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S. election . Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort -- a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions -- was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly NABU, after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman: "Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious." ..."
"... "I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort." ..."
"... Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence that other Western figures , such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych's party. But the Americans weren't interested: "They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else." ..."
"... According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine's chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016, but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions. ..."
"... But Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ's own documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger" documents that led to Manafort's prosecution. ..."
"... The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as preposterous. ..."
"... Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled. ..."
"... But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in the Mueller report . ..."
As Donald Trump began his meteoric rise to the presidency,
the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to coordinate ongoing anti-corruption efforts inside Russia's
most critical neighbor.
The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine's top corruption
prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama's National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department
and Department of Justice (DOJ).
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative
and one of the first to involve the Obama administration's intervention.
Spokespeople for the NSC, DOJ and FBI declined to comment. A representative for former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice
did not return emails seeking comment.
Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016
Washington meetings and couldn't remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed.
But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of
political meddling in the U.S. election . Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort -- a ledger showing payments from
the Party of Regions -- was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly
NABU, after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman: "Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it
to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious."
Kholodnytskyy said he explicitly instructed NABU investigators who were working with American authorities not to share
the ledger with the media. "Look, Manafort's case is one of the cases that hurt me a lot," he said.
"I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published
themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort."
"For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that there is some external influence in this case. And there
is some other interests in this case not in the interest of the investigation and a fair trial," he added.
Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general's international affairs office, said that, shortly after Ukrainian
authorities returned from the Washington meeting, there was a clear message about helping the Americans with the Party of the Regions
case.
"Yes, there was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public," he recalled.
Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence
that other Western figures , such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych's party.
But the Americans weren't interested: "They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else."
Manafort joined Trump's campaign on March 29, 2016, and then was promoted to campaign chairman on May 19, 2016.
NABU leaked the existence of the ledgers on May 29, 2016. Later that summer, it told U.S. media the ledgers showed payments to
Manafort, a revelation that forced him to resign from the campaign in August 2016.
A Ukrainian court in December concluded NABU's release of the ledger was an illegal attempt to influence the U.S. election. And
a member of Ukraine's parliament has released a recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger to help Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved
Burisma Holdings , a
Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was
paying then-Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as both a board
member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15,
bank records show .
According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the
FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to
fire Ukraine's chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut
down.
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016,
but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions.
"Unfortunately, the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, D.C., was not invited to join the DOJ and other law enforcement-sector meetings,"
it said. It said it had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the meetings it did attend.
Ukraine is riddled with corruption, Russian meddling and intense political conflicts, so one must carefully consider any Ukrainian
accounts.
But Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ's own
documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher
Steele.
Nellie Ohr and Steele worked in 2016 for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that was hired by Clinton's campaign and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) to find Russia dirt on Trump. Steele wrote the famous dossier for Fusion that the FBI used to gain a warrant
to spy on the Trump campaign. Nellie Ohr admitted to Congress that she routed Russia dirt on Trump from Fusion to the DOJ
through her husband during the election.
DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international
crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger" documents that led to Manafort's prosecution.
"Reported Trove of documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' Black Cashbox," Nellie Ohr
wrote to her husband and federal prosecutors
Lisa Holtyn and Joseph Wheatley, attaching
a news article
on the announcement of NABU's release of the documents.
Bruce Ohr and Steele worked on their own effort to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who had a soured
business relationship with him. Deripaska was "almost ready to talk" to U.S. government officials regarding the money that "Manafort
stole," Bruce Ohr wrote in notes from his conversations with Steele.
The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the
FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as
preposterous.
Previously, Politico reported
that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington assisted Clinton's campaign through a DNC contractor. The Ukrainian Embassy acknowledges
it got requests for assistance from the DNC staffer to find dirt on Manafort but denies it provided any improper assistance.
Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration
to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled.
But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed
in the Mueller report .
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence
failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous
cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow
him on Twitter @jsolomonReports
"... According to its filings to the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), BGR is a registered agent for none other than President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, whose ascension to Ukrainian presidency was brought about by the Maidan revolution of 2014, a coup cheered on most fervently by John McCain himself. ..."
"... It remains to be seen whether this relationship will change in June, when TV personality Volodymyr Zelensky takes office, having triumphed in a landslide runoff election this past weekend. Judging by Zelensky's official Facebook account of his February meeting with Volker – "a friend of Ukraine" with whom he "reached full understanding on all questions" – that seems unlikely, however. ..."
"... Turns out another McCain confidant, David Kramer , also works at Volker's institute, listed as "senior director for Human Rights and Democracy." Kramer was identified as the individual who during the 2016 campaign spread the "Steele Dossier" (accusing Trump of ties with Russia) to the press and a number of other people in Washington, including the "midwife of Maidan" herself, Victoria Nuland. ..."
US special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker is drawing a salary from John McCain's think tank,
which is funded by George Soros and a DC lobbying firm working for Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko, among others.
Volker was appointed Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations in July 2017, by
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and has been "mediating" the Ukrainian crisis on behalf
of the US ever since in much the same way his colleague Elliott Abrams has
been doing with Venezuela.
The twist is that Volker is doing this " on
a voluntary basis without compensation" and "not taxing the taxpayers," drawing a salary
from his day job as executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership in
Arizona. Named after the late and hawkish US senator John McCain, the think tank is dedicated
to "advancing leadership in the United States and around the world." The two positions are very
much aligned, Volker has said, allowing him to get his "hands dirty and actually solve our
problems."
In practice, that means things like taking part in the "Occupied Crimea: 5 years of
resistance" conference in Odessa – the same city where US-backed nationalists burned
alive their political opponents in May 2014 – and parroting Bellingcat talking points on
the Kerch Strait incident, themselves cribbed from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
This is not surprising, however, since the list of donors of the McCain Institute includes
something called the "BGR Foundation." It shares the same Washington, DC address – and
name – with Barbour Griffith Rogers, a high-profile lobbying firm that lists Volker as "Senior
International Advisor" and former international managing director.
According to its filings to the US
Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), BGR is a registered
agent for none other than President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, whose ascension to Ukrainian
presidency was brought about by the Maidan revolution of 2014, a coup cheered on most fervently
by John McCain himself.
The "National Reforms Council of Ukraine," which officially retained BGR's services, is led
by none other than Dmytro Shymkiv, "Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine,"
as per the filing BGR sent to the
DOJ in January 2017.
It remains to be seen whether this relationship will change in June, when TV personality
Volodymyr Zelensky takes office, having triumphed in a landslide
runoff election this past weekend. Judging by Zelensky's official Facebook
account of his February meeting with Volker – "a friend of Ukraine" with whom he
"reached full understanding on all questions" – that seems unlikely, however.
Whose envoy?
Volker was very close to the late Senator McCain, who was himself intimately involved with
the 2014 "revolution" in Kiev, visiting the demonstrators and personally sharing the stage with
Socialist-Nationalist Party leader Oleg Tyahnibok, for example. McCain was even offered an
advisory job with Poroshenko, back in 2015, but declined because that was not allowed under
US law.
Turns out another McCain confidant, David Kramer , also works at
Volker's institute, listed as "senior director for Human Rights and Democracy." Kramer was
identified as
the individual who during the 2016 campaign spread the "Steele Dossier" (accusing Trump of ties
with Russia) to the press and a number of other people in Washington, including the "midwife of
Maidan" herself, Victoria Nuland.
Among the McCain Institute's other donors are George Soros and his Open Society Foundations,
as well as Saudi Arabia – though Volker had to disavow them last year, calling it a
one-time donation and saying he won't
accept any more Saudi cash after the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal
Khashoggi.
All of this adds up to the question no one seems to have asked yet: Whose interests in
Ukraine is Kurt Volker actually representing – those of the Trump administration, or
those of his donors and the ghost of John McCain?
No he is not. But he is the US puppet. Yet another neoliberal that will fleece Ukraine for the benefit of international
financial oligarchy.
The article is a usual incompetent neocon/neolib garbage and does not demonstrate any knowledge of the
Ukrainian political situation. But one paragraph does make sense. Zelensky was like Trump: he was
elected because the other candidate was despicable corrupt warmonger
The level of connections of Zelensky to oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Soros is still unclear.
Kolomoyskyi was rumored as one of the initiator and sponsors of Odessa massacre and the financier of pro-Nazi
Azov battalion (he is now hiding from persecution for his financial crimes in Israel) .
The
only question about Zelensky is whose puppet he is. Anyway Poor Ukraine is up top another round of stripping its wealth
by oligarchs and foreign financial sharks, while the standard of living will deteriorate and stay
of the same dismal level as now (essentially Central African poverty level).
Any attempt of Zelensky to escape the puppet status will be cut in short. In no way he can depose key officials from Nuland
junta which came in power in 2014, or challenge the power of the US embassy over Ukraine. With Biden in the past routinely
firing Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor, when he start digging on his son dealings in Ukraine.
Poroshenko lost not because Zelenskiy was better. Although hard to measure, it is perceived
by some in Ukraine's parliament that a vote for Zelenskiy was simply an anti-Poroshenko vote,
rather than a truly pro-Zelenskiy one.
Ukraine with the help of lunatics in the Washington, DC is moving to the right direction
in order to become Malorussia soon. It will not take long. Chervonarussia a.k.a. Ruthenia in
Hapsburg newspeak will take longer time. However, people in that region still identify
themselves as Russinians (Русины). With coming
dissolution of once Anglo-German-Dutch City-on-the-Hill into amorphous salad of different
cultures and total loss internal cohesion we may see comparative bloodless transition to new
era.
the gfc tells us otherwise. a financial collapse is a probable scenario; leading to a
prolonged depression. May not be the catastrophic vision our friend has in mind, but would be
pretty bad. Even in today's great economy forty million are living in poverty. Another
financial collapse could see that number double
"What lessons can Western policymakers learn from Poroshenko's crushing defeat?"
A pointless question as the US/EU establishment don't seem to be able to accept the
reality of what is happening, and won't accept any lessons as that might get in the way of
the Neoliberal globalist expansionist agenda and undermine its supporting narratives.
Zelensky won't be a quantum improvement, but at least he isn't a raving Ultra-nationalist
looney. He's not much more that the Ukro version of Frances Micron, a political light-weight
foisted onto the public by the mostly-hidden hand of corrupt Oilgarchs. Ukraines rot from
within will continue...
As most Russians, I don't have high hopes for Zelensky. Almost certainly, his campaign was
bankrolled by oligarch Kolomoisky. So he will represent the interests of large money, not of
Ukranian people. And he will have to deal with these crazy nationalists, which are over 25%
of population. And the debts with IMF strings attached. He stood on his knees at the debate
with Poroshenko - I think he will have to be forced to do that more often than that during
his presidency.
Donbass will remain the festering wound in Ukraines side that weakens and eventually
destroys the accursed Banderite state. Russia needs to keep up the pressure and ensure that
the DPR/LPR can defend themselves against the Kiev regime and make sure the nationalist
whack-jobs understand that any attempt to seizethe territory of Free Ukraine will result in a
world of pain descending on their heads. Time is on Russia's side as the US loses focus, the
EU loses interest, and the harsh realities of geo-politics and economics takes its toll on
the bumbling tin-pot kleptocracy that Ukr has become.
Parashenko is criminal. The same as Saakashvili. Both shelled peaceful living homes from
artillery and with rockets. They both deserve to be hanged. But the West calls them
"democrats".
Western policy is infinitely malleable and adaptable to whatever agenda they want to
pursue. They will defend the Banderite madhouse in Ukropistan as a "democracy" (even as it
makes war on its own people) yet insist that Venezuela is a dictatorship, despite the free
and fair elections that return the Chavistas to power, time and time again. They will rail
against Russia for being "corrupt" (even though they jail senior figures who still try to
extract Yeltsin-era "tributes") yet strain their collectives necks as they look away from
watching Ukr regime insiders conduct outright theft of IMF loan cash.
Sometimes, too little pride in one's nation can be a problem, providing no sense of
cohesion, purpose or unity. And sometimes, too much pride can also be equally
problematic.
Is it liberal to complain about not being hard enough on Russia?
Interesting that Hillary Clinton said Trump was a "Russian puppet" (probably after
Obama sent the FBI after the GOP campaign) and NBC's Holt (Nov 9 2016) said the US
election was a Russian coup. Since when (except maybe if Joe McCarthy were a
democrat).
A parallel maybe. In Ukraine since 2004 the popularly elected president was deposed
twice by extreme right wing ultra nationalists. In 2014 the popular Yanukovych was
deposed in the Maidan revolution with help from the US replaced with no election by Petro
Poroshenko.
Sunday we hear that a comedian Zelenskiy soundly beat Poroshenko in a popular
vote.
To this Poroshenko: "Poroshenko said on social media he thought Zelenskiy's win would
spark celebrations in the Kremlin."
"They believe that with a new inexperienced Ukrainian president, Ukraine could be
quickly returned to Russia's orbit of influence," he wrote.
Clinton and Holt could be writing for Poroshenko, a far right wing ultra
nationalist!
I worry a lot about Obama's spying on the Trump campaign and the supposed liberals in
this country sounding like far right, ultra nationalist, looking for a new, expensive
cold war!
Israel and the Ukraine are now the two countries on the planet in which both the
President [Zelenskii] and the Prime-Minister [Groisman] are Jews
just a day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian
statements.
since Zelenskii has no personal power base of any kind, Kolomoiskii will have him do
exactly as he is told and Kolomoiskii can easily be told to behave by the Empire.
Here is a new ruler of Ukraine, the Israeli/Ukrainian/Swiss citizen Kolomoisky
:
The ethnically Jewish Kolomojsky has been the main financier of Azov Battalion
:
The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine.
Azov Battalion -- which is accused of human-rights abuses, including torture, by Human
Rights Watch and the United Nations -- was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard.
The New York Times called the battalion "openly neo-Nazi," while USA Today, The Daily
Beast, The Telegraph, and Haaretz documented group members' proclivity for swastikas,
salutes, and other Nazi symbols
Five years after the " EuroMaidan " protests in Kiev and elsewhere
toppled the government of now-exiled former president Viktor Yanukovych, the people of Ukraine
are set to elect a new leader. Over 34 million Ukrainian citizens will be eligible to cast
their vote on 31 March ,
although several million will be prevented from participating due to the ongoing conflict
situation in the country's eastern Donbass region. Should none of the candidates receive an
absolute majority, a second round of voting will be held on 21 April.
Ukraine consistently ranks among the poorest countries in Europe – last year it
overtook Moldova to occupy the top spot in the list. The largest post-Soviet state after Russia
in terms of population, it finds itself torn between the European Union promising economic
integration and a limited degree of freedom of movement, and deepening the country's
relationship with Moscow, the largest consumer of Ukrainian exports to which Ukraine is tied by
centuries of shared history, tradition, and repeated conflict.
EuroMaidan exacerbated the country's ongoing economic decline and
mounting social pressures in 2013–14, ultimately triggering the war in the Donbass
region and the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula. These tensions have facilitated the
rise of a vicious
Ukrainian nationalism that the government led by current president Petro Poroshenko is not
afraid to manipulate for its own purposes. Attacks on left-wing activists and ethnic minorities
are becoming increasingly common, while armed far-right paramilitaries like the so-called "Azov
Battalion" are
normalized and integrated into mainstream political life.
That said, not everyone in Ukraine is happy about these developments. Although none of the
candidates in the upcoming elections offer a particularly radical or progressive vision for the
country, voters will at least be able to decide whether to endorse Poroshenko's current course
or throw their support behind another figure. Loren Balhorn of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung
spoke with Kiev-based sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko to get a better understanding of the
candidates, the state of the county, and what is at stake for the people of Ukraine in
2019.
Loren Balhorn (LB): Ukraine is scheduled to hold presidential elections at the end of the
month, preceding elections to the national
parliament , or "Verkhovna Rada," later this year. Is there anything special about the
timing? What exactly is the president's role in the Ukrainian political system, and what
implications will the vote have for parliamentary elections in October?
Volodymyr Ishchenko (VI): The timing is simple: it's been five years since 2014 and the
Maidan Uprising, when snap elections were called that saw Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of
Regions lose a lot of strength. The first round of the presidential elections is at the end of
the month, and it is very likely that there will be a second round because no candidate will
receive over 50 per cent (at least according to polls).
The president is very important in Ukrainian politics. The country is formally a
parliamentary-presidential system, neither fully parliamentary nor fully presidential, but this
is a very uneasy balance of power. The prime minister is an important position elected by the
parliamentary majority, but the president also has influence over important government
ministers. As is true of many post-Soviet states, however, beyond this formal institutional
division of powers the informal divisions are much more decisive. Who is loyal to whom and who
is dependent on whom plays a much bigger role in "real" Ukrainian politics than formal powers
and privileges.
Petro
Poroshenko , the current president, is the most important person in Ukrainian politics. His
powers are formally limited but he has other ways to exercise influence and his own party, the
"Petro Poroshenko Bloc" that forms the government together with the "People's Front," the party
of former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Another important figure in that party is the
current Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov , who is also a very wealthy
man.
LB: Avakov also cultivates ties to the Azov Battalion, no?
VI: This is widely suspected, but the precise nature of those ties has never been proven. I
am skeptical of the idea that the Azov Battalion is merely a puppet of Avakov,
I suspect it is something like a mutually beneficial cooperation.
If Poroshenko loses we will see a lot of defections by MPs from his bloc. Ukrainian politics
operates as what political scientists call a "neopatrimonial regime," meaning it is
characterized by rival, informal power blocs. If the Poroshenko Bloc loses, it will reshuffle
loyalties in the parliament from one patriarch to another.
LB: What do you mean by "neopatrimonial regime"?
VI: By that I mean Ukrainian politics is characterized by competition between various power
blocs, you could also call them pyramids or even clans. Poroshenko builds his pyramid while
Arakov builds his own pyramid, etc. The current Prime Minister, Volodymyr Groysman, was
originally perceived as a loyalist of Poroshenko, but now even he seems to be cultivating his
own pyramid and will probably triangulate between various political blocs.
LB: How did Groysman come to replace Yatsenyuk?
VI: As friction between Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk grew, Poroshenko financed a public campaign
against him, attacking him and calling for his resignation. But Yatsenyuk had a lot of support
from the West, especially the U.S. Vice-President at the time, Joe Biden. Eventually an
agreement was reached that he would step down and be replaced by Groysman.
This represented a conflict between different patrimonial structures within the governing
elite, but also reflected a wider conflict between Ukrainian oligarchs and the West more
generally. Many leftists in Ukraine see the country as a colony of the United States, but it's
much more complicated than that. Ukraine is definitely dependent on Western economic and
financial aid, political support against Russia, etc., but it's not a colony – it's not
ruled from the American Embassy. Local oligarchs like Poroshenko and Arakov have their own
interests that they defend staunchly against the West. At its core, this is a conflict between
transnational capital and the local bourgeoisie.
One key issue in these debates, and the crucial issue for the West and the IMF, was
corruption and the establishment of "anti-corruption" institutions to ensure transparent rules
of the game in Ukraine. But what they call "corruption" is basically the most important
advantage that the Ukrainian bourgeoisie has against transnational capital: namely, their
property is secure from the state while that of their competitors is not. This is also what
scares away potential international investors. Because of this fear, foreign direct investment
(FDI) is actually declining despite the Ukrainian government's steps toward Western
integration.
LB: So fear of corruption is harming investment?
VI: Yes, although the war is of course another factor.
In the beginning, in 2014 and 2015, we had a lot of people in the government without
Ukrainian citizenship who received their positions because they were neoliberal,
Western-oriented professionals, like the Lithuanian citizen Aivaras Abromavičius who was a
minister under Yatsenyuk. Gradually, those neoliberal reformers were pushed out and replaced by
people loyal to the ruling oligarchs. Yatsenyuk being replaced by Groysman was just one
particularly important example of this process.
LB: It sounds like a pretty grim scenario. But even if electoral politics is just
competition between oligarchic factions, certainly there must be some other issues being
debated at least on the surface? What are the dominant themes the candidates are using to
attract support?
VI: Poroshenko has been most successful in setting the agenda with an aggressively
nationalist campaign – his main slogan is "Army, Faith, Language." He side-lined the
socially populist issues that Yulia Tymoshenko tried to raise by
portraying the election as a choice between him or Putin and depicting his opponents as puppets
of Moscow.
LB: And is it working?
VI: Yes, to some extent. His support has been rising in the polls since the recognition of
the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
LB: Was that split between the Ukrainian Church and Moscow supported by the government?
VI: Yes, it was actively organized by Poroshenko as a strategy to win the election.
Formally, the Ukrainian Orthodox church enjoyed broad autonomy but was dependent on the Moscow
Patriarchate and was recognized by other Orthodox churches. A separate church founded in the
early 1990s, the Kiev Patriarchate, was unrecognized by any other international church but
still fairly popular in the country. In reality most people didn't care which church they
attended. The split was purely political, there were no theological differences.
Poroshenko started to push the theme in 2017 and 2018 that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was
something like an "agent of Moscow" in Ukraine. The details are quite complicated, and to be
honest many people in Ukraine didn't really understand these structures until last year either,
but for people who care about national issues, who care about Ukraine asserting itself against
Russia, this was an important step. Nevertheless, it looks like the majority of local parishes
will actually stay with the Moscow Patriarchate.
LB: You have alluded to the conflict with Russia several times now as setting the terms of
the debate, and making it easier for politicians to distract from social questions by focusing
on nationalism. Is there any kind of visible, vaguely progressive social opposition in the
country?
VI: Most politicians and the three leading candidates for the president are not
significantly different on the question of the conflict in the Donbass region. Poroshenko,
Tymoshenko, and Volodymyr Zelensky are all within the patriotic consensus, although Poroshenko
is more militant. Candidates who actually have a different opinion and are not as popular
sprang from the former Party of Regions, later branded the "Opposition Bloc." They failed to
negotiate a common candidate for the so-called "Southeast," the region where the
Russian-speaking minority mostly lives. Despite raising important issues like peace in Donbass,
re-claiming national sovereignty from the West, and re-industrialization, these candidates
– Yuriy Boyko and Oleksandr Vilkul – are representatives of major oligarchic
financial-industrial groups. There is no significant "grassroots" movement behind the issues.
There are of course labour struggles, and there have been some strikes, but they are weak.
There are some feminist mobilizations but they are miniscule compared to the radical
nationalists. Not just the anti-capitalist "Left," but also progressive liberalism is very
weak.
The Left is in a bad
situation. The
Communist Party has been banned. They are appealing the ban but their public visibility has
declined to practically zero. Their leader, Petro Symonenko, tried to register as a
presidential candidate but was not accepted by the government, and no other relevant left-wing
parties exist on the national level.
LB: Government corruption, oligarchic control of the economy, a decimated Left – a lot
of this sounds familiar. Couldn't we, at least to some extent, compare conditions in Ukraine to
the situation in all of the former Eastern Bloc countries?
VI: I don't think so. EU membership makes a big difference, it imposes certain rules that
are absent in Ukraine. The presence of strong oligarchs, for example, is pretty specific. The
other Eastern Bloc countries don't have a strong local bourgeoisie, but are largely dominated
by Western capital. There are no Polish oligarchs, Czech oligarchs, Hungarian oligarchs –
we only hear about Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. What makes Ukraine different is that the
oligarchic system is pluralistic. We have multiple, competing oligarchs, whereas in Russia and
Belarus one neopatrimonial pyramid managed to emerge as dominant in the last 15 years.
The promise of EU membership restructured Eastern European politics beginning in the 1990s,
whereas this was never a prospect in Ukraine, Russia, or Belarus. But we still didn't see the
rise of any figure like Vladimir Putin or an Alexander Lukashenko in Ukraine. I think this has
to do with the country's divided identity: almost every election has been framed as a question
of "East vs. West," with one candidate supported by the western half and the other by the
eastern half. In this sense it's comparable with Donald Trump: any time a Ukrainian president
comes to power he is opposed by half the population from day one. This makes it very difficult
to consolidate nationwide power.
LB: Are there not also economic aspects to the East/West division?
VI: Yes, the East has more heavy, Soviet-era industry, exporting primarily to the markets of
the former USSR and uncompetitive on Western markets. For example, the people supporting
Yanukovych and opposing EuroMaidan were at least partially concerned about keeping their jobs
in a Ukrainian economy dominated by the EU.
LB: So it's not only a nationalist issue, but also one of bread-and-butter economic
issues?
VI: Yes, absolutely.
LB: Speaking of "East vs. West," has anything changed since Ukraine's accession to the
visa-free regime for Schengen states in 2017?
VI: That was one of very few positive developments under Poroshenko, and he's touting it a
lot during the campaign. Freedom of movement is of course something good and something we
support, but it was particularly good for younger, highly educated Ukrainians in the major
cities.
It has also facilitated increased labour migration, which has really risen since 2014. I
don't have any precise statistics but we're talking about millions of people. Many Ukrainians
go to work in Poland, which actively recruits them because they are seen as culturally and
linguistically "closer" to Poles (unlike refugees from the Middle East). You could say that
cheap Ukrainian labour is subsidizing the Polish economic boom. The Czech Republic is also
popular, and Germany will probably be next.
As workers from the eastern EU states like Bulgaria and Poland move west to work they're
replaced by cheaper labour from Ukraine, but no one moves to Ukraine. There is a lot of
discussion in the Ukrainian media about how it simply does not make sense to work in the
country when you can make two or three times more across the border.
LB: But does this not mean that the Ukrainian labour market is gradually getting tighter?
Wouldn't it at least theoretically put organized labour in a more advantageous position to
fight for higher wages?
VI: Yes, theoretically! But Ukrainian trade unions are very weak, and they have failed to
take advantage of the situation.
LB: You recently gave an interview to Jacobin
Magazine in which you compared the situation of the Ukrainian Left with that of
Latin America in the 1970s. I found that very striking, given that the Left was quite large in
Latin America at the time and microscopic in Ukraine today. Could you flesh out that comparison
a bit? Where exactly do you see similarities?
VI: Ukraine is a deindustrializing, peripheral economy. Most Soviet-era industry fell apart
after 1991, and what remains is not competitive on the Western European market. Ukraine has
thus become a supplier of raw materials with low added value like iron. In this sense it is a
very peripheral capitalism characterized by extreme inequality and powerful oligarchs, like
Latin America. There is also the major role played by far-right paramilitaries – this
doesn't happen anywhere else in Europe, except for briefly in former Yugoslavia. We also have a
strongly pro-American and highly dependent government, very similar to Latin America.
I think it's logical to look for comparisons and lessons from similar historical social
formations. If the Ukrainian Left is looking to fight a corrupt, authoritarian, anti-Communist
regime, and given how weak the Left and even liberalism is, we have to work together to fight
for basic democratic rights and against the nationalist hysteria to lay the base for a movement
that could perhaps become more significant in the future. Here I see parallels to the Latin
American Left's struggle against dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.
LB: Do you think it's possible in a geopolitical situation where tensions between the EU and
Russia are so prominent to formulate a broad, democratic programme that stands above this
fray?
VI: It's obviously very difficult, but what other options do we have? Become puppets in the
geopolitical game? There was a split on the Left in 2014 when many chose EuroMaidan and the
"West" while others chose Anti-Maidan and the "Russian" side. Both sides ended up tailing more
powerful right-wing forces and failed to formulate their own independent positions.
LB: But would anything else have been possible?
VI: Well, obviously we can't seriously entertain the building of a strong left-wing party
under such difficult conditions. What is possible, however, is to maintain some kind of milieu
for left-wing ideas. The groups and networks that exist have to consolidate a possible embryo
for a strong Left in the future. It's important to be realistic and understand what's
possible or completely impossible. We might not be able to formulate some kind of "Third Camp"
in Ukrainian politics right now, but that is our objective situation, and we should try to
figure out what we can realistically do. We should work on strengthening our groups, our
unions, our intellectual initiatives, to hopefully be able to do something bigger in the
future.
Corbyn, Podemos, and Mélenchon are inspiring figures, but we need to understand what
is specific about the political regime in our country and respond in a specific way. We need to
try to expand the range of the possible for left politics at the moment. Even if it isn't so
inspiring and very weak, we still have to try. The kind of system that exists in Ukraine can't
last forever. There are many contradictions, divisions, and cleavages exacerbated by the ruling
groups, and all of these will lead to a situation at some point where weaker groups might
become politically relevant and important again.
LB: Before we wrap up I wanted to ask you about the third major candidate, Volodymyr Zelensky . If I
understand correctly, he stars in a TV show about a politician and has now become the
politician he plays on TV. Is that correct – and is he popular? Does he have a chance at
winning or is this a stunt?
VI: Actually, he's currently the most popular politician in the country. According to polls
he has significantly more support than both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, and could very possibly
become the president.
There are basically three groups of people voting for him: firstly, fans of his TV show, a
very popular comedy about Ukrainian politics. Another large group are just so disappointed and
tired of these oligarchs that they will vote for any fresh face.
LB: So he's similar to Donald Trump in some ways?
VI: In some ways, but what's different from Trump is the third group of his supporters,
namely people who are voting for him because he is perceived as less nationalist than the other
candidates. Zelensky himself is Russian-speaking, he's from the central Ukrainian city of
Kryvyi Rih, and has attracted lots of support from Russian-speaking citizens.
That makes Zelensky different from Trump – he's actually trying to campaign on
unifying themes, not divisive ones. He opposes Poroshenko's attempts to push the Ukrainian
language on Russian speakers, for example.
Another thing that makes him different from Trump or Beppe Grillo is that he has no populist
movement behind him, or any movement at all for that matter. All he has is his TV show, around
which he is now trying to build a political party from scratch. This is different from other
populist figures – there was no mass mobilization preceding him. Trump, for example, is
obviously somehow a result of the Tea Party movement, while Grillo represents the Five Stars
Movement (in Italy).
Another difference is his connection to Igor Kolomoisky, one of Ukraine's richest oligarchs
now in opposition to Poroshenko who founded the country's largest bank, Privat Bank, and still
owns a controlling share of the national airline. Zelensky's show is broadcast on one of
Kolomoisky's eight TV stations, and one of his lawyers is a key architect of Zelensky's party,
Sluha Narodu , which translates to "Servant of the People" (also the name of his show).
Right now it's not possible to say how independent Zelensky is. I wouldn't call him a puppet,
but there are definitely connections to the ruling class.
All of this means that Zelensky will be very weak if he wins, and not only because he's
inexperienced. For the first half year he won't have much support in parliament. He has no
loyal political party behind him. He will surely get some opportunists to defect from other
parties, but hardly a majority. I don't know what he could do in that situation. After the
parliamentary elections he might face a more favourable constellation, but it will also depend
on how he does in the first months.
It's impossible to say how he would perform as president. He has zero political experience.
I fear that he may understand politics even less than Donald Trump. He is a blank page on which
anything can be written.
LB: So he reflects the vacuum in civil society more generally?
VI: Exactly. He is a glaring symptom of what's going on in Ukrainian society. People hate
the oligarchs, they hate the faces they've seen for decades. Revolutions come and go, elections
come and go, but life just gets worse and worse. People don't want another five years of
Tymoshenko or Poroshenko and are happy to vote for any recognizable fresh face who isn't
implicated in serious corruption. People are voting less out of hope than out of anger. Better
to vote for an incompetent comedian than the same old corrupt experts.
At the same time, civil society is so weak that it couldn't put up any competing figure.
Only a TV star was able to do that, nobody from the pro-Western, liberal NGOs came even close.
None of those figures poll even one per cent. This says a lot about Ukrainian "civil society":
it's totally incapable of producing competent, popular leaders.
If he is elected, it will be strong proof that the people are sick of the old style of
politics, that they aren't being manipulated by Poroshenko's nationalism and want something
better. Nevertheless, I am very sceptical that Zelensky will be able to change anything. Real
change in Ukraine will be a much longer process, and will require the building of a different
kind of political opposition that we haven't seen in this country for a very long time.
•
This article first published on the Rosalux.de
website.
President without his own party is lame duck President; a puppet. If it is true that Zelenski is really man of Soros and was
elected on Soros money that's a very bad omen. That's probably the worst possible scenario.
At the same time in Ukraine allegiance to a party is weak and some deputies might switch sides forming kind of "Zelenski
block" similar to "Block of Petr Poroshenko" so he can create some sudo-party. Also
he cancel the reelection of the Parliament. But he will need to deal with Yulia Timoshenko who is the leader of Batkivshchina
party and that will not be easy.
Might well be variation of the theme of Saakashvili. Dmitry Babish said that Zelenski is a neoliberal who is surrounded by
Soros people and several foreign born ministers that Poroshenko fired. His connection to the notorious oligarch Kolomoyski is
another very bad sign.
Notable quotes:
"... hope for Ukraine but I did not know that in Zelensky team there are Soros people according to the specialist in Moscow. ..."
"... I see Ukraine pulled a Trump. Good luck with that. What could possibly go wrong? ..."
hope for Ukraine but I did not know that in Zelensky team there are Soros people according to the specialist in
Moscow. Anyhow this analysis was very interesting
AJ what's your report card on Poroshenko, the chocolate king? I recall Poroshenko ordered
his troops to attack and bomb east Ukraine, Ukraine's own territory. I doubt the Russian
speaking Ukrainians have a tattoo on their forehead identified them as such. a comic won't do
any worse than a US selected oligarch.
USA elected Trump as president, a man with no political experience. In the UK we elect
politicians and end up with jokers. Good luck Ukraine I really hope it works for you.
"... Poroshenko's government greatly encouraged glorification of those troops and leaders as fighters for Ukrainian freedom who it insisted sided with Germany only in order to fight against the Russian-controlled Soviet Union. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the western city of Lviv, nationalists became emboldened enough to celebrate with city authorities' permission the anniversary of the 14th Galician division of the Waffen SS. The anniversary events featured men parading in Nazi SS uniforms on the street. ..."
"... On this subject, Zelensky has said only that he personally does not favor the veneration of people like Bandera, whom he described as "a hero to some Ukrainians." It was a markedly reserved formulation compared to the unreserved endorsement of figures like Bandera by officials under Poroshenko. ..."
"... In some far-right circles, Zelensky's work in a television stationed owned by the Jewish billionaire Igor Kolomoisky was proof of his belonging to a "Jewish cabal." But it made Zelensky popular with other nationalists who appreciated Kolomoisky's reputation as a fiery patriot. ..."
"... Not denying his Jewish ancestry, Zelensky declined to explore it at length in the interview, Levy wrote. On this subject, he replied with typical self-deprecating humor, telling Levy: "The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults." ..."
"... This popularity has allowed Zelensky to both win on an unusually vague platform and distinguish himself from his professional politician rivals, with their proclivity to hyperbole and nationalist slogans. ..."
"... For example, when a reporter asked him how he would deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Zelensky reverted to his comic roots, saying "I would speak to him at eye level." It was a reference to him and Putin being at least three inches shorter than Poroshenko, a 6-footer. ..."
"... "We will need to wait and see what kind of president Zelensky turns out to be," said Dolinsky, who was an outspoken critic of some policies of the Poroshenko administration. "What is clear is that Poroshenko's attempt to appeal to nationalism has failed. Ukrainians said they wanted change. And I am feeling optimistic." ..."
Ukrainian comedian and presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky reacts after the announcement of the first exit poll results in
the second round of Ukraine's presidential election at his campaign headquarters in Kiev on April 21, 2019. (Photo by Sergei GAPON
/ AFP) JTA -- Following the victory of Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine's presidential elections, the country will become the only one
in the world besides Israel whose president and prime minister are both Jewish.
When Zelensky is sworn in as president, his prime minister -- at least for a while and possibly until the parliamentary elections
scheduled to take place sometime later this year -- will be Volodymyr Groysman, a Jewish politician who was the mayor of the city
of Vinnytsia.
To some of incumbent Petro Poroshenko's critics, the landslide success of the vague campaign by the politically inexperienced
Zelensky, a comedian, was not surprising in light of widespread resentment over the persistence of corruption under Poroshenko, who
was elected in 2014 on a platform that vowed remedial action on exactly that front.
More unusual to some, however, was how Zelensky's appears to have won the elections so decisively in spite of how his Jewish ancestry
– his mother, Rima, is Jewish and he has jokingly referred to this during the campaign -- is well known in Ukraine.
After all, Russia and other critics claim Ukrainian society has a serious anti-Semitism problem and legacy.
"Imagine, a pure-blooded Jew with the appearance of a Sholom Aleichem protagonist wins by a landslide in a country where
the glorification of Nazi criminals is enacted into law," wrote Avigdor Eskin, a Russian-Israeli columnist, in an analysis published
earlier this month by the Regnum news agency.
Eskin in column on Zelensky downplayed allegations of widespread anti-Semitism in Ukraine, attributing much of the attention to
the problem in media and beyond to propaganda by Russia, which is involved in an armed conflict over territory with Ukraine. But
Eskin's statement about Ukrainian laws glorifying Nazi criminals is not inaccurate, and Russia is not alone in criticizing Ukraine
over this and other issues connected to anti-Semitism.
Last year, Israel's government singled out Ukraine as a regional trouble spot in the Israeli government's annual report on anti-Semitism.
"A striking exception in the trend of decrease in anti-Semitic incidents in Eastern Europe was Ukraine, where the number of recorded
anti-Semitic attacks was doubled from last year and surpassed the tally for all the incidents reported throughout the entire region
combined," the report said. The authors of the report counted more than 130 reported anti-Semitic incidents in Ukraine in 2017, they
said.
Also last year, more than 50 US Congress members condemned Ukrainian legislation that they said "glorifies Nazi collaborators"
and therefore goes even further than Poland's controversial laws limiting what can be said about local complicity during the Holocaust.
A letter signed by the US lawmakers stated, "It's particularly troubling that much of the Nazi glorification in Ukraine is government-supported."
It noted ceremonies, gestures and legislation venerating leaders of the UPA and OUN militias, who fought alongside Nazi Germany during
World War II and whose troops participated in atrocities against Jews and other victims.
Poroshenko's government greatly encouraged glorification of those troops and leaders as fighters for Ukrainian freedom who
it insisted sided with Germany only in order to fight against the Russian-controlled Soviet Union.
Several cities across Ukraine named streets for the Nazi-collaborator Stepan Bandera, who prior to Poroshenko's time in office
was openly glorified only in the country's west.
Meanwhile, in the western city of Lviv, nationalists became emboldened enough to celebrate with city authorities' permission
the anniversary of the 14th Galician division of the Waffen SS. The anniversary events featured men parading in Nazi SS uniforms
on the street.
Such sights would have been unthinkable under Viktor Yanukovych, the corrupt president who was deposed in a 2013 revolution that
ended with Poroshenko's election. Careful to alienate neither ethnic Russians in Ukraine nor its powerful neighbor to the east, Yanukovych
was less tolerant of this nationalist phenomenon.
On this subject, Zelensky has said only that he personally does not favor the veneration of people like Bandera, whom he described
as "a hero to some Ukrainians." It was a markedly reserved formulation compared to the unreserved endorsement of figures like Bandera
by officials under Poroshenko.
The presidential campaign itself has featured some anti-Semitism. In some far-right circles, Zelensky's work in a television
stationed owned by the Jewish billionaire Igor Kolomoisky was proof of his belonging to a "Jewish cabal." But it made Zelensky popular
with other nationalists who appreciated Kolomoisky's reputation as a fiery patriot.
Alexander Paliy, an influential political analyst supporting Poroshenko, last month stirred controversy when he wrote on Facebook
that, despite his "respect" for Jews and some Russians, "The president of Ukraine should be Ukrainian and Christian, like the absolute
majority of Ukrainians."
Such rhetoric is shocking to many of Ukraine's 300,000-odd Jews, whose ancestors suffered murderous anti-Semitism in Ukraine for
centuries before, during and decades after the Holocaust.
The French-Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy also referenced Ukrainian Jew's bloody history in an interview with Zelensky,
the 41-year-old son of scientists who lived near major Soviet army bases in Ukraine, that he published earlier this month in the
Le Point weekly.
"His Judaism. It's extraordinary that the possible future president of the country of the Shoah by Bullets and Babi Yar is a self-affirmed
Jew from a family of survivors from Kryvy Rih near Dnipro – the land of pogrom if ever there was one," Levy wrote. "This postmodern
kid, is he new proof that the virus of anti-Semitism has been contained" after the revolution, Levy added.
Not denying his Jewish ancestry, Zelensky declined to explore it at length in the interview, Levy wrote. On this subject,
he replied with typical self-deprecating humor, telling Levy: "The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults."
Zelensky, whose mother, Rima, is Jewish, has ingratiated himself with the Ukrainian public with such jokes as the star of "Servant
of the People" – a primetime television show where he portrays a teacher thrust by an unlikely chain of events to become Ukraine's
president. He announced his candidacy in January, becoming an instant favorite.
This popularity has allowed Zelensky to both win on an unusually vague platform and distinguish himself from his professional
politician rivals, with their proclivity to hyperbole and nationalist slogans.
For example, when a reporter asked him how he would deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Zelensky reverted to his comic
roots, saying "I would speak to him at eye level." It was a reference to him and Putin being at least three inches shorter than Poroshenko,
a 6-footer.
Zelensky opaqueness means a high level of uncertainty, Dolinsky, the Jewish community leader, said.
"We will need to wait and see what kind of president Zelensky turns out to be," said Dolinsky, who was an outspoken critic
of some policies of the Poroshenko administration. "What is clear is that Poroshenko's attempt to appeal to nationalism has failed.
Ukrainians said they wanted change. And I am feeling optimistic."
It is clear that like in Trump vs Hillary situation many voted not for Zelensky but against
Poroshenko. Coul be that the same screwed political consultants who ensured Trump victory work in
Ukraine.
Zelensky is that same candidate as Obama, Trump and Macron: he has zero political history. So
you can project into him the expectation of electorate and that trick works. During the campaign,
concerns were raised over his links to the oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi (he proposed a tax amnesty
and a 5% flat tax for big
business ).
From Wikipedia: In an interview in December 2018, Zelensky stated that as President he would
try to end the ongoing
War in Donbass by
negotiating with Russia .
[49]
As he considered the leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and the
Luhansk
People's Republic (DPR and LPR) to be Russia's "puppets", it would "make no sense to speak
with them". [49]
He did not rule out holding a referendum on the issue. [50][49]
In an interview published three days before the 2019 presidential election (on 21 April) Zelensky
stated that he was against granting the Donbass region "special status". [51]
In the interview he also said that if he were elected President he would not sign a law on
amnesty for the militants of the DPR and LPR. [51]
Edited Google translation.
Using phase form cult novel The Golden Calf by Ilya Ilf and
Evgeny Petrov "Children of lieutenant Schmidt" Poroshenko can be called a son of undersecretary
Nuland. He has no space for maneuver, space for negotiation as confrontation with Russia is the
geopolitical goal of neocon establishment which stands behind Victoria Nuland. That's probably
why he lost.
Poroshenko's triad -- "faith, army, language" -- was not born from scratch. Poroshenko
emphasized Ukrainization of all aspects of the country's life. In culture, history, even the
economics. Especially in the economics. All these decisions, orders and sanctions were aimed at
cutting economic ties with Russia under very simple ideological basis -- "Ukrainization uber
alles"
Of course, this was a gesture of despair of the man who came to power via "Washington Obcom"
at a time when Ukraine already lost a part of its territory -- the Crimea and was on the verge
of even greater loss -- Donbass, and maybe the entire South-East.
Poroshenko in this situation enforced blatant confrontation with Russia (instead of
negotiations and search of compromises) as the tool to unite the nation against common enemy.
Having accepted the obvious situation in which he can do nothing to return the lost territories
(and it would be unprofitable for him politically), he pushed the confrontation as if there is
no tomorrow, please his US sponsors. Which resulted is sliding of the standard of living as
lost markets at the East were not compensated by new market at the West. He unleashed personal
war with Russia hoping that it will help to survive him politically and instead it
backfired.
In other words Poroshenko assumed that he can unite Ukranina peole of the base of the his
fight with Russia. A common enemy always unites rulers and people.
However, during the presidential elections, which were held just five years after the
triumph of nationalist ideology on EuroMaydan, it turned out that this the majority of the
population does not share this ideology with Pyotr Alekseevich. And that the sliding standard
of living, rampant inflation and personal corruption of EuroMaydan junta has a greater
weight.
The majority, apparently, doesn't want exclusivity of the Ukrainian nation... They want
European standard of living.
While the world mourns the victims of today's terrorist atrocities in Sri Lanka, Ukraine has
conducted its first election since 2014 -- the year in which the fragmented post-Soviet
republic changed forever. This year, the debates were not a contest between those seeking to
reverse the tide of 2014 versus those committed to an even more radically pro-western approach,
but instead the question uniformly revolved around how a country that before 2014 was
ethnically and religious fragmented, poor, corrupt and seemingly ungovernable has become even
worse by all objective measurements.
Because of the popular discontent in the country due to the worsening of already abysmal
economic conditions, it was always going to be difficult for outgoing President Petro
Poroshenko to play the jingoistic anti-Russian/anti-Donbass card when most Ukrainian citizens
are becoming more worried about the price of gas and the price of food than they are worried
about playing a game of political football started by Barack Obama.
As such, the entire political class that took charge after 2014 (ironically many such people
were connected to the old regime they claimed to hate) are roundly reviled throughout Ukraine.
Against this background, comedian Volodymyr Zelensky decided to run for president and early
indications are that he has won the election in a landslide.
Zelensky's campaign was one based on a broadly anti-corruption platform that was as
pro-western and as anti-Russian as that of his closest rivals. The difference was that for the
first time in its history, Ukraine had a political figure with a human face rather than that of
a cold, calculating oligarch aspiring to be an autocrat. Outside of Ukraine and Russia,
Zelensky's candidacy has received the most attention in Israel.
Israeli
media have become excited by the fact that Ukraine will now have a Jewish head of state and
one whose chief backers are particularly close to Tel Aviv. While Israel has often condemned
the rise in genuine antisemitism throughout much of Ukraine, Tel Aviv has nevertheless
increased its economic relations with Kiev since 2014. As such, it can be assured that under
Zelensky, relations between Tel Aviv and Kiev will continue to grow.
This incidentally comes at a time when Russia and Israel are becoming increasingly close
allies as was recently detailed in a Eurasia Future piece by Andrew
Korybko . Whilst Moscow and Kiev cannot agree on seemingly anything at this point in
history, they can agree on one thing: Israel is considered a friendly nation and a valued
partner.
Just because Vladimir Putin is a friend of Israel and something of a philosemitie, it does
not automatically mean that he will develop a warm relationship with a Ukrainian leader who
happens to be Jewish and who happens to be friendly with prominent Israeli businessmen.
However, because the Kremlin has long sought to reach some sort of conclusion to the stand off
with Ukraine (against the wishes of many Russian patriots and the two main opposition parties),
a fresh face in Kiev who has ties to Israelis may well be a small step towards bridging the gap
between his own government and Moscow.
None of this will likely play out before the cameras because in much of Ukraine it is
considered near treasonous to talk of anything resembling a detente with Moscow. Likewise, at a
time when Vladimir Putin's popularity is dipping due to an unpopular proposed pension reform
and internal economic/infrastructural issues, it would be viewed by at least some Russian
patriots as a sell out to effectively compromise with a Kiev regime that has attempted to
commit ethnic cleansing against the people of Donbass.
That being said, behind the scenes things will likely be very different, just as they were
after 2015 when Russia and Turkey rapidly mended ties out of the view of the public, before
later becoming openly close partners as they are today.
As a political novice in a country whose "experienced politicians" are self-evidently
nothing to learn by, Zelensky may well seek advice from Israeli experts, many of whom are
becoming increasingly close to Putin's Russia. This could represent the beginning of a slowly
turning tide for both Moscow and Kiev.
STEPHEN COHEN: But the point here is that Russia has been torn between East and the West forever. Its best policy, in its
own best interest, is to straddle East and West, not to be of the East or the West, but it's impossible in this world today. And
U.S.-led Western policy since the end of the Soviet Union, and particularly since Putin came to power in 2000, has persuaded the
Russian ruling elite that Russia can not count any longer, economically, politically, militarily, on being part of the West. It has
to go elsewhere. So all this talk about wanting to win Russia to an American position that's anti-Iranian and anti-Chinese is conceived
in disaster and will end in disaster. They should think of some other foreign policy.
...Haven't these people learned anything from the implosion of their pathetic Russiagate hysteria? The Russophobes won't be
happy until we're at war with a nuclear power and the nukes are about to land.
Here are things Trump has actually done, as opposed to red-limned fantasies drawn from the fever-dreams of Putin haters:
Unilaterally abandoned 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty
Expelled 60 diplomats and closed 3 Russian diplomatic annexes
Bombed Syria, a Russian ally, with Russian troops in country
Sold arms to Ukraine, which is actively at war with Russia
Threatened Germany to cancel a new Russian pipeline through the Baltic (effort failed)
Even more sanctions against Russia and Russian nationals
Stationed missile defense systems on the Russian border in violation of arms treaties
Massive military exercises in Europe on the Russian border
Stationed troops in Poland
Negotiating with Poland to build a permanent US military base in Poland
"... The document "determines a list of those goods that it will be possible to export to Ukraine only on the basis of separate decisions from June 1." "This category includes fuel and energy products, including coal as well as the oil and petroleum products," he said. ..."
Russia is banning exports of crude oil, petroleum products and coal to Ukraine.
"A few days ago the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers took the latest unfriendly step with
respect to our country and expanded the list of Russian goods which cannot be imported to
Ukrainian territory. In these conditions we are forced to protect our interests and take
response measures," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said at a meeting of the Russian
cabinet.
Medvedev said he had signed a resolution "banning the export of Russian crude oil and
petroleum products to Ukraine."
The document "determines a list of those goods that it will be possible to export to Ukraine
only on the basis of separate decisions from June 1." "This category includes fuel and energy
products, including coal as well as the oil and petroleum products," he said.
Not sure if extensive Lavrov interview earlier in April was reported on saker
..extract
"Question: Have you seen any grounds for optimism in the results of the first round of the
presidential election in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: To be honest, I haven't seen any grounds for either optimism or pessimism.
What's the point of guesswork? This is a process that should take place and will be
completed. I do not doubt this or that the West will recognise this election.
OSCE observers released their preliminary report on the results of the first round of the
presidential election, which abounds in examples of flagrant violations: corruption, bribery,
pressure on voters and many other things. However, all this is described in a neutral tone. I
think if they wrote about us, they would present these facts emotionally. Now they are doing
it in an understated way and conclude that this did not affect the legitimacy of the
election. Neither was it affected by the flagrant violation of OSCE rules when our observers
were kicked out and over three million Ukrainians working and living in Russia were deprived
of the right to vote. These are facts of life in Ukraine.
I think that the results of the election and the way it was organised came as no surprise
to those who have been following domestic developments in Ukraine and its external ties. They
are already calling each other puppets It's probably interesting to watch from the side but I
don't think that Ukrainian citizens are happy about this kind of democracy.
Question: Are the prospects of Russia-Ukraine cooperation still vague?
Sergey Lavrov: We are open to dialogue if the aim is not chatting and looking for excuses
to do nothing but rather the practical implementation of the Minsk agreements. I have no
doubt that Petr Poroshenko does not want to do this and won't do this. When Viktor Medvedchuk
just suggested seriously discussing what autonomous rights may be granted to Donbass, he was
called a traitor. Poroshenko said this will never happen although he himself signed a
document on the special status of Donbass, which is described with sufficient detail in the
Minsk agreements.
These provisions on what rights Donbass should have were formulated by German Chancellor
Angela Merkel personally, among others, but her ward has got out of hand. This is a fact. On
the one hand, he doesn't listen to Germany or France because he has American "patrons". On
the other hand, they find it embarrassing to pressure him in public because by doing so they
will admit that what they call their "mediation" has failed.
However, there is no other document except for the Minsk agreements. They can certainly be
supplemented. For instance, it is possible to provide OSCE observers with UN armed guards, as
we suggest in response to the apprehensions of Ukrainians about their safety. But the core of
these agreements must remain unchanged. The main point is that all issues are settled
directly between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk .."
The Toltec sages used to say: "To really know something means that it must also entail the
knowledge of what course of action to take. And once you know what to do, you actually do
it". So they firmly stated that the only worthy knowledge is a functional one. Normally, the
trascendental matters were integrally consulted with the "Eagle" (i.e. the Entity out there
with limitless consciousness, which sounds pretty much like "God") through a link that in the
west is ignorantly dismissed as "intuition". This to remark that the big decisions must not
rely entirely on the rational part, because it is too prone to make mistakes.
We all know who the adversary is: it's not the AZE (AngloZionist Empire) per se, it's who
rule the Empire. And what they are doing in Ukraine is pretty clear:
* The endgame is to carve another Poland from the Russian population, as a means to weaken
the Russian State. The steps are obvious and unfortunately, maybe definitive: zioimposed
religious schism, forceful and exclusive use of "Ukrainian" from 2020 on, denial to belong to
other country different from "Ukraine" (a patchwork assembled through land thefts).
Fortunately Russia recovered Crimea, and the mining/industrial regions are disputed, but the
Khazarians control 2 critical assets: the other coastal oblasts and the chernozem soils.
* Stating that Russia cannot absorb Novorossiya is bullsh¡t. Germany, a smaller economy
with no sovereign government could absorb the RDA. If Russia doesn't decide, the situation
will decide by itself. Russia is already receiving a lot of displaced Russians, plus tons of
Russians in Ukraine who became the source of cheap labor for Russian companies. And what
about the costs of humanitarian assistance and military support to Russians under the Ukraine
dictatorship? Let's say it takes 30 years to revert the decay, so what? Russia has been
around longer and has had successful comebacks under way more destruction.
* The Donbass people already decided twice, by clear majority of the popular vote, to become
part of the Russian Federation. The right thing to do is simply accepting them. Not doing so
sends the signal that no matter what the other southwestern Oblasts do, they will not be
accepted either. Russia should openly support the Russians in the southeast of Ukraine who
want to secede and reintegrate with the Russian Federation.
For example, financing a
reunification party, granting contracts and jobs to the Russian allies there, logistically
supporting a secession movement, even militarily, because the Khazarians will not let go
without bloodshed.
"... Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn't one yet, but it must be understood that this difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky's inauguration. In fact, the elites in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine's land to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty "fee"). ..."
"... The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. ..."
"... n terms of its internal functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery. Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up. ..."
"... Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you excited yet? ..."
"... None of this matters, because we don't know which of the two is the US State Department's pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits, a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one. ..."
The Saker: What is your take on the first round of Presidential elections in the
Ukraine?
Dmitry Orlov: The first round of the elections was an outright fraud. The object of the
exercise was to somehow allow president Poroshenko to make it into the second round. This was
done by falsifying as many votes as was necessary. In a significant number of precincts the
turnout was exactly 100% instead of the usual 60% or so and counted votes from people who had
moved, died or emigrated. All of these fake votes went to Poroshenko, allowing him to slither
through to the second round.
Now the fight is between Poroshenko and a comedian named Vladimir Zelensky. The only
difference between Poroshenko and Zelensky, or any of the other 30+ people who appeared on the
ballot, is that Poroshenko has already stolen his billions while his contestants have not had a
chance to do so yet, the only reason to run for president, or any elected office, in the
Ukraine, being to put oneself in a position to do some major thieving.
Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that
Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn't one yet, but it must be understood that this
difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky's inauguration. In fact, the elites
in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine's land
to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty "fee").
The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a
country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic
considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. I
n terms of its internal
functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery.
Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up.
It remains to be seen whether the second round of elections will also be an outright fraud
and what happens as a result. There are many alternatives, but none of them resemble any sort
of exercise in democracy. To be sure, what is meant by "democracy" in this case is simply the
ability to execute orders issued from Washington; inability to do so would make Ukraine an
"authoritarian regime" or a "dictatorship" and subject to "regime change." But short of that,
nothing matters.
The machinations of Ukraine's "democrats" are about as interesting to me as the sex lives of
sewer rats, but for the sake of completeness, let me flowchart it out for you. Poroshenko got
into second round by outright fraud, because the loss of this election would, within the
Ukrainian political food chain, instantly convert him from predator to prey. However, he was
none too subtle about it, there is ample proof of his cheating, and the contender he squeezed
out -- Yulia Timoshenko -- could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would
invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather,
rinse, repeat.
Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even
more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky
could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire
election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you
excited yet?
None of this matters, because we don't know which of the two is the US State Department's
pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits,
a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one.
Of course, it
will all be made to look highly democratic for the sake of appearances. The leadership of the
EU will oblige with some golf claps while choking back vomit and the world will move on.
KIEV, April 17. /TASS/. The Ukrainian State Investigation Bureau launched a criminal case on
"the intentional surrender" of Crimea against Verkhovna Rada Speaker Andrei Paruby, Secretary
of the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense Alexander Turchinov, former Prime
Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk and others, the Ukrainian law union Aver Lex told TASS on
Wednesday.
READ ALSO
Court finds Yanukovich not guilty of 'losing Crimea' -- attorney
"The State Investigation Bureau opened a criminal case on the intentional surrender of
Crimea, violent upheaval, treason and the organization of mass murders on the 'maidan' in
2014 by Ukraine's top officials, in particular by Arseny Yatsenyuk, Alexander Turchinov,
Andrei Paruby, [former head of Ukraine's Security Service] Valentin Nalivaichenko, [Verkhovna
Rada member] Sergei Pashinsky, [Permanent Representative to the UN] Yuri Sergeyev, [Kiev
Mayor] Vitaly Klichko, [head of the Freedom nationalist party] Oleg Tyagnibok, [former Acting
Defense Minister] Igor Tenyukh, [Prosecutor General] Yuri Lutsenko, [Defense Minister] Stepan
Poltorak and others," Aver Lex said.
"... Presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky has responded to remarks by incumbent President Petro Poroshenko about the former's dependence on Ukrainian businessman Ihor Kolomoisky with a statement about ex-First Deputy Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Oleh Hladkovsky (formerly Oleh Svynarchuk), the suspect identified in corruption in the defense sector by investigative journalists. ..."
"... He said again that I am a puppet of Kolomoisky. I have only one question, I think he will be amazed too: So you are a puppet of Svynarchuk, or is Svynarchuk your puppet? ..."
Presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky has responded to remarks by incumbent President
Petro Poroshenko about the former's dependence on Ukrainian businessman Ihor Kolomoisky with a
statement about ex-First Deputy Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council
(NSDC) Oleh Hladkovsky (formerly Oleh Svynarchuk), the suspect identified in corruption in the
defense sector by investigative journalists.
"I've just watched the press conference of our guarantor. He said again that I am a puppet
of Kolomoisky. I have only one question, I think he will be amazed too: So you are a puppet of
Svynarchuk, or is Svynarchuk your puppet? Please, pass this question on to the guarantor of the
constitution (president)," Zelensky said at a briefing at his election headquarters on Sunday
evening.
As reported, Poroshenko on Sunday evening after publication of exit polls in the
presidential election said he was fated to run against "Kolomoisky's puppet" in the second
round of presidential elections scheduled for April 21.
"We will not give Kolomoisky any chance," Poroshenko said.
Possibly relevant this morning in the Wall Street Journal George P. Schultz, William J.
Perry, and Sam Nunn have an op-ed highlighting that a nuclear threat is not a thing of the
past.
The good news: they characterize the U. S.'s Russia policy as "dysfunctional" (which it
is) and call for renewed dialogue with Russia.
The bad news: they also call for strengthening NATO.
It seems to me that those two goals are contradictory. Expanding NATO beyond its original
membership is a key component of the dysfunction and a barrier to renewed dialogue with
Russia.
Sakers has a strong pro-Russian bias, and it shows. the process of distancing from Russia was
common for all post-Soviet republics and actually was caused by the mere fact of acquiring
independence. That it took such a self-destructive form in Ukraine is many ways the net result to
Washington geopolitical machinations (supported by Germany, Poland and Sweden).
The key problem is not EuroMaydan nationalist "revolution" per se, but that fact that
Ukrainian nationalists proved to be neoliberal compradors. Ukraine became the debt slave of the
West. Under neoliberal neocolonialism this is a very stable condition that guarantees that the
standard of living of people will not improve. The country will be sacked dry. So Ukraine is an
example of "Latin-Americanization" of post Soviet space -- that policy that Washington actively
implemented since 1991. After huge initial success with puppet Yeltsin regime, they failed to
weaken and dismember Russia further due to ascendance of Putin. But for all other republics it
was pretty successful neocolonial policy. They now have military bases in few of those republics
and most of them are debt slaves of IMF and World bank. In a way EuroMaydan signified the
finishing touches of conversion of this region into dent slaves.
Neoliberal Washington was turned into an oligarchy, an autocracy run by Davos billionaires.
Their "liberty" and democracy was an early example of Orwellian Doublethink. It was to destroy
everybody else's liberty so they could grab whatever they could, enslave the debtors and
create the polarized hostile to each other countries in post-Soviet state that are easily
controlled ("divide and conquer" strategy along with "Full Spectrum Dominance" mantra and
neoliberal "Washington Consensus" method of enslavement). Ukraine is the most glaring example of
this enslavement --the country with Central African level of poverty. It is very similar how
Roman oligarchy behaved -- the Roman oligarchy accused anyone of supporting debtor rights and
opposing its land grabs of "seeking kingship." Such men were murdered, century after century. It
seems that unless there's a Hammurabi-style "divine king" or some elected civic regulatory
authority arise, local neoliberal oligarchies arise and help to exploit their societies by
Washington as much as they can, while trying to prevent the country from defending itself. In few
countries like Hungary far right ascendance slowed down this process, but for how long is unlearn
as global finance is controlled from London and Washington and can crash any individual country
like a bug.
The Romans brutal "mission civilisatrice", can be viewed as to instll local oligarchy and and
kind of "financialized" economy in other countries. For performing this service, the imperial
power takes all the money that its colonies can generate. Washington is not different. That's why
the US meddles in foreign politics of other countries, as we have just seen in Ukraine, Libya and
Syria.
This overgrowth of debt under neoliberalism is highly destabilizing. Financial oligarchy have
broken free of tax liability and are enriching themselves not by helping the overall country
economy grow and raising living standards, but just the opposite: by getting the country into
bigger and bigger debt. This is the essence of Poroshenko regime -- corrupt comprador
oligarchy.
So there is no surprise that everybody hates Poroshenko and even huge "administrative
resource" and personal wealth did not help him to get more then 15% of votes (of which 5-10% are
probably fraudulent). That's typical for any neoliberal president who stand for re-election in a
debt slave country. But it is important to to note that this Washington marionette made the
situation much worse that the situation existed under Yanukovich (which was also corrupt as
hell).
The role of Israel in EuroMaydan is open to review and one comment below addresses that.
Some comments are more informed and are more interesting then the article, for example by
Beckow.
An interesting and funny detail is proliferation of "Children of lieutenant Schmitt" --
Holocaust survivors in Ukraine. People who were born in 1945, the first post-war generation, are
now 75, right ? And life expectantly for this generation is probably 65 for men and 75 for
women.
Notable quotes:
"... Poroshenko's absolutely vital goal was to make it into the 2nd round. Had he failed to make it he would have had to immediately jump into an aircraft and leave the country (because the most likely victor of the Presidential election would have been Iulia Tymoshenko and we can be darn sure that she would immediately jail him and most of his cronies). ..."
"... it is practically impossible to falsify an election and compensate for, say, a 15%-20% difference. But to cheat and change a result by less than 5% is much more doable. ..."
"... As for Zelenskii, he scores just like Poroshenko. ... ... ... ...Zelenskii is just a glorified puppet and everybody in the Ukraine knows that his puppet-master is Igor Kolomoiskii who is waiting out the final outcome of the Presidential election safely hidden in, you guessed it, Israel. ..."
"... Still, in theory, it is almost impossible for Poroshenko to win this one. Not only do all the other candidates hate Poroshenko way more than they would dislike Zelenskii, voters for Tymoshenko or Boiko are far more likely to vote for Zelenskii than for Poroshenko. ..."
"... Most votes went to Zelenski that is indication that Ukrainians now did loose their enthusiasm, and they are becoming more lethargic. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a "revolution" to overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for details.) Ukraine's President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for power. ..."
"... With the exception of the Baltic states, that simply isn't true of any nation from the former Soviet Union. Otherwise, the Russians couldn't have set up the Eurasian Customs Union which covers ~90% of the former USSR. There are even many Georgians working in Russia, in spite of the short war that was started by US dummy and former Georgian then Ukrainian, now stateless, Mikheil Saakashvili. ..."
"... I say the best solution for Ukraine would be to leave the nazis among themselves by giving independence to Galicia. If it's the price to pay to reintegrate Donbass, for the economy, and for peace and stability, it's worth it. ..."
"... He has been in the office for 5 years and 85% of people want someone else. How much clearer could this be? This was a massive vote of no-confidence by Ukrainians. If Porky squeezes or cheats his way into staying as president, he is asking for trouble – it is not sustainable and Washington knows it. ..."
"... Galicia and Donbas also clearly cannot coexist in the same non-federated state, they are on opposite sides. ..."
"... That takes away 3-5% of the Ukrainian economy. If Russia piles on and restricts more trade, or limits remittances, there will inevitably by a recession in Ukraine. The circus is about to re-start, no wonder the clowns are renting stadiums. But at some point the distractions will cease to distract – and then the damn reality will hit even harder ..."
"... Most importantly, the masters are OK with it. Imperial gauleiter of Ukraine Volker has already voiced his support for Porky. Porky would likely be more obedient than anyone else: he can be blackmailed, as he has already earned gallows (or life in prison in countries that don't have death penalty). So, the masters have already chosen their favorite puppet. We'll see on April 21st how much influence they have. ..."
"... I am not saying that Zelensky (and his puppet master Kolomoisky) won't do, but from masters' point of view old clown is apparently preferable to the new one. ..."
"... the first step when things don't go well, is to rotate the clowns. We got Macron, the German doppelganger for Merkel, elites tried Renzi in Italy, so maybe Zelinsky could work. He is a complete tabula rasa, non-entity, that wouldn't know how to find the executive washroom. At a minimum, he would buy some time. Next they can still try Tymoshenko. This will not get resolved through the political process. ..."
"... If the masters allow new clown to win, Gas princess can be made the speaker of the Rada ..."
"... I am not sure what is left to be gained in Ukraine, it is all costs and very few benefits. That's what happens when the layered lying becomes so convoluted that the masters lose track of the objectives. ..."
"... They wanted Crimea (actually Russia out of Crimea bases, NATO in) – that failed. Everything else were distractions, false promises, and payoffs to locals. A normal master would accept the defeat, take his toys home, and wait for the next time. The post-modern Washingtonians instead pretend that the sweet talk was real , try for silly, secondary objectives (how about a few missiles on the Russian border? that would work out great), or refuse to accept the obvious. Making the whole fiasco more costly. ..."
"... As to a few missiles on Russian border, they already have that in Baltic vaudeville states, which are much closer to Moscow and especially Sankt Petersburg then Zhmerinka. ..."
"... Then again, I am looking at it rationally, whereas Washington politburo is getting even less rational that the Soviet one under Brezhnev. ..."
"... In April this year [2018] the U.S. supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and in May 2018 the U.S. Congress approved $250m of military funding, specifically including deliveries of lethal weaponry. ..."
"... President Donald Trump's special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker (a neocon, acolyte of senator John McCain, previously appointed by George Bush as U.S. ambassador to NATO) announced further U.S. arms supplies would follow, boasting of rising anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. ..."
"... The zionists have been in cahoots with the neo-Nazi throughout the whole State Dept. criminal enterprise in Ukraine. The Kagans clan of holo-biz survivors and other pro-Nazi Jewish activists such as Gershman (NED) and Foxman (ADL) have been the moving force towards banderization of Ukraine ..."
By "Nazis" I primarily
mean their main figurehead – Petro Poroshenko (the rest of the "minor Nazis" did so
poorly that they don't matter anymore). Think of it: in spite of his immense wealth (he
outspent everybody else and even spent more that twice what the next big spender –
Tymoshenko – doled out for each vote), in spite of his immense "administrative resource"
(that is the Russian expression for the ability to use the power of the state for your personal
benefit), in spite of his "victory" with the Tomos , in spite of triggering the Kerch bridge
incident, in spite of breaking all the remaining treaties with Russia, in spite of his control
of the media and in spite of the (now admittedly lukewarm) support of the West, Poroshenko
suffered a crushing defeat. Look at the only two regions Petro Poroshenko (i.e. the Nazis)
actually won (in blue) and see how nicely they overlap with the rough historical contours of
the Galicia region.
But Poroshenko managed to even lose part of that to Iulia Tymoshenko! Bottom line: except for a
minority of rabid hardcore Nazis in Galicia, the rest of the Ukraine hates the Poroshenko
Ukronazi regime. We always knew that, but now we have the proof. ... ... ... Remember how
Poroshenko promised peace in weeks, a full respect for the Russian language and prosperity for
all? Well, all he delivered was chaos, insecurity, poverty, violence, a massive influx of
Ukronazis from Canada and the USA and, above all, a completely hysterical, rabid,
russophobia combined with abject groveling before the AngloZionist Empire. He also brought
an absolutely unbelievable level of corruption, having personally doubled his net worth many
times over. The legacy Ziomedia and the Ukropropaganda can say all they want, and they can try
to ban the Russian media and Internet in the Ukraine. But the truth is that everybody in the
Ukraine knows that the Ukraine went from being the richest Soviet Republic to the poorest
country in Europe. In fact, there are quite a few African countries which are doing much
better than the Ukraine. The truth is, and has been for several years now, that the Ukraine
is a failed state and that there is absolutely no even vaguely plausible scenario in the
foreseeable future in which the Ukraine could begin to recover. Hence this amazing result:
short of the Galician Nazis, everyone else absolutely hates the regime in power. So
Poroshenko's score is a humiliating defeat for all the Ukronazis. But not for Petro Poroshenko
himself!
Poroshenko's absolutely vital
goal was to make it into the 2nd round. Had he failed to make it he would have had to
immediately jump into an aircraft and leave the country (because the most likely victor of the
Presidential election would have been Iulia Tymoshenko and we can be darn sure that she would
immediately jail him and most of his cronies). In order to make it into the 2nd round,
Poroshenko did not have to defeat Zelenskii, but only defeat Tymoshenko and that Poroshenko
also succeeded in doing. Oh sure – it was thanks to a huge, massive fraud all over the
country (especially in the easternmost and westernmost regions) and he beat her only by 2.5%
but that is more than enough.
Besides, it is practically impossible to falsify an election and compensate for, say, a
15%-20% difference. But to cheat and change a result by less than 5% is much more doable.
In fact, if we assume that a 5% fraud is well within the means of an outgoing President and
billionaire, then we can also see that we will never know who really won . See here for an
almost finished (99.68%) count for the top four contenders: While Zelenskii is untouchable and
way ahead of everybody else, Poroshenko, Tymoshenko and Boiko are all within less than 5% of
each other. Interesting, no?
Keep in mind that Boiko is the closest thing to a pro-Russian candidate and that just a few
years ago he was virtually unknown. See for yourself: 2014 results vs 2018 poll Look at the
stats for 2014: Poroshenko had 55% of the vote, Tymoshenko 8% and Boiko just about 0%. Please
also notice that in the 2018 poll Tymoshenko is way ahead of Poroshenko while Boiko is not far
behind.
As for Zelenskii, he scores just like Poroshenko. ... ... ... ...Zelenskii is just a
glorified puppet and everybody in the Ukraine knows that his puppet-master is Igor Kolomoiskii
who is waiting out the final outcome of the Presidential election safely hidden in, you guessed
it, Israel. This is how the Tablet concludes:
The transformation wrought in Ukraine by the Maidan revolution has been an exhilarating
roller coaster that has not bypassed Ukrainian Jewry, which is now in the midst of an
exciting period of cultural revival paralleling that of the wider Ukrainian society, which is
still just beginning to rediscover its own past and imagine an independent future. Whether
this post-Soviet country will choose to elect an openly Jewish president, or a part-Jewish
president, or continue with its current philo-Semitic president, the future of Ukraine's Jews
would appear to be brighter than anyone might reasonably have imagined.
Where Poroshenko was the ultimate apparatchik Zelenskii is the ultimate outsider
and just as the people of the USA did not vote "for" Trump as much as they voted "against"
Hillary, so the people of the Ukraine did not really vote "for" Zelenskii, but "against"
Poroshenko. In fact, Zelenskii does not have anything resembling a political program (only
vague and nice sounding slogans) and he most certainly has no other political record other than
being a standup comedian and actors in several (pretty good) satirical series. Frankly, it
appears that Zelenskii was as stunned by his victory as Trump was by his.
Still, in theory, it is almost impossible for Poroshenko to win this one. Not only do
all the other candidates hate Poroshenko way more than they would dislike Zelenskii, voters for
Tymoshenko or Boiko are far more likely to vote for Zelenskii than for Poroshenko. This
creates an extremely dangerous situation: Poroshenko can only win by a massive fraud . Now
Tymoshenko did declare that the first round was stolen, but she decided not to appeal this
officially. Furthermore, it is now apparent that Tymoshenko was ditched by most of her US
supporters, something which she clearly did not expect and which came as a total shock to her,
hence her stunned reaction to the announced figures. She has always been, and still is, a
remarkably intelligent lady and a very calculating realist: she simply knows that an official
rejection of the outcome from her would make no difference. But you can be sure that behind the
scenes the interests Tymoshenko represents are now talking to the people of Kolomoiskii and
that Poroshenko is fully aware of that. ... ... ...
Poroshenko is now truly cornered: he absolutely must win, or he must run. In order to win,
his options are very limited
... ... ...
The infamous Minister of the Interior, Arsen Avakov, arguably currently the most powerful
and dangerous man in the Ukraine, has made an
most interesting statement about Zelenskii:
"A decent man from another world. From another plane. Ready to deal with problems, but
at the same time recognizing that in many issues he is not fully competent. In my
understanding, this means that he is ready to delegate authority. However, the question
arises: can we – Ukrainian society – offer the quality of the elite, which can
be entrusted with the implementation of such powers? After all, if he delegates authority
to scoundrels – as it happens in some series of "Servants of the people" – it
will be very bad for the country. Using expats is also not an option "( ) "He knows for
sure that from point A it is necessary to come to point B, and I am ready to agree with it.
But the problem is how to go this way. Often, if you go head-on, you will crash into a wall
or break. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the right path – and here should work
competent and honest specialists"
In plain English this simply means: Zelenskii has no personal power base, he will be a
puppet, so he better offer me a good deal (" delegate authority "), or I will turn
against him and, how knows, an unpredictable accident (" you will crash into a wall or
break ") can easily happen. Shocking? Welcome to "Ukrainian thug politics"! Besides, if
the Nazis decide to kill Zelenskii they can easily blame it on Russia. Either that, or on a
"lone, deranged, gunman" which they can find in the thousands amongst the various Nazi
death-squads.
Right now the Nazis are in a total panic, they are declaring that Zelenskii's victory is
"Moscow's triumph", they say that Zelenskii will sell out everything Ukrainian and that he is
a Putin agent. At the very least, they will now dig up as much dirt on Zelenskii as possible
(whether real or manufactured).
Zelenski means green man and has Polish indication. So he is one of the holocaust
survivors. (There are suspiciously too many of them these days.)
Timoshenko was virulently anti Russian but not so much anymore. All industrial plants in
Ukraine were built by Russians making products for Russia, I have doubt that they can make
anything that west needs. So Ukraine now is fully depended on agriculture. That is why
Ukraine is going down.
Most votes went to Zelenski that is indication that Ukrainians now did loose their
enthusiasm, and they are becoming more lethargic.
Galicia is multicultural area consisting mostly Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian,
Russian, and some other nationals. There is no unity there, and never will be
@Ilyana_Rozumova Maybe Galicia should be returned to Poland? From my blog:
May 1, 2017 – Must Ukraine Return Volhynia?
Hillary Clinton's State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a "revolution"
to overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for
details.) Ukraine's President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the
EU and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for
power.
Crimea was part of Russia for over a century until it was administratively attached to
Ukraine in 1954 by a Soviet premier to promote Soviet solidarity. Russians are the majority
people in Crimea and Russian is the common language, but they were not consulted. In 2014,
after years of Ukrainian political turmoil and an American coup in Kiev, Russia accepted a
request by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia after 94% voted in favor. (See my Aug 8,
2016 blog post for details.) Russians and Crimeans were puzzled by intense American
opposition to this reannexation, and rightly concluded the Americans really wanted "NATO"
military bases in strategic Crimea.
For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly
outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land
while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was
invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered
over 100,000 Poles during the war.
Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred everyone to include women and
children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the Polish regions of Volhynia and
Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after 1.5 million Poles were
forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles were deported by Ukraine
to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).
The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet
Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July
22, 2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic
Poles in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops
are based there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions.
Homes and land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at
large.
This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or
compensation for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed
against Ukraine for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was
attached to Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia, should sanctions against Russia be removed?
Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to
protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America's neocon empire trying to conquer the
world. However, as Poland's military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may
arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland's, Slovakia's, and Romania's seized
territories!
With the exception of the Baltic states, that simply isn't true of any nation from
the former Soviet Union. Otherwise, the Russians couldn't have set up the Eurasian Customs
Union which covers ~90% of the former USSR. There are even many Georgians working in
Russia, in spite of the short war that was started by US dummy and former Georgian then
Ukrainian, now stateless, Mikheil Saakashvili.
I say the best solution for Ukraine would be to leave the nazis among themselves by
giving independence to Galicia. If it's the price to pay to reintegrate Donbass, for the
economy, and for peace and stability, it's worth it.
@Carlton Meyer Poles would be crazy to take back Galicia. Just fence the nazi lunatics
in with electrified barbed wire and leave them among themselves.
@One Tribe Well, yes, in a fashion. I'm from the old South (Roosevelt was in his second
term when I was born). Though I was educated at a fine old southern university and though I
have lived a significant part of my adult life in Europe, Asia and Africa, I still revel in
being called a redneck, a hick, a yokel, a cracker.
I embrace all of those terms because they only illustrate the ignorance of those who use
them in a derogatory manner. I also embrace being a part of the goyim. Those who use those
terms to wound only shows their fear, their own sense of inferiority to me, to us,
Christian southerners both white and black.
"Zionist praise for a Nazi" Poroshenko has Jewish ancestry, you dimwit. Go read the article
in Forward called 'Poroshenko's Secret Jewish Roots'. Ukraine has three Jewish men in a row
as prime minister. How interesting, given their rather low population percentage.
Nazi, Nazi, Nazi. Do these guys ever stop? It reminds me of the old Jews in Queens, NY,
every time they got into a disagreement with anyone, they yelled "Nazi". Even the regular
Jews got sick of it. The Ukrainians have a long history of nationalist thinkers, opposed to
Russian domination. Like the Finns, the Ukrainian patriots may have taken German support in
WW2, but that doesn't make the "Nazis". The National Socialists were a unique party to the
Germany of the 1930s, would you call Italian Fascists "Nazis"?
Ask yourself why, in general, one country/nation hates another? It's because of attempts
at invasion and domination. And historically, who is going to invade/dominate you? Those
geographically closest obviously. Sure, there are exceptions to this–the Mongol
Empire, the Arab Caliphate, and most strikingly, the Western invasion of well, everywhere
in the 16th-20th centuries.
But in most of the world most of the time for most of human existence, it's the guy next
door who is going to screw you and whom you in turn will screw.
One commenter suggested a comparison with Latin American attitudes towards the US. This
is partly true, but there are several differences. First, national identity is, on the
whole, relatively weak in New World. What does it really mean to be a Honduran? Secondly,
the main US security mechanism in the Western Hemisphere has been its navy which means
relatively less direct occupation and repression of places like Mexico. Russia, invaded
from East and West, has always sought security zones that inevitably mean occupation and
subjugation. Third, US hegemonism has only really gotten going over the last 125 years, so
it hasn't had as much time to antagonize its neighbors, and we had the good fortune of
ravaging most of the locals near at hand with the small pox, etc that we brought along with
us.
These factors combine to explain why the hatred quotient towards Russia by its neighbors
is higher than that towards the US.
"Zelenski means green man and has Polish indication. So he is one of the holocaust
survivors. (There are suspiciously too many of them these days.)"
– The endless numbers of "survivors" are especially amazing since it's claimed
that 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on.'
Galicia is multicultural area consisting mostly Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian,
Russian, and some other nationals. There is no unity there, and never will be.
Then why do they seem to behave politically in ways that set them apart from all those
around them?
Really? I never thought of Slovaks as owning much of anything–not even Slovakia
historically. Hungarians, Austrians, Czechs all dominated Slovakia. Could you expand on
your notion of the majority of Galicia belonging to Slovakia?
When a sitting president anywhere in the world runs for re-election and gets 15%, the
decent thing is to step aside. It doesn't matter how many other candidates run, there could
be hundreds – what matters is that 85% of people voted against Porky as their
first choice .
He has been in the office for 5 years and 85% of people want someone else. How much
clearer could this be? This was a massive vote of no-confidence by Ukrainians. If Porky
squeezes or cheats his way into staying as president, he is asking for trouble – it
is not sustainable and Washington knows it.
Galicia and Donbas also clearly cannot coexist in the same non-federated state, they
are on opposite sides.
Economy: is it not going to get better. The bad news have been pushed after the
elections, and in 2020 two things will happen:
Kiev will have to start paying back at
least some of the Western loans Income from gas transit will be gone (and possibly the gas
itself).
That takes away 3-5% of the Ukrainian economy. If Russia piles on and restricts more
trade, or limits remittances, there will inevitably by a recession in Ukraine. The circus
is about to re-start, no wonder the clowns are renting stadiums. But at some point the
distractions will cease to distract – and then the damn reality will hit even
harder
@Vojkan The Poles deserve the ziocon-"renovated" & "liberated" Galicia festering
with the active Banderites. Look how the Poles have been treating the monuments to the
fallen Soviet soldiers. Let the Poles enjoy their passionate brotherly love with the ZUSA.
As Saker writes,
Fundamentally, Nazis and Zionists are twin brothers, even if deep down they hate (and
often admire!) each other.
If there is something positive about Maidan regime change, it is the revelation of the
ziocons active role in the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The revelation is a death blow
to the holo-biz profiteering schema.
Whether the Jewish State's provisions of Israel-made ammunition to the neo-Nazis or the
ADL & Simon Wiesenthal Center support for the neo-Nazi (see the zionists scandalous
behavior re the Conyers' Amendment), the zionists did indeed come out (again!) as the "twin
brothers" of the worsts among Nazis.
I disagree that Porky is dumb. He successfully fleeced the whole country, including
competing oligarchs, for 5 years. Dumb are the people who still support him. Ukrainians
voting for Porky are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. But some morons never
learn.
Porky might be fond of his drink. He showed up seriously inebriated several times
publicly, but he wouldn't be able to steal hundreds of millions consistently while being
drunk all the time. Saakashvili (admittedly, hardly a reliable source of info) said that
Porky ran the country into the ground being sober. Well, Porky never cared about the
country, all he is interested in is the trough. That's why he wants five more years of
stealing, and he is reluctant to yield his place at the trough to someone else.
Most importantly, the masters are OK with it. Imperial gauleiter of Ukraine Volker
has already voiced his support for Porky. Porky would likely be more obedient than anyone
else: he can be blackmailed, as he has already earned gallows (or life in prison in
countries that don't have death penalty). So, the masters have already chosen their
favorite puppet. We'll see on April 21st how much influence they have.
I am not saying that Zelensky (and his puppet master Kolomoisky) won't do, but from
masters' point of view old clown is apparently preferable to the new one.
@Oscar Peterson Transcarpathia is a long extension of Slovakia. It was taken from
Czechoslovakia after WWII and given to Soviet Ukraine. The people of this region never
thought of themselves as Ukrainian or Galician but as Rusyns or Ruthenians. Transcarpathia
was mainly given to Soviet Union because it is a good gateway for tanks into Eastern Europe
such as the case for Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. This region also has a
large Hungarian population, since Hungary used to rule it in the Austro-Hungarian empire
times.
For some he is preferable, he is more reliable. Anytime a new clown is elevated, there
is some unpredictability. Bosses hate surprises.
On the other hand, the first step when things don't go well, is to rotate the
clowns. We got Macron, the German doppelganger for Merkel, elites tried Renzi in Italy, so
maybe Zelinsky could work. He is a complete tabula rasa, non-entity, that wouldn't know how
to find the executive washroom. At a minimum, he would buy some time. Next they can still
try Tymoshenko. This will not get resolved through the political process.
Next they can still try Tymoshenko. This will not get resolved through the
political process.
Why not? If the masters allow new clown to win, Gas princess can be made the speaker
of the Rada . Then an unfortunate accident can be easily arranged, and she becomes
next successor perfectly legally. The masters do these things pretty often: remember Ulof
Palme or Aldo Moro. Zelensky can be got rid of the same way, if the masters decide that
it's to their benefit.
@AnonFromTN That's a possible scenario. But in that part of the world, scenarios never
play out the way they are planned.
I am not sure what is left to be gained in Ukraine, it is all costs and very few
benefits. That's what happens when the layered lying becomes so convoluted that the masters
lose track of the objectives.
They wanted Crimea (actually Russia out of Crimea bases, NATO in) – that
failed. Everything else were distractions, false promises, and payoffs to locals. A normal
master would accept the defeat, take his toys home, and wait for the next time. The
post-modern Washingtonians instead pretend that the sweet talk was real , try for
silly, secondary objectives (how about a few missiles on the Russian border? that would
work out great), or refuse to accept the obvious. Making the whole fiasco more
costly.
The only reason they didn't abandon failed Ukrainian project I can see is that from
imperial standpoint the more irritants you create for Russia, the better. Current Ukraine
is an irritant. When its further disintegrates and becomes a huge Somalia on Russian
doorstep, it would become an even grater irritant. Of course, Poles would suffer, too,
but when did the masters take aborigines into account?
As to a few missiles on Russian border, they already have that in Baltic vaudeville
states, which are much closer to Moscow and especially Sankt Petersburg then
Zhmerinka.
Then again, I am looking at it rationally, whereas Washington politburo is getting
even less rational that the Soviet one under Brezhnev.
In April this year [2018] the U.S. supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine
and in May 2018 the U.S. Congress approved $250m of military funding, specifically
including deliveries of lethal weaponry.
President Donald Trump's special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker (a neocon, acolyte
of senator John McCain, previously appointed by George Bush as U.S. ambassador to NATO)
announced further U.S. arms supplies would follow, boasting of rising anti-Russian
sentiment in Ukraine.
Kurt Volker, similar to the deceased McCain, is a loyal servant to ziocons and war
profiteers. Actually, Volker is a war profiteer himself.
The US's envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who is connected to Raytheon, is in favor of
this arms shipment, and it's inevitable that it [arms shipment] will reach Azov
[Battalion]
Azov Battalion functions in a lot of ways like ISIS has in Syria and Iraq Azov camps
with an enormous trove of weapons .. we are talking about hundreds of pounds of C4
explosives, automatic weapons and grenade launchers.
Azov's own website demonstrates that US military trainers have visited Azov in the
field to train and exchange logistical information. They appeared in uniform with Azov
Battalion members who were wearing the wolf's angel patch, which is a Nazi SS symbol, a
runic neo-Nazi symbol on their arm. This is just a scandalous spectacle. Not only that,
contracts have been revealed showing that the Texas-based AirTronic arms company has
produced PSRL-1 grenade launchers that were actually authorized under this watch of the
State Department and delivered directly into the hands of the Azov Battalion. The US has
armed Azov.
Again, what the ADL has been squeaking about -- that there are too many Holo-biz
Deniers? -- The zionists have been in cahoots with the neo-Nazi throughout the whole
State Dept. criminal enterprise in Ukraine. The Kagans clan of holo-biz survivors and other
pro-Nazi Jewish activists such as Gershman (NED) and Foxman (ADL) have been the moving
force towards banderization of Ukraine (Babij Yar, ADL?).
None of them cares about the memory of WWII victims the zionists only care about
profits. As for Kurt Volker, he is with zionists in the search for mega-profit. He is a
regular opportunist devoid of dignity.
Volker served on the staff of Senator John McCain from 1997 to 1998. He was
appointed United States Permanent Representative to NATO in July 2008 by President George
W. Bush.
Volker went into the private sector in 2009, becoming an independent director at The
Wall Street Fund Inc. He was a member of the board of directors at Capital Guardian Funds
Trust Volker was also an independent director at Evercore Wealth Management Macro
Opportunity Fund
Volker served as a senior advisor at McLarty Associates, a global consulting firm. In
2011, he joined BGR Group, a Washington-based lobbying firm and investment bank
He has been a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies since September 2009, and a Senior
Advisor at the Atlantic Council since October 2009. [Atlantic Council has been a safe
harbor for the rabidly Russophobic Elliot Higgins and Dmitri Alperovich of Russia-gate
fame, https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/29/how-russia-gate-rationalizes-censorship/
)
Kurt Volker, a certified war profiteer and money manager using his position as a
government employee for making money on lobbying What can be wrong with his judgements?
Special Education comment for the fluoride-lobotomized vegetables, known internationally as
AMERICANS: Petro Poroshenko, described in this article as the figurehead of rhe "Nazis" is
a Jew. When the US sponsored the coup in the Ukraine, both the democratically elected
President and Prime Minister were replaced by Jews.
The alleged Neo-Nazis, "Right Sector" were unemployed punks led by Israeli mercenaries,
virtually unchallenged by effectively bribed, Ukrainian military commanders.
If Adolf Hitler were alive today and controlled the Ukraine, he would order that --
without exception -- every member of Right Sector be either euthanized or sterilized to
prevent the Right Sector Stupid Gene to infect the Aryan Race.
Anyone or any organization that refers to the Jewish president of the Ukraine and his
followers as "Nazis" are obviously Zionist propaganda agents misleading the mentally
feeble.
@AnonFromTN When we were kids we would climb into neighbours' gardens to steal
cherries. You climb up a tree, break a few branches, take the cherries. No guilt. Every kid
feels ' exceptional , it is something that comes naturally to all 12-year olds.
The weird thing about modern Washingtonians is that they never outgrew that infantile
stage. They still feel 'exceptional', taking other people's stuff is ok. Why wouldn't be ?
If one is exceptional, he is by definition better than others, and the others really have
no rights, except the ones given to them by the exceptional people.
When a thieving raid by the exceptional people is blocked – as in Crimea
– it leaves no good options. Should one admit that they were about to take the
'stuff' (the Sebastopol bases), lost out, and simply retreat? No, it is hard to stay
exceptional when losing. Image and perceptions are everything in Washington.
Should they escalate and try to storm Crimea to get what they want and deserve?
Again, no, because exceptional people can't risk hurt or injury, they are too precious,
they are after all 'exceptional'.
Should they send their decidedly unexceptional underlings to storm Crimea? Well, that
would be ideal, but the underlings are too stupid to even get into the garden, and climbing
a tree is way beyond their ability. One can train them, send them ladders – but
everyone knows that they will never do it.
That leaves the least bad option of sticking around to ' irritate ' Russia. There
is not much gain in it, it gets old very quickly, it is also costly and even dangerous. But
it preserves the image of 'exceptional' people, it can be spun around for different
perceptions, and it makes the local allies less antsy and less likely to run away with
their loot. Other than that it achieves nothing.
That's where we are: a bunch of unserious morons sitting in a car parked outside the
cherry orchard, scared to go in, scared to leave, hoping that nobody notices, and still
craving the sweet cherries without even being able to admit that's what they are there
for.
For its part, the United States insists on running Ukraine, appointing a special envoy
– Kurt Volker – to preserve its feeling of international importance after it was
pointedly left out of the Normandy Format; Meddlers R Us; we don't need no steenking
invitations.
A glance over trade statistics suggests this
was a wise choice for the Exceptional Nation – the year before the Glorious Maidan,
Revolution of Dignity, the USA did around $3 Billion worth of trade with Ukraine, selling it
$1.92 Billion worth of goods and services, and buying $1.03 Billion worth of goods and services
from it, posting an American trade surplus of $888 Million. Last year the USA did around $4
Billion worth of trade with Ukraine, selling it $2.46 Billion in goods and services, and buying
$1.35 Billion worth of goods and services from it, handsomely increasing the American trade
surplus to $1.13 Billion. Considering Ukraine is impoverished and living on handouts, while the
per-capita GDP has fallen by more than 6% despite the country having lost about 3 million
people (Ukraine's population today is almost exactly what it was in 1960), that's quite an
achievement.
"... Poroshenko's electoral appeal is rooted in the notion of 'better the devil you know' and his presidential campaign rests on his ability to convince voters that he is the lesser of all available evils." ..."
"... Let me put my cards on the table here – the current political class in Washington, irrespective of party affiliation and almost without exception, is so debauched and untethered that it enthusiastically supports the election of unabashed criminals where their election serves American foreign-policy goals. Is it too late to be astounded? Yes, it is. Ukraine is lightly chided for its rampant corruption, while Russia is held up to universal scorn because Putin. ..."
Poroshenko's electoral appeal is rooted in the notion of 'better the devil you know' and
his presidential campaign rests on his ability to convince voters that he is the lesser of all
available evils."
Poroshenko might have an uphill battle convincing his own voters of that reality, but he has
plainly gone down a treat in Washington.
Let me put my cards on the table here – the current political class in Washington,
irrespective of party affiliation and almost without exception, is so debauched and untethered
that it enthusiastically supports the election of unabashed criminals where their election
serves American foreign-policy goals. Is it too late to be astounded? Yes, it is. Ukraine is
lightly chided for its rampant corruption, while Russia is held up to universal scorn because
Putin.
Well, Poroshenko would certainly need to explain how he could win in the second round against
a candidate who polled twice the vote as he did in the first round. But Poroshenko owns or
controls a lot of media, and it's all about pushing a narrative. Ukrainians were satisfied,
the story will go, that Poroshenko learned his lesson from being rebuked in the first round;
he is sorry, and humbled, and will turn over a new leaf.
Meanwhile (still the story), many
Ukrainians are waking up to the shock of what they did, and are suffering buyers remorse, bla, bla. He only needs to squeak out a narrow win when it's down to just he and Zelinskiy,
and the west will immediately hoot that democracy has spoken, my, what an exciting ride, and
Zelinskiy will fade back into political obscurity.
Actually Peter Dickinson is just one of several supposed "experts" and "observers" at The
Atlantic Council of Ukraine's political scene who have expressed opinions that basically
exonerate Poroshenko as godfather of a group of hucksters smuggling Russian weapons and
military spare parts into Ukraine and then charging the Ukrainian government hefty prices for
them. John Herbst thinks it's great that the Banderites got weapons from Russia and the only
thing they did wrong was take a hefty personal cut from the sale; never mind that they broke
some other laws, let's say, laws that forbid Ukraine from purchasing anything from Russia
because Russia is under US / EU sanctions. Other opinions suggest that Poroshenko should just
distance himself from the people involved in the scandal because the most important thing is
to lead Ukraine as far away from Russia as possible – as if it is that easy for
Poroshenko to do, because if he did, his associates in the scandal will squeal on him.
It's hilarious reading those "opinions" and see how far those Atlantic Council people are
trying to excuse Poroshenko by blaming the journalists for bringing up the story or
insinuating that Tymoshenko or the Kremlin is trying to bring Poroshenko down.
I shall paste her article below as I have access beyond the pay-wall to a limited number
of articles published in that rag:
Some in Ukraine may feel that April Fool's Day 2019 started a few hours early, at 8pm
the previous evening to be precise, when the polls in the first round of the country's
presidential election closed and the exit polls showed an actor who plays a fictional
president beating the real president into second place by a margin of almost two to
one.
Official results give Volodymyr Zelensky (the actor) around 30 per cent of the vote,
compared with 16 per cent for president Petro Poroshenko. From a field of 39 – yes, 39
– presidential hopefuls, it will be these two heading into the run-off on 21
April.
Yulia Tymoshenko – the only woman anywhere near the top 10 and the most
recognisable face for many outside Ukraine as "la pasionaria" of the 2004 Orange Revolution,
had led when the campaign began last December, but was knocked into third place. Mercifully,
the 3 percentage point margin between her and Poroshenko is probably clear enough to pre-empt
any challenge or dispute.
The question now facing the more than half of Ukraine's 35 million electorate who voted
for neither Zelensky nor Poroshenko on Sunday is which of the two to choose in three weeks'
time – and for the rest whether to stick with their original choice.
It would be fair to say that opinions about Zelensky are sharply divided. On the one
hand are those who argue that anything has to be better than the glacial pace of change and
endemic corruption over which Poroshenko has presided.
They include many young people who have joined what might be described as the
pan-European anti-politics tendency that brought Italy's current government to power.
Zelensky and his team of largely young volunteers ran a welcoming and modern campaign that
took on a life of its own as – rather like Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 campaign in the UK
– supporters spread the word on social media.
At the same time, there are many – perhaps over-represented among highly educated
professional Ukrainians at home and abroad – who view Zelensky with trepidation and
suspicion as just another populist, capitalising on his fame in another sphere. Their fear
– tinged with condescension – is that he could endanger the relative stability
Poroshenko has brought after the tumult of the Euromaidan (a wave of demonstrations) five
years ago.
The size of Zelensky's first-round vote, however, and its geographical spread –
he managed to appeal to Russian-speakers in the eastern areas bordering the war zone as well
as those in central and southern Ukraine – have led even doubters to feel that this
election is now his to lose. Poroshenko, however, should not be written off too soon. It is
not just fear of the unknown that could make the run-off very close; there are other reasons
why Poroshenko could yet prevail.
One is that, although Zelensky comes across well when he appears on his own terms
– at the comedy shows he preferred to conventional political rallies – he
performed poorly in the few television interviews he gave, appearing out of his depth and
using language that suggested a rather unreconstructed view of women.
It had been expected that one or more formal television debates might test his mettle,
but the plan for first-round debates foundered when Poroshenko and Zelensky both declined to
take part, and it now appears there may be no second-round debate either. With the contest
now reduced to two, however, this is bound to concentrate minds.
Another is the question of Zelensky's funding. Some suspect that the hand (and money)
of the exiled businessman/oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, is behind him. Zelensky denies that he
depends on anyone, and some close to the campaign say that associates of Kolomoisky are at
best on the outer fringe of the campaign. But the suspicion persists, and when Poroshenko
spoke of "populists" and "puppets" in his campaign speeches, the inference was clear.
Poroshenko's first-round campaign pitch – a responsible leader whose video
stresses the importance of the nation, the army and the Church – could have more
resonance now that it will be pitted directly against what could seem a leap into the unknown
with Zelensky. Then again, just looking at the way the two handled the provisional
first-round results on the night – Poroshenko looking exhausted and just a little
jaded, and Zelensky bouncing around, smiling, with a ready word for the media and
glad-handing his supporters, it was tempting to imagine a new Ukraine already eclipsing the
old.
But – to put it at its most basic – will Zelensky be "allowed" to win?
While there have been some reports of polling violations on Sunday, the first round appears
to have been an admirably clean and open election to the point where a complete outsider was
not only able to stake a claim to the country's top job, but to reach the run-off. And the
outside attempts to influence the poll (by Russia and the west), so apparent in previous
elections, were almost not in evidence.
With the presidency itself now at stake, however, and the confusion of a ballot paper
with 39 candidates safely in the past, could the old ways make a comeback? Might there be a
sudden upsurge of attempts to influence the campaign from the outside: new money, hacking,
dirty tricks,"Kompromat"? Is there a "deep state" that could stop Zelensky?
Leaving aside the imponderable, there are perhaps three factors to watch over the three
weeks. The first is whether any of the other first-round candidates who obtained more than a
handful of votes will endorse – or do any deal with either of the candidates. And if
they did – if Timoshenko, for instance, or Yuriy Boyko, the pro-Russia candidate,
backed Zelensky – would it have a positive or negative effect on his campaign? One key
broker could be the anti-corruption candidate, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, who came fifth.
The second is how far Zelensky can convince his critics that he could actually do the
job. Members of his team told me that he was consulting widely and taking the prospect very
seriously and he has attracted at least two past ministers to his team. The fluidity of
Ukraine's political parties also means that not having a developed party of his own might not
be a huge liability in parliament, as MPs might well flock to a winner. Parliamentary
elections later in the year could do the rest.
His manifesto is also more specific than his detractors say: it includes an end to
immunity from prosecution for MPs and government officials; "not a battle, but the defeat, of
corruption", referendums on important state issues, including possible membership of Nato,
talks with Russia to end the fighting in eastern Ukraine, tax breaks for entrepreneurs, a
drive to introduce technology in schools, higher pay for the military.
But the biggest question could be this: how far will voters distinguish between
Zelensky the real-life candidate and the fictional schoolmaster-turned-president whose
secretly taped anti-corruption rant propelled him to the top job?
By using the title of the series Servant of the People as his campaign slogan, and the
name of his embryonic political party, Zelensky could be accused of encouraging the
confusion. And the fictional president comes with an attitude and an almost naive agenda that
is the stuff of many a Ukrainian's dreams. He is principled, quizzical, supports the "little
man" and has the welfare of his people at heart. The less voters are able, or choose, to
distinguish the two, the better Zelensky's chances of leading the real Ukraine.
Note how, in the extract below, Dejevsky displays her lack of objectivity in the way she
regards the Ukraine from her oh-so-liberal point of view and, thereby, morally castigating
the dump after having right at the top her article mentioned that Tymoshenko was "the only
woman anywhere near the top 10":
although Zelensky comes across well when he appears on his own terms – at the
comedy shows he preferred to conventional political rallies – he performed poorly in
the few television interviews he gave, appearing out of his depth and using language that
suggested a rather unreconstructed view of women .
[my stress]
Yes, that will really turn the Yukies against him, I am sure, Ms
Dejevsky!
A filthy mysogynist!
How shocking!!!
One could not possibly cast one's vote for such a monster!
And what's with this criticism of both Zelensky and Poroshenko's refusal to have a
televised debate?
True, they hold such debates in US presidential elections as part of the "real democracy"
show in the "exceptional nation", but if other countries shy from similar performances, is
that so bad, so "undemocratic"?
And one comment, so far to the article, from a frequent troll at the Independent who likes
to add ПТН X̆ЛО (abbreviation for the Russian "Putin is a
prick) just to show how smart he is:
As usual no mention of any Russian monkey business so I guess Mary is still angling for
the dacha near Moscow.
I have a dacha near Moscow, wanker! Does that mean I am a tool of the Kremlin?
How about digging up the evidence for "Russian monkey business" and presenting it
yourself, arsehole, if you are so sure that such interference by Russia in Banderastan
politics exists?
"... Well, since 2002, people made a lot about the neo-cons being heavily influenced by Leo Strauss. I think this is only part of it. These people seem to me to be just as heavily influenced by George Berekeley: things don't really exist, there's no causation, therefore there's no consequences to one's own actions. ..."
"... "Corruption cannot lead to prosperity." Nor can it field a competent military with functional weapon systems. ..."
"... The comments at the end about how Turkey can maintain good relations with NATO and at the same time develop cooperation with Russia is clearly nonsense. NATO whole reason for existence now is as an anti-Russia military alliance. Pence is absolutely right about that ... you cannot be a member of NATO and develop close cooperation with Russia. ..."
Tweeting direct from NATO
meeting provides inside details not found in press articles, particularly the NATO
talking-point ending. IMO, the tweeter Mehta was right to highlight this exchange:
"Bennan: Do you know what the US policy in syria is?
"Çavuşoğlu: No, and this is the problem.
"He points to different statements from WH, Pentagon, CENTCOM, State. 'There is no clear
strategy. This is the problem.'"
Further on:
"Wow. Çavuşoğlu just compared Turkey to Ukraine, saying Ukraine let
itself be told it had to decide between West and Russia, and look what happened; Turkey
cannot be forced into same choice."
Pence threat is also stupid as there is no mechanism to expulse any member from NATO. NATO
members can only leave voluntarily.
Since when this stopped the USA?
The reason Turkey won't exit NATO are many. Among them:
1) Turkey's economy is in meltdown. It only didn't collapse yesterday because, luckily,
Turkey has only "burnt" one third of its Dollar reserves. For comparison, the usurper
government which toppled Dilma Rousseff burnt almost 50% of Brazil's then gigantic US$ 795
billion -- only to try to keep interest at a staggering 9.5% rate. Lucky for the Turkish
people, Erdogan survived the 2016 coup, but he was already trounced in the three main cities
and those reserves won't last forever. Time is in favor of the Americans in this case;
2) Contrary to, e.g. China and Russia, Turkey has a strong pro-USA political-popular base.
It really doesn't need to topple Erdogan through a violent coup (Obama made an unforced error
in 2016) in order to install a puppet government in Turkey;
3) The USA has the IMF. The IMF is the only institution which can do regime change and
nobody will question. Erdogan is, for now, refusing its "aid", but he's just one man. That
means that, even if Turkey remains with an Islamist (Ottomanist) or end up electing a neutral
government, the Americans will still be capable of exerting formidable pressure;
4)Turkey is, perhaps, the geostrategically most important individual country for NATO. If
the Americans still dream of defeating and balkanizing Russia through a hot war, then the
path will go through Turkey and the Bosphorus. It is not on rogue POTUS or Veep who will
change that.
"But current American elites have no concept of own actions having consequences."
Well, since 2002, people made a lot about the neo-cons being heavily influenced by Leo
Strauss. I think this is only part of it. These people seem to me to be just as heavily
influenced by George Berekeley: things don't really exist, there's no causation, therefore
there's no consequences to one's own actions.
Bolton
unwittingly utters truism but has no idea that it applies to him and the Outlaw US
Empire billions of times over: "Corruption cannot lead to prosperity." Nor can it field a
competent military with functional weapon systems.
Another OT note, this one about the technical development of generation 6 military
aircraft,
Hypersonic and hydrogen fueled and most likely piloted by droids or remotely given speed
and G-forces.
The US are threatening friend and foe alike, whereas those sanctions against their foe's are
real, sanctions against NATO members can be counterproductive, for instance Germany being
told to stop Nord Stream 2 and increase its contributions to NATO, 2% of Germany's GDP [4
trillion dollars] is an enormous amount of money to protect against a non existent enemy.
The
time will come when the US will be ignored, then, unless the US acts on those threats, its
own credibility will be called into question, then the only way is down.
Whenever anyone suggests that we should stop supplying bombs and military equipment to the
Saudis who are murdering Yemenis, moralists like Mike Pence, Pompeo, and the rest of the
religious right thunder, 'THEY WILL BUY ARMS FROM THE ROOOSHINS!'
So it is quite funny that they are willing to play hardball with the Turks.
The comments at the end about how Turkey can maintain good relations with NATO and at
the same time develop cooperation with Russia is clearly nonsense. NATO whole reason for
existence now is as an anti-Russia military alliance. Pence is absolutely right about
that ... you cannot be a member of NATO and develop close cooperation with Russia.
At
least in the eyes of NATO (i.e. the US) Russia is the enemy.
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
This article by late Robert Parry is from 2016 but is still relevant in context of the
current Ukrainian elections and the color revolution is Venezuela. The power of neoliberal
propaganda is simply tremendous. For foreign events it is able to distort the story to such an
extent that the most famous quote of CIA director William Casey "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" looks like
constatation of already accomplished goal.
Exclusive: Several weeks before Ukraine's 2014 coup, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Nuland had already picked Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be the future leader, but now "Yats" is no
longer the guy, writes Robert Parry.
In reporting on the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the major
U.S. newspapers either ignored or distorted Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's
infamous intercepted
phone call before the 2014 coup in which she declared "Yats is the guy!"
Though Nuland's phone call introduced many Americans to the previously obscure Yatsenyuk,
its timing – a few weeks before the ouster of elected Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych – was never helpful to Washington's desired narrative of the Ukrainian people
rising up on their own to oust a corrupt leader.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the
Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.
Instead, the conversation between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
sounded like two proconsuls picking which Ukrainian politicians would lead the new government.
Nuland also disparaged the less aggressive approach of the European Union with the pithy
put-down: "Fuck the E.U.!"
More importantly, the intercepted call, released onto YouTube in early February 2014,
represented powerful evidence that these senior U.S. officials were plotting – or at
least collaborating in – a coup d'etat against Ukraine's democratically elected
president. So, the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media have since consigned this
revealing discussion to the Great Memory Hole.
On Monday, in reporting on Yatsenyuk's Sunday speech in which he announced that he is
stepping down, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention the Nuland-Pyatt
conversation at all. The New York Times did mention the call but misled its readers regarding
its timing, making it appear as if the call followed rather than preceded the coup. That way
the call sounded like two American officials routinely appraising Ukraine's future leaders, not
plotting to oust one government and install another.
The Times
article by Andrew E. Kramer said: "Before Mr. Yatsenyuk's appointment as prime minister in
2014, a leaked recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria J. Nuland, a United
States assistant secretary of state, and the American ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt,
seemed to underscore the West's support for his candidacy. 'Yats is the guy,' Ms. Nuland had
said."
Notice, however, that if you didn't know that the conversation occurred in late January or
early February 2014, you wouldn't know that it preceded the Feb. 22, 2014 coup. You might have
thought that it was just a supportive chat before Yatsenyuk got his new job.
You also wouldn't know that much of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation focused on how they
were going to "glue this thing" or "midwife this thing," comments sounding like prima facie
evidence that the U.S. government was engaged in "regime change" in Ukraine, on Russia's
border.
The 'No Coup' Conclusion
But Kramer's lack of specificity about the timing and substance of the call fits with a long
pattern of New York Times' bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan. 4, 2015, nearly
a year after the U.S.-backed coup, the Times published an "investigation" article declaring
that there never had been a coup. It was just a case of President Yanukovych deciding to leave
and not coming back.
That article reached its conclusion, in part, by ignoring the evidence of a coup, including
the Nuland-Pyatt phone call. The story was co-written by Kramer and so it is interesting to
know that he was at least aware of the "Yats is the guy" reference although it was ignored in
last year's long-form article.
Instead, Kramer and his co-author Andrew Higgins took pains to mock anyone who actually
looked at the evidence and dared reach the disfavored conclusion about a coup. If you did, you
were some rube deluded by Russian propaganda.
"Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych's ouster to what it portrays as a violent,
'neo-fascist' coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular
uprising," Higgins and Kramer
wrote . "Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin's
line. But almost a year after the fall of Mr. Yanukovych's government, questions remain about
how and why it collapsed so quickly and completely."
The Times' article concluded that Yanukovych "was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by
his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone
else. The allies' desertion, fueled in large part by fear, was accelerated by the seizing by
protesters of a large stock of weapons in the west of the country. But just as important, the
review of the final hours shows, was the panic in government ranks created by Mr. Yanukovych's
own efforts to make peace."
Yet, one might wonder what the Times thinks a coup looks like. Indeed, the Ukrainian coup
had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in
1953 and in Guatemala in 1954.
The way those coups played out is now historically well known. Secret U.S. government
operatives planted nasty propaganda about the targeted leader, stirred up political and
economic chaos, conspired with rival political leaders, spread rumors of worse violence to come
and then – as political institutions collapsed – watched as the scared but duly
elected leader made a hasty departure.
In Iran, the coup reinstalled the autocratic Shah who then ruled with a heavy hand for the
next quarter century; in Guatemala, the coup led to more than three decades of brutal military
regimes and the killing of some 200,000 Guatemalans.
Coups don't have to involve army tanks occupying the public squares, although that is an
alternative model which follows many of the same initial steps except that the military is
brought in at the end. The military coup was a common approach especially in Latin America in
the 1960s and 1970s.
' Color Revolutions'
But the preferred method in more recent years has been the "color revolution," which
operates behind the façade of a "peaceful" popular uprising and international pressure
on the targeted leader to show restraint until it's too late to stop the coup. Despite the
restraint, the leader is still accused of gross human rights violations, all the better to
justify his removal.
Later, the ousted leader may get an image makeover; instead of a cruel bully, he is
ridiculed for not showing sufficient resolve and letting his base of support melt away, as
happened with Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
But the reality of what happened in Ukraine was never hard to figure out. Nor did you have
to be inside "the Russian propaganda bubble" to recognize it. George Friedman, the founder of
the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called Yanukovych's overthrow "the most blatant coup
in history."
Which is what it appears if you consider the evidence. The first step in the process was to
create tensions around the issue of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's economic orbit and
capturing it in the European Union's gravity, a plan defined by influential American neocons in
2013.
On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has been a
major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington Post and
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
At the time, Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress to the tune of about $100
million a year, was financing scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists, paying for
journalists and organizing business groups.
As for the even bigger prize -- Putin -- Gershman wrote: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe
will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near
abroad but within Russia itself."
At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine's President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of
reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013
when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160
billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner. There
was also the West's demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International
Monetary Fund.
Yanukovych wanted more time for the E.U. negotiations, but his decision angered many western
Ukrainians who saw their future more attached to Europe than Russia. Tens of thousands of
protesters began camping out at Maidan Square in Kiev, with Yanukovych ordering the police to
show restraint.
Meanwhile, with Yanukovych shifting back toward Russia, which was offering a more generous
$15 billion loan and discounted natural gas, he soon became the target of American neocons and
the U.S. media, which portrayed Ukraine's political unrest as a black-and-white case of a
brutal and corrupt Yanukovych opposed by a saintly "pro-democracy" movement.
Cheering an Uprising
The Maidan uprising was urged on by American neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Nuland, who passed out cookies at the Maidan and reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European
aspirations."
A screen shot of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
speaking to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013, at an event sponsored by
Chevron, with its logo to Nuland's left.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, also showed up, standing on stage with right-wing extremists
from the Svoboda Party and telling the crowd that the United States was with them in their
challenge to the Ukrainian government.
As the winter progressed, the protests grew more violent. Neo-Nazi and other extremist
elements from Lviv and other western Ukrainian cities began arriving in well-organized brigades
or "sotins" of 100 trained street fighters. Police were attacked with firebombs and other
weapons as the violent protesters began seizing government buildings and unfurling Nazi banners
and even a Confederate flag.
Though Yanukovych continued to order his police to show restraint, he was still depicted
in the major U.S. news media as a brutal thug who was callously murdering his own people. The
chaos reached a climax on Feb. 20 when mysterious snipers opened fire, killing both police and
protesters. As the police retreated, the militants advanced brandishing firearms and other
weapons. The confrontation led to significant loss of life, pushing the death toll to around 80
including more than a dozen police.
U.S. diplomats and the mainstream U.S. press immediately blamed Yanukovych for the sniper
attack, though the circumstances remain murky to this day and some investigations have
suggested that the lethal sniper fire came from buildings controlled by Right Sektor
extremists.
To tamp down the worsening violence, a shaken Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal on
Feb. 21, in which he accepted reduced powers and an early election so he could be voted out of
office. He also agreed to requests from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back the police.
The precipitous police withdrawal opened the path for the neo-Nazis and other street
fighters to seize presidential offices and force Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their
lives. The new coup regime was immediately declared "legitimate" by the U.S. State Department
with Yanukovych sought on murder charges. Nuland's favorite, Yatsenyuk, became the new prime
minister.
Throughout the crisis, the mainstream U.S. press hammered home the theme of white-hatted
protesters versus a black-hatted president. The police were portrayed as brutal killers who
fired on unarmed supporters of "democracy." The good-guy/bad-guy narrative was all the American
people heard from the major media.
The New York Times went so far as to delete the slain policemen from the narrative and
simply report that the police had killed all those who died in the Maidan. A typical Times
report on March 5, 2014, summed up the storyline: "More than 80 protesters were shot to death
by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February."
The mainstream U.S. media also sought to discredit anyone who observed the obvious fact that
an unconstitutional coup had just occurred. A new theme emerged that portrayed Yanukovych as
simply deciding to abandon his government because of the moral pressure from the noble and
peaceful Maidan protests.
Any reference to a "coup" was dismissed as "Russian propaganda." There was a parallel
determination in the U.S. media to discredit or ignore evidence that neo-Nazi militias had
played an important role in ousting Yanukovych and in the subsequent suppression of anti-coup
resistance in eastern and southern Ukraine. That opposition among ethnic-Russian Ukrainians
simply became "Russian aggression."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
This refusal to notice what was actually a remarkable story – the willful unleashing
of Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II –
reached absurd levels as The New York Times and The Washington Post buried references to the
neo-Nazis at the end of stories, almost as afterthoughts.
The Washington Post went to the extreme of rationalizing Swastikas and other Nazi symbols by
quoting one militia commander as calling them "romantic" gestures by impressionable young men.
[See Consortiumnews.com's " Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers ."]
But today – more than two years after what U.S. and Ukrainian officials like to
call "the Revolution of Dignity" – the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is sinking into
dysfunction, reliant on handouts from the IMF and Western governments.
And, in a move perhaps now more symbolic than substantive, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is
stepping down. Yats is no longer the guy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Khalid Talaat , April 16, 2016 at 20:39
Is it too far fetched to think that all these color revolutions are a perfection of the
process to unleash another fake color revolution, only this time it is a Red, White and Blue
revolution here at home? Those that continue to booze and snooze while watching the tube will
not know the difference until it is too late.
The freedom and tranquility of our country depends on finding and implementing a
counterweight to the presstitutes and their propaganda. The alternative is too
destructive in its natural development.
Abe , April 15, 2016 at 18:49
Yats and Porko are the guys who broke Ukraine. By the end of December 2015, Ukraine's
gross domestic product had shrunk around 19 percent in comparison with 2013. Its decimated
industrial sector needs less fuel. Yatsie did a heck of a job.
The timing of "Yats" departure is ominous. Mid-April, six weeks from now would be the
first chance to renew the invasion of DPR Donesk/Lugansk."Yats" failed in 2014, and didn't
try in 2015. Who is "the new guy"? Will the new Prime Minister begin raving about renewing
the holy war to recover the lost oblasts? 2016 is really Ukraine's last chance. Ukraine
refuses to implement Minsk2, and they have been receiving lots of new weapons. I believe
President Putin put the Syrian operation on " standby" not only to avoid approaching the
border, provoking a Turkish intervention, but also so he can give undistracted attention to
DPR Donesk/Lugansk.
Bill Rood , April 12, 2016 at 11:50
I guess I must be inside the Russian propaganda bubble. It was obvious to me when I
looked at the YouTube videos of policemen burning after being hit with Molotov
cocktails.
We played the same game of encouraging government "restraint" in Syria, where we
demanded Assad free "political prisoners," but we now accuse him of deliberately encouraging
ISIS by freeing those people, so that he can point to ISIS and ask, "Do you want that?"
Targeted leaders are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Andrei , April 12, 2016 at 10:26
"the Ukrainian coup had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the
CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954", Romania 1989 Shots
were fired by snipers in order to stirr the crowds (sounds familiar?) and also by the army
after Ceasescu ran away, which resulted in civilians getting murdered. Could it possibly be
that it was said : "Iliescu (next elected president) is the guy!" ?
Joe L. , April 12, 2016 at 11:00
Check out the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela 2002, that is very
similar with protesters, snipers on rooftops, IMF immediately offering loans to the new coup
government, new government positions for the coup plotters, complacency with the media
– propaganda, funding by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy etc. John
Pilger documents how the coup occurred in his documentary "War on Democracy" –
https://vimeo.com/16724719 .
archaos , April 12, 2016 at 09:45
It was noted in the minutes of Verkhovna Rada almost 2 years before Maidan 2 , that
Geoffrey Pyatt was fomenting and funding destabilisation of Ukraine.
All of Svoboda Nazis in parliament (and other fascisti) then booed the MP who stated
this.
Mark Thomason , April 12, 2016 at 06:57
Also, the Dutch voted "no" on the economic agreement the coup was meant to force through
instead of the Russian agreement accepted by the President it overthrew. Now both "Yats" and
the economic agreement are gone. All that is left is the war. Neocons are still happen.
They wanted the war. They really want to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine was just a tool in
that.
Realist , April 12, 2016 at 05:51
You're right, it doesn't have to be the military that carries out a coup by deploying
tanks on the National Mall. In 2000, it was the United States Supreme Court that exceeded
its constitutional authority and installed George W. Bush as president, though in reality he
had lost that election. I wonder when that move will rightfully be characterized as a coup by
the historians.
"On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has
been a major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington
Post and called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
It should be remembered that Victoria Nuland took up the post of Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs in Washington on September 18, 2013.
Coincidentally, two other women closely connected to events in Ukraine were also in
Washington during September 2013.
Friend of Nuland and boss of the IMF, which has its own HQ in Washington, Christine
Lagarde was swift to respond to a Ukraine request for IMF loans on February 27th 2014, just
five days after the removal of Yanukovych on February 22nd. Lagarde is pictured with
Baronness Catherine Ashton in Washington in a Facebook entry dated September 30th 2013.
Ashton was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy at the
time.
Though visiting Kiev at the same time as Nuland in February 2014 Catherine Ashton never
appeared in public with her, which seems a little odd considering the women were on the same
mission, and talking to the same people. Nevertheless, despite appearing shy of being
photographed with each other the two women weren't quite so shy of being pictured with
leaders of the coup, including the right wing extremist, Oleh Tyahnybok.
Ashton refused to be drawn into commenting on Nuland's "Fuck the E.U.!" outburst,
describing Nuland as "a friend of mine." The two women certainly weren't strangers, they had
worked closely together before. September 2012 saw them involved in discussions with Iran
negotiator Saeed Jalili over the country's supposed nuclear arms ambitions.
The question is not so much whether the three women talked about Ukraine's future –
it would be ridiculous to think they did not – but how closely they worked together,
and exactly how closely they might have been involved in events leading up to the overthrow
of the legitimate government in Kiev. More on this here:
Another failed "regime change". Aren't these guys (Neoconservatives) great. They fail,
piss off/kill millions, yet seem to keep making money and retaining power. Time to WAKE UP
AMERICA.
Skip Edwards , April 11, 2016 at 20:06
Read "The Devil'Chessboard" by David Talbot to understand what has been occurring as a
result of America's Dark, Shadow government, an un-elected bunch of vicious psychopaths
controlling our destiny; unless stopped. Get a clue and realize that "Yats is our guy"
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's "gal." Hillary Clinton is Robert Kagen's "gal." Time to
flush all these rats out of the hold and get on with our lives.
Joe L. , April 11, 2016 at 18:40
Mr. Parry thank you for delving into the proven history of coups and the parallels with
Ukraine. It amazes me how anyone can outright deny this was a coup especially if they know
anything about US coups going back to WW2 (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, attempt in
Venezuela 2002 etc. – and there are a whole slew more). I read before, as you have
rightly pointed out, that in 1953 the CIA led a propaganda campaign in Iran against Mossadegh
as well as financing opposition protesters and opposition government officials. Another
angle, as well, is looking historically back to what papers such as the New York Times were
reporting around the time of the coup in Iran – especially when we know that the
US/Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh for their own oil interests
(British Petroleum):
New York Times: "Mossadegh Plays with Fire" (August 15, 1953):
The world has so many trouble spots these days that one is apt to pass over the odd one
here and there to preserve a little peace of mind. It would be well, however, to keep an eye
on Iran, where matters are going from bad to worse, thanks to the machinations of Premier
Mossadegh.
Some of us used to ascribe our inability to persuade Dr. Mossadegh of the validity of our
ideas to the impossibility of making him understand or see things our way. We thought of him
as a sincere, well-meaning, patriotic Iranian, who had a different point of view and made
different deductions from the same set of facts. We now know that he is a power-hungry,
personally ambitious, ruthless demagogue who is trampling upon the liberties of his own
people. We have seen this onetime champion of liberty maintain martial law, curb freedom of
the press, radio, speech and assembly, resort to illegal arrests and torture, dismiss the
Senate, destroy the power of the Shah, take over control of the army, and now he is about to
destroy the Majlis, which is the lower house of Parliament.
His power would seem to be complete, but he has alienated the traditional ruling classes
-the aristocrats, landlords, financiers and tribal leaders. These elements are
anti-Communist. So is the Shah and so are the army leaders and the urban middle classes.
There is a traditional, historic fear, suspicion and dislike of Russia and the Russians. The
peasants, who make up the overwhelming mass of the population, are illiterate and
nonpolitical. Finally, there is still no evidence that the Tudeh (Communist) party is strong
enough or well enough organized, financed and led to take power.
All this simply means that there is no immediate danger of a Communist coup or Russian
intervention. On the other hand, Dr. Mossadegh is encouraging the Tudeh and is following
policies which will make the Communists more and more dangerous. He is a sorcerer's
apprentice, calling up forces he will not be able to control.
Iran is a weak, divided, poverty-stricken country which possesses an immense latent wealth
in oil and a crucial strategic position. This is very different from neighboring Turkey, a
strong, united, determined and advanced nation, which can afford to deal with the Russians
because she has nothing to fear -and therefore the West has nothing to fear. Thanks largely
to Dr. Mossadegh, there is much to fear in Iran.
My feeling is that the biggest sin that our society has is forgetting history. If we
remembered history I would think that it would be very difficult to pull off coups but most
media does not revisit history which proves US coups even against democracies. I actually
think that the coup that occurred in Ukraine was similar to the attempted coup in Venezuela
in 2002 with snipers on rooftops, immediate blame for the deaths on Hugo Chavez where media
manipulated the footage, immediate acceptance of the temporary coup government by the US
Government, immediately offering IMF loans for the new coup government, government positions
for many of the coup plotters, and let us not leave out the funding for the coup coming from
USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. I also remember seeing the New York Times
immediately blaming Chavez and praising the coup but when the coup was overturned and US
fingerprints started to become revealed (with many of the coup plotters fleeing to the US)
then the New York Times wrote a limited retraction buried in their paper. Shameless.
SFOMARCO , April 11, 2016 at 15:16
How was NED able to finance "scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists,
paying for journalists and organizing business groups", not to mention to host such
dignitaries as Cookie Nuland, Loser McCain and assorted Bidens? Seems like a recipe for a
coup "hidden in plain sight".
Bob Van Noy , April 11, 2016 at 14:36
Ukraine, one would hope, represents the "Bridge Too Far" moment for the proponents of
regime change. Surely Americans must be catching on to what we do for selected nations in the
name of "giving them their freedoms". The Kagan Family, empowered by their newly endorsed
candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, will feel justified in carrying on a new cold war,
this time world wide. Of course they will not be doing the fighting, they, like Dick Cheney
are the self appointed intellects of geopolitical chess, much like The Georgetown Set of the
Kennedy era, they perceive themselves as the only ones smart enough to plan America's
future.
Helen Marshall , April 11, 2016 at 17:11
I wish. How many Americans know ANYTHNG about what has happened in Ukraine, about Crimea
and its history, and/or could even locate them on a map?
Pastor Agnostic , April 12, 2016 at 04:11
Nuland is merely the inhouse, PNAC female version of Sidney Blumenthal. Which raises the
scary question. Who would she pick to be SecState?
"... Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake. ..."
"... These conspicuous successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries. ..."
Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the
empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake.
These conspicuous
successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly
change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries.
There will be
backlash against the fascists in Brazil, and the right wing leaderships in governments
elsewhere in Latin America that the US has maneuvered into place as these leaders fail to
deliver material gains to their populations. And fail they will considering we are in
late-stage capitalism.
In the letter that was addressed to Avakov on March 15, French Ambassador Isabelle Dumont
wrote on behalf of her fellow ambassadors that "the G7 group is concerned by extreme political
movements in Ukraine, whose violent actions are worrying in themselves."
"They intimidate Ukrainian citizens, attempt to usurp the role of the National Police in
safeguarding elections, and damage the Ukrainian government's national and international
reputation," Dumont continued, in a thinly veiled reference to the National Corps and National
Militia, the far-right Azov group's political and vigilante wings, respectively.
... ... ...
'Nationalist Hate Groups'
The National Corps and National Militia were products of the Azov Battalion, a volunteer
military regiment formed in the early days of the conflict against Russia-backed separatists in
eastern Ukraine that began in 2014. The battalion has been accused by international human
rights groups of "war crimes" on the battlefield and has since been brought under the control
of the National Guard, which is overseen by Avakov.
Members of the National Corps and National Militia have been blamed for multiple violent
attacks on minorities in Ukraine, particularly Roma and LGBTI persons, in the past year.
The U.S. State Department described those far-right entities as "nationalist hate groups" in
its Ukraine country report on Human Rights for 2018 released on March 13.
.... ... ...
On March 9, the National Corps and National Militia clashed with police outside the
presidential administration in Kyiv and later in Cherkasy, where Poroshenko was campaigning.
At least 15 police officers were wounded.
"The violent incidents of March 9 were a reminder that, just a few weeks ahead of the
elections, one crucial challenge is to prevent an escalation of tensions," Dumont wrote in the
letter to Avakov. "We have noted with concern that the very same groups involved in the violent
incidents have registered as election observers and publicly threatened to use violence should
they consider that election fraud is occurring."
Indeed, Ukraine's Central Election Commission has approved the National Militia to monitor
the polling. Soon after that announcement, the group's spokesman warned that "if law enforcers
turn a blind eye to outright violations and don't want to document them," then they plan to
follow the lead of a group leader
who said they would "punch someone in the face in the name of justice...without
hesitation."
So the question is: what's better proven corruption or a new face in politics? And the
best answer is, "Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason" -
Mark Twain
Don't laugh. Professional comedians are actually very intelligent. They have excellent
memory -- I know, think very very quick on their feet, and deal with hecklers of all stripes
all the time. Such attributes are handy in time of crisis. But don't expect them to crack a
joke once they're elected. Look at Al Franken. Having been elected to and served in the
Senate, he's yet to say anything funny in public, lest people not take him seriously.
I wonder if Boyko will be arrested upon his return?
TASS has several additional short items related to this meeting and the upcoming
election in Ukraine of March 31. IMO, if Boyko wins, the Outlaw US Empire's Ukrainian project
will be concluded.
What he discussed with Medvedev and Gazprom's Miller is of extreme importance to Ukraine's
economy and are important election issues.
You are a little wrong when you call this system "colonial". Today it is neo-colonialism.
When the United States subordinates the country, they do not bear any responsibility for the
fate of this country, since the formally subordinate country remains independent and all its
actions are performed "voluntarily."
Ukraine is a good example. Now this country commits ritual suicide "completely
voluntarily."
They've thought of that. That's why they tell us "The US has no colonies". Because you
have to support them if you admit to owning them. That's why by 1960, every colonial nation
on earth was giving its own colonies independence. They were costing more than they were
worth.
What we do now is to groom some local fellow, like Guaido, to take over the government and
run it the way we would like him to. We pay generously for this favor, in the form of loans
and direct investments. The fortunate ones near the seat of power come out fabulously well.
But neither we nor the country's rulers take on any responsibility for the welfare of their
people.
One of the dictators we backed was the director of the Brazilian military, who seized
power back in 1964... a fellow named Castelo Branco. And he was asked once at a press
conference how the economy was doing.
He replied "The economy, it is doing marvelously! The people, on the other hand-- not so
good."
If you don't offer protection to your puppet eventually some other power might try the
same trick and overthrow him. But if you do provide protection that area becomes a
colony.
So what you describing can only work when there is only one major power on the planet. The US
enjoyed it for some time but it can't have it anymore, that's reality.
The system is predicted to work some time into the future, for the reason that it is based
on subterfuge and military force. And we have a military as large as that of the entire rest
of the planet put together. So to us it doesn't matter what you call it. They control the
media, so they can just not report a word you say about them.
What will undo it will be a collapse of the dollar-based economy. And that will be kind of
hard to achieve, as every rich person on earth keeps his wealth denominated in dollars. So
there is little pressure to kill it. That's why we always used to call it The Almighty
Dollar.
However there are limits. Our main weapon now being used to enforce behavior is financial
sanctions. So it's pretty much assured that at some point in the near future the sanctioned
nations (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela...) will be getting together to set up an alternate
financial system. Probably based on the yuan.
That's the thing about offensive weapons systems. As a Mexican wit put it "Let them build
a twenty foot wall. We will build a 21 foot ladder."
@Felix
Keverich You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little
fart ? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or
do you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
The Ukraine certainly had all kinds of 'entrepreneurs' they're called OLIGARCHS who
very capably enriched themselves unfortunately 'entrepreneurs' are what normal people would
call parasites, flim-flam men and hucksters
As for Ukrainian workers lacking 'marketable skills' I guess that would be 'skills' like
TROLLING, your specialty and making retarded statements on discussion fora
Ukraine had more very qualified engineers per capita than any country in Europe a huge
amount of intellectual capacity, and a very good industrial base especially in high tech
areas like aerospace and propulsion their problem was that they chose to play games with the
rotten west, instead of friendship with Russia, with which their industry was
integrated
You're a complete wanker in the A. Karlin mold. Get lost you have nothing to
contribute
@Big
Bill They fought that it was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they
could quickly achieve Western European standard of living. The first guy to become
president of independent Ukraine promised people that they were going to "live like France"
.in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart
? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
My, Ukraine's American Minister of Health – Yuliana Suprun – is doing an
outstanding job. Ukraine was the locus of the world's biggest rise in measles cases in 2018,
from about 5,000 cases the year before to 35,120 the year just past. Moreover, 24,042 new
cases were reported in the first 2 months of this year.
But it was the Moskali who caused the epidemic by trolling social network sites with false
information as regards the efficacy of vaccination against measles.
Russian-backed attempts to sabotage Ukraine's economic, political, and health
developments have left the country fighting a measles outbreak and continuing a bloody,
undeclared war. The situation is emblematic of increasing tension between the ideologies of
President Vladimir Putin and countries of the pro-democratic, neoliberal west.
The measles outbreak -- affecting other countries including Serbia, Georgia, Greece,
and Italy -- has hit Ukraine hardest, with the country's 23 000 cases accounting for
more than half the European regional total. Kremlin-supported social media accounts spreading
discredited theories about the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, combined with shortages
and underfunding, have been blamed for the outbreak. Research published on Aug 23 concluded
Russian trolls promoted discord and, masquerading as legitimate users, created a false
impression that arguments for and against vaccination were equipoised. The result has been an
erosion of public consensus on the value of vaccine programmes. The precipitous fall in
vaccination level began after 2008, when 95% of eligible children in Ukraine received their
second (and final) recommended dose of the MMR vaccine. By 2016, the rate was 31%, among the
lowest in the world.
Although now rising again, the latest 85% measles vaccination rate recorded by WHO
remains below that needed for herd immunity. Records in 2016 show poor vaccination rates for
other diseases: only 19% of children received the third recommended dose of the
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and 56% received the third recommended dose of oral
polio vaccine.
Hepatitis B vaccination was low, with coverage with hepatitis B birth-dose and
third-dose vaccines at 37% and 26%, respectively. WHO estimates between 3% and 5% of the
Ukraine's 45 million population has been infected with hepatitis C.
Ukraine bears the second largest HIV epidemic in eastern Europe and central
Asia.
The above was printed in the much respected "The
Lancet" . Who wrote it, I know not -- but I can hazard a guess.
It begins with the outrageous statement that "Russia" is resposible for the epidemic,
specifically, the"ideology" of the Russian president is the cause of the epidemic.
No proof given: no data: sweet fuck all. Just an assertion that "Pyutin" is
responsible.
You know, it's a shame Ukrainians are so gullible, and believe Russia's lies without checking
any other sources of information – don't they know how to use The Microsoft and The
Google? Not to mention gullible Americans, who also fell for it.
Oh, and the Australians, who were so gobsmacked by Russia's campaign to discredit
vaccinations that being a 'vaccine skeptic' is now punishable by up to 10 years in
prison.
Mind you, the 'anti-vaxxers' in those instances are reportedly Australian nurses and
midwives – but I daresay they. too, were taken in by clever Russian trolls posing as
legitimate users on social media.
Some of you will probably be asking "At what point, for the love of Christ, are people
expected to take responsibility for their own decisions, instead of hiding behind the
feebleminded excuse that they were tricked by the Russians?" For my part, I am convinced that
Russia is going to take over the world, because Russian trolls are so much smarter than the
public in any country you care to name. With a few cat pictures and a sprinkling of Black
Lives Matter stories, many of them generated after the American election was actually over,
the Russians tricked the American electoral college into making Donald Trump president of the
United States instead of Mrs. Clinton, but in such a way that more of the public actually
voted for Clinton than for Trump. And the electoral college is supposed to be made up of
America's leaders. Brilliant, you must admit.
Watch out for the Kremlin campaign against photography – because having your picture
taken steals your soul – due to open in The Ukraine this summer. Then there will not
even be a photographic record of all the Ukrainians who died from measles, conniption fits,
brain fever and the fantods, as the Kremlin wipes them out with their own gullibility.
Survival of the fittest, baby.
Red Alert!! Nobody will ever know the true winner (cough * Petro Poroshenko * cough) of the
Ukrainian elections in 2019, because the Russians are already preparing fake exit-poll
results, so that not even those who vote will be able to remember who they voted for. The
situation probably cannot be stabilized until the reigning government reviews the results and
supplies the ballots it says were properly counted. Better just play it safe, and leave
Poroshenko as president forever.
Please note, the fake exit-poll meddling is in addition to other Russian meddling efforts
which will take place at polling stations during the vote. It is literally not possible to
hold an actual democratic election any more, Putin has ruined everything. Democracy is dead.
Voting as a means of selecting a national leader is over.
This is so confusing -- Porko has single digit support last I heard so it would be expected
that exit polls would show a similar result. But, if the exit polls are consistent with
Porko's opinion polls then it must be a sign of Russian meddling! Geez, I would have thought
it would be the other way around -- an inconsistently high exit poll result would only be
consistent with pro-Porko rating swindle. Shows how little I know about these matters.
Exit polling is tremendously important, and in previous colour revolutions the west always
tried to get control of exit polling; often it was invited to do so by the target country,
since it was felt by the government that the imprimatur of western observers would help
reassure nervous westerners that the elections were fair and democratic. They apparently did
not realize that all the west needs to tip over your victory is exit-poll results which are
dramatically different from the way the vote was counted -- for example, Yanukovych wins with
39% of the vote, but the exit polls, in which those just leaving the polling station are
asked who they voted for, say his opponent got way more votes than he did. Bingo -- the
election is a big fraud -- campers, set up your tents on the Maidan, we're not going anywhere
until this grievous wrong has been redressed. Thanks, Berezovsky, for the tents and the hot
soup. But nobody really knows what the actual exit-poll results were, so the western
observers can basically say anything they want, and the western press will immediately run
with it.
Porky knows this very well, so he is trying to de-legitimize the vote in advance, knowing
he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning himself. If Zelenskiy wins, he'll be
a Russian pawn put in place by Putin, and consequently will have to make the most belligerent
statements against Russia and swear that he sleeps with a life-size blow-up doll of Bandera
so as not to be thought 'soft' on the Kremlin.
The west was not invited to do exit polls in Russia, but in each of Putin's wins as well
as that of Medvedev, the vote was consistent with pre-election polling in which decided
voters announced who they intended to vote for. Nonetheless, there is always a great boil of
noise afterward about ballot-stuffing and carousel voting, even by those who like to use the
term but don't know what it means.
I have often wondered which news agency Matt works for.
If he really did not know what carousel voting was, he should have contacted Yulia
Latynina, she 'd have told him; she's the carousel voting specialist: she can spot voters
being bused in at a 1,000 paces. During elections, she drives around Moscow sussing them out,
trailing them, writing reports on her findings in Novaya Gazeta or on the Ekho Moskvy site or
ranting on about them in her talk show there.
I wonder what she's doing now? I heard she had emigrated. She still sends in copy for the
aforementioned news media, though.
I remember with affection the old Anatoly Karlin, who could not endure western hypocrisy
without pointing it out with highly-enjoyable sarcasm. In the instance I'm thinking of, it
was the 'huge protest' (organizers claimed 120,000, police said around 29,000, objective
analysis put it at about 80,000) in Sakharov St. where the 'fiery' Alexey Navalny said he saw
'enough people to take the Kremlin'. The answering roar must have terribly tempted him to try
it, but he didn't. Anyway, there was a photo of that protest, taken from overhead – I
can't find it now – which showed a large block of city buses drawn up side-to-side;
transport for the protesters. They were 'bused in'. When you're going to attend a
western-backed demonstration, of course, you're just 'proceeding in an
environmentally-conscious manner to a responsible protest action'. When you are part of a
factory crew and the company lays on a bus to take everyone to the polls, you're 'bused in
for carousel voting', and the bus takes the entire contingent to multiple polling places
where they vote again and again. Or so Latynina says, although all she ever shows to back up
her assertions is a photo of a bus with people on it. But the western press is perfectly
happy to accept her word that they are seeing another sad example of the perversion of
democracy in Russia.
So there you have it, as usual – western exceptionalism goes global. When we do it
('we' being the children of the Limousine Liberals), we're just using a socially-responsible
method of getting to a place where we can make our voices heard and hold the authorities
accountable. When they do it, they're cheating democracy and imposing an oligarchical system
on us.
I have seen lots of photos of people on buses, and am perfectly happy to accept that they
all came from the same workplace – that makes perfect sense to me, and I see nothing
ominous in it. I have never seen any evidence that such people vote multiple times as a
group, and must therefore conclude that 'carousel voting' is a buzzword dreamed up by western
analysts in concert with sympathetic Russian liberal enablers.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam,
Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending
wars are expensive was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
Notable quotes:
"... Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic. ..."
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
As neocolonial empire of it s own (albeit the one that is vassal of the USA) yes it does,
especially in xUSSR state where EU wants to capture the makets. Ukraine is a nice example
here.
Does the European Union generate external instability?
The historic achievement of peace within a Europe of universal norms is belied by the external
instability engendered by violent and incoherent interventions.
By Branko Milanovic
The European Union is justly admired for making war among its members impossible. This is no
small achievement in a continent which was in a state of semi-permanent warfare for the past
two millennia.
It is not only that we cannot even imagine the usual 19th and 20th century antagonists, such
as France and Germany, going to war ever again. The same is true of other, lesser-known
animosities which have led periodically to bloodlettings: between Poles and Germans, Hungarians
and Romanians, Greeks and Bulgarians. Unthinkable is also the idea that the United Kingdom and
Spain could end up, regarding Gibraltar, in a reprise of the Falklands/Malvinas war.
Destabilised
But creating geopolitical stability internally has not, during the last two decades, been
followed by external geopolitical stability along the fringes of the union. Most of the big EU
member states (UK, Poland, Italy, Spain) participated, often eagerly, in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, which led to the deaths of some half a million people, destabilised the middle east
even further and produced Islamic State.
Then, seemingly not having learned from this fiasco, France and Italy spearheaded another
regime change, this time in Libya. It ended in anarchy, another civil war, two competing
governments and a UN Security Council deadlocked for years to come -- since it is clear that
China and Russia will not in the foreseeable future vote to allow another western military
intervention.
The wars along the long arc from Libya to Afghanistan, in which EU powers participated, were
the proximate cause of large refugee flows a few years ago, which continue even now. (As I have
written elsewhere, the underlying cause of migration is the large gap in incomes between
Europe, on the one hand, and Africa and the 'greater middle east', on the other, but the sudden
outbursts were caused by wars.)
The next example of generating instability was Ukraine, where the then government of Viktor
Yanukovych, having only postponed the signing of an EU agreement, was driven out of power in
2014 in a coup-like movement supported by the union. It is sure that a reasonable
counterfactual, with the same EU-Ukraine agreements being signed and without a war in eastern
Ukraine and with Crimea still part of Ukraine, would have been much preferable to the current
situation, which threatens to precipitate a war of even much greater dimensions.
Finally, consider Turkey, in an association agreement with the European Economic Community
since 1963, and thus in a membership-awaiting antechamber for more than half a century. The
initial period in power of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was marked by pro-European policies, a
desire to create an 'Islamic democracy', in the mould of the Christian democracies of Italy and
Germany, and civilian control over the army. But realisation that, because of its size and
probably because of its dominant religion, Turkey would never be recognised as part of Europe
led Erdoğan, gradually, to move in an altogether different direction -- with an almost
zero chance that he would come back to his original pro-European stance.
The endless waiting period, with similarly protracted negotiations over what are now 35
chapters which need to be agreed between candidate countries and all 28 (or soon 27) members,
is what lies behind the frustration with the EU in the Balkans. Long gone are the days when
Greece could become a member after a couple of months (if that) of negotiations and an
agreement between the French president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and the German
chancellor, Helmut Schmidt. The European bluff -- it neither has the stick nor the carrot --
albeit long hidden behind the veil of negotiations, was recently called by the Kosovo
leadership, when it engaged in a trade war with Serbia. The EU could express its 'regrets' but
it was squarely ignored. In the past, nether Kosovo nor any other Balkan state would have dared
to defy Europe so openly.
Slow and hesitant
It all means that Europe needs a much better thought-out external policy with respect to its
neighbours. There are already some signs that it is moving in that direction but it is doing so
too slowly and hesitantly. A multilateral compact with Africa is needed to regulate migration
from a continent with the fastest rising population and lowest incomes. Much more European
investment -- in hard stuff, not conferences -- is needed. Rather than complaining about
China's Belt and Road initiative, Europe should imitate it -- and, if it desires to counteract
Chinese political influence, invest its own money to make more African friends. A similar set
of much more proactive policies is required within the framework of the Mediterranean
initiative, while military options in the region should be forsworn no less clearly than they
are within the union.
When it comes to the potential members, as in the Balkans or the western republics of the
former Soviet Union, interminable talks should be replaced by either special association with
no expectation of EU membership or clearer, time-limited negotiations leading to membership.
Both would manage expectations better and avoid the build-up of resentment and frustration.
The most important challenge is the relationship with Turkey. The EU does not have a
blueprint for a Turkey after Erdoğan; nor can it offer anything to the Turkish secular
opposition, as it is not clear within itself whether it wants Turkey in or out. It should be
rather obvious that a European Turkey, with its vast economic potential and influence in the
middle east, would be a huge economic and strategic asset. Such a Turkey would also behave
differently in Syria and in Anatolia, because it would have an incentive to follow European
rules.
This rethinking of the EU's neighbourhood policy thus calls, in short, for three things:
greater economic aid to Africa, no support for wars or regime change, and much clearer rules
and time-limits for membership talks.
Perhaps, you ascribe to the EU successes that it did not create.
The formation of the EU is not the vehicle that created, nor sustained, the uneasy peace.
I suggest it was the resolution of WW2 that has determined the current state of
tolerance.
I fear that the formation of the EU, in the end, will be the cause of a re-instigation of
the age old skirmishes that have plagued the world, as you say, for two millennia.
The destruction of the Middle East by the West, not just the EU but the US, is a
foolishness of biblical proportions.
The EU's disposition of Greece and Brexit are red flags that the EU is an unsustainable
contrivance that will eventually, come undone. The mercantilist wars between France, England,
Spain, Germany, Italy, etc, may rise again. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well known quotation (but probably not of George
Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American
People or national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions
raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His
Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking the Soviet Experience and Soviet
Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist"
-- reconsiderations, based on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history.
But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the contents of this book, has been different -- inspired
by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead,
I argue, as readers will see in the first section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies
my assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and others they assail -- are patriotic
heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional
United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this
important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor Cohen's voice, there are no prominent
figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks, with the exception of Tucker Carlson
on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods
by remarkably ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the Nazis in Europe at a
loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional
nation. And for those familiar with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are erudite, clearly stated, supported
by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious
politicians and profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book has served a noble
purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is. And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..."
This is a compelling book that documents and examines the senseless and dangerous demonizing of Russia and Putin. Unfortunately,
the elites in Washington and mass media are not likely to read this book. Their minds are closed. I read this book because I was
hoping for an explanation about the cause of the new cold war with Russia. Although the root cause of the new cold war is beyond
the scope of this book, the book documents baseless accusations that grew in frequency and intensity until all opposition was
silenced. The book documents the dangerous triumph of group think.
"On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and Politkovskaya and the attempt
on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is
presented on p 6 and 170."
Ukrainian history. That's evident to any attentive reader. I just want to state that Ukrainian EuroMaydan was a color revolution
which exploited the anger of population against the corrupt neoliberal government of Yanukovich (with Biden as the best friend,
and Paul Manafort as the election advisor) to install even more neoliberal and more corrupt government of Poroshenko and cut Ukraine
from Russia. The process that was probably inevitable in the long run (so called Baltic path), but that was forcefully accelerated.
Everything was taken from the Gene Sharp textbook. And Ukrainians suffered greatly as a result, with the standard of living dropping
to around $2 a day level -- essentially Central Africa level.
The fact is that the EU acted as a predator trying to get into Ukraine markets and displace Russia. While the USA neocons (Nuland
and Co) staged the coup using Ukrainian nationalists as a ram, ignoring the fact that Yanukovich would be voted out in six months
anyway (his popularity was in single digits, like popularity of Poroshenko those days ;-). The fact that Obama administration
desperately wanted to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainians eludes you. I would blame Nuland for the loss of Crimea and the
civil war in Donbass.
Poor Ukrainians again became the victim of geopolitical games by big powers. No that they are completely blameless, but still...
It looks like you inhabit a very cold populated exclusively with neocons planet called "Russiagate." So Professor Cohen really
lives on another planet. And probably you should drink less American exceptionalism Kool-Aid.
That's probably wrong. Distancing from Russia was the main theme for all post Soviet States.
And the fact that Ukraine had chosen Baltin model -- becoming the sattelite of EU is not
surprising, taking into account connections of Western Ukraine and Germany which goes to the time
when this territory was a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The the fact that this distancing took such a toxic and self-destructing form and incldes the
loss of territory and population, can be attributed to the USA. Here I would agree with the
author.
Notable quotes:
"... The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut dollie." ..."
"... The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of, minimally, a wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United States -- those faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued genocide against the Palestinian people." ..."
"A Pew poll from April 2014 revealed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents
believed the referendum was free and fair, 93 percent had confidence in Putin, and
85 percent believed Kiev should recognize the results.
Another poll in June 2014, this one from Gallup , showed 94 percent of
ethnic Russians in Crimea thought the referendum reflected the views of the people and 68
percent of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea agreed . The poll found that 74 percent
believed that joining Russia would make life better.
A GfK poll from February 2015, sponsored by a pro-Ukrainian group in Canada,
revealed 93 percent of Crimeans endorsed the referendum."
"Enough documents have been released -- citing coup-backed snipers killing dozens of
protesters, US embassy officials planning false flag attacks, extremists downing a passenger
airliner and NATO peddling falsified intelligence -- to make it very clear that the "coup" is
more of an invasion than anything else.
The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown
Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de
facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut
dollie."
The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of,
minimally, a wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United
States -- those faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued
genocide against the Palestinian people."
"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI,
specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
acts mentioned under (i)."
@annamaria
Bravo, indeed, Annamaria. Beautiful, perfect, resounding, harsh, unforgiving words for a pair
of worthless human vermin masquerading as civilised, intelligent professionals with a moral
compass.
who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes
I don't know where is Ukraine you spent your time and in what company, but this is
complete BS. The South-Eastern Ukraine hates the Western Ukrainian "banderovtsi" as much as
the Russians do if not more -- after all, the followers of Bandera operated mostly on the
Ukrainian soil. There are deranged individuals in every country, of course, and Ukraine has
been subjected lately to intense hate propaganda as well as repressions, but there is no
hatred of Russia. This is contradicted by both sociology and everyday behavior of Ukrainian,
which move to Russia in droves, spend time in Russia, support Russian sport teams, etc.
we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians
and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)
Nobody is asking about what the real Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians or even Poles
actually think, least of all the US. There are almost as many Georgians living in Russia as
there are in Georgia, and they show no desire to move back. In 2008 during the conflict,
their biggest fear was that they'd be deported.
The Ukraine's Maidan was a violent coup, where a few thousand militants armed and trained
abroad overthrew a government elected by the entire country. Protests that immediately
started all over the country were suppressed with force -- the one in Donbass still is.
How could anyone with an access to Internet remain unaware of these facts is beyond
me.
@Peter
Akuleyev Why should anyone freaking care and put his ass in the line of fire because you
bunch of primitives hate Russia? Between having a nuclear cataclysm because you pathetic
dwarfs of nations are frustrated to have a neighbour you can't bully and Russia obliterating
you, I say let Russia obliterate you, thus we won't have to suffer the ear-hurting
dissonnance of your incessant whining any more. Though I doubt Russia would stomp on you.
When you see shit, you don't stomp on it, you don't want you don't want your shoes to stink,
you just walk around it.
@EugeneGur
That's an interesting point. Even if true, doesn't matter. One could wonder ..who are the
people populating Ukrainian Armed Forces?
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass? All of
them. Including those is logistics/maintenance depots far away from the (current) line of
separation?
The will to fight against "Russia" ranges from a deep hate to simply not wishing to go
against the (current) Ukrainian government. The former are in those "shock" battalions. The
later are manning the logistics train. And everything in between.
Now .if/when a real shooting starts, as soon as Russia, as expected (and desired) by the
most of readers here, starts delivering ordnance into operational depth of Donbass enemy, the
ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.
4 февраля
гостьей
программы
"Гордон" была
народный
депутат
Украины V - VII
созывов Елена
Бондаренко.
Сильные мира
сего умеют
хранить свои
тайны, и тем
интереснее
задавать им
прямые и
неудобные
вопросы, чтобы
отделить
правду от лжи и
узнать истину.
Они будут
пытаться
уклоняться от
ответов, но
Дмитрий Гордон
постарается
докопаться до
самой сути.
Эти люди
расскажут о том,
о чем принято
молчать – что
волнует
общество и
Дмитрия
Гордона в
частности.
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ¡Jebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
Poland and Ukraine cannot stop provoking laughter from international observers. After the
lunatic idea circulating in Ukraine of resurrecting the country's nuclear arsenal, it is
now Poland's turn to send shockwaves around Europe. Polish foreign minister Czaputowicz
proposed that France share its nuclear arsenal and hand over its seat on the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) to the European Union. It is is worth noting that this suggestion did
not even receive an official comment from Paris, showing that there was little prospect of the
Polish idea being taken seriously . Warsaw continues its opposition to the EU's domestic
policies on migration and austerity, while in foreign policy, agrees with countries like
Ukraine and the United States, particularly the neocon faction opposed to Russia. If there is a
distinctive feature in the political proposals that come from Poland, it is an acute
Russophobia. The idea of hosting a US base on Polish territory, and assuming its
costs, is another Polish proposal. The Americans are serious considering taking them up on
the offer .
The Poles and the Ukrainians would be willing to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their
allies for the privilege of being able to poke the Bear. Fortunately for them, Paris, London
and Berlin have neither the military capabilities nor the suicidal intention to challenge
Moscow with permanent military bases on its border. Neither do they wish to share their nuclear
weapons with other EU countries, nor engage in any such hare-brained ideas that threaten
humanity as the American Aegis Ashore system or the planned US withdrawal from the INF
Treaty.
Off topic...but of interest to many here at MoA....The snipers that executed the Maidan
massacre in Kiev have come forward and have made sworn testimony///
63
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201802151061669056-georgian-snipers-maidan-evidence
"Adding a new twist to the story about the 2014 Maidan shootings, a Sputnik correspondent has
met with the purported snipers. The agency has obtained the records of interrogation of Koba
Nergadze and Aleksandre Revazishvili. Both Georgian nationals, they are ready to testify in a
Ukrainian court."
It was a matter of time when the participants in the Maidan Massacre would surface the coup
d'état didn't stop the carnage of Ukrainians nor corruption of people in power. The
witness accounts were described in the hours as the events unfolded. Only the faces were not
known ...
Maidan Massacre Bombshell: #Georgian snipers reportedly confess to massacring along
with Lithuanian snipers both #Police and #maidan protesters in #Ukraine in Italian
#documentary just broadcast by most popular
#Italian #TV channel [h/t Ivan Katchanovski]
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard19:45:09 05/12/2018Aleksey
Zhuravko
Dear friends!
FOR INFORMATION. EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THIS! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HIDE THE TRUTH.
Today I had a conversation with a serious person from Kiev who is on active service. For
safety reasons I cannot give its name. I trust this person. Many thanks that there are still
decent people.
Here is what he told me. The special
operation in the Black Sea made on November 25th in the Kerch Strait was prepared over
three months by the American intelligence agencies and the SBU. All orders on carrying out a
provocation in the Black Sea were given to Poroshenko by the US Embassy in Ukraine. And
Poroshenko, in turn, personally gave the instructions to the performers. He consciously sent
boats and young guys off to be shot, and members of the crew were equipped with a large number
of cartridges and small arms, having being told that they must fire back to the last bullet.
They were sent to a certain death for the purpose of carrying out a provocation.
There's more. Poroshenko gave the order to not hold any negotiations with Russia concerning
returning sailors, and if the people will insist and kick up a storm around it, then drag out
he negotiation process as much as possible. This order came from the US Embassy in Ukraine.
Dear parents of the aggrieved Ukrainian sailors detained by the border service of Russia!
Your children were used by Poroshenko and his gang as cannon fodder, and you continue to be
deceived. That 50,000 hryvnia that he promised you will end very quickly. He met you only to
calm your anger, to appease you, like saying "we are dealing with this issue
"... This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II. ..."
"... Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign. ..."
One of the local Washington television stations was doing a typical early morning honoring
our soldiers schtick just before Thanksgiving. In it soldiers stationed far from home were
treated to videolinks so they could talk to their families and everyone could nod happily and
wish themselves a wonderful holiday. Not really listening, I became interested when I half
heard that the soldier being interviewed was spending his Thanksgiving in Ukraine.
It occurred to me that the soldier just might have committed a security faux pas by
revealing where he was, but I also recalled that there have been joint military maneuvers as
well as some kind of training mission going on in the country, teaching the Ukrainian Army how
to use the shiny new sophisticated weapons that the United States was providing it with to
defend against "Russian aggression."
Ukraine is only one part of the world where the Trump Administration has expanded the
mission of democracy promotion, only in Kiev the reality is more like faux democracy
promotion since Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting
a situation that he himself provoked . He envisions setting himself up as a victim of
Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with
Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections, in which his
poll numbers are currently running embarrassingly low largely due to the widescale corruption
in his government. Poroshenko has already done much to silence the press in his county while
the developing crisis with Russia has enabled him to declare martial law in the eastern parts
of the country where he is most poorly regarded. If it all works out, he hopes to win the
election and subsequently, it is widely believed, he will move to expand his own executive
authority.
There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait
was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and
Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past
several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it
was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside
the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
The defection of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, together with the assumption that a lot of
anti-Trump dirt will be spilled soon, means that the American president had to be even more
cautious than ever in any dealings with Moscow and all he needed was a nod of approval from
National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel the
encounter. A heads-of-state meeting might not have solved anything but it certainly would be
better than the current drift towards a new cold war. If the United States has only one vitally
important relationship anywhere it is with Russia as the two countries are ready, able and
apparently willing to destroy the world under the aegis of self-defense.
Given the anti-Russian hysteria prevailing in the U.S. and the ability of the neocons to
switch on the media, it should come as no surprise that the Russian-Ukrainian incident
immediately generated calls from the press and politicians for the White House to get tough
with the Kremlin. It is important to note that the United States has no actual national
interest in getting involved in a war between Russia and Ukraine if that should come about. The
two Eastern European countries are neighbors and have a long history of both friendship and
hostility but the only thing clear about the conflict is that it is up to them to sort things
out and no amount of sanctions and jawing by concerned congressmen will change that fact.
Other Eastern European nations that similarly have problems with Russia should also be
considered provocateurs as they seek to create tension to bind the United States more closely
to them through the NATO alliance. The reality is that today's Russian Federation is not the
Soviet Union and it neither aspires to nor can afford hegemony over its former allies. What it
has made very clear that it does want is a modus vivendi where Russia itself is not
being threatened by the West.
Recent
military maneuvers in Poland and Lithuania and the stationing of new missiles in Eastern
Europe do indeed pose a genuine threat to Moscow as it places NATO forces on top of Russia's
border. When Russia reacts to incursions by NATO warships and planes right along its borders,
it is accused of acting aggressively. One wonders how the U.S. government would respond if a
Russian aircraft carrier were to take up position off the eastern seaboard and were to begin
staging reconnaissance flights. Or if the Russian army were to begin military exercises with
the Cubans? Does anyone today remember the Bay of Pigs?
Crying wolf provides a perfect pretext for the Empire's MIC to line the pockets of the
merchants of death. In keeping with its time-honored tradition of propping up tyrants
kowtowing to imperial hegemonic wishes, America hardly has friends without some military
collaboration. Even the recently anointed sh*thole countries of Africa over 50 such countries
have American military cooperation agreements under the guise of the infamous AFRICOM and the
War on Terror. The number of military bases in sh*thole African countries remain unknown.
..the ability of the neocons to switch on the media
Hard to distinguish between the two really. The "free press" of WMD notoriety, Ghaddafi's
"genocidal drive" against Libyan citizens, Iraq's involvement with 9/11? Iranian arms in
Yemen that have not massacred children in school buses? Iranian fabricated nuclear weapons?
Syrian chemical attacks?
The biggest threats to America come from its "friends"
America is being unwittingly exonerated as an innocent bystander unable to choose her own
friends. It so happens America's "friends" share the common trait of pushing for war. In
countries awash in petrodollars, purchasing billions of dollars in arms used in Yemen to
murder children; Zionists are gifted with American state of the art arsenals to murder
Palestinians, including women and children. The biggest threat to America comes from inside
the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at
will.
I agree with Phil Giraldi on its analysis of US foreign policy. When lying with dogs, you get
fleas. This saying holds especially true for the so-called US friends such as the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and the Brits. The NeoZion gang plays President Trump is an open
secret. He still employes one of its guiding spirits as national security adviser. As long
this Gordian knot is not cut, American foreign policy will not change, and it's getting
worse. These folks who surround Trump want war, first with Iran and then with Russia. Their
lackey Poroshenko is doing the bitting of Trump and the Zionist regime and their European
puppets. The Zionist regime is deeply involved in steering up tensions. Prime minister
Wolodymyr Hrojsman is Jewish. Is anyone surprised?
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina
Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?
Around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
In my opinion at present the only enemy of the USA is the USA, that part of the USA that
failed in getting Hillary elected.
On the European continent a similar situation, even an establishment Dutch politician, of a
christian party, Segers, found out that a substantial part of the Dutch see the government as
the enemy.
He has the illusion that pr can save him, and his cronies.
He never understood. That was evident the moment he started floating names like Romney for
his cabinet. Personally, I sympathize with Trump after what the deep state has done to him
and his family, and I even respect the guy for telling things like they are – the poor
autistic bastard just can't help but blurt out the truth about things* but he's also not the
guy we needed. We needed a fearless, ruthless, and cunning fighter ready to martyr himself
for our interests, the people's interests.
*Global Warming IS a scam – the Paris Accords would not decrease CO2 levels even
under perfect – near miraculous – circumstances and is merely being floated by
the Chinese so they can give off the appearance of doing something while doing nothing, as
they have done before.
The EU IS a vehicle for Germany.
Hatti IS a shit hole, it's just that non-autistic people have the good sense not to say
that out loud.
Trudeau DOES have a fake eyebrow.
Hillary DOES wear a wig, or at least hair extensions on occasion.
China IS screwing us over economically.
Mexico isn't sending us their best, they are dumping their poverty problem onto us.
NATO doesn't have a purpose.
We shouldn't go to war with N. Korea.
We shouldn't destroy Syria but destroy ISIS.
John Brennan and the FBI really did run a deep state coup plot against him during the
campaign and first 100 days.
Russia isn't a big deal unless we make them a big deal.
@jilles dykstra 'One
of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone
would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to
war "against Syria and Russia". '
For a peek into Establishment orthodoxy, check out "Why Does America Spend So Much on
Israel?" on Beltway Conservatism's Cartoon Network, aka the PragerU Channel. I've recently
started auditing classes there via the Videos page here at The Unz Review.
Beyond parody, a pensioned warrior narrates over 3rd grade graphics, telling most
Americans all they care to know about what he calls "Izrul." Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could,
despite the apparent taboo, leave a comment and get some discussion going with the Team Red
NPCs -- it hasn't worked for me.
@Art I've wondered
why we are the way we are. Then I came across this, and I understood:
D.H. Lawrence
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of
by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet
melted."
This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know
none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common
plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome
Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime
under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II.
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a
sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has
never yet melted."
The leading sponsors of terror in the world are Israel and the Zionist controlled U.S. and
Britain and NATO and their terrorist mercenaries ISIS aka AL CIADA and all of the various off
shoots that have been seeded throughout the world by the satanic Zionists.
The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world , one
example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed some 60
million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole country
into a slaughter house!
The Zionist attack on the WTC is but another example of Zionist terrorism, where in one
fell swoop the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking
American knows that the Zionists did it!
The greatest terrorist kabal in the world is Zionism and these terrorists have control of
every facet of the U.S. government and at some point are going to provoke a war with Russia
that will get the whole world blown to hell and in fact this is what the Zionists want as
they believe they will survive in their DUMBS akd Deep Underground Military Bases which they
have in the U.S. and Israel and Britain, but they care not for the rest of humanity, that is
terrorism in spades!
The enemy is not at the gates , the enemy is in control of the U.S. government and is
going to be the destruction of America!
You can't really pin Ukraine on Trump. Maidan was not spontaneous.
Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that
much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and
NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating
such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor
Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it
was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign.
The real story on Russia is this: the same people that own every "Western liberal
democracy" owned the USSR. The Russians got rid of them, and the USSR collapsed. A new
invasion was hatched under the guise of "Westernizing" Russia. When the Russians saw that
Yeltsin was suckered, and it was the same game, run by the same people, they got a new
sheriff. That sheriff started to sort things out, while the owners fled to the UK and Israel.
The lives of Russians got better, as the owners are gradually being stripped of their power.
The long and short of it, our owners want their ownership of Russia restored.
All wars are economic wars. Capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin.
Both seek to concentrate ownership, just in different ways using different scams.
The reason why Trump supports the Ukraine is easy.
"According to the European Jewish Congress, as of 2014, there are 360,000–400,000
Jews in Ukraine."
And there you have it. Wherever or whatever the interest of Jewry there will be the United States standing tall
behind it. Let's just say the Ukraine is guaranteed to stay poor. While the Jews get rich!
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself
provoked. He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to
establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will
help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections
Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.
There's no use having an empire if you can't exact an economic advantage. Ultimately, most of
the events unfolding today are about keeping the loot flowing to lower Manhattan and central
London.
Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives
around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad
friends
It's hard to do if you are in fact the worst of those bad friends.
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices.
The poor choices had been made long before these friends even appeared on the scene. In
fact, many of these friends owe their very existence and/or influence to the poor choices the
US had made. It's so disingenuous to blame the US politics on someone's influence when the
reality is exactly the opposite.
If the US were in normal country prepared to behave in a sensible way it would've picked
much better partners. But the thing is the US isn't a normal country; it doesn't want
partners – in wants vassals, so it is naturally limited in its choice of friends.
September 17, 2014 US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World
The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White
House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to
describe its military actions against the Islamic State. US Secretary of State John Kerry was
at first reluctant: "We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation," he told CBS News
on Sept. 11. "I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are
engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity I don't think people
need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of
counter terrorist activity." – Global Post
"Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from
the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the
nose of a shrugging law enforcement -- chronicling their experiences on social media before
they bring their lessons back home."
The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was
also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside
the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
Trump isn't vulnerable he hired the Deep State apparatchiks, Bolton, Pompeo and many
others. Trump is a Deep Stater and is doing a great Kabuki theater to dupe his followers into
believing his hands are tied.
How do YOU expect me (and others) to swallow YOUR position?
with a great gulps of satisfaction, that's how.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine was manufactured by the ZUS State Dept. ((Victoria
Nuland)) and John McBloodstain in particular, when Putin upset the Zionist's plans to do a
'Libya' – to Syria.
It was a bloody coup foisted with 5 billion federal reserve note$, of the famous phone
call ('Yats is our guy'). Since then the imbeciles in Ukraine have been doing Nazi salutes
while taking orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists like Ihor Kolomoyskyi and assorted ZUS
Zionists.
The conflict with Iran started when the CIA deposed the duly elected president Mohammed
Mossadeq in 1953, and installed the brutal quisling Shah in his place. To keep the Iranian
people terrorized for decades into submitting to this perfidy, they utilized the CIA and
Mossad run SAVAK.
In reality this is mostly neocolonial way of dealing with countries. Allowing local oligarchy
to steal as much loaned by foreign states money as they can and converting the country into the
debt slave. Look at Greece and Ukraine for two prominent examples.
The position of OneCommentator is a typical position of defenders and propagandists
of neoliberalism
IMF is part of "Washington Consensus" with the direct goal of converting countries into debt slaves of industrialized
West. It did not work well with Acia counties, but it is great success in some countries in Europe and most of Africa and Latin
America (with Argentina as the most recent example)
Notable quotes:
"... As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well! ..."
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom..
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That
included support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and
free investments. It used to be that liberals were practically unpopular with right wing
(traditional conservative for example) parties but more or less on the same side as left wing
parties, mainly because of their social positions. More recently the left wing parties became
more and more unhappy with the economic freedoms promoted by liberals while the right wing
parties embraced both the economic and social freedoms to a certain degree.
So, the leftists
found themselves in a bind practically having reversed roles which the the conservatives as
far as support for liberalism goes. So, typically, they're using propaganda to cover their
current reactionary tendencies and coins a new name for liberals: neoliberals which, they
say, are not the same as liberals (who are their friends since liberal means freedom lover
and they like to use that word a lot).
"austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it.
Austerity is caused by incompetent governments unable to balance their budgets.
They had 60 years to do it properly after ww2 and the reconstruction that followed but many
of them never did it. So now it is very simple: governments ran out of money and nobody wants
to lend them more. That's it, they hit the wall and there is nothing left on the bottom if
the purse.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Developed countries like Greece are supposed to run
more or less balanced budgets over longer periods. Sure, they need to borrow money on a
regular basis and may that is supposed to be done by issuing bonds or other forms of
government debt that investors buy on the open market. For such governments the IMF is
supposed to just fill in in a minor way not to provide the bulk of all the loans needed on a
temporary basis. Because of incompetent governments Greece is practically bankrupt hence it
is not going to be able to pay back most of the existing debts and definitely not newer
debts. So practically the IMF is not, ending money to them, it is giving them the money. So,
I would say that they have a good reason to wag its finger.
If private, stockholder-held central banks such as the FED and the FED-backed ECB were not
orchestrating this depression, and anybody who believed they were was a "wacko-nutcase
conspiracy theorist", then why do they keep repeating the same mistakes of forcing un-payable
bailout loans, collapsing banks, wiping out people's savings and then imposing austerity on
those nations year after year – when it is clearly a failed policy?
Possible Answers :
1. Bank presidents are all ex-hippies who got hooked on LSD in the 70's and have not yet
recovered fully as their brains are still fried!
2. Central bankers have been recruited from insane asylums in both Europe and America in
government-sponsored programs to see whether blithering idiots are capable of running large,
international financial institutions.
3. All catastrophic events in the banking/business world, such as the derivative and
housing crash of 2008, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression of 1929-40
were totally random events that just occurred out of nowhere and central banks were caught
off guard – leaving them no option but to play with their willies for years on end
until a major war suddenly happened to pull the whole world out of "bad times"!
4. As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot
be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters
having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so
as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums
and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while
possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well!
Please choose one of the possible answers from above and write a short 500 word essay on
whether it may or may not true – using well-defined logical arguments. I expect your
answers in by Friday of this week as I would like to get pissed out of my mind at the pub on
Saturday night!
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
"... "When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what's happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way," ..."
"... This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this war will go on. ..."
"... "As they say, for one it's war, for other – it's mother. That's reason number one why the Ukrainian government is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict," ..."
"... Second, you can always use war to justify your failures in economy, social policy. You can always blame things on an aggressor. ..."
"... "We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor," ..."
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has branded the Ukrainian leadership a "party of war"
which would continue fueling conflicts while they stay in power, giving the recent Kerch Strait
incident as an example. "When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what's
happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not
interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way," Putin told
reporters during a media conference in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this
war will go on.
The Kiev authorities are craving war primarily for two reasons – to rip profits from
it, and to blame all their own domestic failures on it and actions of some sort of
"aggressors."
"As they say, for one it's war, for other – it's mother. That's reason number one
why the Ukrainian government is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict,"
Putin stated.
Second, you can always use war to justify your failures in economy, social policy. You
can always blame things on an aggressor.
This approach to statecraft by the Ukrainian authorities deeply concerns Russia's President.
"We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor," Putin said.
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been soaring after the incident in the Kerch
Strait. Last weekend three Ukrainian Navy ships tried to break through the strait without
seeking the proper permission from Russia. Following a tense stand-off and altercation with
Russia's border guard, the vessels were seized and their crews detained over their violation of
the country's border.
While Kiev branded the incident an act of "aggression" on Moscow's part, Russia
believes the whole Kerch affair to be a deliberate "provocation" which allowed Kiev to
declare a so-called "partial" martial law ahead of Ukraine's presidential
election.
PRESIDENT: This is incredible! I never ordered such a thing!
SOVIET AMBASSADOR (scornfully): Our [intelligence] source was the New York Times.
-- "Dr. Strangelove"
REALITY:
US President Donald Trump is still unsure whether to meet with Vladimir Putin, pending a
'full report' about the Kerch Strait incident that by pure coincidence happened just days
before the upcoming G20 summit in Argentina.
A long as neocons dominate the USA foreign policy establishment Ukraine will get
unconditional support as long as it remain hostile to Russia. And from geopolitical perspective
Ukraine does deserve support as it seriously weaken Russia and the major (according to Trump
administration) geopolitical enemy of the USA (along with China).
The current event can be viewed as artificially sped up process which would occur anyway, but
with less economic losses. Baltic scenario was waiting for Ukraine sooner of later, as Western
Ukrainian nationalists automatically became the major political force after independence and were
nurtured by all Ukrainian governments, including the government of Yanukovich (who become kind of
Godfather of Svoboda party with the calculation that it will antagonize enough voters in the East
that he can win the reelection).
Notable quotes:
"... Poroshenko had to know that his attempt to send warships through a narrow passage between what the Kremlin insists are two portions of Russian territory was certain to cause an incident. Why did Kiev risk (if not avidly seek) such a confrontation? And why now? There are several likely motives. ..."
"... Kiev wants to increase pressure on NATO, and especially the United States, to take a harder stance against Moscow. Despite their official position that the Kremlin must disgorge Crimea and end support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, Western policy looks increasingly stale and ineffectual. Some European officials even muse that it may be time to reconsider (weaken) the economic sanctions that the West imposed on Russia. President Trump has stated that Russia should be re-admitted to the G-7 group of leading economic powers. ..."
"... Ukrainian leaders are especially determined to nurture greater bilateral strategic cooperation with the United States. The notion that the Trump administration has pursued a "soft" policy toward Russia, much less one that amounts to appeasement, has always been overstated. Trump's initiatives are actually more hardline than those Barack Obama's administration embraced. That is especially true regarding Washington's relationship with Kiev . Whereas Obama consistently refused to provide weapons to Ukraine, the Trump administration has approved two major arms sales, one of which included sophisticated anti-tank missiles. U.S. troops have participated in joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis concedes that the United States is training Ukrainian units at a base in western Ukraine. ..."
"... Poroshenko thus has ample foreign policy reasons for taking the actions he did in the Kerch Strait. He also has significant political and ideological incentives. His government did not announce the official date for Ukraine's 2019 presidential election until two days following the naval clash; it is now set for March 31. To say that the timing of the announcement was suspicious is an understatement. ..."
"... In addition to creating a "rally around the flag" effect, thereby boosting Poroshenko's status, Russian seizure of the Ukrainian vessels gave the president a justification to impose outright martial law in 10 regions of eastern Ukraine -- areas likely to be especially hostile to his political prospects. It could also serve as a basis for tightening Ukraine's already worrisome restrictions on freedom of expression. ..."
"... The vagueness of the applicable laws (and the absence of any meaningful independent review or right of appeal) has been especially alarming. Indeed, it seems that anyone who disputes the government's account of the Maidan revolution (especially those who dare to mention the role of ultranationalist, neo-fascist elements) or the conflict in eastern Ukraine is likely to be silenced. ..."
The recent clash between Russian and Ukrainian naval vessels in the
Kerch Strait has generated a flurry of alarm. NATO was compelled to call
an emergency meeting with Ukraine and the UN Security Council convened an urgent session to
discuss the crisis. Exercising their usual tendency to oversimplify murky geopolitical
rivalries, Western officials and journalists embraced the knee-jerk narrative that the incident
is yet another case of Vladimir Putin's blatant aggression and "
outlaw behavior " against its peace-loving, democratic neighbor. Right on cue, CNN, MSNBC,
and other media outlets dispatched stridently anti-Russian
editorials masquerading as news stories .
In reality, the Kerch Strait incident involves a complex mixture of factors. They include
the tense Russian-Ukrainian bilateral relationship, Kiev's broader foreign policy objectives,
and Ukraine's volatile domestic politics.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko had to know that a decision to send three naval vessels
through the Kerch Strait would be disruptive. The strait, which connects the Black Sea and the
Sea of Azov, separates Russia's Taman Peninsula from the Crimea Peninsula. Despite Moscow's
annexation of the latter in 2014, Kiev still considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, a
position that the United States and its allies back emphatically. Moreover, passage through the
strait is the only oceanic link between Ukraine's Black Sea ports and those on the Azov. Kiev,
not surprisingly, views the strait as international waters. Russia, however, regards the
waterway as its own territorial waters and viewed the attempted transit by the three Ukrainian
ships as a violation.
Whatever the legal merits of the competing positions regarding sovereignty over Crimea and
the status of the Kerch Strait, the reality is that Russia controls that peninsula and is
unlikely to ever
restore it to Ukraine , despite Western demands. Poroshenko had to know that his attempt to
send warships through a narrow passage between what the Kremlin insists are two portions of
Russian territory was certain to cause an incident. Why did Kiev risk (if not avidly seek) such
a confrontation? And why now? There are several likely motives.
Kiev wants to increase pressure on NATO, and especially the United States, to take a
harder stance against Moscow. Despite their official position that the Kremlin must disgorge
Crimea and end support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, Western policy looks
increasingly stale and ineffectual. Some European officials even muse that it may be time to
reconsider (weaken) the economic sanctions that the West imposed on Russia. President Trump
has stated
that Russia should be re-admitted to the G-7 group of leading economic powers.
Such talk is potentially quite threatening to Ukraine's interests. Creating an incident that
reminds Kiev's Western supporters (and the rest of the world) of Moscow's aggressive tendencies
makes any prospect of even a limited rapprochement between Russia and either NATO or the
European Union less likely.
Ukrainian leaders are especially determined to nurture greater bilateral strategic
cooperation with the United States. The notion that the Trump administration has pursued a
"soft" policy toward Russia, much less one that amounts to appeasement, has always been
overstated. Trump's initiatives are actually more hardline than those Barack Obama's
administration embraced. That is especially true regarding
Washington's relationship with Kiev . Whereas Obama consistently refused to provide weapons
to Ukraine, the Trump administration has approved two major arms sales, one of which included
sophisticated anti-tank missiles. U.S. troops have participated in joint military exercises
with Ukrainian forces, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis concedes that the United States is
training Ukrainian units at a base in western Ukraine.
Poroshenko and his associates want to encourage and intensify those trends. They hope that
creating a new incident underscoring aggressive Russian conduct will lead the Trump
administration to boost arms sales and other forms of bilateral military cooperation. Even if
Trump proved reluctant to adopt that course, domestic and international pressure might leave
him little choice. Indeed, Western news media outlets excoriated
Trump for not immediately condemning Russia as an outright aggressor in the Kerch Strait
incident.
Poroshenko thus has ample foreign policy reasons for taking the actions he did in the
Kerch Strait. He also has significant political and ideological incentives. His government did
not announce
the official date for Ukraine's 2019 presidential election until two days following the
naval clash; it is now set for March 31. To say that the timing of the announcement was
suspicious is an understatement.
No candidate in the extremely crowded field is likely to exceed the 50 percent mark needed
to avoid a runoff, but recent surveys have indicated that Poroshenko is in surprisingly poor
political shape. Most
polls showed him receiving between 8 and 15 percent of the first-round vote. The leading
candidate is former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, with Poroshenko running in third.
Corruption scandals continue to bedevil his administration, making his re-election (or even his
ability to make the runoff) far from certain.
In addition to creating a "rally around the flag" effect, thereby boosting Poroshenko's
status, Russian seizure of the Ukrainian vessels gave the president a justification to impose
outright martial law in 10 regions of eastern Ukraine -- areas likely to be especially hostile
to his political prospects. It could also serve as a basis for tightening Ukraine's already
worrisome restrictions on freedom of expression.
That track record should trouble Kiev's backers in the West. To wage war against eastern
separatists, Kiev early on not only instituted military conscription, it arrested
critics of that action. Authorities jailed television journalist and blogger Ruslan Kotsaba
and
charged him with treason for making a video denouncing the conscription law. Kotsaba become
Amnesty International's first "prisoner of conscience" in Ukraine since the 2014 so-called
Maidan revolution.
The vagueness of the applicable laws (and the absence of any meaningful independent
review or right of appeal) has been especially alarming. Indeed, it seems that anyone who
disputes the government's account of the Maidan revolution (especially those who dare to
mention the role of ultranationalist, neo-fascist elements) or the conflict in eastern Ukraine
is likely to be silenced.
Bogdan Ovcharuk, a spokesperson for Amnesty International's Kiev office, expressed the
concerns of many proponents of freedom of expression when he told the BBC: "This is a very
slippery slope indeed. It's one thing to restrict access to texts advocating violence, but in
general banning books because their authors have views deemed unacceptable to politicians in
Kiev is deeply dangerous." The consequences of such a campaign, he warned , were certain to damage the
fabric of liberty.
Yet the Kiev government's restrictive policies continue unabated. In September 2015,
Ukrainian authorities issued an order
banning 34 journalists and seven bloggers from even entering the country. The Committee to
Protect Journalists reported that the newly publicized list was merely part of a larger
blacklist that contained the names of 388 individuals and more than a hundred organizations
that were barred from entry on the grounds of "national security" and allegedly posing a threat
to Ukraine's "territorial integrity."
Human Rights Watch criticized
the Kiev government in September 2017 for imposing yet more restrictions on journalists,
especially foreign correspondents. The Poroshenko government even pushed through
legislation barring criticism of Ukraine's past , including the role that ultra-nationalist
guerilla leader (and Nazi collaborator) Stepan Bandera and his followers
played in World War II. Censorship provisions and other media restrictions may become even
more widespread and arbitrary with Poroshenko's new declaration of martial law.
Ukraine's Western admirers typically ignore such evidence of authoritarian conduct, since it
does not fit with their portrayal of the country as an enlightened member of the democratic
community. The reality is that Ukraine epitomizes what CNN analyst Fareed Zakaria has aptly
described as an "illiberal democracy." The Poroshenko regime certainly does not warrant
unquestioned Western backing. Kiev is not above engaging in provocations to serve either its
political leadership's domestic agenda or its foreign policy objectives. The United States does
not have vital strategic or moral interests at stake in the overall Ukraine-Russia quarrel,
much less the latest parochial spat in the Kerch Strait. A cautious, restrained posture is
appropriate.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor
at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 700 articles on
international affairs. His latest book is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign
Democratic Movements (forthcoming, February 2019).
Crimea was a variation of Kosovo. As the USA destroyed post WWII order, as its position weakens, real chaos can occurs. because
Might is right can work not only for the USA anymore. And in this theater the USA has no advantages, other then their geopolitical weight.
It is too fat from US mainland.
The USA speed up events probably by 20 years or so and coursed considerable suffering of the Ukrainian population. Ukraine was gradually
detaching itself from Russia anyway (which is a natural process for any xUSSR republic after the independence.). Essentially the USA
raped the Ukraine using Ukrainian nationalist as a fifth column of neoliberal globalization.
The net result of the premature and by-and-large successful attempt to break Ukraine from Russia and play Baltic's scenario (which
was possible due to existence of Western Ukrainian nationalists) was drastic impoverishing (already very poor after chaos and
neoliberal economic plunder of 1990th) of the bottom 99% of Ukrainian population which now is the poorest population of Europe.
Ukrainian nationalists now are finding the hard way that bordering with Russia created some problems for their agenda... The
good analogy is Canada and the USA.
In a way, incorporation of Western Ukraine into the USSR looks now like Stalin's geopolitical mistake. Now attempts to colonize
Eastern Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists will face resistance and it already led to civil war in Donbass.
Things became way too complex and unpredictable in this region. Of course, neocons still are pushing their usual might is
right policy, not they might face considerable setbacks in the future. Like they did in Iraq. Which still did not affect much
their paychecks.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting. Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident. ..."
"... For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that he is in control." ..."
"... Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative? Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might resist. ..."
"... Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections. ..."
"... Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2 and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe. ..."
"... If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev? ..."
On departure for the G-20 gathering in Buenos Aires, President Donald Trump canceled his planned weekend meeting with Vladimir
Putin, citing as his reason the Russian military's seizure and holding of three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors.
But was Putin really the provocateur in Sunday's naval clash outside Kerch Strait, the Black Sea gateway to the Sea of Azov?
Or was the provocateur Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko?
First, a bit of history.
In 2014, after the pro-Russian regime in Kiev was ousted in a coup, and a pro-NATO regime installed with U.S. backing, Putin detached
and annexed Crimea, for centuries the homeport of Russia's Black Sea fleet.
With the return of Crimea, Russia now occupied both sides of Kerch Strait. And this year, Russia completed a 12-mile bridge over
the strait and Putin drove the first truck across.
The Sea of Azov became a virtual Russian lake, access to which was controlled by Russia, just as access to the Black Sea is controlled
by Turkey.
While the world refused to recognize the new reality, Russia began to impose rules for ships transiting the strait, including
48 hours notice to get permission.
Ukrainian vessels, including warships, would have to notify Russian authorities before passing beneath the Kerch Strait Bridge
into the Sea of Azov to reach their major port of Mariupol.
Sunday, two Ukrainian artillery ships and a tug, which had sailed out of Odessa in western Ukraine, passed through what Russia
now regards as its territorial waters off Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula. Destination: Mariupol.
The Ukrainian vessels refused to obey Russian directives to halt.
Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken
into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting.
Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident.
For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the
Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he
needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start
in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that
he is in control."
Our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, however, accused Russia of "outlaw actions" against the Ukrainian vessels and "an arrogant act
the international community will never accept."
Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military
aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative?
Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might
resist.
Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something
dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections.
Immediately after the clash, Poroshenko imposed martial law in all provinces bordering Russia and the Black Sea, declared an invasion
might be imminent, demanded new Western sanctions on Moscow, called on the U.S. to stand with him, and began visiting army units
in battle fatigues.
Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build
up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten
to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2
and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe.
But there is a larger issue here. Why is control of the Kerch Strait any of our business? Why is this our quarrel, to the point
that U.S. strategists want us to confront Russia over a Crimean Peninsula that houses the Livadia Palace that was the last summer
residence of Czar Nicholas II?
If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free
of Kiev?
Why are we letting ourselves be dragged into everyone's quarrels -- from who owns the islets in the South China Sea, to who owns
the Senkaku and Southern Kurils; and from whether Transnistria had a right to secede from Moldova, to whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia
had the right to break free of Georgia, when Georgia broke free of Russia?
Do the American people care a fig for these places? Are we really willing to risk war with Russia or China over who holds title
to them?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever."
"... Predictably, Western media has been complaining again about "Russian aggression", a gift that keeps on giving. Or blaming Russia for its over-reaction, overlooking the fact that Ukraine's incursion was with military vessels, not fishing boats. Russian resolve was quite visible, as powerful Ka-52 "Alligator" assault helicopters were promptly on the scene. ..."
"... Still, Kiev – "encouraged" by Washington – insists on militarizing the Sea of Azov. Misinformed American hawks emerging from the US Army War College even advocate that NATO should enter the Sea of Azov – a provocative act as far as Moscow is concerned. The Atlantic Council , which is essentially a mouthpiece of the powerful US weapons industry, is also pro-militarization. ..."
"... Rostislav Ischchenko , arguably the sharpest observer of Russia-Ukraine relations, in a piece written before the Kerch incident, said: "Ukraine itself recognized the right of Russia to introduce restrictions on the passage of ships and vessels through the Kerch Strait, having obeyed these rules in the summer." ..."
"... Thus a Kerch Strait incident designed as a cheap provocation, bearing all the hallmarks of a US think-tank ploy, is automatically interpreted as "Russian aggression", regardless of the facts. Indeed, any such tactics are good when it comes to derailing the Trump-Putin meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires this coming weekend. ..."
"... Poroshenko's approval rate barely touches 8% . His chances of being re-elected, assuming polls are credible, are virtually zero. ..."
"... But the US would lose no sleep if they had to throw Poroshenko under the (Soviet) bus ..."
"... Poroshenko, wallowing in despair, may still ratchet up provocations. But the best he can aim at is NATO attempting to modernize the collapsing Ukrainian navy – an endeavor that would last years, with no guarantee of success. ..."
"... Feel sorry for the Ukrainians being used as tools. Before Obama-Hillary-and Pedo Biden overthrew the Democratically elected leader, people were just doing their normal stuff. Now they hide in bomb shelters and search for food at night. ..."
"... But vainglorious folks are not paying attention, and this is dangerous especially for Europe, and the pretenders in the Middle East, if it goes down, they too will go down, it's that simple and why? Because of military and security imperatives. Russia will take down, and out, any US or European ally in the M.E. lest, they open themselves up to flanking maneuvers. ..."
"... Putin already intimated of the current Russian mindset thus: "If you like, let's all go explain ourselves to God!". Do the neocons feel confident of cogent explanation to God, or do they even wish to come before him? I doubt it, and very much so, seeing as their hands are stained with the blood of innocents, and their hearts,plot evil continuously. ..."
"... And this my friends, viscerally demonstrates the wisdom of the founding fathers, especially Washington, who warned of "entangling alliances", buttressed a few generations later, by John Q. Adams, who re-advised "Go not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy". Pay attention folks, pay attention to the architects of the Republic, who knew what they were building, better than the "war loving battle dodging" chickenhawks who love to sip exotic drinks, while instructing others to kill for their depraved egos. ..."
"... NATO delenda est!... ..."
"... Poroshenko & Allies have a team of experts who spend 24/7 searching for the next provocation. Reminds me of May on this Brexit fiasco. ..."
"... This US coup of the Ukraine is turning out to be more hassle than its worth, a bankrupt corrupt country, installing Neo Nazi's as the first government was a big mistake, it could have been handled with more finesse, instead it was like a bull in a China shop. ..."
"... Poroshenko decided to not let a good crisis go to waste. ..."
"... Geopolitics and realpolitik, bitches. So much happening in the gas domain in Eastern Europe. Nordstream, Turkish Stream, BP stream, US LNG facilities in Greece, Poland and Germany, Russia supplying LNG to Germany, Cyprus-Greece-Israel drilling in the East Med, Turkey drilling in Cyprus EEZ. In the meanwhile I see gas infrastructure being build allover Eastern Europe, connecting houses to the grid. Gas heating and energy production is coming to Eastern Europe in addition to supplying Western Europe. The stakes are enormous and that what this is all about and that is why we can see more of this. ..."
"... Most of the Ukraine people hate Poroshenko and he knows he can't win re-election. He threatens Trump with dirt on Manafort, and demands Trump start a war. Or what? is the left in the US going to impeach Trump with the supposed Poroshenko dirt on Manafort? ..."
"... He was installed by Soros during the "Purple Color Revolution" (agent provocateurs with tiki torches getting violent to force a coup against the prior sitting President, a tactic attempted in Charlottesville only a couple years later) ..."
"... " Poroshenko's approval rate barely touches 8% . His chances of being re-elected, assuming polls are credible, are virtually zero. Little wonder he used the Kerch to declare martial law, effective this Wednesday, lasting for 30 days and bound to be extended. Poroshenko will be able to control the media and increase his chances of rigging the election. ..."
The West is complaining about Russian 'aggression' but the incident looks more like a cheap ploy by a desperate Ukrainian president
and US conservatives keen to undermine Trump's next pow-wow with Putin...
When the Ukrainian navy sent a tugboat and two small gunboats on Sunday to force their way through the Kerch Strait into the Sea
of Azov, it knew in advance the Russian response would be swift and merciless.
After all, Kiev was entering waters claimed by Russia with military vessels without clarifying their intent.
The intent, though, was clear; to raise the stakes in the militarization of the Sea of Azov.
The Kerch Strait connects the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea. To reach Mariupol, a key city in the Sea of Azov very close to the
dangerous dividing line between Ukraine's army and the pro-Russian militias in Donbass, the Ukrainian navy needs to go through the
Kerch.
Yet since Russia retook control of Crimea via a 2014 referendum, the waters around Kerch are de facto Russian territorial waters.
Kiev announced this past summer it would build a naval base in the Sea of Azov by the end of 2018. That's an absolute red line
for Moscow. Kiev may have to trade access to Mariupol, which, incidentally, also trades closely with the People's Republic of Donetsk.
But forget about military access.
And most of all, forget about supplying a Ukrainian military fleet in the port of Berdyansk capable of sabotaging the immensely
successful, Russian-built Crimean bridge .
Predictably, Western media has been complaining again about "Russian aggression", a gift that keeps on giving. Or blaming
Russia for its over-reaction, overlooking the fact that Ukraine's incursion was with military vessels, not fishing boats. Russian
resolve was quite visible, as powerful Ka-52 "Alligator" assault helicopters were promptly on the scene.
Washington and Brussels uncritically bought Kiev's "Russian aggression" hysteria, as well as the UN Security Council, which, instead
of focusing on the facts in the Kerch Strait incident, preferring to accuse Moscow once again of annexing Crimea in 2014.
The key point, overlooked by the UNSC, is that the Kerch incident configures Kiev's flagrant violation of articles 7, 19 and 21
of the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea .
I happened to be right in the middle of deep research in Istanbul over the geopolitics of the Black Sea when the Kerch incident
happened.
For the moment, it's crucial to stress what top Russian analysts have been pointing out in detail. My interlocutors in Istanbul
may disagree, but for all practical purposes, the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, in military terms, are de facto
Russian lakes.
At best, the Black Sea as a whole might evolve into a Russia-Turkey condominium, assuming President Erdogan plays his cards right.
Everyone else is as relevant, militarily, as a bunch of sardines.
Russia is able to handle anything – naval or aerial – intruding in the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea in a matter
ranging from seconds to just a few minutes. Every vessel moving in every corner of the Black Sea is tracked 24/7. Moscow knows it.
Kiev knows it. NATO knows it. And crucially, the Pentagon knows it.
Still, Kiev – "encouraged" by Washington – insists on militarizing the Sea of Azov. Misinformed
American hawks emerging
from the US Army War College even advocate that NATO should enter the Sea of Azov – a provocative act as far as Moscow is concerned.
The Atlantic
Council , which is essentially a mouthpiece of the powerful US weapons industry, is also pro-militarization.
Any attempt to alter the current, already wobbly status quo could lead Moscow to install a naval blockade in a flash and see the
annexation of Mariupol to the People's Republic of Donetsk, to which it is industrially linked anyway.
This would be regarded by the Kremlin as a move of last resort. Moscow certainly does not want it. Yet it's wise not to provoke
the Bear.
Cheap provocation
Rostislav
Ischchenko , arguably the sharpest observer of Russia-Ukraine relations, in a piece written before the Kerch incident, said:
"Ukraine itself recognized the right of Russia to introduce restrictions on the passage of ships and vessels through the Kerch Strait,
having obeyed these rules in the summer."
Yet, after the US Deep State's massive investment even before the protests on the Maidan in Kiev in 2014 that wrested Ukraine
away from Russian influence a possible entente cordiale between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, with Russia in control
of Crimea and a pro-Russian Donbass, could only be seen as a red line for the Americans.
Thus a Kerch Strait incident designed as a cheap provocation, bearing all the hallmarks of a US think-tank ploy, is automatically
interpreted as "Russian aggression", regardless of the facts. Indeed, any such tactics are good when it comes to derailing the
Trump-Putin
meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires this coming weekend.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, chaos is the norm . President Petro Poroshenko is bleeding. The hryvnia is a hopeless currency. Kiev's
borrowing costs are at their highest level since a bond sale in 2018. This failed state has been under IMF "reform" since 2015 –
with no end in sight.
Poroshenko's approval rate barely touches 8% . His chances of being re-elected, assuming polls are credible, are virtually zero.
Little wonder he used the Kerch to declare martial law, effective this Wednesday, lasting for 30 days and bound to be extended. Poroshenko
will be able to control the media and increase his chances of rigging the election.
But the US would lose no sleep if they had to throw Poroshenko under the (Soviet) bus. Ukrainians will not die for his survival.
One of the captains at the Kerch incident surrendered his boat voluntarily to the Russians. When Russian Su-25s and Ka-52s started
to patrol the skies over the Kerch Strait, Ukrainian reinforcements instantly fled.
Poroshenko, wallowing in despair, may still ratchet up provocations. But the best he can aim at is NATO attempting to modernize
the collapsing Ukrainian navy – an endeavor that would last years, with no guarantee of success.
For the moment, forget all the rhetoric, and any suggestion of a NATO incursion into the Black Sea. Call it the calm before the
inevitable future storm
Feel sorry for the Ukrainians being used as tools. Before Obama-Hillary-and Pedo Biden overthrew the Democratically elected leader, people were just doing their normal stuff. Now they hide in bomb shelters and search for food at night.
The Bear has set the Trap, let NATO or whoever walk into it, but do so if they must, with the knowledge that it's a one way
ticket to hell. The Russians have been warning for years now, that one day, they'll have had enough and then..
But vainglorious folks are not paying attention, and this is dangerous especially for Europe, and the pretenders in the Middle
East, if it goes down, they too will go down, it's that simple and why? Because of military and security imperatives. Russia will
take down, and out, any US or European ally in the M.E. lest, they open themselves up to flanking maneuvers.
So someone, in this case, Europe, better tell, or force Poroshenko to tone it down, the Russians are not kidding around, this
is not a game, this is existential serious! Ukraine will go down, along with Poland, and the Baltics, if Russia feels, in any
way, shape, or manner, provoked beyond reason. Note the word "feels", some may play games, thinking it's just a game, Russia is
NOT playing games, not at all, not one bit.
Putin already intimated of the current Russian mindset thus: "If you like, let's all go explain ourselves to God!". Do the neocons feel confident of cogent explanation to God, or do they
even wish to come before him? I doubt it, and very much so, seeing as their hands are stained with the blood of innocents, and
their hearts,plot evil continuously.
Minsk was the best the Russians are willing to offer, from here on, the offer reduces exponentially, with every provocation
until there's no offer, just RAW discipline!
And this my friends, viscerally demonstrates the wisdom of the founding fathers, especially Washington, who warned of "entangling
alliances", buttressed a few generations later, by John Q. Adams, who re-advised "Go not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy".
Pay attention folks, pay attention to the architects of the Republic, who knew what they were building, better than the "war loving
battle dodging" chickenhawks who love to sip exotic drinks, while instructing others to kill for their depraved egos.
The biggest victims in all their failed adventures, are the US troops, folks who are deployed to fight wars which does nothing
to secure the Republic, but instead weakens the Republic, deprives the military of honor, capable recruits, and the economy, of
treasure, vigor, and vitality.
Poroshenko & Allies have a team of experts who spend 24/7 searching for the next provocation. Reminds me of May on this Brexit
fiasco.
When you're up ****-creek, Kerch, in this instance, you clutch at straws as the boat sinks.
With regard to NATO, they can't be involved as they're not imbeciles. Russia has provided the s300/Other upgraded Missile Defense
Systems to Syria, effectively nullifying Israeli's illegal incursions via Lebanon airspace, so what protections will Putin have
in place for one of his most strategic jurisdictions in his country? Rhetorical.
This US coup of the Ukraine is turning out to be more hassle than its worth, a bankrupt corrupt country, installing Neo Nazi's
as the first government was a big mistake, it could have been handled with more finesse, instead it was like a bull in a China
shop.
On the Crimea, let us all remember the following :
95% of Crimean's voted yes to joining Russia a result that western agencies, media etc have accepted as correct, This makes
it and the waters surrounding it Russian, I suspect the US would have a similar reaction if a couple of Russian gun boats cruised
unannounced into a US port and started doing donuts.
****** porkoshenko wont last until spring. ukraine is not a chocolate factory. a country too big for a chess piece. the best
move for trump is to stay out or invite willy wonka to pay a visit to us embassy and chop him off lol
Poroshenko decided to not let a good crisis go to waste.
Geopolitics and realpolitik, bitches. So much happening in the gas domain in Eastern Europe. Nordstream, Turkish Stream, BP
stream, US LNG facilities in Greece, Poland and Germany, Russia supplying LNG to Germany, Cyprus-Greece-Israel drilling in the
East Med, Turkey drilling in Cyprus EEZ. In the meanwhile I see gas infrastructure being build allover Eastern Europe, connecting
houses to the grid. Gas heating and energy production is coming to Eastern Europe in addition to supplying Western Europe. The
stakes are enormous and that what this is all about and that is why we can see more of this.
The cheap shot at Trump at the same time demanding action from Trump was Poroshenko's threat the Ukraine has dirt on Manafort.
How low can Poroshenko go?
Most of the Ukraine people hate Poroshenko and he knows he can't win re-election. He threatens Trump with dirt on Manafort,
and demands Trump start a war. Or what? is the left in the US going to impeach Trump with the supposed Poroshenko dirt on Manafort?
But asked if the Ukraine has any evidence that Manafort was getting paid directly by the Kremlin, Poroshenko said, "I am not
personally connected with the process.""
Not just undermine Trump/Putin meetings, but the big picture, Ukrainian "President" declaring martial law to suspend the election
he would no doubt lose.
He was installed by Soros during the "Purple Color Revolution" (agent provocateurs with tiki torches getting violent to force
a coup against the prior sitting President, a tactic attempted in Charlottesville only a couple years later)
" Poroshenko's approval rate barely touches 8% . His chances of being re-elected, assuming polls are credible, are virtually
zero. Little wonder he used the Kerch to declare martial law, effective this Wednesday, lasting for 30 days and bound to be extended.
Poroshenko will be able to control the media and increase his chances of rigging the election.
Update 4 : A UN Security Council meeting has been called for 11am
tomorrow after Ukraine incident with Russia, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a
tweet.
* * *
Update 3 : according to media reports, on Monday Ukraine's president will propose imposing
military law, amid the ongoing crisis with Russia.
* * *
Update 2: This is the moment when the escalating crisis started...
* * *
Update 1: Following reports from the Ukraine navy that Russian ships had fired on Ukraine
vessels near the Kerch Strait, Ukraine accused Moscow of also illegally seizing three of its
naval ships - the "Berdyansʹk" and "Nikopolʹ" Gurza-class small armored artillery
boats and a raid tug A-947 "Jani Kapu" - off Crimea on Sunday after opening fire on them, a
charge that if confirmed could ignite a dangerous new crisis between the two countries.
As reported earlier, Russia did not immediately respond to the allegation, but Russian news
agencies cited the FSB security service as saying it had incontrovertible proof that Ukraine
had orchestrated what it called "a provocation" and would make its evidence public soon.
According to media reports, Russia said it has "impounded" three Ukrainian naval ships after
they crossed the border with Russia
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko immediately called a meeting with his top
military and security chiefs to discuss the situation.
Separately, the EU has urged both sides to rapidly de-escalate the tense situation at the
Kerch strait:
*EU URGES UKRAINE, RUSSIA TO DE-ESCALATE SITUATION AT STRAIT
*UKRAINE, RUSSIA SHOULD ACT W/ `UTMOST RESTRAINT', EU SAYS
*EU URGES RUSSIA TO RESTORE FREEDOM OF PASSAGE AT KERCH STRAIT
NATO has confirmed it is "closely monitoring" developments and is calling for "restraint and
de-escalation"...
" NATO is closely monitoring developments in the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait, and we are
in contact with the Ukrainian authorities. We call for restraint and de-escalation.
NATO fully supports Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its
navigational rights in its territorial waters. We call on Russia to ensure unhindered access
to Ukrainian ports in the Azov Sea, in accordance with international law.
At the Brussels Summit in July, NATO leaders expressed their support to Ukraine, and made
clear that Russia's ongoing militarisation of Crimea, the Black Sea, and the Azov Sea pose
further threats to Ukraine's independence and undermines the stability of the broader region.
"
Finally, Ukraine has called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting over 'Russian
aggression' while Ukraine's secretary for national security, Oleksander Turchynov, accused
Russia of engaging in an act of war: "We heard reports on incident and have concluded that it
was an act of war by Russian Federation against Ukraine"
* * *
As we detailed earlier, the Ukrainian navy has accused Russia of opening fire on some of its
ships in the Black Sea, striking one vessel, and wounding a crew member.
In a statement on its Facebook page , the Ukrainian navy said the
Russian military vessels opened fire on Ukrainian warships after they had left the 12-mile zone
near the Kerch Strait, leaving one man wounded, and one Ukrainian vessel damaged and
immobilized, adding that Russian warships "shoot to kill."
Ukraine accused a Russian coastguard vessel, named the Don, of ramming one of its tugboats
in "openly aggressive actions". The incident allegedly took place as three Ukrainian navy boats
- including two small warships - headed for the port of Mariupol in the Sea of Azov, an area of
heightened tensions between the countries.
Russia accused Ukraine of illegally entering the area and deliberately provoking a
conflict.
Sky News reports that the Ukrainian president has called an emergency session of his war
cabinet in response to the incident.
"Today's dangerous events in the Azov Sea testify that a new front of [Russian] aggression
is open," Ukrainian foreign ministry spokeswoman Mariana Betsa said.
"Ukraine [is] calling now for emergency meeting of United Nations Security Council."
It comes after a day of rising tensions off the coast of Crimea, and especially around the
Kerch Strait, which separates Crimea from mainland Russia after Ukrainian vessels allegedly
violated the Russian border. The passage was blocked by a cargo ship and fighter jets were
scrambled.
According to RT , Russia has
stopped all navigation through the waterway using the cargo ship shown above. Videos from the
scene released by the Russian media show a large bulk freighter accompanied by two Russian
military boats standing under the arch of the Crimea Bridge and blocking the only passage
through the strait.
"The [Kerch] strait is closed for security reasons," the Director-General of the Crimean sea
ports, Aleksey Volkov, told TASS, confirming earlier media reports.
Russian Air Force Su-25 strike fighters were also scrambled to provide additional security
for the strait as the situation remains tense. The move came as five Ukrainian Navy ships had
been approaching the strait from two different sides.
According to RT, two Ukrainian artillery boats and a tugboat initially approached the strait
from the Black Sea while "undertaking dangerous maneuvers" and "defying the lawful orders of
the Russian border guards." Later, they were joined by two more military vessels that departed
from a Ukrainian Azov Sea port of Berdyansk sailing to the strait from the other side.
The Russian federal security agency FSB, which is responsible for maintaining the country's
borders, denounced the actions of the Ukrainian ships as a provocation, adding that they could
create a "conflict situation" in the region. According to the Russian media reports, the
Ukrainian vessels are still sailing towards the strait, ignoring the warnings of the Russian
border guards.
According to
Reuters , a bilateral treaty gives both countries the right to use the sea, which lies
between them and is linked by the narrow Kerch Strait to the Black Sea. Moscow is able to
control access between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea after it built a bridge that straddles
the Kerch Strait between Crimea and southern Russia.
Reuters adds that tensions surfaced on Sunday after Russia tried to intercept three
Ukrainian ships -- two small armored artillery vessels and a tug boat -- in the Black Sea,
accusing them of illegally entering Russian territorial waters.
The Ukrainian navy said a Russian border guard vessel had rammed the tug boat, damaging it
in an incident it said showed Russia was behaving aggressively and illegally. It said its
vessels had every right to be where they were and that the ships had been en route from the
Black Sea port of Odessa to Mariupol, a journey that requires them to go through the Kerch
Strait.
Meanwhile, Russia's border guard service accused Ukraine of not informing it in advance of
the journey, something Kiev denied, and said the Ukrainian ships had been maneuvering
dangerously and ignoring its instructions with the aim of stirring up tensions.
It pledged to end to what it described as Ukraine's "provocative actions", while Russian
politicians lined up to denounce Kiev, saying the incident looked like a calculated attempt by
President Petro Poroshenko to increase his popularity ahead of an election next year. Ukraine's
foreign ministry said in a statement it wanted a clear response to the incident from the
international community.
"Russia's provocative actions in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have crossed the line and
become aggressive," it said. "Russian ships have violated our freedom of maritime navigation
and unlawfully used force against Ukrainian naval ships."
Both countries have accused each other of harassing each other's shipping in Sea of Azov in
the past and the U.S. State Department in August said Russia's actions looked designed to
destabilize Ukraine, which has two major industrial ports there.
It is clear that Poroshenko wants to stay in power. And this is one of the ways to increase Poroshenko chances on forthcoming
elections. It is simultaneously increase chances for him to land in jail as Timoshenko does not looks kindly on such blatant
attempts to hijack elections.
Unwilling to simply accept Poroshenko's claims that he had heard reliable whispers about an
imminent Russian invasion, opposition figures pressed Poroshenko on his reasoning for the
emergency measures, and ultimately succeeded in forcing him to water down the proposal. But
even before Poroshenko's decree won the approval of lawmakers, the Ukrainian president had
already started deploying troops into the streets of his country.
Now in a state of martial law, Ukraine has called up its reservists and deployed all
available troops to join the mobilization. Initially expected to last for two months,
Poroshenko revised his degree to avoid accusations that he would try to interfere in the
upcoming Ukrainian election. The decree passed by the Rada will leave martial law in effect for
30 days. The country has also started restricting travel for Russian nationals. NATO Commander
Jens Stoltenberg told the Associated Press that
Poroshenko had given his word that the order wouldn't interfere with the upcoming vote. The
conflict between the Ukraine and Russia exploded into life on Sunday
when Russian ships fired on two Ukrainian artillery ships and rammed a tugboat as the ships
traveled toward the Kerch Strait, which connects the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. Russia's
mighty Black Sea fleet has taken the three ships and their crew into custody, and has so far
ignored calls to release the soldiers by the UN, European leaders and Poroshenko himself.
US officials criticized Russia for its "aggressive" defense of the Kerch Strait, which
Ukraine has a right to use according to a bilateral treaty. After Nikki Haley said during an
emergency meeting of the UN Security Council that Russia was making it "impossible" to have
normal relations with the US, Mike Pompeo said Russia's "aggressive action" was a "dangerous
escalation" and also "violates international law." He also advocated for Poroshenko and Russian
President Vladimir Putin to engage in direct talks. Russia says the ships disobeyed orders to
halt, and that Ukraine had failed to notify Russia of the ships' advance. Ukraine claims that
it did notify Russia, and that the incident is the result of "growing Russian aggression." Six
Ukrainian crewmen were injured in the Russian attack, which was the first act of violence
between the two nations since the annexation of Crimea.
Chief diplomats from both countries traded accusations of provocations and "deliberate
hostility."
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin tweeted that the dispute was not an accident and
that Russia had engaged in "deliberately planned hostilities," while Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov blamed Kiev for what he described as a "provocation," adding that "Ukraine had
undoubtedly hoped to get additional benefits from the situation, expecting the U.S. and
Europe to blindly take the provocateurs' side."
Poroshenko said the martial law was necessary because Ukraine was facing nothing short of a
all-out ground invasion.
Poroshenko said it was necessary because of intelligence about "a highly serious threat of
a ground operation against Ukraine." He did not elaborate.
"Martial law doesn't mean declaring a war," he said. "It is introduced with the sole
purpose of boosting Ukraine's defense in the light of a growing aggression from Russia."
But the president's plans to impose martial law throughout the country were rebuffed as the
opposition forced a compromise where troops will only be deployed in 10 border provinces. These
provinces share borders with Russia, Belarus and the Trans-Dniester, a pro-Moscow breakaway
region of Moldova.
Still, many remained skeptical. Opposition figures, including former President Yulia
Tymoshenko pointed out that the order would give soldiers broad latitude to do pretty much
whatever they want. Furthermore, Ukraine never called for martial law during the insurgency in
the east that erupted back in 2014, eventually leading to an armed conflict that killed more
than 10,000.
The approved measures included a partial mobilization and strengthening of air defenses.
It also contained vaguely worded steps such as "strengthening" anti-terrorism measures and
"information security" that could curtail certain rights and freedoms.
But Poroshenko also pledged to respect the rights of Ukrainian citizens.
[...]
Despite Poroshenko's vow to respect individual rights, opposition lawmaker and former
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko warned before the vote that his proposal would lead to the
possible illegal searches, invasion of privacy and curtailing of free speech.
"This means they will be breaking into the houses of Ukrainians and not those of the
aggressor nation," noted Tymoshenko, who is leading in various opinion polls. "They will be
prying into personal mail, family affairs ... In fact, everything that is written here is a
destruction of the lives of Ukrainians."
Poroshenko's call also outraged far-right groups in Ukraine that have advocated severing
diplomatic ties with Russia. Hundreds of protesters from the National Corps party waved
flares in the snowy streets of Kiev outside parliament and accused the president of using
martial law to his own ends.
But Poroshenko insisted it was necessary because what happened in the Kerch Strait between
Crimea and the Russian mainland "was no accident," adding that "this was not the culmination
of it yet."
His critics reacted to his call for martial law with suspicion, wondering why Sunday's
incident merited such a response. With his approval ratings in free fall following a series of
corruption scandals, Poroshenko's enemies worry that the incident may have been stage-managed
to give the president an excuse to crack down on dissent and free movement ahead of the
vote.
And then there is Yulia Tymoshenko who is doing well in the polls. That crazy bitch said
that the separatists in the East should be nuked. Ukraine gave up on its nukes though.
Wise lesson for the West here: All politicians in Eastern Europe -whatever country and
whatever party- are sick psychopaths. Not that ours are any better. Yet, people keep voting
for them.
Perhaps but Putin has more interest to keep the situation as it is. Russian gas needs to
keep flowing into Europe. Russia needs that cash cow that the US is trying to disrupt .
One of my Russian mates sent me a link to a Russian news website and according to the
iskra-news.info last night ,Ukrainian gold reserves (40 sealed boxes) were loaded on an
unidentified transport aircraft in Kiev's Borispol airport. The plane took off
immediately.
So my guess is, that is if indeed this report is true it either means the new ruling elite
have stolen the gold bullion or perhaps their is a legitimate fear of the Russians taking
possession of this bullion, whatever the facts, it still looks very shady indeed.
Conclusion
Official narrative: gold bullion is going to USA (maybe to reassure the Germans their gold
is in safe hands, after all the despite numerous requests from the German Govt The Feds have
not given access for them to even view their Gold Bullion) . Real narrative: probably to
Switzerland where it is divided between Yulia Tymoshenko and her cronies.
Once again I simply implore one ACTUAL journalist to report on what's happening there.
Beside the mercenary sociopaths that took in millions off the first round of
"freedom".
Russia is a hurt and vulnerable nation.
The US has ginormous truth issues never to be resolved
Hence the Goths and Barbarians will agree that once more......Rome is burning
Btw, not defending Russia and as convoluted as it sounds my point is truth has been lost
even in this Instagram milli-second of info slop offering by those who are not standing in
the snow covered mud of unbiased reality
The last time Poroshenko, the US man in Ukraine (OU) as he was referred to in US
diplomatic cables from 2006 and exposed by Wkikleads, got the Ukes into a war with the
Eastern oblasts, a lot of Ukrainians got killed.
Poor buggers were crushed and they should never have been there. The US / McCain et al
used them as cannon fodder.
The Uke military had rotted after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and that was largely
because their corrupt leaders never gave any consideration to going to war against anyone,
other than political war against each other to determine who got the biggest slice from
plundering the state.
The plundering continues, only now there is scant left for the general population.
After the US putsch, income per capita dropped by approx a third, cost of living doubled
and tax collection was hampered even more than before because the average Uke had no money
left to pay taxes so they went underground. and paid off local officials just to let them
make a living doing whatever the could..
"Why would Russia want Ukraine in the first place?".
Lets see.....so they can fund an addition 50 million lazy ***** and pick up the tab for 25
million fat, diabetes ridden BROKE Ukrainian pensioners?
So Russia can sink tens of billions into Ukraine's bankrupt healthcare system?
Where is the upside for Russia?
Putin can add, he is not in the least bit interested in ruling Ukraine, he'd just as well
seal the ******* boarder and be done with it, in fact its what he is doing. Once those
alternate pipe lines are in there will be a 5,000 km fence and the Ukes can freeze in the
dark on their own.
Russia isn't interested in taking any country, the countries are warming up to Russia and
China. This is pissing off mushroom head and band of gypsies in DC. The failing empire
looking for a war.
"Please stop using incorrect US government propaganda language in your
articles."
US Intel cant remember everything remember they have an agenda to push. It might be a
truther website for the people posting but it is also a intel gathering site to keep abreast
of how some of the sheeple really feel. What better way to get the sheeple to open up?
The Russian world is caught up in a drama. Its leading Orthodox Church faces a schism over the Ukraine's drive for its own independent
church. If Kiev regime succeeds, the split between Russia proper and its breakaway Western part, the Ukraine, will widen. The Russian
Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. However, there is a chance
for the Russians to gain a lot from the split, to gain more than to lose.
The Ukraine actually has its own church, and this church is the self-ruling autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a part of the
Russian Orthodox Church. Its autonomy is very broad; it can be considered independent practically in every aspect excepting its nominal
recognition of Moscow supremacy. The Ukrainian Church does not pay tribute to Moscow, it elects its own bishops; it has no reason
to push for more. No tangible reason, at least.
But in the Ukraine, there was and is a strong separatist tendency, with a somewhat romantic and nationalist tinge, comparable
to Scots or Languedoc separatism. Its beginning could be traced to 18th Century, when a Moscow-appointed ruler Hetman Mazeppa rose
against Russia's Peter the Great and allied himself with the Swedish warrior-king Charles XII. A hundred years after the revolt,
the foremost Russian poet, Alexander Pushkin, composed a beautiful romantic poem Poltava (following
Byron's Mazeppa ) where he gives Mazeppa the following words:
For far too long we've bowed our heads, Without respect or liberty, Beneath the yoke of Warsaw's patronage, Beneath the yoke of Moscow's despotism. But now is Ukraine's chance to grow Into an independent power. (trans. by Ivan Eubanks)
This romantic dream of an independent Ukraine became real after the 1917 Revolution, under the German occupation at the conclusion
of World War One. Within a year or two, as the defeated Germans withdrew, the independent Ukraine became Soviet and joined Soviet
Russia in the Soviet Union of equal Republics. Even within the Union, the Ukraine was independent and it had its own UN seat. When
Russian President Yeltsin dissolved the Union, Ukraine became fully independent again.
In the 1991 divorce with rump Russia (after hundreds of years of integration), the Ukraine took with her a major portion of the
former Union's physical and human assets. The spacious country with its hard-working people, fertile black soil, the cream of Soviet
industry producing aircraft, missiles, trains and tractors, with the best and largest army within the Warsaw Treaty, with its universities,
good roads, proximity to Europe, expensive infrastructure connecting East and West, the Ukraine had a much better chances for success
than rump Russia.
But it didn't turn out this way, for reasons we shall discuss elsewhere. A failed state if there ever was one, the Ukraine was
quickly deserted by its most-valuable people, who ran away in droves to Russia or Poland; its industries were dismantled and sold
for the price of scrap metal. The only compensation the state provides is even more nationalism, even more declarations of its independence.
This quest for full independence has been even less successful than economic or military measures. The Kiev regime could dispense
with Moscow, but it became subservient to the West. Its finances are overseen by the IMF, its army by NATO, its foreign policy by
the US State Department. Real independence was an elusive goal, beyond the Ukraine's reach.
A total break of the Ukrainian church with the nominal supremacy of Moscow appealed to President Petro Poroshenko as a convincing
substitute for real independence, especially with a view toward the forthcoming elections. He turned to the patriarch of Constantinople,
His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew asking him to grant his church its full independence (called autocephaly
in ecclesiastical language).
Fine, but what is 'his church'? The vast majority of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians and their bishops are content with their status
within the Russian Church. They have their own head, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphrius, who is also content with his position.
They do not see any need for autocephaly. However, the Ukraine has two small splinter orthodox churches, one led by the ambitious
bishop Filaret and another by Macarius; both are very nationalist and anti-Russian, both support the regime and claim for autonomy,
both are considered illegitimate by the rest of the Orthodox world. These two small churches are potential embryos of a future Ukrainian
Church of President Poroshenko.
Now we shall turn to Bartholomew. His title describes him as the patriarch of Constantinople, but in vain you will seek this city
on a map. Constantinople, the Christian capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the greatest city of his time, the seat of Roman emperors,
was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and became Islamic Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire and of the last Muslim
Caliphate; since 1920 it has been a city in the Republic of Turkey. The Constantinople Patriarchate is a phantom fossil of a great
past; it has a few churches, a monastery and a few ambitious monks located in Phanar, an old Greek quarter of Istanbul.
The Turkish government considers Bartholomew a bishop of the local Greeks, denying his 6 th -century title of Ecumenical
Patriarch. There are only three thousand Greeks in the city, so Bartholomew has very small foothold there indeed. His patriarchate
is a phantom in the world of phantoms, such as the Knights of Maltese and Temple Orders, Kings of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, emperors
of Brazil and of the Holy Roman Empire Phantom is not a swear word. Phantoms are loved by romantics enamoured by old rituals and
uniforms with golden aiguillettes. These honourable gentlemen represent nobody, they have no authority, but they can and do issue
impressive-looking certificates.
ORDER IT NOW
The Orthodox Church differs from its Roman Catholic sister by having no central figure like the Pope of Rome. The Orthodox have
a few equal-ranking heads of national churches, called Patriarchs or Popes. The Patriarch of Constantinople is one of these fourteen
church leaders, though he has more than his share of respect by virtue of tradition. Now the Phantom of Phanar seeks to make his
position much more powerful, akin to that of the Pope of Rome for the Western Church. His organization
claims that "The Ecumenical Patriarchate has the
responsibility of being the Church of final appeal in Orthodoxy, and it is the only Church that may establish autocephalous and autonomous
Churches". These claims are rejected by the Russian Church, by far the biggest Orthodox Church in the world.
As the Ukrainian church is a part of the Russian Church, it could seek its full independence (autocephaly) in Moscow, but it has
no such wish. The two small splinter churches turned to Phanar, and the Phanar leader was more than happy to get into the game. He
had sent two of his bishops to Kiev and started with establishing a united Ukrainian church. This church wouldn't be independent,
or autocephalous; it would be a church under the direct rule of Phanar, an autonomous or the stavropegial church. For Ukrainian
nationalists, it would be a sad reminder that they have the choice to go with Moscow or with Istanbul, now as their ancestors had
four hundred years ago. Full independence is not on the cards.
For the Phanar, it was not a first foray into Russian territory: Bartholomew also used the anti-Russian sentiments of Tallinn
and took a part of the Estonian churches and their faithful under his rule. However, then the Russians took it easy, for two reasons.
Estonia is small, there are not too many churches nor congregants; and besides, the Phanar had taken some positions in Estonia between
the wars, when Soviet Russia did not care much about the Church. The Ukraine is absolutely different. It is very big, it is the heart
of Russian church, and Constantinople has no valid claim on it.
The Russians say that President Poroshenko bribed Bartholomew. This is nonsense of very low grade; even if the Patriarch is not
averse to accepting gifts. Bartholomew had a very valid reason to accept Poroshenko's offer. If he would realize his plan and establish
a church of Ukraine under his own rule, call it autonomous or stavropegial or even autocephalous, he would cease being a phantom
and would become a very real church leader with millions of faithful. The Ukraine is second only to Russia in the Orthodox world,
and its coming under Constantinople would allow Bartholomew to become the most-powerful Orthodox leader.
The Russians are to blame themselves for much of their difficulties. They were too eager to accept the Phanar Phantom for the
real thing in their insistent drive for external approval and recognition. They could have forgotten about him three hundred years
ago instead of seeking his confirmation now and then. It is dangerous to submit to the weak; perhaps it is more risky than to submit
to the strong.
This reminds me of a rather forgotten novel by H. G. Wells
The Food of the Gods and How It Came to Earth . It is a story of a wondrous nourishment that allows children to grow into
forty-foot-high giants. Society mistreats the young titans. In a particularly powerful episode, a mean old hag scolds the tall kids
– thrice her size, and they timidly accept her silly orders. In the end, the giants succeed in standing their ground, throw off the
yoke and walk tall. Wells writes about "young giants, huge and beautiful, glittering in their mail, amidst the preparations for the
morrow. The sight of them lifted his heart. They were so easily powerful! They were so tall and gracious! They were so steadfast
in their movements!"
Russia is a young giant that tries to observe the pygmy-established rules. International organisation called PACE (The Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe) where Russia is harshly mistreated and is not even allowed to defend itself, is a good example.
International courts where Russia has little chance to stand its ground is another one. President Trump has taken the US out of a
few international organisations, though the US has huge weight in international affairs and all states pay heed to the US position.
Russia's voice is not even heard, and only now the Russians begin to ponder the advantages of Ruxit.
The church rules are equally biased as they place the biggest Orthodox state with millions of faithful Christians on the same
footing as Oriental phantoms.
In the days of the Ottoman Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople had real weight. The Sultan defended his position, his decisions
had legal implications for the Orthodox subjects of the Empire. He caused many troubles for the Russian Church, but the Russians
had to observe his decrees as he was an imperial official. After Ataturk's revolution, the Patriarch lost his status, but the Russian
church, this young giant, continued to revere him and support him. After 1991, when Russia had turned to its once-neglected church,
the Russian Church multiplied its generosity towards Phanar and turned to him for guidance, for the Moscow Church had been confused
and unprepared for its new position. Being in doubt, it turned to tradition. We can compare this to the English "rotten boroughs"
of Dickens novels, towns that had traditionally sent their representatives to the Parliament though they scarcely had any dwellers.
In this search for tradition, the Russian church united with the Russian Church abroad, the émigré structure with its checkered
history that included support for Hitler. Its main contribution was fierce anti-Communism and rejection of the Soviet period of the
Russian past. However it could be justified by the Russians' desire to heal the White vs. Red split and restore the émigrés to the
Russian people. While honouring the Phanar Phantom as the honorary head of the Orthodox world had no justification at all.
The Phanar had US State Department backing to consider. US diplomacy has had a good hand in dealings with phantoms: for many years
Washington supported phantom governments-in-exile of the Baltic states, and this support was paid back a hundredfold in 1991. Now,
the US support for Phanar has paid back well in this renewed attack on Russia.
ORDER IT NOW
The Patriarch of Phanar, perhaps, underestimated possible Russian response to his Ukrainian meddling. He got used to Russian good
treatment; he remembered that the Russians meekly accepted his takeover of the Estonian church. Being encouraged by the US and driven
by his own ambitions, he made the radical step of voiding Constantinople's agreement of transfer of Kiev Metropolitan seat to Moscow,
had sent his bishops and took over the Ukraine to himself.
The Moscow Church anathemised Bartholomew, and forbade its priests to participate in service with Phanar priests and (!!!) with
priests that accept Phanar priests. While ending communion with Phanar is no pain at all, the secondary step – of ending communion
with the churches that refuse to excommunicate Phanar – is a very radical one. Other Orthodox churches are unhappy about Phanar moves.
They are aware that Phanar's new rules may threaten them, too. They are not keen to establish a Pope above themselves. But I doubt
they are ready to excommunicate Phanar.
The Russian church can take a less radical and more profitable way. The Orthodox world's unity is based on two separate principles.
One, the Eucharist. All Orthodox churches are united in the communion. Their priests can serve together and accept communion in any
recognised church. Two, the principle of canonical territory
. No church should appoint bishops on the other church's territory.
Phanar transgressed against the territorial principle. In response, the Russian Church excommunicated him. But Phanar refused
to excommunicate the Russians. As the result, the Russians are forbidden by their own church to accept communion if excommunicated
priests participate in the service. But the priests of the Church of Jerusalem do not ban anybody, neither Russians, no Phanariots.
As it happened with Russian counter-sanctions, they cause harm and pain mainly to Russians themselves. There are few Orthodox
pilgrims visiting Russia, while there are many Russian pilgrims visiting the Holy Land, Mount Athos and other important sites of
Greece, Turkey and Palestine, first of all Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Now these pilgrims won't be able to receive the holy communion
in the Holy Sepulchre and in the Nativity Cathedral, while Russian priests won't be able to celebrate mass in these churches.
The Russian priests will probably suffer and submit, while the lay pilgrims will probably break the prohibition and accept the
Eucharist in the Church of Jerusalem.
It would be better if the Russian church were to deal with Phanar's treachery on the reciprocity basis. Phanar does not excommunicate
Russians, and Russians may go back to full communion with Phanar. Phanar broke the territorial principle, and the Russians may disregard
territorial principle. Since the 20th century, canonical territory has increasingly become a violated principle of canon law, says
OrthodoxWiki . Facing such major transgression, the Russians
may completely drop the territorial principle and send their bishops to Constantinople and Jerusalem, to Rome and Washington, while
keeping all Orthodox churches in full communion.
The Russian church will be able to spread the Orthodox faith all over the world, among the French in France, among the Italians
in Italy, among Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Russian church dos not allow women into priesthood, does not allow gay unions,
does not consider the Jews its elder brothers, does not tolerate homosexual priests and allows its priests to marry. Perhaps it has
a good chance to compete with other churches for the flock and clergy.
Thus Moscow Church will be free of tenets it voluntarily accepted. Regarding communion, the Russian church can retain communion
with Phanar and Jerusalem and with other Orthodox churches, even with splinter churches on reciprocity basis. Moreover, the Russian
Church may allow communion with Catholics. At present, Catholics allow Russians to receive communion, but the Russian Church do not
allow their flock to accept Catholic communion and does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Russian churches. With all the
differences between the churches, we the Christians can share communion, flesh and blood of our Saviour, and this all we need.
All this is extremely relevant for the Holy Land. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Theophilos does not want to quarrel
with Constantinople nor with Moscow. He won't excommunicate the priests of Phanar despite Moscow's requests, and I think he is right.
Ban on communion in the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem or in the Nativity of Bethlehem would become a heavy unnecessary and self-inflicted
punishment for Russian pilgrims. That is why it makes sense to retain joint communion, while voiding the territorial principle.
Russian church may nominate its bishops in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth to attract the flock presently neglected by the traditional
Patriarchate of Jerusalem. I mean the Palestinian Christians and Israeli Christians, hundreds of thousands of them.
The Church of Jerusalem is, and had been ruled by ethnic Greeks since the city was conquered by the Ottomans in 16th century.
The Turks removed local Arab Orthodox clerics and appointed their loyal Greeks. Centuries passed by, the Turks are gone, the Greeks
are loyal only to themselves, and they do not care much about the natives. They do not allow Christian Palestinian monks to join
monasteries, they bar them from holding bishop cathedra and do not let them into the council of the church (called Synod). This flagrant
discrimination annoys Palestinian Christians; many of them turned to the Catholic, or even Protestant churches. The flock is angry
and ready to rise in revolt against the Greeks, like the Syrian Orthodox did in 1898, when they expelled the Greek bishops and elected
an Arab Patriarch of Antioch – with Russian support. (Until that time the Patriarch of Antioch had been elected in Istanbul by Phanar
monks exclusively from the "Greeks by race", as they
said in those days, and as is
the custom of the See of Jerusalem now).
Last Christmas, the Patriarch of Jerusalem had been blocked from entering the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem by angry local Christians,
and only Israeli army allowed him to get in. If the Russian Church will establish its bishops in the Holy Land, or even appoint her
own Patriarch of Rum (traditional name of the Church) many churches of the Holy Land will accept him, and many faithful will find
the church that they can relate to. For the Greek leadership of the Jerusalem church is interested in pilgrimage churches only; they
care for pilgrims from Greece and for Greeks in the Holy Land.
ORDER IT NOW
There are many Russian Orthodox in Israel; the Greeks of the Church do not attend to their needs. Since 1948, not a single new
church had been built by the Orthodox in Israel. Big cities with many Christians – Beer Sheba, Afula, touristy Eilat – have no churches
at all. For sure, we can partly blame Israeli authorities and their hatred of Christianity. However, the Church of Jerusalem is not
trying hard enough to erect new churches.
There is a million of immigrants from Russia in Israel. Some of them were Christians, some want to enter the church, being disappointed
by brutal and hostile Judaism. They had some romantic image of the Jewish faith, being brought up in atheist USSR, but the reality
was not even similar. Not only them; Israelis of every origin are unhappy with Judaism that exists now in Israel. They are ready
for Christ. A new church of the Holy Land established by Russians can bring Israelis, Jews and non-Jews, native Palestinians and
immigrants to Christ.
Thus Phanar's rejection of territorialism can be used for the greater glory of the Church. Yes, the Russian church will change
its character and assume some of global, ecumenical function. This is big challenge; I do not know whether the Russians are ready
for it, whether the Patriarch of Moscow Kyril is daring enough for it.
His Church is rather timid; the bishops do not express their views in public. However, a Moscow priest Fr Vsevolod Chaplin, who
was close to the Patriarch until recently, publicly called for full reformatting of the Orthodox Christianity, for getting rid of
rotten boroughs and phantoms, for establishing sturdy connection between laity and Patriarchate. Without great push by the incautious
Patriarch Bartholomew, these ideas could gestate for years; now they can come forth and change the face of the faith.
Constantinople, the Christian capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the greatest city of his time, the seat of Roman emperors,
was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 145 2
According to Wiki:
The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire by an invading Ottoman army on 29 May
145 3 .
@geokat62 First, using Wikipedia as a
reference source is rather déclassé. You are right, however–Wikipedia is right, however–Constantinople did fall in 1493 and Mr.
Shamir was wrong. However, as the title of The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492 (sic) tells, the empire
was gone in 1492. We all make mistakes and a few months' difference in events that happened over 500 years ago seems of little
significance. That you needed to bring it to our attention has far more significance to me.
Well now we have the second installment of the Great Orthodox Schism Controversy
I must say that Shamir does spin a rather lively story here rather more gripping than Saker's sombre monograph of a few weeks
ago
One is tantalized by images of dancing Israelis who are 'ready for Christ' and French and Italians converting en masse to Orthodoxy
[what with all the advantages outlined here by Shamir, I must admit it does sound rather attractive, for anyone thinking of 'trading
in' so to speak...]
A possible 'takeover' of the Patriarchate of Rum [will they add Coke...?] the possibilities are endless
'A new church of the Holy Land established by Russians can bring Israelis, Jews and non-Jews, native Palestinians and immigrants
to Christ.'
I usually like Shamir's writings but this article clearly shows up his shortcomings on this particular subject. He treats the
whole affair as if it is a business deal and then tallies up the pluses and the minuses for the Russian Orthodox church. He forgets
that the Russian church was massively persecuted and that for them doing the correct thing in God's site is the only thing.
The spacious country with its hard-working people, fertile black soil, the cream of Soviet industry producing aircraft,
missiles, trains and tractors, with the best and largest army within the Warsaw Treaty, with its universities, good roads,
proximity to Europe, expensive infrastructure connecting East and West, the Ukraine had a much better chances for success than
rump Russia.
Soviet-era industries couldn't compete in the modern capitalist economy, and were destined to die. Post-communist Ukraine had
no capable class of entrepreneurs, its univercities couldn't meet the demands of the market economy, Ukrainian workers lacked
marketable skills. It was a recipe for failure. Russia had all the same problems of course, but it also retained its vast reserves
of oil and gas
" The Russian Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. "
The loss of the catholic church because of the Anglican church indeed was horrible, financially.
Not just catholic priests in England suffered, archbishops on the continent, of British sees, who had never been in England, suffered
enormously.
While I respect and generally enjoy Shamir's intellect and writing skills, in this topic he is completely out of his depth. He
recommends actions which would totally destroy Christ's Church on earth, deforming it into a mere worldly contestant for the praise
of men.
The one true Church is not an episode in political gamesmanship–regardless how heretical bishops may behave from time to time–but
Shamir only relates to it in terms of what behaviors would yield the greatest worldly satisfaction in political power. This is
the fatal road the Roman church went down (labeled with the year 1054) when their mere bishop decided he needs to be the Pope
of the entire world and so broke communion and excommunicated the rest of the Church (which remained Orthodox). The papacy then
went on to a successful pursuit of worldly power through the sword that continues to this day. Restore communion with the Roman
pope??? Is Shamir crazy??? Each pope puts himself in the place of Christ (antichrist), and true Orthodox will never have Eucharist
with that.
Russia's mistake and the mistake of the rest of Orthodoxy is to have gone along with Constantinople (out of brotherly love
and respect for Tradition) for the past 100 years of her micro-heresies. The First and Most Egregious action by Constantinople
was to exploit the bloody Soviet persecution of the Church in Russia to declare that the rest of the Orthodox world must switch
from the Church calendar to the secular, civil calendar devised by the Latins. This was the kickoff of a chain of heretical actions
which are continuing throughout the world, to the extent that now so-called churches contemplate legitimizing women priests, sodomy,
pedophilia, and turning the Eucharist into a cafeteria.
The USA is 100% actively behind the actions in Ukraine and the Phanar. In fact no one can be enthroned in Constantinople without
the sponsorship of the CIA. So this arch-heretic Bartholomew of the Phanar "elevates" an excommunicated prideful heretic, Philaret,
to be the "head" a new "orthodox church in Ukraine." This is the empire seeking to destroy the strength of Russia, which is Orthodoxy.
The Evil wants to turn Orthodoxy into a beautiful whitewashed tomb: resplendent cathedrals, sumptuous robes, exalted chanting,
artful icons, politically correct bishops. But inside it will be full of dead men's bones.
" The Russian Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. "
The loss of the catholic church because of the Anglican church indeed was horrible, financially.
Not just catholic priests in England suffered, archbishops on the continent, of British sees, who had never been in England, suffered
enormously.
While I respect and generally enjoy Shamir's intellect and writing skills, in this topic he is completely out of his depth. He
recommends actions which would totally destroy Christ's Church on earth, deforming it into a mere worldly contestant for the praise
of men.
The one true Church is not an episode in political gamesmanship -- regardless how heretical bishops may behave from time to time–but
Shamir only relates to it in terms of what behaviors would yield the greatest worldly satisfaction in political power. This is
the fatal road the Roman church went down (labeled with the year 1054) when their mere bishop decided he needs to be the Pope
of the entire world and so broke communion and excommunicated the rest of the Church (which remained Orthodox).
The papacy then
went on to a successful pursuit of worldly power through the sword that continues to this day. Restore communion with the Roman
pope??? Is Shamir crazy??? Each pope puts himself in the place of Christ (antichrist), and true Orthodox will never have Eucharist
with that.
Russia's mistake and the mistake of the rest of Orthodoxy is to have gone along with Constantinople (out of brotherly love
and respect for Tradition) for the past 100 years of her micro-heresies. The First and Most Egregious action by Constantinople
was to exploit the bloody Soviet persecution of the Church in Russia to declare that the rest of the Orthodox world must switch
from the Church calendar to the secular, civil calendar devised by the Latins. This was the kickoff of a chain of heretical actions
which are continuing throughout the world, to the extent that now so-called churches contemplate legitimizing women priests, sodomy,
pedophilia, and turning the Eucharist into a cafeteria.
The USA is 100% actively behind the actions in Ukraine and the Phanar. In fact no one can be enthroned in Constantinople without
the sponsorship of the CIA. So this arch-heretic Bartholomew of the Phanar "elevates" an excommunicated prideful heretic, Philaret,
to be the "head" a new "orthodox church in Ukraine." This is the empire seeking to destroy the strength of Russia, which is Orthodoxy.
The Evil wants to turn Orthodoxy into a beautiful whitewashed tomb: resplendent cathedrals, sumptuous robes, exalted chanting,
artful icons, politically correct bishops. But inside it will be full of dead men's bones.
Very thoughtful article. While the brilliant conclusion that there could be advantages in abandoning the territorial principle
in Orthodoxy might offer some hope to the incoherent situation in the American Church, on the other hand letting go of territoriality
sacrifices regionalism for globalism. So is this a great opportunity or an execration? That would depend on whether the Patriarchs
are intent on building Christ's Kingdom, or their own.
says: November 24, 2018 at 5:38 pm
GMT 100 Words @Big Bill They fought that it
was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they could quickly achieve Western
European standard of living. The first guy to become president of independent Ukraine promised
people that they were going to "live like France" .in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
step 1: Separate from Russia.
step 2:
step 3: France
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results Phanar Phantom
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart ?
are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
@Felix
Keverich Thanks for confirming that you have zero credentials in any technical field yet
you are somehow posing as someone qualified to talk about industry
Glad you are blocking me you little worm the Ostrich response do you cover your eyes and
ears when your teacher or parent [or caregiver, since you are obviously retarded] says
something that is true but which you don't want to hear ?
As for Soviet era factories churning out 'worthless crap' that would include the world's
best rocket engines, decades ahead of the west's technology ?
@Felix
Keverich Liberast opinion. People with this views destroyed the country, caused massive
displacement and demographic and social catastrophes. People with your views should not be
allowed to the levers of power for the distance of avangard shot. If to follow your logic USA
and China must dismantle and sell as scrap metal their MIC as they both clearly cannot
compete with Russian MIC. National manufacturing of everything is not about competition. It
is about souverenity in everything and national capability to provide own population both
with goods and means to make a living via manufacturing of everything needed. Current
situation with so much of everything made in China is an abomination that hurts too much
people around the globe. People with your views in Russia should be purged and preferably
executed for crimes against former Soviet people.
I find it strange that shamir who professes communist views is paying so much attention to
this basically religious spat about power and money. Wasn't it once th as t that religion is
opium for masses. It is here to keep population down so that it is easily fleeced by thieves.
The only value for Russia in orthodoxy at the moment is that the country completely devote of
ideology as per constitution there must be something to hold people together and give some
meaning to their existence.
Vesti News
Published on 19 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
Since Monday, we've been watching Poroshenko's panic. On the one hand, he was throwing rude
tantrums because his project to create a "new Church of Ukraine" didn't go as planned. He
only managed to create a branch of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Kiev, which is not the
division-building thing Poroshenko dreamed of. On the other hand, Ukraine, where it's already
snowing, isn't ready for winter.
My suspicion then that Poroshenko must have intended for this new Church of Ukraine to be
subservient to Kiev so that all its properties could be declared state properties and the
Church's wealth could be Kiev's (and Poroshenko's) for the taking only increased when I saw
this report. Interesting too that Poroshenko only now, near the end of his Presidency, is
selling off the assets he should have sold off at the start of his Presidency in compliance
with Ukrainian law.
Gee; who could ever have imagined such a thing would happen? Russia should handle any
emerging crisis very carefully, because Kiev will want to find a way to blame all Ukraine's
problems on Russia, as usual. Russia might win quite a few allies if it boxes clever.
No need to write Poroshenko's epitaph just yet; he's only sold off a ratty old shipyard
that likely was not making him any money anyway. That's not a bellwether of panic; not yet.
But he is almost certain to lose to Tymoshenko, and she will be a double whammy for Ukraine
because she has no more idea how to solve the problem than does Poroshenko, is steadfastly
loyal to the west although it has done nothing since the glorious Maidan but mess Ukraine up
even more than it already was, with the added bonus that she will probably usher in a
circuses-but-no-bread distraction of gunning for Poroshenko and his government, using the
premise that they are to blame for Ukraine's disintegration. That's broadly true, but
Tymoshenko has no plan at all for what comes after Ukrainians' fury is sated.
"On Nov.14, just a day before the decision to cut assistance, the European Parliament
overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution saying Moldova has become a "state captured by
oligarchic interests" that exert their influence over most parts of Moldova's society. The
country is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons."
Ukraine is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons; according to the European Council
on Foreign Relations (which wants Ukraine to succeed as a western satellite, so you can bet
anything negative about it will be soft-pedaled), the 50 5ichest Ukrainians pre-maidan
controlled 45% of national GDP.
Anyone want to present the case that the situation has improved since its oligarchic
president took power, and used it to continuously enrich himself and his family, maintaining
his status as a wealthy businessman even as he takes the odd moment out now and again to see
how the country's doing? I thought not.
Last year, after the country has had quite a generous spell to throw off the shackles of
its oligarchy, the top FIVE Ukrainian oligarchs alone control 13% of the nation's GDP –
Rinat Akhmetov, Ihor Kolomoyskiy, Victor Pinchuk, Petro Poroshenko and Dmytro Firtash.
Waiting in the wings to take over the helm, Yulia Tymoshenko, once known as 'the Gas
Princess", and another oligarch who has been rich since she was very young, whose past
performance suggests Ukraine is in for another round of nest-feathering and struggle for
financial gain among its wealthy citizens, with not a toss given for the rest.
Think we'll see the EU cut them off from funding any time soon? Me, either.
Food scarcity and malnutrition of children under the age of 5, places the Ukraine in
percentage terms lower than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iraq .the Ukraine welcomes the Cookie
Monster (stats National Geographic)
Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama proudly, even imperially, described it when
delivering the Commencement address to America's future generals, at West Point Military
Academy, on
28 May 2014 :
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is
therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über
alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else
will...
Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's
economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle
classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future U.S. military leaders that they
are to fight for the U.S. aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] ...
In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern
Europe. But this isn't the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. [He was proud of the U.S. Government's effectiveness at
propaganda, just as Hitler was proud of the German Government's propaganda-effectiveness
under Joseph Goebbels.] Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned
Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our
commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine's economy;
OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
No other nation regularly invades other nations that never had invaded it. This is
international aggression. It is the international crime of "War of Aggression" ; and the only
nations which do it nowadays are America and its allies, such as the Sauds, Israel, France, and
UK, which often join in America's aggressions (or, in the case of the Sauds' invasion of Yemen,
the ally initiates an invasion, which the U.S. then joins). America's generals are taught this
aggression, and not only by Obama. Ever since at least George W. Bush, it has been solid U.S.
policy. (Bush even kicked out the U.N.'s weapons-inspectors, so as to bomb Iraq in 2003.)
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join
in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which
the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it
only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the
United States. Furthermore, because the U.S. regime reigns supreme over the entire world, as it
does, any nations -- such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba, and Ecuador -- that the U.S. regime (which
has itself been scientifically proven to be a dictatorship ) chooses to treat as an enemy,
is especially disadvantaged internationally. Russia and China, however, are among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and therefore possess a degree of international
protection that America's other chosen enemies do not. And the people who choose which nations
to identify as America's 'enemies' are America's super-rich and not the entire American
population, because
the U.S. Government is controlled by the super-rich and not by the public .
If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council would table at the U.N. a
proposal to eliminate the immunity that the U.S. regime has, from investigation and prosecution
for any future War of Aggression that it might perpetrate, then, of course, the U.S. and any of
its allies on the Security Council would veto that, but if the proposing nation would then
constantly call to the international public's attention that the U.S. and its allies had
blocked passage of such a crucially needed "procedure to amend the UN
charter" , and that this fact means that the U.S. and its allies constitute fascist regimes
as was understood and applied against Germany's fascist regime, at the Nuremberg Tribunal in
1945, then possibly some members of the U.S.-led gang (the NATO portion of it, at least) would
quit that gang, and the U.S. global dictatorship might end, so that there would then become a
multi-polar world, in which democracy could actually thrive.
Democracy can only shrivel in a mono-polar world, because all other nations then are simply
vassal nations, which accept Obama's often-repeated dictum that all other nations are
"dispensable" and that only the U.S. is not. Even the UK would actually gain in freedom, and in
democracy, by breaking away from the U.S., because it would no longer be under the U.S. thumb
-- the thumb of the global aggressor-nation.
Only one global poll has ever been taken of the question "Which
country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" and it found
that, overwhelmingly, by a three-to-one ratio above the second-most-often named country, the
United States was identified as being precisely that, the top threat to world-peace . But then,
a few years later, another (though less-comprehensive) poll was taken on a similar question,
and it produced
similar results . Apparently, despite the effectiveness of America's propagandists, people
in other lands recognize quite well that today's America is a more successful and
longer-reigning version of Hitler's Germany. Although modern America's propaganda-operation is
far more sophisticated than Nazi Germany's was, it's not entirely successful. America's
invasions are now too common, all based on lies, just like Hitler's were.
On November 9th, Russian Television headlined "'Very insulting': Trump bashes
Macron's idea of European army for protection from Russia, China & US" and reported
that "US President Donald Trump has unloaded on his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, calling
the French president's idea of a 'real European army,' independent from Washington, an insult."
On the one hand, Trump constantly criticizes France and other European nations for allegedly
not paying enough for America's NATO military alliance, but he now is denigrating France for
proposing to other NATO members a decreasing reliance upon NATO, and increasing reliance,
instead, upon the
Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) European military alliance , which was begun on
11 December 2017, and which currently has "25 EU Member States participating: Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden." Those are the European nations that are now on the path
to eventually quitting NATO.
Once NATO is ended, the U.S. regime will find far more difficult any invasions such as of
Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2016-, and maybe even such as America's bloody coup
that overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a racist-fascist or
nazi anti-Russian regime there in 2014 . All of these U.S. invasions (and coup) brought to
Europe millions of refugees and enormously increased burdens upon European taxpayers. Plus,
America's economic sanctions against both Russia and Iran have hurt European companies (and the
U.S. does almost no business with either country, so is immune to that, also). Consequently,
today's America is clearly Europe's actual main enemy. The continuation of NATO is actually
toxic to the peoples of Europe. Communism and the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirroring Warsaw
Pact military alliance, all ended peacefully in 1991, but
the U.S. regime has secretly continued the Cold War, now against Russia , and is
increasingly focusing its "regime-change" propaganda against Russia's
popular democratic leader, Vladimir Putin, even though this U.S. aggression against Russia
could mean a world-annihilating nuclear war.
Europe's desire to create its own army and stop relying on Washington for defense is not
only understandable, but would be "positive" for the multipolar world, Vladimir Putin said
days after Donald Trump ripped into it.
" Europe is a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be
independent and sovereign in the field of defense and security," Putin told RT in Paris where
world leader gathered to mark the centenary of the end of WWI.
He also described the potential creation of a European army "a positive process," adding
that it would "strengthen the multipolar world." The Russian leader even expressed his
support to French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently championed this idea by saying that
Russia's stance on the issue "is aligned with that of France" to some extent.
Macron recently revived the ambitious plans of creating a combined EU military force by
saying that it is essential for the security of Europe. He also said that the EU must become
independent from its key ally on the other side of the Atlantic, provoking an angry reaction
from Washington.
Once NATO has shrunk to include only the pro-aggression and outright nazi European nations, such as
Ukraine (after the U.S. gang accepts Ukraine into NATO, as it almost certainly then would
do), the EU will have a degree of freedom and of democracy that it can only dream of today, and
there will then be a multi-polar world, in which the leaders of the U.S. will no longer enjoy
the type of immunity from investigation and possible prosecution, for their invasions, that
they do today. The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100
U.S. 'defense' contractors , such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon,
because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other
feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to
keep the Sauds to the agreements he reached with them back in 2017 to buy
$404 billion of U.S. weaponry over the following 10 years . If, in addition, those firms
lose some of their European sales, then the U.S. economic boom thus far in Trump's Presidency
will be seriously endangered. So, the U.S. regime, which is run by the owners
of its 'defense'-contractors , will do all it can to prevent this from happening.
"... Union Jackboot: What Your Media and Professors Don't Tell You About British Foreign Policy ..."
"... There seems to be a consensus that we need a strong military because Russia is on the rise. What do you think about that rationale? ..."
"... What about military threats? ..."
"... So we've extended NATO to pretty much the Russian border? But there's a hard border there. Everyone knows we're never going to attack Russia, both for reasons of morality and self-preservation. So maybe this situation is safer than you imply. ..."
"... Brexit White Paper ..."
"... T. J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University's Cognition Institute and the author of several books. ..."
"... Matthew Alford teaches at Bath University in the UK and has also written several books. Their latest is ..."
"... The Rise and Fall of the British Empire ..."
"... Bolshevism and Imperial Sedition ..."
"... Power without Responsibility ..."
"... Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin's Global Plot ..."
"... Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community ..."
"... Vision for 2020 ..."
"... Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future ..."
"... The New Atlanticist ..."
"... The United Kingdom's relations with Russia ..."
Alford: There seems to be a consensus that we need a strong military because Russia is on the rise. What do you think about
that rationale?
Coles: There's no consensus, except among European and American elites. Europe and America are not the world.
There are a lot of issues to consider with regards to Russia. Is it a threat? If so to whom? What kind of threat is Russia? So
let's consider these questions carefully. As far as the British establishment is concerned, Russia is an ideological threat because
it is a major power with a substantial population. It's also self-reliant where oil and gas is concerned, unlike Britain. So there's
lots of potential for Russian political ideology to undermine Britain's status. In fact, there are European Council on Foreign Relations
papers saying that Putin's Russia presents an "ideological alternative" to the EU.
[i] And that's dangerous.
Britain, or more accurately its policymaking elites, have considered Russia a significant enemy for over a century. Under the
Tsar, the so-called Great Game was a battle for strategic resources, trading routes, and so on. The historian Lawrence James calls
this period the first Cold War, which went "hot" with the Crimean War (1853-56).
[ii] Britain had a mixed relationship with
the Tsars because, on the one hand, theirs' were repressive regimes and Britain tended to favour repressive regimes, hence their
brief alliance with Russia's enemy, the Ottomans. On the other hand, Russia was a strategic threat to Britain's imperial interests,
and thus the Crimean War (1853-56).
When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, beginning 1917, the relationship became much less ambiguous – Russians, and especially Bolsheviks,
were clearly the enemy. Their ideology posed a threat internally. So Winston Churchill, who began as a Liberal and became a Conservative,
considered the Labour Party, which was formed in 1900, as basically a front for Bolsheviks.
[iii] That shows the level of paranoia among
elites. The Labour Party, at least at the beginning, was a genuine, working man's political organisation – women couldn't vote then,
remember. So by associating this progressive, grassroots party representing the working classes as an ideological ally or even puppet
of the brutal Bolshevik regime, the Tories had an excuse to undermine the power of organised, working people. So you had the Zinoviev
letter in 1924, which we now know was a literal conspiracy between the secret services and elements of the Tory party to fabricate
a link between Labour and Moscow. And it famously cost Labour the general election, since the right-wing, privately-owned media ran
with the story as though it was real. It's an early example of fake news.
[iv]
That's the ideological threat that Russia has posed, historically. But where there's a threat, there's an opportunity. The British
elites exploited the "threat" then and as they do today by associating organised labour with evil Bolshevism and, in doing so, alienate
the lower classes from their own political interests. Suddenly, we've all got to be scared of Russia, just like in 1917. And let's
not forget that Britain used chemical weapons – M-Devices, which induced vomiting – against the Bolsheviks. Chemical weapons were
"the right medicine for the Bolshevist," in Churchill's words. This was in 1919, as part of the Allied invasion of Russia in support
of the White Army. [v]
So if we're talking about the historical balance of forces and cause and effect, Britain not Russia initiated the use of chemical
weapons against others. But this history is typically inverted to say that Russia poses a threat to the West, hence all the talk
about Novichok, the Skripals, and Dawn Sturgess, the civilian who supposedly came into contact with Novichok and died in hospital
a few days later.
The next question: What sort of threat is Russia? According to the US Army War College, since the collapse of the Soviet
Union and since pro-US, pro-"free market" President Boris Yeltsin resigned in 1999, Russia has pursued so-called economic nationalism.
And the US doesn't like this because markets suddenly get closed and taxes are raised against US corporations.
[vi] That's the real threat. But you can't
tell the public that: that we hate Russia because they aren't doing what we say. If you look through the military documents, you
can find almost nothing about security threats against the US in terms of Russian
expansion, except in the sense that "security" means operational freedom. You can find references to Russia's nuclear weapons,
though, which are described as defensive, designed "to counter US forces and weapons systems."
[vii] Try finding that on the BBC. I should
mention that even "defensive" nukes can be launched accidentally.
The real goal with regards to Russia is maintaining US economic hegemony and the culture of open "free markets" that goes with
it, while at the same time being protectionist in real life. (US protectionism didn't start under Trump, by the way.) Liberal media
like the New York Times run sarcastic articles about Russian state oil and gas being a front for Putin and his cronies.
And yes, that may be true. But what threat is Russia to the US if it has a corrupt government? The threat is closing its markets
to the US. The US is committed to what its military calls Full Spectrum Dominance. So the world needs to be run in a US-led neoliberal
order, in the words of the US military, "to protect US interests and investment."
[viii] But this cannot be done if you have
"economic nationalism," like China had until the "reforms" of the '70s and '80s, and still has today to some extent. Russia and China
aren't military threats. The global population on the whole knows this, even though the domestic US and British media say the opposite.
Alford: What about military threats?
Coles: The best sources you can get are the US military records. Straight from the horse's mouth. The military plans for war and
defence. They have contingencies for when political situations change. So they know what they're talking about. There's a massive
divide between reality, as understood from the military records, and media and political rhetoric. Assessments by the US Army War
College, for instance, said years ago that any moves by NATO to support a Western-backed government in Ukraine would provoke Russia
into annexing Crimea. They don't talk about Russia spontaneously invading Ukraine and annexing it, which is the image we get from
the media. The documents talk about Russia reacting to NATO provocation.
[ix]
If you look at a map, you see Russia surrounded by hostile NATO forces. The media don't discuss this dangerous and provocative
situation, except the occasional mention of, say, US-British-Polish war-gaming on the border with Russia. When they do mention it,
they say it's for "containment," the containment of Russia. But to contain something, the given thing has to be expanding. But the
US military – like the annual threat assessments to Congress – say that Russia's not expanding, except when provoked. So at the moment
as part of its NATO mission, the UK is training Polish and Ukrainian armed forces, has deployed troops in Poland and Estonia, and
is conducting military exercises with them.
[x]
Imagine if Scotland ceded from the UK and the Russians were on our border conducting military exercises, supposedly to deter a
British invasion of Scotland. That's what we're doing in Ukraine. Britain's moves are extremely dangerous. In the 1980s, the UK as
part of NATO conducted the exercise, Operation Able Archer, which envisaged troop build-ups between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries.
Now-declassified records show that the Russians briefly mistook this exercise for a real-world scenario. That could have escalated
into nuclear war. This is very serious. [xi]
But the biggest player is the USA. It's using the threat of force and a global architecture of hi-tech militarism to shape a neoliberal
order. Britain is slavishly following its lead. I doubt that Britain would position forces near Russia were it not for the USA. Successive
US administrations have or are building a missile system in Europe and Turkey. They say it's to deter Iran from firing Scud missiles
at Europe. But it's pointed at Russia. It's a radar system based in Romania and Turkey, with a battery of Patriot missiles based
in Poland. The stationing of missiles there provoked Russia into moving its mobile nuclear weapons up to the border in its Kaliningrad
exclave, as it warned it would do in 2008.
[xii] Try to find any coverage of that in the media, except for a few articles in the print media here or there. If Western media
were interested in survival, there would be regular headlines: "NATO provoking Russia."
But the situation in Ukraine is really the tipping point. Consider the equivalent. Imagine if Russia was conducting military exercises
with Canada or Mexico, and building bases there. How would the US react? It would be considered an extreme threat, a violation of
the UN Charter, which prohibits threats against sovereign states.
Alford: So we've extended NATO to pretty much the Russian border? But there's a hard border there. Everyone knows we're never
going to attack Russia, both for reasons of morality and self-preservation. So maybe this situation is safer than you imply.
Coles: There's no morality involved. States are abstract, amorphous entities comprised of dominant minorities and subjugated majorities
who are conditioned to believe that they are relatively free and prosperous. The elites of those states act both in their self-interests
– career, peer-pressure, kickbacks, and so on – and in the interests of their class, which is of course tied to international relations
because their class thrives on profiting from resource exploitation. So you can't talk about morality in this context. Only individuals
can behave morally. The state is made up of individuals, of course, but they're acting against the interests of the majority. As
we speak, they are acting immorally – or at least amorally – but creating the geopolitical conditions that imperil each
and every one of us.
As for invasion, we're not going to invade Russia. This isn't 1918. Russia has nuclear weapons and can deter an invasion. But
that's not the point. Do we want to de-escalate an already tense geopolitical situation or make it worse to the point where an accident
happens? So while it's not about invading Russia directly, the issue is about attacking what are called Russia's "national interests."
Russia's "national interests" are the same as the elites' of the UK. National interest doesn't mean the interests of the public.
It means the interests of the policymaking establishment and the corporations. For example, the Theresa May government sacrificed
its own credibility to ensure that its Brexit White Paper (2018) appeased both the interests of the food and manufacturing
industries that want a soft Brexit – easy trade with the EU – and the financial services sector which wants a hard Brexit – freedom
from EU regulation. Everyone else be damned. That's the "national interest."
So for its real "national interest," Russia wants to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence because its oil and gas to Europe
pass through Ukraine. About 80% of Russia's export economy is in the oil and gas sector. It's already had serious political tensions
with Ukraine, which on several occasions hasn't paid its energy bills, so Russia has cut supplies. If Europe can bump Ukraine into
its own sphere of influence it has more leverage over Russia. This is practically admitted in Parliamentary discussions by Foreign
Office ministers, and so forth. [xiii]
Again, omitted by the media. Also, remember that plenty of ethnic Russians live in eastern Ukraine. In addition, Russia has a naval
base in Crimea. That's not to excuse its illegal action in annexing Ukraine, it's to highlight the realpolitik missing in
the media's coverage of the situation.
T. J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University's Cognition Institute and the author of several books.
Matthew Alford teaches at Bath University in the UK and has also written several books. Their latest is
Union Jackboot(Até Books).
[ii] 'Anglo-Russian relations were severely
strained; what was in effect a cold war lasted from the late 1820s to the beginning of the next century'. The Crimean War seems to
have set a precedent for today. James writes:
[It] was an imperial war, the only one fought by Britain against a European power during the nineteenth century, although some
would have regarded Russia as essentially an Asiatic power. No territory was at stake; the war was undertaken solely to guarantee
British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean and, indirectly, to forestall any threat to India which might have followed Russia
replacing Britain as the dominant power in the Middle East.
Lawrence James (1997) The Rise and Fall of the British Empire London: Abacus, pp. 180-82.
All these strikes and rumours of strikes and threats of strikes and loss and suffering caused by them; all this talk of revolution
and "direct action" have deeply offended most of the British people. There is a growing feeling that a considerable section of
organized Labour is trying to tyrannize over the whole public and to bully them into submission, not by argument, not by recognized
political measures, but by brute force
But if we can do little for Russia [under the Bolsheviks], we can do much for Britain. We do not want any of these experiments
here
Whether it is the Irish murder gang or the Egyptian vengeance society, or the seditious extremists in India, or the arch-traitors
we have at home, they will feel the weight of the British arm.
A settlement of relations between the two countries [UK and Russia] will assist in the revolutionising of the international
and British proletariat, [and] make it possible for us to extend and develop the propaganda and ideas of Leninism in England and
the colonies.
It also says that 'British workmen' have 'inclinations to compromise' and that rapprochement will eventually lead to domestic
'[a]rmed warfare'. It was leaked by the services to the Conservative party and then to the media. Richard Norton-Taylor (1999) 'Zinoviev
letter was dirty trick by MI6' Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/04/uk.politicalnews6
and Louise Jury (1999) 'Official Zinoviev letter was forged' Independenthttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/official-zinoviev-letter-was-forged-1068600.html
. For media coverage at the time, see James Curran and Jean Seaton (1997) Power without Responsibility London: Routledge,
p. 52.
[v] Paul F. Walker (2017) 'A Century
of Chemical Warfare: Building a World Free of Chemical Weapons' Conference: One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment,
Consequences pp. 379-400 and Giles Milton (2013) Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin's Global Plot
London: Hodder, eBook.
[vi] 'The Russian Federation has shown
repeatedly that common values play almost no role in its consideration of its trading partners', meaning the US and EU. 'It often
builds relationships with countries that most openly thwart Western values of free markets and democracy', notably Iran and Venezuela.
'In this regard, the Russian Federation behaves like "Russia Incorporated." It uses its re-nationalized industries to further its
wealth and influence, the latter often at the expense of the EU and the U.S.'. Colonel Richard J. Anderson (2008) 'A History of President
Putin's Campaign to Re-Nationalize Industry and the Implications for Russian Reform and Foreign Policy' Senior Service College, US
Army War College, Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks, p. 52.
[vii] Daniel R. Coats (2017) Statement
for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington,
DC: Office of the Director of
[ix] The document also says: 'a replay
of the West-sponsored coup against pro-Russian elites could result in a split, or indeed multiple splits, of the failed Ukraine,
which would open a door for NATO intervention'.Pavel K. Baev (2011) 'Russia's security relations with the United States: Futures
planned and unplanned' in Stephen J. Blank (ed.) Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future Strategic Studies Institute
Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks, p. 170, www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1087.pdf.
[xi] For example, Nate Jones, Thomas
Blanton and Christian F. Ostermann (2016) 'Able Archer 83: The Secret History' Nuclear Proliferation International History Project
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/able-archer-83-the-secret-history
.
[xii] It was reported in the ultra-right,
neo-con press at the time that:
[Russian] President Dmitri Medvedev announced in his first state-of-the-nation address plans to deploy the short-range SS-26
("Iskander") missiles in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad if the U.S. goes ahead with its European Ballistic Missile Defense
System (BMDS). Medvedev told parliament that the deployment would "neutralize" U.S. plans for a missile defense shield based in
Poland and the Czech Republic [now in Romania), which the U.S. claims as vital in defending against missile attacks from 'rogue
states' such as Iran.
Neil Leslie (2008) 'The Kaliningrad Missile Crisis' The New Atlanticist , available at http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-kaliningrad-missile-crisis.
[xiii] For example, a Parliamentary
inquiry into British-Russian relations says of the newly-imposed US-British ally in Ukraine:
President Poroshenko's Government is more openly committed to economic reform and anti-corruption than any previous Ukrainian
Administration. The reform agenda has made considerable progress and has enjoyed some successes including police reform, liberalisation
of the energy market and the launch of an online platform for government procurement
The annexation of Crimea also resulted in a ban on importing products from Crimea, on investing in or providing services linked
to tourism and on exporting certain goods for use in the transport, telecoms and energy sectors.
This is the net result of neoliberalism enforced debt slavery for the country. And there is no chances for Ukrainians to
climb back from this debt hole.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's SSS has acknowledged that so far this year, the population has already decreased by 122,000. ..."
"... While the country's low birth rate of approximately 1 birth for 1.5 deaths is a contributing factor to the country's depopulation, emigration is by far the biggest factor. ..."
"... Between 2002 and 2017, an estimated 6.3 million Ukrainians emigrated with no plans to return. ..."
"... Through 2015 and 2017, as a result of the ongoing war in the Donbass region and the plunging value of the Ukrainian hryvnia, migration increased notably: 507,000 people went to Poland; 147,000 to Italy; 122,000 to the Czech Republic; 23,000 to the United States; and 365,000 to Russia or Belarus. ..."
"... The easing of visa-free travel by the European Union (EU) in September 2017 only increased the flow of Ukrainians to countries such as Poland, which is facing its own demographic crisis and in need of workers. In 2018 alone, more than 3 million Ukrainians applied for passports that would allow them to work in Poland. Poland is the only EU country that allows Ukrainians to obtain seasonal work visas with just a passport. Ukrainians have received 81.7% of all work visas issued in Poland this year. ..."
"... Between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian workers now reside in Poland, where they are often forced to take jobs "under the table," are easily exploited by employers, and work in dangerous conditions. Many Ukrainian laborers are recruited to Poland by scam offers of employment, only to then find themselves stranded and forced to work for whatever wage they can get. ..."
"... While Russia is constantly demonized in the Ukrainian and Western press as the eternal enemy of Ukraine, 2 million Ukrainian citizens now live or work in Russia. According to Olga Kirilova, between 2014 and 2017, 312,000 Ukrainians were granted Russian citizenship and Ukrainians make up the vast majority of immigrants to Russia. ..."
"... The migration of Ukrainian workers abroad has reached such a level that remittances from migrants now constitute 3 to 4 percent of the country's GDP. They exceed the amount of foreign investment in Ukraine. Nonetheless, such transfers are not nearly enough to make up for the negative impact of the currency's falling value, inflation, and the disappearance of skilled workers. ..."
"... The Ukrainian ruling class acknowledges that the country is in serious trouble. "One of the main risks of the current scenario is the continuation of the outflow of labor from Ukraine, which will create a further increase in the imbalance between demand and supply in the labor market," noted a report from the country's national bank. ..."
"... The Corrupt, extreme right wing government of Poroshenko, that has driven large proportions of the Ukrainian population into poverty and despair has only been able to take power and remain I office thanks to US imperialism and Angela Merkel's scheming and regime change program. ..."
"... Popular support for the "maidan" in the Ukraine was based on misleading and dishonest claims by pro EU and Pro US opportunistic political operators that such "regime change" would lead to total integration with Europe and open borders.... ..."
"... One of the most horrific consequences of the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the explosion of sex trafficking and very large numbers of Ukrainian women were caught up in this horrific exploitation and continue to be. ..."
"... Oh the benefits of US installed dictatorships. ..."
"... "Welcome to Europe, Ukraine. Here are your rubber gloves and toilet cleaning brush. Oh, you're a young woman? The red light district is three blocks that way". ..."
"... In Baltic states after being "freed from communism and Soviet occupation" the population decline is also very prominent, the same reasons as in Ukraine too. ..."
As fascist far-right nationalist groups regularly parade through the country demanding "Ukraine for Ukrainians," Ukraine faces
a massive depopulation crisis. Millions of people of all ethnicities are leaving the country, fleeing poverty and war.
Since the restoration of capitalism in 1991, the overall population of Ukraine has declined from just over 52 million to approximately
42 million today, a decrease of nearly 20 percent. If the separatist-controlled provinces of the Donbass region and Crimea are excluded,
it is estimated that just 35 million people now live in the area controlled by the government of Petro Porosehnko.
Ukrainian governments, including the current one, have been loath to carry out an official census, as it is widely believed that
the population estimates reported by the country's State Statistics Service (SSS) are inflated by including deceased individuals.
One aim of this is to rig elections. An official country-wide census has not been held since 2001. In late 2015, the Poroshenko government
postponed the 2016 census until 2020.
Despite the lack of reliable official numbers, all independent reports point to a sharp reduction in the population. According
to Ukraine's Institute of Demography at the Academy of Sciences, by 2050 only 32 million people will live in the country. The World
Health Organization has estimated that the population of the country will drop even further, to just 30 million people.
Ukraine's SSS has acknowledged that so far this year, the population has already decreased by 122,000.
Such data are a testament to the monumental failure of capitalism to provide a standard of living that matches, much less exceeds,
that which existed during the Soviet period over 25 years ago.
While the country's low birth rate of approximately 1 birth for 1.5 deaths is a contributing factor to the country's depopulation,
emigration is by far the biggest factor.
Between 2002 and 2017, an estimated 6.3 million Ukrainians emigrated with no plans to return.
Facing poor employment prospects, deteriorating social and medical services, marauding far-right gangs, and the ever-present
prospect of a full-scale war with Russia, Ukrainian workers are fleeing the country in great numbers, either permanently or as temporary
labor migrants.
According to a report from the Center for Economic Strategy (CES), almost 4 million people, or up to 16% of the working-age population,
are labor migrants. Despite having Ukrainian citizenship and still technically living in Ukraine, they actually reside and work elsewhere.
Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has put the number of Ukrainian migrant workers even higher, at 5 million.
Through 2015 and 2017, as a result of the ongoing war in the Donbass region and the plunging value of the Ukrainian hryvnia, migration
increased notably: 507,000 people went to Poland; 147,000 to Italy; 122,000 to the Czech Republic; 23,000 to the United States; and
365,000 to Russia or Belarus.
The easing of visa-free travel by the European Union (EU) in September 2017 only increased the flow of Ukrainians to countries
such as Poland, which is facing its own demographic crisis and in need of workers. In 2018 alone, more than 3 million Ukrainians
applied for passports that would allow them to work in Poland. Poland is the only EU country that allows Ukrainians to obtain seasonal
work visas with just a passport. Ukrainians have received 81.7% of all work visas issued in Poland this year.
Between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian workers now reside in Poland, where they are often forced to take jobs "under the table," are
easily exploited by employers, and work in dangerous conditions. Many Ukrainian laborers are recruited to Poland by scam offers of
employment, only to then find themselves stranded and forced to work for whatever wage they can get.
While migrant workers in Poland are constantly subjected to anti-immigrant rhetoric from the right-wing PiS government in Warsaw,
the Polish state classifies Ukrainian laborers as "refugees" in order to comply with EU quotas and reject refugees from Syria and
elsewhere.
According to polls of Ukrainian migrants in Poland, over half are planning to move to Germany if the labor market there is ever
open to them.
While Russia is constantly demonized in the Ukrainian and Western press as the eternal enemy of Ukraine, 2 million Ukrainian
citizens now live or work in Russia. According to Olga Kirilova, between 2014 and 2017, 312,000 Ukrainians were granted Russian citizenship
and Ukrainians make up the vast majority of immigrants to Russia.
The dearth of a working-age population in Ukraine is putting further strain on an already struggling pension system. According
to Ukraine's SSS, as a result of widespread labor migration, only 17.8 million out of 42 million Ukrainians are economically active
and paying into the pension system.
The migration of Ukrainian workers abroad has reached such a level that remittances from migrants now constitute 3 to 4 percent
of the country's GDP. They exceed the amount of foreign investment in Ukraine. Nonetheless, such transfers are not nearly enough
to make up for the negative impact of the currency's falling value, inflation, and the disappearance of skilled workers.
The Ukrainian ruling class acknowledges that the country is in serious trouble. "One of the main risks of the current scenario
is the continuation of the outflow of labor from Ukraine, which will create a further increase in the imbalance between demand and
supply in the labor market," noted a report from the country's national bank.
However, the government can do nothing to slow the mass emigration, as it is thoroughly under the control of international finance
capital and committed to implementing the austerity programs demanded by Western states and banks.
Despite assurances from the Poroshenko regime that the economy will improve, the emigration and emptying of the country shows
no signs of slowing.
The Corrupt, extreme right wing government of Poroshenko, that has driven large proportions of the Ukrainian population into
poverty and despair has only been able to take power and remain I office thanks to US imperialism and Angela Merkel's scheming
and regime change program.
Without the working class intervening the only ones remaining in Ukraine will be those unable to leave and those that have
their noses in the trough.
Another excellent report of decaying of artificial entity of Ukraine (and capitalism specializes in collapsing societies) that
never even existed before 1992 in European history and was resurrected ( from brief self declared by Bandera racist state status
in 1941) and funded by Germany, Canada and US only to nurture their Fascist and actual Nazi traditions starting from Doncov to
Bandera terror of hundreds of thousands dead 1941-1948 of OUN-B, UPA and Ukrainian SS, all against Russia, as Ukrainian "Country"
was and is used as a Trojan horse to push Putin to submit to the west even more than he does now.
Pain and suffering of Ukrainian people is enormous as only 5% of population of Ukrainian Nazi thugs terrorist nation like like
Hitler street thugs in 1932-1934. It is tragedy that capitalism instigated, exasperated and augmented and should be a lesson for
the left what nationalism does, divides working class that was rendered powerless in Ukraine as Ukrainian industry tied to Russia
collapsed and forces massive migration and de-cohesion of communities, divisions of working class and eradication of any real
leftist leadership via murder, intimidation and exile.
Just a note. All that anti Russia hoopla after 2014 and ensuing NATO belligerence and warmongering and sanctions all were focused
on so called annexation of Crimea to Russia which was nothing but reunification of land under control of Russia since 1754.
I was shocked watching an episode of Columbo, crime series in 1970s when one of characters proudly referred to California joining
in US 1845 as annexation from Mexico, with no shame or condemnation like hinting that it was international aggression of US as
Alta California was never part of US before that.
Well, it was before 1984 and Orwellian newspeak.
Note that Crimea remained autonomous region, not a part of Russia but part of Russian Federation.
Popular support for the "maidan" in the Ukraine was based on misleading and dishonest claims by pro EU and Pro US opportunistic
political operators that such "regime change" would lead to total integration with Europe and open borders.... That would
have allowed (so the misconception went) Ukrainians to flee the country much more openly with less red tape and hassle at the
borders. So, far from being politically or ideologically supportive of Europe or the US or opportunist/nationalist Ukrainian politicians,
the vast majority of Ukrainians only wanted to be allowed to flee, as they experience it, a social shipwreck
One of the most horrific consequences of the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the explosion of sex trafficking and very
large numbers of Ukrainian women were caught up in this horrific exploitation and continue to be.
Victoria Newland and Geoffrey Pyatt, both US officials, were recorded at the time of the right wing and fascist led coup that
overthrew Russian backed Yanakovic, boasting that Washington had poured $5 billion into Ukraine ensuring that their man, an ex
World Bank executive, was elected.
Since then the most rabid anti working class/ anti Russian governments have ruled the roost.
Only those unable to flee this hell- hole and those whose snout is in the trough will soon be left there. Oh the benefits
of US installed dictatorships.
In addition to emigration, Ukraine's decreasing population is a result of a higher infant mortality rate than surrounding countries.
High infant mortality rates always indicate economic and social stress.
According to The World Bank 2017 figures for infant mortality in that region, the rate per 1,000 births in Ukraine is 7.5 compared
to the following rates in surrounding countries:
Poland - 4.0
Romania - 6.6
Russia - 6.5
Belarus - 2.8
Hungary -3.8
Slovak Republic - 4.6
Only poor Moldova is higher at 13.3
Kinda shot themselves in the foot with their "Revolution of Dignity" fascist coup. "Welcome to Europe, Ukraine. Here are your
rubber gloves and toilet cleaning brush. Oh, you're a young woman? The red light district is three blocks that way".
Life in Crimea must be looking pretty good to them now.
The puppet of the USA, Poroshenko , needs to go, and the USA should get the hell out of the Ukraine plus NATO has no business
being on the borders of Russia. This is all the fault of the USA, And, the current immigration problem world wide is because the
USA bombs countries eviscerating them yet the USA refuses to admit refugees which are fleeing from the USA wars.
In Baltic states after being "freed from communism and Soviet occupation" the population decline is also very prominent, the
same reasons as in Ukraine too.
These same right-wing, fascist Ukrainian Banderovitzes love to yell and scream about the bogus "Holodomor" hoax (which has been
debunked by serious scholars such as Pers Anders Rudling, and others, as well as Thottle). They falsely claim that the USSR tried
to "depopulate" Ukrainians, when they are the ones who have depopulated Ukraine.
Speaking of Ukraine, the Russian sanctions against Ukraine have been announced. Predictably,
Poroshenko considers them to be 'an award', or so he says. I don't know why he feels
qualified to speak for those so honoured, since he was not on the list.
Trade between Russia and Ukraine hit a low of $10.26 Billion in 2016, but struggled back
up to $12.9 Billion last year. Mind you, pre-glorious-Maidan it was more than $50 Billion
annually. Never mind; I'm sure Yurrup will pick up the slack, just like it did after the
glorious Maidan. Amazingly, the New York Times is still referring to Poroshenko as a
'chocolate tycoon', in the same sentence in which it calls Viktor Pinchuk an oligarch.
This months gas tariff for "Ukrainians" increases by 24%!!
The context is that Ukrainian consumers have the lowest gas rate in Europe. Moldovan
households pay more for gas than do Ukrainian ones. Even with a 24% price increase Ukraine will
still have the cheapest gas in Europe for its consumers:
A huge line for free food at the charity kitchen in Kiev can be seen here: http://rusvesna.su/news/1539952343
(those who read Russian can find details in the accompanying news item).
I guess all of this is a great achievement of Maidan. Ukies, please comment.
just watched the Atlantic council's Championing the Frontlines of Freedom: Erasing the
"Grey Zone", only interesting thing to come out of the conference was Kurt Volker's (US
Special Representative for Ukraine) comments;
Escalating sanctions vs Russia every 1-2 months there will be new & expanded
sanctions on Russia.
Stable borders should not be a requirement to be a part of NATO, "Occupied" states can
be taken into NATO and receive support from NATO to liberate themselves (he stressed that
the US would not be escalate the conflict, but how the hell could anyone guarantee
that).
Opposition to Russia is now bipartisan, regardless of the Nov elections, US Senate
& Congress are unified against Russia
when asked how "We" (the Atlantic council) can make political elites care about Baltic
states (plus Ukraine/Georgia), WITHOUT knowing the historical and political details of
these states he, unsurprisingly answered "this is about spreading our liberal values"
(translation: the American people don't need to be informed about the region are changes
are non-negotiable). the long and the short of the 3 hour conference was the new cold war
vs Russia will continue indefinitely, I would say this is the start of another generation
conflict that will last 10-20 years at least
Ok i'l stick my neck out !
It's over for America ! That's my assessment their day is d d d done ! Am basing my view on
the worldwide picture politically, the mind set of the general public I talk to, the many
sites I visit on the net left and right. Plus overall wisdom and overstanding (a Rasta thing)
Empires fall, this one has more than had its day. If it was a buseness what does it produce ?
And at what cost? It just robs other peoples hard earned resources and assets! For all it's
wealth it treats it's own public like dirt milking them dry. It's intelligent public it
curupt's. Nature abbor's greed, and wil correct that imbalance.
I think Putin understands this, and understands as I do 'desperate people do desperate
things' hence his speech.
Censoring the truth on a massive network like the internet is truly impossible and plainly
desperate !!!
... "What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing
virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that."
... From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian
troops allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July. Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the
publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise
he's been banned.
..."I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate
media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering actions of the
US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish."
..."The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify
the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.
Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because
our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer. Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going
to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are
disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.
Notable quotes:
"... But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect. ..."
"... alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader needed to be overthrown ..."
"... The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other. ..."
"... On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German) ..."
"... "In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant into the West's orbit and away from Russia's. ..."
"... But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European region. ..."
"... By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government. ..."
"... "Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity. ..."
"... Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned. ..."
"... "Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. ..."
"... let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned, Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces. ..."
"... your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll ..."
"... What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that. ..."
"... I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate media - ..."
"... We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior 'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes. ..."
"... The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. ..."
"... The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer. ..."
"... The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting. ..."
JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 12:26
"Look at the Moscow apartment bombings"... look at any number of CIA false flag operations. As for "most of the national T.V
is Putin press." ... Murdoch has a controlling interest in printed press and a large share of TV news in Australia and the UK.
Maybe you are one of the CIA-employed agitators against Russia, or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder about a failed relationship
with a Russia bride. I can't be sure from your comments.
But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which
started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means
that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect.
Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 12:24
I don't see a big issue with that list. If some people from that list travel anywhere, it will be considered wasting tax payer
money anyways. They aren't even embraced by a majority in their own countries, some of them belonging to totally irrelevant weird
initiative, shouting and crying about this and that.
For others on that list, being linked to military organisations, the should be banned naturally. As for vacation, I don't think
Russia was on those guys list either
JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 12:14
alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader
needed to be overthrown(e.g. Egypt's Morsi). If we take your "Hitler was elected" argument, we can apply that one
to any election outcome. If you won your high school "class monitor" election ... we'll Hitler won an election too. It's nothing
more than a lazy smear by association. If we take your "rigs the right of the opposition" argument, well there goes Israel's claims
to democracy. They arrest/ban viable Arab opposition figures to prevent them standing in elections. Also, we have to eliminate
Ukraine, who have assassinated about 12 of Yanukovich's inner circle since the coup.
uzzername 31 May 2015 12:09
The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other.
Russia, along with the rest of BRICS is an emerging economy. While in the developed economies big corporations scramble for
every penny they rip off off the consumers, the BRICS are a goldmine for adventurous capitalists as you can score quite a bit
of dope in one scoop if you invest enough in it.
That's why some of them suits on the list are pissed off. Obvs not because their summer holiday in Siberia has gone into smithereens.
umweltAT2100 31 May 2015 12:04
According to a report in ARD (German state media) the entry ban is a reaction / retaliation in response to the entry ban imposed
on Russians in connection with the Crimea annexation. Approximately 200 people are on the Russian black list. The largest number
are from the USA, with the Republican John McCain declared "persona non grata", followed by Canadian politicians.
On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the
Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not
anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German)
Russian entry ban for dozens of politicians – Moscow's black list is out. (Hermann Krause, ARD Radio studio, Moscow,
30.05.2015)
Russische Einreiseverbote für Dutzende Politiker Moskaus "schwarze Liste" ist raus. Von Hermann Krause, ARD-Hörfunkstudio Moskau,
30.05.2015
Victoria Nuland and the neocons to be more precise,
"In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have
invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant
into the West's orbit and away from Russia's.
But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished
Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted
natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European
region.
Nuland was soon at work planning for "regime change," encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies
to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn't seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev's Maidan square had hoisted
a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and
whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.
By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new
government.
"Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic
experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served
as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity.
As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed
with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera's anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during
World War II.
With the crisis escalating and scores of people killed in the street fighting, Yanukovych agreed to a E.U.-brokered deal that
called for moving up scheduled elections and having the police stand down. The neo-Nazi storm troopers then seized the opening
to occupy government buildings and force Yanukovych and many of his aides to flee for their lives." https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/
JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 11:53
What proof do you have that the Russian elections were phony ? The results were in line with independent opinion polls. Which
referendums was phony ? The first Iraqi election after Sadam was toppled was certainly phony. The US military whisked away the
ballot boxes for a week after voting was completed before announcing that the Shia (60% of Iraqis) had failed to get a majority
(despite the 20% Bathist Sunni boycotting the election so only the 20% Kurds voted against the 60% Shia).
geedeesee -> SnarkyGrumpkin 31 May 2015 11:50
From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian troops
allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July.
Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares,
not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the
jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned.
JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 11:45
"Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know
that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. That's more than many of the US/UK allies can say (take your pick
of the Gulf state leaders). Don't buy into the mindless anti-Russian propaganda doing the rounds. I suspect that it's intended
to soften public opnion for anti-Russian attrocities committed in our name to come.
Huo Fu Yan -> David Port 31 May 2015 11:36
It's true, 1/3 the list are politicians and military leader from Poland and baltics with no intend to enter Russia anyways.
The rest are merely people engaged in military organisations (should be banned naturally) or weird political groups and initiatives.
Furthermore, there are a few irrelevant politicians on the list for whatever reason. To be frank, a few people from that list
you wouldt want in your own country either.
meewaan 31 May 2015 11:07
let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned,
Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary
of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces.
Not sure about banning Nick Clegg, - has his wife remunerated by her work for companies linked to the US? Take, for example,
Mrs Clegg's firm's advertisement (again, on its website) of the fact it makes considerable sums from helping rich people avoid
inheritance tax, saying that it offers 'personal estate planning advice and financial and tax-planning services to high net worth
individuals'.
'We combine sophisticated estate planning skills with international resources . . . We help U.S. and non-U.S. trustees and
beneficiaries transfer wealth efficiently through lifetime and testamentary trusts designed to minimise tax exposure.'
SuchindranathAiyer 31 May 2015 10:35
It required a "Tit for Tat" to establish that sanctions are working? Here is the geo-political back drop:
Reigan and Gorby arrived at certain agreements and understandings which Clinton (the husband) violated. He pulled Poland and
others into NATO and bombed Russian ally Belgrade, violating international law, while a helpless Russia fumed, for 84 days to
given Islam its first ethnically cleansed enclaves (Bosnia and Kosovo) after 1489.
Bush (the son), declared the "Star Wars" missile shield in direct violation of the Regan-Gorbachev agreements while Russia
continued to fume, but began to re arm and prepare itself for war. Apart from, of course, violating International Law and invading
Russian ally Iraq to distract anger over 9/11 from Saudi Arabia and its Nuclear-Terrorist sword arm Pakistan and threw thriving
communities of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, discos and bars that the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis resented into the maws of Islam.
Russia fumed and continued to rearm and began to rally around Putin's nationalism. The US commenced "regime change" operations
in Russian (and Iraqi) Secular ally Syria, throwing even more Jews, Christians, Yazidis and Kurds into the maws of Islam. US was
to weakened by Iraq to wage war unilaterally in Syria. China and Russia blocked the US at the UN. Putin wrote an open letter to
Obama on Syria in the NY Times which gained traction with the American Citizens, bending Obama's nose and driving the US regime
change operation in Syria further under ground (covert). Prince Bandar (what an appropriate name!) head of Saudi intelligence
went ot Moscow to bribe Putin to back the putsch in Syria. Putin refused and told Bandar that if Islam tried a Beslan at Sochi,
he would bomb the Q'aba. This bent the Saudi nose. So the US commenced operation regime change in Ukraine. This sparked the secession
of Crime to Russia. The US fumed and fretted because its more develoed and intelligent NATO allies (France and Germany) would
not back the US backed fascist regime in Ukraine. The US shot down MH-17 in a false flag operation and started a canard against
Russia to revive NATO. There is a NATO now imposing US-Saudi conceived sanctions on Russia. We are now in the Second Cold War
so NATO won't go away. Russia and China will ally because, Clinton to Obama, the US has demonstrated the dangers of a unipolar
world, particularly as Islamic Petro Dollars own the decision and opinion makers of the West and have used the US military to
further the Islamic agenda as much as carry on with the old anti-Communist prejudices. (While Russia is not Totalitarian, China
is. India is really the last Soviet franchise in the World with its "Animal Farm" totalitarian Constitution and thinking which
is why the US is an ally of Pakistan and as hostile to India as to Russia. Consider that as recently as 2012, the man who lolls
in Lutyen's drawing room today moved "retrospective" legislation in the same Parliament that nationalized 20% of private (non
minority) education and removed the truth from Govt approved History text books, in the highest traditions of Nehru, Ambedkar
and Indira Gandhi.)
wilpost37 -> AbsolutelyFapulous 31 May 2015 10:33
Absolutely/Goman
Almost all the tourists of Crimea were Ukrainians before 2014. They stopped coming, and likely are spending their vacation
elsewhere.
Crimea is rebuilding its infrastructures (Kiev had neglected them for 22 years), and its tourist base.
It expects to have over 4 million visitors in 2015 and 5 million in 2016, because many Russians are no longer going to EU countries,
and are going to Crimea, Sochi, etc., instead. It will take time, but Crimea is a beautiful area.
Crimea became part of the Russian Empire by conquest over the Tartars in 1793.
The Tartars had been kidnapping nearby people (several million over many decades) and selling them to the Turks. Catherine
the Great put an end to that.
Khrushev was stupid to give it to Ukraine in 1954.
After the CIA/FBI-assisted coup of Kiev, the Crimean people, 67% Russian, feared for their future, as did the Donbas people.
SHappens 31 May 2015 10:24
"Just one thing remains unclear: did our European co-workers want these lists to minimise inconveniences for potential 'denied
persons' or to stage a political show?"
It is pretty clear that it turned out to be another media circus.
Socraticus -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 10:12
Lesson 1 - everyone on this site is a guest, you included
Lesson 2 - the majority of posters herein are actually westerners, not 'Russian trolls'
Lesson 3 - all politicians lie to advance their own social/economic/political agendas
Lesson 4 - all MSM distort/suppress the truth to support governmental narratives
Lesson 5 - many of us westerners actually bother to investigate the true facts
Lesson 6 - if a leader's being demonized its because they won't capitulate to the US
Lesson 7 - every illicit invasion is preceded by demonization of a leader/country
Lesson 8 - your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll
Lesson 9 - you can educate yourself or remain blind to facts - your choice
Lesson 10 - you will learn the consequences of your choices
UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 10:12
You realise that Russia is one the most important members of the BRICS and that they group has recently established a development
bank? That's hardly the sign that the other BRICS nations are not reading from the same hymn sheet as Russia...
What did anyone expect flowers from russia from the unfair treatment it's getting. The west paying for Ukraine part nazi government
and creating a coup in a democratically ekected president last february. Then sanctioning the Russian people expecting them to
turn in yheir president. The west should be ashamed of what they accomplished that being fronting a proxy war against Russia.
Vijay Raghavan -> Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 09:54
Developing all-round military-to-military relations. China's armed forces will further their exchanges and cooperation with
the Russian military within the framework of the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia,
and foster a comprehensive, diverse and sustainable framework to promote military relations in more fields and at more levels
They made that statement in their white paper issued last week.Offcourse Guardian or BBC will not keep up with such "Breaking
News".
UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 09:49
1) Yes, the BRICS countries are very much behind Russia.
2) Russia, unlike the US, has tabled a resolution to condemn Nazism and Nazi movements in the highest forum possible (the UN).
The US, along with Canada, and its puppet government in Ukraine, voted against it (in defiance of most of the world's nations).
You would think, with all the technology at the disposal of the US security state, that it might (just might) be able to provide
us with real, irrefutable evidence of a ground invasion. You know, perhaps some high resolution satellite imagery, the odd photo
of a modern Russian tank moving over the Ukrainian border, some chatter from the wires between embassy officials and security
personnel, etc., etc.
But of course we have nothing of the sort. What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense
from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We
are in very, VERY short supply of that.
UnsleepingMind -> ponott 31 May 2015 09:34
I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western
corporate media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering
actions of the US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish.
UnsleepingMind -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 09:30
'Because we have the right to ban people who invade other countries'.
That's why we've recently arrested George Bush (who, with the help of Tony Blair invaded Iraq and Afghanistan), Barack Obama
(who bombed Libya, engineered coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and is now funding Islamic extremists in Syria)...
We reserve the right to ban, but we use that 'right' to ban official enemies (i.e. anyone daring to follow a geopolitical game
plan that is distinctly at odds with our own).
Also, your suggestion that Putin's Russia has invaded 'other countries' is preposterous. The western media has been spewing
this nonsense for months now and yet there is not a shred of real evidence (including hi-res satellite imagery) to back it up.
And if you are referring to Crimea, let me say this: Russia troops have been staged in Crimea for many, many years; moreover,
the people of Crimea voted to break with Ukraine in a recent referendum (not that that squares with your hectoring rhetoric).
PyrrhicVictory 31 May 2015 09:27
The doors of the gravy train for politicians like Clegg are fast closing. When we exit the EU, then the Brussels gravy train
will also be beyond him. He might, just might, having to start behaving like an honest politician for once and earn a decent wage
based on truth not lies.
johnsmith44 -> NegativeCamber 31 May 2015 09:25
Why dont you go spread democracy to some oil-producing Third World country, together with your poodles the brits? And make
sure you do it properly, so that monstrosities like ISIS are guaranteed?
ex-CIA personnel openly describing their involvement in the dowining of Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on
August 30, 1983 and I believe it becomes apparent who downed MH-17.
Jerome Fryer -> Popeyes 31 May 2015 09:11
We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do
so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior
'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes.
davidncldl 31 May 2015 09:10
The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. Mr Putin is their democratically
elected leader and he is enormously popular. Only an imbecile would be surprised or indignant about Russia retaliating for unjust
EU/US sanctions. What do the globalisers and bankers' friends at the Guardian expect? I imagine you think that the ruination of
the Venezuelan and Russian economies by the manipulation of the oil price is just "free market" activity.
Hass Castorp 31 May 2015 09:07
"More than 6,200 people have been killed in fighting between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists."
This is a language of propaganda, Guardian. Last i checked Guardian advertised to be a newspaper, not a bulletin of The Ministry
of Truth.
My reformulation; "More than 6200 (in some estimates up to 50.000) have been killed and up to 1 million civilians displaced
(who mostly fled to Russia) by Ukrainian government troops and private terrorist kommandos of Ukrainian oligarchs."
Jerome Fryer -> henry919 31 May 2015 09:03
The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify
the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.
Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with
Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer.
Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem
doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.
(If your argument must be protected against criticism then it is a weak argument.)
Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are
training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has
approved two important arms sales to Kiev's ground forces in just the past nine months. The
first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed
as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems,
ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger
($47 million) , it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210
Javelin anti-tank missiles -- the kind of weapons that Barack Obama's administration had
declined to give Kiev.
Needless to say, the Kremlin
was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that
authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019.
Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of
Obama's administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration
cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the
initial small-weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now
open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev.
On September 1, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker disclosed during an interview
with TheGuardian that Washington's future military aid to Kiev would
likely involve weapons sales to Ukraine's air force and navy as well as the army. "The Javelins
are mainly symbolic and it's not clear if they would ever be used," Aric Toler, a research
scholar at the Atlantic Council, asserted
. One could well dispute his sanguine conclusion, but even Toler conceded: "Support for the
Ukrainian navy and air defence would be a big deal. That would be far more significant."
Volker's cavalier attitude about U.S. arms sales to a government locked in a crisis with
Russia epitomizes the arrogance and tone-deaf nature of the views that too many U.S. foreign
policy officials exhibit regarding the sensitive Ukraine issue. "We can have a conversation
with Ukraine like we would with any other country about what do they need. I think that there's
going to be some discussion about naval capability because as you know their navy was basically
taken by Russia [when the Soviet Union dissolved]. And so they need to rebuild a navy and they
have very limited air capability as well. I think we'll have to look at air defence."
One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the
geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had
emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened
United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to
America's borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in
Canada's internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government,
and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that
would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S.
relations with Ukraine.
Moreover, although Kiev's cheerleaders in the Western (especially U.S.) media like to
portray Ukraine as a beleaguered democracy that plays the role of David to Russia's evil
Goliath, the reality is far murkier. Putin's government overstates matters when it alleges that
Ukraine's 2014 Maidan revolution was a U.S.-orchestrated coup that brought outright fascists to
power in Kiev. Nevertheless, that version contains more than a little truth. Prominent,
powerful U.S. figures, most notably the late Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, openly sided with
demonstrators seeking to unseat Ukraine's elected government. Indeed, Nuland was caught on tape with U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt scheming about the desired composition of a new government
in Kiev.
It is unfair to portray Ukraine's current administration led by President Petro Poroshenko
as a neo-fascist regime. Post-revolution elections appear to have been reasonably free and
fair, and there are major factions that are committed to genuine democratic values. But Ukraine
also is hardly a model of Western-style democracy. Not only is it afflicted with extensive
graft and corruption, but some extreme nationalist and even
neo-Nazi groups play a significant role in the "new" Ukraine. The notoriously fascist Azov
Battalion, for example, continues to occupy a prominent position in Kiev's efforts to defeat
separatists in Ukraine's eastern Donbass region. Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the
self-declared Donetsk People's Republic in the pro-Russia rebel-occupied city of Donetsk,
was assassinated on September 1 and officials there and in Russia are blaming Kiev. The
Ukrainian government has denied involvement.
Other ultranationalist factions act as domestic militias that attempt to intimidate more
moderate Ukrainians. Even the Poroshenko government itself has adopted troubling censorship
measures and other autocratic policies. Officials in both the Obama and Trump administration
have taken a much too casual attitude toward U.S. cooperation
with extremist elements and a deeply flawed Ukrainian government.
Both the danger of stoking tensions with Moscow and becoming too close to a regime in Kiev
that exhibits disturbing features should caution the Trump administration against boosting
military aid to Ukraine. It is an unwise policy on strategic as well as moral grounds. Trump
administration officials should refuse to be intimidated or stampeded into forging a risky and
unsavory alliance with Kiev out of fear of being portrayed as excessively "soft" toward Russia.
Instead, the president and his advisers need to spurn efforts to increase U.S. support for
Ukraine. A good place to start would be to restore the Obama administration's refusal to
approve arms sales to Kiev. Washington must not pour gasoline on a geo-strategic fire that
could lead to a full-blown crisis between the United States and Russia.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute and a contributing editor at TAC , is the author of 10 books, the contributing
editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs .
"... The crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of the two policies of NATO expansion and EU enlargement, which led NATO to declare Ukraine (and Georgia) will be NATO members at numerous NATO summits and in other fora, led the EU to push too hard and too early for an association agreement with the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych government, and led the West, especially Washington, to lend opposition-promotion assistance to revolutionaries and endorse a clearly illegal oligarch-ultranationalist revolt in February 2014 despite an agreement that essentially ensured Yanukovych's departure from the presidency in ten months. In Syria, Putin's Russia has won. Regime change is over. ..."
Rather than dealing with secondary issues, those which are easiest to resolve, or those in
which we have common interests, contacts must address the core problems in the inter-state
US-Russian or larger Western-Russian relationship. Those issues are NATO expansion, EU
expansion, U.S. missile defense, Ukraine, Syria, and interference in each other's domestic
politics.
Rather, than expanding Western institutions in complete disregard of Russian
interests, the West must work closely with Moscow. The West must acknowledge its responsibility
in the making of the original crisis in Kiev, which equals if not exceeds that of Moscow's in
deepening the crisis in Crimea and Donbass.
The crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of the two
policies of NATO expansion and EU enlargement, which led NATO to declare Ukraine (and Georgia)
will be NATO members at numerous NATO summits and in other fora, led the EU to push too hard
and too early for an association agreement with the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych government, and
led the West, especially Washington, to lend opposition-promotion assistance to revolutionaries
and endorse a clearly illegal oligarch-ultranationalist revolt in February 2014 despite an
agreement that essentially ensured Yanukovych's departure from the presidency in ten months. In
Syria, Putin's Russia has won. Regime change is over.
The U.S. in its hubris miscalculated in
going a bridge too far. Ambition led to supply weapons either intentionally or accidentally --
and in denial of the obvious -- to Islamists and jihadists. This was a direct consequence of US
President Barak Obama's haste to carry forth his gravely misguided Muslim Brotherhood-based
regime change strategy in the Islamic world. Syria's longstanding ties to Moscow and the
presence of North Caucasus-based mujahedin within the ranks first of the Al Qa`ida-affiliated
'Jabhat al-Nusra' jihadi group and then of the Islamic State or ISIS prompted Putin's limited
and strategically successful intervention.
More globally, the West has been and remains the
'champion' when it comes to interference in the politics of other states. For financial reasons
alone, Russia cannot hold a candle to US efforts in this regard, no less those of the entire
West. Rather than seeking to dominate or willfully 'transforming' Eurasia in the Western image,
the West should more gently propose democratization and work on strengthening its own
democratic order to serve as a model for non- and less democratic states to emulate.
Those
living in non- or less democratic states who want change have access to all the information
they need on the Internet, except in the most authoritarian countries. Even in the latter,
access is possible if more difficult. The native population and opposition leaders understand
the intricacies of their nation's culture far better than outsiders do and can therefore better
fashion a peaceful, stable regime transformation. If this is not what they want, then they are
unlikely to establish a democratic order when they seize power.
Change the Goal and Strategy
The core problem in Western-Russian relations has been Western, especially, NATO expansion.
NATO expansion, carried forth on the back of EU expansion, effectively 'militarized' Western
democracy-promotion and EU expansion, insulting Russian 'honor' and trust in the West in the
wake of Cold War-ending Western promises that NATO would not expand beyond reunified Germany
and turning Russia away from democracy. Washington and Brussels must discard, therefore, its
basic goal of expanding the community of democracies in brinksmanship-like
fashion–everywhere and immediately, regardless of those expansions' effects on the
Russian and Chinese geostrategic calculation. This means abandoning the strategy of achieving
that goal: NATO and EU expansion. These two prongs of the main strategy, especially NATO
expansion, have added greater cost of driving Russia into China's increasingly powerful arms,
as I predicted a quarter of a century ago.
New Goal and Strategy
Regarding security, the West
should seek to integrate Europe and Eurasia first in the area of negotiating ongoing conflicts
and preventing new conflicts by reinvigorating the Organization of Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) as the main multilateral forum for Western-Eurasian relations. It should also
become the locus of negotiations between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO) on building a new European security architecture (NESA). During the life of the NESA
negotiations, the West should institute an openly declared moratorium on NATO expansion. After
such the NESA is in place negotiations might begin with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) on a Eurasia-wide security architecture. Similarly, the European Union should learn from
its misbegotten unilateral expansionism and 'Eastern Partnership' and seek to negotiate a
gradual integration of the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
... ... ...
There is very likely to be some
agreement towards extending the START nuclear arms treaty by executive order as well as
negotiating a replacement treaty to be signed at the end of the first or beginning of a second
Trump term.
For the Ukrainian crisis, Trump might propose the creation of a US-Russian working
group to assist the Minsk process. Should Trump be convinced that only US involvement can
resolve the issue, perhaps the group could be incorporated into the Minsk process. He might
also hint that in return for some Moscow concessions on Ukraine, such as backing a more
expanded version of the proposed peacekeeping mission beyond the line of contact, he might be
willing to put pressure on Kiev to finally fulfill its Minsk agreement obligation to engage a
dialogue with the Donbass rebel regions' representatives:
(1) on the modalities related to
conducting elections in the Donbass,
(2) on a Ukrainian law to be adopted according to Minsk-2
'On the temporary order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk
regions,' or
(3) 'with respect to the future operation of these areas on the basis of the Law,'
or, for that matter,
(4) on any other subject related to the crisis. Washington pressure on
Kiev to talk directly with the rebels may be possible now that four years too late some of the
Washington institutions that supported the Maidan revolt and illegal overthrow of Yanukovych
such as the Atlantic Council and Freedom House, are waking up to the neofascist threat on the
edges of the Maidan regime and in society.
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
Lyttenburgh, July 7, 2018 at 6:25 am
"and agreed to meet in neighboring Sweden"
Finland.
"This suggests the level of distrust Putin has towards Washington, his low expectations for a successful summit, and the high
price he is likely to demand for concessions on his part."
It suggests nothing of the sort. You are too dramatic.
"[T]he approach of dealing with issues that are easiest to resolve or where we have common interests alone is insufficient
and a non-starter as far as putting the relationship where it should be. By definition, an approach that seeks to avoid areas
where there are disagreements will not resolve a deeply troubled relationship that is putting international security and
peace at risk. Only addressing the core differences complicating relations can a qualitatively new relationship be forged."
Finally someone is willing to admit that! You can't willy-nilly go and ask your neighbor to borrow some sugar after you
wrecked his fence and expect him to "cooperate" on such small issue out of sheer goodness.
"It also means abandoning the approach of designing policies from hubris rooted in the sense that Western democracy is
morally superior to authoritarianism. Although the latter is true"
In what way? I (and quite a lot of people) see particular Western "democracy" as morally bankrupt compared to what it
seemingly randomly calls "authoritarianism"
"In Syria, Putin's Russia has won."
And that writes a man who detest the term, devoting so much ink and time to show to the ignorant that, no – it's Russia's
Putin. Why not say Russia, or Moscow, or even "Pro-Assad coalition"?
"Rather than seeking to dominate or willfully 'transforming' Eurasia in the Western image, the West should more gently
propose democratization and work on strengthening its own democratic order to serve as a model for non- and less democratic
states to emulate."
What, you forgot the immortal words of Paul Wolfowitz so soon? For, you see, "We Are An Empire Now". Crawling back in the
shell won't help to solve the domestic very partisan issues – finding a common enemy does that. Your tactics are good for a
neutered housecat of a nation – not for the mighty Great Again (And Forever) lion which both the elite and the commoners of
the West consider their Republic.
" and turning Russia away from democracy."
Wrong. It turned Russia away from liberalism – not democracy. You know the difference, right? Because your following analysis
suggests otherwise:
"Washington and Brussels must discard, therefore, its basic goal of expanding the community of democracies"
"Putin's Russia" is democracy. As well as Poland under PiS, Hungary under Orban and Turkey under Erdogan. Hell, even Ukraine
is democracy! Democracy is just a mode of rule.
"driving Russia into China's increasingly powerful arms"
Yeah, that's bad for the US. For the rest – not so.
"During the life of the NESA negotiations, the West should institute an openly declared moratorium on NATO expansion."
Absolutely meaningless and easily revertible promise that runs directly against the West self-identification as the only
Empire on the planet.
The list of topics of your Grand Design that follows is too far fetch, unrealistic and abstract that they are basically the
equivalent of "charming" Russian naïve natives with the glass beads. As for your fanatical support of the free trade – it's
era has gone. Again. If you fail to grasp that it was precisely Russian objections of EU version of free trade coming to the
Ukraine which lead to 2013-14 conflict on Maidan – well, nothing can help you.
"Non-Western partners must also be willing to sacrifice some of their present interests for the sake of the benefits of
stability and cooperation that will accrue in future. "
Like I said – land for the glass beads.
"In Ukraine, the U.S. must get more involved in the Minsk 2 negotiating process."
No, they shouldn't.
"Without a clear signal from Trump that Washington is not interested in expanding NATO to Ukraine or using the crisis to
isolate Moscow through sanctions and the like and intends to lead the search for a solution, Moscow is unlikely to make any
meaningful concessions."
You don't see it, do you? It's Kiev for whom the conflict is more beneficial. It allows all sort of, yes, authoritarian
things and policies without fear of the "real war". You can silence all your critics with – "but Putin might attack us!" or
"are you a secret separ?!". Kiev has no other viable strategy but to commit an ethnic cleansing of DNR or LNR should they be
returned to it. Simple as that.
BTW – have you read Minsk II accords? How about Kiev fulfils its part first?
"Washington could be able to convince Moscow to abandon its support for the elements of the Iran presence in Syria and
Lebanon that arrived in the context of the Syrian civil war."
Nothing of the sort will happen. Sowing division among potential USA rivals is a viable tactic – but don't take everyone for
an idiot.
"There is very likely to be some agreement towards extending the START nuclear arms treaty"
Wanna bet, that there won't be? Also – nothing of the Ukraine, nothing on NATO. A little something on Syria (officially)
with, maybe, an unofficial concession of the defeat of the West-backed "unicorns".
Tl;dr. This is not about coming Trump-Putin summit. You are just venting off your fantasy about Bright Future. You present
solely pro-US perspective of the summit, enumerating things that Trump must "ask", nay, "demand" either for free or some
minor concessions on his part. Have you ever tried to think what Russia might want of the summit instead?
Salsibury Watchdog, July 11, 2018 at 2:19 am
"It also means abandoning the approach of designing policies from hubris rooted in the sense that Western democracy is
morally superior to authoritarianism. Although the latter is true"
Mr. Khan, if what Western elites are doing to other sovereign nations is 'a democracy' why is it done so covertly: through
murky slash funds, secrets coups and illegal bombings?
I've never seen a referendum asking people in the US whether they wanted to fund another war. Had they been asked, people
would've chosen affordable healthcare, housing and access to education instead, and you know it as well I do.
Yet you're still talking about 'Western democracy'?
This is Ukrainian future, unless the government neoliberal policies
change...
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that Brussels euroclowns celebrated in triumph the exit of Greece from the memorandum agreement, should be taken only as a huge farce. ..."
"... Greece entered the bailout program with national debt at 120% of GDP. Now, the debt remains close to 180% of GDP! Unemployment remains at record levels. Public property has been sold-off for pennies to foreign 'investors'. Labor rights almost vanished, the situation resembles the Middle Ages. Social state and benefits severely damaged. This is the Troika 'success story'. ..."
"... This contradiction could be explained by the fact that the neoliberal regime apparatus wants to send a warning sign to Tsipras administration not to take any action without permission. It is more than certain that the tight scrutiny will be continued and Tsipras must prove to the Western neocolonialists that he will not even think to implement any anti-austerity policies. ..."
"... Without a bailout program, Greece will be left alone now to swim with the bloodthirsty sharks of the global financial mafia in the wild sea of the supposedly 'free markets'. ..."
"... Either way, the debt colony will deliver to the predators every single asset that has been left untouched. ..."
The fact that Brussels euroclowns celebrated in triumph the exit of Greece
from the memorandum agreement, should be taken only as a huge farce.
The Troika (ECB, European Commission, IMF) bailout program has officially
ended and the result is a scenery of disaster. If you still believe that this
program has been implemented to save the Greek economy and not the
Franco-German banks , take a look at the situation today.
Greece entered the bailout program with national debt at 120% of GDP. Now,
the debt remains close to 180% of GDP! Unemployment remains at record levels.
Public property has been sold-off for pennies to foreign 'investors'. Labor
rights almost vanished, the situation resembles the Middle Ages. Social state
and benefits severely damaged. This is the Troika 'success story'.
So, in reality, the experiment was indeed successful for the goals of the
international capitalist predators who transformed the country into a debt colony.
For more than eight years, they boiled the frog slowly with the help of Troika,
and now it's impossible to escape from the hot water.
While the clowns in Brussels had to present a 'success story' to cover their
huge failure and slow down the centrifugal forces against eurozone's existence
and unity, the mainstream media didn't exactly celebrate. Most of the headlines
were quite moderate and even alarming for the future of the Greek economy.
This contradiction could be explained by the fact that the neoliberal regime
apparatus wants to send a warning sign to Tsipras administration not to take
any action without permission. It is more than certain that the tight scrutiny
will be continued and Tsipras must prove to the Western neocolonialists that
he will not even think to implement any anti-austerity policies.
It is worth to mention that most of the neutral/pessimistic headlines came
from the Anglo-American mainstream media. This could be also considered another
indication about the level of deterioration in the relations between the Anglo-American
axis and the Brussels-Berlin axis, inside the Western camp.
Greece will have to give much more to the Western neoliberal predators. Otherwise,
the rating agencies will be ordered to attack again and force the ruined Greek
economy into another round of disastrous bailouts.
Either way, the debt colony will deliver to the predators every single asset
that has been left untouched.
Note from the author : As friends have quickly pointed out, the situation
is even worse than described here. Quarterly reviews by the troika will continue.
The German Bundestag will still vote on any debt deferrals, and -- as I do stress
-- the crushing austerity will continue indefinitely. A nightmare.
2010 to 2018 will go down in Greek history as an epic period of colonization;
of asset stripping and privatization; of unfunded health and education; of bankruptcies,
foreclosures, homelessness, and impoverishment; of unemployment, emigration,
and suicide. These were the years of the three memoranda, or "financial-assistance
programs" accompanied by "structural reforms," enacted supposedly to promote
Greek "recovery" from the slump and credit crunch of 2010. They were, in fact,
a fraud perpetrated on Greece and Europe, a jumble of bad policies based on
crude morality tales that catered to right-wing politics to cover up unpayable
debts.
This was a bailout? The word reeks of indulgence and implied disapproval. As
it was often said, "The Greeks had their party and now they must pay." Yes,
there was a party -- for oligarchs with ships and London homes and Swiss bank
accounts, for the military, for engineering and construction and armaments companies
from Germany and France and the United States. And yes, there was a bailout.
It came from Europe's taxpayers, and went to the troubled banks of France and
Germany. Greece was merely the pass-through, and the Greeks who paid dearly
with their livelihoods were just the patsies in the deal. The third "memorandum
of understanding" expires today. With Greece's
completion
of a three-year, 61.9-billion-euro eurozone emergency-loan package, it can once
again borrow at market rates. The expiration of the memorandum also ends, for
now, the direct control by Europe's "troika" -- the International Monetary Fund,
the European Commission, and the European Central Bank -- over the Greek government.
But its conditions, constraints, and consequences will endure.
Read also: Conference of the modern Left in Iceland: learning from each other
Back in 2010, Greece, along with Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy, was
definitely in trouble. The Great Financial Crisis crashed into all of Europe,
but it hit the weaker countries hardest -- and Greece was the
weakest of them all. Its economy shrunk by a quarter, and youth unemployment
rose to roughly 50 percent. The memorandum was, for all concerned, the easy
way out. It started a game of "extend and pretend" on the Greek debt, based
on optimistic forecasts and on policies of reform that had no basis in the reality
of Greek economic conditions.
The policies came from the IMF -- its standard repertory of austerity and
"reform." But its staff and directors knew from the beginning that these measures
would not suffice. IMF executive directors from Australia, Switzerland, Brazil,
and China voiced objections. Channels were therefore bypassed, objections ignored.
The Fund was nearly out of work and money because of the failures of its programs
-- and the relative success of countries that ignored them -- all over the world.
And its managing director at the time wished to be the next president of France.
So Greece, which is to say its creditors -- especially French and German banks
-- received the largest loan in IMF history (relative to its ownership share).
And that 289-billion-euro loan came largely from U.S. taxpayers.
In Athens, teams of functionaries from the Fund, the European Central Bank,
and the European Commission came to Greece, where they stayed in fancy hotels
at Greek expense and were escorted by uniformed police from ministry to ministry
to dictate policy in detail. (Such a nice gig, in a warm and sunny place, so
close to the sea.) In 2015, they were lodged for a time in a four-star hotel,
deprived of their convoys, and given protection by elite forces dressed in plain
clothes. They didn't like that at all, and their bosses, Mario Draghi and Christine
Lagarde, complained loudly on their behalf.
And what of the policies? Public assets were to be dumped en masse at fire-sale
prices, but only if they were already profitable. (Regional airports making
losses, for example, stayed with the state.) Dutch dairies and German drug companies
were taken care of. Labor markets were deregulated while collective bargaining
was wiped out -- an unethical experiment on an untenable premise. Neither German
nor Chinese industry was moving to Greece even if the Greeks worked for free.
The value-added tax was raised, pensions were cut, and hundreds of thousands
of civil servants were sacked. Ministries lost cleaning ladies, who set up camp,
bless them, in front of the Ministry of Finance. The Greeks rebelled in 2015,
as they were right to do. But the European Central Bank held the high card:
It could shut the banks and confiscate deposits, forcing Greece out of the euro
and perhaps out of the European Union. The government, undermined from within,
capitulated. The third memorandum was signed, and Syriza, the left-wing coalition
that had swept into power in January, by that July had become the model prisoner
of the European elites.
The irony is that in 2012 Greece's debts were already postponed, so that
from late 2015 to 2022 there would be a grace period with relatively few major
payments due. Now there is a primary-budget surplus and the markets need not
be tested. So the memorandum can end, but austerity will not; the debt still
looms in the long term, so the commitment to surplus extends for more than 40
years. In any event, the Greeks' will to resistance appears to have been broken,
so it seems safe enough to leave them alone. For now.
But the damage done extends far beyond Greece. The cynicism and brutality
of what happened there is for everyone to see. The fact that Europe imposed
a policy of privation on one of its weakest members -- not for its own sake,
and not with any expectation of economic success, but to intimidate the Italians
and the French, as the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble conceded to
the Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis privately in 2015 -- was not lost
on British voters who chose Brexit in 2016. The Greek debacle helped to turn
the French left against Europe, and fueled the inchoate coalition now in power
in Italy. The German and east European far right is surely not motivated by
sympathy -- on the contrary, they despise the Greeks. But they do resent the
supposed "solidarity" -- a fiction if ever there was one -- that Germany's Chancellor
Angela Merkel and her allies invoked to sell their parliaments and voters on
the idea of the Greek loans.
Europe is therefore rotting Hat both ends. Its economy must remain unified,
but it is coming apart at its political seams. It needs institutions and policies
of social stabilization, financial reform, and full employment -- a dramatic
change in ideas and action at the continental level to thwart the rising tide
of nationalist reaction. There is therefore a growing sense, among those who
are watching closely, that a major democratic reform -- a New Deal for Europe
-- is the only way to hold it together in the long run.
* James K. Galbraith is author of Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction
of Greece and the Future of Europe . In 2015 he served as an informal assistant
to the finance minister of Greece.
"... In this version of 21st century slavery, all these disadvantages have been eliminated! Slaves stay in their homecountry: there is no need to bring them from there, no need to live amongst them and to feed them! Slaves are forced to work hard in the hope of paying off their debt, so they are motivated and hardworking. And most importantly, no civil war in the USA! ..."
This year, the Ukraine Prime Minister Groisman said that the external debt is 83% of the GDP. And by the end of the year, having
been pressurized by the IMF, it will reach 90%. In order to service its external debts, the Ukraine spends $4.8 billion a year.
This is real slavery - only a new, improved version of it. From the 17th to the 19 centuries, slavery in [the North American
British colonies and then - ME] the United States had a number of serious deficiencies: slaves had to be brought all the way from
Africa; slaves were not extremely industrious; Americans themselves had to live amongst the slaves; and, most unpleasantly, all
this led to civil war in the United States.
In this version of 21st century slavery, all these disadvantages have been eliminated! Slaves stay in their homecountry: there
is no need to bring them from there, no need to live amongst them and to feed them! Slaves are forced to work hard in the hope
of paying off their debt, so they are motivated and hardworking. And most importantly, no civil war in the USA!
Ukraine has huge problems because far right nationalists while hate corruption, do not control economics and oligarchs who
control it do not intent to share their profits with the population, who is on the edge of starvation.
Breaking economic ties with Russia helped to relegate Ukraine to semi-colonial status as without cooperation with Russian
industries and access to Russian market (which they know very well) many Ukrainian manufacturing industries are less
viable..
Ukraine was already converted into debt-slave, and it is extremely difficult to climb out of this hole without default.
At the same time it serves are powerful anti-Russian force in the region and as such will be semi-supported by both the USA
and EU. for example attacks on Ukrainian currency probably will be avoided.
This is a variant of " don't cry for me Argentina" situation.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably that while the west is gradually leaning toward dumping Ukraine and hoping Russia will solve the problem, the warning signs are there that Russia has no intention of bailing out an exhausted Ukraine, and that this time it is going to be allowed to fail all the way down. The west should be warned that nobody is riding to the rescue and pouring their resources into stabilizing Ukraine – if the west cannot do it, the alternative is collapse and draining emergency work to keep the population from starvation. Prosperity is an impossible dream now, and the people – I think – would be pretty happy to be back where they were before the glorious Maidan. ..."
"... Interestingly, something that was not touched upon in the 'Necessary' section was the elimination of the oligarchy in Kiev and other major cities. I will declare frankly that I have no idea how this might be achieved – as discussed before several times, the Ukrainian oligarchs control something in the order of 70% of Ukrainian GDP, and are not about to gift any of it back to the Ukrainian state. ..."
"... You'll know there's no more money in Ukraine when the oligarchs leave, and I see no sign of that so far, while it is evident they intend to be a big part of any future rebuilding. They've already successfully stolen most of the IMF money, and plainly think an even bigger payday is still in the offing. ..."
"... Eventually, if the USA is unsuccessful in forcing the outbreak of another world war, the west will get around to either asking Russia to help, or trying to dump Ukraine on Russia. ..."
"... Whatever happens, the dream of Ukrainian nationalists to forge a great and powerful ... nation of Ukraine is always going to remain that – a dream. They're happy enough at present scampering about in the ruins and glorying in their imagination of great power, but they are kings of the dungheap without any clue of nation-building. ..."
"... The few who both hated Russia and honestly aspired to a Great Ukraine – free of corruption and able to pay its way through judicious management of its undeniable resources and casting off the peasant mentality – have no influence, and operate at the pleasure of the power-brokers; they are allowed to dabble at anti-corruption until their probing becomes uncomfortable, and then they are discredited and fired, if not charged with the crimes they say they are investigating. ..."
That is indeed an interesting piece – generally speaking, we most enjoy writing with
which we agree, and I mostly agree with it and feel the ring of familiarity, because some of
it is what we have been saying here for a couple of years. Notably that while the west is
gradually leaning toward dumping Ukraine and hoping Russia will solve the problem, the
warning signs are there that Russia has no intention of bailing out an exhausted Ukraine, and
that this time it is going to be allowed to fail all the way down. The west should be warned
that nobody is riding to the rescue and pouring their resources into stabilizing Ukraine
– if the west cannot do it, the alternative is collapse and draining emergency work to
keep the population from starvation. Prosperity is an impossible dream now, and the people
– I think – would be pretty happy to be back where they were before the glorious
Maidan.
Interestingly, something that was not touched upon in the 'Necessary' section was the
elimination of the oligarchy in Kiev and other major cities. I will declare frankly that I
have no idea how this might be achieved – as discussed before several times, the
Ukrainian oligarchs control something in the order of 70% of Ukrainian GDP, and are not about
to gift any of it back to the Ukrainian state.
But for so long as Ukraine continues to elect one oligarch after another to the office of
President, the oligarch of the moment will be far more occupied with increasing his/her
personal wealth and power, and settling scores with rivals, than with governance and
accountability. At the same time, there is no use hoping the President will be a poor man or
woman, because they generally do not have the worldly education to grasp the problem and
envision solutions while being simultaneously beset from all sides by the oligarchy, seeking
to retain its power and influence.
You'll know there's no more money in Ukraine when the oligarchs leave, and I see no
sign of that so far, while it is evident they intend to be a big part of any future
rebuilding. They've already successfully stolen most of the IMF money, and plainly think an
even bigger payday is still in the offing.
The United States has largely forgotten Ukraine, as it was only ever a pretext for a
full-court press against Russia anyway, and it now has enough Russophobia sustainment in its
ditzy population to press forward without the need to invoke sympathy for Ukraine. Europe is
still quite interested in a resolution, but only because of its fear that it is going to get
stuck with the booby prize, and be made to assume responsibility for getting Ukraine on its
feet somehow, perhaps even absorbing it. Eventually, if the USA is unsuccessful in
forcing the outbreak of another world war, the west will get around to either asking Russia
to help, or trying to dump Ukraine on Russia.
Whatever happens, the dream of Ukrainian nationalists to forge a great and powerful
... nation of Ukraine is always going to remain that – a dream. They're happy enough at
present scampering about in the ruins and glorying in their imagination of great power, but
they are kings of the dungheap without any clue of nation-building.
The few who both hated Russia and honestly aspired to a Great Ukraine – free of
corruption and able to pay its way through judicious management of its undeniable resources
and casting off the peasant mentality – have no influence, and operate at the pleasure
of the power-brokers; they are allowed to dabble at anti-corruption until their probing
becomes uncomfortable, and then they are discredited and fired, if not charged with the
crimes they say they are investigating.
Well said. Presumably, the Donbass will pull away from Ukraine and vote to joint Russia and
Russia will approve for any number of reasons but certainly including humanitarian,
ethnic/cultural connections and military considerations. Other regions such as Odessa could
jump aboard as well.
There may be a mass exodus from what is left – the grifter to the West and those
seeking a better life to the east. The Nazis will remain behind and may serve some purpose
such as providing a pool of mercenaries for CIA projects.
I, for one, do not think the Donbass will be an overwhelming economic burden in the long
run. The population has shown resolve and resilience. Given leadership and material aid, they
can rebuild fairly quickly I think.
Oh, dear; Ukraine has more or less lost its case before the WTO, in which it wept that Russia's unfair imposition of an embargo
on its railway cars and rolling stock constituted a violation which caused a former $3.2 Billion in annual sales – more than it
realizes from transit fees for carrying Russian gas to Europe – to collapse to $150 Million. The WTO bought the Russian rationale
that Russian inspectors going to Ukraine to ensure the product conformed to Russian standards would be in fear of their lives.
But the WTO ruled that the security situation was such that Russian inspectors sent to check that Ukraine's exports complied
with Russian standards would have been risking their lives, and Russia was therefore justified in not sending them to Ukraine.
"The panel fully agreed with Russia's position and recognized that there was no systematic restriction of imports of Ukrainian
equipment by Russia," Russia's Ministry of Trade and Economy said in a statement.
The WTO did go on to say Russia could have carried out the inspections outside Ukraine, but therein lies a sandbag to the head
that Ukraine probably spotted already – if Russian inspectors found shoddy work or any other reason to refuse the offered goods,
to say nothing of the probability that no contracting position between the two countries even exists any more, then Ukraine would
be out the sale plus whatever costs it incurred to ship the goods outside Ukraine.
I am halfway through watching a film of US actor Peter von Berg travelling through the
Donetsk People's Republic and meeting Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko and various others
to find out how the Donetsk rebels are creating a socialist state under a situation of war. The
film is as much an implicit criticism of US society (and by extension, Western capitalist
society generally) as it is an investigation of the reality on the ground on Donetsk, ignored
by the Western MSM.
Von Berg visits a greenhouse farm growing tomatoes, a hospital and a factory among other
places he travels to (including the capital, of course) in the DPR.
There is even a short history of the city of Donetsk and how it was founded by 19th-century
Welsh engineer industrialist John Hughes, after whom it was originally named Yuzovka.
This is definitely cancer stage of neoliberalism, but I doubt that there is connection
between Skripal poisoning and Ukraine.
Also why the USA served as the catalyst for coming nationalists to power in 2014 the process
started long ago with Yushchenko and to a certain extent is typical for all post Soviet
republics, including Kazakhstan and Belorussia. they all try to distance themselves from Russia
to prove their sovereignty. The low intensity warfare in Donetsk is the only differentiator, but
even this remind attempt of Georgia to subdue South Ossetia in the past and Karabah conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Still the author is definitely a brilliant writer and thinker he describes geopolitical
tensions really well
Notable quotes:
"... has to have such a war-drum distraction to survive. ..."
"... Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee of the UN General Assembly ..."
As usual there is amnesia of the ever-recurring big-lie pretext, the need for another crisis
to keep the two-billion-dollar a day NATO war machine going, the baleful puppet moves of Canada
in the process, the crisis of legitimacy of the lead attacker's government, and the silent
diversion from the whole nightmare scenario unfolding by all NATO-member governments, mass
media and even 'peace activist' organisations.
This time the big-lie pretext is about the alleged poisoning by the Kremlin/Putin of a
double-agent, usually a stock move in the espionage entertainments, but here with no evidence
of the claimed origin of the lethal nerve-agent, but rather expert denial within British
defence and weapons research itself, with devious political word games to get around the
absence of any corroborated evidence in familiar denuciations of Russia full of aggression and
hate. Not even a death is recorded while US-led nd UK-armed ally forces are still
mass-murdering poor civilian Yeminis, drone-murdering endless targets and civilians abroad,
continuing on unblamed for the ongoing NATO-executed eco-genocides of Iraq and Libya societies,
and on the 19-years anniversary of the mass bombing of, once again a society, Yugoslavia, with
the most evolved social infrastructures of health, education, housing and life security in the
region.
What this latest war pretext for US and NATO-backed aggression is really about is justifying
more war in the Ukraine now that the massive war preparations along all of Russia's
Western borders following the self-declared Nazi-led and proven US- orchestrated and commanded
mass-murder coup d'etat in February 2014 . As usual there is amnesia of the ever-recurring
big-lie pretext, the need for another crisis to keep the two-billion-dollar a day NATO war
machine going, the baleful puppet moves of Canada in the process, the crisis of legitimacy of
the lead attacker's government, and the silent diversion from the whole nightmare scenario
unfolding by all NATO-member governments, mass media and even 'peace activist'
organisations.
This time the big-lie pretext is about the alleged poisoning by the Kremlin/Putin of a
double-agent traitor, usually a stock move in the espionage entertainments. Yet here there is
no confirmed evidence whatever of the claimed origin of the lethal nerve-agent, but rather
expert denial within British defence and weapons research itself that is silence in the press,
with devious political word games crafted to get around the absence of any corroborated facts
in the familiar denuciations of Russia full of team aggression and hate. Not even a death is
recorded while US-led nd UK-armed ally forces are still mass-murdering poor civilian Yeminis,
drone-murdering endless targets and civilians abroad, continuing on unblamed for the ongoing
NATO-executed eco-genocides of Iraq and Libya societies, and on the 19-years anniversary of the
mass bombing of Yugoslavia -- once again a socialist society with the most evolved social
infrastructures of health, education, housing and life security in the region.
What this latest war pretext for US and NATO-backed aggression is really about is justifying
more war in Ukraine now that the massive war preparations along all of Russia's Western borders
following the self-declared Nazi-led and proven US- orchestrated and commanded mass-murder coup
d'etat in February 2014 . As always, this US-directed mass murder was reverse-blamed on the
ever shifting Enemy face -- Russia's allied but duly elected government of the Ukraine. It was
only after this violent-coup Nazi-led and US directed overthrow of the elected
government of the very resource-rich Ukraine -- "the breadbasket of Europe" and sitting on
newly discovered rich fossil fuel deposits -- that Russia annexed its traditional territory of
the Crimea next to Eastern Ukraine, the latter after the violent coup put under the rule of a
US-Nazi-led government until its people fought back with Russia assistance for the now
NATO-targeted zones of the new Donetsk and Lugansk republics.
What is new now is that we are about to enter yet another NATO-member war build-up against
the cornerstone of Western ideology, the designated Enemy Russia. As usual there is amnesia of
the ever-recurring big-lie pretext, the need for another crisis to keep the two-billion-dollar
a day US-led NATO war machine going, the baleful puppet moves of Canada in the process, the
crisis of legitimacy of the lead attacker's UK government, and silent diversion from the whole
nightmare scenario unfolding in NATO-member states, mass media and even 'peace activist'
organisations.
Cui Bono?
The UK and the US followed by Canada and some of the EU have by expulsion of Russia
diplomats prepared the diplomatic way for war in the Ukraine to seize back these lost
coup-territories, and it will be in the name of "freedom", "human rights" and "the rules of
civilised nations". But there is much officially suppressed colour to the warring parties
political conflict which reveals who the truly heinous suppressor of human rights is.
Under mass media and corporate-state cover, the US-UK-NATO axis about to make war in Ukraine is
doing so under the factually absurd but non-stop pretext of "Russia aggression" constructed out
of the double-agent poisoning affair, with the guilty agents and poison having no proof but the
ever louder UK-led and NATO-state assertion of it in unison. Yet there is a clear answer to the
cui bono question -- which party does all this benefit? Clearly once the question is
posed, as opposed to completely gagged in the corporate press, Theresa May's slow-motion
collapsing Tory government -- now even challenged for its fraudulent Brexit referendum
protecting the big London banks from EU regulation -- has to have such a war-drum
distraction to survive. The old war of aggression pattern reverse-blamed on the official
enemy unwinds yet again.
It is revealing in this context how Canada's government has no such ruler need of war --
unless it be its Ukraine-descendent Foreign Minister up front and the very powerful and widely
Nazi-sympathizing Ukraine Liberal vote bank and leadership brought to Canada after 1945 to
overwhelm the preceding active socialist Ukrainian community in Canada. Canada's government --
not its people -- is in any case used to being a puppet regime in foreign affairs as a
twice-colonized rule by big business (why the NDP is not allowed to govern unless so
subjugated).
The Human Rights Question
In light of all of this suppressed factual background and motive for more war in Ukraine
which is unspeakable in the official news, interaction with the United Nations is of revealing
interest. While it has been the cover for US-led NATO executed genocidal wars of aggression in
the past as in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Korea, the pretexts of 'human rights',
'responsibility to protect' and 'stopping communist aggression', which are in fact always been
the spectacular opposite on the ground in terms of diseased, mass-murdered and destituted
bodies, these pretexts may not sell well when the background facts are no longer suppressed
from public view.
It is worthwhile recalling how Science for Peace leadership used to be against but has since
Afghanistan collaborated with these false-pretext wars in sustaining their illusions and thus
the war crimes and crimes against proceeding underneath them.
The NATO-executed Ukraine war now being orchestrated is especially revealing in its actual
record of 'protecting human rights' through 'international law' and 'norms of civilised
nations'. Completely buried in official records is a United Nations resolution n on Ukraine
that the US and Canada repudiated on November 20 2015 after the US-led bloody coup d'etat in
Ukraine was in full motion of claiming all the vast tracts of land and resources that were
Russia-speaking territory in the past.
The resolution was straightforwardly against "Nazi symbols and regalia" as well as
"holocaust denial". The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee of the UN
General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to enable measures against "the
glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that facilitate the escalation of
modern forms of racism, xenophobia and intolerance". A total of 126 member-states of the UN
voted for it for the second time. Over 100 countries voted for a similar resolution in 2014
including "denial of the holocaust and glorification of the Nazi movement, former members of
the Waffen SS organization, including the installation of memorials to them, and post-coup
attempts to desecrate or destroy the monuments to those who fought against Nazism in Ukraine
during World War II".
How could any civilised state vote against these United Nations Resolutions for human rights
as Canada and the US have done and stood by ever since? Well instituted group hatred of the
officially designated enemy can justify anything whatsoever, and does so right into next
NATO-executed orgy of war crime and crimes against humanity, again inside Europe itself
flaunting reverse-blame lies and slogans as red meat for psychotically trained masses. It is
not by accident that Canada's Foreign Minister is in this near century-old Nazi loyalist vs
Russia-speaking conflict was before her appointment the "proud "granddaughter of a leading Nazi
war propagandist during its occupation of Poland and Ukraine described as a "fighter for
freedom".
Yet on the other hand, we must not lose ourselves in ad hominem responsibility.
Crystina Freeland, her Canada name, is interestingly propagandist in itself from her birth --
Christian Free Land -- but not observed in the corporate press. Minister Freeland is only a
symptom of something far deeper and more systemically murderous and evil in state-executed
unlimited greed and immiserization of innocent millions of people masked as 'human rights' ,
'freedom' and 'rule of law' . Her more sinister double in the US is also a renamed person of
the region, Victoria Nuland (read New Land) who orchestrated the whole 2014 mass-murder coup in
Ukraine and now tub-thumps on public television for the 'need to teach Putin and Russia a hard
lesson', aka another war attack by US-led NATO on Russia's borders.
The difference now is that the absurd pretext and geostrategic mechanisms now in motion
beforehand can be seen in front of our eyes -- that is, if we can still see through the
engineered prism of the US-UK led NATO war machine. This alone will stop it.
Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian army
launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end of
February 2014.
The Ukrainian economy is in a catastrophic state after four years of "euro-reforms," said
Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the public movement "Ukrainian Choice – People's
Right." "At the end of 2013. Ukraine's state and publicly guaranteed debt was 40% of GDP, and
by the end of 2017 it had more than doubled, exceeding 80% of GDP. In 2013, Ukraine's GDP per
capita was more than $ 4,075, and in 2016 decreased to $ 2221.
The average monthly salary in 2017 as a whole for the country was $ 267 (in 2013 it exceeded
$ 408), pensions are also 2.3 times lower than before the euro reform. Today, it is slightly
more than $ 48, while in 2013 it was almost $ 112, " Medvedchuk said.
Actually life in Ukraine was not that bad in 2010-2014. Hopefully "After-Maydan" deterioration might be temporary,
although without new markets for Ukrainian industrial goods recovery is almost impossible. Also the level of foreign
debt is now much higher, so they dig a deeper hole for themselves to climb out. Other probable scenario is bankruptcy.
See also
Bill
Black Once a Poster Child for Austerity, Latvia Becomes a Hotbed of Corruption naked capitalism
Poland's level of GDP per capita is 6 times bigger than Ukraine's. They started out
around the same level in 1991 and were supposed to follow the same playbook. To the extent
that their paths diverged can be explained by Ukrainian corruption and incompetence.
Poland received hundreds of billions of dollars in EU subsidies and transfers. Not a fair
comparison. Even still today they are receiving this transfer of wealth from net contributor
countries in the EU (there's another good reason EU became unpopular in net contributor
countries like the UK and the Netherlands):
Energy subsidies from Russia to the Ukraine are estimated at hundreds of billions of
dollars since 1991. The Ukraine has been well subsidized since independence. What they have
been desperately lacking is governance.
Latvia now is a typical neoliberal debt slave and flourishing sex trafficking market. Not
that different from other Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldavia and generally all xUSSR space.
Bill mentions the brain drain from Latvia, but I seem to recall a quite massive general
emigration from the country during austerity, which also helped to "reduce unemployment" as
well. The neoliberal "methodology" for "showing economic success" is moral and economic
bankruptcy masquerading as "science". And wow. So we have Latvia to thank for the coming
nuclear holocaust as well. A true neoliberal market miracle.
Lambert's two principles of neoliberalism are once again brought to mind:
All those 'excess' workers who left were helping keep wages low in the EU
In the sense that Latvia's future productivity is sacrificed for short-term benefits on the
books, it starts to look like another asset-stripping scheme, and the costs are borne by
workers in the EU.
Latvia already has one of the highest levels of poverty and income inequality in the EU
and its population has dropped by about a fifth in the past 18 years which is a bit of a
record considering that there was no war, that is, unless you count the neoliberal war on
people. Some moved to the capital Riga but most bailed out of the country altogether and are
not coming back. You can find whole blocks of empty buildings in some towns.
But don't worry. The Latvians are on the case. The head of the Latvian Central Bank detained
for extortion and the Latvian Ministry of Defense both blame, you guessed it, Russia!
Lambert's two principles of neoliberalism may have to be updated. He already has
#1 Because markets.
#2 Go die.
He may have to modify the second one to say
#2 Go die or get the hell outta Dodge.
Now I may be prejudiced because the Gs came from deepest darkest Lithuania–and we're
talking out in the endless woods in a village along a lake.
When people talk about population decline in Latvia, you are talking about part of the
corruption. The native Latvians wanted a way of getting rid of the Russian population, many
of whom are considered immigrants. So dropping 20 percent of the population means throwing
out the Russians. When your "population policy " is based on something like that, you can
image what the country's economic policies are like.
In contrast–although Lithuania, too, has lost some 10 – 15 percent of its
population since restored independence–the Lithuanians came to terms, imperfect terms,
with their smaller Polish and Russian minorities. Nevertheless, the Lithuanians didn't go
whole-hog free-market fundamentalism. And when a recent president was found to be corrupt,
they impeached him and threw him out.
So you have different models for how to survive as a Baltic State. Latvia has made a mess
of its "model."
"Now of course that's still in a land where they had really severely repressed wages for
the working class and for middle class, and continued to tolerate a fair degree of
unemployment and underemployment for folks, as well. So, yeah it works really well for the
oligarchs. And they do employ people. The unemployment rate drops, but the country
invariably becomes extremely corrupt."
Was he still talking about Latvia or did he switch over to the USA?
Half a decade ago when Latvia was considered a success story for neoliberal austerity, one
animator made this great satire video making fun of how farcical it was to consider it
such.
Latvia also being part of that running sore which involves according to the US state
department's last global estimate, about 800,000 to a million victims per annum of people
trafficking. Of which around 80% are female, with a not stated amount being children, used
for both labour & sexual purposes.
I suppose that it comes as little surprise that the 2 main flows of these commodities is
from East to West & South to North.
"... By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period. ..."
"... Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this debt. ..."
"... Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia? ..."
On Friday 21st December 2017 the Stockholm Arbitration Court made a ruling in the legal
dispute between Ukraine's state owned gas monopoly Naftogaz and Russia's largely state owned
gas monopoly Gazprom.
In the hours after the decision – which like all decisions of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court – is not published, Naftogaz claimed victory in a short statement.
However over the course of the hours which followed Gazprom provided details of the decision
which suggests that the truth is the diametric opposite.
Here is how the Financial Times reports
the competing claims
Both Ukraine's Naftogaz and Russia's Gazprom both on Friday claimed victory as a Stockholm
arbitration tribunal issued the final award ruling in the first of two cases in a three-year
legal battle between the state-controlled energy companies, where total claims stand at some
$80bn.
An emailed statement from the Ukrainian company was titled:
"Naftogaz wins the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in
dispute."
The Stockholm arbitration tribunal -- in its final award ruling in a dispute over gas
supplies from prior years -- had, according to Naftogaz, struck down Gazprom's claim to
receive $56bn for gas contracted but not supplied through controversial "take-or-pay"
clauses. They were included in a supply contract Ukraine signed in 2009 after Gazprom dented
supplies to the EU by cutting all flow amid a price dispute -- including transit through the
country's vast pipeline systems. In a tweet Ukraine's foreign minister
Pavlo Klimkin wrote: "The victory of Naftogaz in the Stockholm arbitration: It's not a
knockout, but three knockdowns with obvious advantage."
But later Gazprom countered that arbitors "acknowledged the main points of the contract
were in effect and upheld the majority of Gazprom's demands for payment for gas supplies",
worth over $2bn. A Naftogaz official responded that the company never refused to pay for gas
supplied, but challenged price and conditions.
Given the tribunal does not make its decisions public, doubt loomed over which side was
the ultimate winner. Anticipation also grew over the second and final tribunal award expected
early next year over disputes both have concerning past gas transit obligations.
Friday's final Stockholm arbitration ruling follows a preliminary decision from last May
after which both sides were given time to settle monetary claims outside of the tribunal but
failed to reach agreement.
Here is the full Naftogaz statement:
"Today, the Tribunal at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has
completely rejected Gazprom take-or-pay claims to Naftogaz amounting to USD 56 billion for
2009-2017.
– Naftogaz succeeded at reducing future contract volume obligations by more than 10
times and made them relevant to its actual import needs.
– Price for gas off-taken by Naftogaz in 2Q 2014 reduced 27% from USD 485/tcm to USD
352/tcm. – Naftogaz saved USD 1.8 billion on gas purchased in 2014-2015 due to revision
of the contract price.
– Destination clause and other discriminatory provisions were declared invalid to
bring the contract in line with current European market standards.
– Naftogaz estimates the total positive financial effect of the arbitration over the
lifetime of the supply contract at over USD 75 billion.
– Naftogaz claims up to USD 16 billion in transit contract arbitration against
Gazprom; decision expected on 28 February 2018."
Gazprom said that in a separate decision on May 31 of this year, the tribunal denied
Naftogaz's application to review prices from May 2011 to April 2014, ordered it to pay $14bn
for gas supplies during that period, and said that the take-or-pay conditions applied for the
duration of the contract. Gazprom claimed that Naftogaz would have to pay it $2.18bn plus
interest of 0.03 per cent for every day the payments were late, and then pay for 5bn cm of
gas annually starting next year.
When the different sides give opposite accounts of the same decision it obviously becomes
difficult to say what the real decision actually is. However Gazprom says that the court upheld
(1) the main provisions of the contract; (2) the contract's take-or-pay provisions, these being
a particularly contentious issue in the contract; and (3) that Naftogaz has been ordered to pay
Gazprom $2 billion, presumably immediately, with interest for every day the amount is
unpaid.
By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm
which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine
by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period.
The key point here is that Russia agreed to reduce the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
an agreement Russia's President Putin reached with Ukraine's President Yanukovich in December
2013. After the Maidan coup the new Ukrainian government went back on the agreement causing the
Russians to demand payment of the original price. However over the course of 2014, as energy
prices began first to slide and then crashed, and as it became clear that Ukraine was simply
not paying for its gas, Russia again reduced the price of the gas Ukraine had to pay.
What seems to have happened is that the Stockholm Arbitration Court decided to smooth out
the price of gas payable by Ukraine throughout 2014, which is the sort of thing arbitration
tribunals are regularly known to do, whilst leaving the essentials of the contract
unchanged.
If so then this is not a victory by Ukraine but a clearcut defeat, which Naftogaz and the
Ukrainian government have tried to spin into a victory by citing the reduction in the gas price
in the second quarter of 2014 and the reduction in future gas import volumes, neither of which
were contentious issues. By contrast it is clear that Ukraine and Naftogaz must pay the full
contractual price and abide by the contract's take-or-pay provisions for the whole of the
period of the contract prior to the second quarter of 2014.
What this means in terms of hard cash is that Ukraine must now pay Russia a further $2
billion on top of the $3 billion it was recently ordered to pay by the High Court in London.
Just as it is holding back on paying the $3 billion it was ordered to pay by the High Court
until the appeal process in London is finished, so it will try to hold off paying the $2
billion it has just been ordered to pay to Gazprom until the final decision of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court (thus the brave talk of Naftogaz's claims of "up to $16 billion transit
contract arbitration against Gazprom") but thereafter payment of the $2 billion will fall due.
I say this because the claim Gazprom owes Naftogaz "up to" $16 billion in transit fees looks
like it has been plucked out of the air.
What this means is that over the course of 2018 Ukraine will have to pay Russia $5 billion
($3 billion awarded by the High Court in London and $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm
Arbitration Court). Since the $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm Arbitration Court is
technically an arbitration award, Gazprom will need to convert it into a court Judgment before
it can enforce it, but that is merely a formality. At that point this debt will become not
merely due but legally enforceable as well.
Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high
interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered
it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and
its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a
position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European
Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this
debt.
Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia?
Naftogaz brags that Ukraine has saved up to $75 billion because it is no longer buying gas
from Russia. However this begs the question of whether the gas Ukraine is now importing from
Europe really is significantly cheaper than the gas Ukraine was buying from Russia? This is
debatable and with energy prices rising it is likely to become even less likely over time.
"... "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it." ..."
Ha, ha!!! The Victim Of The Aggressor Country seldom fails to entertain. Here we have VR Deputy Chairperson Ira Gerashchenko
bossing Europe around , and telling it that the Victim Of The Aggressor Country's parliamentary delegation will continue to
insist on Russia not returning to the Council of Europe. Because, she says, Russia has stolen part of the territory of the VOTAC
which was a gift from Russia in the first place (although she doesn't mention that last part), thereby setting a precedent for
every country which has a province 'liberated' by the west to term it stolen by the west. But that wasn't my favourite part. No;
this is – "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by
Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it."
Beautiful, Ira!! Inspiring!! And how many degraded European leaders are Billionaires who openly own an impressive slate of
businesses and media in their countries, which they
continue to operate and profit from while piously declaring their only interest is the welfare of the country? Which is, by
the bye,
the most corrupt country in Europe ?
How many Prosecutors-General has the VOTAC had since its glorious liberation from the yoke of the Moskali? Yes, you can certainly
teach Yurrup a thing or two about integrity.
It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because
you are not doing enough to support it. First we had the 'Me' generation. Then we had the 'Me' country.
The international organization for migration has published official data which shows
that every fourth prostitute in Europe is a citizen of Ukraine.
The article discusses pamphlets that are distributed to young Ukrainian girls/women
advising them on how to survive and flourish in new realities of life in the EU.
the Ukrainian labor market is being formed and is growing. Even if there is no other
work and none is expected, girls should know that Europe will take care of them. The younger
generation of Ukrainian schoolgirls will find out how to apply themselves If you are involved
in the sex business, then this brochure is for you," it is said in the introduction. "You
have chosen a very dangerous profession, but if you always follow these simple rules, then
you will get a chance to live a long life You shouldn't serve several clients alone, you
should avoid drunk clients, and also always to take payment in advance. And when you go to
the client's apartment, try to learn in what district of the city it is located, give
preference to hotels".
It's okay if you're a hooker, and all you have to sell is yourself. You have chosen a
dangerous profession, but really the writing was on the wall, wasn't it, if only you'd had
sense to read it? And the economic calamity which has come to pass in your country is really
no concern of ours, while for our part we are not too upset at being offered the choice of
some of the most beautiful young women on the planet, who will do anything you say for a
handful of euros.
Here's to your bright new future in the EU. Incredible. I wonder if Poroshenko will tout
this statistic as another validation of Ukrainians' confidence in his leadership.
Before the revolution, Ukraine's external debt was more than now: 142 billion dollars. Now,
as of July 1, 2017 it is slightly less than 114 billion. How this can happen during civil war
it is not very clear...
But the country's GDP in three years fell exactly two times. That's what typically happens
during civil war. It was 183 billion dollars, and now became 93 billion. That means $2186 per
capita in 2016 year... With the average salary around $150 a month and the average pension less
then $80 a month.
The US has sent to the Ukraine its first consignment of coal
August 22, 11:28 UTC+3 The delivery price was $113 per ton
The beginning of the end for "Novorossiya"?
I am certain that is an interpretation that the resident troll will be eager to spout out.
Не секрет, что российский энергетический уголь Киев раньше закупал по 60-70 долларов за тонну.
Донбасский обходился украинцам еще дешевле. Но затем официальный Киев под предлогом "войны с Москвой"
отказался от дешевых энергоресурсов.
It is no secret that Kiev used to buy Russian power station coal at $60-70 per tonne. The
Donbass made even cheaper deals with the Ukrainians . But then official Kiev, on the pretext of
a "war with Moscow," refused cheap energy resources.
Who's paying for it? The IMF? So the money goes back to the U.S?
I've seen multiple instances of this occuring in Ukraine, i.e. the purchasing of unnecessarily
expensive goods, with money they technically don't have. It's not always a "Russian substitution"
thing either.
Somebody's laughing all the way to the bank, at least. Good on them.
That's their privilege. And they will be able to exercise it, in theory, for so long as the western
taxpayer is prepared to see the IMF allot Ukraine money to buy energy at prices far higher than
it could obtain it elsewhere. I daresay in the meantime someone else will buy Donbas coal. It's
not like this is going to break them. Although the USA will pocket the taxpayers' money – again
– which is one of its preferred ways of doing business.
" seem to be smart enough not to concentrate in one region. "
Uh-huh. Thanks for update, et Al! Just recently the Ukrian Foreign ministry revealed data
pertaining to the "success" of the Sacred BezViz. They claim that 200 000 of the Ukrainians
used it since its inception on 11 June this year. How much is it compared to other years
– I have no data ATM. The №1 destination place of these tourists surprised me
– it's Barcelona! Second place hold Rome, third one – Paris, 4 – Milan, 5
– Lissabon Not Poland and not Germany though.
Meanwhile rumours abound about "New Europeans" (mostly – from the Baltic states)
illegally transporting Ukrainians to Ireland and Britain to work as literally slaves there.
Also there was a general noise about the increase of the Ukrainian gasterbaiters in
Poland.
The idea that Germany should pay is not a new one. PiS just tries to make Poland enter the
elite club of the "suffering nations", browbeat the entire world into accepting their own
unique "tragic history" and then beg for monies. Their mistake is twofold. First – they
disperse their energy and attention at many "tragedies" at once. Look at Israel and the
Ukraine! They get this martyrology business model right – focus on one event
(Shoah/Holodomor) and proclaim it as unique and reparations worthy.
And what the PiS does? Kaczynski has suggested to have a monthly anniversary of the
Smolensk crash to be hosted in April 2018; for a grand total of 96 months (the number of
victims). He also expressed a hopeful notion that "we will learn the truth by then" (aka
"Tusk/KGB did it!").
Each progressive monthly anniversary costs more to field and takes more policemen to act
as security. It is siad, that the previous monthlyversary required 2000 policemen for about
2.5 thousand people and about 500 people from the countermanifestation. First
monthlyversaries only had 50 or so policemen standing guard.
Do none of the "leaders" have even a smidgeon of shame over the disgraceful dismantling of
a system built on lessons learned over two hundred years of advances in measures to improve
public health?
Disgusting doesn't come close to summing up the effects of the "reforms."
"Unfortunately, experts say that Ukrainian-American health minister Ulana Suprun, who
replaced Kvitashvili in April 2016, is too busy lobbying for the closure of hospitals and
clinics to pay attention to the looming crisis."
Suprun is the one we talked about before, the offspring of a Canadian Banderite
family.
Dubious that her
conscious
goal is to destroy the Ukrainian people; but in essence,
that's what she is doing, brought on by a false ideology.
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's
fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?
Ah. They plan to
raise the age at which you
qualify for a pension
, doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards
right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching
pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about
how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.
This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before
releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to
sell off its agricultural land
in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if.
Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of
getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth
plus a chink in Europe's armor against
GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes
of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever
health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on
providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization
of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their
families next!
That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds
so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with
the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social
Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with
shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive
unless
people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely
net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just
depressed myself.
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only
potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too
small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government
spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of
money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and
Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and
development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have
jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other
government goods and services or through their taxes.
But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and
suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest.
In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds
and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.
Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't
want the money to go towards social welfare spending.
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as
a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I
know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole
wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went
sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons
for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending
customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is
usually absorbed by the cost of living.
But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well.
In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty
oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow
it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma
in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.
Ha, ha, ha!!! "Russia seems to have corrupted rational conversation about foreign policy"!!!
I couldn't believe it – that suety smug dick Tucker was doing so well, but he had to
blame Russia for the fact that the United States made up so many things that Russia allegedly
did, but in fact did not. The reflex was just too strong.
You could almost hear heads exploding in Washington, too, when she said "Our so-called
allies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar "
[Jul 20, 2017] "https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/the-credibility-gap-that-ought-to-be/comment-page-6/#comment-175430"> The United States has almost tripled the cost of metallurgical coal for the Ukraine compared to 2016
Moscow Exile says:
July 19, 2017 at 3:35 amThe United States has almost tripled the cost of metallurgical coal
for the Ukraine compared to 2016 (report of U.S. Department of Energy). In January-March 2017 Kiev
bought coal at $206 per tonne, and a year earlier the price was $71 dollars. The volume of supply
has increased from 355 thousand to 865 thousand tons over the same period this year the value of
American coal for some countries has declined. In particular, Norway has purchased the fuel at $125
per ton, a year, and earlier for $140.
Who can answer the question why the Junta pays nearly twice the price for the same coal pay.
The governor of Ukraine's central bank, Valeriya Gontareva, has resigned the post
after three years, following intense pressure from tycoons whose banks she shut down for
conducting illegal transactions and loans.
Meanwhile her personal wealth after 3 years in chrage of Ukraine's finances (read: of the
Western donors money) MYSTERIOUSLY increased to 7 blns of hryvnias and entire squadron of
luxury cars (from 3.5 mln hryvnas upwards each). What can I say?
Здобулы!
If Ukraine's central bank chief needed any more incentive to quit, last week she woke
up to find the image of a pig draped in a Russian flag spray-painted onto the wall of her
house and a gaggle of young protesters calling her a Russian stooge.
After a sustained hate campaign that also included a coffin laid at her door, Valeria
Gontareva finally quit on Monday.
Her departure, with no obvious candidate for a successor, leaves President Petro Poroshenko
with one fewer ally in power at a time when lenders keeping Ukraine afloat already question
his ability to follow through on promised reforms .
Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of
the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.
In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along
with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living
Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth
of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty
line in Central and Eastern Europe."
The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and
pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics,
savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the
current exchange rate).
The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).
Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and
"money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.
That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile
state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal
tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people
("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal
with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies
on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county
to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to
trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA
(due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of
economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people
live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far
more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity
to catalog them.
... ... ...
Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle
threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold
War.
... ... ...
The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime
Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent
political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.
... ... ...
Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists
who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in
the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.
In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists
who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed
Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who
sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street
protests, which Nayem helped organize.
Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention
of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging
of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the
special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source
of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase
price was allegedly below market
The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner
of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.
Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were
paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation
While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home,
his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.
Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops
and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko
scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.
The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption
crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.
If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.
"... "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging. ..."
"... "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform." ..."
"... "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns. ..."
"... Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014." ..."
Wow;
there's still endemic corruption in Ukraine – who knew? And Poroshenko is the richest among
the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europe's poorest country. Ordinarily,
the press would be all over a dichotomy like that. I guess reporting on Ukraine requires a suspension
of curiosity.
"Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko
has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging.
"All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure
from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities
the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is
on Ukraine, there would have been no reform."
And it's starting to have an effect.
"According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned
$1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns.
Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who
now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us,"
she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given
to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014."
And yet the Ukrainian government still keeps on mouthing it up to the country's most likely
saviour – Russia. Although things have probably gone too far for that now, thanks to the west
trying to muscle into a position where whatever Russia does to benefit Ukraine benefits the west.
What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist
on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed
with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption
of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
"... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
"... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
"... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
"... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret
accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J.
Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.
The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political
party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists
from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.
The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's
International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the
Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked
for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.
Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization,
the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm
that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.
Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did
not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta,
is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.
The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk,
in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously
been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded
the nonprofit.
The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's
work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate,
Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including
the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved.
The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia
Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.
The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no
obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered
assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized
in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."
Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the
politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital
of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.
Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in
the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have
signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services
such as exit polling, equipment and other services.
On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York
Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as
an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million
in cash payments to him over a five-year period.
In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign
on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books
cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical,"
he said.
Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made
to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators
suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million
are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."
Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a
legitimate campaign outlay.
Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer
server.
The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures
in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just
under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black
ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.
Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger
also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts
votes.
Correction: August 20, 2016
Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of
Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by
Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.
Another debt shark is circling this poor country after feeling blood in the water...
Notable quotes:
"... Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of. ..."
"... Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights ..."
"... In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia. ..."
"... "We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society – continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society. ..."
New documents released by hackers who compromised George Soros' Open
Society Foundations raise serious questions about the Hungarian billionaire's role in Ukraine.
A leaked document, from the massive 2,500 file dump by DC Leaks of George Soros' most sensitive Open
Society Foundations communications, show the inordinate amount of power and authority the Hungarian
billionaire wielded over Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the Maidan government overthrow.
Soros, along with key executives from the Open Society Foundations, held extensive meetings with
nearly every actor involved in the Maidan coup including Ukraine's Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
Justice, Health and Education as well as US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and the regional director of
USAID. However, the documents do exclude one key official, Victoria Nuland, who was allegedly involved
in steering the opposition to the Yanukovych government.
The records focus on plans to minimize and counter Russian influence and cultural ties to Ukraine
with a focus towards steering Kiev towards social and economic reforms that Soros favored. The Hungarian
billionaire has not been bashful about his acts or intent to influence politics in Ukraine establishing
the NGO, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) to spearhead the formation of the "New Ukraine."
Most troubling in the document leak appears to be a file titled
"Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt" to discuss Ukraine's future. In the meeting, which
took place on March 31, 2014, just months after the Maidan coup and weeks prior to civil strife following
Ukrainian forces assault on Donbass, US Ambassador Pyatt outlines a PR war against Putin, a position
George Soros viewed favorably in the meeting.
"The short term issue that needs to be addressed will be the problem in getting the message out
from the government through professional PR tools, especially given Putin's own professional smear
campaigns," said the US Ambassador.
George Soros responded, "Agreement on the strategic communications issue – providing professional
PR assistance to the Ukrainian government would be very useful."
Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short
of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a
federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country
which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of.
The Ambassador noted that Secretary of State John Kerry "would be interested to hear George Soros'
views on the situation directly, upon return from his trip" raising the question why one wealthy
foreign individual, neither from Ukraine nor Russia, had such access to influence American policy.
Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence
continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that
the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights through the
decentralization process, feeding into Lavrov's line that the Ukrainian government is dysfunctional
and not successful as a unitary state, making it a necessity to have federalization.
Then, in a full capitulation, the American diplomat point blank asks George Soros, "what should
the US government be doing and what is the US government currently doing."
To which, George Soros responded, "Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impose
potent smart sanctions." He then called on the US government to "impose sanctions on Russia for 90
days or until the Russian government recognizes the results of the presidential elections."
In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls
for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger
group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia.
"We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society
– continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting
that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society.
"... Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war. ..."
Last week we reported on the
DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence
world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times
leads to chaos and civil war.
One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine. It is now
accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup,
that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of "EU values". What is even
more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of "non-profit organisations"
worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine "Maidan" narrative, but to also
disavow any ties and support for Russia.
Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with
generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek
media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated
smear campaign.
In one document entitled: "Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian
debate in Greece" (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece.docx), Soros
offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for "at least 15 full working
days in carrying out this task" plus all expenses paid.
The aim of this task:
The consultant is expected to chart the main players in the Greek debate on Ukraine, outline
the key arguments and their evolution in the past 18 months. Specifically, the report will take
stock of any existing polling evidence provide a 'who is who?' with information about
at least
– 6 newspapers,
– 10 audiovisual outlets (TV and radio),
– 6 internet sites,
– About 50 opinion leaders and trends in social networks[1].
Categorize the main strains of discussion and eventually identify different sides / camps of
the discussion.
Provide a brief account of how Russia has tried to influence the Greek debate on Ukraine
through domestic actors and outlets
Include a section with recommendations on
– What are the spaces OSF should engage and would most likely to have impact?
– What are the voices (of reason or doubt) that should be amplified?
Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE) selected Iannis Carras for the Greek media mapping
grant. The justification why he was chosen…
All contracts were for the same amount. We needed to find highly specialized researchers to
map the debate on Ukraine in Europe, therefore we identified a shortlist of candidates in consultation
with colleagues in the Think Tank Fund, OSEPI and in consultation with members of the OSIFE board
and chose the most qualified who could produce the report in the time allowed. I n the
case of Greece we agreed that Iannis Carras, an economic and social historian of Balkan and Russian
relations with expert knowledge of Greece's NGOs and social movements, was the best suited to
the task.
What is even more interesting is not the grant from OSIFE, but a letter from grant winner Carras
to a person named Mathew (another Greek speaker???), outlining his plan in detail for pushing Soros'
Ukraine agenda in Greece.
Of significance is how Carras tells Mathew about Greek society's overall suspicion of The Open
Society after the roll in played in seeding unrest in Yugoslavia. Carras even tells Mathew
to not mention The Open Society in Greece.
"Do you want your name to appear alongside mine on the paper? Do make comments on all of the
below.
In general, and at your discretion, do not say you are doing this for Open Society
because it is likely to close down doors. There's a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece,
mainly because of its positions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia. As I am simultaneously
writing an article for Aspen Review Eastern Europe that can be used as the organisation for which
research like this is taking place."
Carras then goes on to outline his approach in manipulating Greek society, covering topics such
as:
1. Media.
2. Political parties and think tanks
3. Opinion polls.
4. Business relations.
5. Religious and cultural ties.
6. Migration and diaspora.
7. Greece and Ukraine in the context of Greece's economic crisis.
8. Greece, Ukraine and the Cyprus issue.
9. Names and brief description of significant actors: a 'who is who?' with information on at least
50 opinion leaders
Carras notes how Russia has much goodwill in Greece, exercising "significant soft power".
Carras notes that Greece is, at this moment, a weak player in the Ukraine debate and the
Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias realises this.
Summary: I am working on the hypotheses largely born out by the interviews
carried out so far that Russia has significant soft power in Greece though this does not
easily convert into hard power (e.g. vetoing EU sanctions). Greeks are basically
not very interested in Ukraine and the crisis there. They reflect and understand that
conflict through their own economic crisis and their relations with Europe (nowadays primarily
Europe and not US). To the extent that relations with Europe remain the focus and do not go off
the rails, Greece will bark but will not bite. If they improve, Greece might
not even bark (as can be seen with Greece's policy on Israel, Kotzias can be very much a realist).
Carras does warn that should Greece's economic situation deteriorate further, than Greece may
very well look to Russia for support, and this has implications on the Ukraine plan.
If they deteriorate however, Greece will be looking to Russia for increased support
and will alter its Ukraine policies accordingly. Do you agree with these hypotheses?
Can you find confirmation for or against them in the media outlets examined?
Carras places extra emphasis on influencing the media in Greece, citing various large news outlets
that the Soros NGO can target, including approaching left wing and right wing blogs.
This is the bulk of the work (we have to think about how to divide the work up). We have to
provide a 'who is who?' with information about at least 6 newspapers, 10 audio-visual outlets
(TV and radio) and 6 internet sites. Some of these will be obvious, but, even in these cases,
change over time (at least eighteen months) is an important consideration. Here are some suggestions
for newspapers: Kathimerini, Avgi, Ta Nea, Vima, Efymerida Syntakton, Eleutherotypia,
Proto Thema, Rizospastis? etc. What else? Protagon? Athens Review of Books? (info on
Kotzias). As for TV, we'll just do the main ones. What about left wing blogs? What about commercial
radio stations? I think we should cover Aristera sta FM. Sky. What else? Anything from
the nationalist and far right? My choice would be Ardin (already looking at this) which
at least tries to be serious. Patria is even more unsavoury. I'll deal with the religious web
sites in the culture and religion appendix. I think we should interview Kostas Nisenko (
http://www.kathimerini.gr/757296/article/epikairothta/kosmos/viaih-epi8e... ) and Kostas Geropoulos
of New Europe to get into the issues involved… not at all sure though that it's advisable
to talk to the Russia correspondents Thanasis Avgerinos, Dimitris Liatsos, Achileas Patsoukas
etc. (I know all of them). Also if we come across articles with interesting information
on any one of the topics, we should mail them to one another.
Attention is placed on influencing political parties. Carras sees this as a more difficult task,
as parties in Greece would not be warm towards turning their back on Russia.
Who if anyone deals with Russia / Ukraine within each of the political parties? How important
are political parties in formulating policies? (my hunch is totally unimportant). I must
admit I have little idea of how to proceed with this one, but I have written to the academic
Vassilis Petsinis and I hope I'll get to skype with him soon. Think-tanks are easier,
and, I think, more important. I have already interviewed Thanos Dokos (director Greek foreign
policy institute, ELIAMEP) in person.
Carras notes how he has approached various religious leaders, academics and actors, to gauge a
sense of how deep Russia's influence and "soft power" runs in Greek society and culture.
So far I have interviewed by telephone Metropolitan John of Pergamum (one of the top figures
in the inner circle of the Istanbul based Ecumenical Patriarchate). I have read Metropolitan Nektarios
of the Argolid's recent book (2014), "Two bullets for Donetsk". I have tried but so far not succeeded
in contacting Metropolitan Nektarios himself, and have started work on two of the main religious
news websites romfea.gr and amen.gr .
With respect to culture I intend to contact Georgos Livathinos, leading director of Russian
and other plays and Lydia Koniordou, actress. Also the management of the Onassis Centre, particularly
Afroditi Panagiotakou, the executive vice-director who is quite knowledgeable in this field having
travelled to both Ukraine and Russia.
In 2016 Greece and Russia will be hosting each other as the focus of cultural events in the
two respective countries. I will be looking to understand the extent to which Russia's
unparalleled cultural soft-power might translate into Greek policy making.
Greek military is the final point of influence, with Carras interviewing Ambassadors and policy
decision makers.
Foreign policy and the Greek military. So far I have interviewed in person Ambassador Elias
Klis (formerly ambassador of Greece to Moscow, advisor to the current Foreign Minister, advisor
to the Greek Union of Industrialists. He is perhaps the single most important person for understanding
Greek-Russian diplomatic relations at present). Ambassador Alexandros Philon (formerly ambassador
of Greece to Washington, to whom I am related). Captain Panos Stamou (submarines, extensive contacts
in Crimea, also secretary and leading light of the Greek-Russian historical association) who emphasised
the non-political tradition of the Greek armed forces. Tempted to talk to Themos Stoforopoulos
for a nationalist left wing view. I have also read foreign minister Kotzias' latest book. All
of this has provided me with useful insights for appendices 7 and 8, and particularly for the
connection to the Cyprus issue (which at the moment Greece is very keen to downplay).
Carras places an emphasis on Cyprus, perhaps recognising the islands affinity to support Russia
and its large Russian diaspora community.
The recommendations will be for the medium and the short term, cited here based on interviews
carried out so far. Medium term recommendations will include a cultural event (to be specified
later) and a one-day conference on Ukraine and international law, citing precedents for dealing
with the situation in Ukraine (particularly Cyprus). Recommendations may include capacity building
for local Ukrainian migrant spokesperson(s). Short term recommendations will include an action
pack on what Greece has at stake in Ukraine, and ways to narrate parallels in interactions between
nation and empire vis-à-vis Greece / Ukraine. Think about whether these work / what else we might
recommend?
The other day on the pages of "Correspondent" that quoted figures given by the State Statistics
Service there was published data on the Ukrainian demographic catastrophe. It turns out that the
population of the Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) as of January 1, 2016, amounted to 42,76,500
people, which is 6.3% or 2,873,000 persons fewer than there were in January 1, 2012 .
That is to say, the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million
people over a period of 5 years. If this sad trend continues, then in 70 years no "Ukrainians"
will remain.
Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) has opened criminal proceedings regarding the possible
organization by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of illegal crossing through the border with the use of fake
documents, the SBI has reported on its Facebook page.
"SBI investigators will check reports on former President Petro Poroshenko organizing illegal crossing through the state
border of Ukraine with the use of deliberately forged documents," the report reads.
In particular, the report specifies that it will be established during the investigation whether officials of the customs and
border authorities included deliberately false information in official documents in order to ensure border crossing.
Former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Andriy Portnov reported earlier that according to his statement, the SBI
opened a criminal case to check possible violations of border crossing "by persons close to Poroshenko in 2018 under other
people's passports to the Maldives archipelago."
Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one
percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.
IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue
without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed
on to when the package was agreed.
Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than
43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.
And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country
than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest
average wages in Europe.
Gabon with snow
? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!
GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level
As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing
post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have
tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level,
has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom,
at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).
Back in 2010 ,
although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing
better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening
5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened
to a projected
9% in 2015 – Ukraine
has managed to slip to rock bottom .
How does this look like on a more human level?
Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces
With a quarter of its population, Belarus is
constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building
more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.
The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its
5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No
wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.
New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels
The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an
item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism,
Ukrainian consumers were better off
during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were
doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.
And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they
now make up for having even less butter than before with the
Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.
Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels
And this
figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.
Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies.
This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign
debt crises.
To be fair, the IMF
has
indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too
surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the
Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately
be averted.
But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs
who rule Ukraine
continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing
can be ruled out.
Resumption of Demographic Collapse
Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic
terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent
– it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal
capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted
by the 2009 recession.
Since then, however, they have plummeted –
exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together
with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the
coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what
it portended for the future.
This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk,
and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in
all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor).
Here are
the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:
Births
Deaths
2013
350658
441331
2014
354622
445236
2015
329308
450763
Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated,
but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.
The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
"... How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about? ..."
"... First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation. ..."
Start shovelin' in the money, IMF, because Ukraine has the magic formula – just refuse to pay
what you owe, call it a 'temporary suspension of payments' instead of 'a default', and reap the
reward for your display of responsibility.
I foresee the mileage Russia is going to get out of this will far exceed the value of the $3
Billion.
marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm
How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has
lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they
talking about?
"The proposed budget would work to reduce the government's deficit from 4.1% to 3.7%, with
measures including an increase in revenue by widening the tax base."
First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only
4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost
no revenues except from taxation.
And now the IMF expects to realize more revenue from widening the tax base – yes, I can imagine
what a popular initiative that is. Now you know how Yushchenko felt, Yatsie, when the IMF denied
him a second big loan because he refused to eliminate the gas subsidies to residents.
Now the IMF has finally realized that triumph through a different leader, and it wants to see
even more tax revenue. You are about to be as popular as a turd in the punch bowl; have fun with
that.
kirill, December 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm
I would not trust any GDP numbers from the Kiev regime either. They lost 25% of the economy
in the Donbas alone not counting Crimea. This has knock on effects to the rest of Banderastan.
Yet they are yapping about some 12% contraction in 2015 after a 7% contraction in 2014. I see
no clear indication that they are counting the GDP only for regime controlled Banderastan.
As for the budget, according to regime officials, Banderastan lost 30% of its hard currency
revenues with the loss of the Donbass. I estimate the tax loss to Kiev to be about 30% as well.
The Donbass was the industrialized part of the country while western Banderastan is primarily
agrarian. So talk about 4% shortfalls in revenue is utter rubbish. In most countries the money
making parts of the economy subsidize the rest and sure as hell it was not western Banderastan
that was subsidizing the Donbass. That was just virulent blood libel such as the claim that Russians
settled eastern Ukraine only after the Holodomor.
marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Europe deserves Ukraine. Let them have it, the quicker the better. It's fine when Yats is selling
that stinking mess to his simple-minded constituents, but European policymakers will see through
it right away. Unfortunately, Brussels knows better than to bring Ukraine any closer into the
fold, because if they get a visa-free regime, the place will empty out in a week as Ukrainians
flee throughout Europe (which is already, everyone must know, full of refugees) looking for jobs.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is ..."
"... KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts. ..."
"... After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20. [8] ..."
"... The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests. [10] ..."
"... China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion. ..."
"... It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us". ..."
"... what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war? ..."
The nightmare scenario of U.S. geopolitical strategists seems to be coming true: foreign economic
independence from U.S. control. Instead of privatizing and neoliberalizing the world under U.S.-centered
financial planning and ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring
economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration on the basis of Russian oil and tax
exports and Chinese financing. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace
the IMF and World Bank programs that favor U.S. suppliers, banks and bondholders (with the United
States holding unique veto power).
Russia's 2013 loan to Ukraine, made at the request of Ukraine's elected pro-Russian government,
demonstrated the benefits of mutual trade and investment relations between the two countries. As
Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov points out, Ukraine's "international reserves were barely
enough to cover three months' imports, and no other creditor was prepared to lend on terms acceptable
to Kiev. Yet Russia provided $3 billion of much-needed funding at a 5 per cent interest rate, when
Ukraine's bonds were yielding nearly 12 per cent."[1]
What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign
debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding
new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good
faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and
courts.
On December 3 (one week before the IMF changed its rules so as to hurt Russia), Prime Minister
Putin proposed that Russia "and other Eurasian Economic Union countries should kick-off consultations
with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) on a possible economic partnership."[2]
Russia also is seeking to build pipelines to Europe through friendly instead of U.S.-backed countries.
Moving to denominate their trade and investment in their own currencies instead of dollars, China
and Russia are creating a geopolitical system free from U.S. control. After U.S. officials threatened
to derange Russia's banking linkages by cutting it off from the SWIFT interbank clearing system,
China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System (CIPS), with
its own credit card system to protect Eurasian economies from the shrill threats made by U.S. unilateralists.
Russia and China are simply doing what the United States has long done: using trade and credit
linkages to cement their geopolitical diplomacy. This tectonic geopolitical shift is a Copernican
threat to New Cold War ideology: Instead of the world economy revolving around the United States
(the Ptolemaic idea of America as "the indispensible nation"), it may revolve around Eurasia. As
long as the global financial papacy remains grounded in Washington at the offices of the IMF and
World Bank, such a shift in the center of gravity will be fought with all the power of the American
Century (indeed, American Millennium) inquisition.
Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building
high-speed railroads, ports power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries,
enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming on line to repay the infrastructure
loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy needed for these projects.
To U.S. neocons this specter of AIIB government-to-government lending and investment creates fear
of a world independent of U.S. control. Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's
debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their
financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and
austerity for debtor countries. There would be less need for foreign government to finance budget
shortfalls by selling off their key public infrastructure privatizing their economies. Instead of
dismantling public spending, the AIIB and a broader Eurasian economic union would do what the United
States itself practices, and seek self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, technology, banking,
credit creation and monetary policy.
With this prospect in mind, suppose an American diplomat meets with the leaders of debtors to
China, Russia and the AIIB and makes the following proposal: "Now that you've got your increased
production in place, why repay? We'll make you rich if you stiff our New Cold War adversaries and
turn to the West. We and our European allies will help you assign the infrastructure to yourselves
and your supporters, and give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London.
Then, you can spend your surpluses in the West."
How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court will recognize
their claim – that is, what court that the West would pay attention to?
That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing
for more than a year. The looming conflict was made immediate by Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia
falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default.
U.S. lobbyists have just changed the IMF rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other
governments have long relied to enforce payment of their loans.
The IMF's Role as Enforcer of Inter-Government Debts
When it comes down to enforcing nations to pay inter-government debts, the International Monetary
Fund and Paris Club hold the main leverage. As coordinator of central bank "stabilization" loans
(the neoliberal euphemism for imposing austerity and destabilizing debtor economies, Greece-style),
the IMF is able to withhold not only its own credit but also that of governments and global banks
participating when debtor countries need refinancing. Countries that do not agree to privatize their
infrastructure and sell it to Western buyers are threatened with sanctions, backed by U.S.-sponsored
"regime change" and "democracy promotion" Maidan-style.
This was the setting on December 8, when Chief IMF Spokesman Gerry Rice announced: "The IMF's
Executive Board met today and agreed to change the current policy on non-toleration of arrears to
official creditors." The creditor leverage that the IMF has used is that if a nation is in financial
arrears to any government, it cannot qualify for an IMF loan – and hence, for packages involving
other governments. This has been the system by which the dollarized global financial system has worked
for half a century. The beneficiaries have been creditors in US dollars.
In this U.S.-centered worldview, China and Russia loom as the great potential adversaries – defined
as independent power centers from the United States as they create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
as an alternative to NATO, and the AIIB as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank tandem. The very
name, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, implies that transportation systems and other
infrastructure will be financed by governments, not relinquished into private hands to become rent-extracting
opportunities financed by U.S.-centered bank credit to turn the rent into a flow of interest payments.
The focus on a mixed public/private economy sets the AIIB at odds with the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and its aim of relinquishing government planning power to the financial and corporate sector
for their own short-term gains, and above all the aim of blocking government's money-creating power
and financial regulation. Chief Nomura economist Richard Koo, explained the logic of viewing the
AIIB as a threat to the US-controlled IMF: "If the IMF's rival is heavily under China's influence,
countries receiving its support will rebuild their economies under what is effectively Chinese guidance,
increasing the likelihood they will fall directly or indirectly under that country's influence."[3]
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov accused the IMF decision of being "hasty and biased."[4]
But it had been discussed all year long, calculating a range of scenarios for a long-term sea change
in international law. The aim of this change is to isolate not only Russia, but even more China in
its role as creditor to African countries and prospective AIIB borrowers. U.S. officials walked into
the IMF headquarters in Washington with the legal equivalent of financial suicide vests, having decided
that the time had come to derail Russia's ability to collect on its sovereign loan to Ukraine, and
of even larger import, China's plan for a New Silk Road integrating a Eurasian economy independent
of U.S. financial and trade control. Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the NATO-oriented Atlantic Council,
points out:
The IMF staff started contemplating a rule change in the spring of 2013 because nontraditional
creditors, such as China, had started providing developing countries with large loans. One issue
was that these loans were issued on conditions out of line with IMF practice. China wasn't a member
of the Paris Club, where loan restructuring is usually discussed, so it was time to update the rules.
The IMF intended to adopt a new policy in the spring of 2016, but the dispute over Russia's $3
billion loan to Ukraine has accelerated an otherwise slow decision-making process.[5]
The Wall Street Journal concurred that the underlying motivation for changing the IMF's rules
was the threat that Chinese lending would provide an alternative to IMF loans and its demands for
austerity. "IMF-watchers said the fund was originally thinking of ensuring China wouldn't be able
to foil IMF lending to member countries seeking bailouts as Beijing ramped up loans to developing
economies around the world."[6]
In short, U.S. strategists have designed a policy to block trade and financial agreements organized
outside of U.S. control and that of the IMF and World Bank in which it holds unique veto power.
The plan is simple enough. Trade follows finance, and the creditor usually calls the tune. That
is how the United States has used the Dollar Standard to steer Third World trade and investment since
World War II along lines benefiting the U.S. economy.
The cement of trade credit and bank lending is the ability of creditors to collect on the international
debts being negotiated. That is why the United States and other creditor nations have used the IMF
as an intermediary to act as "honest broker" for loan consortia. ("Honest broker" means in practice
being subject to U.S. veto power.) To enforce its financial leverage, the IMF has long followed the
rule that it will not sponsor any loan agreement or refinancing for governments that are in default
of debts owed to other governments. However, as the afore-mentioned Aslund explains, the IMF could
easily
change its practice of not lending into [countries in official] arrears … because it is not
incorporated into the IMF Articles of Agreement, that is, the IMF statutes. The IMF Executive
Board can decide to change this policy with a simple board majority. The IMF has lent to Afghanistan,
Georgia, and Iraq in the midst of war, and Russia has no veto right, holding only 2.39 percent
of the votes in the IMF. When the IMF has lent to Georgia and Ukraine, the other members of its
Executive Board have overruled Russia.[7]
After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless
of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20.[8]
Inasmuch as Ukraine's official debt to Russia's sovereign debt fund was not to the U.S. Government,
the IMF announced its rules change as a "clarification." Its rule that no country can borrow if it
is in default to (or not seriously negotiating with) a foreign government was created in the post-1945
world, and has governed the past seventy years in which the United States Government, Treasury officials
and/or U.S. bank consortia have been party to nearly every international bailout or major loan agreement.
What the IMF rule really meant was that it would not provide credit to countries in arrears specifically
to the U.S. Government, not those of Russia or China.
Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Institute of Globalization Problems, understood the IMF's double
standard clearly enough: "The Fund will give Kiev a new loan tranche on one condition that Ukraine
should not pay Russia a dollar under its $3 billion debt. Legally, everything will be formalized
correctly but they will oblige Ukraine to pay only to western creditors for political reasons."[9]
It remains up to the IMF board – and in the end, its managing director – whether or not to deem a
country creditworthy. The U.S. representative naturally has always blocked any leaders not beholden
to the United States.
The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated
that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders.
Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests
didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and
Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting
that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde
also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests.[10]
IMF executive board member Otaviano Canuto, representing Brazil, noted that the logic that "conditions
on IMF lending to a country that fell behind on payments [was to] make sure it kept negotiating in
good faith to reach agreement with creditors."[11]
Dropping this condition, he said, would open the door for other countries to insist on a similar
waiver and avoid making serious and sincere efforts to reach payment agreement with creditor governments.
A more binding IMF rule is that it cannot lend to countries at war or use IMF credit to engage
in warfare. Article I
of its 1944-45 founding charter ban the fund from lending to a member state engaged in civil war
or at war with another member state, or for military purposes in general. But when IMF head Lagarde
made the last IMF loan to Ukraine, in spring 2015, she made a token gesture of stating that she hoped
there would be peace. But President Porochenko immediately announced that he would step up the civil
war with the Russian-speaking population in the eastern Donbass region.
The problem is that the Donbass is where most Ukrainian exports were made, mainly to Russia. That
market is being lost by the junta's belligerence toward Russia. This should have blocked Ukraine
from receiving IMF aid. Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force peace and adherence
to the Minsk agreements, but U.S. diplomatic pressure led that opportunity to be rejected.
The most important IMF condition being violated is that continued warfare with the East prevents
a realistic prospect of Ukraine paying back new loans. Aslund himself points to the internal contradictions
at work: Ukraine has achieved budget balance because the inflation and steep currency depreciation
has drastically eroded its pension costs. The resulting lower value of pension benefits has led to
growing opposition to Ukraine's post-Maidan junta. "Leading representatives from President Petro
Poroshenko's Bloc are insisting on massive tax cuts, but no more expenditure cuts; that would cause
a vast budget deficit that the IMF assesses at 9-10 percent of GDP, that could not possibly be financed."[12]
So how can the IMF's austerity budget be followed without a political backlash?
The IMF thus is breaking four rules: Not lending to a country that has no visible means to pay
back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan.
Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors goes
against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel. And the IMF is now lending
to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments
ability to pay back the loan. Finally, the IMF is lending to a country that has little likelihood
of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities" on its population – without
putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead of being treated as an outcast
from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed and financed.
The upshot – and new basic guideline for IMF lending – is to create a new Iron Curtain splitting
the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and all other economies, including those seeking
to maintain public investment in infrastructure, progressive taxation and what used to be viewed
as progressive capitalism. Russia and China may lend as much as they want to other governments, but
there is no international vehicle to help secure their ability to be paid back under what until now
has passed for international law. Having refused to roll back its own or ECB financial claims on
Greece, the IMF is quite willing to see repudiation of official debts owed to Russia, China or other
countries not on the list approved by the U.S. neocons who wield veto power in the IMF, World Bank
and similar global economic institutions now drawn into the U.S. orbit. Changing its rules to clear
the path for the IMF to make loans to Ukraine and other governments in default of debts owed to official
lenders is rightly seen as an escalation of America's New Cold War against Russia and also its anti-China
strategy.
Timing is everything in such ploys. Georgetown University Law professor and Treasury consultant
Anna Gelpern warned that before the "IMF staff and executive board [had] enough time to change the
policy on arrears to official creditors," Russia might use "its
notorious debt/GDP clause to accelerate the bonds at any time before December, or simply gum
up the process of reforming the IMF's arrears policy."[13]
According to this clause, if Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP, Russia's government
would have the right to demand immediate payment. But no doubt anticipating the bitter fight to come
over its attempts to collect on its loan, President Putin patiently refrained from exercising this
option. He is playing the long game, bending over backward to accommodate Ukraine rather than behaving
"odiously."
A more pressing reason deterring the United States from pressing earlier to change IMF rules was
that a waiver for Ukraine would have opened the legal floodgates for Greece to ask for a similar
waiver on having to pay the "troika" – the European Central Bank (ECB), EU commission and the IMF
itself – for the post-2010 loans that have pushed it into a worse depression than the 1930s. "Imagine
the Greek government had insisted that EU institutions accept the same haircut as the country's private
creditors," Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov asked. "The reaction in European capitals would
have been frosty. Yet this is the position now taken by Kiev with respect to Ukraine's $3 billion
eurobond held by Russia."[14]
Only after Greece capitulated to eurozone austerity was the path clear for U.S. officials to change
the IMF rules in their fight to isolate Russia. But their tactical victory has come at the cost of
changing the IMF's rules and those of the global financial system irreversibly. Other countries henceforth
may reject conditionalities, as Ukraine has done, and ask for write-downs on foreign official debts.
That was the great fear of neoliberal U.S. and Eurozone strategists last summer, after all. The
reason for smashing Greece's economy was to deter Podemos in Spain and similar movements in Italy
and Portugal from pursuing national prosperity instead of eurozone austerity. Opening the door to
such resistance by Ukraine is the blowback of America's tactic to make a short-term financial hit
on Russia while its balance of payments is down as a result of collapsing oil and gas prices.
The consequences go far beyond just the IMF. The fabric of international law itself is being torn
apart. Every action has a reaction in the Newtonian world of geopolitics. It may not be a bad thing,
to be sure, for the post-1945 global order to be broken apart by U.S. tactics against Russia, if
that is the catalyst driving other countries to defend their own economies in the legal and political
spheres. It has been U.S. neoliberals themselves who have catalyzed the emerging independent Eurasian
bloc.
Countering Russia's Ability to Collect in Britain's Law Courts
Over the past year the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have discussed ploys to block Russia
from collecting under British law, where its loans to Ukraine are registered. Reviewing the repertory
of legal excuses Ukraine might use to avoid paying Russia, Prof. Gelpern noted that it might declare
the debt "odious," made under duress or corruptly. In a paper for the Peterson Institute of International
Economics (the banking lobby in Washington) she suggested that Britain should deny Russia the use
of its courts as an additional sanction reinforcing the financial, energy, and trade sanctions to
those passed against Russia after Crimea voted to join it as protection against the ethnic cleansing
from the Right Sector, Azov Battalion and other paramilitary groups descending on the region.[15]
A kindred ploy might be for Ukraine to countersue Russia for reparations for "invading" it, for
saving Crimea and the Donbass region from the Right Sector's attempt to take over the country. Such
a ploy would seem to have little chance of success in international courts (without showing them
to be simply arms of NATO New Cold War politics), but it might delay Russia' ability to collect by
tying the loan up in a long nuisance lawsuit.
To claim that Ukraine's debt to Russia was "odious" or otherwise illegitimate, "President Petro
Poroshenko said the money was intended to ensure Yanukovych's loyalty to Moscow, and called the payment
a 'bribe,' according to an interview with Bloomberg in June this year."[16]
The legal and moral problem with such arguments is that they would apply equally to IMF and US loans.
Claiming that Russia's loan is "odious" is that this would open the floodgates for other countries
to repudiate debts taken on by dictatorships supported by IMF and U.S. lenders, headed by the many
dictatorships supported by U.S. diplomacy.
The blowback from the U.S. multi-front attempt to nullify Ukraine's debt may be used to annul
or at least write down the destructive IMF loans made on the condition that borrowers accept privatizations
favoring U.S., German and other NATO-country investors, undertake austerity programs, and buy weapons
systems such as the German submarines that Greece borrowed to pay for. As Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov noted: "This reform, which they are now trying to implement, designed to suit Ukraine only,
could plant a time bomb under all other IMF programs." It certainly showed the extent to which the
IMF is subordinate to U.S. aggressive New Cold Warriors: "Essentially, this reform boils down to
the following: since Ukraine is politically important – and it is only important because it is opposed
to Russia – the IMF is ready to do for Ukraine everything it has not done for anyone else, and the
situation that should 100 percent mean a default will be seen as a situation enabling the IMF to
finance Ukraine."[17]
Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the Committee for International Affairs at the Federation Council
(the upper house of Russia's parliament) accused the United States of playing "the role of the main
violin in the IMF while the role of the second violin is played by the European Union. These are
two basic sponsors of the Maidan – the symbol of a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014."[18]
Putin's Counter-Strategy and the Blowback on U.S.-European and Global Relations
As noted above, having anticipated that Ukraine would seek reasons to not pay the Russian loan,
President Putin carefully refrained from exercising Russia's right to demand immediate payment when
Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP. In November he offered to defer payment if the
United States, Europe and international banks underwrote the obligation. Indeed, he even "proposed
better conditions for this restructuring than those the International Monetary Fund requested of
us." He offered "to accept a deeper restructuring with no payment this year – a payment of $1 billion
next year, $1 billion in 2017, and $1 billion in 2018." If the IMF, the United States and European
Union "are sure that Ukraine's solvency will grow," then they should "see no risk in providing guarantees
for this credit." Accordingly, he concluded "We have asked for such guarantees either from the United
States government, the European Union, or one of the big international financial institutions."
[19]
The implication, Putin pointed out, was that "If they cannot provide guarantees, this means that
they do not believe in the Ukrainian economy's future." One professor pointed out that this proposal
was in line with the fact that, "Ukraine has already received a sovereign loan guarantee from the
United States for a previous bond issue." Why couldn't the United States, Eurozone or leading commercial
banks provide a similar guarantee of Ukraine's debt to Russia – or better yet, simply lend it the
money to turn it into a loan to the IMF or US lenders?[20]
But the IMF, European Union and the United States refused to back up their happy (but nonsensical)
forecasts of Ukrainian solvency with actual guarantees. Foreign Minister Lavrov made clear just what
that rejection meant: "By having refused to guarantee Ukraine's debt as part of Russia's proposal
to restructure it, the United States effectively admitted the absence of prospects of restoring its
solvency. … By officially rejecting the proposed scheme, the United States thereby subscribed to
not seeing any prospects of Ukraine restoring its solvency."[21]
In an even more exasperated tone, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev explained to Russia's television
audience: "I have a feeling that they won't give us the money back because they are crooks. They
refuse to return our money and our Western partners not only refuse to help, but they also make it
difficult for us."[22]
Adding that "the international financial system is unjustly structured," he promised to "go to court.
We'll push for default on the loan and we'll push for default on all Ukrainian debts."
The basis for Russia's legal claim, he explained was that the loan
was a request from the Ukrainian Government to the Russian Government. If two governments reach
an agreement this is obviously a sovereign loan…. Surprisingly, however, international financial
organisations started saying that this is not exactly a sovereign loan. This is utter bull. Evidently,
it's just an absolutely brazen, cynical lie. … This seriously erodes trust in IMF decisions. I believe
that now there will be a lot of pleas from different borrower states to the IMF to grant them the
same terms as Ukraine. How will the IMF possibly refuse them?
And there the matter stands. As President Putin remarked regarding America's support of Al Qaeda,
Al Nusra and other ISIS allies in Syria, "Do you have any idea of what you have done?"
The Blowback
Few have calculated the degree to which America's New Cold War with Russia is creating a reaction
that is tearing up the world's linkages put in place since World War II. Beyond pulling the IMF and
World Bank tightly into U.S. unilateralist geopolitics, how long will Western Europe be willing to
forego its trade and investment interest with Russia? Germany, Italy and France already are feeling
the strains. If and when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.
The oil and pipeline war designed to bypass Russian energy exports has engulfed the Near East
in anarchy for over a decade. It is flooding Europe with refugees, and also spreading terrorism to
America. In the Republican presidential debate on December 15, 2015, the leading issue was safety
from Islamic jihadists. Yet no candidate thought to explain the source of this terrorism in America's
alliance with Wahabist Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hence with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daish as a means
of destabilizing secular regimes seeking independence from U.S. control.
As its allies in this New Cold War, the United States has chosen fundamentalist jihadist religion
against secular regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and earlier in Afghanistan and Turkey. Going back
to the original sin of CIA hubris – overthrowing the secular Iranian Prime Minister leader Mohammad
Mosaddegh in 1953 – American foreign policy has been based on the assumption that secular regimes
tend to be nationalist and resist privatization and neoliberal austerity.
Based on this fatal long-term assumption, U.S. Cold Warriors have aligned themselves not only
against secular regimes, but against democratic regimes where these seek to promote their own prosperity
and economic independence, and to resist neoliberalism in favor of maintaining their traditional
mixed public/private economy.
This is the back story of the U.S. fight to control the rest of the world. Tearing apart the IMF's
rules is only the most recent chapter. The broad drive against Russia, China and their prospective
Eurasian allies has deteriorated into tactics without a realistic understanding of how they are bringing
about precisely the kind of world they are seeking to prevent – a multilateral world.
Arena by arena, the core values of what used to be American and European social democratic ideology
are being uprooted. The Enlightenment's ideals of secular democracy and the rule of international
law applied equally to all nations, classical free market theory (of markets free from unearned income
and rent extraction by special vested interests), and public investment in infrastructure to hold
down the cost of living and doing business are to be sacrificed to a militant U.S. unilateralism
as "the indispensible nation." Standing above the rule of law and national interests, American neocons
proclaim that their nation's destiny is to wage war to prevent foreign secular democracy from acting
in ways other than submission to U.S. diplomacy. In practice, this means favoring special U.S. financial
and corporate interests that control American foreign policy.
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to turn out. Classical industrial capitalism a
century ago was expected to evolve into an economy of abundance. Instead, we have Pentagon capitalism,
finance capitalism deteriorating into a polarized rentier economy, and old-fashioned imperialism.
The Dollar Bloc's Financial Iron Curtain
By treating Ukraine's nullification of its official debt to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund as
the new norm, the IMF has blessed its default on its bond payment to Russia. President Putin and
foreign minister Lavrov have said that they will sue in British courts. But does any court exist
in the West not under the thumb of U.S. veto?
What are China and Russia to do, faced with the IMF serving as a kangaroo court whose judgments
are subject to U.S. veto power? To protect their autonomy and self-determination, they have created
alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, NATO and behind it, the dollar standard.
America's recent New Cold War maneuvering has shown that the two Bretton Woods institutions are
unreformable. It is easier to create new institutions such as the A.I.I.B. than to retrofit old and
ill-designed ones burdened with the legacy of their vested founding interests. It is easier to expand
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization than to surrender to threats from NATO.
U.S. geostrategists seem to have imagined that if they exclude Russia, China and other SCO and
Eurasian countries from the U.S.-based financial and trade system, these countries will find themselves
in the same economic box as Cuba, Iran and other countries have been isolated by sanctions. The aim
is to make countries choose between impoverishment from such exclusion, or acquiescing in U.S. neoliberal
drives to financialize their economies and impose austerity on their government sector and labor.
What is lacking from such calculations is the idea of critical mass. The United States may use
the IMF and World Bank as levers to exclude countries not in the U.S. orbit from participating in
the global trade and financial system, and it may arm-twist Europe to impose trade and financial
sanctions on Russia. But this action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is the eternal
Newtonian law of geopolitics. The indicated countermeasure is simply for other countries to create
their own international financial organization as an alternative to the IMF, their own "aid" lending
institution to juxtapose to the U.S.-centered World Bank.
All this requires an international court to handle disputes that is free from U.S. arm-twisting
to turn international law into a kangaroo court following the dictates of Washington. The Eurasian
Economic Union now has its own court to adjudicate disputes. It may provide an alternative Judge
Griesa's New York federal court ruling in favor of vulture funds derailing Argentina's debt negotiations
and excluding it from foreign financial markets. If the London Court of International Arbitration
(under whose rules Russia's bonds issued to Ukraine are registered) permits frivolous legal claims
(called barratry in English) such as President Poroshenko has threatened in Ukrainian Parliament,
it too will become a victim of geopolitical obsolescence.
The more nakedly self-serving and geopolitical U.S. policy is – in backing radical Islamic fundamentalist
outgrowths of Al Qaeda throughout the Near East, right-wing nationalist governments in Ukraine and
the Baltics – the greater the catalytic pressure is growing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
AIIB and related Eurasian institutions to break free of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system run by
the U.S. State, Defense and Treasury Departments and NATO superstructure.
The question now is whether Russia and China can hold onto the BRICS and India. So as Paul Craig
Roberts recently summarized my ideas along these lines, we are back with George Orwell's 1984
global fracture between Oceanea (the United States, Britain and its northern European NATO allies)
vs. Eurasia.
My issue with Hudson is that he tends to paint things in a "good guys/bad guys" dichotomy viz.
the IMF vs. the AIIB. Personally, I think it's quite positive that the international sovereign
finance institutions will now be more international and less unipolar, but his scenario where
Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international
reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning
to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for
debtor countries.
is rather pie-in-the sky. What reason do we have to believe that concentrated Chinese capital
would somehow be more benevolent than our current overlords? Oh because AIIB has the word "infrastructure"
in its title (just as the Interamerican Development Bank is all about development) /sarc.
Furthermore, if US planners had half a clue about economics, they would be jumping for joy
that the AIIB and the CIPS will finally help release them (eventually) from the burden of having
the USD as the global reserve currency, thus relieving the US of the albatross of having to ship
its internal demand to China and other net exporters.
All in all, yes AIIB should be positive, but as Hudson himself points out, this is not so much
about economics as it is geopolitics. The world should tread with the utmost caution.
I think his main point is not so much about economics or geopolitics, it's about the rule of
law, specifically international law and how it applies to the debt collection brokered between
counties.
China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western
Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion.
Even if they come up with a lending facility, the West will thwart their ability to collect
on those debts at every turn by simply declaring those debts null and void and extending new funds
using the infrastructure build by the bad (Russian/Chinese) debt as collateral. The thirst for
power and profit will always be with us, but now it will not be tempered by any international
order under the rule of law.
China is learning the hard way how the game is played. For example, they're discovering that
much of the tens of billions in no-strings attached loans given to Africa will not provide the
returns initially thought (even accounting for massive corruption on all sides), which is why
they have been reduced for the first time in a decade this past year.
Don't see how "economics" and "social" can be de-linked from "politics"…understanding the limits
of "local" may provide an awareness of the "quid pro quo" of extending, direction of extension,
and what defines (in/inter) "dependency"…how sacrifice is "shared" or imposed, and how "prosperity"
is concentrated or distributed…
It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys
vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against
us".
It's like a playground with one big bully and lots of kids running scared, now a second bully
appears and they all have to ask themselves whether Bully #2 will be nicer to them, in this case
it appears Bully #2 is saying he won't tell them how to run their lives or steal their lunch money.
Post-comet in 2000 when everything started going to hell the worst casualty has been the rule
of law, from hanging chads through to the Patriot Act, death by a thousand cuts of the Constitution,
unprosecuted war crimes, unprosecuted financial crimes, and now the very fabric of international
law being rent apart. I'm reminded of the Hunter Thompson scene where he has an expired driver's
license and a cop pulls him over, he has two choices, hand over the license and get busted, or
drive away and get busted… so he comes up with a third choice: he blows his nose all over the
license and hands it over to the cop. The equivalent of Bully #1 taking the only soccer ball on
the playground and kicking it over the fence so the game is screwed up for everybody, Pepe's "Empire
of Chaos" indeed.
1)Western economies depend on ocean transport…if chinese or ruskies destroy it, USA-EU will
be bankrupt in weeks..USA-EU are consumers and not producers..their exports to rest of world are
tiny..So,their position is very weak at this point
2)The asian countries like china-india will be forced to join hands under joint attack by US financial
system and islamic jihadists..Russia and china,former enemies,are now friends…who could have imagines
it?
Russo-chinese-iranian alliance is huge failure of US foreign policies
3)Using islamic terrorists and islamic countries like turkey-saudi arabia-pakistan-indonesia-egypt
is not going to work for USA because muslims think USA as enemy no.1…
4)A military superiority can not guarantee permanent -everlasting victory against too many opponents
What i see here is USA has made entire islamic world their enemy,alongwith china and russia
In case of real war,USA position will be very weak
This is an amazing article. Bravo!
Now it's becoming clear just what Margaret Thatcher meant when she told everyone that there was
no alternative to neoliberalism.
Thank you for continuing to mark the historical specifics of the finance/legal wing of geopolitical
conflict, and the perverse failings of Full Spectrum Dominance.
The Oceana/Eurasia dichotomy is a dangerous frame of reference. It essentially contrasts the
transport efficiencies of water to the solid defensive capacity of the frozen steppes. But when
things get bloody, they usually crack along language lines. Not only as a proxy for migrations
of the gene, but also world-views. How horse-people see things, what metaphors they use, are very
different than how cow-people categorize the world.
This highlights that Russia is continuing to operate within the language and legal framework
of the Indo-European languages. In other words (!), it is a fight between the U.S. and Russia
for European alliances. If this is the case, then the alliance of NATO with Turkic and Arabic
lines is of convenience, in that they are not partners but proxies. Europe is faced with the habit
of the U.S. in saying, Let's you and him fight. But there's an oceans difference between the U.S.
and European interests.
It also means that Russia and China are being pushed together by western exclusion, like drops
of oil on the water. I maintain that Russia has doubled down on global warming, to open up northern
sea routes and make the steppes arable. China is already a sea-power, but its massive population
will need lebensraum as the fossil-fuel support for the energy needs of megapoli decay. The mountains
are a formidable barrier for them to take the steppes by force.
The question for the rest of the world then becomes, who do you want to have as a friend in
a hundred years. Do you bet on the Wizards of Wall Street, with their Magic Money Wand of Fiat?
Or do you think Russia will ground-n-pound the fairy dust into the mud?
what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out
and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable
basis for declaring war?
'The Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that
cement Eurasian economic integration.'
Whereas the U.S. is 'investing' in new military bases to cement U.S. global domination.
Guess which model actually benefits local living standards, and 'wins hearts and minds'?
Global domination as a policy goal bankrupted the USSR. It's not working for the USSA either,
as the U.S. middle class (once the envy of the world) visibly sinks into pauperization.
Thus the veracity of Michael Hudson's conclusion that 'when a break comes, it will not be marginal
but a seismic geopolitical shift.'
I get the same thrill reading Hudson the religiously devout must experience reading their bibles
or Korans – a glimpse of 'truth' as best it can be known. My first encounter was this interview
in Counterpunch:
An Interview with Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism That led directly to "Super
Imperialism" (and just about every book since its publication). After reading it, I was left with
the uneasy feeling that no good would come from an international monetary system that allowed
any one nation to pay its way in the world by creating money 'out of thin air' i.e. as sovereign
and private debt or, almost the same thing, Federal Reserve Notes.
The race to the bottom of off-shored jobs and industries freed from all environmental restrictions,
AKA 'globalization', had started to really kick in but it was just before Operation Iraqi Liberation
(get it?). Fundamentally, it wasn't war for oil, of course, but a war to preserve the Dollar Standard.
Recycling petrodollars bought a little time after the 1971 collapse of Bretton Woods. But with
the world's treasuries filling up with US dollars and debt, the product of the Congressional-military-industrial-complex
running wild and more recently the U.S. 0.01% successfully evading almost all forms of taxation,
some kind of control more basic than controlling the world's access to money (which basically
means credit) was required.
When people like Alan Greenspan (pretend to) come clean, you really want to look twice:
THOUGH it was not understood a century ago, and though as yet the applications of the knowledge
to the economics of life are not generally realized, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally
a struggle for energy, in which discovery after discovery brings life into new relations with
the original source.
Frederick Soddy, WEALTH, VIRTUAL WEALTH AND DEBT, 2nd edition, p. 49
The world can live without American dollars, especially these days when the U.S. no longer makes
much the world needs or can afford but most obviously because it already possesses more of them
than can ever be redeemed ('debt that can't be repaid and won't be') What it can't live without
is ENERGY.
So long as most of that energy needs to be pumped out of the ground, the nation that ultimately
controls access to the pumps – or to the distribution networks required to deliver it to the ultimate
user – controls the world. This is most likely why Reagan promptly dismantled Jimmy Carter's White
House solar panels. It is why the US and its European vassals have been dragging their feet for
a half-century on the development of renewable energy sources and the electrification of transportation.
It is why the banks and Wall Street will stand solidly behind the various electrical utilities
efforts to discourage the development of any alternative energy sources from which their executives
and shareholders can not extract the last pint of blood or has Hudson more politely calls it 'economic
rent'.
P.S. Hudson seems to have a dangerous monopoly on economic truth these days. Is there anyone
else who even comes close?
"... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
"... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
"... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
"... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's
stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the
little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the
streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets,
probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It
was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .
Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an
American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably
discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.
In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language,
external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every
day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus,
the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.
To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority
of the elderly, women, children - different things.
Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58
One more thing:
Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable
-- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!
That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go
figure.
Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49
Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict
If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood'
over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their
dour faces:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and
that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma,
said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)
"Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means
the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)
The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.
The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern
Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.
"We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There
is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."
On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that
she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.
The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head
with the implementation of Minsk II.
PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!
HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55
The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for
Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action
that is more than cosmetic.
BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38
IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations
(some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of
the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more
than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army
in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this
would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating
mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried
Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier
legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov
treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old
practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl.
one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).
But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular
(not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately
be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate'
the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees,
many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.
HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13
Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and
boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government
decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve
the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though
clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.
Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07
What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or
have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering
the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which,
actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic,
and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation
implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the
coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because
it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did
not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear
power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The
coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what
they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in
Odessa - a vivid example.
Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11
You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy".
It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.
Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else
will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.
Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think
about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about
a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after
that.
Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53
I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a
year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square
kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we
should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?
Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49
I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy,
you should at least know with whom are you talking.
Manolo Torres
9 Sep 2014 09:42
0 Recommend
Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war
in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on
grounds of self defense.
My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling
that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as
we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).
As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas.
And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.
i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and
looking every time more ridiculous.
A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.
Can I do anything else for you?
Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15
Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders
at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.
His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East
Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of
East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.
Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10
This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only
thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable.
Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.
elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04
Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership
and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing
much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets
a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know
who i mean "fuxx the eu").
Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03
Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if
Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit
of either the West or Russia.
At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since
Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion.
It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in
Web forums.
Notable quotes:
"... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
"... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
"... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?
No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution
to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash
out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.
As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks
like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably
as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules
giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).
Finally, this made me smile...
It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year
Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements
with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's
journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!
PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12
Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding
with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless
thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.
MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07
Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned
out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer
money.
KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39
Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just
like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly
not invited to those talks either.
What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs.
That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage
conflict.
If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia.
In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European
powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!
Interesting times................
Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35
" Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after
a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow
your daily dose of bullshit.
NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18
You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist
reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian
forces.
The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on
the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass,
and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.
Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13
The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but
they would be organised by the rebels.
Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.
As part of his UN speech seeking to restore a crumbling Pax Americana, president Obama, eager to
cover up US involvement in the Ukraine presidential coup of early 2014 (who can forget Victoria Nuland
"strategy" interception in which she laid out the post-coup lay of the land, while saying to "fuck
the EU"), just said that "America has few economic interest in Ukraine."
Herdee
Where and what did they do with Ukraine's gold bullion reserves and who is in possession of
them right now and why is it such a big secret to everyone that overthrew the Government there?
directaction
Who cares? The Ukraine gold and all the rest of their resources are legitimate wartime plunder,
booty, if you will. If the Ukrainians are stupid enough to happily allow the USA to barge in and
take everything of value from them why should we weep?
viator
"George Soros has long called for the West to pump billions into Ukraine. Now he says he's
ready to walk the talk.
The veteran hedge fund investor told an Austrian newspaper he was prepared to invest $1 billion
in the collapsing war-ravaged economy under certain circumstances.
"There are concrete investment ideas, for example in agriculture and infrastructure projects.
I would put in $1 billion," he told Der Standard. "This must generate a profit. My foundation
would benefit from this, not me personally."
The Hungarian-born billionaire said Europe and the U.S. must show strong political leadership
over Ukraine -- that would make it more attractive to private investors. The West could provide
finance at European interest rates close to zero, for example.
A spokesman for Soros said his investment would depend on the West doing "whatever it takes"
to rescue Ukraine."
Notwithstanding the heavy presence of dual citizens yadda yadda, I kinda think the "secret
report" was tongue-in-cheek and that this is basically bullshit. But in this messed up crazy world...
stranger things....
Since the discussion is now academic (Crimea is not leaving Russia unless Russia itself is
destroyed), I will be brief.
Kolomoysky is the president of a European Jewish Group, and active in Chabad. He was promoting
Crimea as an alternate Jewish homeland until Crimea rejoined Russia. Kolomoysky then lost his
real estate holdings, and Chabad the ability to dominate the Crimea.
If you are interested in further background, check out the following link:
"... The
Argentine government managed to restructure about 93% of that debt through heavily discounted
bond exchanges in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to tender their defaulted
bonds for new securities, and they have hounded Argentina in courts across the globe for close
to a decade seeking full repayment. ..."
The
Argentine government managed to restructure about 93% of that debt through heavily discounted
bond exchanges in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to tender their defaulted
bonds for new securities, and they have hounded Argentina in courts across the globe for close
to a decade seeking full repayment.
As part of the restructuring process, Argentina drafted agreements in which repayments would
be handled through a New York corporation and governed by United States law. The holdout bondholders
found themselves unable to seize Argentine sovereign assets in settlement, but realized that
Argentina had omitted to provide for holdout situations and had instead deemed all bonds repayable
on pari passu (equal) terms that prevented preferential treatment among bondholders. The holdout
bondholders therefore sought, and won, an injunction in 2014 that prohibited Argentina from
repaying the 93% of bonds that had been renegotiated, unless they simultaneously paid the 7%
holdouts their full amount due as well. Together with the agreement's Rights Upon Future Offers
("RUFO") clause, this created a deadlock in which the 93% of renegotiated bondholders could
not be paid without paying the 7% holdouts, but any payment to the holdouts would potentially
(according to Argentina) trigger the 93% being due repayment at full value too; a sum of around
$100 billion which Argentina could not afford.[6] The courts ruled that as Argentina had itself
drafted the agreement, and chosen the terms it wished to propose, it could not now claim the
terms were unreasonable or unfair, and that this could not be worked around by asserting sovereign
status since the injunction did not affect sovereign assets, but simply ruled that Argentina
must not give preferential treatment of any group of bondholders over any other group when
making repayments.
…NML Capital Limited, a Cayman Islands-based offshore unit of Paul Singer's Elliott Management
Corporation, purchased many holdings in 2008, paying an estimated USD49 million for one series
of bonds whose face value was over USD220 million;[22] with the subsequent boom in Argentine
bond values, this face value grew to USD832 million by 2014.[26] They in turn established the
American Task Force Argentina lobbying group against Argentine bond restructuring efforts,[19]
and sued to enjoin Argentina's ongoing payments to the bondholders who had participated in
the earlier restructurings.[2]
####
Nothing can stop red blooded capitalists! I suspect that death is but a minor inconvenience.
And this is what awaits Ukraine. Welcome to Capitalism Kiev, please read the small font.
Oh, you don't read? Wonderful! We shall have a good time doing business together! How much for
Dnepropetrovsk?
Warren, September 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm
These hold-out creditors aren't called fondo buitre for nothing!!!!!
Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can
protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start
to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show."
.
"...Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't
want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred."
. Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those
who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has
achieved.
.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told. He waged war in
the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity."
.
"...Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government: (1). He destroyed Ukraine's
military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any
obedient CIA stooge will do. (2). He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should
have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting
Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up
with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again."
.
"...Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring
under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention."
.
"...When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share
a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political
overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through
violence. I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's
constitutional proposals."
.
"...I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising
the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up
the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!"
.
"...I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has
been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests
which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic
Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers
to eastern territories is hardly surprising."
Notable quotes:
"... I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically. ..."
"... - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks... ..."
"... "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war." ..."
"... It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better. ..."
"... Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils? ..."
"... A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft. ..."
"... In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us. ..."
"... It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus. ..."
"... Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!). ..."
"... Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face. ..."
"... February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings. ..."
"... These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue. ..."
"... History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS. ..."
"... Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement. ..."
"... The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government. ..."
"... Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one. ..."
"... Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred. ..."
"... The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy". ..."
"... Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention. ..."
"... Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. ..."
"... I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves! ..."
"... idan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place. The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke. ..."
Another version has it that the explosion outside parliament was orchestrated by the president's
administration or the Ukrainian special services in order to discredit Svoboda and other radical
nationalists and to "tighten the screws" on the political life of the country thus justifying control
over opposition forces.
This version hardly stands up to criticism. The demonstration was led by MPs who are members of
Svoboda but got into parliament as independent candidates. In the 2014 elections Svoboda did not
win the 5% of the vote necessary to enter parliament. Four months earlier, in the presidential election,
the party's leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, won only a little over 1% of the vote. This week he was photographed,
together with other Svoboda activists, trying to drag a soldier out of the human chain formed around
parliament into the crowd of protesters. It was a moment very reminiscent of the Maidan days, only
that then Svoboda members and their leader were inside parliament. Since then the party has found
itself increasingly marginalised.
However, there were other groups represented in the demonstration , among them two that deserve
special attention: Oleg Lyashko's radical party and Igor Kolomoisky's Ukrop party. T-shirts with
the latter party's emblem were given out free at the demonstration, and those willing to take part
were paid to protest. Kolomoisky is considered to be an enemy of President Poroshenko since he was
sacked from his position as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor
Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil
Saakashvili.
Immediately after the blast, Lyashko, who is a radical populist with little in common with the
radical nationalists, announced the establishment of a campaign to save the nation. Only three or
four hours after the explosion, his party had already registered a bill that would block changes
to the constitution at times when the country is under military attack. Lyashko came second in the
presidential elections, and over the last year his Radical party has gone up in the ratings. It is
interesting that articles in the press regularly claim to have evidence that both the Svoboda party
and the Radical party have been financed by the same oligarchs, the above mentioned Kolomoisky, Sergey
Levochkin – who was head of the presidential administration under Yanukovich and who fled to Moscow
after the Maidan – and Dmitry Firtash, who is now being investigated on corruption charges in Austria.
Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation. To begin with, volunteers who went
off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant
groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan. There were also volunteers who
had no affiliation to any party who went to fight. When the Ukrainian army took over the main role
in the fighting, many of the volunteers returned home, taking weapons with them.
nnedjo 3 Sep 2015 16:18
Well, the purpose of the constitutional changes in Ukraine should be that rebels in the southeast
stop fighting and accept Ukraine as his country, and not Ukrainian nationalists to stop throwing
grenades at the police in Kiev. However, these laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament, can contribute
very little that the main objective. Their main goal is just to create the illusion that Ukraine
really is trying to comply with the requirement of Minsk 2 agreement, and thus to meet the expectations
of their Western friends, which means to prevent lifting of sanctions against Russia. And, on
the other hand, these laws need to be completely contrary to the expectations of the rebel peoples
in Donbas, or in other words to achieve the same thing that the Ukrainian government unsuccessfully
tried to achieve with weapons.
It is particularly interesting that the President of Ukraine Poroshenko himself makes no secret
at all that it is true what I've previously written, as can be understood, among other things,
also from those of his statements:
According to the president, "the threat of break-up of the international pro-Ukrainian coalition"
would have increased if the Verkhovna Rada had not voted in favor of decentralization amendments
to the constitution on Monday.
It could also lead to the lifting of sanctions, which "are very painfully hitting the aggressor,"
he said, apparently, referring to Russia, which Kiev blames for sending troops to war-torn eastern
Ukraine....
...But what they [Donetsk and Lugansk Regions] have got instead is a lean line about the features
of local self-governance," Poroskenko stressed.
So, even though the law that caused the protests in front of parliament has the name of "decentralization",
in fact it needs to further strengthen the competence of the central government. Based on this
law, the Presidency received the right to appoint a prefect, who with his hand has the discretionary
right to dismiss officials elected at the local elections in certain regions. And if they do not
like it, they can appeal to the constitutional court in Kiev, where were apparently is known in
advance what may be the decision of the constitutional court.
On the other hand, the law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk, which was passed earlier,
is practically suspended at this point by the recent decision of the President Poroshenko.
In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two things.
Although according to the Minsk 2 arrangement, the special status of the Donbas region should
have been incorporated as an integral and permanent part of the Ukrainian Constitution, the law,
which is now suspended, does not meet any of these two demands.
This law therefore is attached only as an annex to the Ukrainian constitution, and its validity
is limited to just three years. And, according to the idea of Ukrainian legislators, the law can
come into force only after the local elections in Donbass which would be held under the previous
Ukrainian legislation, and when Ukrainian forces take control over the whole territory of Ukraine,
including its entire border with Russia.
Until then, they will be consider that Donbas region is temporarily occupied part of Ukrainian
territory, and officials of the People's Republic of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic will
be considered as terrorists. And since with the terrorists must not be negotiations, leaders of
the LNR and DNR were completely excluded so far from discussions about the law on the special
status, which is also contrary to the Minsk 2 agreement, given that it explicitly requires just
that.
All in all, they are asking the pro-Russian rebels that lay down their arms voluntarily, without
getting anything in return. Or more accurately, to get just a little bit of what they are looking
for and only for a period of three years. So, congratulations on wishful thinking, but the question
is whether it is achievable at all.
LimaCPapa -> ridibundus 3 Sep 2015 15:48
I first learned about this when a new Ukrainian student introduced himself, and we asked why
the name he gave was not the name on his papers. He explained (with clear annoyance) that he had
to use a Ukrainian name. He had to keep it while he was here as well, because it was the name
in his passport. Now he's free of all that and uses his Russian name. Needless to say, he did
not return to Ukraine. Another Ukrainian has since confirmed that the same thing was true for
her passport. In both cases, issued in the early 2000s. So who's lying then?
beakybloom -> gablody 3 Sep 2015 13:34
What's inherited??.. The bankrupt economy, loss of Crimea, loss of Donbass, 6000 dead, civil
war, downing of Malaysian airliner with 300 souls on board, Odessa massacre, murders of political
opponents, the nazi parliament, stupid laws glorifying Ukraine's nazi past, no visa-free access
to EU, Nazis throwing grenades at the police???..
Nothing here is inherited except the absence of visa-free access to EU
a "show on the road" ? On IMF funny money? For how long? It's a shitshow, and unsustainable
to boot.
nnedjo -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 13:28
The putinposters are still reeling with the news that the Ukrainian government is fighting
"Nazis" in Kiev,...
It will be possible to say just when the news arrives that the organizers of these demonstrations
were sentenced to a few tens of years in prison, and that guy who threw this grenade from which
the Guardsmen killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment.
What is quite unbelievable judging by the past behavior of government from Kiev.
The piece of shit she CHOSE to work with.
Jewish neo-con skunk and neo-Nazi thug seems like a match made in heaven.
jezzam -> Chillskier 3 Sep 2015 10:19
Go ahead then. I can't wait. Neither can Poroshenko. His best option is passive resistance
when Putin launches his next land grab. Russia will be forced to give it back eventually when
they are totally bankrupt
Bosula -> RVictor 3 Sep 2015 08:55
The congregation is mostly made up of ethnic Ukrainians, members of a community that numbers
hundreds of thousands and has been growing rapidly since the start of the conflict in eastern
Ukraine.
This is what the Guardian reported on 13 May 2015 - this was JUST for Poland:
"Last year Poland issued 331,000 permits for short-term work to Ukrainians, up 50% on 2013,
says Marta Jaroszewicz, a migration expert at the Centre For Eastern Studies (OSW), an independent
Warsaw thinktank funded by the Polish government.
She estimates that there are now 300,000-400,000 Ukrainians in Poland, as many as twice the
officially recognised number. In January and February, the number of residence applications by
Ukrainians in the Mazovian voivodeship – the province which includes Warsaw – was up 180% on the
same months of 2014."
There are other articles for other neighbouring countries bordering Ukraine, but the Guardian
is a pretty authoritative source.
Since this story the number crossing the border to leave Ukraine has increased significantly.
FlappyCat 3 Sep 2015 08:20
Poroshenko to Transnistria..
Yats to Macedonia and
Saakishwilly to Tajikistan.
oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:12
I read the Gorby's interview where he said 'Yes' about the NATO promises.But he's a fool nevertherless
to beleive the promises,written or verbal from his enemy.
elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:07
>>He's trying to provoke Putin.
Hmm in that case you have proved Poroshenko is a fu##ing idiot. Only an idiot would set out
to provoke the leader of a neighbouring country into invading. Is that what you lot voted him
in for? No, it isn't. He should be making peace and securing the future for his people. Face it,
your leader is taking orders from Pyatt and you know it.
BigBanana 3 Sep 2015 07:50
"Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by
the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili"
Jeez, Saakashvili is a stupid appointment for a very long list of reasons. He's the idiot who
got Georgia dismembered after misjudging the situation terribly.
It's as if Poroshenko is deliberately trying to fuck things up.
HuffingHume -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 07:41
All of the ex-Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic states, are horribly corrupt dysfunctional
kleptocracies run by Soviet era bigwigs who carved up their state's assets up for themelves, leaving
most of their fellow countrymen in poverty. This is the reason why many Ukrianians want to be
more 'European'; because they want to be more like Poland and the Baltic States, rather than in
the Russian orbit, in which every state has barely made it out of the 80's.
Dimmus -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:15
"It was the right wing Svoboda Party that started the trouble, definitely not a 'peaceful protest'
as you make out. "
I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie,
troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror
attacks but were killed democratically.
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:14
Putin has a record of false flag operations, starting with the Moscow apartment block bombing
performed by the FSB when he was head and which brought him to power.
And the proof is ... o, yes, - something written by oligarch in exile! Btw., here is a short
list of admitted FF operations be US and it's vassals. Remember "Iraq WMD"?
oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:10
Why being invaded by Putin, Ukraine is trading a discount for gas, [and asks for ] deferral
of loan?
irishinrussia -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:03
It's irony. He is implying that when protesters the west likes kill policemen then they at
peaceful demonstrators, perhaps defending themselves against brutal security forces, at worst
any violence is the action of a few hotheads or extremists among overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic
victims of the state. However, when the very same protesters attack our guys (Poroshenko), they
are radicals, extremists and terrorists, perhaps abetted by shadowy enemies of freedom and democracy
(FSB).
PanoptikonicallyKool -> Briar 3 Sep 2015 06:15
Shhh!!!! You are not supposed to say things like that! 'US backed coup'? That is not part of
the story. And it's ancient history history, no connection to current events. In fact it didn't
even happen, according to repectable news sites. Or they don't mention it, so it must not have
happended . The US, as the article states, or rather doesn't state, or rather doesn't even mention,
has nothing to do with political events inside Ukraine, that's why we never read anything about
it. Did Russia do it or not do it? That's the only serious question for anything that happens
in Ukraine.
US involvement in Urkaine? Harrruuumph! Conspiracy theory! And don't bring it up again!
Dimmus 3 Sep 2015 06:15
"But the media has been busy throwing up theories about who has most to benefit from
this terrorist attack. "
- Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad
and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17
policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting
bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror
attacks...
ositonegro -> BastaYa72 3 Sep 2015 06:11
"Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held
it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their
'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power.
The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the
state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war."
It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global
corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a
name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better.
How can anyone not take the US state department's line. It is the truth. Ergo, everyone else
is paid by the Russians.
Калинин Юрий -> elias_ 3 Sep 2015 04:59
He does not answer the questions, he blames Putin in all the world's sins and universe disasters.
Global warming - Putin, extreme heat in the EU - Putin, police conflicts in the USA - Putin. Ask
him, wh has scratched a car by a shopping mall last month - Putin!
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:53
The West has not broken international law since the Iraq invasion.
Support and organization of governments overthrow all around the world? War in Libya? Killing
with drones on foreigns territories? Bombing of Syria territory?
Theo Humbug -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 04:52
Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully
somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little
evils?
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49
Why does Georgia not get Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for Saakashvili? Ukraine
would have to comply. The answer is obvious. They would not get one because the charges against
Saakashvili are politically motivated, like most of the corruption charges in Russia.
Right - like any West institution Interpol is so-o-o independent, exactly like International
Court!
Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49
I have come to realise that Jizzem is just a Turing Bot.
Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:48
HAHAHAHAHA... Are you serious? Which planet are you on? Do you think people forget that quickly?
A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned
regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft.
jonsid -> Mark Elliott 3 Sep 2015 04:46
In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast
of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe"
and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest
to believe the opposite of everything they tell us.
Theo Humbug -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 04:41
You clearly have a very bad memory. The Russian offer of cancelling debt and very reasonable
prices for fuel was very attractive to the ELECTED government of Victor Yanukovych and far far
better than the EU offer, which was why they were all for accepting the Russian offer and aligning
more with Moscow..
But the USA can't have any country deciding it's own fate if it is not in accord with the Lords
of this Universe.
The neocon organised and paid for putsch, Maidan Shootings, Odessa burnings, put a stop to
any agreement beneficial to the Ukrainians and opened the way for the IMF to come in and steal
the wealth of yet another country.
There is no excuse for anybody not to know these recorded and verifiable FACTS.
elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:36
You are fixated on Putin - you must be a not so secret admirer. Why don't you answer Tomov's
question. What has Poroshenko achieved since becoming President?
RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 04:34
It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application
were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money
you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling
to Russia/Belarus.
So I show you official numbers of registered refugees in EU - and amount of unregistered cannot
be high due to immigration laws and functioning police system.
On over side, number of 400000 is taken from nowhere - go on and proof it.
Salut_Salut -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:32
If you are such a hard-core proponent of sanctions policy, then may be you can name the beneficiaries
of it in EU? Farmers? Businesses? Common people? Methinks - only politicians following in the
wake of Uncle Sam's guidelines. The President of Russia is no way a role model or a paragon country
leader, but seeing him behind every corner is nothing but a bout of anti-Russian paranoia. People
of that long-suffering country aren't actually represented by him only.
Theo Humbug 3 Sep 2015 04:29
How far back does history go?
Lat week, last month, Maidan Square, the fall of the Soviet Union?
If taken that far back, then people will surely remember Ronnie Raygun's promises to Gorbachev
that no NATO forces would encroach on former Soviet territory. Ehh?? What??
Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction
that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just
prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or
the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!).
So called separatists voted to stay with Russia, with whom they identified, despite the lies
and propaganda from the US/West/Nato including premature accusations of responsibility fro the
shooting down of MH17 .. funny how 1) the US never released it's data (another Pentagon "plane"?)
2) that has all gone very quiet... Wonder what they found?
Perhaps the putschist regime and/or their neo-neocon pay/puppet-meisters have woken up to the
very real danger of putting nazties withing 'Cooee' of nuclear weapons?
Of course, one does not need to be a nazti to call for nuclear mass murder. The blond plaited
heroine of the right, the ex jailbird, ex Prime Minister (for ganesh sake!!) Tymoshenko called
for the nuking of Donbass, if I remember correctly.
Russian now has the major Western forces and neonazis on their border. President Putin has
to deal with these murderers and the great unwashed, living in their encapsulating bubbles of
Newspeak and reality cooking shows, are told by the Mudorc press and other propagandists that
it is Russia that is pure evil.
I wish there were a god.
Tony Cocks -> danhudders 3 Sep 2015 03:59
" The airliner was almost certainly downed by a Russian crew "
But of course you have not one shred of evidence to support your statement in which case would
you agree it is valueless and was a waste of your time posting it in the first place.
RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 03:49
I think he said refugees crossed the border ........i am not sure that all refugees fill out
the application form?
400000 ? Look on the current 100000's refugees wave from the Asia/Africa to get an expression
how it looks like. Or on the last year summer wave of Ukrainian refugees in Russia - with large
refugee camps for temporary placements etc. You cannot get 400000 refugees to go "unseen" - especially
in case of relatively good-maintained land border.
martinusher 3 Sep 2015 03:09
Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by
the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that
prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think
in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where
Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white.
It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately
at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face.
(If you need any indication that something's not quite right in Ukraine then you only have
to look to the appointment of Saakashvili as the governor of Odessa last summer. He's best known
for his role as a Georgian politician, someone who, among other things, provoked a disastrous
confrontation with Russia.)
SHappens 3 Sep 2015 03:07
To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining
Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during
the Maidan.
February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda)
implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities
against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures
we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the
police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
These forces were subsequently beaten in the elections, thus rejected by the Ukrainian people.
However the first act of Poroshenko was to legitimate these irregular and illegal militias which,
absent in Parliament, have received the far more important power of arms, courtesy of the new
mixed Ukrainian-American government. Basically the only difference between the parliamentary majority
and the far-right groups is that the first take orders from the West, the latter don't.
These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much
of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise
the war in the East could not continue.
History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power
by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered,
rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and
exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin
or ISIS.
Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced
those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while
their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can
wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of
these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet
that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money
at will, in which Russia has no involvement.
Still, Poroshenko and Yatsenuk want more war and call for lethal arms supply. All this while
the rating of Ukrainian is now CC with negative outlook.
RVictor -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 03:02
400,000 refugees crossed the borders from Ukraine into the EU over the past year.
You are lying (surprise, surprise!):
"There were 4,603 applications for international protection in Germany, 3,600 in Poland,
2,956 in Italy, 1,962 in Sweden, 1,763 in France, 200 in Moldova, 60 in Romania, 60 in Hungary
and 20 in Slovakia," the UNHCR findings highlighted.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:16
"Russian TV focused on the events outside the Ukrainian parliament to prove to viewers
that chaos reigns in Ukraine. "
And doesn't chaos indeed reign in Ukraine? I thought that was beyond obvious and doesn't need
any additional proof.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:13
How about the more obvious explanation that Maidan, so much encouraged and celebrated by the
West, had taught Ukrainians that it is Ok to attack the police, try to pull away their shields
(see the photo above), through molotov cocktail at them (there was a picture on Monday) and grenades
in order to pass certain laws in their Rada.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:11
How exactly Russia is "profiting" from this? is this author just throwing the sentences around
or is he required to fulfill some anti-Russia quota in his article?
ArtofLies -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 02:09
There are undoubtedly going to be further problems with these nationalists, oh come on, we
can call the neo-nazi's or neo-fascists here, just because the journalists above the line cant
be seen to be propagandising for fascists does not mean that we have to play those semantic games.
the fact is this is the second time these fascists have attacked the police, this time with
grenades, the last time it was molotov cocktails, but the media wont criticise them because there
is money to be made in the ukraine, not everything is privatised yet and i hear there are still
dreams of fracking ukraine to prosperity.
nishville -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 01:43
The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline
and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist
veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government.
Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e.
they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive,
they will start to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show.
drrust 3 Sep 2015 01:38
Again you are instigating that the Minsk agreements were reached by western or international
powers in general, implying that angloamerica was part of this. The agreement was a sole and very
sucsessful initiative of Mrs Merkel, who took a reluctant Holland with her who solely sensed a
chance to be viewed as a statesman. The UK had already transports of war material underway.
elias_ -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 01:14
There's million in Russia although many of them may be hiding to avoid military service. Look
on the bright side, there's another 40 million of them and I bet most will want to move into the
land of milk and honey which is Europe.
MaoChengJi 2 Sep 2015 23:31
"But despite profiting from it, Russia is very unlikely to have perpetrated it"
Oh no, say it ain't so! How can any trouble in this world be caused by something that is not
The Dark Lord Putin?
And how is Russia 'profiting' from this, I'd like to know? Isn's this rather a case of the
western Russophobe industry suffering a loss?
Well, for sure the Russophobe industry suffering a loss is an undeniable victory for all humanity,
but putting it as 'Russia profiting'?.. Oh well, russophobes are weird creatures, I've noticed
it a long time ago.
retarius 2 Sep 2015 22:47
Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they
don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred.
eric lund 2 Sep 2015 20:43
How the USA rule sway the destinies of Ukraine flooding it with blood
One can get an impression that authorities of Ukraine, totally dependent on State Department
of USA, are doing anything – searching for spies, begging for money, getting weapons from USA
and Europe, suppressing dissidence, self-advertising and desperate propaganda, but not taking
the steps to peaceful regulation of conflict in South-East of the country and its economic rise.
According to the last research of Kiev international institute of sociology the rating of president
Petr Poroshenko has fallen three times, down to 13,6%, other candidates don't even get 5%. When
authorities are so unpopular, it is only left for them to turn the screws and continue witch hunting
at full throttle.
The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly
understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy".
In order to strengthen his worthless power Poroshenko fired seemingly over powerful chief of
Service of Safety Valentin Nalivaychenko, who had been transmitting information which often put
Poroshenko himself in not very bright light, to representatives of USA. And new chief of Service
of Safety Vasiliy Gritsak, who is very close to Poroshenko and was the head of his own service
of safety, at one dash arrested 40 colonels and generals allegedly for dissidence in his department.
Danger is getting closer for Home Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov. The chief military prosecutor
Of Ukraine Anatoliy Matios claimed that members of criminal organization 'Tornado', made on the
base of militia and appointed by Avakov from former criminals, had organized secret place in basement
floor of school to torture illegally captured people. The Ukrainian patriarch Filareth presented
a medal for sacrificing and love for Ukraine, so to say for perverted sadism while torments, which
are unofficially legalized by Ukrainian authorities.
At the same time the level of aggression of Ukrainian militaries is only picking up speed.
Thus, the Ambassador of Ukraine in USA Valeriy Chalykh without any scruples stated: We are getting
weapons, including lethal, and nobody can prohibit it to independent Ukraine. The other thing
is that it is not common to disclose these countries, but they are more than 10, only from Europe.
We have different level of technical and military cooperation, and at this stage it is only going
further.
Chillskier -> Paul Moore 2 Sep 2015 20:42
Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government:
He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the
way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do.
He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's
position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe
from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come
up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again.
So it is what Ukraine g-ment does, not what putin tells.
EugeneGur -> Chirographer 2 Sep 2015 20:35
everything would have been wonderful if Ukraine had not decided to finally reject the
brotherly embrace of Putin's Russia
Not everything, because by that time Ukrainian authorities have already ruined a lot. However,
there is little doubt that Ukraine would've been a hell of a lot better off if it hadn't followed
the path of the coup and indulged in anti-Russian hysteria. Has your mother ever told you that
quarreling with your neighbors is never a good idea?
Looking at the situation objectively, it is a good thing that the Kiev government is
trying to follow the Minsk plan.
Objectively? You? It would be a good thing if it were but it doesn't. These constitutional
changes have nothing to do with the requirements for the regional autonomy set out in Minsk II.
Nor have they been agreed to by the Donbass representatives, which makes the whole thing pointless.
But even these miserable changes had to be pushed through by Nuland, because Rada initially refused
to approved them. There are 13 points in Minsk II and so far Kiev fulfilled none of them.
Jeff1000 2 Sep 2015 20:30
Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome.
But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even
half of what he has achieved.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told.
He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told
him to. He is a non-entity.
Julian1972 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:54
I know! I know!
Still, when the US funds its various Intelligence Agencies and Covert Overseas Operations Organizations
to levels beyond that which most of the rest of the world combined spend on their actual militaries,
it's hard not see why they end up being suspected of having sticky fingers in various pies.
Poor, innocent US...after all, all that money's just being spent on ergonomic seating and biodegradable
paperclips, right? Hahahaha!
nnedjo 2 Sep 2015 19:51
There is one more possible theory, which seems that the author has failed to notice.
Thus, due to the fact that the proposed legislation is far from what was envisaged by Minsk 2
agreement, and in particular is far from what would satisfy the pro-Russian rebels, the following
question arises:
Does this event may have been aimed to strengthen the claim that this bill is the most that Ukraine
can offer to the pro-Russian rebels, because, "for God's sake, even for this Ukrainians began
to kill each other in the middle of Kiev"?
TomFullery -> Chillskier 2 Sep 2015 19:47
You are right about Ukraine's economy. I visit fairly often and each time I get more Hryvnia
for my Euros. Plus the restaurants are empty so you are guaranteed good service from serving staff
desperate for a tip to supplement their meagre wages (so much for joining the US "democratic"
system!).
Strange that the Nazi putsch in Kiev has benefited me (who wouldn't piss on them if they were
burning) rather more than 99% of Ukrainians.
Although I do notice that the Kiev Nazis seem to have taken one step in the direction of moderation
- the shrine to the Nazi Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera which was there erected about the
time of the putsch has now disappeared (most likely moved to a less conspicuous location).
Julian1972 -> desnol 2 Sep 2015 19:44
Dead right.
In penning the written equivalent of 'The Picture That Fooled the World':
maybe, at least, his 'confusion' is a symptom of his conscience trying to find it's voice.
Hehehe, maybe there's hope for him yet?
Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring
under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention.
NorthOfTheM25 2 Sep 2015 19:42
The Ukrainian regime in as much as they try so hard to have a resemblance of 'western values'
(whatever that means) & to avoid behaving like the powers that be at the Kremlin. At the end of
the day have the same approach in how they apportion blame & deflect attention from their obvious
failings.
When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties
share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with
your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how
to which is through violence.
I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's
constitutional proposals.
TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:35
His Ukraine policy has two main prongs.
1. Make Putin realise that military aggression against his neighbours carries too high an
economic penalty to be worthwhile.
Nothing got military until the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev. Strategic imperatives trump
short term economic considerations and Russia has reacted skilfully to the attack by the US using
Ukraine as a proxy (much to Ukraine's detriment)
2. Support Ukraine economically until it becomes a prosperous liberal democracy, like
the rest of Europe (Russia excepted of course).
Ukraine will be asset-stripped by US corporations. Ukraine will not be a prosperous, liberal
democracy in your lifetime and neither will the US.
Oligarchs in Ukraine are doing extremely well, obviously not a concern for a coup sponsors.
normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:33
Want an example of a twist?
Kerry warning Poroshenko against resuming hostilities, retaking territory in breach of the
Minsk agreement, then less than a week later Nuland rushing to Kiev to egg Poroshenko on, thoroughly
endorsing his plans
Hanwell123 -> Knapping 2 Sep 2015 19:28
He was the idiot who jumped the gun in the CIA plan to create a war in 2008. He went before
the whistle shelling an unprotected and unwarned city hours before he was supposed to. One of
Asias prize fools. So Poroshenko's made him - a non Ukrainian - Governor of Odessa. Great stuff
Poro!
TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:27
Despite Yanukovich's corruption he did a decent job of steering Ukraine down the middle path
between Russia and the US/EU and he was nobody's proxy. As for his corruption he was a mere pickpocket
compared to the like of Timoshenko who is not on any Ukrainian, EU or US corruption list!
This wasn't good enough for the neocons in Washington who wanted the whole country - hence
their instigation of the Nazi putsch in Kiev. It's gone downhill all the way for the Ukrainian
people since then considering they have lost a sizeable chunk of territory and now likely having
to move to some sort of federal system.
On top of those miseries they now have Finance and Economics ministers from Lithuania and Poland
parachuted in by the US and given Ukrainian citizenship on the day of their inauguration to their
respective posts. They also have US stooge and ex-Georgian president Sakaashvili and fugitive
from Georgian justice parachuted in as governor of Odessa. Let's not forget Joe Biden's son who
was appointed to the board of directors of one of Ukraine's biggest energy companies very shortly
after the Nazi putsch.
At least the east of the country is out of the hands of US corporate predators but it's a certainty
that agreements will be signed (if not already) to turn massive tracts of Ukrainian farmland in
the west of that country to US GM giants. I wonder how those US-loving west Ukrainians are going
to react when the horrible reality of US-style "democracy" hits home.
NorthOfTheM25 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:24
Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself & sound like a bitter divorcee who has lost a legal
battle. Nothing you have said has little bearing with the article.
But I guess each time the key trigger words Russia, Ukraine, Kremlin, Stalin & Moscow are mentioned
then just like Putin bots, you are also activated from your dwelling under the bridge to reel
out the tired & repetitive anti Putin bellicose rants.
normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:22
except it is the oligarchs who are prospering. Kolomoisky is under investigation for diverting
1.8 billion of IMF money to his own Cyprus bank account. Poroshenkos profits have increased astronomically
while all Ukrainians are taking pay cuts.
luckyjohn -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 19:03
Yanukovych contributed a lot to radicalise Ukrainian society. He planned his survival in office
by manipulation - stressing Tyannybok's importance to voters so that in the end there would be
a choice - Tyaynybok or himself Yanukovych for president. Of course - Yanukovych then wins because
the radical Tyahnybok is too "dangerous" to vote in. So much for your democratically elected president
Yanukovych! So the presence of radical elements in Ukrainian society is in fact Yanukovych's doing.
He was a very divisive president who played on divisions in Ukraine rather than trying to heal
them as well as being thoroughly corrupt.
virgenskamikazes 2 Sep 2015 18:37
I would believe the Western version if, after ousting Yanukovich, they would do a 21st century,
EU version of a Marshall Plan. If the EU had said to Yanukovich "we want to flood Ukraine with
Euro with very low interest and in long term, for investment in infrastructure and industrialization
projects - given that you cut ties completely with Russia" and Yanukovich had said "no" to that,
than I think it would be fair for the Ukranian people to oust him.
But the EU offered a humiliating, absurd shock therapy style reform, that's why Yanukovich
"no". Even imediate full EU, EZ membership was not on the table.
The thing is, the Ukrainian people bought on the fantasy that they could mass emigrate to central
Europe overnight had Yanukovich said "yes", that only them had economic problems, that the West
is the promised land, that we are still in the Cold War, etc.
Had Yanukovich hold on tight on power until two months ago, after the Greek tragedy, I doubt
there would be political strength for the USA and the Ukrainian far-right to oust him.
Beckow -> ArthurJenkinson 2 Sep 2015 18:32
He wrote a long article with bizarre conspiracy theories in order to confuse a very simple
attack by a Ukrainian nationalist mob on the police, killing 3 policemen.
The "theories" are there to obfuscate and confuse. We are close to the end game in Kiev and
it will not be pretty. And the angry hysteria among Washington, London and Berlin sponsors of
this madness will also get uglier. They don't like to lose so they would prefer just about anything
to admitting to being defeated in Ukraine.
Julian1972 2 Sep 2015 17:43
Poroshenko's assertion that Russia is to blame for this week's murder of policemen is of the
same Frankenstein DNA as his assertion that Russia was behind the downing of Flight MH17 and that
the Eastern part of The Ukraine's population are not democrats rising up against an illegal putsch
which brought him to power but are simply 'Kremlin puppets'...and therefore justifiably crushed
by the same type of gunfire that otherwise had Maidan martyrs held up as 'heroes'. (Even though
it was members of their own side doing the shooting, hahaha).
Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the
US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government
see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil
Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.
BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:43
You can't even tell the difference between 'neo-fascist' and 'Nazi'.
If either term comes into your tiny mind it obviously defaults to imagining scenes from the
last days in the Führerbunbker - whatever turns you on.
Also, the IMF has always favoured right wing corporatist regimes, preferably with as little
democracy as possible.
desnol 2 Sep 2015 17:41
The author's puzzlement and confusion are directly proportional to how little he understands
the situation in Ukraine. He keeps wondering about various scenario's, each more absurd than the
previous.
I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are
organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in
order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves
up all by themselves!
And then, almost at the very end of the article, after all his fanciful, surreal speculation,
Andrey Kurkov hits the nail on the head with
"Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation."
But even then he gets it all skewed up, blaming the fact that Ukranian army went to fight the
separatists for the fact that the far right thugs are now armed and throwing bombs in Kiev. Doesn't
he realise they were armed and throwing bombs in Maidan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed
them in the first place.
The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke.
domeus -> thenewstranger 2 Sep 2015 17:30
At least he is an improvement on all the other Guardian journalists who report on Russia and
Ukraine. He connects the right wing group of people behind the killing of the of the policeman
in Kiev with those those who volunteered to kill their fellow countrymen in Odessa and throughout
the eastern and southern regions. Autonomy for the regions would have solved the problem then
and prevented the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. But Nuland had other plans and the western
media acted accordingly.
Jessica Roth -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:14
The Maidan "protestors" were the ones who broke the cease-fire, shooting at both the Berkut
and their own people. The forensic evidence proved it. Did you not listen to the Urmas Paet-Baroness
Ashton phone call?
The "impeachment" of Yanukovich was illegal under the Ukraine constitution, which required
a 75% vote. Even with the US-trained thugs forcing MPs to the floor at gunpoint, only 72% of the
Ukraine parliament was present for the vote. Poroshenko has no more business being President than
the burnt and raped corpses of the people his Azov Nazis butchered in Odessa and Mariupol do.
(Although the corpses would probably do a better job.)
bonhiver 2 Sep 2015 16:49
I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia
has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow
of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan
protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who
tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition
to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising.
ositonegro 2 Sep 2015 16:44
The Azov battalion also declared they would bring the war to Kiev if not sated in Dombass.
You make a fascist revolution and the next move is to institutionalize it. Hitler did this very
well, destroying the populist SA movement and assassinating their leaders and incorporating the
remainder into the regular army. Then fascism could move forward with the whole state support.
But in Ukraine the EU-US used fascism to make the coup then tried to reign it in. The fascists
however cannot be institutionalized. They are still a powerful street movement with the added
benefit of having been trained and armed and given military space to grow. Now they are pushing
for policy dominance over the regular bourgeois political forces and using bombs to do it. The
Azov Battalion always said they would take the war back to Kiev if they felt betrayed.
It has to be understood that Poroshenko is not a fascist, despite coming to power on the back
of their efforts. The EU-US do not want the fascists in power. How could Ukraine enter the EU
with an outright fascist government? But they are playing with fire, using these street forces
and then renouncing them. It will come a time when they do not have either the legitimacy of the
power to stop another coup against themselves, and this time with no restraints. Then what will
the EU do?
While Greece founders under unsustainable debt and Eurogroup dictatorship, Ukraine is given
sweeteners, relieving 20% of their debt - something unimaginable with Greece. But you can't stop
a tsunami with Canderel.
"... The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe. ..."
"... Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians. ..."
"... Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians... ..."
"... And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum. ..."
"... Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government. ..."
"... Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men? ..."
The rest of Ukraine was descending into chaos, what with police and demonstrators being shot
and killed by unknown assalients from rooftops. Odessa , where 45 plus Ukrainian citizens were
trapped in a building which was set fire to by outside football supporters, then shot at and clubbed
when the citizens climbed out of the burning building seeking help. Would you risk yourself and
your family in such a situation or would you seek the protection of a friendly power?
Chillskier -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:00
Ensure that Ukraine does not go under economically and eventually becomes a fully functioning
and prosperous liberal democracy.
It seems to be working pretty well..
NO it is not.
You need to talk to people who actually live there, it is a catastrophe
HollyOldDog -> truk10 30 Aug 2015 19:46
Ukraine should be wary of false friends who may lead then down a blind alley. Only today I
watched a very interesting TV program that puts the continueing existance of Monsanto into serious
doubt. The program was about wheat in terms of the future of Global Warming where presentment
her patterns within seasons would vary widely. Is it the right course of action to choose types
of GM wheat where seasonal rains would pop up at inconvenient times ( which a farmer would pay
'through the nose for') or to allow your wheats to choose the correct wheat for the growing conditions
it encounters. Some of the Wheats on test where from the times of the ancient Egyptians while
the oldest variety was around 9000 years old. Instead of gene splicing and growing micro cultures
in a lab followed by years of field testing , perhaps we should just look what our ancestors did.
I know this is not exactly on topic but I am trying to suggest Not to believe the latest SPIN,
just because it is new. NEW SPIN does not equal TRUTH. IF something looks to be too good to be
true then it is too good to be true - Forbes, verify your stories before you publish.
Beckow -> impartial12 30 Aug 2015 18:41
"Ukraine is important to the West because of its encroachment strategy against Russia"
The strategy is to somehow take over Russia by either having Yeltsin-like puppets in power
again, or maybe by physically taking it apart (separatism). The "encroachment" is just the means
to that end.
Russians had two choices when the coup happened in Kiev on the last day of the Sochi Olympics:
- do nothing and hope for the best; maybe Ukraine would run into economic troubles, maybe
it would collapse into infighting like after the Orange revolution
- quickly save what could be saved - Crimea, bases, Donbass Russians - and squeeze Ukraine
economically until it collapses
The West was surprised that Russia went for the second option and decided to fight. I think
Russia decided that this was their best chance to resist, and that facts on the ground in Ukraine
were in their favor. So far it has worked for Russia, thus the almost hysterical anger in the
West.
Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:55
Stay sober. Russia's economy is down 4%, that's not "go down in flames". E.g. EU economy dropped
6-9% after '09, and people are ok, kind of.
The real issue is with the Ukrainian economy and living standards. Russia's per capita income
this year is 10 times higher than Ukraine's. That's very substantial, that's why about 3 million
Ukrainians work in Russia and more are coming each month.
The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and
it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic
drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia
that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe.
vr13vr -> CedricH 30 Aug 2015 17:55
Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the
inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center
of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media
that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used
to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians.
Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:47
"it denies the Ukrainian people any sort of agency what so ever and at the same time ignores
that the elections within the Ukraine have not been called free or fair for a generation"
I wrote 'assisted in an overthrow' - do you get the meaning of the verb "to assist"? Assisting
in an overthrow of an elected president is by any definition illegal and unconstitutional - all
else that followed has to be examined in that light.
Elections in Ukraine have been free and fair and declared so by EU itself many times. Yanukovitch
won fair and square. Russian speakers (or supporters) used to get roughly 50% of the vote, sometimes
more, sometimes little bit less. Their party - Party of Regions - was outlawed. So maybe they
are listened to, but in a very constrained way - they are certainly not equal to the Western Ukrainians.
That's why some of them started a civil war.
You don't address any of the disastrous economic consequences of Maidan and the war: Ukraine
is suffering and is much worse off than two years ago. There is no economic prosperity possible
in Ukraine without Russian cooperation (energy, imports, food, investments). That is a reality
that cannot be wished away. Unless Ukraine adjusts to being a poor, agrarian country, that exports
millions of workers, with living standards maybe like in Albania or Tunis (at best), they will
have to make peace with Russia and its own Russian leaning population. There is no other way,
even Germany and France have officially told Kiev that much.
Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political
games with Ukrainians...
SHappens -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 17:42
Ukraine can prosper perfectly well on its own, just like any other county under the right
leadership.
which they dont have. On the other hand when a big part of the country doesn't want to align
with the "West" they should be heard. That's what is called democracy
vr13vr 30 Aug 2015 16:09
Clueless. The "low intensity" fight continues, but it's evident that the chances of Kiev to
establish full control of the area are non-existent, and it is Kiev who is looking for a grace
saving exit at this point.
And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest
interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed
to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine.
Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine
from the West is now minimum.
BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 16:33
Moreover, a country with the agricultural resources of Ukraine
Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier
loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major
refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw
the Kiev government.
Iraq, Libya, Ukraine - you can pretty much guarantee that wherever the West intervenes or interferes,
chaos and destruction is pretty much 'nailed-on'.
Laurence Johnson -> Beckow 30 Aug 2015 16:05
You make some very sober points. Ukraine is indeed destined to be a wasteland similar to Libya
and Syria. The scorch and burn policy of "if I cant have it, nobody can have it" is very clear.
I suspect that in twenty years time East Ukraine will be an economic miracle that engages with
Asia via Russia. As for Kiev I suspect they will still be arguing about which Oligarch has the
biggest pair of balls.
normankirk 30 Aug 2015 15:56
under the Minsk agreement, the border comes back under Ukrainian control, only when Ukraine
has done the necessary constitutional reform that grants autonomy to the Donbas. So far, Kiev
has dragged the chain , and to this day has refused dialogue with the leaders of the DPR and LPR.Poroshenko
has openly boasted of using the ceasefire to build up another military assault on the eastern
Ukrainians , and has vowed to reclaim all the terrItory by force.All this is in breach of the
Minsk agreement Articles like this, with their bias and misinformation destroys the credibility
of the guardian
This time the ceasefire may work because Merkel and Hollande have pressured Poroshenko, but
I'm not holding my breath.
Parangaricurimicuaro 30 Aug 2015 15:45
I think that Europe is having to much on its plate. Terrorism problems, energy insecurity,
bailing out Greece, refugees escaping wars south of the Mediterranean, aging population etc. so
maybe it is most than they could possible chew. Reality is sobering everyone.
SHappens Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 15:36
Russia has no interest in seeing the war end or seeing Ukraine prosper.
Ukraine cannot prosper without Russia's market, that's an economic truth. Ukraine can even
less prosper without the Donbass. The West must accept to share Ukraine with Russia. Federalization
can make this possible and fulfill every country's ambitions and will, except for one country
overseas, taking part to the events, we dont know why or do we?
Beckow 30 Aug 2015 15:26
Half-truths are by definition not truths. To say:
"deadline for the internationally recognised border to come back under Ukrainian government
control"
Minsk also requires that Donbass has autonomy before border is turned over. How does one leave
out the other side of the story? It is like reporting on Soviet Union conquest of Berlin in 1945
without mentioning that Germany invaded Russia in 1941. Maybe that's next in the endless search
for just the right narrative where friends are friends, and enemies are, well the enemy is Russia,
end of story. No need to actually be accurate. About Minsk or anything else.
Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition
of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they
will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers
and IMF funny money men?
Time is definitely not on Ukraine's side: economy is down by 15-17%, inflation is 40-50%, incomes
are dramatically down to roughly Senegal-Nepal level, the exports to Russia that Ukraine used
to live off are down by more than 50% and dropping - and nothing is replacing the Russian market.
With living standards are on sub-African level and with no visa-free access to EU, no investments
(see the default above), and energy dependence on Russia, how can time be on Kiev's side? How
are they going to grow out of it? What and to whom are they going to export? How is the per capita
income going to grow? Today Ukraine income is 1/10 of Russia's per capita income (that's right
10%). How is time on Kiev's side?
West triggered an unnecessary catastrophe in Ukraine by assisting in an overthrow of an elected
government. Ukraine is divided, look at all elections, look at language usage, etc... half is
pro-West, half is pro-Russian. It is impossible to have a prosperous Ukraine without both having
a say in running the country. So sooner or later, Ukraine will either go back to its traditional
role as a buffer state, or it will break-up. There is no way one group can permanently dominate
the other. And that takes us back to the Minsk treaty that specifies that Donbass gets autonomy.
Maybe we should ask Kiev what happened to that part of the treaty. Why isn't it even mentioned?
impartial12 Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 15:19
That is funny considering the amount of armaments building up among the former nations of the
Soviet Union neighboring Russia. The escalation in Ukraine had started with an illegal coup of
an elected government. And don't even get me started on the neo-Nazi tendencies of the new regime.
It takes two to tango, and the West clearly wants to play this game no matter what negative consequences
it may bring.
SHappens 30 Aug 2015 15:14
Kiev, backed by Washington who is using Ukrainian army foot soldiers, paramilitaries, foreign
mercenaries, Nazi-infested death squads and others hasn't stopped since initiated back in April
2014. Kiev flagrantly violated the Geneva and two Minsk ceasefire agreements straightaway. Moreover
Kiev has repeatedly refused to sit and talk with the people in the East and grant them autonomy
as per Minsk.
Surely Russia supports the eastern ukrainians, rightly, in a way or another, preventing in
this way a full war offensive by Kiev, however Russian's army is not present in Ukraine. President
Putin wants peace and has been calling for it since the very start of the event, that is the ATO
launched by Kiev back in 2014.
This is the Donbass who fights against Kiev. It is the US citizens who are forced to devote
scarce resources to the dying puppet regime in Kiev (who will not avoid the country's default
anyway + they have been downgraded), while Russia can stay away making peace proposals. If the
US wants to put the fire, they will put it so it is necessary to be able to quickly turn it off
to preserve what is most precious. That's why Putin considers peace of vital importance.
We can only guess who will be most effective - the US with their fuel container or the Russians
with their fire extinguisher?
"...And now Shokin is on his way out with a comet-trail of corruption behind him, just after
Yatsenyuk was in the limelight for a shady deal to privatize Odessa Port facilities."
The purges cannibalistically eat their own:
Saakashvili announced 2 days ago that he was initiating a thorough purge of the Odessa police
force, whom he called a "criminal syndicate".
Then yesterday the Odessa Chief of Police was fired and arrested: a guy named Oleg Makukha.
A guy whom Saakashvili himself appointed not more than 2 months ago!
Makukha is charged with the following:
(1) Receiving $23,000 worth of bribes,
(2) Providing "krysha" for unlawful businesses; and
(3) Secretly keeping Russian flags and insignia in his home.
The latter which proves, according to Saakashvili, that Makukha was just waiting for the
Russian tanks to arrive, after which he would whip out the Russian flags and switch sides.
marknesop, August 30, 2015 at 10:50 am
That's Ukie-style! I just pointed out yesterday on the Kyiv Post that everyone who starts
to notice something smelly about the Yatsenyuk government, after they are appointed as a shiny
new corruption fighter, is straightaway accused of corruption himself and unceremoniously
fired. And the moonies who admire Kiev's uncompromising anti-corruption stance dutifully
applaud and say to one another what a stellar anti-corruptionist Yatsenyuk is, he just cuts
them off at the knees, just like that.
Gordienko, appointed to fight corruption, promptly reported that Yatsenyuk's government
appeared to have misappropriated 7.5 Billion hryvnia.
Shokin, the most recent fire-ee, said that his office had commenced a criminal
investigation based on the charges, which was probably the kiss of unemployment for him right
there.
Gordienko was sacked, and the charges seemed to disappear.
Then came Bilous, another stellar corruption fighter, in the tax office. Although Yats
loved his work for the first 6 months, he suddenly announced he was firing Bilous and his
whole department. Corruption, you know. So sad. He couldn't have been too corrupt, though, or
perhaps just corrupt enough, because he was re-appointed to head the State Property Fund.
And now Shokin is on his way out with a comet-trail of corruption behind him, just
after Yatsenyuk was in the limelight for a shady deal to privatize Odessa Port facilities.
I wonder how long it will be before the SBU burst into his office and find him counting a
suitcase full of stolen money, while a pair of plane tickets sit prominently on the table
beside the suitcase. He was about to blow town, boss! Good thing you had a funny feeling about
him.
In Makukha's case, the Russian flags and so forth are necessary only to draw a line between
criminal behavior and Russians. Of course he was corrupt – he's a closet Putinist! Crude, but
effective if your audience is dozy.
Jen, August 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Funny that new appointees are taking their work too seriously, and it doesn't take them
very long to do much before they're already on Yatsenyuk's own trail of corruption which must
be why they get fired before their probation period is up.
"...And now Shokin is on his way out with a comet-trail of corruption behind him, just after
Yatsenyuk was in the limelight for a shady deal to privatize Odessa Port facilities."
marknesop, August 30, 2015 at 10:50 am
That's Ukie-style! I just pointed out yesterday on the Kyiv Post that everyone who starts
to notice something smelly about the Yatsenyuk government, after they are appointed as a shiny
new corruption fighter, is straightaway accused of corruption himself and unceremoniously
fired. And the moonies who admire Kiev's uncompromising anti-corruption stance dutifully
applaud and say to one another what a stellar anti-corruptionist Yatsenyuk is, he just cuts
them off at the knees, just like that.
Gordienko, appointed to fight corruption, promptly reported that Yatsenyuk's government
appeared to have misappropriated 7.5 Billion hryvnia.
Shokin, the most recent fire-ee, said that his office had commenced a criminal
investigation based on the charges, which was probably the kiss of unemployment for him right
there.
Gordienko was sacked, and the charges seemed to disappear.
Then came Bilous, another stellar corruption fighter, in the tax office. Although Yats
loved his work for the first 6 months, he suddenly announced he was firing Bilous and his
whole department. Corruption, you know. So sad. He couldn't have been too corrupt, though, or
perhaps just corrupt enough, because he was re-appointed to head the State Property Fund.
And now Shokin is on his way out with a comet-trail of corruption behind him, just
after Yatsenyuk was in the limelight for a shady deal to privatize Odessa Port facilities.
I wonder how long it will be before the SBU burst into his office and find him counting a
suitcase full of stolen money, while a pair of plane tickets sit prominently on the table
beside the suitcase. He was about to blow town, boss! Good thing you had a funny feeling about
him.
In Makukha's case, the Russian flags and so forth are necessary only to draw a line between
criminal behavior and Russians. Of course he was corrupt – he's a closet Putinist! Crude, but
effective if your audience is dozy.
Jen, August 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Funny that new appointees are taking their work too seriously, and it doesn't take them
very long to do much before they're already on Yatsenyuk's own trail of corruption which must
be why they get fired before their probation period is up.
"... the government conceded that it must pay a higher interest rate on the remaining debts. ..."
"... includes a four-year extension on repayments ..."
"... In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending to a country that is in default to another sovereign. ..."
"... The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said. ..."
Ukraine has secured a 20% writedown on $18bn (£11.6bn) of its foreign debts in a deal its finance
minister described as win-win...
... ... ...
The hedge funds holding Ukrainian debt will write off around $4bn in return for securities that
will pay holders a percentage of Ukraine's economic growth from 2021. But in a move that is likely
to dismay many MPs in the Kiev parliament, the government conceded that it must pay a higher
interest rate on the remaining debts.
The deal, which still needs to be approved by creditors outside the group, includes a four-year
extension on repayments to give Ukraine breathing space. But the interest rate on the bonds
will rise 0.5 percentage points to 7.75%. It ended months of tense negotiations aimed at helping
to keep the country on track with its International Monetary Fund-led bailout programme, plugging
a funding gap and preventing a unilateral debt default.
Ukraine's finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, who had sought a 40% debt haircut, said the deal
meets all targets set by the IMF bailout programme and would allow the country to move ahead. "Everyone's
done well out of this deal. That's why it's collaborative. It's not one side winning, it's a win-win
situation. We're all now moving forward without putting the value of the bonds at any further risk,"
she said.
Ukraine's sovereign dollar bond prices surged after the news, indicating that traders viewed the
remaining debt to be on a more secure footing. Its 2017 issue rose 8.7 cents to trade at 64.5 cents
in the dollar, according to Tradeweb data, while the 2022 bond rose 10 cents.
In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate
in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need
to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into
Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending
to a country that is in default to another sovereign.
The debt deal should help keep Ukraine's national currency, the hryvnia, stable and allow increased
spending on defence in the east,...
... ... ...
The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending
policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will
depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders
were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt
to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said.
Gabriel Sterne, head of global macro at Oxford Economics, also cast doubt on whether the deal
would make Ukraine's debt levels sustainable and added: "There is a strong likelihood that they will
be back at the negotiating table before too many IMF reviews have passed."
Talks had been held up over a disagreement with creditors on whether to provide Kiev with a writedown
on the face value of the bonds. Kiev had initially sought a 40% cut. "We started in different places,
because the creditor committee didn't believe we had a solvency problem but my goal was not a particular
number, it was meeting those IMF targets," Yaresko said. She added that she hoped it was highly unlikely
that remaining creditors would reject the agreement and forecast that the process would be wrapped
up by the end of October.
The debt deal Ukraine has painstakingly negotiated with its creditors is welcome and preferable
to the alternative: a default that would have put additional pressure on the country's shaky banks
and led to both capital flight and a protracted battle in the courts. But amid all the backslapping
a bit of perspective is needed.
Greece has severe problems but Ukraine is the most troubled country in Europe. It has inflation
at 55%, its economy is expected to contract by 10% this year, and the government is fighting a war
with separatists in the east backed by Russia that is costly in both human and financial terms.
The deal involves a 20% writedown to the face value of $18bn of eurobonds and pushes back the
date on which the bonds will be redeemed by four years. Ukraine has some breathing space and the
accord means it will continue to be eligible for financial help from the International Monetary Fund.
That's the good news.
But the finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, had to scale back her ambitions once it became clear
creditors thought Kiev's threat to default was a bluff. She has had to offer higher interest rates
when debt payments resume and has had to accept a 20% writedown rather than the 40% she wanted.
Ukraine's debts remain high and its economy is in freefall. This agreement is a stop gap not a
game changer.
Moody's Investors' Service rates seven countries Caa1 or worse, several tiers lower than Ba1,
which still carries a significant credit risk. These countries are approaching or have narrowly escaped
bankruptcy. Ukraine is rated Ca, which is currently the lowest credit rating of any country reviewed
by Moody's.
... ... ...
Ukraine
> Moody's credit rating: Ca
> Moody's outlook: Negative
> 2015 Gov't debt (pct. of GDP): 94.1%
> 2015 GDP per capita (PPP): $8,278
Ukraine's conflict with Russia over its annexation of Crimea continues to fuel the country's financial
problems. While the IMF approved Ukraine's debt restructuring plan in March, Ukraine has the worst
credit rating of any country reviewed, downgraded this year from Caa3 to Ca, the second lowest possible
level. Creditors can expect a 35% to 65% recovery rate on loans issued by the country. According
to Moody's, "The likelihood of a distressed exchange, and hence a default on government debt taking
place, is virtually 100%."
The same day that Moody's issued the downgrade, the National Bank of Ukraine announced the establishment
of the Financial Stability Council. According to Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriia
Gonatreva, the Council's function will be to "take a comprehensive and systemic approach to identify
and mitigate the risks threatening the stability of the banking and financial systems of the country."
According to Markov, Kiev was only interested in the first part of the Minsk Accords, namely
in a panic to stop counter-offensive of Novorossiya army, after their debacle at Debaltsevo.
But they have zero interest in carrying out the rest of the accords.
Plus, according to Markov, Kiev is under instructions from their American masters, to continue
the war at all costs.
According to Markov, Kiev is actually carrying out a plan called the "Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan",
and I googled Gorbulin, but couldn't get any more information, so I don't know who this person
is.
But the main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan are said to be:
1. Kiev does not take on any (Minsk) obligations which involve peace-making moves.
2. Full blockade (of Donbass).
3. Continue artillery shelling of residential areas of Donbass, kill as many civilians as possible.
4. This in order to make life unbearable in Donbass.
5. The goal is to turn the residents against their leaders, in DPR and LPR.
6. Weaken Russia with sanctions.
7. Planning a military blitzkrieg against Donbass, on the model of the attack of Croatian army
against Serbian Krajina.
8. NATO will station troops in Kharkov, Zaporozhie and Dnipropetrovsk.
9. NATO will beef up Ukrainian army and prepare for fatal strike against Donbass.
10. The police state/dictatorship in Ukraine will be strengthened.
marknesop, August 7, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Volodymyr (Ukraine has to spell it differently so they can all high-five each other, the way
the British deliberately misspell "tire") Gorbulin is the former National Defense and Security
Council (NDSC) Secretary, now a personal adviser to Poroshenko. Looks a right Himmler type.
A pro-government Ukrainian militia accused of neo-Nazism has fought a gun battle with the
country's security forces that left at least three dead and several police vehicles destroyed by
rocket-propelled grenades.
The fighting marks the first clash between Kiev and one of the country's "volunteer battalions"
who have led the fight against pro-Russian separatists.
The fierce confrontation in the city of Mukachevo, near Ukraine's western border, involved
members of Right Sector, a controversial nationalist group. Three policemen were among six
injured, officials from the Ukrainian interior ministry said.
A stand-off with Ukrainian police continued yesterday while Right Sector announced that
Aid agencies at Addis Ababa development finance summit claim UK and others have obstructed talks
aimed at enabling poor countries to influence UN tax policy.
Aid agencies on Monday accused the world's richest countries, including the UK, of blocking plans
to allow poor countries a greater say on UN tax policies.
The upgrade of the UN tax committee to an intergovernmental body was widely seen as a way for
less wealthy nations that have struggled to build effective tax systems to influence policy decisions
at the UN.
The UK joined the US and several other wealthy countries at the UN financing for development conference
in Addis Ababa in a manoeuvre to limit discussions on tax policy at the UN, arguing that the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was taking the lead on tax issues.
But a proposal presented to the conference by the OECD, known as a thinktank for the world's 34
richest nations, was also criticised for treating developing countries as an afterthought.
The OECD and the UN Development Programme launched a project entitled tax inspectors without borders
to help poorer countries bolster domestic revenues by strengthening the ability of tax authorities
to limit tax avoidance by multinationals.
The initiative, which involves providing tax audit experts to work alongside local officials dealing
with the affairs of multinationals, has had encouraging results across pilot projects in Albania,
Ghana and Senegal. Evidence from Colombia, meanwhile, indicated an improvement in tax revenue from
$3.3m (£2.1m) in 2011 to $33.2m in 2014, "thanks to tax audit advice and guidance".
Aid charities believe developing countries should build robust tax systems to prevent them from
borrowing heavily and getting into debt, as highlighted in a recent report by the Jubilee debt campaign.
The World Bank has come under heavy fire in the past for encouraging poor countries to cut corporate
taxes to boost foreign direct investment. Ethiopia, Mongolia, El Salvador and Puerto Rico are among
38 countries in the report that are slipping dangerously into debt after borrowing on the international
money markets to bridge the gap left by large tax shortfalls.
The Addis Ababa conference was expected to produce a series of high-level deals to promote sustainable,
self-sufficient development. But the charities fear the UN and the World Bank will promote private
finance initiatives that involved either privatisation or greater borrowing to finance investment,
improve infrastructure and public services.
Speaking at the conference, a spokeswoman for ActionAid said: "The UK government has positioned
itself as a global leader on many aspects of sustainable development, aid and in global efforts to
tackle tax avoidance and evasion. It is therefore disappointing that the UK appears to be one of
the few governments blocking progress on the important issue of a tax body."
Failure to tackle this question in Addis will not make the urgent need for international tax reform
go away. It will simply intensify the challenges ahead for the international community. There is
growing recognition that the OECD alone cannot ensure global rules work for all countries, especially
the poorest. Blocking agreement on an obvious solution in Addis simply delays the inevitable while
putting other critical processes at risk.
Save the Children said the world was "sleepwalking towards failure" at the global finance summit,
adding that the UN should create an international body to oversee global tax matters.
A spokesman said: "Tax has never been more under the spotlight as the source of finance for development,
but decisions affecting the poorest countries and their ability to recoup money owed to them are
taken in an elite club of the most powerful nations. This 20th-century way of doing business is no
longer appropriate for the era of sustainable development goals."
The Canadian embassy in Kiev was used as a haven for anti-government protesters during
the uprising that toppled the government of former President Viktor Yanukovych, Canadian media
reported.
Former Maidan Activists Start Fighting Against Ukrainian Police - Reports
"It began, according to several sources in Kiev and Ottawa, when one of the protesters being
chased by riot police waved a Canadian passport at embassy security. Once the door was open, the
individual was quickly followed by other demonstrators armed with sticks and paving stones," The
Canadian Press reported on Sunday.
Roman Waschuk, the current Canadian ambassador in Kiev, confirmed the account in a recent
interview with The Canadian Press.
He acknowledged the protesters were camped in the main lobby for at least a week, which is
something neither the country's Foreign Minister nor the government of Prime Minister Stephen
Harper has ever publicly stated.
"I understand there was a Canadian passport holder associated in some way with the group,"
Waschuk noted adding that opening of the embassy doors was "a gesture designed to react and to
reach out to the people suffering in the turmoil."
But some of Canada's European allies, speaking on anonimity because of the sensitivity of the
subject, said the fact protesters were allowed to stay for so long and operate freely made it
appear Canada was an active participant in regime change, and not just lending morale support.
"... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and
only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say." . "...this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria
'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people.
This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy
force to oust Gaddafi."
The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the
request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
That does not detract from the fact that the Ukranian cabinet has been chosen by the US state
department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship
in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors
- in his capacity as head of state?
ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the
country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters
on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse
to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore
it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the
self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what
colour stool our future king has produced this week.
The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official
status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities
of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.
jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish
oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating
far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.
PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22
Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11
But the Euro maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt
government in Kiev.
jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54
I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being
appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.
Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another
country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions
of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.
Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from
power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments
of foreigners in their country.
Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable
plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting
occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
- A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café
and wounded police officers.
I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
"Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...
Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption
outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.
Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on
the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't
be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the
article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on
the Czech police stolen vehicle database:
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)
The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating
in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.
So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?
Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15
Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
Transcarpathian REgion is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see
here is a gang war in fatigues.
tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14
sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...
in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted
soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription,
they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...
an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South
American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays...
not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for
the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)
did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while
in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including
bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO
Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13
Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated
the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected
President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine
and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that
a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.
Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11
Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is,
sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20
But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests
to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles.
If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15
There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.
Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32
More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally
and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.
Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24
Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is
this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but
the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned
in, one way or another, and soon.
GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02
Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but
Russian propaganda.
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54
It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the
total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.
Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has
helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.
Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion
of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does
Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine?
They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the
control of contraband.
At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population.
They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women
and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been
telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists"
everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried
this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar
have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
Examples: http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655
Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources,
19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look
at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under
one roof:
You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some
people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion
ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast,
stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's
members are clear on what these are.
With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out
conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed
dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.
Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03
Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region
has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled
almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players
try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage. Right Sector claims they were trying to fight
the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle
for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians",
members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party.
One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will
either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a
political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.
PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21
Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations
of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.
1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the
millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed
the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids,
devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot
of bad stuff happened, including -
4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated
and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.
Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West,
Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden
by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't
explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it
was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...
Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53
Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages,
but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically
sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities,
fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine.
And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian
politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.
VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51
This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters
in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian
and non-Ukrainian mongrels. Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow
Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial
positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose
help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them
with their private foreign mercenary force. Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department
bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds,
no doubt with promises of power sharing. So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed
with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was
done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces
in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if
she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure
and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than
to the US. An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing
a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war. She no doubt got her position not by
intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and
children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor,
Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the
death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice
that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?
Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51
The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe
the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.
Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed
thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying
or questioning their heroism).
Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35
Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:
12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.
Still Kremlin lies?
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30
Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the
gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated
Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant
Nazi street gangs don't kill you.
Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26
You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there
is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero.
Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24
The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics.
Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for
the Ukrainians.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18
Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put
to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12
The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are
in order for such dedication.
The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved
to the temptation to report news. Too bad.
aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36
Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical
and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a
say.
SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25
The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their
New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist
government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.
todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54
Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and
our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes
that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against
a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum
which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38
Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.
monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54
Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were
immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?
Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49
Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in
a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts
will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t.
Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to
EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)
Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33
In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I
remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence
of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same
media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian
propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev
and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16
It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics
in western Ukraine.
Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank
is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.
Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in
Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.
They favour ethnic cleansing.
Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10
The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved
the Ukrainian people.
Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.
It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western
Ukrainians.
Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02
Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...
Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53
It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko
and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine
infrastructure to US corporates.
SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14
Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:
"Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the
radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."
The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative
office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of
the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09
I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
Well we all know what happened there.
Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41
Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies
to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.
Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence
of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.
And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They
function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why
that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia
go to other organisations?
VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26
It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of
being pro-Putin as the govermment accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.
stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24
The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington
wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they
succeeded
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54
I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point
of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the
government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're
speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi…I mean 'Iran', but surely you
understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's
expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is
a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back
to the very early 90's.
From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic
barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with
it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas
that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want
are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.
And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.
Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38
The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in
Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was
cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!
Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50
We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's
business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups
arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national
organisation.
"neo-Chekists" That's new to me.... Are you sure they are not "Just doing their jobs" ?
Did you read the Nafeez Ahmed piece someone linked ? Here (if you didn't)
It's never the US....it's never the West.....
(you know, to balance things) : )
todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53
If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with
any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant.
Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy
Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated
into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.
Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are
demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already
and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.
GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35
So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for
googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to
make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen
SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear
when it's one of their own violating them.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those
nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats
in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed
to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing
of their government
HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09
The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the
Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and
who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular
Ukrainian government.
sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35
this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like
Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor
Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists
were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.
annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31
The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/
Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately
a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy
on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.
annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25
perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians
that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The
Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept
for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from
your beloved Faux News.
annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14
the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's
cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial
lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.
Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59
Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right
wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone
completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army.
This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine
as a functional state.
The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland)
in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.
DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38
That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.
I rather reword it to
That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military
groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population
(which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37
What do you think it is?
There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should
have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.
If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads'
- you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.
The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this
do?
You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have
in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.
This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support
their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing
is also acknowledged by the BBC.
Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?
If so - why?
And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?
Have I addressed your point yet?
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34
I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the
part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive)
and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical
help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance
at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects
of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan
to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.
The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using
Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North
Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies
helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the
Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together
- maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend
Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms
Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33
The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave
Ukraine alone.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29
One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly
embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.
Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the
silence would be broken.
At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media
is much more murky.
The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu
- ie real news very occasionally appears in it.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08
So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the
nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.
The BBC are still keeping shtum.
The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.
PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07
There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor
was going to muscle in.
If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light
Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.
This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.
PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05
Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push
for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.
BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04
11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one
for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better
candidates here.
fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55
It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs
always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure
they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then
the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will
always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears
for the Nazis and Banderistas.
Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created
Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed
a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started
a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc.
Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!
Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53
If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they
just want the business for themselves.
Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51
I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German
domination or Russian protection.
The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little
reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason
to want to rejoin the rest of the country.
If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the
right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.
Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45
just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look
at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted
to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even
sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them
14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil
Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44
According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding
officer. It was the beginning of the fight.
Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41
Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.
Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39
The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately
started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will
easily find it.
The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from
investigating Maiden shooters.
Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up
your own mind.
Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29
Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when
he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the
benefits of seasons and weather.
Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or
the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were foced to stay in).
Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically
aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population).
Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine
or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.
This information should be better taught in Ukraine.
The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.
quorkquork annamarinja 12 Jul 2015 19:27
There are already jihadist groups fighting in Ukraine!
It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately
poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms
and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they
should leave Right sector and join the army.
This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.
annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18
have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia
(next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard
about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the
civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you
may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language.
She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his
name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs
to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing
that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.
Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10
Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before
the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens
ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum
in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.
jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53
And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation
inside the Donbass.
It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions
are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business
and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they
have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.
The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and
steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused
to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.
jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45
Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.
Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done
that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate
the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.
The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign
the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...
Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.
Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract
more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement
has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised
that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic
recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.
.... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the
hands of Yanukovich's little clan...
As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected
government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.
There was no "coup".
An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September
2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on
camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the
Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.
The maidan protesters were not armed
This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on
Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina
- the video is still on the BBC website.
....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and
the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.
The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist
Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's
Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated
that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.
pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45
There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles
seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel
more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just
a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?
pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38
His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking,
is beyond him.
normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19
Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless,
Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received
about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.
As predicted the real civil war in ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and
the ordinary ukrainian was largely manufactored . In the long term no body would be able to live
with the right sector or more preciselly the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.
sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44
"When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as
it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules
all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at
that time?"
This may be why:
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William
Colby
Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43
This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in
2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming
of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced
the Police to arm themselves in preparation.
Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for
the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth
and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector
has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.
The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions
of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent
in the coming months.
SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40
Putin is a Fascist dictator.
Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses
some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia.
He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.
ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31
'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up
in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'
Agreed.
As is everything is Russia's fault.
ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26
This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by
RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko
has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.
CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06
Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of
Ukraine to identify themselves as ukrainians under the process of rootisation - ukrainisation,
then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided
to ethnically cleane them..It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05
let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
Now moving to the present. The US-installed oligarchs in Kiev have been cooperating closely with
Ruropean neo-nazis (the followers of the WWII scum): http://rt.com/news/155364-ukraine-nazi-division-march/
In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during
the WWII.
Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04
These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally
wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly
exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about
this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC
was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right
Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime
is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically
uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists'
revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally
change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59
Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians
were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely
cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the
Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs
(sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan
and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.
foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58
zonzonel
Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
What is a poor troll to do these days??
Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.
What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the
"Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen
and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.
samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55
Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've
been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think
that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution
-- with regret and cynicism.
That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master
script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge
one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch
and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle.
Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.
In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too
soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.
TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49
The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...
Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople,
not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a
great service to Ukraine, can it?
annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44
Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their
geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any
interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to
create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned
by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful
solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general
population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).
vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38
"Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week,
there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to
government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National
Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading
towards Maidan 3.0.
ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26
The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.
The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect
any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start
are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.
Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The
country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American
post -imperial foreign policy.
Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from
the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of
the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will
have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or
Putin's apologists.
The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February
coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.
'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'
Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.
However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective
fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their
fellow countrymen ).
Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.
Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government
that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations,
using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried
out.
mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52
I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian
fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details
are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is
not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national
heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only
Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian,
Russian and Romanian minority.
How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?
SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49
Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations
by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.
You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that
these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will
manage to blame the russians now.
RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33
Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by
their own admission!
These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government
of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly
cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy.
Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law,
Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.
The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins
who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the
EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is
a financial black hole.
When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is,
in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western
mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?
jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15
The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen
arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the
traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.
Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation
of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative.
Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian.
In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen.
Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in
on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when
these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home
turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.
They just love fighting with guns and the thrill of shooting to kill. The front is boring right now,
shooting artillery into cities does not have the same gratification. The only way for Ukraine to
purge itself of Right Sector is to kill them all. So long as any are left alive they will cling to
their guns – which nobody seems to be able to make them give up – and foment armed insurrection.
The Ukrainian state is disintegrating and Washington smiles beatifically, having created another
Libya, this time on Russia's doorstep.
karl1haushofer , July 12, 2015 at 5:27 am
"Yarosh hates Avakov even more than he hates the Russians."
Aren't they both Russians themselves? Yarosh does not even speak Ukrainian and Avakov is a Russian
name.
Pavlo Svolochenko, July 12, 2015 at 5:37 am
Yarosh, yes. Avakov (Avakian?) is an Armenian from Baku.
…"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States,
I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said. "And if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short
of alarming."
U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry did not share the assessment, even though
Russia's actions in Ukraine posed regional security challenges.
"The secretary doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United
States, nor China, quite frankly," Toner told a regular news briefing when asked about Dunford's
remarks.
"You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues,
despite any disagreements we may have with them," he said. "Certainly we have disagreements with
Russia and its activities within the region, but we don't view it as an existential threat."…
####
The problem with ignorant blowhards like Dunford is that if their words are to be taken seriously,
then seriously needs to be funded with cold, hard dollars. Resources daarlings. The USA has pinned
its flag to the Asia Swivel (aka fk China!) as its fundamental future military posture.
That is an expensive proposition.
To then start bivolating (sp?) about Russia means some cash going to contain China would have
to go instead to containing Russia, which so far, the USA has been doing on the very cheap by using
Ukrainians as willing (or not so) canonfodder and the Europeans paying the economic consequences.
To mix a metaphor or three, the US Gorilla shits in an European chinashop and still expects fawning
applause for the performance*. Instead, by amping up the rhetoric via NATO and bigging up the
Russia threat, the USA is trying to get Europe to pay (new UK budget promises 2% GDP on weapons)
for the US' own mess and aggressive anti-Russia policy, squaring the military budget circle if you
will. Except, it is not working. Europe as a whole will still not pick up the military tab
US wants it to. This is the de facto recognition by Europe that the Russia threat is total bullshit,
in total contradiction of all the mass propaganda to the opposite by the pork pie news networks.
* "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under" – Rapper's Delight
Warren, July 12, 2015 at 7:50 am
The Europeans need to free themselves from American yoke, the Americans must have serious leverage
on European leaders to explain their servility to the US.
* "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under"
That line comes from Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five – The Message
marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:06 am
All that notwithstanding, Kerry is out of favour and the State Department has the bit in its teeth.
It likes the cut of Dunford's jib and his willingness to help imprint brand "Russian Aggression".
Kerry's demurrals are not going to mean anything in the great scheme of things, and it is much too
late for him to assuage his conscience now for all the lies he told and partisan bullshit he spread.
He deserves to ride his doomed state down nearly as much as the rest of his government.
Jeremn, July 12, 2015 at 5:06 am
Just looking at who funds the ECFR.
http://www.ecfr.eu/about/donors
George Soros is the primary funder, and the European Commission also supplies money. Then there's
a whole slew of banks, oil firms and foundations. Interesting reading.
marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:20 am
It would of course be a generalization, but just about everywhere you find a western agency fomenting
revolution and stirring up unrest in the names of freedom and democracy, you will find George Soros's
money. It's a wonder Obama has not awarded him the Presidential Gong of Freedom.
Do they, or don't they?
Some people say, that Right Sektor is withdrawing all their battalions from
Donbass and moving them West, back towards Kiev.
Right Sektor denies this, and says, no, all their guys are still in place at
the ATO, valiantly fighting the Colorados.
Basurin reports that the Right Sektor guys truly are leaving, thus
providing some blessed relief to the people of Donetsk. Resulting in fewer
incidents of shelling, etc.
yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 3:54 am
Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:
Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some
blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians. Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away
from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.
Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with the
following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:
"Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи! Жечь
падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в соцсети.
"You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs. I
would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their
property."
yalensis:
Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.
Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.
I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations"
and become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are
stuck in this abusive relationship.
yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 4:13 am
And what's the plan, once the Right Sektor battalions reach Kiev?
According to this piece, Right Sektor is organizing a massive meeting on the Maidan this
coming Sunday, July 19.
Right Sektor spokesperson Dmitry Pavlichenko announced the following:
-He urges everybody to swarm to Kiev on Sunday. The meeting ("veche") will start promptly at
noon.
-The purpose is to form "organs of power" to replace the current government.
-A priority will be also to form a "people's court".
Right Sektor has issued ultimatum to Ukrainian government: They want Avakov's head on a
platter.
There is constant picket of around 100 persons around President Poroshenko's office building.
The picketers wear insigna for parties such as "OUN", "Freedom or Death", and "Right Sektor". The
building is protected by around 30 National Guards troops, and there has been a stand-off up
until this point.
"...The calling of the referendum was politically brilliant, because it defused the notion of
an extremist government standing irrationally against the Troika." . "...Greece would look to the US for help in vain, given that Obama's representative to the continent
is Victoria Nuland, the bearer of color revolutions and the reaping of ancient lands and cultures for
profit."
"What is at stake is a rather heroic rebellion by a very beleaguered people against a doctrine
which has been destroying their lives - the austerity doctrine and the whole neoliberal project.
For the rest of us, what is at stake is whether we have the moral courage in the sense of ethical
responsibility to stand up to it."
It is probably less an issue of ethical responsibility and more an act of self-interest for most.
Having come out of the Third World and working into the developed nations, why would anyone assume
that Greece would be sufficient for the maw of neoliberal greed.
The above interview with Galbraith
is worth reading. For one thing it contains the seed of the current spin that Tsipras called
the referendum in order to lose it, and to somehow save himself and betray the Greeks.
And for another you will be able to read what Jamie Galbraith really thinks, the parts that the friends
of the financial establishment have carefully excluded from their versions of the story.
The calling of the referendum was politically brilliant, because it defused the notion of
an extremist government standing irrationally against the Troika. This derailed the path
towards a scheme to stage a 'color revolution' backed by the oligarchs to take out these mad leftists
who were not speaking for the people.
Remember the economic decision involving Europe which provoked the recent coup d'état in the Ukraine?
In that case the government did not have the backing of the people, and it took hold, at least in
the Western portions of the country. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Of course the referendum was famously too close to predict when first called for Syriza, and surprisingly
late in the game for most everyone else as you may recall How soon some choose to forget.
But it changed the course of events in a dramatic way. As it was it did not help their bargaining
position, but as Galbraith relates they did not expect it to be.
But it put the field of play into better terms if you goal is playing for survival and time.
They are knocking down all the rationales and excuses to visit harsh terms on Greece that the Troika
and their enablers are using. They are exposing their opponents for what they really are.
Empires founded on unsustainable foundations are like financial bubbles and Ponzi schemes.
They are inherently non-productive and consuming, so they must continue to grow, or choke on their
own ideologically driven detritus. Transferring wealth as your major economic policy
requires a steady source of new supply.
Most of the American media has fallen into line with the neoliberal agenda. It might seem surprising,
but power has its attraction under corporatism, even for people who would ordinarily consider themselves
to be 'liberal.'
There are concerning things happening in the Western world, and a lack of traction towards individual
freedom amongst 'the great democracies,' above and beyond Germany's growing desire to bring their
version of order and efficient management of lands and people to the rest of Europe.
The growing militancy in Japan, and Abe's aggressive pushing aside of constitutional restraints,
is undernoted in the West, but of concern to those in Asia.
Greece would look to the US for help in vain, given that Obama's representative to the continent
is Victoria Nuland, the bearer of color revolutions and the reaping of ancient lands and cultures
for profit.
At least in this cycle of the will to power some, including the Pope thank God, are speaking out
early, publicly, and strongly against the rising tide of injustice, the senseless abuse of power,
and the impulse towards dehumanizing central rule and neo-totalitarianism. Silence is
complicity.
Behind Germany's refusal to grant Greece debt relief
Tomorrow's EU Summit will seal Greece's fate in the Eurozone. As these lines are being written,
Euclid Tsakalotos, my great friend, comrade and successor as Greece's Finance Ministry is heading
for a Eurogroup meeting that will determine whether a last ditch agreement between Greece and
our creditors is reached and whether this agreement contains the degree of debt relief that could
render the Greek economy viable within the Euro Area.
Euclid is taking with him a moderate, well-thought out debt restructuring plan that is undoubtedly
in the interests both of Greece and its creditors. (Details of it I intend to publish here on
Monday, once the dust has settled.) If these modest debt restructuring proposals are turned down,
as the German finance minister has foreshadowed, Sunday's EU Summit will be deciding between
kicking Greece out of the Eurozone now or keeping it in for a little while longer, in a state
of deepening destitution, until it leaves some time in the future.
The question is: Why is the German finance Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schäuble, resisting a sensible,
mild, mutually beneficial debt restructure? The following op-ed just published in today's
The Guardian offers my answer. [Please note that the Guardian's title was not of my choosing.
Mine read, as above: Behind Germany's refusal to grant Greece debt relief ). Click
here for the op-ed or…
Greece's
financial drama has dominated the headlines for five years for one reason: the stubborn refusal
of our creditors to offer essential debt relief. Why, against common sense, against the IMF's
verdict and against the everyday practices of bankers facing stressed debtors, do they
resist a debt restructure? The answer cannot be found in economics because it resides deep
in Europe's labyrinthine politics.
In 2010, the Greek state
became insolvent. Two options consistent with continuing membership of the eurozone presented
themselves: the sensible one, that any decent banker would recommend – restructuring the debt
and reforming the economy; and the toxic option – extending new loans to a bankrupt entity while
pretending that it remains solvent.
Official Europe
chose the second option, putting the bailing out of French and German banks exposed to Greek public
debt above Greece's socioeconomic viability. A debt restructure would have implied losses for
the bankers on their Greek debt holdings.Keen to avoid confessing to parliaments that taxpayers
would have to pay again for the banks by means of unsustainable new loans, EU officials presented
the Greek state's insolvency as a problem of illiquidity, and justified the "bailout" as a case
of "solidarity" with the Greeks.
To frame the cynical transfer of irretrievable private losses on to the shoulders of taxpayers
as an exercise in "tough love", record austerity was imposed on
Greece, whose national income,
in turn – from which new and old debts had to be repaid – diminished by more than a quarter. It
takes the mathematical expertise of a smart eight-year-old to know that this process could not
end well.
Once the sordid operation was complete, Europe had automatically acquired another reason for
refusing to discuss debt restructuring: it would now hit the pockets of European citizens! And
so increasing doses of austerity were administered while the debt grew larger, forcing creditors
to extend more loans in exchange for even more austerity.
Our government was elected on a mandate to end this doom loop; to demand debt restructuring
and an end to crippling austerity. Negotiations have reached their much publicised impasse for
a simple reason: our creditors continue to rule out any tangible debt restructuring while insisting
that our unpayable debt be repaid "parametrically" by the weakest of Greeks, their children and
their grandchildren.
In my first week as minister for finance I was visited by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of
the Eurogroup (the eurozone finance ministers), who put a stark choice to me: accept the bailout's
"logic" and drop any demands for debt restructuring or your loan agreement will "crash" – the
unsaid repercussion being that Greece's banks would be boarded up.
Five months of negotiations ensued under conditions of monetary asphyxiation and an induced
bank-run supervised and administered by the European Central Bank. The writing was on the wall:
unless we capitulated, we would soon be facing capital controls, quasi-functioning cash machines,
a prolonged bank holiday and, ultimately, Grexit.
The threat of Grexit has had a brief rollercoaster of a history. In 2010 it put the fear of
God in financiers' hearts and minds as their banks were replete with Greek debt. Even in 2012,
when Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, decided that
Grexit's costs were a worthwhile "investment" as a way of disciplining France et al, the prospect
continued to scare the living daylights out of almost everyone else.
By the time Syriza won power last January, and as if to confirm our claim that the "bailouts"
had nothing to do with rescuing Greece (and everything to do with ringfencing northern Europe),
a large majority within the Eurogroup – under the tutelage of Schäuble – had adopted Grexit either
as their preferred outcome or weapon of choice against our government.
Greeks, rightly, shiver at the thought of amputation from monetary union. Exiting a common
currency is nothing like severing a peg, as
Britain did in 1992, when Norman Lamont famously sang in the shower the morning sterling quit
the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). Alas, Greece does not have a currency whose peg with
the euro can be cut. It has the euro – a foreign currency fully administered by a creditor inimical
to restructuring our nation's unsustainable debt.
To exit, we would have to create a new currency from scratch. In occupied Iraq, the introduction
of new paper money took almost a year, 20 or so Boeing 747s, the mobilisation of the US military's
might, three printing firms and hundreds of trucks. In the absence of such support, Grexit would
be the equivalent of announcing a large devaluation more than 18 months in advance: a recipe for
liquidating all Greek capital stock and transferring it abroad by any means available.
With Grexit reinforcing the ECB-induced bank run, our attempts to put debt restructuring back
on the negotiating table fell on deaf ears. Time and again we were told that this was a matter
for an unspecified future that would follow the "programme's successful completion" – a stupendous
Catch-22 since the "programme" could never succeed without a debt restructure.
This weekend brings the climax of the talks as
Euclid Tsakalotos, my successor, strives, again, to put the horse before the cart – to convince
a hostile Eurogroup that debt restructuring is a prerequisite of success for reforming Greece,
not an ex-post reward for it. Why is this so hard to get across? I see three reasons.
Europe did not know how to respond to the financial crisis. Should it prepare for an expulsion
(Grexit) or a federation?
One is that institutional inertia is hard to beat. A second, that unsustainable debt gives creditors
immense power over debtors – and power, as we know, corrupts even the finest. But it is the third
which seems to me more pertinent and, indeed, more interesting.
The euro is a hybrid of a fixed
exchange-rate regime, like the 1980s ERM, or the 1930s gold standard, and a state currency. The
former relies on the fear of expulsion to hold together, while state money involves mechanisms
for recycling surpluses between member states (for instance, a federal budget, common bonds).
The eurozone falls between these stools – it is more than an exchange-rate regime and less than
a state.
And there's the rub. After the crisis of 2008/9, Europe didn't know how to respond. Should
it prepare the ground for at least one expulsion (that is, Grexit) to strengthen discipline? Or
move to a federation? So far it has done neither, its existentialist angst forever rising. Schäuble
is convinced that as things stand, he needs a Grexit to clear the air, one way or another. Suddenly,
a permanently unsustainable Greek public debt, without which the risk of Grexit would fade, has
acquired a new usefulness for Schauble.
What do I mean by that? Based on months of negotiation, my conviction is that the German finance
minister wants Greece to be pushed out of the single currency to put the fear of God into the
French and have them accept his model of a disciplinarian eurozone.
"...He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right
as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour"."
"...he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil", and said poor countries
should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries.
"
"..."Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope
said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for
social exclusion or the destruction of nature"."
"...The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence
of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures
of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor"
"...A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW, between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between
the West and the East, while the war is on. ... Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism
in it's modern form lies near this war, and both are made by the same people."
"...Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty
exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they
profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor."
"...There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business
interests."
"...An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism
like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent
of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism"
not an adequately regulated free-market economy."
"...Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on
the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature
quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve
ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's
Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)..."
Pope Francis has urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a
"new colonialism" by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the
"sacred rights" of labor, lodging and land.
In one of the longest, most passionate and sweeping speeches of his pontificate, the Argentine-born
pope used his visit to Bolivia
to ask forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic church in its treatment of native
Americans during what he called the "so-called conquest of America".
The pontiff also demanded an immediate end to what he called the "genocide" of Christians taking
place in the Middle East and beyond, describing it as a third world war.
"Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our
brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus," Pope Francis
said.
"In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide
is taking place, and it must end."
Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the
devil", and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap
labour for developed countries.
Repeating some of the themes of his
landmark encyclical Laudato Si on the environment last month, Francis said time was running out
to save the planet from perhaps irreversible harm to the ecosystem.
Pope Francis shakes hands with a mining worker's leader watched by Bolivia's president
Evo Morales, right, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP
Francis made the address in the city of Santa Cruz to participants of the second
world meeting of popular movements, an international body that brings together organisations
of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed and peasants
who have lost their land. The Vatican hosted the first meeting last year.
He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right
as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour".
His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the left-wing Bolivian president
Evo Morales, who wore
a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He was executed
in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops.
"Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope
said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern
for social exclusion or the destruction of nature".
"This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, labourers find it intolerable,
communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself – our sister, Mother
Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable," he said in an hour-long speech
that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.
Since his election in 2013, the first pope from Latin America has often spoken out in defence
of the poor and against unbridled capitalism but the speech in Santa Cruz was the most comprehensive
to date on the issues he has championed.
Francis' previous attacks on capitalism have prompted stiff criticism from politicians and commentators
in the United States, where he is due to visit in September.
The pontiff appeared to take a swipe at international monetary organisations such as the IMF and
the development aid policies by some developed countries.
"No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their
sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously
prejudice the possibility of peace and justice," he said.
"The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence
of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures
of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor," he said.
Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate
for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.
He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where
previously "there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy".
In one of the sections on colonialism, he said:
"I say this to you with regret: many grave sins were committed against the native peoples of
America in the name of God."
He added: "I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offences of the church herself, but
also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.
"There was sin and an abundant amount of it."
The audience gave Francis a standing ovation when he put on a yellow miner's hat that was given
to him at the end of his speech.
The pope made his speech at the end of his first full day in Bolivia, where he arrived on Wednesday.
On Thursday morning he said a mass for hundreds of thousands of people and said that everyone had
a moral duty to help the poor, and that those with means could not wish they would just "go away".
Francis praised Bolivia's social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. On Friday, he will visit
Bolivia's notoriously violent Palmasola prison.
The pope
looked bemused on Wednesday night when Morales handed him one of the more unusual gifts he has
received: a sculpted wooden hammer and sickle – the symbol of communism – with a figure of a crucified
Christ resting on the hammer.
Francis leaves on Friday for Paraguay, the last stop on his "homecoming" trip.
The Pope didn't actually say "unbridled capitalism is the dung of the devil" did he?
So why is that the headline of this piece?
valeronfreza 10 Jul 2015 08:46
Actually, I find one of his thoughts really interesting. A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW,
between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between the West and the East, while the
war is on. The whole civilized world takes part in this mess, the thing is that this war looks
different from what we're used to see. I mean, we get information, made by those, who wants us
to see it different, like something, that happening far away, though it's dangerous as hell.
Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism in it's modern form lies near this war,
and both are made by the same people.
cblyth79 10 Jul 2015 08:41
he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil"
He has hit the nail on the head. This is everything that is wrong with society. Every decision
is taken with regards to making as much money as possible. However, the great irony is that even
if people do make money, their constant desire for more means they are never happy or fulfilled.
Meanwhile, socially and environmentally we suffer greatly due to this ultimately fruitless pursuit
of as much money as possible.
PM782_ -> Greenshoots 10 Jul 2015 08:40
Generally speaking, you are right of course.
I have very little time for virgin men in silly hats & dresses, carrying crucifixes and expecting
everyone to take them seriously when history shows us they cannot be trusted to act in an ethical
way, and will (as always) be more concerned about amassing money and influence than doing any
good in the world.
The whole thing is ludicrous and you should be ashamed that you believe in it. It is really
astonishing.
Greenshoots -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 08:39
Atheist trope. One could as easily say "Religion compels unreasonable people to do reasonable
things".
Westonboy -> pol098 10 Jul 2015 08:37
I'm happy to salute the personal contributions you make but, of course, the computer that you
will have used to write or test your software is a product of capitalism.
Also, most of the the goods you recycle or give away are no doubt the products of capitalism.
Anti-capitalists don't seem to have any alternative method of wealth creation.
EnglishChapin 10 Jul 2015 08:26
In the article:
Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the
devil"
In the headline:
"Unbridled capitalism is the 'dung of the devil', says Pope Francis"
kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 08:24
As a Unitarian/Universalist I am equally, if not more, wary of that practice. Francis, however,
is a public figure who has the right to express his opinion. While he was definitely speaking
to a Catholic audience, he was not giving his words the weight of a Papal Encyclical. Also, it
is the accepted and expected belief of Catholics that the Pope directs their thinking as far as
faith goes. I do not see his words being a act of forcing his will on me, personally. All public
figures have the right to express their opinion on that subject. I also believe that regulation
should go further than dealing with "negative externalities" unless you view the financial crisis
of 2008 as a negative externality . While the causes of the crisis were complex and varied, lax
regulatory oversight during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations played a role in creating the
conditions for it.
Why do you want poor people to rise up? On what sense? Revolution to topple world governments,
what's next? What kind of governmental system will we apply to ensure law and order? Will it be
one world government by the Vatican?
I'm glad you set everyone straight on this. We were all thinking capitalism is an economic
and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners
for profit, rather than by the state. But clearly capitalism involves greed for money, exploitation
and environmental destruction. The very fact you've attempted to pick at this shows you're missing
the overarching point. The Pope is criticizing how our unregulated "socioeconomic system" - which
was capitalism the last time I looked - for being responsible for ruining society, enslaving men
and women and destroying human fraternity. All of which is pretty spot on. Excuse me for having
to clarify this for you.
citizen_1111 10 Jul 2015 07:48
Wouldn't it be great if newspapers like the Guardian printed the truth, rather than spin. The
pope did not say that "unbridled capitalism is the dung of devil". Here's the actual paragraph.
It's nothing like the Guardian's deceptive headline.
Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible
harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being
brutally punished.
And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea
called "the dung of the devil". An unfettered pursuit of money rules.
The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's
decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society,
it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one
another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.
So he's actually referring to greed for money - a moral sin .... not capitalism, which is basically
meritocratic mechanism of funding businesses.
HobbesianWorld -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 07:41
Wrong, it's a predominantly Christian nation. Christians don't own it. Under the Constitution,
all beliefs in matters of religion are equal.
Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty
exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they
profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor.
Capitalism isn't a sacred arm of Christianity, yet many (most?) Christians tend to favor Wall
Street's gluttony and greed while millions of children live in poverty. Is that what we should
see in a "Christian" nation? It's the epitome of hypocrisy.
PM782_ 10 Jul 2015 07:33
The guy in charge of 1 billion plus devout catholics, with all the riches of the Vatican, preaches
to us about how excessive capitalism is a bad thing.
This pope seems more reasonable than his predecessors however until he actually DOES something
that makes the world a better place and in some way makes up for the history of atrocious behavior
that the Catholic church has engaged in, I'm simply not interested.
It is strange though, seeing how many people are hoodwinked by a few choice words, when the
organization he represents has been an utter blight on humanity since it began.
heretoeternity -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:32
There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business
interests.
Laurence W 10 Jul 2015 07:18
Devout capitalists/corporatists may not see the symmetry between John Paul II's defiance of
the bankruptcy of unbridled Communism and Francis's defiance of the bankruptcy of unfettered Capitalism.
They cling to their irrational faith (and that is what it is) in Adam Smith's "invisible hand."
The collapse of Communism does not somehow validate Capitalism. It seems Capitalism's true believers
must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st. Century.
ideation2020 -> PeterAB12 10 Jul 2015 07:11
In the West there is a marked reduction in family size since about 1965. There are also far
more women at work, the workforce has adapted to almost full attendance of female workers. We
generally have accommodated an increase of 70% by reducing family size and equally as important
is the accommodation and full attendance of single a and" won't marry" adults.
SmileyFace2 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:10
But Capitalism has resulted in a Plutocracy which leads to rule by the top 1%. So it is not
quite a simple as you seem to think hence the need for a mixed economy.
HobbesianWorld 10 Jul 2015 07:08
While I wouldn't put it that way, the Pope is correct that unfettered capitalism is the major
source of injustice, especially the injustice of poverty.
It's a source of dark humor for me to hear Christians call the U.S. a "Christian nation" even
as they fight to maintain and enhance the cause of poverty--unbridled corporatism; profit over
humanity, wealth over justice and selfishness over honor.
Brian Milne -> Kevin Lim 10 Jul 2015 06:59
How much time have you spent in South America? I spent 18 years going back and forth as part
of my job, must admit I have not spoken to a Liberation Theology priest (he was actually a Jesuit
originally) since October. So perhaps I am just a little bit out of synch.
Life paths include being allowed to express one's sexuality openly and not risk excommunication
and denunciation by the church, to be allowed to have abortions and use contraception without
being told that you will go to Hell, to be allowed to 'formally' leave the church (some countries
still require religion on official document) and to follow political streams that the church condemns
as unchristian to name but just a few. By using the pressure of condemnation in the afterlife
people are to this day controlled by fear.
Sure nobody is obliged to put money in the dish but too many still fear the stigma of not doing
so. If this man can end that then it would be a job well done, but he will not, will he?
cblyth79 -> Manjush 10 Jul 2015 06:51
I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but to me the real problem is the capitalist consumerism
of first-world countries and the damage this is causing to the planet. Even if the populations
of third-world countries doubled they would not get anywhere near the CO2 that we produce. And
that's not even to mention the fact that we have caused climate change and they haven't. To blame
overpopulation is to out the blame on third-world countries, when it should be squarely on us.
VivF -> dysro1 10 Jul 2015 06:50
Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on
the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature
quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve
ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's
Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)...
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton
Drew -> Layton 10 Jul 2015 06:48
Yay! Religion has done something that isn't rape, muder, burning at the stake, ripping people's
breasts off, implement, beheading, shooting people on beaches, blowing things up, being homophobic,
sexist, racist or generally being a complete twat! Let's all jump up and down and burn a pilot!
YAY!
Kathy -> Foulds 10 Jul 2015 06:42
We are in very new times....Pope Francis is not afraid to challenge the status quo...Alleluia.
Tony Menezes 10 Jul 2015 06:24
The national interest of the unbridled capitalists has sidelined morality and justice. The
third world war has started albeit piecemeal.
This is a strong wake up call from someone that must be listened to.
Greenshoots -> rgrabman 10 Jul 2015 06:23
I can only speak for the UK where I have yet to find a Catholic friend who is not immensely
supportive of what the Pope has to say, whatever prominent Tory Catholics may have to say. Catholics
on the whole tend to vote Labour.
If you want to see a precursor to what the Pope is now saying, read the Catholic bishops document
"The common good" from 1996:
"As at the end of the 19th century, Catholic Social Teaching is concerned to protect the poor
and vulnerable from the chill winds of economic forces. The defeat of Communism should not mean
the triumph of unbridled capitalism."
"The Catholic doctrine of the common good is incompatible with unlimited freemarket, or laissez-faire,
capitalism ...".
Unconstituted -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:22
Massively disagree with that bit about him being a non-scientist etc.
If skeptics are still unsure after all the science that has been thrown at them, then perhaps
they aren't influenced that way. They follow figures that they personally respect.
And the Pope has a huge following. I am certain that he will have given a lot of people pause
for thought recently.
Like many here, as an atheist, I'm no fan of the guy. But causes like social justice, climate
change etc need more than just reams of studies. It needs PR.
Greenshoots -> clogexpat 10 Jul 2015 06:17
Which is incorrect because the left is not, and never has been, an identifiable tribe in British
politics.
I agree that many people are not tribal about being left wing. They are willing to partner with
people whom they disagree with on some issues but where there is a common cause.
However, you just have to read many of the posts in this thread to see that, for many other people,
it is a form of tribal allegiance because they, in response to the Pope saying something they
probably do agree with, they cannot refrain from attacking him on unrelated issues. They are not
interested in supporting the common cause.
Longasyourarm -> MaximTS 10 Jul 2015 06:15
Well spotted but many here are in it for the opportunity to exercise their demons of hatred,
bigotry and racism. Most don't even read the article and jump right to the comments in their haste
to slag off Catholics, the Pope, Religion in general. I suppose it is still better than invasion
of other countries and stealing their stuff, isn't it Tony?
domrice 10 Jul 2015 06:13
Finally, a pontiff brave enough to enunciate the core values of Jesus Christ. Oh that the world
had political leaders who weren't shameless slaves to the moneylenders.
discreto -> SmileyFace2 10 Jul 2015 06:11
That is because the Free Trade is not Fair Trade, this is what Pope Francis is talking about.
Capitalism is Free Trade it is not Fair Trade with the People who work to ensure the Goods are
there to trade are not getting what is a Fair and Just Living wage, they are being used by the
Corporations who make Millions out of their hard work. I support Pope Francis and his Courage
in speaking up for the People in developing Countries who are made to depend on Capitalism against
their will. At last he is the Pope who is acknowledging the sins of the Church both past and present,
with a strong voice of Apology. It would be good if he could sit down with The First Nations of
America to take part in their native Ritual of Smudging from Smoke of burnt Herbs and grasses
for forgiveness and Peace. I pray for Pope Francis's Protection.
kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:02
An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism
like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent
of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism"
not an adequately regulated free-market economy.
ID1780902 10 Jul 2015 05:55
Why so many negative comments? Here we have an extremely high profile figure publicly rallying
people all over the world to help with climate change, and to oppose some of the excesses of capitalism.
Regardless of what you think of the Catholic church, many people will listen to what he says,
and take it very seriously. If he only changes the mind of a single climate-change denier that
would be enough, but I think he will do a lot more than that, particularly in the US.
The Yatsenuk government
actually came out and declared that UNA-UNSO Party (=the core of "Right Sektor") collaborated
with Nazis in WWII.
This is a change from their usual b.s. about how UNA-UNSO fought AGAINST the German invaders.
This rewriting of history went to ludicrous extremes, when Ukies claimed the Banderites should
be designated as "victors" of WWII, along with England, France, etc.
Instead of the losers that they actually were.
But anyhow, what happened yesterday was that Minister of Justice in Ukraine refused to register
UNA-UNSO, stating that "this political party fought on the side of the fascists in 1942″.
Pundits see this strange (strange for Ukies, not strange for normal people) step as part of
a plan to discredit Dmitry Yarosh and push him out of public life.
The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of
fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history,
as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in
the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger
of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
To initiate a war of aggression…," said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, "is not only
an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes
in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the
United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a
million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its
savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are
the surreal theatre known as news.
Libya
Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome:
thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe
in Libya.
In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed
at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed.
The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that "most [of the children killed] were
under the age of ten".
The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted
by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died."
His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning
"genocide" against his own people. "We knew… that if we waited one more day," said President
Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated
across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They
told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". Reported
on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato's inferno, described by David Cameron
as a "humanitarian intervention".
Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the "rebels" would become ISIS, whose
latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city
destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.
For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's
economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in
US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to
underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic
union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion
was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military
"partnerships".
Following Nato's attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu…
confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment
of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency".
The Balkans
The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially
in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied,
the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo.
David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000
ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair
evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies
were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary,
Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.
With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools,
hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo
to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave
and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic
pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia
announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and
Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA.
There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.
Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic
federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities
and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community,
especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in
the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991
to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise
Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.
In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato,
then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace"
conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics.
The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day.
This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia – a country with bitter memories
of the Nazi occupation – and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation
of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs
fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq,
Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.
Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered
some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their
governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people
bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege
known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions.
In every case, a big lie was deployed.
Afghanistan
Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over."
These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops
and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment.
"The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion," said Obama. In
fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records.
The majority have been killed – civilians and soldiers – during Obama's time as president.
The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book
'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives', Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control
Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power
is not a goal that commands popular passion… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He
is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping
democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his
point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?
In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually
overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan
(PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism,
freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More
than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.
The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass
literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the
university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of
civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon,
"could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used
to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest
music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers
and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West
supported."
The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State
Cyrus Vance later admitted, "there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]".
Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided
that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the
"threat of a promising example".
On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups
known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance.
The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the
US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests… would be served by the demise
of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic
reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.
The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,
who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking
in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London,
he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter".
Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international
movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation
and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up
Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq,
to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit
people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden
was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at
an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia.
This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president
of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah – who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help
– was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.
The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation
Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives
across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message
was and remains: "You are with us or against us."
The common thread is mass murder
The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam
had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collateral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai,
where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one
massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history
produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the
air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.
Today, the world's greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families,
guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama's victims. According to the New York Times,
Obama makes his selection from a CIA "kill list" presented to him every Tuesday in the White House
Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will
die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone;
these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each "hit" is registered on a
faraway console screen as a "bugsplat".
"For goose-steppers," wrote the historian Norman Pollack, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous
militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely
at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."
Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism
with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the
1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt,
who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's
dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an
equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the
march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost
all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi
war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the
Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.
The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the "tragedy"
of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places – just as the President himself kills
them. The embodiment of Hollywood's violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated
for an Oscar this year for his movie, 'American Sniper', which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase.
The New York Times described it as a "patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records
in its opening days".
There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America
(and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting
the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens
– as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with
Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and
their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the
US space programme.
Ukraine
In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts
of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the
deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian
fascism was rehabilitated and its "new wave" hailed by the enforcer as "nationalists".
This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup
against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda.
Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and
"other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left.
These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the
Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda.
On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get "the USA to give us highly precise
modern weaponry". If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.
No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the
exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the
borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing
the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for
defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading
"neo-con" luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she
was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.
Nuland's coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia's historic, legitimate,
warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea – illegally annexed to Ukraine
by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 – voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s.
The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.
At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the
ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed
and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity,
freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled
across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence"
caused by the "Russian invasion". The Nato commander, General Breedlove – whose name and actions
might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove – announced that 40,000 Russian troops
were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.
These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long
sought a federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent
of Moscow. Most are not "separatists" but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and
oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous "states" are a reaction
to Kiev's attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.
On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters
with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright
day in our national history". In the American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy"
resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and "separatists" (people collecting
signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).
The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the
fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the
victims – "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the
junta for its "restraint".
If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West
will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander,
General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on
Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the
regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal
armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy
Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.
On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would
authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs
he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It
was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin
Powell's fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime
villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished
investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government,
since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic
population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political
spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring
facts that have been well established… If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three
– much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over
Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators
of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based
on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare
the German people psychologically for the attack… In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it
was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." In the Guardian on February
2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline.
"And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian
paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the
job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".
In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in
Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, "has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of
horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying
to get nuclear ones." He lauded Blair as a "Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist". In 2006,
he wrote, "Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran."
The outbursts – or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" – are not untypical
of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair
is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement
for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words:
"The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its
F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian
editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.
Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile
base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US
State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian
citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board
of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such
as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.
Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia
and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control
of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow
used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin,
has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.
The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies
of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that
brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest
of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is
assured, and a holocaust beckons.
Dulce et decorum est … to stop believing the "old lie" that appears so promiscuously on Union
and Confederate war memorials. If men on all sides always die for country, who puts them up to
it?
JonF, July 3, 2015 at 10:44 am
Re: But it is also, crucially, a matter of shared bloodlines, language, history, literature,
and cuisine, things that originated long before the time of Rousseau and Voltaire.
At yet France is a glued-together-at-the-seams country too. The whole South of France once spoke
a different language, in which the troubadours sang, and which still survives in the local dialects
of the inhabitants. Burgundy was once a sovereign and very wealthy duchy whose duke controlled
almost the entire Rhineland all the way to the Netherlands. Brittany too was its own nation, albeit
torn between France and England. And the English ruled Gascony for 300 years, and were preferred
as rulers to the Valois kings so that the Gascons promptly revolted when the French took the land
back. The Pope ruled (and for a time dwelt) in Avignon. The Provence was a county of the Holy
Roman Empire. Louis XIV knit these disparate lands together by corralling their nobility into
velvet captivity at Versailles. The Revolutionaries added an ideology and a national anthem (and
spilled the blood of the dissenters) and Napoleon gave the mix a mythology of glory. But the seams
are still there under the surface. And indeed, you can find similar fissures in many other European
countries too.
Connecticut Farmer, July 3, 2015 at 10:47 am
The concept of a country linked together by a common set of laws was never intended by our
revered Founders to be anything more or less than an experiment. An experiment that had never
been tried before. Arguably the United States Constitution that was drafted during the height
of the Enlightenment and, together with the America's so-called "birth certificate", Jefferson's
Declaration, may be considered that era's greatest accomplishment…a little Locke here, a dash
of Montesquieu there and…Voila! In that respect "United" States are in no way "united", in the
strictest sense of the word, except through the Constitution. And I suspect that is about all
the Founders could have hoped for. From the beginning America was– and remains– a culturally Balkanized
and, now more than ever, polyglot landmass more reminiscent of pre-World War One Austria-Hungary.
The late Speaker of The House, Tip O'Neill-a Boston Irishman I might add–is reputed to have once
said "All politics is local." He got it half right. What he should have said is "All LOYALTY is
local". I am also reminded of a line in The Godfather when Sonny Cordleone says to his brother
Fredo "Your country ain't your blood".
Patriotism indeed begins on the local level, whether geographical, cultural, familial–or some
combination thereof. The author is spot-on.
Gregory, July 3, 2015 at 8:28 pm
That line in Wilfred Owen's poem is supposed to be ironic…
TB, July 3, 2015 at 9:08 pm
"Patriotism Begins With Localism"
_________
I think the last refuge of the scoundrel begins with tribalism fear which, is the cultural anthropologist's
way of saying "localism".
Fran Macadam, July 3, 2015 at 11:57 pm
Well written, but full of unexamined assumptions that are more comforting myth than truth.
Like the girls who didn't stay thin, exactly.
"I'd wager that all of us on the roof that night were grateful to live in a place where
we can vote, start a business, and express ourselves freely, and grateful towards the ungodly
number of young men shot and shredded and killed in our name."
Yet voting's never meant less as policies are completely untethered from public opinion, except
as it can be manufactured through what crony capitalism calls PR, more honest oligarchies call
propaganda. And participation in voting is a minority activity, meaning real democracy's already
given the process a vote of no confidence.
We can express ourselves freely, if we're not among those with proscribed views, but those
in charge aren't interested in what we have to say. The main corporate media, the gateways through
which most people get their filtered news, prints all the news that fits their status quo interests.
No genuinely alternative political opinions that challenge the duopoly establishment are able
to be considered, though the corporate donorist class has no solutions to the ill which ail us,
except for mendacity. Certainly there have been an ungodly number of young men killed in our name,
and an even more ungodly number of foreign civilians of all ages and sexes whom they have killed,
also in our name. But truth be told, our name being invoked was our only connection to the purpose
of the wars, which wasn't for our interests at all; none of the foreign wars of choice have secured
our liberties, only debased them – and violated those of others. Far from making us secure, our
very democracy has been endangered by their unaccountable and unconstitutional means, perhaps
fatally. Perhaps only the young now can be so deceived, without experience, with heavy student
debt focusing their thoughts on more immediate personal concerns, with their docile, untenured
instructors carrying their own debt loads, unwilling to intellectually challenge the status quo.
What business will you be grateful to start? In the post-industrial economic desert of America
that the donorist elites leveled to keep more of business' rewards for themselves, it's unlikely
to be able to provide the stable, well-paying work that manufacturing used to.
I think Pat Buchanan said it best. We're no longer a nation in any traditional sense of the
word. We are an economy. The best definition of a nation would be Michael Savage's definition
of borders, language and culture but more important than all of this would be religion. Unless
a nation has a commonly shared faith it can never truly be one. The Russians know this and that
is why the Kremlin has thrown its support behind the Russian Orthodox Church. The West used to
know this and that is why Europe was up until this last century identifiably Christian civilization
with the biggest differances largely arising from the Catholic-Protestant divide.
For awhile America reflected Christian Europe but now we reflect Babylon and our elites are
largely cynical atheists who look down on people of faith. Such a house could have never withstood
a Great Depression let alone a Soviet style collapse.
…James
K. Galbraith is right with his description of those leaders:
[T]he leaders of today's Europe are shallow, cloistered people, preoccupied with their local
politics and unequipped, morally or intellectually, to cope with a continental problem. This is
true of Angela Merkel in Germany, of François Hollande in France, and it is true also of Christine
Lagarde at the IMF. In particular North Europe's leaders have not felt the crisis and do not know
the economics, and in both respects they are the direct opposite of the Greeks…
####
As always, a voice of sanity and common sense. After bailing out West Germany in the 1960s,
when the boot is on the other foot, they seem to have a rather short memory…
Like any neoliberal country Greece is a divided country with 20% of population representing "fifth
column of globalization" and benefiting from it and 80% suffering from it. . "...Well that is the rub. Western banks effectively control the cost of credit globally. You either
fall into line or you're perpetually behind the curve until you sell all your goods of any value." . "...Are you even aware that this is not actually loans that the Greek people got? If I loan
money to your corrupt banker and than ask YOU to return it, will you be less offensive?
" . "...The 2010 bailout was the one that allowed private French, Dutch and German banks to transfer
their liabilities to the Greek public sector, and indirectly to the entire eurozone's public sector.
There was no debt restructuring in that deal." . "...The loans were made by a cabal of high-financiers in Europe to a cabal of corrupt finianciers
in Greece. The game of lending rules are: you bet that the party you lend money to will pay back the
loan with interest. Which is what the German banks did, making a profit on the interest for quite some
time. But now the high-financiers in Europe have lost the game, i.e. Greece/the-old-displaced-guard-in-Greece
can no longer pay them back. That's the financiers problem: not the problem of Greece's normal citizens
nor other EU taxpayers! Is that so difficult to understand? Class war for beginners... privatize the
profit, socialize the loss." . "...The banksters, multi-national corporations and their political lackeys, have engaged in
an extend and pretend fantasy which is passing their private debt onto taxpayers across Europe. Once
the shoulders of the Greek taxpayer have been broken, it will pass onto the shoulders of the taxpayers
from the rest of Europe. God, I want to shake the anti Greek/pro EU lobby to wake them up. Greece, please,
please, please vote NO, so we can begin the long process of getting control of Europe out of the hands
of these maniacs." . "...Without risking depositors' cash, governments had the ability to sit back ready to nationalise
any banks whose lending to Greece was so irresponsible that they were unsustainable. This would have
wiped out the shareholders and sent a clear message that lending as well as borrowing has to be responsible
and that shareholders need to earn their fat returns by exerting oversight.
" . "...Yanis Varoufakis has a point. The proposals put by the EU would cause the Greek economy to contract
further, this effectively would increase the debt ratio to GDP. Nowhere have I heard any talk on how
to build up the Greek economy, it has all been about collecting taxes.
I have also read commentators on here talk about how Greece lied to get into MU, this has a great deal
of truth in it, but one must remember the EU knew what a basket case Greece was financially, therefore
they are equally complicit in this debacle.
The question has to be why the EU is doing this to Greece, they know their actions will do nothing other
than cause more misery in the country. The reason this is happening is to protect German banks. Greece
is the domino that could bring the whole system down." . "...No, the original package lent to Greece was to bailout Greek and EU banks. The subsequent
bailout (to pay for the bailout) is 60% owned/facilitated by EFSF. It raised it through selling bonds,
no doubt to financial institutions. So now we're in the bizarre situation of banks befitting from the
bailout of banks with the Greek people carrying the can and Europeans (who are liable to honour EFSF
bonds+intererst) blaming Greece and defending the banks! "
Yes it should have been, by letting the banks go under as per Iceland. Or were too many people
(living in vacuums ?) unprepared to deal with the short term pain ? Now it seems the world of
people must suffer to service the Banks' bad debt.....what good slaves we are! The Emperor has
no clothes!
Duncan Frame -> Brasil13 4 Jul 2015 11:10
Well that is the rub. Western banks effectively control the cost of credit globally. You either
fall into line or you're perpetually behind the curve until you sell all your goods of any value.
W61212 -> Brasil13 4 Jul 2015 11:08
Careful what you wish for. From the EC
'In 2013 the EU recorded a trade surplus in goods (more than double the surplus registered in
2012). The EU also has a surplus in commercial services trade.
The EU is the biggest foreign investor in Brazil with investments in many sectors of the Brazilian
economy. Around 50% of the FDI flows received by Brazil during the last 5 years originated in
the EU.'
This debacle with Greece demonstrates the EU can't run itself and yet it has huge holdings with
Brazil and has recently reversed to a trade surplus in to Brazil, a nation with huge natural,
industrial and human resources of its own. Brazil exports mainly agricultural and mining products
to the EU and imports manufactured products. See the imbalance? Brazil exports primary products
and imports finished products made elsewhere and those jobs are elsewhere. See the problem?
There's only one letter difference but choice for the Greeks is to become either the new Ireland
(and suffer self-inflicted austerity for decades to come) or the new Iceland (by tearing up the
rule book and starting again).
Germans (for the most part) are not Nazis or terrorists, and should not have to take the blame
for this crisis. They are, however, dupes, like people living under capitalism everywhere. They
are willing to let the international banksters and their political cronies in the European parliament
run their lives and create whatever mischief they believe is in their interest.
ToddPalant -> Scaff1 4 Jul 2015 11:06
Tell us suckers then, about how Ukraine, a run down country that was just made worse by
regime change. From bad Yanukovich to much worse American puppet and idiot Poroshenko plus a catastrophic
war. Tell us about Lybia and bad Qaddafi, who in his life time killed 3-4000 people and the much
worse UK-France that caused at least a 100000 dead with their pet invasion at the behest of our
friends from across the Atlantic.
May be you need to dust your mirror.
Duncan Frame -> Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 11:05
Terrorists primary aim is to promote fear rather than harm. That's far more effective in getting
their way. You close the banks you show the public what you're capable of.
Saaywar Montana -> thisisafix 4 Jul 2015 11:04
Their economies are naff. Spain and Italy are the two countries most likely to join Greece
in a new union. Portugal and Ireland are too far gone but Ireland has been rebelling. Once people
see a progressive union to compete with the rubbish EU then these countries will gain support
for joining a new southern European union.
These countries are not out of the water and won't get out of it either. Austerity will do what
it does and the people will rise up. It's inevitable. The EU doesn't have a monopoly on unions
lol.
Greece, as did every other country, got left with the bill of the private banking sector.
Yes, it was their fault for running a deficit but a significant proportion of the debt owed by
the Greek gov is bank bailouts.
It's the same here. The UK paid £700bn to private banks to make sure they didn't fail. The
deficit has nothing to do with that. so around 50% of the debt is a mixture or deficit spending
and capital investments made by the government.
Robape Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 10:57
Financial terrorists, just interested in the bottom line, not countries.
elcomm W61212 4 Jul 2015 10:56
When fascist governments get in trouble at home they start wars to distract people. It's not
that far out.
Duncan Frame Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 10:56
Yes everything's exceptional. 2008 was the biggest economic collapse since the great depression.
And Greece was the most exposed country. No difference.
Alfie Silva karlmiltonkeynes 4 Jul 2015 10:55
My mistake, I thought you were intelligent.
It is common knowledge that only around 10% of bailout monies went to the real economy.
You are correct indeed in that creditors got a haircut, mainly hedgefunds and most foreign banks
by 2015 had reduced their exposure to Greece. The issue today is sovereign debt. Do you realise
that sovereign debt is the senior collatoral for Eurozone banks?
So we are back to banks again Mr Banker.
Duncan Frame ID13579 4 Jul 2015 10:53
I don't have to excuse giving voice to the victims of those in power to you or anyone else.
And it seems to me Tsipras is taking the same line. You confuse the Greek people with the people
who actually profited from that debt. Why should they be forced to starve on the back of decisions
over which they had influence?
usufruct -> HoorayHenrietta 4 Jul 2015 10:44
Like Americans and most other people around the globe, the German people have allowed the international
banks to pull the wool over their eyes. There is no reason for taxpayers to bail out the banks
as we are still doing here in the U.S. For the past six years my wife and I have been paying down
mortgages on real estate hoping to reestablish equity in properties whose value was gutted by
cavalier banksters on Wall Steet. A few clicks to gamble away the hard work of millions! These
people should be arrested and tried for their crimes. In a fair court they would be sent away
for life.
Chris Hindle 4 Jul 2015 10:42
'Yanis Varoufakis accuses creditors of terrorism.'
So what is wrong with that? Financial terrorism is a much more protracted and painful process
to the victims than sudden violence, but the end result is the same.
The Vermin Who Would Be Kings have discovered they no longer need the fuss and expense of maintaining
a standing army of occupation, far simpler to get countries/continents/ the world in deep debt
(via bent politicians making private bankster debt into sovereign debt - just like they did in
Greece ) and exert control through that.
BTW the UK has some £9 trillion in foreign debt (much of which is the bad debts of the
City - and the highest of any stand-alone country on earth) So now you know what next months austerity
drive is all about
InjunJoe -> degardiyen 4 Jul 2015 10:24
The "slovakian tax payer" will not be paying to maintain the Greek standard of living,
but to shore up the ECB, the IMF and the private lenders to Greek banks, as 90% of the "bail-out"
goes to serving interest. Haven't you been reading the news?
Duncan Frame -> karlmiltonkeynes 4 Jul 2015 10:20
That's weird because at the same time the banks collapsed in 2008 the deficit went up from
57% to 82%, lots of people lost their jobs or had to take pay cuts. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
LeftToWrite -> ID6487190 4 Jul 2015 10:17
Yeah the EU has shown itself to want a compromise. All those nice compromised offers it made.
Yep we all remember those.
Compromise means both sides giving ground, not one side accepting everything the other demands.
Use a dictionary next time.
For once a nation is standing up to EU bullying and we have ignorant fools like you turning it
the other way in an attempt to change the narrative.
LeftToWrite 4 Jul 2015 10:11
How can the Troika have fucked up this badly? It seems they forgot that Greece is actually
a construct that represents the people who live there, and you can't just impose misery after
misery on a people without expecting them to finally have enough. Even if they vote yes, all it
does is postpone that that time when they will have had enough.
Honestly, this has shown the true greed at the hearts of Merkel et al, and by extension the people
they represent. Save the French and German banks, fuck over the Greek people. If people think
anti German rhetoric in Greece is extreme now, decades of resentment is about to follow.
שוקי גלילי Steve Collins 4 Jul 2015 10:09
You probably meant to say "when you ask for it back from someone ELSE, who didn't actually
get your money". Are you even aware that this is not actually loans that the Greek people
got? If I loan money to your corrupt banker and than ask YOU to return it, will you be less offensive?
email from Green Party Brussels office. TTIP and ISDS - Call to action by Keith Taylor MEP!
Breaking news! We've just been informed that the postponed vote on the European Parliament
resolution on TTIP has been put on the agenda for Wednesday 8th July.
MEPs will be voting on the resolution as a whole, but also on a whole array of amendments
to the text. Among these is a compromise amendment on the investor-state dispute mechanism, or ISDS.
The compromise amendment suggests replacing ISDS courts with some kind of 'new' system,
but there is no further explanation or details. As long as there is any system in place
for investors to sue governments, as the compromise calls for, it is still ISDS. The
fact that the Parliament's President is trying to spin this as something different by
giving it a new name does not change anything.
The compromise amendment has been agreed by the largest
groups in the European Parliament: the centre-left Socialists & Democrats (which includes
the UK's Labour MEPs), the centre-right European People's Party, and the European Conservatives
and Reformists group (which includes the UK's Conservative MEPs) and the Alliance of
Liberals and Democrats (which includes the UK's Liberal Democrat MEP).
On Wednesday, all MEPs will get a chance to vote on this amendment and the resolution
as a whole.
The Greens are calling on citizens, trade unions, NGOs,
towns and regions and businesses to speak out and contact their elected representatives
and hold them to account on this attempt to privatise justice and infringe democratic
rights.
How you can help This is our last chance to make sure that damaging ISDS provisions are not given the
green light by the European Parliament. MEPs need to know the full force of public opinion
on this threat to our national laws and our democratic rights. Contact your other MEPs before Wednesday asking them to oppose TTIP and the Investor
State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). - use Write To Them to email your MEPs directly with your own concerns - use the 38 Degrees campaign to send a quick template email - call your MEPs in Brussels to let them the reasons you're opposed - spread the word! Share your concerns on social media, tweet your MEPs, encourage your
friends and family to contact their MEPs, use Greens/EFA resources to campaign. Message from Keith
"I've been extremely heartened to receive so many emails from constituents voicing
their opposition to ISDS and the TTIP proposals in the last few weeks. It's clear that
there's a powerful and growing democratic movement to protect our laws, our public services
and our regulatory standards from potential devastation.
The decision to postpone the vote on TTIP earlier in
the month stinks of political parties running scared of the huge public opposition to
TTIP.
TTIP represents a monumental power grab by corporations and it must be stopped in its
tracks.
The sudden re-scheduling of this vote means we are now short on time to make our voices
heard. The Greens need all the help we can get to spread the word and put pressure on
other MEPs to do the right thing and represent the views and interests of their constituents." You can keep up-to-date with the Greens/EFA campaign and what the Greens are doing in
the European Parliament via their TTIP campaign website and their twitter feed.
Thank you for your support. Best wishes,
LeftToWrite ID105467 4 Jul 2015 10:14
To bail out German banks, get your facts straight before posting nonsense.
Kalandar 4 Jul 2015 10:14
Propoganda galore from the mainstream media but its fooling no one, except perhaps themselves.
ID345543 4 Jul 2015 10:04
This Is Why The Euro Is Finished
The 2010 bailout was the one that allowed private French, Dutch and German banks to
transfer their liabilities to the Greek public sector, and indirectly to the entire eurozone's
public sector. There was no debt restructuring in that deal.
The loans were made by a cabal of high-financiers in Europe to a cabal of corrupt finianciers
in Greece. The game of lending rules are: you bet that the party you lend money to will pay back
the loan with interest. Which is what the German banks did, making a profit on the interest for
quite some time. But now the high-financiers in Europe have lost the game, i.e. Greece/the-old-displaced-guard-in-Greece
can no longer pay them back. That's the financiers problem: not the problem of Greece's normal
citizens nor other EU taxpayers! Is that so difficult to understand? Class war for beginners...
privatize the profit, socialize the loss.
NeverNotHereTV gsxsure 4 Jul 2015 09:59
Syriza does not want "free money". They want a fraction put toward economic growth, and then
payments as a meaningful fraction of that growth. It is simple enough.
Alfie Silva 4 Jul 2015 09:50
Please can anyone explain to me why we are letting the bankster cabal turn European against
European?
The banksters, multi-national corporations and their political lackeys, have engaged in an
extend and pretend fantasy which is passing their private debt onto taxpayers across Europe. Once
the shoulders of the Greek taxpayer have been broken, it will pass onto the shoulders of the taxpayers
from the rest of Europe. God, I want to shake the anti Greek/pro EU lobby to wake them up. Greece,
please, please, please vote NO, so we can begin the long process of getting control of Europe
out of the hands of these maniacs.
Finnbolt 4 Jul 2015 09:49
"Debt relief was "politically highly toxic for many eurozone member states"."
Here you have the problem. The creditor state governments are responsible to their voters and
many have said that their taxpayers will not finance the Greeks and money lent will be paid back
in full.
Syriza says they have a mandate from the Greek people to force other euro countries to continue
financing them and take a haircut. In other words, lose most of the money lent to Greece.
EU is a collection of nation states with pretensions of a federation. One of the pretensions about
to be busted is a transfer union, meaning taxpayers in richer countries tranferring part of their
wealth to poorer countries.
APSAPS 4 Jul 2015 09:49
A $22.6 billion International Monetary Fund and World Bank financial package was approved on
13 July 1998 to support reforms and stabilize the Russian market. Despite the bailout, July 1998
monthly interest payments on Russia's debt rose to a figure 40 percent higher than its monthly
tax collections. Additionally, on 15 July 1998, the State Duma dominated by left-wing parties
refused to adopt most of the government anti-crisis plan so that the government was forced to
rely on presidential decrees. On 17 August 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble, defaulted
on domestic debt, and declared a moratorium on payment to foreign creditors. It was later revealed
that about $5 billion of the international loans provided by the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund were stolen upon the funds' arrival in Russia on the eve of the meltdown.
Sounds very similar.
Oh, wait, maybe some referendum could have helped?
Insomnijazz hertsman 4 Jul 2015 09:48
Nah - these are just lies for the gullible to swallow.
Without risking depositors' cash, governments had the ability to sit back ready to nationalise
any banks whose lending to Greece was so irresponsible that they were unsustainable. This would
have wiped out the shareholders and sent a clear message that lending as well as borrowing has
to be responsible and that shareholders need to earn their fat returns by exerting oversight.
Instead they chose the worst option: bailing out the bank shareholders by assuming responsibility
for their risky lending, but refusing to then pay the price for their political cowardice and
shifting the blame onto a largely guiltless Greek population which has already suffered hugely
from the economic devastation.
Brent1023 4 Jul 2015 09:46
Debt relief not on the table.
It comes down to the Greek people or the banksters. Who needs a bailout more?
The EU has sided with the banksters.
Not just in Greece but in Ireland, Spain, Portugal.
Only Iceland was able to force banksters to swallow their losses.
Everywhere else bankster fraud was rewarded with a 100% bailout.
Should be renamed the European Bankster Union.
Surprising that the UK does not want it - it also bailed out its banksters.
NWObserver sunnytimes 4 Jul 2015 09:39
The creditors are not looking to get their money back. Debt is the leverage being used to destroy
the social and public infrastructure in the country.
So their worst nightmare is Greeks voting 'No', staying in default and surviving or prospering
while remaining in the Eurozone. Then they will not be able to use the same fear tactics against
another EZ country. They are psychopaths out to destroy, not creditors looking to get their money.
So if Greeks vote 'No' , they will spare no effort to destroy Greece, beginning with the continuation
of the liquidity freeze. However, there are some simple steps that Greece can take to end the
liquidity freeze and I think they have already taken them.
Albrecht Ritschl: During the past century alone, though, at least three times. After the first
default during the 1930s, the US gave Germany a "haircut" in 1953, reducing its debt problem to
practically nothing. Germany has been in a very good position ever since, even as other Europeans
were forced to endure the burdens of World War II and the consequences of the German occupation.
Germany even had a period of non-payment in 1990....but we were also extremely reckless -- and
our export industry has thrived on orders. The anti-Greek sentiment that is widespread in many
German media outlets is highly dangerous. And we are sitting in a glass house: Germany's resurgence
has only been possible through waiving extensive debt payments and stopping reparations to its
World War II victims.'
Don't worry. The nappy business is doing well in Brussels...
EU sources: possible extra Eurogroup on Monday and EU leaders Summit on Wednesday #Greferendum
via GR media http://www.dimokratiki.gr/04-07-2015/pithano-ektakto-eurogroup-ti-deftera-ke-sinodos-korifis-tin-tetarti/
…
They are pissing in their pants the lot of them...
rafela Bogoas81 4 Jul 2015 09:00
Austerity didnt work. In the last five years the economy shrinked by 19%. Unemployment rose
to 27%. Tsipras wanted more debt relief. The IMF report sustain that an improvement is impossible
without debt relief.
sunnytimes 4 Jul 2015 08:58
German people are industrious and inventive. They play by the rules. Unfortunately they are
also rather naive and believe generally what the state tells them. In history the role of such
people has always been to pay the bills.
GuillotinesRUs 4 Jul 2015 08:45
Yanis Varoufakis has a point. The proposals put by the EU would cause the Greek economy to
contract further, this effectively would increase the debt ratio to GDP. Nowhere have I heard
any talk on how to build up the Greek economy, it has all been about collecting taxes.
I have also read commentators on here talk about how Greece lied to get into MU, this has a great
deal of truth in it, but one must remember the EU knew what a basket case Greece was financially,
therefore they are equally complicit in this debacle.
The question has to be why the EU is doing this to Greece, they know their actions will do nothing
other than cause more misery in the country. The reason this is happening is to protect German
banks. Greece is the domino that could bring the whole system down.
U77777 -> CassiusClay 4 Jul 2015 08:40
Austerity isn't the answer - but when you have put yourself into the situation that the Greeks
have, it is part of the solution. A small part and nothing like the media like to portray, but
something has got to give.
As for electing Tsipras and varoufakis......Seriously, stop drinking. They're a bunch of cowboys
with some well intended principles and a load of rather deluded ideas. Worse still, neither of
them have actually come up with anything like a constructive plan how to stimulate the economy
and help Greece stand on its own 2 feet again
Dimitris Chloupis -> sylvester 4 Jul 2015 08:39
Any sensible Greek realizes without deep reforms no economy is going forward. This is not even
debatable in my country. We already reduced public sector by 500.000 employes thats a juicy 50%.
High pensions of the past are long gone. The result is that now it costs 6 billion to pay for
wages in public sector and another 5 billion to pay for pension, total 10 billion. But we need
another 10 billion for paying back loans each year. This year alone we paid back 25 billion !!!
Tax evasion should be our next focus, its not reasonable for an economy that makes 200 billions
per year to need loans . There is a will to fix all that, because the alternative is far worse.
Of course the same can be said about Germany , why a country that make 3.1 trillion euros per
year has a 80% debt ? Tax evasion of course ;) Time to open those swish bank accounts , but does
Germany want that ? How many vested Greek interest are connected with German vested interest ?
Denying corruption is to deny the foundation of modern economies.
W61212 -> RussBrown 4 Jul 2015 08:39
I made a point earlier about the birth of a new Brussels based dictatorship which controls
all EZ 'national governments', which are national governments by name only, ergo Syriza has to
go for straying from the script. Brussels has already proven it would rather deal with corrupt
Greek politicians by doing so in the past
Continent Renato -> Timotheus 4 Jul 2015 08:37
Inequality of opportunity in the Eurozone is now so great -- young people in Greece have
an unemployment level of 60% and the rate is 33% in the austerity "success story" of Portugal
The systems are different. Northern countries have the dual education system, i.e. only about
10 p.c. of the youth go to college/university, and 90 p.c. go through a 3 or 4 year education
"learning by doing".
In addition, the "dirty work" in Greece (farming/harvest/construction) is done by temporary migrants
from Macedonia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria because the Greek parents wanted their children to
have a better life and sent them to universities without an employment market for so many acdemics.
Many of them land in a job with in the bloated govt.
sunnytimes 4 Jul 2015 08:36
The true parasites are the bond markets of London and New York. The create nothing. All they
do is swap pieces of paper with ech other all day long, skimming every transaction. The UK and
US have run trade deficits or decades, that is by definition they produce less than they consume.
Time to tear down this edifice of debt and get back to a capital-based economy.
LeftOrRightSameShite FOARP 4 Jul 2015 08:35
Greece already has been bailed out
No, the original package lent to Greece was to bailout Greek and EU banks. The subsequent
bailout (to pay for the bailout) is 60% owned/facilitated by EFSF. It raised it through selling
bonds, no doubt to financial institutions. So now we're in the bizarre situation of banks befitting
from the bailout of banks with the Greek people carrying the can and Europeans (who are liable
to honour EFSF bonds+intererst) blaming Greece and defending the banks!
Bit thick really innit!
RussBrown 4 Jul 2015 08:35
Myth 1 - Greece do nothing to solve the problem (they have had years of austerity)
Myth 2 - Germany is bailing out the Greeks. The money that goes to Greece goes straight back into
the German Banks. But by making it impossible for business to run in Greece the businesses move
their resources to Germany and pay taxes their in a massive transfer of wealth from a poor EU
country to the richest. This is a capitalist scam and all of lot on here shouting their propaganda
should be ashamed of yourselves. The rich bankers are using you to justify the destruction of
the poor!
Or to put it a bit differently, it's reasonable to fear the consequences of a "no" vote, because
nobody knows what would come next. But you should be even more afraid of the consequences of a
"yes," because in that case we do know what comes next - more austerity, more disasters and eventually
a crisis much worse than anything we've seen so far.
The usual narrative of the Greek economic tragedy is that the country is paying for its past
profligacy, but there is deeper back story of political repression fueled by major powers intervening
in Greece and contributing to a dysfunctional political system.
By William R. Polk
Focusing exclusively on the monetary aspects of the Greek crisis the media misses much of what
disturbs the Greeks and also what might make a solution possible.
For over half a century, Greeks have lived in perilous times. In the 1930s, they lived under
a brutal dictatorship that modeled itself on Nazi Germany, employing Gestapo-like secret police
and sending critics off to an island concentration camp. Then a curious thing happened: Benito
Mussolini invaded the country.
Challenged to protect their self-respect and their country, Greeks put aside their hatred of
the Metaxis dictatorship and rallied to fight the foreign invaders. The Greeks did such a good
job of defending their country that Adolf Hitler had to put off his invasion of Russia to rescue
the Italians. That move probably saved Josef Stalin since the delay forced the Wehrmacht to fight
in Russia's mud, snow and ice for which they had not prepared. But, ironically, it also saved
the Metaxis dictatorship and the monarchy. The king and all the senior Greek officials fled to
British-occupied Egypt and, as new allies, they were declared part of the "Free World."
Meanwhile, in Greece, the Germans looted much of the industry, shipping and food stuffs. The
Greeks began to starve. As Mussolini remarked, "the Germans have taken from the Greeks even their
shoelaces…"
Then, the Greeks began to fight back. In October 1942, they set up a resistance movement that
within two years became the largest in Europe. When France could claim less than 20,000 partisans,
the Greek resistance movement had enrolled about 2 million and was holding down at least two divisions
of German soldiers. And they did it without outside help.
As the war's outcome became apparent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was determined
to return Greece to the prewar rule of the monarchy and the old regime. He was motivated by fear
of Communist influence within the resistance movement.
Churchill tried to get the Anglo-American army that was getting ready to invade Italy to attack
Greece instead. Indeed, he tried so hard to change the war plan that he almost broke up the Allied
military alliance; when he failed, he threw all the soldiers he still controlled into Greece and
precipitated a civil war that tore the country apart. The Underground leaders were outsmarted
and their movement was smashed. The bureaucracy, police and programs of the prewar dictatorship
resumed control.
After the war, with Britain out of money and no longer able to sustain its policy, London turned
Greece over to the Americans who announced the "Truman Doctrine" and poured in money to prevent
a leftist victory. American money temporarily won the day, but the heavy hand of the former regime
created a new generation of would-be democrats who challenged the dictatorship.
This is the theme beautifully evoked in Costa Gavras' film "Z," starring Yves Montagne. As
the film shows, the liberal movement of the early 1960s was overwhelmed by a new military dictatorship,
"the rule of the colonels."
When the military junta was overthrown in 1974, Greece enjoyed a brief period of "normality,"
but none of the deep fissures in the society had been healed. Regardless of what political party
chose the ministers, the self-perpetuating bureaucracy was still in control. Corruption was rife.
And, most important of all, Greece had become a political system that Aristotle would have called
an oligarchy.
The very rich used their money to create for themselves a virtual state within the state. They
extended their power into every niche of the economy and so arranged the banking system that it
became essentially extra-territorialized. Piraeus harbor was filled with mega-yachts owned by
people who paid no taxes and London was partly owned by people who fattened off the Greek economy.
The "smart money" of Greece was stashed abroad.
The Current Crisis
This state of affairs might have lasted many more years, but when Greece joined the European
Union in 1981, European (mainly German) bankers saw an opportunity: they flocked into Greece to
offer loans. Even those Greeks who had insufficient income to justify loans grabbed them. Then,
the lenders began to demand repayment. Shocked, businesses began to cut back. Unemployment increased.
Opportunities vanished.
There is really no chance that the loans will be repaid. They should never have been offered
and never should have been accepted. To stay afloat, the government has cut back on public services
(except for the military) and the people have suffered. In the 2004 elections, the Greeks had
not yet suffered enough to vote for the radical coalition led by the "Unity" (SYRIZA) party. Only
3.3 percent of the voters did.
Then, after the 2008 financial crash came years of worsening hardship, disapproval of all politicians
and anger. It was popular anger, feeling misled by the bankers and by their own foolishness. There
was also hopelessness as Greeks realized that they had no way out and began to turn to SYRIZA.
After a series of failed attempts to secure a mandate, SYRIZA won the 2015 election with 36.3
percent of the vote and 249 out of 300 members of Parliament.
Today, the conditions that impelled that vote are even more urgent: the national income of
Greece is down about 25 percent and unemployment among younger workers is over 50 percent. So
where does that leave the negotiators?
Faced with German and EU demands for more austerity, the Greeks are angry. They have deep memories
of hatred against the Germans (this time, not soldiers but bankers). They have been, time after
time, traduced by their own politicians. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras must know that if he is
charged with a "sell-out," his career is finished.
And the bail-out package offered by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central
Bank is heavily weighted against Greece. Greeks also see their option of exiting the Euro as similar
to stances taken by Britain and Sweden in not joining in the first place – although a painful
adjustment for the Greek economy would be expected if Greece undertakes an unprecedented departure
from the European currency.
However, unless the IMF and ECB offer a real chance for a better life for Greeks by forgiving
most of the debts, I believe that the Greeks might well vote on Sunday to reject the austerity
demands and leave the Euro.
William R. Polk is a professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John
F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department's Policy Planning Council.
Congress Weighs in on Holding IMF Accountable for Damage Caused by Failed Policies in Greece
By Mark Weisbrot
The battle over the future of Greece will not end on Sunday, no matter how the vote goes or
-- if the Greek people vote "no" -- how the European authorities respond to their choice. This
is a fight over the future of Europe, and the people who are currently strangling the Greek economy
in a transparent attempt to intimidate the Greek electorate understand this very well. That is
why they are being especially aggressive and ruthless at this moment: trying to convince Greeks
that a "no" vote means leaving the euro, claiming that such a decision would have calamitous consequences,
and giving them a taste of the financial crisis and economic disruption that they will suffer
through if they refuse to do as they are told.
Last Sunday, the European Central Bank (ECB) made a deliberate decision to limit Emergency
Liquidity Assistance to the Greek banking system. The limit was set low enough to force -- for
the first time in the six years of depression that the ECB has deepened and prolonged -- the closure
of Greek banks.
It is not surprising that the very idea of a referendum would provoke the ire of the eurozone
authorities. Unlike the European Union, which has a different history, the eurozone project has
become a fundamentally anti-democratic project. It has to be; the people currently running it
want to reverse, as much as possible, decades of social progress on issues that are vital to Europeans.
But you don't have to take my word for it: there is a paper trail of thousands of pages that spell
out their political agenda. The International Monetary Fund conducts regular consultations with
member governments under Article IV of its charter, and these result in papers which contain policy
recommendations. There were 67 such consultations for EU countries during the four years of 2008
to 2011, and the pattern was striking: budget tightening was recommended in all 27 countries,
with spending cuts generally favored over tax increases. Cutting health care and pension spending,
reducing eligibility for disability and unemployment compensation, raising retirement ages and
increasing labor supply were also overwhelmingly common recommendations.
The European authorities took advantage of the crisis and post-crisis years to impose parts
of this agenda on the weaker eurozone economies: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and most brutally
of all, Greece. More than 20 governments fell as a result, until finally, in Greece on January
25, a government was elected that said no. The goal of the European authorities, therefore, is
to topple this government. This has been apparent since the ECB cut off itsmain line of credit
to Greece on February 4.
Now comes a group of U.S. members of Congress warning the IMF that it could -- perhaps for
the first time in decades -- be held accountable for the economic destruction that it's helping
to implement. The letter objects to the IMF "taking a hard line with respect to demands that Greece
implement further reforms" and notes:
Greece has already reduced its national public sector work force by 19 percent and carried
out many of the reforms demanded by the IMF and its creditors. It has gone through an enormous
fiscal adjustment, achieving the largest cyclically adjusted primary budget surplus in the euro
area last year; and a very large current account adjustment (with a 36 percent reduction in imports).
At the same time, as even the IMF has acknowledged in its own research, the austerity imposed
by Greece's creditors over the past five years turned out to be far more devastating to the economy
than they had predicted.
Senator Bernie Sanders, who joined House members in signing the letter, issued his own blistering
statement yesterday. "At a time of grotesque wealth inequality, the pensions of the people in
Greece should not be cut even further to pay back some of the largest banks and wealthiest financiers
in the world," said Sanders. Among the House signers were the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, Representatives Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, and the Dean of the House and Ranking
Member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers.
Unlike many letters from Congress that are ignored by the executive branch, this one might
be taken more seriously by the IMF and the U.S. Treasury department -- which is the IMF's most
powerful overseer. One reason is that the IMF has been trying for five years to enact reforms
in its governance structure that are very important to the Fund and Treasury -- reforms that can't
be enacted unless they are approved by Congress. These reforms would make some small changes in
voting representation. They wouldn't shift the balance of power at the Fund, with the U.S. and
its allies still likely to maintain a comfortable majority. But the U.S. government and the Fund
have lost a lot of credibility in recent years by unilaterally holding up even these largely symbolic
changes. They see this hold-up as encouraging developing countries to opt for creating new institutions
such as the BRICS Development Bank and Currency Reserve Arrangement. More recently, the Obama
administration suffered an embarrassing setback after the U.K., Germany and France ignored their
pleas and became founding members of China's new $100 billion initiative to create an Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank.
From the congressional letter:
"As members of the U.S. Congress, we must also note the unprecedented difficulty that the IMF's
proposed quota and governance reform has faced in the U.S. Congress since 2010. As you know, this
also has global implications, as some governments in developing countries have begun to lose confidence
in this effort to make the IMF's voting structure more representative of its member countries
in the twenty-first century and are seeking institutional alternatives. It will be difficult to
get a majority of the U.S. Congress on board for these important reforms if the IMF is seen as
responsible for further damage to the Greek economy, as well as the currently unforeseeable consequences
of any financial collapse."
The IMF will need all the votes it can get for this legislation to pass through Congress. It
can choose to ignore this warning at its own institutional risk.
"...The Greek comprador class supported the Nazis in the Second World War, fought against the United
Front in the civil war, made the neo-fascist 1970s regime, and today they support EU/NATO integration
and austerity. They are an integral part of the European ruling class that is holding the working and
middle classes of across the whole continent by the balls. The ruling class which has divided Europe,
once again as they did in the 1930s, into "Germans" and "Greeks" instead of the reality - of workers
and rulers. So, there is not one "more dangerous" than the other. They are the same."
"...Initially, the IMF predicated their support on Ukraine reaching a deal with its private
creditors to restructure its debt to reduce its payments by $15 billion over four years. This has not
proven easy, however, and the IMF now says it may release funds to Kiev even if it defaults on its private
creditors. "
"..."This is a very dark moment for Europe. They have closed our banks for the sole purpose
of blackmailing what? Getting a 'Yes' vote on a non-sustainable solution that would be ad for Europe.""
"...I have to say that I totally didn't get that point so far. Of course they're going nuts about
a short-noticed referendum, because usually in these cases the public gets brainwashed for months in
advance. Can't believe I didn't notice that right away. It's the essence of western democracy: let people
vote, but only the things you want them to choose from. Nice move by Syriza btw! Now that I think about
it, it's obvious that they planfully came up with the referendum as suprise! Kudos!"
"...After the hell of World War II, the Federal Republic of Germany – commonly known as West
Germany – got massive help with its debt from former foes. Among its creditors then? Greece. The 1953
agreement, in which Greece and about 20 other countries effectively wrote off a large chunk of Germany's
loans and restructured the rest, is a landmark case that shows how effective debt relief can be. It
helped spark what became known as the German economic miracle."
"...We are witnessing a black swan event. The Greek banks have run out of cash. Either the EU seizes
Greece or a failed state in Europe has been born with Ukraine soon to follow. All of the Greek debts
are void and trillions in derivative payments will be due. This is 2008 all over again with the collapse
of the western financial system possible. This is why everyone is so desperate. Yet, for pennies on
the total cost of the default, Greece could be saved. Magnanimity may yet win out but it would mean
the end of the current rule of extinction capitalism in the West."
The Greeks have to make their decision as to what they are going to do. This is not a vote
about staying in the EU. If the Greeks are kicked out, there is no one to blame for that decision
except the EU masters. The Greeks are making only one decision - wether or not to agree to the
terms of the EU for the repayment of the debt - and thereby wether the debt was incurred legally.
All those who claim that this is a referendum on the EU are liars who are not being honest
with the Greek people. Those who are trotting out the endless stream of confusion as to what this
referendum is about - like the BBC, the New York Times, and even Greek parties like Potomi, etc
- are clearly no friends of the Greek people. Because to be a friend is to speak honestly.
"Your mention of compradors is important because the internal enemies of the Greek people
may be more dangerous than the external Troika."
The internal and external enemies of the Greek people are one in the same. The Greeks are paying
the Troika who gives the money to prop up Greek banking oligarchs. There is no difference between
a banker in Athens, a banker in Frankfurt, or a hedge fund vulture in New York City holding Greek
debt. All are ghouls who are profiting from the destruction of Greece.
The Greek comprador
class supported the Nazis in the Second World War, fought against the United Front in the civil
war, made the neo-fascist 1970s regime, and today they support EU/NATO integration and austerity.
They are an integral part of the European ruling class that is holding the working and middle
classes of across the whole continent by the balls. The ruling class which has divided Europe,
once again as they did in the 1930s, into "Germans" and "Greeks" instead of the reality - of workers
and rulers. So, there is not one "more dangerous" than the other. They are the same.
To add to the anti-Syriza noise machine, wether from a reactionary stance or a "ultra-leftist"
stance, is to do the people of Europe a disservice. Syriza is the only left-wing, anti-austerity
party with power inside the EU. It is unique. It fought the Golden Dawn on the streets of Athens.
It engaged the Greek people and asked for their vote, and it is living up to their mandate without
- and this is key - claiming more of one than they earned.
The referendum vote will be their true mandate. The Greek people have had a chance to see Syriza
in action, the referendum will be the Greek people's chance to show or deny their trust in Syriza
before embarking on a long struggle for independence, or maintaining the constant drain of austerity.The
stakes are clear: Syriza's success means a stake in the heart of the EU debt vampires who are
feeding off of not just Greece, but on all of those nations deemed "the periphery". Success for
Syriza is success for the very idea of democracy in the 21st Century. It is that cut-and-dried.
If Syriza fails, then the last good hope for European democracy vanishes until, perhaps, the
next escalation of crisis, whenever that might be a year or two years down the road. Or perhaps
for the foreseeable future. Because this is the simplest question of the referendum: do a people
have the right to say "no" to those whom wish them ill, to say "no" to those who, by whatever
"legal" power, are seeking to oppress them? As Martin Luther King, Jr stated: "One has a moral
responsibility to disobey unjust laws." And clearly this debt - and the refusal of those who imposed
it to make any compromise, even for the sickest and the poorest - is unjust. So which is worse
- to face the morse losses for ones shattered economy, or the loss of ones national will and democracy?
Because after Syriza, there is the abyss. There is no one offering to speak for the Greek people
if Syriza falls.
If Syriza succeeds, though, then all over Europe, we could see these sham technocratic, ruling
class regimes fall. These regimes whose only reason for staying in power is naked fear. This is
a good time to recall the words of Franklin Roosevelt, when the US found itself crushed between
a failed economy on one side, and a nest of powerful oligarchs on the other who refused to offer
any support to the citizens of the country:
This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor
need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will
endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my
firm belief that the only
thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national
life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the
people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that
support to leadership in these critical days.
The Greeks are facing a moment of truth as stark and as clear as any in human history. As stark
as any 20th Century war for independence. They can choose to continue down their current path,
only to have to face the same choice in a year or two years from now with conditions far, far
worse (there is no one arguing that there is any hope for their recovery - no one). So it is either
continued depression under the "guiding hand" of those who seek only one thing from Greece: the
transfer of its wealth. Or they can say "No" and take their destiny, again, into their own hands.
Only once they have made their collective will known will Europe decide what course of action
to take: compromise, or split Europe. And if it is a split, then the only party responsible
will be the masters of the EU.
You know, the whole name-calling thing, Comrade X, escapes me. Why people feel like it enhances
their persona I don't know. To repeat: the troika has already won this contest because Syriza
capitulated. You quote me incorrectly.
I think failure for the troika is if they get the Yes vote they want and then refuse to offer
concessions, which will push Tsipras and Varoufakis to resign. Without a deal shortly the ECB
will have to step in and expand emergency liquidity assistance to make sure all those retirees
who don't use debit cards have enough cash to buy food.
xxx
As this isn't a vote about EU membership, then the Greek people should have no fear. They should
vote as their conscience dictates.
Who knows what form the EU Masters want the Union to take? The Greek people won't have a say
in this and they should recognize that. The Greeks should recognize their limits - they do not
have the power to vote to stay or leave the EU, they have only the power to vote on to wether
or not to pay this odious debt. Europe will do with them, after that, as it will. So they should
be clear that they are voting only on the debt, and ignore all those who are trying to cloud the
issue.
The real danger, as always, is that we know the USA is busy manipulating every European political
system. And we know that US geopolitics will insist on Greece remaining in the EU and in NATO
no matter what it means for the Greeks. So the Greek people must be extremely wary of all those
going onto the streets, EuroMaidan-style, for "Pro-EU" rallies... they're dishonest at best, and
more likely they are pawns of the only power even less interested in the welfare of the Greek
people than even the EU - Washington Imperialsim.
A, Yes vote would mean that the Syriza government must resign since the implication is that the
Greek people have voted a motion of no confidence.
A, No vote would mean the ball is in the
Troika court. They can a) choose not to fund the Greek banks anymore which would imply that the
banks would collapse immediately and no more pension payments under the current Euro system; b)
Choose to give Greece an ultimatum of accept or reject whatever their offer will be. Non acceptance
would mean once again they can cause Greek banks to collapse.
The Greek people are caught between a rock & a hard place. Risk the collapse of their banks
and a new unknown future in a non-Euro currency system or accept whatever terms the Troika is
willing to provide to keep their banks afloat. There is a decent probability that there is a "civil
war" in Greece between those that would prefer to be in the Euro currency bloc under whatever
terms the Troika offers and those wanting out of the Euro currency system.
The real danger, as always, is that we know the USA is busy manipulating every European political
system. And we know that US geopolitics will insist on Greece remaining in the EU and in NATO
no matter what it means for the Greeks. So the Greek people must be extremely wary of all those
going onto the streets, EuroMaidan-style, for "Pro-EU" rallies... they're dishonest at best, and
more likely they are pawns of the only power even less interested in the welfare of the Greek
people than even the EU - Washington Imperialsim.
Very emphatic and stirring, guest77 @26. This is another moment of truth for non-Greek capitalist
slaves as well. They are discouraged from seeing the Greek whip as their own.
In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that
understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.
Oh. Pray I may ask, President Roosevelt, "Why do we not need a leadership of frankness and vigor
in good hour?" Perhaps this is why we don't get one in the dark ones?
"Those who claim that
this is a referendum on the EU" are propagandists and sowers of confusion and discord. All vigorous
capitalist systems need them, good times and bad.
Compradors are distinguished by their divided loyalties and false allegiances. Oligarchs cannot
be mistaken for compradors. Compradors are an integral part of capitalist political economy and
their false allegiance is more dangerous because it disarms. We could speak as well of German
compradors, those who would vote to continue the immiseration of Greece though the bankers and
brokers fraudulently saddled German and European taxpayer with their losses. Compradors don the
hypocritical morality their oligarchs so affordably produce. They love playing the fools, because
it so well pays.
Do the ultra-leftists who critique Syriza do only disservice? I doubt it. Even if "Syriza is
the only left-wing, anti-austerity party with power inside the EU", that is not enough. Even Syriza
would confirm that they and their pragmatism is not enough to achieve their ends. I agree that
"ultra-left" critics risk being confused with dissemblers, but they should not silence themselves
for that reason. KKE asks of Greeks, instead of yah or nay, to demand:
* NO TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE EU-IMF-ECB
* NO TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
* DISENGAGEMENT FROM THE EU, WITH THE PEOPLE IN POWER
Is it not clear what Syriza should do with these "votes"? I have seen a Syriza supporter dissemble
on KKE's position; that's bigotry.
Can Syriza mobilize the electorate against their oppressors? Have they propagandized enough?
This referendum is not on whether "people have the right to say "no" to those whom wish them ill",
i.e. a vote for their own oppression, but whether they have mobilized the Greeks, beyond Syriza's
election, for the coming fracas.
Syriza cannot bring "these sham technocratic, ruling class regimes" to fall. We must fight
on, whether they fail or no.
Yves Smith et al may not be as loony as you think. Check out this piece by William Engdahl,
in which he has identified Varifoukas as a modern version of a Trojan horse, but in this instance,
acting in the interest of the Greek oligarchs. It is this particular segment of the Greek population
which has in large part been shielded from public view, most because of all the focus on the evil
troika. Engdahl quite rightly put much of the blame for the current Greek crisis on a long established
practice by the corrupt Greek political class, that has not only plundered and looted the country
for the past 70 years (he actually sees that this is a centuries old practice), but has willfully
subjected their fellow country folk to never-ending debt enslavement.
An interesting point, and this is on reason that NC could be cut some slack, is that Tsiprias
and Varifoukas played nothing other than a game of brinkmanship that was a sure loser. Given that
they had no plan-B to fall back on, and that they refused Putin's offer of assistance, it is hard
to argue against Engdahls' conclusion that this was a rigged game all the way - one rigged by
the Greek oligarchs, with Tsiprias and Varifoukas acting as their proxies.
I was always suspicious of the smile that never ceases to leave Varifoukas' face.
RT IMF and Ukraine agree on terms for release of $1.7 bn in bailout funds
The International
Monetary Fund and Kiev's representatives have agreed on a set of measures to be taken by Ukraine
in order to receive $1.7 billion in bailout money, according to the IMF press service. The much
needed 2nd tranche of a promised $17.5 billion support package will be released when the IMF's
Ukrainian mission determines that the requirements of the agreement have been met, though the
press release did not specify what those conditions might be. The IMF's management and board will
also have to approve the final release of funds.
Initially, the IMF predicated their support on Ukraine reaching a deal with its private
creditors to restructure its debt to reduce its payments by $15 billion over four years. This
has not proven easy, however, and the IMF now says it may release funds to Kiev even if it defaults
on its private creditors.
Presuming the referendum occurs, the range of outcomes can be distilled thus:
A> Greece votes "Yes": Tsipras resigns (as Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis has already
hinted), EU rejoices but unless a technocratic government can be rustled up in Parliament, the
ensuing election campaign will waste valuable weeks and add to uncertainty and instability. Any
subsequent negotiations will see Greece economically immolated by its unrepentant lenders.
B> Greece votes No:
Technically referenda are considered consultative and need a 40 percent turnout to be deemed
relevant.
With Greece in default on its IMF loans, the concept that a strong 'no' vote strengthens its
hand in negotiations is a dubious assertion verging on folly. There is no negotiation, thus no
strengthened position. Egos may be soothed but that won't feed Greek pensioners.
~~~
Neither vote enables a simple resolution. No delivers a poisoned chalice. A petulant EU, rattled
by Greece's refusal to be supplicant to the superpower of delusion, won't receive Alexis Tsipras
back into the fold prodigal son-style.
2) Greece maintains the euro: Syriza's apparent (self-defeating) choice. Athens must release
the currency pressure valve to rebalance Greece, enabling future export and tourist growth fuelled
by a cheaper New Drachma.
(Incidentally, this default is Greece's sixth since 1826).
~~~
4) Greece introduces parallel currency to pay bills. Thus a New Drachma will emerge and Greece
will de facto exit the eurozone. By this stage the EU will be too preoccupied with its own credibility
gap to hold Greece within the eurozone's structures.
~~~
6) Third party motivated regime change cannot be discounted: Some angry creditors are likely pushing
for Syriza to be ousted. However a No vote gives Syriza a mandate to govern, albeit against a
very volatile, probably quite chaotic, background.
8) Greece abandons the euro and adopts bitcoin - a lovely idea which would at least guarantee
citizens could no longer be subject to summary devaluation at the knee. Alas only slightly more
plausible than lenders accepting a No vote is a basis for debt relief.
And what of the eurozone?
The EU has egg on its face and a sickly currency whose sanctity is being undermined. Economically,
Greek GDP is barely 1.8 percent of the 335 million citizen eurozone. However contagion risks will
be a huge worry. Europe has delayed vital structural reforms and will pay a greater price than
the 'mere' high unemployment relative stagnation of recent years where Asia rose and Europe froze.
Investors will be spooked to realize the euro is not merely perishable, it is in mortal danger.
Greece is a small but debt-laden Mediterranean nation, behind the narcissistic political hubris,
the EU remains an, albeit fading, giant of global influence.
Sure, they played this lose lose, that is the part
that really worries me. You cannot trust politicians who enter that type of game. And this is
all the EU.
"smart people now benefit in contraction", sure, as
the fire sales concentrate ownership to the very few. This model has been tested and proven politically
unsustainable before, it leads to war, where "smart
people" are bound to benefit, too.
bjmaclac | Jul 3, 2015 2:43:06 AM | 63
Engdahl certainly is right in that Syriza is made an example of to disencourage (Southern)
European national politicians from challenging the system. The result, however, is very much the
end of Europe, as there is no way now to sell European initiatives to the - very diverse - national
publics. The discussion in Germany has been framed in a way that makes it virtually impossible
to transfer any more billions to creditors or agree to a debt cut meaning the billions granted
before on saving German and international banks have to be written off.
European politicians got themselves in such a quandary that they depend on the IMF to solve
the crisis whilst making the solution more and more expensive themselves. By defaulting on the
IMF Greece presumably has taken that option from the table. The BRICS will not pay for the "European
problem".
The earlier declaration from the Monarchs of the European voting commission was telling. They
demanded a two week delay to allow their minions to browbeat and propagandize the poor Greeks
before a 'fair', read controlled, referendum could take place. Wayoutwest | Jul 2, 2015 1:51:47
PM | 7
I have to say that I totally didn't get that point so far. Of course they're going nuts about
a short-noticed referendum, because usually in these cases the public gets brainwashed for months
in advance. Can't believe I didn't notice that right away.
It's the essence of western democracy: let people vote, but only the things you want them to
choose from. Nice move by Syriza btw! Now that I think about it, it's obvious that they planfully
came up with the referendum as suprise! Kudos!
China may help Greece directly through its new financial instruments, director of the Quantitative
Finance Department at China's Institute of Quantitative and Technical Economics told Sputnik
China.
"The Greek crisis has an undoubtedly seriously influence on China's trade with Greece
and investment into the country. But I think that European countries together with China can
help Greece overcome the problems that arose," Fan Mingtao said.
"I believe there are two ways to give Greece Chinese aid. First, within the framework of
the international aid through EU countries. Second, China could aid Greece directly. Especially
considering the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. China
has this ability," Fan added
A 'YES' vote is capitulation. A 'NO' vote means negotiation backed by the possibility of GRexit.
GRexit has not been an option so far because Syriza had no democratic authority to contemplate
such a move. Allowing for the possibility of GRexit gives the Greek side a much stronger hand.
Both sides are playing games. You can't take what they say at face value. The Greeks are pro-Europe
until the are not. Tsipras says that a 'NO' vote is not a vote for GRexit. But a 'NO' allows for
GRexit if negotiations fail.
If a GRexit occurs, the Greek side will blame the Troika, pointing to how determined Syriza
has been to stay in Europe. This political blame game is meant to raise the stakes.
I think Greece would issue a parallel currency like Tax Anticipation Notes (TANs) during a
transition period (maybe starting right after a 'NO' vote). If Greece exits, they will likely
get support (loans, trade deals) from BRICS. Russia has an incentive to see that Greece does not
fail, while the Troika has an incentive to see that Greece does fail.
=
I think there will be a 'NO' vote and, armed with the recently released IMF report on the sustainability
of Greek debt, Greece will get a favorable agreement. The BIG question in my mind is whether the
Troika will insist on Greece to agree to support tighter EU integration. That would then also
be asked of other PIGS that seek debt relief.
So this Greek crisis could represent the beginning of the end for the EZ or an significant
advance for those that want to see a "United States of Europe".
A new poll by the Anti-Defamation League found that the majority of Greeks continue to hold
anti-Semitic views about Jewish control over finance and the global economy, despite a recent
drop in anti-Jewish attitudes in other parts of Europe.
They are desperate! The Greeks are NAZIs! Wow! It is amusing to see them going insane, breaking
down right on stage before the audience ... roaring with laughter? I know I am. If you lose your
money, good god don't you lose your mind!
Come on Greeks! You've got 'em on the run! As that
great stateswoman Nancy Reagan once said with regard to drug dealers - "Just say NO!"
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has a clear negotiating strategy, aimed at getting
Greece to agree to leave the eurozone. Unfortunately for him, Greece does not want to exit,
and it cannot be forced to do so under the treaties governing the European Union. What Greece
wants is to remain in the eurozone, with a lower debt burden – a position that is both economically
astute and protected by treaty.
... ... ...
There are plenty of precedents for such a course. Sovereign debts have been restructured
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times – including for Germany. In fact, hardline demands by
the country's US government creditors after World War I contributed to deep financial instability
in Germany and other parts of Europe, and indirectly to the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933. After
World War II, however, Germany was the recipient of vastly wiser concessions by the US government,
culminating in consensual debt relief in 1953, an action that greatly benefitted Germany and
the world. Yet Germany has failed to learn the lessons of its own history.
I propose a four-step path out of the Greek crisis. First, I recommend that the Greek people
give a resounding "No" to the creditors in the referendum on their demands this weekend.
Second, Greece should continue to withhold service on its external debts to official creditors
in advance of a consensual debt restructuring later this year. Given its great depression,
Greece should use its savings to pay pensioners, provide food relief, make crucial infrastructure
repairs, and direct liquidity toward the banking system.
Third, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras must use his persuasive powers to convince the public,
in the style of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that the only thing they have to fear is
fear itself. Specifically, the government should make clear to all Greeks that their euro deposits
are safe; that the country will remain within the eurozone (despite the false claims by some
members of the Eurogroup that a no vote means a Greek exit); and that its banks will reopen
immediately after the referendum.
Finally, Greece and Germany need to come to a rapprochement soon after the referendum and
agree to a package of economic reforms and debt relief. No country – including Greece – should
expect to be offered debt relief on a silver platter; relief must be earned and justified by
real reforms that restore growth, to the benefit of both debtor and creditor. And yet, a corpse
cannot carry out reforms. That is why debt relief and reforms must be offered together, not
reforms "first" with some vague promises that debt relief will come in some unspecified amount
at some unspecified time in the future (as some in Europe have said to Greece).
Greece is sliding into a full-blown national crisis as the final cash reserves of the banking
system evaporate by the hour and swathes of industry start to shut down, precipitating the
near disintegration of the ruling coalition. Business leaders have been locked in talks with
the Bank of Greece, pleading for the immediate release of emergency liquidity funds (ELA) to
cover food imports and pharmaceutical goods before the tourist sector hits a brick wall. Officials
say the central bank will release the funds as soon as Friday, but this is a stop-gap measure
at best. "We are on a war footing in this country," said Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance
minister. The daily allowance of cash from many ATM machines has already dropped from €60 to
€50, purportedly because €20 notes are running out.
Large numbers are empty. The financial contagion is spreading fast as petrol stations and
small businesses stop accepting credit cards. Constantine Michalos, head of the Hellenic Chambers
of Commerce, said lenders are simply running out of money. "We are reliably informed that the
cash reserves of the banks are down to €500m. Anybody who thinks they are going to open again
on Tuesday is day-dreaming. The cash would not last an hour," he said. "We are in an extremely
dangerous situation. Greek companies have been excluded from the electronic transfers of Europe's
Target2 system. The entire Greek business community is unable to import anything, and without
raw materials they can't produce anything," he said.
Troika Maneuvering to Rig Greek Referendum (Martin Armstrong)
In a TV interview, Mr. Varoufakis said very clearly,
"This is a very dark moment for Europe. They have closed our banks for the sole purpose
of blackmailing what? Getting a 'Yes' vote on a non-sustainable solution that would be bad
for Europe."
I must admit, most politicians do not come even close to the truth, but Varoufakis seems to
be the ONLY finance minister who understands the demands of the Troika are not plausible for any
nation. Merkel has tried to skirt any responsibility by saying this is a Troika decision. One
must seriously ask, are those in the Troika just totally brain-dead? Their blackmail and economic
war against Greece will be evidence to ensure that Britain leaves the EU. The ONLY thing that
saved Britain was Maggie Thatcher's effort to keep Britain out of the euro for she knew far too
well where it would lead.
The view in Poland is also now anti-euro. Any Brit who now does not vote to get out of the
EU and the grips of the Troika is ignorant of world events and the political power play going
on. The EU leaders will not travel to Athens until after the referendum. Suddenly they realize
that their powers are so off the wall that they dare not expose their own schemes. Hollande of
France wants a resolution for he fears a Frexit is gaining momentum. Obama wants a resolution,
fearing Greece will be forced into the arms of Russia, breaking down NATO. Yet through all of
this, there is no hope because those in power are clueless. The Troika refuses to solve the euro
crisis because they only see their own self-interest and assume they can force their will upon
all the people.
The Troika is doing everything in their power to rig the Greek referendum to make it appear
that the Greek people want Brussels. The Troika deliberately closed the banks to punish the people
of Greece, and to show them what exiting the euro means. This appears to be their only way of
diverting the crisis with orchestrating a fake "YES" vote to economic suicide. The Troika will
attempt to rig the referendum as they did with the Scottish elections. So expect biased vote
counting in favor of a "YES" vote to stay in the euro. As Stalin said, "Those who vote decide
nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/34268
So, do you think the large banks in the US have any loans still in their vaults or did they sell
them all to the FED when it was buying 85 BILLION per month? I mean, most of the real estate loans
are FHA, so never show up anyway. And the banks received dollar for dollar value on the exchange
of bad and marginal loans and even, why not, good loans?
After
the hell of World War II, the Federal Republic of Germany – commonly known as West Germany – got
massive help with its debt from former foes. Among its creditors then? Greece. The 1953 agreement,
in which Greece and about 20 other countries effectively wrote off a large chunk of Germany's
loans and restructured the rest, is a landmark case that shows how effective debt relief can be.
It helped spark what became known as the German economic miracle.
So it's perhaps ironic that Germany is now among the countries resisting Greece's requests
for debt relief. Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis claims debt relief is the key issue that
held up a deal with creditors last week and says he'd rather cut off his arm than sign a deal
that does not tackle the country's borrowings. The IMF backed the call to make Greece's debt manageable
with a wide-ranging report on Thursday that also blames the Greek government for being slow with
reforms. Despite years of budget cuts, Greece's debt burden is higher than when its bailout began
in 2010 – more than €300 billion, or 180% of annual GDP – because the economy has shrunk by a
quarter.
The social fabric in Greece is likely to unravel completely providing the fascist
New Dawn an even larger opening. Those that want to accept whatever terms the EU/IMF offer to
insure their banks get the emergency funding to stay open and will vote Yes in the referendum
are neck and neck with the No vote group.
Syriza knows that at the end of the day they have a Hobbesian choice. The majority of Greeks
want to be in the Euro. If Syriza want their banks open under the Euro system they have to agree
to whatever the EU offers, otherwise they'll have to go against the wishes of the majority of
Greeks and move to another currency. They have no other choice.
jfl @73, have ADL acknowledged Israel's reassurances from Ukranian NAZI's?
ADL condemns Greeks
for thinking Jews exercise inordinate control over finance and the global economy (implying their
resistance arises out of antisemitism). Israel supports fascists where they commit to "oppose
all [racist] phenomena, especially anti-Semitism, with all legitimate means." If ADL does not
request such commitment from Syriza (which is obviously unnecessary), is that because they don't
want it? Do they not want it because the Greeks are right?
Re somebody @74: Sachs, ever this schmuck-comprador, concludes "No country – including Greece
– should expect to be offered debt relief on a silver platter; relief must be earned and justified
by real reforms that restore growth, to the benefit of both debtor and creditor." Why does he
neglect the issue of odious debt, you may ask:
[SNOWDEN] do you see 'odious debt' as a workable concept?
[SACHS] That's a tough question.
I am sympathetic to the idea but I have taken a
somewhat different view. I of course agree with Michael Kremer that cer-
tain debts need to be forgiven, and his view is that certain debts ought not
to be enforceable at all. There are two aspects that concern me with his
approach. First, even non-odious debt should be forgiven in many circum-
stances. So I don't think that the answer to sub-Saharan Africa's debt prob-
lem depends so much on where the debt came from, as opposed to what
the current implications are of the accumulated debt. Some countries get
themselves into a mess through bad luck or bad governance and in my
view these countries need help. Societies should not be trapped by debt
when it is a life and death issue. Second, I am not sure that we know, or can
define what 'odious' means in a clear-cut, unambiguous way. Tastes vary a
lot about what is or what is not good governance. I worry that rich and pow-
erful countries are likely to manipulate decisions on which debts are to be
defined as odious. I would not want to see the Pentagon deciding whose debts
are odious and whose are not. So the applicability of the concept worries
me. However, there is something particularly troubling about a brutal dic-
tatorship that takes on debt by mortgaging national assets and then the cit-
izens of that country, for decades to come, having to pay for that debt. After
all, in most countries private citizens are not responsible for the repayment
of debt incurred in their name by fraudsters. So I sympathise with the
idea, but have a problem seeing how the idea can be put into operation.
Forgive me, I cannot waste any more time deconstructing that obvious bullshit. SACHS is a legendary
good cop. The "NO" possibility must be bracketed and so his "approval" is unsurprising.
To okie farmer @76; Armstrong is hysterical: e.g. "One must seriously ask, are those in the
Troika just totally brain-dead?" and "there is no hope because those in power are clueless."
Blimey, 'e sounds like a fooking war correspondent. 'E must like war.
:-)) Chomsky should have known better. The information
in the approval is that there is a transatlantic economist establishment party supporting the
"no",
apart from Syriza, Beppe Grillo, Podemos - and British media. Looks like the regime change plot
is a German one.
PM Tsipras said that Euro members will never allow Greece to exit, because it would be too
expensive. But what is, really, the cost of Grexit?
We estimate the minimum direct cost of Grexit at around €239bn or 2.4% of Eurozone GDP.
Is
Greece too big to fail for the Eurozone, as Tsipras argues? No. Grexit costs are manageable
for creditors. Yet, Grexit is twice more expensive than keeping Greece within the Eurozone
(even with debt relief). Making Greek debt sustainable again by restructuring it and bringing
close to 100% of GDP, would cost roughly half that (€140bn, or 1.4% of Eurozone GDP). The real
issue, of course, would be moral hazard for other countries, which may be incentivised to ask
for debt relief as well. This issue may be avoided with a conditional form of debt restructuring...
... ... ... According to the RBS analysis, it makes financial sense for the Troika to help Greece
instead of risk GRexit. Its only that other countries might seek debt relief that prevents them
from doing so (plus their dislike of the Tsipras government).
And, we now know that the IMF
agrees: Greek debt should be restructured.
Tusk refused to get drawn out on what this alternative solution might look like. "If you imagine
too much, you get self-fulfilling prophesies," he said, adding that it was above all necessary
to "avoid this dramatic scenario: the breakup of the eurozone."
He added that the stakes in Greece go well beyond the debt or future of the euro, and are
at heart geopolitical: "Greece and the Balkans are the traditional soft underbelly of Europe,"
and the EU needs to move "very, very cautiously."
Let Greece go bankrupt within the Euro. ECB control capital
flows. Foreign banks to take over bankrupt Greek national banks. Personal hardship to be softened
by humanitarian EU programme.
Mr. Tsipras's unexpected decision to call the referendum was the equivalent
of a frustrated chess player trying to break open a match with a daring last-minute move that
his opponent considered to be against the rules.
We are witnessing a black swan event. The Greek banks have run out of cash. Either the EU
seizes Greece or a failed state in Europe has been born with Ukraine soon to follow. All of the
Greek debts are void and trillions in derivative payments will be due. This is 2008 all over again
with the collapse of the western financial system possible. This is why everyone is so desperate.
Yet, for pennies on the total cost of the default, Greece could be saved. Magnanimity may yet
win out but it would mean the end of the current rule of extinction capitalism in the West.
"...So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons.
And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took
out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place.
"
"...Debt and war are constant partners."
"...And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars
for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis).
It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created
the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England."
omewhere in a Greek jail, the former defence minister, Akis Tsochatzopoulos, watches the financial
crisis unfold. I wonder how partly responsible he feels? In 2013, Akis (as he is popularly known)
went down for 20 years, finally succumbing to the waves of financial scandal to which his name had
long been associated. For alongside the lavish spending, the houses and the dodgy tax returns, there
was bribery, and it was the €8m appreciation he received from the German arms dealer, Ferrostaal,
for the Greek government's purchase of Type 214 submarines, that sent him to prison.
There is this idea that the Greeks got themselves into this current mess because they paid themselves
too much for doing too little. Well, maybe. But it's not the complete picture. For the Greeks also
got themselves into debt for the oldest reason in the book – one might even argue, for the very reason
that public debt itself was first invented – to raise and support an army. The state's need for quick
money to raise an army is how industrial-scale money lending comes into business (in the face of
the church's historic opposition to usury). Indeed, in the west, one might even stretch to say that
large-scale public debt began as a way to finance military intervention in the Middle East – ie the
crusades. And just as rescuing Jerusalem from the Turks was the justification for massive military
spending in the middle ages, so the fear of Turkey has been the reason given for recent Greek spending.
Along with German subs, the Greeks have bought French frigates, US F16s and German Leopard 2 tanks.
In the 1980s, for example, the Greeks spent an average of 6.2% of their GDP on defence compared with
a European average of 2.9%. In the years following their EU entry, the Greeks were the world's fourth-highest
spenders on conventional weaponry.
So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons.
And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans
they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the
first place. Is this an unfair characterisation? A bit. It wasn't just Germany. And there were
many other factors at play in the escalation of Greek debt. But the postwar difference between the
Germans and the Greeks is not the tired stereotype that the former are hardworking and the latter
are lazy, but rather that, among other things, the Germans have, for obvious reasons, been restricted
in their military spending. And they have benefited massively from that.
Debt and war are constant partners. "The global financial crisis was due, at least in part,
to the war," wrote Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, calculating the cost of the US
intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, pre-financial crash, to have been $3tn. Indeed, it was only
this year, back in March, that the UK taxpayer finally paid off the money we borrowed to fight the
first world war. "This is a moment for Britain to be proud of," said George Osborne, as he paid the
final instalment of £1.9bn. Really?
The phrase "military-industrial complex" is one of those cliches of 70s leftwing radicalism, but
it was Dwight D Eisenhower, a five-star general no less, who warned against its creeping power in
his final speech as president. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large
arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even
spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government … we
must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved;
so is the very structure of our society." Ike was right.
Speaking to reporters in Washington on Tuesday, Yiannis Bournous, the head of international
affairs for Greece's ruling Syriza party, heartily endorsed defense cuts as a way to meet
the fiscal targets of Greece's international creditors.
"We already proposed a 200 million euro cut in the defense budget," Bournous said at
an event hosted by the Center for Economic Policy and Research and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation,
referring to cuts in Syriza's most recent proposal to its creditors. "We are willing to
make it even bigger -- it is a pleasure for us."
If the report is correct, ideology is playing just as much of a role as arithmetic in
preventing a resolution. The IMF's refusal to consider a plan that would lessen pension
cuts is consistent with itshistorically neoliberal political philosophy.
Giftedbutlazee 3 Jul 2015 11:52
we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military–industrial complex.
Still as relevant now, 54 years after Eisenhower said it.
BritCol 3 Jul 2015 11:39
And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars
for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis).
It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars,
created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England.
The moral? War makes money for profiteers, and puts those of us not killed or displaced in
debt for generations. Yet we morons keep waving flags every time a prime minister wants to send
us into another conflict.
barry1947brewster 3 Jul 2015 11:39
28 May 2014 The Royal United Services Institute estimated that since the Berlin Wall fell the
UK has spent £35 billion on wars. Now it is suggested that we bomb IS in Syria. Instead of printing
"Paid for by the Taxpayer" on medicines provided by the NHS we should have a daily costing of
our expenditure on bombs etc used in anger.
real tic 3 Jul 2015 11:23
Finally someone at Graun looks at this obvious contradiction present in the Greek governments
opposition to cut in defense spending (when they apparently accept cuts to pensions, healthcare
and other social services)! Well done Giles, but what's wrong with your colleagues in CIF, or
even in the glass bubbled editorial offices? Why has it taken so long to examine this aspect of
Greek debt?
Defense expenditure is also one reason some actors in creditor nations are content to keep
Greece in debt, even as far as to see its debts deepen, as long as it keeps on buying. while within
Greece, nationalism within the military has long been a way of containing far right tendencies.
It is notable but unsurprising that the current Minister of Defense in Greece is a far right
politician, allied to Tsipiras in the Syriza coalition.
Pollik 3 Jul 2015 11:03
"Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners"
"...As U.S.-operated drones rain down Hellfire (missiles) on brown-skinned folks not named Smith,
Jones or Thomas, you have to grasp that this too will change. How long can that technology remain under
the exclusive control and purview of the US military "intelligence"?! Maybe a decade, at most? Then
what shall those military death figures look like? . During the post-Berlin Wall "peace dividend" era, our country has spent infinitely more blood, treasure
and prestige on advancing our ability to kill, destroy and incarcerate lives than we have in saving
and improving lives. IMHO, it is nearly inevitable that this misspent era will come home to roost in
unpredictable ways over the next 20-30 years. We can always pivot and change course, but that may have
little or no bearing on what others will do."
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and
lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I
have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation
into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility
in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
9 Responses to "Global Deaths in Conflict Since the Year 1400"
Saw much of the "Apocalypse WWI" show on The American Heroes Channel recently. 10 million soldiers
killed, 20 million wounded. And then there was the major flu influenza which killed another 30
million in 1918 around the world.
RiverboatGambler: The Thirty Year's War ended in 1648. My guess is that everyone was so disgusted
with the war and its effects that it took a while to work up steam for the next fight. Until fairly
late in the 20th century you'd hear Germans say that something in miserable shape "was just something
the Swedes left." The war was ended when Queen Christina in Sweden decided it had gone on long
enough. She later abdicated and retired to the Vatican, probably concerned for her sole.
World Wars I and II were pretty horrific. The Europeans were pretty damned sick of war by 1945.
The whole EU, political and economic flow from the European revulsion with those two wars.
Dear Riverboat Gambler: You might want to pull out a magnifying glass because the military
deaths are climbing sharply and that's with the latest, greatest (pretty incredible really) medical
advances saving lives that would have been lost just a decade ago. Between that and the apparent
secular nature of these trends seem to fly squarely in the face of your rose-colored perspective.
Care to expound?
Note that the web site that this chart comes from has many other interesting charts Here is
a link to the root of the site: http://ourworldindata.org/
It provides the charts bundled into a set of presentations. Including ones looking at longer term
issues of violet death rates and the like.
Nuclear weapons, the easy way to destroy far away enemies, has been avoided because the various
costs are so very high.
Large scale conventional bombing suffers from inefficiency and bad optics.
Targeted drone assualts make killing foreigners efficient and inexpensive. For example, one
human in the Western world kills one or more specific humans in the not-Western world from across
the globe using radio controlled weapons. No radiation, no flattened obstetricians, increasing
efficiency, and falling cost of technology.
In combination with recent federalization of decision making power, particularly domestic spying
and the non-criminalization of the US government killing its own wayward overseas citizens, I
see a wonderous new era on the horizon.
@nokidding: Your thoughts on the deterrent power associated with nuclear weapons assumes a
fairly rational world populated with fairly rational homo sapien actors. Sounds like science-fiction
to my eyes and ears. I'd welcome you to conduct a 5-10 minute foray using Google or DuckDuckGo
on the topic of nuclear near-misses, accidents, live (untriggered) nuclear warheads falling from
military aircraft, and take your thesis for another spin.
As U.S.-operated drones rain down Hellfire (missiles) on brown-skinned folks not named Smith,
Jones or Thomas, you have to grasp that this too will change. How long can that technology remain
under the exclusive control and purview of the US military "intelligence"?! Maybe a decade, at
most? Then what shall those military death figures look like?
During the post-Berlin Wall "peace dividend" era, our country has spent infinitely more blood,
treasure and prestige on advancing our ability to kill, destroy and incarcerate lives than we
have in saving and improving lives. IMHO, it is nearly inevitable that this misspent era will
come home to roost in unpredictable ways over the next 20-30 years. We can always pivot and change
course, but that may have little or no bearing on what others will do.
By now it should be clear to all that the only reason why Germany has been so steadfast in its
negotiating stance with Greece is because it knows very well that if it concedes to a public debt
reduction (as opposed to haircut on debt held mostly by private entities such as hedge funds which
already happened in 2012), then the rest of the PIIGS will come pouring in: first Italy, then Spain,
then Portugal, then Ireland.
The problem is that while it took Europe some 5 years to transfer a little over €200 billion in
Greek private debt exposure to the public balance sheet (by way of the ECB, EFSF, ESM and countless
other ad hoc acronyms) at a cost of countless summits and endless negotiations, which may or may
not result with the first casualty of the common currency which may prove to be reversible
as soon as next week, nobody in Europe harbors any doubt that the same exercise can be repeated
with Italy, or Spain, or even Portugal. They are just too big (and their nonperforming loans are
in the hundreds of billions).
And yet, today, in a stunning display of the schism within the Troika, it was the IMF itself which
explicitly stated that Greece is no longer viable unless there is both additional funding
provided to the country, which can only happen if there is another massive debt haircut.
Even with concessional financing through 2018, debt would remain very high for decades
and highly vulnerable to shocks. Assuming official (concessional) financing through end–2018,
the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected at about 150 percent in 2020, and close to 140 percent in 2022
(see Figure 4ii). Using the thresholds agreed in November 2012, a haircut that yields
a reduction in debt of over 30 percent of GDP would be required to meet the November 2012 debt
targets. With debt remaining very high, any further deterioration in growth rates or
in the mediumterm primary surplus relative to the revised baseline scenario discussed here would
result in significant increases in debt and gross financing needs (see robustness tests in the
next section below). This points to the high vulnerability of the debt dynamics.
And the kicker:
"these new financing needs render the debt dynamics unsustainable."
Bingo, because that is, in a nutshell, precisely what Tsipras and Varoufakis have been claiming
since day one. As expected, a Greek government spokesman promptly said that the IMF report
is in line with the Greek government's view on debt.
What makes the IMF report even more odd, is not so much its content and position which have been
largely known for quite some time now, but its timing: just three days before the Sunday referendum,
Tsipras now has prima facie evidence to wave in front of the Greek people and say "see,
we were right all along."
It is exactly the case that only a "No" vote at this point would allow
Greece to continue a negotiation which has already seen one of the three Troika members side with
the Greek position. Should Greece vote "Yes", it will make any future negotiation with the Troika
impossible, and while the country will get a few months respite the resultant bank run after the
bank reopen with the ECB's blessing will mean that all Greece will do is buy itself a few months
time. Only this time all the debt will still be due.
And, should hey vote "Yes", this time the Greeks will only have themselves to blame for all the
future pain, pain which will continue
well after the mid-point of this century.
But ignoring Greece for a minute, what the IMF's "debt
sustainability analysis" has just done is open the door for every single other comparably
insolvent peripheral European nation to knock on Christine Lagarde's door and politely ask:
"Mme Lagarde, if Greece is unsustainable, then why aren't we?"
Because as the chart below shows, the debt situations of all the other peripheral European nations
is just as "unsustainable."
In this way, while the outcome of the Greek situation is currently unknown, it has also become
moot, because at this very moment, politicians from Spain's Podemos to Italy's Five Star
movement are drafting memos demanding that the IMF evaluate their own debt sustainability.
Or rather unsustainability.
Perhaps more importantly, these same politicians will now dangle the prospect of an IMF admission
that they, too, deserve a haircut as the catalyst to be elected into power. After all who can refuse
that their life would be made so much better if only the country was permitted to selectively "default"
on €50, €100, €200 billion or more in debt? Just elect this politician, or that, and watch your living
standard soar...
And since the IMF has no choice but to agree that just like Greece all these nations are accordingly
drowning in debt, Syriza's sacrifice (assuming Tsipras fails to outnegotiate Merkel) will not have
been in vain. In fact, it may very well end up that today the IMF opened up the Pandora's box, one
which, more than a Grexit, will destroy Merkel's "united Europe" legacy.
Looks like US is using IMF to mess around a bit with German (and russian) ambitions.
i_call_you_my_base
Was thinking the same. The US is trying to foul things up for Europe here.
Pool Shark
Just like the 'Dread Pirate Roberts,' Central Banksters must leave no survivors. Otherwise
word gets out that they've gone soft, and then it's nothing but 'work, work, work...'
disabledvet
Smith and Wesson sure looks good here.
"You can keep the Ouzo." And the "Ginsu 2" apparently.
The IMF is just a repository for US dollar funding. If the entire Continent of Europe cannot
cough up a single US dollar to pay for "Greece" then that is the ECB's problem...not the IMF's
problem.
Those dollar sure look pretty expensive right now...on that I would agree.
Tall Tom
Can I draft a memo to the IMF requesting if the United States can pay its debts?
Do you think that I'd be taken seriously?
Our arrears are worse than Greece's ever were. The Debt is unpayable.
This is laughable.
weburke
I predict 3 countries out of the eu, and the greek guy gets big billing with the pope talking
us into the nwo.
greenskeeper carl's picture
Hahaha I fucking called this shit this morning as soon as I saw that first article. We don't
need no water let the motherfucker burn... The house of cards is getting flimsy.
One of these is...
+1 for the firewater burn reference.
boogerbently
Contagion from NOT throwing Greece under the bus. The rest want THEIR "write downs" now.
Haus-Targaryen
Interesting.
This pits the IMF against Rainbowland. Their actions here imply they want the system to blow
up (free shit for Greece (which is affordable) also means free shit for Italy and Spain (which
isn't affordable)) however, Greece is now in formal default, and ClG could write her letter and
deliver it tomorrow, blowing up Greece beyond recognition tomorrow.
The EU is pretty steadfast in what they desire -- Greece to bend over and keep the system going.
Greece is pretty obviously willing to play kamikaze economics.
What I don't get is the IMF. Some of their actions imply they want the system to explode, while
their other actions imply they don't. Given Greece and the EU kinda off-set each other right now
-- the player at this point to watch is the IMF. ECB can wreck havoc with their collateral requirements,
but apart from that this pig is stuffed until 6 PM CST on Sunday.
Crtrvlt
1) the IMF (US) realizes Greece can't fail for strategic geographic reasons
2) they are trying to save face for Merkel
Bankster Kibble
1) the IMF (US) realizes Greece can't fail for strategic geographic reasons
1.1) Greece must stay inside the EU because it is easier to block Russian gas lines that way,
and the EU is too divided to decide how to pay for a gas line through Greece by itself
disabledvet
Greek "euro-debt" WAS paying 18% just last week.
"Ruble MONEY" pays about 14%...give or take.
Brazilian REALES look like the best deal on actual MONEY right now would appear...there just
aren't many of those either though.
two hoots
This debt juggernaut is the planet's most serious threat. World leaders must get a grip on
all lending institutions that can place irresponsible/shortsighted/corrupt countries in Greece
situations.
We know the cause, symptoms and prognosis but fail to find a cure other than continuous talk,
talk and more talk and more debt and we even know why we do this.
The US, G7, G20, UN someone, somewhere must take lead and cure the world of this bankers disease.
The bankers caused it; keep them away from the patient.
I totally get the naivity of my comment, but this fixing it with what caused it is ...well.
James_Cole
Greece is now in formal default. Are they though? What I don't get is the IMF. Some of their
actions imply they want the system to explode, while their other actions imply they don't.
Considering Germany and France have competing interests to the US this would make sense.
All I know is watching this has been a lot more interesting than last seasons game of thrones.
i_call_you_my_base
I agree with you again. I'll throw this out there: if the US rattles Europe here, and then
even pushes China's markets over, the US would have effectively kneecapped every major economy
(inc Russia), all of northern Africa, and the ME in a decade and a half.
Captain Debtcrash
But nothing on Japan. It's amazing how they can look at one, Greece and say it is unsustainable,
but just because Japan, who is in much worse shape, can print money they don't see a problem.
A solvency crisis can not be solved with money printing, and most developed nations are insolvent.
When the collective world realizes a printing press makes no difference there will be fireworks,
and that realization will happen in the blink of an eye.
itstippy
Japan does not owe the Troika any money. Japan is not part of the European Union. Madames LeGarde
and Merkel don't give a shit about Japan. I agree Japan is hopelessly insolvent, and the fact
that JGBs (denominated in Yen) are seen as a "safe haven" in times of global turmoil is insane.
Someday soon they are going to melt down into a pool of toxic crap.
F0ster
Exactly, if you "fuck the EU" and make them so poor they buy less energy products, you inadvertently
kill one of Russia's preferred revenue streams. So the US is using the IMF to fuck the EU in its
war with Russia.
falak pema
Hahaha, the "jack in the box flavour of truth"... the IMF now caught in its own cross hairs.
DSK made that statement a few days ago that the chief economist of the IMF has now set in stone
like a potential time bomb.
And Lady LAgarde, the scheming Milady of Status Quo, (she said no debt restructuring UNTIL
they implement full austerity in Greece and kill all those pensioners), is now made to look like
what she truly is : A creature of Pax Americana power cabal. The woman who said to Sarkozy; another
Neo-con fellow traveller; fais ce que tu voudrais de moi Nicolas...back in 2007 when he got elected
to President. And he did!
Now the IMF has turned the tables; probably to follow suit in echoing the declarations of its
ex and humbled CEO; DSK. Is this the work of Olivier Blanchard who leaves the IMF or is it the
work of his successor? In any case this is a psychological time bomb as the IMF mask comes off!
Rainman
Pretty clever ...this is where Lew gets a demand for a declaration of unlimited credit to the
IMF; then the cycle of destruction moves to the next phase.
overqualified
Meet the new Mutually Assured Destruction
N57Mike
"Pandora was a woman who lived with her husband in a paradise and was given a beautiful box
for safekeeping with the caution that she ought not to ever, ever open it. For a time she remembered
and kept her promise to not open the box but eventually succumbed to the temptation and decided
to have a peek. The lid flew open as soon as she raised it and a swarm of imprisoned evils flew
up and out into the world inflicting pain, greed, envy and manner of suffering on all they found.
Pandora and her husband Epimetheus were also the victims of all these ills, knew they were
responsible for the suffering and were grieving their part in it while sitting near the box. In
the midst of their lamenting, they heard a small voice crying out from the box, "Open, open, and
I will heal your wounds! Please let me out!" and while at first they were afraid to open it and
possibly release even more troubles, they eventually decided to see who the plaintive voice came
from.
They fearfully opened the box and found a small bright-winged beautiful creature. It was well
for Pandora that she opened the box a second thim, for the gods, with a sudden impulse of compassion,
had concealed among the evil spirits one kindly creature, Hope, whose mission was to heal the
wounds inflicted by her fellow prisoners"
Can't someone just print a $1 trillion Euro bill and hand it to the Greek government to pay
everything off and start anew.
NotApplicable
I think you mean SDR.
Long story short, the choices left are but two. Endure the pain of a global collapse, or enslave
the planet with all of this unpayable debt rolled up into the next global monetary system.
With a few wars along the way to grease the skids.
Cyring "Uncle!" yet?
Lea
The IMF is backtracking because the new Chinese-led bank has opened. It is not the only option
anymore.
The Chinese could step in any minute, and that would mean the end for the IMF's plundering
tactics - worldwide. So, letting go of some of its demented demands on Greece is only cautious.
"Germany is king when it comes to debt. Calculated based on the amount of losses compared to
economic performance, Germany was the biggest debt transgressor of the 20th century."
How many haircuts?
"That depends on how you do the math. During the past century alone, though, at least three
times. After the first default during the 1930s, the US gave Germany a "haircut" in 1953, reducing
its debt problem to practically nothing. Germany has been in a very good position ever since,
even as other Europeans were forced to endure the burdens of World War II and the consequences
of the German occupation. Germany even had a period of non-payment in 1990."
More:
Ritschl: That's what it looks like, but we were also extremely reckless --
and our export industry has thrived on orders. The anti-Greek sentiment that is
widespread in many German media outlets is highly dangerous. And we are sitting in a glass
house: Germany's resurgence has only been possible through waiving extensive debt payments and
stopping reparations to its World War II victims.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You're saying that Germany should back down?
Ritschl: In the 20th century, Germany started two world wars, the second of
which was conducted as a war of annihilation and extermination, and subsequently its enemies waived
its reparations payments completely or to a considerable extent. No one in Greece has forgotten
that Germany owes its economic prosperity to the grace of other nations.
tom a taxpayer
The Greek referendum is a revolutionary action. It will spread like wildfire across Europe
and around the world whereever debt slaves yearn to be free. Over the coming days and weeks it
will drag the IMF, ECB and other world-class bankstas to their days of reckoning.
Hopefully, the Greek government will follow the referendum with the arrest and trial of Goldman
Sachs and other international bankstas. Justice cries out for a mass trial in the style of the
Maxiprocesso (Maxi Trials) of the Mafia in Sicily during the 1980s that resulted in hundreds of
defendants convicted.
Wouldn't it just be easier to drone all the Rothschilds and their central banks out of existence,
could be done in 24 hours.
Never_Put_Down
Hardly, they own the drones and the drone operators.
Jack Burton
I don't claim any great knowledge of high finance, though I have some basic understanding,
but, many here on ZH and ZH in general has been miles ahead of all the Media Mouthpieces, all
the IMF spokesmen, all the finance ministers of Europe combined.
" "these new financing needs render the debt dynamics unsustainable."
Who in the fuck did not know 3 years ago that the above was true?
And, Greece is the little boy with his finger in the dike. If the default hole begins to leak,
the supporting structures will be eaten away very fast, and the leak will become a flood. Allowing
haircuts and reducing austerity in one place will call forth the floods of demands for similar
treatment.
An Estonian finance minster summed it up. "We have not had years of austerity, cuts in
wages, health, retirements, education for years, ONLY in order for Greece to keep their benefits!
Play this same thought pattern out across the big problem children SPAIN, ITALY and IRELAND. Spain
for example is totally too big to be bailed out, and is too big to fail, Should IT fail, the EU
project melts away.
Over in Russia, a nation with NATO massing on it's borders, claiming to be defending against
a Russian invasion threat. A Russia under strict sanctions in finance, banking, energy and import
export trade. Russia is doing just what they should do. Take all the threats, the lies, the propaganda
and accusations from the West, stay mostly silent, stay behind their protected borders and wait.
As the EU mounts attack after attack, threat after threat, sanction after sanction, for no good
reaon other than Washington wants it, Russia is waiting. They may look to be outnumbered and out
gunned by the military and financial powers under Washington's direct control. But holding the
line and waiting is their best bet. They have surpluses of well over 300 billion, minimal debts,
a fast modernizing military, tens of billions in new gold holdings added to the already large
supply. They have energy independence totally. Sanctions have allowed Russian domestic agriculture
and manufacturing to instantly be competitive again, with imports being shut down.
The EU and Washington are right now at the very peak of their power to bully and threaten.
They look invincible! But a tiny nation like Greece, shows just how rotten the foundations are.
Washington, the giant power that also seems totally invincible, is really more rotten than Greece,
if you look at the scale of debts and obligations. To top it all off, Washington has declared
open war on China, the world's largest economy, and richest nation in terms of Real Money. \
The rot has set in, how fast it spreads is not something I can know, but I do know it will
spread!
To understand today's crises in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, one must grasp their
shared Lebanese connection. This assertion may seem odd. After all, what is the big deal about Lebanon?
That little country hasn't had top headlines since Israel deigned to bomb and invade it in 2006.
Yet, to a large extent, the roots of the bloody tangle now enmeshing the Middle East lie in Lebanon:
or to be more precise, in the Lebanon policy of Israel.
Rewind to the era before the War on Terror. In 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's "dovish" Prime Minister,
was assassinated by a right-wing zealot. This precipitated an early election in which Rabin's Labor
Party was defeated by the ultra-hawkish Likud, lifting hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu to his first
Premiership in 1996.
That year, an elite study group produced a policy document for the incipient administration titled,
"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." The membership of the Clean Break study group
is highly significant, as it included American neoconservatives who would later hold high offices
in the Bush Administration and play driving roles in its Middle East policy.
"A Clean Break" advised that the new Likud administration adopt a "shake it off" attitude toward
the policy of the old Labor administration which, as the authors claimed, assumed national "exhaustion"
and allowed national "retreat." This was the "clean break" from the past that "A Clean Break" envisioned.
Regarding Israel's international policy, this meant:
"…a clean break from the slogan, 'comprehensive peace' to a traditional concept of strategy
based on balance of power."
Pursuit of comprehensive peace with all of Israel's neighbors was to be abandoned
for selective peace with some neighbors (namely Jordan and Turkey) and implacable
antagonism toward others (namely Iraq, Syria, and Iran). The weight of its strategic allies would
tip the balance of power in favor of Israel, which could then use that leverage to topple the regimes
of its strategic adversaries by using covertly managed "proxy forces" and "the principle of preemption."
Through such a "redrawing of the map of the Middle East," Israel will "shape the regional environment,"
and thus, "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them."
"A Clean Break" was to Israel (and ultimately to the US) what Otto von Bismarck's "Blood and Iron"
speech was to Germany. As he set the German Empire on a warpath that would ultimately set Europe
ablaze, Bismarck said:
"Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided?-?that
was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849?-?but by iron and blood."
Before setting Israel and the US on a warpath that would ultimately set the Middle East ablaze,
the Clean Break authors were basically saying: Not through peace accords will the great questions
of the day be decided?-?that was the great mistake of 1978 (at Camp David) and 1993 (at Oslo)?-?but
by "divide and conquer" and regime change. By wars both aggressive ("preemptive") and "dirty" (covert
and proxy).
"A Clean Break" slated Saddam Hussein's Iraq as first up for regime change.This is highly significant, especially since several members of the Clean Break study group played
decisive roles in steering and deceiving the United States into invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam
seven years later.
The Clean Break study group's leader, Richard Perle, led the call for Iraqi regime change beginning
in the 90s from his perch at the Project for a New American Century and other neocon think tanks.
And while serving as chairman of a high level Pentagon advisory committee, Perle helped coordinate
the neoconservative takeover of foreign policy in the Bush administration and the final push
for war in Iraq.
Another Clean Breaker, Douglas Feith, was a Perle protege and a key player in that neocon coup.
After 9/11, as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Feith created two secret Pentagon offices tasked
with cherry-picking, distorting, and repackaging CIA and Pentagon intelligence to help make the case
for war.
Feith's "Office of Special Plans" manipulated intelligence to promote the falsehood that Saddam
had a secret weapons of mass destruction program that posed an imminent chemical, biological, and
even nuclear threat. This lie was the main justification used by the Bush administration for the
Iraq War.
Feith's "Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group" trawled through the CIA's intelligence trash to stitch
together far-fetched conspiracy theories linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq with Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda, among other bizarre pairings. Perle put the Group into contact with Ahmed Chalabi, a dodgy
anti-Saddam Iraqi exile who would spin even more yarn of this sort.
Much of the Group's grunt work was performed by David Wurmser, another Perle protege and the primary
author of "A Clean Break." Wurmser would go on to serve as an advisor to two key Iraq War proponents
in the Bush administration: John Bolton at the State Department and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The foregone conclusions generated by these Clean Breaker-led projects faced angry but ineffectual
resistance from the Intelligence Community, and are now widely considered scandalously discredited.
But they succeeded in helping, perhaps decisively, to overcome both bureaucratic and public resistance
to the march to war.
The Iraq War that followed put the Clean Break into action by grafting it onto America.
The War accomplished the Clean Break objective of regime change in Iraq, thus beginning the "redrawing
of the map of the Middle East." And the attendant "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war accomplished
the Clean Break objective of "reestablishing the principle of preemption"
But why did the Netanyahu/Bush Clean Breakers want to regime change Iraq in the first place? While
reference is often made to "A Clean Break" as a prologue to the Iraq War, it is often forgotten that
the document proposed regime change in Iraq primarily as a "means" of "weakening, containing, and
even rolling back Syria." Overthrowing Saddam in Iraq was merely a stepping stone to "foiling" and
ultimately overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in neighboring Syria. As Pat Buchanan put it:
"In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel's enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus
runs through Baghdad."
Exactly how this was to work is baffling. As the document admitted, although both were Baathist
regimes, Assad and Saddam were far more enemies than allies. "A Clean Break" floated a convoluted
pipe dream involving a restored Hashemite monarchy in Iraq (the same US-backed, pro-Israel dynasty
that rules Jordan) using its sway over an Iraqi cleric to turn his co-religionists in Syria against
Assad. Instead, the neocons ended up settling for a different pipe(line) dream,
sold to them
by that con-man Chalabi, involving a pro-Israel, Chalabi-dominated Iraq building a pipeline
from Mosul to Haifa. One only wonders why he didn't sweeten the deal by including the Brooklyn Bridge
in the sale.
As incoherent as it may have been, getting at Syria through Iraq is what the neocons wanted. And
this is also highly significant for us today, because the US has now fully embraced the objective
of regime change in Syria, even with Barack Obama inhabiting the White House instead of George W.
Bush.
Washington is pursuing that objective by partnering with Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf States in
supporting the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria's bloody civil war, and thereby majorly abetting the
bin Ladenites (Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS) leading that insurgency. Obama has virtually become an honorary
Clean Breaker by pursuing a Clean Break objective ("rolling back Syria") using Clean Break strategy
("balance of power" alliances with select Muslim states) and Clean Break tactics (a covert and proxy
"dirty war"). Of course the neocons are the loudest voices calling for the continuance and escalation
of this policy. And Israel is even directly involving itself by providing medical assistance to Syrian
insurgents, including Al Qaeda fighters.
Another target identified by "A Clean Break" was Iran. This is highly
significant, since while the neocons were still riding high in the Bush administration's saddle,
they came within an inch of launching a US war on Iran over yet another manufactured and phony WMD
crisis. While the Obama administration seems on the verge of finalizing a nuclear/peace deal with
the Iranian government in Tehran, the neocons and Netanyahu himself (now Prime Minister once again)
have pulled out all the stops to scupper it and put the US and Iran back on a collision course.
The neocons are also championing ongoing American support for Saudi Arabia's brutal war in Yemen
to restore that country's US-backed former dictator. Simply because the "Houthi" rebels that overthrew
him and took the capital city of Sanaa are Shiites, they are assumed to be a proxy of the Shiite
Iranians, and so this is seen by neocons and Saudi theocons alike as a war against Iranian expansion.
Baghdad is a pit stop on the road to Damascus, and Sanaa is a pit stop on the road to Tehran.
But, according to the Clean Breakers, Damascus and Tehran are themselves merely pit stops on the
road to Beirut.
According to "A Clean Break," Israel's main beef with Assad is that:
"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil."
And its great grief with the Ayatollah is that Iran, like Syria, is one of the:
"…principal agents of aggression in Lebanon…"
All regime change roads lead to Lebanon, it would seem. So this brings us back to our
original question. What is the big deal about Lebanon?
The answer to this question goes back to Israel's very beginnings. Its Zionist founding fathers
established the bulk of Israel's territory by dispossessing and ethnically cleansing three-quarters
of a million Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Hundreds of thousands of these were driven (sometimes literally
in trucks, sometimes force marched with gunshots fired over their heads) into Lebanon, where they
were gathered in miserable refugee camps.
In Lebanon the Palestinians who had fled suffered an apartheid state almost as rigid as the one
Israel imposed on those who stayed behind, because the dominant Maronite Christians there were so
protective of their political and economic privileges in Lebanon's
confessional system.
In a 1967 war of aggression, Israel conquered the rest of formerly-British Palestine, annexing
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and placing the Palestinians there (many of whom fled there seeking
refuge after their homes were taken by the Israelis in 1948) under a brutal, permanent military occupation
characterized by continuing dispossession and punctuated by paroxysms of mass murder.
This compounding of their tragedy drove the Palestinians to despair and radicalization, and they
subsequently lifted Yasser Arafat and his fedayeen (guerrilla) movement to the leadership
of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then headquartered in Jordan.
When the king of Jordan massacred and drove out the PLO, Arafat and the remaining members relocated
to Lebanon. There they waged cross-border guerrilla warfare to try to drive Israel out of the occupied
territories. The PLO drew heavily from the refugee camps in Lebanon for recruits.
This drew Israel deeply into Lebanese affairs. In 1976, Israel started militarily supporting the
Maronite Christians, helping to fuel a sectarian civil war that had recently begun and would rage
until 1990. That same year, Syrian forces entered Lebanon, partook in the war, and began a military
occupation of the country.
In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to drive the PLO back and to recruit a proxy army called the "South
Lebanon Army" (SLA).
In 1982 Israel launched a full scale war in Lebanon, fighting both Syria and the PLO. Osama bin
Laden later claimed that it was seeing the wreckage of tall buildings in Beirut toppled by Israel's
"total war" tactics that inspired him to destroy American buildings like the Twin Towers.
In this war, Israel tried to install a group of Christian Fascists called the Phalange in power
over Lebanon. This failed when the new Phalangist ruler was assassinated. As a reprisal, the Phalange
perpetrated, with Israeli connivance, the massacre of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Palestinian
refugees and Lebanese Shiites. (See Murray Rothbard's
moving
contemporary coverage of the atrocity.)
Israel's 1982 war succeeded in driving the PLO out of Lebanon, although not in destroying it.
And of course hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees still linger in Lebanon's camps, yearning
for their right of return: a fact that cannot have escaped Israel's notice.
The Lebanese Shiites were either ambivalent or welcoming toward being rid of the PLO. But Israel
rapidly squandered whatever patience the Shiites had for it by brutally occupying southern Lebanon
for years. This led to the creation of Hezbollah, a Shiite militia not particularly concerned with
the plight of the Sunni Palestinian refugees, but staunchly dedicated to driving Israel and its proxies
(the SLA) completely out of Lebanon.
Aided by Syria and Iran, though not nearly to the extent Israel would have us believe, Hezbollah
became the chief defensive force directly frustrating Israel's efforts to dominate and exploit its
northern neighbor. In 1993 and again in 1996 (the year of "A Clean Break"), Israel launched still
more major military operations in Lebanon, chiefly against Hezbollah, but also bombing Lebanon's
general population and infrastructure, trying to use terrorism to motivate the people and the central
government to crack down on Hezbollah.
This is the context of "A Clean Break": Israel's obsession with crushing Hezbollah and dominating
Lebanon, even if it means turning most of the Middle East upside down (regime changing Syria, Iran,
and Iraq) to do it.
9/11 paved the way for realizing the Clean Break, using the United States as a gigantic
proxy, thanks to the Israel Lobby's massive influence in Congress and the neocons' newly won dominance
in the Bush Administration.
Much to their chagrin, however, its first phase (the Iraq War) did not turn out so well for the
Clean Breakers. The blundering American grunts ended up installing the most vehemently pro-Iran Shiite
faction in power in Baghdad, and now Iranian troops are even stationed and fighting inside Iraq.
Oops. And as it turns out, Chalabi may have been an Iranian agent all along. (But don't worry, Mr.
Perle, I'm sure he'll eventually come through with that pipeline.)
This disastrous outcome has given both Israel and Saudi Arabia nightmares about an emerging "Shia
Crescent" arcing from Iran through Iraq into Syria. And now the new Shiite "star" in Yemen completes
this menacing "Star and Crescent" picture. The fears of the Sunni Saudis are partially based on sectarianism.
But what Israel sees in this picture is a huge potential regional support network for its nemesis
Hezbollah.
Israel would have none of it. In 2006, it launched its second full scale war in Lebanon, only
to be driven back once again by that damned Hezbollah. It was time to start thinking big and regional
again. As mentioned above, the Bush war on Iran didn't pan out. (This was largely because the CIA
got its revenge on the neocons by releasing a report stating plainly that Iran was not anything close
to a nuclear threat.) So instead the neocons and the Saudis drew the US into what Seymour Hersh called
"the Redirection" in 2007, which involved clandestine "dirty war" support for Sunni jihadists to
counter Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
When the 2011 Arab Spring wave of popular uprisings spread to Syria, the Redirection was put into
overdrive. The subsequent US-led dirty war discussed above had the added bonus of drawing Hezbollah
into the bloody quagmire to try to save Assad, whose regime now finally seems on the verge of collapse.
The Clean Break is back, baby! Assad is going, Saddam is gone, and who knows: the Ayatollah
may never get his nuclear deal anyway. But most importantly for "securing the realm," Hezbollah is
on the ropes.
And so what if the Clean Break was rather messy and broke so many bodies and buildings along the
way? Maybe it's like what Lenin said about omelets and eggs: you just can't make a Clean Break without
breaking a few million Arabs and a few thousand Americans. And what about all those fanatics now
running rampant throughout large swaths of the world thanks to the Clean Break wars, mass-executing
Muslim "apostates" and Christian "infidels" and carrying out terrorist attacks on westerners? Again,
the Clean Breakers must remind themselves, keep your eye on the omelet and forget the eggs.
Well, dear reader, you and I are the eggs. And if we don't want to see our world
broken any further by the imperial clique of murderers in Washington for the sake of the petty regional
ambitions of a tiny clique of murderers in Tel Aviv, we must insist on American politics making a
clean break from the neocons, and US foreign policy making a clean break from Israel.
The results of the "standard run" (or "base case") scenario of "The Limits to Growth" 1972 study.
Could it be that the ongoing Greek collapse is a symptom of the more general collapse that the model
generates for the first two decades of the 21st century?
So, we have arrived to an interesting point, to be intended in the Chinese sense of a curse. It is
the point where the people of Greece are being asked to choose between starvation and slavery and
this is supposed to be a triumph of democracy
As the tragedy unfolds, people take sides, aiming their impotent rage at this or that target; the
Euro, the bureaucrats of Brussels, the Greek government, Mr. Tsipras, some international conspiracy,
and even Mr. Putin, the usual bugaboo of everything.
But, could it be that all the financial circus that we are seeing dancing in and around Greece is
just the effect of much deeper causes? The effect of something that gnaws at the very foundations
not only of Greece, but of the whole Western World?
Let's take a step back, and take a look at the 1972 study titled "The Limits to Growth" (LTG). Look
at the "base case" scenario, the one which used as input the data that seemed to be the most reliable
at the time. Here it is, in the 2004 version of the study, with updated data in input.
I can only imagine the intensity of "consultations" between Washington and Berlin now... . "...The present circumstances in Greece were inherited by the current government from the previous
right-wing government, which managed to bring them out by faithfully following the austerity prescriptions
of the Troika. However both left and right-wing governments of the past, who created and hid the enormous
debt, are also to blame." . "...The documents show that the IMF's baseline estimate – the most likely outcome – is that
Greece's debt would still be 118% of GDP in 2030, even if it signs up to the package of tax and spending
reforms demanded. " . "...This is nothing more than a large-scale payday loan scam. Greece will never get past the
loan sharks and will constantly have to borrow just to pay off the interest. I'd rather default and
eat beans for a year while starting fresh than eat beans for 20 years paying off old debt. You can call
them lazy, you can call them thieves but - if they play their cards right - you can also call them "debt
free"." . "...The public debt of Greece existed BEFORE the recent election. The cruel conditions inflicted
upon Greece by its "partners" existed BEFORE the recent election. The crisis existed BEFORE the recent
election." . "...Lending more billions to Greece so they can repay the interest on previous billions loand and
those new loans repayed by cuts to pensions and more privatisation of public assets...blatant transference
of cash from those who can't afford it to those who don't need it. Hopefully the Greek people
give a resounding middle finger to the EU/IMF. And if I hear another muppet crack on about 'the Greeks
ought to pay their taxes' I'll bloody lose my temper. D some reading for gawds sake. It really isn't
that hard." . "...I would have thought that a "senior german conservative politician" telling the Times that
whatever happens Tsipras must be forced from office is an historic blow to the EU. Now, at least, people
know what it is and who it is for." . "...If they actually wanted payment, they'd be reasonable. But payment isn't their priority, these
organisations want power over Greece."
The Greek banks and former conservative governments, you mean.
You and plenty of other brainwashed idiots around here seem to think that individual, working
class Greeks had something to do with this. Of course, as always, the banks and politicians who
actually caused this got off scott free, with taxpayer money, to cause the next big financial
crisis.
HaroldP -> Nottodaymate 30 Jun 2015 21:29
Banksters, what did you expect, honesty, morality, humanity, financial expertise? Bailouts
from citizens, that's what you expected? The poor darlings can't even run a bank when they can
print money. Incompetant scum. Regards, Harry.
Jazzfunk23 -> workingclass2 30 Jun 2015 21:28
In recent years most of this mess was presided over by liberal conservatives...
Germania offers a regime of permanent debt servitude to pay for its failed banks:
The documents, drawn up by the so-called troika of lenders, support Greece's argument that
it needs substantial debt relief for a lasting economic recovery.
The documents show that the IMF's baseline estimate – the most likely outcome – is that
Greece's debt would still be 118% of GDP in 2030, even if it signs up to the package of tax
and spending reforms demanded.
clematlee Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 21:25
What you have in the USA is TENS of millions of people who don't have any US dollars while
in Manhattan flats sell for millions.
AlamoSexual 30 Jun 2015 21:20
This is nothing more than a large-scale payday loan scam. Greece will never get past the
loan sharks and will constantly have to borrow just to pay off the interest. I'd rather default
and eat beans for a year while starting fresh than eat beans for 20 years paying off old debt.
You can call them lazy, you can call them thieves but - if they play their cards right - you can
also call them "debt free".
UnevenSurface Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 21:12
Greece will still be here. There will of course be enormous poverty (in various forms) in the
short term - but even the FT says that the GDP will bounce up 6% quite quickly. After that, they'll
be the cheapest holiday destination in Europe, exporting the cheapest wine and olive oil. The
GDP could expand by 25%, up to pre-austerity levels. Excluding macro economic factors out of our
control, I would be truly surprised if they aren't better off - overall - within five years.
HaroldP -> owl905 30 Jun 2015 21:12
The public debt of Greece existed BEFORE the recent election. The cruel conditions inflicted
upon Greece by its "partners" existed BEFORE the recent election. The crisis existed BEFORE the
recent election. Obviously Tsipras did not "wreck his country." His fellow citizens elected
his party to fix an existing crisis. He won the election with a proposal of how to do that. He
has deviated only slightly from his promises. I find him to be a "hero" in that he could teach
the political class of Europe the importance of keeping the agreement between the state and the
citizens. It is heroic indeed to be the honest politician of Europe. He has my respect. Regards,
Harry.
Paul Collins 30 Jun 2015 21:12
Lending more billions to Greece so they can repay the interest on previous billions loand
and those new loans repayed by cuts to pensions and more privatisation of public assets...blatant
transference of cash from those who can't afford it to those who don't need it. Hopefully
the Greek people give a resounding middle finger to the EU/IMF.
And if I hear another muppet crack on about 'the Greeks ought to pay their taxes' I'll bloody
lose my temper. D some reading for gawds sake. It really isn't that hard.
malenkylitso -> owl905 30 Jun 2015 21:08
Greece was forced into a corner, then took a bailout which less than 10% went to the Greeks. The
rest went to the banks.
Sounds like a protection racket.
SystemD 30 Jun 2015 21:07
This is not just about Greece; the impact of a Greek default go much wider. The IMF (and the
Troika) has to be seen to be taking a hard line. If they don't, then their credibility with the
rest of the world diminishes, particularly in Africa. The Germans are worried about the Euro as
a currency; the Deutchmark was given up on the promise of stability, and the 1920's are still
- just - within living memory. There is a lot of fear behind their stance. Stock markets generally
are worried about the instability the situation is causing. They don't want Greece crushed - they
just want a stable situation with predictable outcomes. Volatility is not in their interest. And
Greece needs money and help to try to cure the cancer of corruption in its economy.
Greece cannot pay back its debt. Unless the creditors agree to a very long term of repayment (at
least 50 years) at reasonable rates, the only real options are for Greece to leave the Euro zone
and go back to the drachma, or the debt must be written off, with the proviso that there will
be no new loans, and Greece will have to rebuild and finance its economy from its own resources.
Stanley Wallings 30 Jun 2015 21:06
I feel sorry for the Greek people - they've had 5 hard years and for nothing. Grexit will be
horrible for those who have to stay in Greece. The 'haves' have already moved their money and
can just hop on a flight out. I hope Tsipras isn't driving the bus over a cliff for no reason
other than to piss off the Troika. I hope he has a plan C
medicynic RobWilson73 30 Jun 2015 21:06
What a great idea! Let's get rid of pensions worldwide, then no one has any cause for complaint.
I'm pleased to see that you are one of those who, when pensions in the UK increase say: "No thanks.
I don't need it and don't deserve it. It only makes me fat anyway".
In my experience in British industry, workforces are rife with 'tax-dodging, CSA dodging, mendacious,
lazy wankers', a lot of who deserve a cut in wages never mind a pension.
Monkeybus 30 Jun 2015 21:06
SQUEEZE THE GREEKS, WRING THEM OUT, RINSE THEM. Other xenophobic pronouncements are available.
SHIFTLESS, LAZY, FECKLESS. Can't they print their own money like more advanced nations?
We are all in this together, err, hang on.
Imagine if Gordon Brown had taken us into the Euro after all?
clematlee FakeyWilson 30 Jun 2015 21:06
and the west arms heart eating loonies in North Africa and invades and kills millions of people
in the process, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, Korea, Panama, Syria and the list goes on. Watch
the EX USA secetary of state on youtube saying the starvation of 500,000 children was a price
worth paying, by the west imposed on Iraq. It was starvation to death. Her name was Madalin Allbrite.
Don't worry about losing some so called freedoms to stop Allbite and her ilk.
Tappert Heintz 30 Jun 2015 21:03
"Greek failure to make IMF payment deals historic blow to eurozone"
Sounds like the Daily Mail. Nonsense.
owl905 Iheartbill 30 Jun 2015 21:02
They're not barred from international trade, but it's really scewed to cash and barter. There
simply isn't the mechanism to manage the exchange rates. No one outside the country will want
rapidly devaluating and 'only-good-in-Greece' drachmas. Greeks don't realize what's coming after
15 years of Euro stability.
One big surprise from them is that pipeline deal with Russia. That needs a lot of capital -
Russia is walking into even more problems if it starts forwarding debt financing to Greece to
get the pipeline built.
The tourist industry won't be hit by it (except for foreign import items that are part of the
industry) - it will be hit by the drachma, that has the profit from the industry shrink to nothing.
Danny Sheahan Justitiadroit 30 Jun 2015 21:01
Look at the Eurozone growth rates for the last 5 years, its a basket case.
The Greeks have messed up over the years but the Euroland is no case study in growth.
rberger ArundelXVI 30 Jun 2015 21:00
Actually there is very little debt servicing involved. The 29 billion actually includes debt
repayments (principal, not interest). Greece is not paying any interest for most of its bailout
money until after 2020, but of course needs to pay interest on the bonds that it has issued itself.
ScanDiscNow Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 21:00
Pre Euro Greek total production increased by some 600% between 1960 and 2001 while German total
production increased by a mere 255%. However, throw in the Euro and the subsequent 15 years has
German total production up 20% while Greece total production is down 26%
ZeroHedge.
Anthony Apergis owl905 30 Jun 2015 20:57
And herein lies the issue my friend! The strictly monetary considerations that underpin your
rationale betray the disintegration of what started in Rome as a visionary peace project for the
peoples of Europe to an economic, neoliberal construct whose only concern is %s and profits. Surely,
you must be able to see this. I would strongly advise you to read the preamble to the Treaty of
Rome (1957).
MonsieurBoombastic FilthyRichBanker 30 Jun 2015 20:54
The capital controls in Greece apply to cash withdrawals and overseas transfers so this won't
affect things like internet banking where cash is transferred within the system. The things you
mention are probably still going on in most cases.
moderatextremist 30 Jun 2015 20:51
When Greece joined the EU, the corrupt government went on a spending spree of EU money, and
used Goldman Sachs to cover it up. It is those politicians and Goldman Sachs, the vampire squid
on the face of the world, that should be put on trial. I fear this development will be hurtful
to an awful lot of good people, while the arseholes that created the mess will get away with it......
yet again.
sefertzi7 30 Jun 2015 20:48
The worst possible outcome. Now the crooks who caused the debt mountain in the first place
(Papandreou x2, Simitis, Karamanlis, Samaras et al) will come back to power, reluctantly do what
they are told with the quid pro quo of a blind eye turned while they carry on in their corrupt
old ways.
Call that a revolution? More like crash and burn to me.
raymundlully -> Kaiama 30 Jun 2015 20:45
If the debt is forgiven and goes away.
Greece has in arrears to private pharma companies ,I doubt they'll extend credit orwant paying
in toy Drachmas.
Cash-strapped Greece has racked up mounting debts with international drugmakers and now owes the
industry more than 1.1 billion euros ($1.2 billion), a leading industry official said on Wednesday.
The rising unpaid bill reflects the growing struggle by the nearly bankrupt country to muster
cash, and creates a dilemma for companies under moral pressure not to cut off supplies of life-saving
medicines.
Richard Bergstrom, director general of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and
Associations, told Reuters his members had not been paid by Greece since December 2014. They are
owed money by both hospitals and state-run health insurer EOPYY.
MalleusSacerdotum 30 Jun 2015 20:45
If Greece were a private or public company and continued to 're-finance' in the manner proposed
by the IMF, its directors would be charged with insolvent trading.
They are getting a lot of stick for admitting that they are effectively bankrupt.
It is at least an honest admission of the state of play.
Omniscience Jazzfunk23 30 Jun 2015 20:42
They turned a primary deficit into a surplus within the last 5 years
Right wing conservative neo-libs corrupt elitists. The Troika is refusing to allow Greece to
tax the wealthy corrupt tax avoider thieves, while forcing more of the workers into poverty.
Vee1984 30 Jun 2015 20:40
It is a well known fact that many Greeks like to avoid paying taxes just as there are many
other European countries who avoid paying tax whether on an individual or on a company basis.
The European Union has created this problem over a long period of time by allowing countries
to borrow more than required and funds being used to build eg airports in Spain which are unused
and unnecessary due ro their geographical location and many speculative projects undertaken throughout
the EU. The reason for lending such sums, with a total disregard as to how interest payments can
be repaid, never mind repaying the loans, has been done to enrich the lenders who, as we all know,
love to gamble on how much money can be made. A risk game, played out every day, and, I suspect,
some bets even being placed on the odds of Greece defaulting in some hedge fund offices somewhere
in Europe. It should be noted that Spain and Italy have loaned money to Greece. How can this be
when both countries have loans via the EU etc? Again, investors after interest on the loans with
a total disregard as to their own countries finances. Greece is a democracy and should not give
in to the rhetoric coming from the IMF or ECB. Why not? Neither can afford to and neither can
Germany. Interesting days ahead. I truly hope that in the name of Democracy, the Greek people
will vote NO in the referendum no matter the increasing hardship this will bring. The EU really
need to be extremely mindful of the fact that abject poverty and the continuation of austerity
gives rise to discontent and a surge in popularity to right-wing extremist views.
Anthony Apergis Justitiadroit 30 Jun 2015 20:39
Indeed, the EU has mutated from a union of the peoples of Europe, into a market-driven transnational
institution governed by bankers and solely concerned with GDP growth rates (and I mean this in
a strictly non-communist/leftist way).
Dannybald DavidRees 30 Jun 2015 20:36
As a German voter I would never vote for the right wing neo-lib corporatist Fascist scum in
government. The hypocrisy of this regime is turning millions of Europeans against Germany and
rightly so. The London conference of 1953 halved German debt owed for destroying Europe. Greek
debt was 100% of GDP in 2008 and that had nothing to do with Tspiras.
Euro zone countries have already extended the maturities of their loans to Greece from 15 to 30
years and reduced the interest rates on some to just 0.5 basis points above their borrowing cost.
They also granted Greece a 10-year moratorium on interest payments on the second bailout loan
from the euro zone rescue fund.
FlashRat 30 Jun 2015 20:35
I would have thought that a "senior german conservative politician" telling the Times that
whatever happens Tsipras must be forced from office is an historic blow to the EU. Now, at least,
people know what it is and who it is for.
PennyForYourComment DavidRees 30 Jun 2015 20:35
Which is why the Eurozone concept is fundamentally broken.
Imagine if every time one US went into a bad recession, all the other states had to vote on whether
to send them money, with all the governors having to agree... and then trying to post their own
conditions on how that States economy be run before the money were delivered. It would be an unworkable
mess, especially given acrimony and resentment between states and regions (North vs. Deep south
vs. midwest, vs. west coast, etc)... The country would sooner or later fall apart as States started
rebelling and quitting. It would be absurd.
But somehow Europe is supposed to run on exactly this system. If you are going to have a single
currency, then you need common fiscal mechanism binding the areas together, because these act
as automatic financial stabilizers when there's a regional crash. If Florida's economy crashes,
money automatically pours in from everywhere else to cover unemployment insurance, etc, via the
Federal government. No similar thing happens with Greece in Europe.
BunyipBluegum theoldgreyfox 30 Jun 2015 20:34
The default you are referring to is a recent one (2014) - I was referring to the previous default
in 2001, which was followed by a significant period of economic growth and recovery. I am not
suggesting that a default is always the best solution in such circumstances, nor that the immediate
fallout won't be problematic. However in any case the example of Iceland clearly demonstrates
that a default can be the best option economically in some circumstances.
It's the same principle as bankruptcy: if your debts reach a level that can never be paid back,
it's better to wipe the slate clean and start again, even though the cost of doing this may be
to slide back down the snake to the bottom of the board.
Anthony Apergis 30 Jun 2015 20:33
To sum up:
Roughly €170b initial Greek debt +
Roughly €150b financial aid to Greece aimed at repaying initial creditors (NOT the restructuring
of the Greek economy) + austerity measures while doubling an already unsustainable debt = EU solidarity
to a member- state.
And the above does not even take into account whose economy did the initial debt prop up. I cannot
believe that the people of Europe cannot see what the REAL problem is.
The EU - and by extension Europe - is truly in trouble.
raymundlully Franco87 30 Jun 2015 20:32
UK had third world inflation in the 1970s it took the IMF medicine broke the unions in the
80s and created a home fit for bankers.
What about economic slums like Portugal and Italy.
They are much worse off now than Greece was at the start of its crisis. It will not take much
to have Italy in crisis.
Portugal is heading for an abandoned state after its crisis so its not much of a threat now, how
it will pay its debt in the future is anyone's guess. Though it is safe to presume that a country
in such decline will have less people paying tax.
They'll want more than billion.
RGBargie 30 Jun 2015 20:31
It looks like Greece might soon be sailing into uncharted waters.
I can just imagine what the consequences will be for the EZ if Greece goes alone, and then
makes a success of their new found freedom. I imagine there might well be others ready to abandon
ship if that happens.
Westmorlandia BunyipBluegum 30 Jun 2015 20:31
Point taken, but whatever the Greeks don't pay back to the EFSF will have to be paid by other
Eurozone countries, as that's how the EFSF guarantees work. So it isn't just about whether it's
fair for Greeks to pay for what their government borrowed, but whether it's more fair for Greeks
to pay or for everyone else in the Eurozone to pay for what elected Greek governments borrowed.
Reality has said for some time that Greece can't pay, and therefore some of it should have
been written off. But that's more about pragmatism than fairness.
FilthyRichBanker Wily Ways 30 Jun 2015 20:30
He could do what the rest of Europe does and make paying taxes compulsory rather than voluntary
for a start.
Cut the bloated Public sector and halve the defence budget in line with the rest of Europe - and
sell off the $50bn of assets they previously agreed to.
Bardamux Michael Richard Allen 30 Jun 2015 20:29
Ignorant it is then. So i'll explain it to you step by step.
1) If you deposit money in a bank, you are loaning the bank your money. And in many countries
you will get a small interest rate for it.
2) it is considered a short term loan, because you can withdraw it at (almost) any time.
3) Remember Icesave in the UK ? That bank did not pay its depositors
4) Other banks received hundreds of billions of euro's / pounds / dollars
5) Banks could loan money at almost 0% even with terrible collateral to help them survive
6) Greece will pay its debt if they receive half or even less help than the Dutch and UK banks
did.
Get it now or do you need more steps to help you out ?
Euro zone countries have already extended the maturities of their loans to Greece from 15 to 30
years and reduced the interest rates on some to just 0.5 basis points above their borrowing cost.
They also granted Greece a 10-year moratorium on interest payments on the second bailout loan
from the euro zone rescue fund.
Omniscience 30 Jun 2015 20:27
To be fair, they have only been lying about reform since joining the Euro.
2005 : Greece faces up to taxing times
Greece plans to offset a projected shortfall this year in tax revenues with a €2bn securitisation
deal, in spite of European Commission strictures against the use of one-off measures to reduce
the budget deficit. George Alogoskoufis, finance minister, said in an interview with the Financial
Times that the transaction would enable Greece to achieve this year's budget deficit target. He
also stressed securitisation was "a temporary measure that will give us time to bring about permanent
structural corrections".
Joaquin Almunia, the European Union's budget commissioner, signalled acceptance of this year's
planned transaction during a visit to Athens last week but urged Greece to accelerate structural
reforms next year.
The problems of Greece haven't happened since "a radical populist party" was elected. On the
contrary, the present government was elected because of the problems.
Danny Sheahan outsiderwithinsight 30 Jun 2015 20:23
Not at all, it means that Italy and Portugal are next.
If Greece leaves and its hard to see how they will not at this stage then the Euro has become
a non-permanent currency arrangement that the EU or ECB will not defend its integrity.
That marks it out as different from every other currency in the world. Only currencies that have
allowed that in the past went on to be all failed entities.
CambridgeAfterDark 30 Jun 2015 20:25
Splendid, send a message to all banker gangsters everywhere.
Best way to deal with a bully, is hit them back.
Guess the right-wing trolls on here look pretty silly now, all saying last week the FTSE would
rally upwards upon a Grexit!
BunyipBluegum robbyevans 30 Jun 2015 20:20
The present circumstances in Greece were inherited by the current government from the previous
right-wing government, which managed to bring them out by faithfully following the austerity prescriptions
of the Troika.
However both left and right-wing governments of the past, who created and hid the enormous debt,
are also to blame.
coxinutant 30 Jun 2015 20:16
A continued austerity programme makes it unlikely that Greece will be able to grow economically.
Continued economic pain-> lower ability to repay debt. So all those people who get on their hig
horse and demand that Greece repay its debts should keep in mind that debt cannot be repaid when
you have 25% unemployment, when wages plummet and people cannot spend to make the economy grow.
If austerity had been the miracle cure, it would have worked years ago. So stop bandying about
terms like 'communist' and 'marxist' and all that BS. The current government in Greece did not
create the crisis, the austerity, the 25% unemployment. The crisis was created by an irresponsible
banking sector, which was then bailed out by your money (yeah ordinary Joe, looking at you). Austerity
was hatched by The IMF, against the advice of sensible economists...
And it hasn't worked. And I am sure the 'marxist' policies of Syriza did not create the enormous
unemployment that Greece faces. Last time that occured in Europe, fascist governments came to
power, aided by pro-fascist symptahies in France and the UK...
BunyipBluegum -> peter nelson 30 Jun 2015 20:14
It was the Greek governments of the mid 2000s, who were corrupt and nepotistic. If it was them
and their wealthy friends who were going to carry the can for this, then I'd say well deserved.
But the whole reason why Syriza is against the austerity program is that it doesn't greatly affect
these people, but it DOES greatly affect ordinary Greeks, especially the working class, elderly
and vulnerable.
Also it hasn't worked. If you were prescribed a foul medicine by your doctor that made you feel
sick and weak, and then failed to cure your problem, would you be inclined to go back for another
dose?
AtomsNest -> echoniner 30 Jun 2015 20:14
If they actually wanted payment, they'd be reasonable. But payment isn't their priority, these
organisations want power over Greece.
World
Oil Energy Consumption by Sector, 1973-2010Oil can be put to a variety of uses,
with transportation accounting for a growing share of the oil consumed. While the transport sector
consumed 42% of the oil in in 1973 this share climbed to 61.5% in 2010. The growing level of global
motorization is a core component behind this relative growth, particularly the growth of international
trade. Non-energy uses mostly relate to the petrochemical industry where petroleum is used to manufacture
products such as plastics or fertilizers. Other sectors concern agriculture (powering farm equipment),
commercial and public services (power generation) and residential (heating oil).
Markets suffered across Asia on Monday as Greece shut down its banks for a week ahead of an increasingly
likely debt default.
Oil prices declined and the euro edged down against the dollar, while Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index
fell 2% to 20,283.98 points. The Shanghai Composite Index was off 0.4% at 4,178.56 despite China's
surprise weekend interest rate cut.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng lost 1.7% to 29,192.67. Seoul's Kospi shed 1.6% to 2,057.52 and Sydney's
S&P/ASX 200 was off 1.8% to 5,447.80. Market benchmarks in Taiwan, Singapore and New Zealand also
fell sharply.
Turmoil in Asia had been widely expected after the failure of 11th-hour talks in Europe over the
weekend raised the possibility of a Greek exit from the eurozone.
More than $35bn was wiped off the Australian stock market in the first hour of trading on Monday
as investors braced for what could become a torrid week.
Earlier the euro dropped more than 3% to 133.80 yen, its lowest level for five weeks. The common
currency fell as much as 1.9% to $1.0955, its lowest level in almost a month.
More on this topicGreek debt crisis: the key points of Athens bank controls
The US Treasury secretary, Jack Lew, stressed the need for Greece "to take necessary steps to
maintain financial stability" ahead of the referendum.
He told the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, on Sunday that Athens and its creditors needed
to continue working toward a resolution ahead of a Greek referendum on 5 July on the creditors' demands
for austerity.
US stock futures dived 1.8%, hitting a three-month low, while US Treasuries futures price gained
almost two points.
A cash-strapped Greece looks certain to miss its debt repayment on Tuesday as Greece's European
partners shut the door on extending a credit lifeline after Greece's surprise move to hold a referendum
on bailout terms.
robtal 29 Jun 2015 08:43
We can print all the money we want all over the world to save every banker, financial wizard,
and insurance company . But one little country like Greece is the scape goat these financial criminals
use to bring fear and control to the rest of the world. These are evil less than human monsters
that run these world banks.
Paul Hawkins 29 Jun 2015 08:31
The World is being run by a group of financial gangsters such as the Rothschilds and 30 to
40 of the richest people in the world: Karen Hudes is a graduate of Yale Law School and she worked
in the legal department of the World Bank for more than 20 years. In fact, when she was fired
for blowing the whistle on corruption inside the World Bank, she held the position of Senior Counsel.
She was in a unique position to see exactly how the global elite rules the world, and the information
that she is now revealing to the public is absolutely stunning. According to Hudes, the elite
uses a very tight core of financial institutions and mega-corporations to dominate the planet.
Austerity is a lie as Countries use the Fiat monetary system and can produce money when they
want, such as quantitative easing. It is the greed of the banks, that had to be bailed out across
the world, that is causing the problem.
The sooner these greedy selfish power hungry bankers are brought to book the sooner the financial
markets would recover.
Mark Foster Kenneth Stephen Besig 29 Jun 2015 08:17
A large part of Syriza wanted out of the Euro because they were sure the Troika would not compromise
on it's insane 'reforms' which had already destroyed most of the economy. Debtors prison's were
abolished years ago in the UK, primarily because creditors realized it meant they would never
get any compensation for losses while debtors were in gaol. Yet by insisting on repayments on
an odious debt, we effectively put the whole of Greece into a debtors prison, and insisted on
all the wrong IMF/ECB reforms that have always failed to resurrect economies in the past. We are
still caught up in the idiotic Washington consensus/Jeffrey Sachs/ Hernando de Sotos models of
development.
In truth Greece should have left the failed euro project years ago. Iceland had the sense to
get out of the Banks clutches, file bankruptcy and impose capital controls and start again. For
the most part that as worked very well for them. Some will say Greece isn't Iceland, or nonsense
like the Greeks are lazy (they work longer hours than the Germans), Greece has deep problems for
sure and i'm not saying I'm confident Syriza have the program to fix them. But I'm 100% confident
the demands of the Troika would only cripple them further.
Myrtle7 29 Jun 2015 08:14
Save Greece! A Kind Request to the EU Leaders and Creditors (Myrtle 7)
I am writing this because today we are hours before a bitter end, perhaps, for Greece and the
beginning of problems for the EU.
A lot has been said about the Greeks living above their income for a long time or partying for
a long time and these may have been true in many cases but the Greeks should not be punished now
as they followed the example and attitude of some of their leaders. And, moreover, now, it is
the poorer people, those with lower income, that are suffering, those that did not have the right
"connections."
The referendum arranged by the government seems like a democratic move but in fact it will
be a desperate choice as the Greek people are asked to choose between suicide by drowning and
suicide by hanging.
If Greece goes into default it will be a catastrophe for the country; there is no currency
to devalue. They have to re-create the drachma (it will take perhaps a year or more) which will
be immediately devalued. How would these people, who are suffering already, cope? And if Greece
defaults, I am not sure whether the Creditors will get their money within the next 50 years, anyway.
Most seriously, the tense situation in the defaulted country, the low morale and possible disorder,
would invite & unleash unforeseen dangers for Greece first, for other European countries later
and the EU eventually; as we all know such situations can spread to the detriment of the people.
Historic recurrence is here: the specifics and the actors change, but the result is similar. Moreover,
it is common knowledge that there are forces, (they have their own agenda) which, wish, discuss
in conferences, and even envision, the break up of the European Union, even as 'we speak'. If
I am aware of this, I am sure the European leaders are aware too, for, as wise leaders, are conscious
(or should be) of emerging situations long before they get out of hand. With around 6 million
Muslims outside its northern borders, (excluding Turkish territories), Greece, will be an open,
unprotected theatre for anyone who wants an easy passage to the west.
The Creditors are part of the leadership or the Hegemony of European Union as they form the
powerful financial aspect of it; usually, leaders who push think they facilitate progress; in
fact they are blocking it. Yet, there are certain characteristics that wise leaders have and magnanimity
is the most important one. They do not expect a poor, proud nation to fall on their knees. They
would always offer opportunities for relief and growth. Lawrence Summers, US Treasury Secretary,
suggested something which sounds as a good solution: the Creditors can write off a small amount
of the debt now and perhaps ask for something that Greece, could, comfortably, add to their plan
that would help growth; e. g. taxing certain accounts many Greeks keep in Swiss banks. Such a
move by the Creditors would be wise, intelligent and humane.
With this magnanimous act the Greeks would feel uplifted and stronger to face the odds. In
my view, the most important attitude of the Leader is to make people feel they mean something
within the group, but I may be wrong.
John Kakkos DazzlingKarina 29 Jun 2015 07:04
Lazy Greeks is a very racisti thing to say, espesially since Greeks work-hours exceed that
of oher EU countries (including Germany). War reparations agreement was not accepted. Since in
1942, the Greek Central Bank was forced by the occupying Nazi regime to loan 476 million Reichsmarks
at 0% interest to Nazi Germany. In 1960, Greece accepted 115 million Marks as compensation for
Nazi crimes. Nevertheless, past Greek governments have insisted that this was only a down-payment,
not complete reparations. The 300 bn were not given to Greeks but to banks. 30% of Greeks are
iving below the povery line. Unemployment is 26% (60% to young) and 16% cant even provide daily
food needs. EU is not to blame, nor it is Greece. This financial system is just not working.
Aboutface 29 Jun 2015 06:47
There are "invisible hands" weaving the thread of EU-Euro through the IMF needle in this Greek
tradegy. One of the comment here by Steven Tracy on the Rothschilds and Rockerfeller seems about
right...a force majeure / fire sale of prime assets and not to dismiss, there are very wealthy
Greeks with offshore accounts, like vultures over a soon to be cadaver. Next move, the "Alexis
Tsipras surprise" call option.
pauline7883 29 Jun 2015 06:40
the greek people have the right to this referendum they have to decide if the deal is acceptable
whether they can cope with the continuing austerity. the financial institutions of europe have
acted disgracefully
the greek government should begin an audit of the books looking at the loans/debts owed by greece
to see if there was any illegality and prosecutions should follow
SEADADDY 29 Jun 2015 06:35
So, as Greece slips into the financial abyss, it's the common man/woman that gets the pain, the
punishment and the price tag of bankers ineptitude, greed and Houdini escapism. The bankers, corporate
investors and politicians get away with grand gambling and larceny of incredible scale, without
so much as a slap on the wrist. It wasn't the small man in Greece that caused the crisis. It was
the Niarchos's and the Onassis's & etc that caused the downfall, with getting away with not paying
their fair taxes, flags of convenience, double dealing and tax havens world wide. It's high time
that some government agency woke up and
NorthernFella,29 Jun 2015 06:00
They weren't ready to join the EU...
I would say, weren't ready to join the euro. Interesting that you don't mention anything about
the role of Goldman Sachs in this big scam.
"Humiliation" - what idiocy.
If accusing all the Greek of the ongoing (bank)crisis, using austerity (cuts directed to the
disadvantaged groups mostly) as a medicine and calling them lazy is not humiliating I don't know
what is.
And the idea that they were being 'starved by austerity' is ridiculous. They were starved
by their corrupt practices.
Let's take measures of that how much the neoliberalist austerity policy has affected those
in the most vulnerable position and let's compare it to the times before austerity. Sure the situation
has been bad for a long time before the crisis but austerity brought real hell.
Luckyspin marcus_rm 29 Jun 2015 05:34
The Greeks accuse the IMF of colluding in an EMU-imposed austerity regime that breaches the
Fund's own rules and is in open contradiction with five years of analysis by its own excellent
research department and chief economist, Olivier Blanchard.
Objectively, it is acting as an imperialist lackey. The IMF enforced brute liquidation without
compensating stimulus or relief. It claimed that its policies would lead to a 2.6 % contraction
of GDP in 2010 followed by brisk recovery.
What in fact happened was six years of depression, a deflationary spiral, a 26 % fall in GDP,
60 % youth unemployment, mass exodus of the young and the brightest, chronic hysteretic that will
blight Greece's prospects for decades to come, and to cap it all the debt ratio exploded because
of the mathematical – and predictable – denominator effect of shrinking nominal GDP.
George Vasilakakos deskandchair 29 Jun 2015 05:27
very poorly served Greece is by its media
That's the key point. You see the Greek media groups are run by the same oligarchs who've been
buying our politicians. They owe hundreds of millions to the Greek banks, along with the political
parties, between them it must be around a billion. The banks were unwilling to collect on those
debts, got bailed out and we are footing the bill...
Well, that's why I'm writing about "near-racism". Greece is schizophrenically seemed as the cradle
of democracy and the Western culture but as Gerold reveals the opinion of many by the comment:
Nonsense. The Greek nation and people have failed to grow into a modern responsible state.
They are still living like an Ottoman Province, trying to short-change the Sultan.
Many are still romanticizing the ancient times and are disappointed as they see the times have
changed. Many are wondering (bitterly) how the modern day Greek are so different from the ancient
times. In one book (a Finnish version of Traveler's history of Greece, I think) it was written
(in introduction) something like this: "are those hot-tempered noisy people really descended from
the ancient Greek?".
When adding to it Gerold's views on Greece as a nation that is still living like "an Ottoman
Province" it's easy to extend near-racist stereotypes even further. Now we're talking about "lazy
Greek who just lie down under the palm trees, waiting for the next bailout". Of course there are
stereotypes related to each nation but they get always stronger when we are going to the south
and they are told by "harder-working northerners" ...
I'm looking forward to the Greek people correcting their previous election error
Should the Greek vote only for "rationalist", pro-euro, business-oriented right-wing parties
who are ready to starve their own people to death? It sounds travesty of democracy and would prove
that economy has replaced democracy.
Theo Krom 29 Jun 2015 05:14
The markets. already have lost much more money than if they were agree to restructure, not
necessarily write-off, the Greek debt. If we count the profits the markets would gain after such
deal would have been announced then it seems that whatever is happening is a clear and utter irrational
thinking orchestrated by the allegedly proponents of rational economic thinking...
Policy for the contemporary markets, seems to be much more important than free markets. Free
market is an illusion, an excuse for the banks to suffocate democracy, using pseudo-politicians
as their most valuable gatekeepers....Well, the actual neo-liberalism has been implemented in
a very distorted manner, exactly as happened with socialism... Actually, both lead to utter misery!!!
This is what the private FMI corporation owned by the private federal reserve corporation of USA
has planned for ALL our countries. I's the Rothschields, the Rockfellers etc... The 1% that are
behind all this.
Can't you see USA is deep in debt and nearly bankrupt, just like most of the western countries
and Africa. They lend us money, put us deeper in debt, and we pay them back only the interest
of the debt ???
This has all been carefully planned since the creation of the private federal reserve corporation
in 1913 to rob our assets and control us.
This is why the BRIC countries have come together to ditch the US dollar.
Better than Eduard Snowden on the NSA.
GRJones Mark Foster 29 Jun 2015 04:51
Iceland is often held up on these pages as a shining example of the wealth and riches that
flow to you if you reject austerity. It shouldn't be. Iceland suffered enormous economic contraction
after its rejection of bailout conditions, and while the economy is growing, GDP is at about the
level it was in 2004, unemployment is still well above pre-crash levels, and prices are 50% higher
than they were before the crash. The steep devaluation of the currency by 50% meant that everyone
in Iceland took an enormous hit in terms of real wages, and because most Icelandic mortgages are
linked to the Euro theses have effectively doubled, while their homes have halved in value, leaving
much of the population in negative equity. They have enacted massive austerity, more than any
country in Europe bar Greece, slashing their deficit from 15% to less than 1%. The fall in living
standards has been severe enough that the Icelandic people voted the parties that came into power
after the rejection of bailout terms out of office, and reelected the party that was in power
before the crash. The lesson to be learned from Iceland is that economic collapse means pain,
no matter what you do.
someoneionceknew ID5590609 29 Jun 2015 04:50
Do you realize that the European rules prevent the ECB from funding member countries, as
well as prohibiting national bailouts
Sure. But why aren't you Germans subject to the rules too?
The rules don't work. They can be changed fairly easily. Why not if it stops people starving
and otherwise being persecuted through no fault of their own?
ID5590609 mjmizera 29 Jun 2015 04:38
Creditors already took a 50% haircut on Greece debt, and the conditions of Greece's bailout
loans were extremely generous, with very low interest rates and exceptionally long payment terms.
The terms and conditions were better than what was offered to Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and
those countries actually implemented the demanded austerity reforms and are now experiencing growth.
Greeks don't need their debt forgiven. Greeks need to start paying taxes and reforming and
managing their economy like a respectable first world nation, not some banana republic. Why should
Europeans and others show solidarity with Greeks when Greeks fail to show solidarity with their
own people and their democratically elected government?
Overdog81 29 Jun 2015 04:36
The past Greek politicians are responsible for bringing this debt to current levels. There's
no doubt about this.
However, the current government found itself at the edge of a cliff. 6 months of negotiations
and the issue of restructuring or writing off a non viable debt never came on the table by Greece's
creditors. Basically Greece is begging for money that only go towards paying this huge debt and
never into the real economy. Austerity measures are applied just to pay the debt's interest which
has become huge (twice the size of Ireland's and Portugal's combined) .
What Syriza is doing now is the only option it has in order to make the debt viable and end
austerity for its people. The timing of the referendum on friday night and capital controls on
Sunday night (banks closed for a week and stock market closed on Monday) point towards this way.
Its a huge gamble in order to reach an agreement but possibly the only hand Greece could play
in order to shake off the markets and thus its creditors.
I truly hope an agreement is reached before the referendum so that everyone walks out happy
especially Varoufakis and the Greek people who would get the best deal they could ever dream of.
On the other side, a debt relief decision seems the only road for the imf and eu partners. Its
a debt that could never be paid anyway so why risk?
Arthur Buse 29 Jun 2015 04:36
I had thought it was only Samuri that chose harakiri. But Alexis has done the EU a great kindness
by throwing the Greek people to the dogs of famine. He has helped the cause of breaking up the
Euro and even, dare we hope, the EU. Ever closer union was always a grave danger. It never went
well for the USSR and it ended in tragedy. The EU will eventually go the same way. The USA is
quite different. They adopted a common language before trying for a common currency and common
Federal taxes. The EU will not manage the former and has not got the will to manage the latter.
The Euro was therefore always doomed and now the EU needs to return to individual currencies and
the EEC.
Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU. They will bear the brunt of any aid extended
to Greece.
If Germans bear any loss then it is their own foolishness for trusting their politicians. Why
are Germans on the hook for bailing out their own banks?
Greece has been an economic failure for their entire modern history, including well before
they joined the Euro. They want to be live and be treated like a rich first world economy,
yet run their country like banana republic. It's readily apparent that other Europeans will
no longer fund or subsidize a lifestyle that Greeks cannot independently afford. Greece essentially
partied on northern European largesse, but the bill is now due.
That's just cut and paste racist cant. Germans should know better given their history.
Your feelings about capitalism
Oh, you still don't understand what mercantilism means? Good lord.
but what do you think is going to happen when Greece is "independent" and has to reintroduce
the Drachma.
Depends on many factors I'd say. But what are you offering?
ID5590609 someoneionceknew 29 Jun 2015 04:23
Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU. They will bear the brunt of any aid extended
to Greece. That is why the opinion of the Germans is so important when considering any action
on Greece.
Greece has been an economic failure for their entire modern history, including well before
they joined the Euro. They want to be live and be treated like a rich first world economy, yet
run their country like banana republic. It's readily apparent that other Europeans will no longer
fund or subsidize a lifestyle that Greeks cannot independently afford. Greece essentially partied
on northern European largesse, but the bill is now due.
Your feelings about capitalism notwithstanding, things must drastically change in Greece. You
claim to oppose the Eurogroup's and IMF's purportedly cruel demand for austerity and reform. That's
fine, but what do you think is going to happen when Greece is "independent" and has to reintroduce
the Drachma. Socialist solidarity is not going to fund imports of food, fuel, medicine and other
essentials. There will be austerity in Greece, either organized with their European partners,
or resulting from the chaos of financial incompetence. Greece is going to have to continue to
painfully adjust to a lifestyle commiserate with their true GDP, earnings and economic value.
The good old days are gone.
They are not asking for Herr Schauble's (or his ilks')
money or aid.
major economic reforms
More counterproductive austerity. More poverty, more privation, more labour bashing, more
suicides.
"mercantilism" (which I assume is meant as a juvenile reference to capitalism)
So I'm dealing with an idiot.
Germany has generally learned the political and economic lessons from their own unfortunate
history, everyone from WW1 reparations and the risks of inflation, the horrors of WWII,
Clearly it has not. Quite the opposite.
Carlo47 29 Jun 2015 04:03
Only the American Treasure understood the gravity of the situation, but it's odd that they
don't give appropriate instructions to the IMF and namely to the chauvinist Ms Lagrande, who continues
in its absurd hard line more on measures that on the debt.
On the other end Mr Schäuble and Mr Dijsselbloem must be happy that investors flee.
They have only have a bit of patience, until the contagion will arrive in Germany and Holland.
Anyhow, if they are honest, both should resign for clear inability to do their job and to understand
the heavy drawbacks of their dummy hard line, as supposed and false financial experts.
The German Government and the EU heads should slap the door in their face and send them away.
CanadaChuck ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 03:53
I had thought that Greece was unimportant overall in the EU. What will happen when Italy and
Spain collapse? I guess the UK won't have to bother leaving the EU.
Ian Crowther slingsby1000 29 Jun 2015 03:49
Agreed Slingsby, so a lot depends on the post management of crisis as we see in Argentina and
Turkey, its not plain sailing, far from it. But being enslaved is worse, and paying on the never
never, feeding German and French income is not the way to go Fault lies on both sides, nobody
comes out of this smelling of roses.
The EU construct was a nonsense form the very start, a union of unequals, instabilities and
too many externalities to manage that technocrats have little idea on how to manage in complex
situations.
Lanceowenmorgan Kompe75 29 Jun 2015 03:42
Ya the Forth Reich is coming and it seems Putin is the only one smart enough to see it
ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 03:40
Barely half an hour after opening, the German Stock Exchange index (DAX) is down almost 5%,
which is dangerously close to a system meltdown. The German moneymasters are trying to intervene
by pumping money into the exchange, but it's like putting a band-aid on the collapsing levee.
The German nuclear reactor is overheating uncontrollably.
Xenkar Stivell 29 Jun 2015 03:34
True, ordinary people in Europe need to stand up and support the people of Greece, but sadly
as spiceof so eloquently put it
"These little conformists, the lowly prison guards of the elites, are the lowest form
of humanity. Spiteful and small minded, they always want to "punish" those who dare raise their
heads and complain."
MrEurope Lupick 29 Jun 2015 03:31
You do realize that what you wrote is beyond ignorance...? While I agree that the way market-news
is brought is excessively dramatic, markets ARE for a large part a reflection of human productive
activity, and productive activity tends to be... you know... the stuff that makes people money.
Jobs. Earnings... roof over your head, and so forth... these things quite obviously matter.
The problem is that humans absolutely suck at understanding the long term consequences and
impact of small, tiny little (negative, but also positive) changes that accumulate over time.
You know the famous example that if Jesus would have put one dollar in his bank account, he
would (assuming 3% per annum interest) by the year 1000 he would have 7,080,467,438,104.71 dollars.
(and more money than ever has or will exist in the history of Earth by 2015...) 3% does not sound
like much... but all these small little additions do add up. And so if you're living in a world
where every week or two there is a minor crisis here or there.... eventually it starts to matter.
A lot. People put off investing. They spend less. There are less jobs... (which in turn compounds
the problems...) and on it goes.
Bottom line is - you and I know fuck all about advanced economics, just like the vast majority
of posters here.
Stivell 29 Jun 2015 03:28
Lagarde and the European leaders have forced Greece into this corner and really should expect
nothing more than the Greeks turning and baring their teeth. Ordinary people in Europe need to
stand up and support the people of Greece against these relentless scaremongering money-obsessed
bastards. Go Greece, bite that hand!
Kompe75 29 Jun 2015 03:25
If the Schaueble , Merkel and Jean Claude don't resign after the upcoming fiasco , then the
investors will fire them.Remember my prediction.They will have a bitter end than DSK.
D9492736 royaldocks 29 Jun 2015 03:16
If you really, seriously believe that EU economy is so competitive that it can turn on the
dime and adjust to the coming global economic meldown to its advantage and do so in the current
political and economic timespace , I have a BIG surprise for you: you are dangerously delusional.
First of all, the prices of ALL commodities, raw and unprocessed material EU economy needs
to keep going are going to get sky-high because EUR will be hemorrhaging value until cows come
home. And even if Mario Draghi and the idiots from Eurogroup come back to their senses tomorrow,
it will have been too late: they already committed an act of economic suicide, and it is really
too late to stop the head exit wound from bleeding to death now. Secondly, with the investors
quitting the stock bubble like crazy, the amount of discretionary spending and funded demand is
going to go down like a rock: Europe will be hit with AT LEAST a quadruple -whammy: (a) rigid
and dogmatic austerity and money-supply strangulation (b) supply chain disruption (c) extremely
weak demand and massively negative growth and (d) catastrophic consumer confidence index. Add
to this list of nightmares a never-ending flow of migrants and refugees, ever-increasing pressure
on social services, cost of funding of wars and military operations in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Aghanistan
and elsewhere, the massive losses caused by the American-imposed sanctions against Russia (by
most accounts, somewhere between $100 and $150 billion), the cost of containing the situation
in Ukraine and bankrolling the bankrupt Ukrainian government and - on top of it all - servicing
the sovereign debt, and you get a much clearer picture. There is absolutely no way - not even
a hypothetical chance - that European economy can weather out this tsunami unaffected and unharmed.
EU should consider itself lucky if they do not lose 20-30% of its entire economy in the next month
or so.
If I were a German retiree, I would be queuing up at the local ATMs as we speak. Because, yes,
it's the end of the Eurozone as we know it.
spiceof 29 Jun 2015 03:12
Amazing how the Greek subject matter brings forth the establishment sadists out en masse, demanding
that punishment, penury and the bubonic plague be visited upon that rebellious country.
These little conformists, the lowly prison guards of the elites, are the lowest form of humanity.
Spiteful and small minded, they always want to "punish" those who dare raise their heads and complain.
iruka Lupick 29 Jun 2015 02:56
Important point.
Of course it's worth bearing in mind that people like StrategicVoice213 aren't really concerned
with contrasting good people and bad people, lazy people and hard-working people, etc..
Take a closer look, and 99 times out of 100 it's amply clear that their only real interest
is in defending the authority and legitimacy of the institutions that they see being threatened
or insulted by those they're calumnying.
The actual behaviour or character of this person or that nation is of no real consequence to
213's . Any old lie, projection or blinkered misconstruction will do.
It's the need to preserve sanctified hierarchies of power that engages them.
Or more accurately (since they're clearly all sad little creatures of no importance whatsoever,
and no capacity to preserve anything, for whom an identification with power provides them with
something clearly lacking in their actual lives) it's the need to glorify power, and all its ways
and entitlements.
Lanceowenmorgan slingsby1000 29 Jun 2015 02:55
Who the fuck was the dumb ass(es) who would lend Greece all that money?
€386,000,000,000 to a country with a population of what 6-10 million? That's mathematics son you
can argue with me but you can't argue with figures. Apologies to Foghorn Leghorn. But I think
all comes down to greed.
truthbetold13 borninthe80s 29 Jun 2015 02:50
Such a pathetic cliche, a real twatcherite/conmoron lie. By bloated public sector you just
mean that more things are run by the government instead of by big business. Nobody here being
ripped off by utilities/ rail/private landlords etc thinks this is a better arrangement. What
you have is higher prices, worse service, less equal pay within those sectors, systemic tax evasion
by business and its bosses. Give me a state controlled service any day.
JohnnyMorales 29 Jun 2015 02:45
This should be the quote of the day:
Mitsuo Shimizu, deputy general manager at Japan Asia Securities Group in Tokyo, told Bloomberg
News: "In the face of pressure from the eurozone to accept austerity measures, the Greeks answered
that it's hard to live just on water."
The Japanese have never been considered softies. If they are describing the EU demands as too
much, then they are definitely too much.
FactualEvidence 29 Jun 2015 02:45
The EU needs Britain to stay in the EU for one reason only and its financial.
The EU have ploughed in billions and billions of tax payers money into several different countries
bailouts not just Greece, including Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.
A total amount of 487.75 BILLION Euros has been given to these countries and that's since just
2008.
So rather than the EU getting stronger as united nation's it is getting worse.
The EU Commission, MEP's, LIBLABCON parties and BBC don't tell you that information. You have
to research it yourselves on Wikipedia.
So my three questions to all those Europhiles are.
If being in the EU is so great how come so many countries have to rely on hand out?
If so many countries need billions to even provide essential services to survive. Where is
this great trading economy?
Why is it not working for so many millions of people?
Go to Wikipedia and see how the monetary crisis is getting worse for all the countries not
better.
Google : European Debt Crisis, and check out the chart around the middle of a very long page.
Were would the EU be without the billions we put in to it and on top of that all the VAT tax
they get from us, YES VAT. Did you know that it was through EU ruling you pay VAT on your utility
bills?
Good thing Europe is ring-fenced to the risk of contagion....
The ECB will have to buy more Spanish and Italian bonds this week than the entire Greek debt,
and then bailout these countries so they can buy back the bonds (Greek style). Oh well, if they
say they've got it covered, it's fine I suppose... (shakes head in haughty derision).
The only markets still in the black are the markets that haven't opened yet. When DAX and FTSE
open, the shit tsunami is REALLY going to hit the austerity fans.
JohnnyMorales 29 Jun 2015 02:29
The loss of value across the world even if most of it is just temporary is many many times
more than Greece's entire debt.
Yet because the EU troika wanted to win a moral battle and teach a wayward Greece a moral lesson
and make impossible demands and accept the humiliation entailed in caving they opted to create
those losses.
Greece only asked for some extra help. They did not make outrageous demands like the troika.
If anything good comes out of this may it be the end of the careers of those who think the
financial world is the proper place to stage morality plays devoid of any financial purpose which
cost far more than the alternative.
Ian Crowther 29 Jun 2015 02:28
This is the end game, and has been Greece's plan from the new Government taking power. The
left want Grexit, and they will get what they wish for now, independence from a failing political
and financial EU construct.
This may work well for Greece in the mid term, sure, its going to be tough on the people, but
at least the Government will not be debt slaves now, reset the currency, devalue the economy so
it can compete again, lower taxation to bring in big business, and begin to build a new economy
based on what the Greek people want, rather than 85% of the money Greece leant eventually being
paid back to the rentiers from which the cash came. Now zero will be repaid, and EU banks will
have to suffer the losses, a drop in recapitalisation, and a hit to the recovery.
Lanceowenmorgan ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 02:24
I agree. FUCK ALL YOU NEOLIBERAL & NEOCON mother fuckers
LeonardPynchon borninthe80s 29 Jun 2015 02:24
Some perspective in the below piece - might help you:
The Financial Times' leading commentator Martin Wolf recently argued that "the vast bulk of
the official loans to Greece were not made for its benefit at all, but for that of its feckless
private creditors", that is, primarily, European banks and financial institutions. After exposing
the futility of austerity, ex-IMF economic advisor Jeffrey Sachs recently declared: "Europe's
leaders are hiding behind a mountain of pious, nonsensical rhetoric" risking an economic and social
disaster "in order to insist on collecting some crumbs from the country's pensioners".
Describing the treatment of Greece as "the Iraq War of finance", Daily Telegraph's Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard wrote: "rarely in modern times have we witnessed such a display of petulance and
bad judgement by those supposed to be in charge of global financial stability."
dzogchen 29 Jun 2015 02:23
Five lost years for the Greeks it seems. From the market's perspective those years have been
all about maneuvering the banks from out of risk. Now that work is done as the losses are laid
squarely in the public lap. The markets of course don't give half a toss about Greek people, empathy
isn't part of their nature, so might as well do what should have been done five years ago. All
the best to the people who will pay the price for all this shenanigans. Kali tihi!
BeamEcho Tim Roberts 29 Jun 2015 02:21
This is not new for the IMF, their mandate includes providing policy advice to their members.
They review the economic policies of their members. When they lend money they require economic
policy changes...
Ian Crowther IndependentScott 29 Jun 2015 02:18
Greece will not have to repay the debt, they will walk away, default and never repay. It is
the banking system and rehypothecated debt that will suffer, and the banks that have leant the
money to France and Germany. European banks have only just been recapitalised, and losing another
€300-400bn will hit the Euro recovery hard at a time when QE is being rolled out. The answer will
be print more money.
Normin 29 Jun 2015 02:17
The banksters are just waiting for a scapegoat to pin their non sustainable economic system
failure on. Meanwhile the elite will profit as the masses bleed. It can't go on like this forever
it's just a matter of when.
Kompe75 29 Jun 2015 02:14
Juncker announces a campaign to support "YES" at the greek referendum..
Another sign these people consist the out-of-touch neoliberal elite..
Does he really believe Greeks , who have suffered enormously , will sign a appalling deal that's
going to define the misery of generations for the next decades ? Just because he wants to remain
President in the dictatorship of Brussels ? I live for the moment Juncker comes in Athens...the
whole place will go up in flames.
john4108 29 Jun 2015 02:09
yes all going acording to plan the sacred " markets" are indulging in the usual lemmng like
behaviour while the banksrs try to convince everyone that,the have the medicine that we all need
. Casino capitalism writ large. Eventually, unless we want endlessly repeated crises and utter
destruction on this plant, mankind will have to come up,with a more resilient economic system.
Islam is waiting in the wings and usory is a crime in the Koran. Of course Jesus threw the
money lenders out of the temple....but Judeo-christianity has conveniently forgotten that.
Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci
Believe it or not, the US State Department's
mission statement actually says
the following:
"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping
to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states
that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within
the international system."
A far and treasonous cry
from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and
formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have
defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department
of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American
corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."
That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states"
within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all
nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.
Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive,
when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly
referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves
modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from
a 1997
policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.
....
The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing
empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a
statement.
Recently she issued a dangerously
irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran.
While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded
trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign
nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself
brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as
sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."
It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the
youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on
a yearly basis.
If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind
podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the
US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece
of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support
various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various
revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East
as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may
be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.
CANVAS: Freedom House,
IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.
As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch"
runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly
a secretive operation, its website,
Movements.org proudly lists
the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from
Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination
AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded
CANVAS
of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the
Ukraine and Georgia, to
Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned
April 6
Movement. There is also the
Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.
As
previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections
to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of
expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM
has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."
Before
& After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are
covered here.
It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function
of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a
vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall
agenda of this color revolution army.
Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the
US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the
Iran
Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color
revolution in Egypt through to the end,
money was
appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.
Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED
and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations,
the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the
Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG). They include Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia,
Alhurra, and
Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough,
the current Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection
of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the
US government.
Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.
Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat
regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive
effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House,
NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had
already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush
in 2002.
Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.
The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez
are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion
Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an
attempt to match globalist minion
Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.
Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan
opposition, and
describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active.
Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree,"
-something that Washington itself has set the standard for-
AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.
Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a
student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission
be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister
Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."
The
"Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.
Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing
in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential
step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always,
boycotting
and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders
not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess
at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing
the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects
real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.
Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.
"...Brussels has blocked any agreement that would help Greece's recovery; debt repayments are
maximum priority"
. "...Alexis Tsipras, prime minister, is practically "hands tied", he can't implement an alternative
economic policy, this situation is contrary to his intentions, therefore it slowly diminishes the trust
citizens have put into Syriza, his political party."
. "...Greece has 10 days to liquidate the four monthly maturities of debt to the IMF (1.5 billion
euros) and to open a new financing plan for 5.2 billion euros. By next July, Athens will have to pay
3.5 billion euros to the European Central Bank (ECB), 465 million euros to the IMF and 2 billion euros
to additional creditors."
. "...There is no doubt that if Tsipras decides abandoning the Euro, the consequences will be
dramatic for Greece's economy and so for the rest of economies in the region [6],
including of course, Germany and France. Berlin fears a massive spread. If Greece collapses, speculators
will bet against the most fragile economies: Finland, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, etc."
. "...Panic would boost interest rates, severely shrinking the financial liquidity between countries."
. "...Nevertheless, the Troika seems decisive on backlashing the left's economic program. Syriza
have inaugurated the electoral failure of neoliberalism in Europe and due to that, it has become the
lender's favorite prey, who are ready to impose their will at any price. However, the Greeks should
trust themselves, establish partnership beyond its continental borders and aim for utopia."
the Central Bank of Greece surprised everyone with the publication of their monetary politics
for 2014-2015. Besides revealing the consequences of the economic suffocation imposed by Brussels,
it concluded that in case of not getting to a prompt deal with its European partners, a crisis of
great proportions will be detonated.
"A crisis with a manageable debt as we are currently facing with the help of our partners will
transform into an uncontrollable crisis, with great risk for the banking system and for the financial
stability", it quoted [1].
It was the first time this institution seriously contemplated Greece's separation from the Eurozone.
The most influencing media immediately began to stress that the majority of Greek's population
is against abandoning the Monetary Union. Approximately a 70% according to a recent poll published
by the GOP. For keeping the "common currency" the norms in the Maastricht Treaty have to be complied,
therefore the occidental media concludes that the Greek citizens are willing to accept the European
authorities conditions: Austerity is the price for a membership in the Eurozone.
However, media emporiums omit mentioning that same majority opposes to measures that the Troika
(formed by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission)
pretends to impose. That same majority is currently convinced that the original 245 billion euros
rescue program has only brought economic affliction. The increase of inequality and poverty, lock
of housing, mental illness and suicides, are evidence of the "humanitarian crisis" Greeks are daily
suffering [2].
A change regarding to economic matters in urgent. In that sense, the Greek government has insisted
in solving the more immediate needs (taxes on investment, creation of employment, a better distribution
of income, etc.) and less in questioning terms of the debt. Despite this, Brussels has blocked
any agreement that would help Greece's recovery; debt repayments are maximum priority [3].
Alexis Tsipras, prime minister, is practically "hands tied", he can't implement an alternative
economic policy, this situation is contrary to his intentions, therefore it slowly diminishes the
trust citizens have put into Syriza, his political party.
Disqualifications between the Greek government and the Troika were quite prompt on dates near
the meeting with the Eurogroup. Tsipras addressed that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had
"criminal responsibility" for the crisis. He also repeated that his government wouldn't falter before
the pressure imposed by the Troika. The objective of this proposal is to "humiliate Greece" and there
he committed to reject the adjustment plans at every moment [4].
The finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has delivered the same message by declining on presenting
proposals that would finally include a list of "credible" commitments for the creditors: raising
the primary surplus, additional tax raises, dismantling the pension system, etc [5].
As consequence, the negotiations stalled once again [on July 18th, 2015, Editor's note] The Troika
remains intransigent in applying its "structural reforms" no matter what, while Tsipras declines
on betraying the Greeks. Therefore this dispute is ones more to be adjourned.
Greece has 10 days to liquidate the four monthly maturities of debt to the IMF (1.5 billion
euros) and to open a new financing plan for 5.2 billion euros. By next July, Athens will have to
pay 3.5 billion euros to the European Central Bank (ECB), 465 million euros to the IMF and 2 billion
euros to additional creditors.
Debt and more austerity, in the end impose more debts, this situation puts Greece in a "depressive
spiral" that seems not to have an end. How will the resources for complying with these commitments
de delivered?
There is no doubt that if Tsipras decides abandoning the Euro, the consequences will be dramatic
for Greece's economy and so for the rest of economies in the region [6],
including of course, Germany and France. Berlin fears a massive spread. If Greece collapses, speculators
will bet against the most fragile economies: Finland, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, etc.
Considerably affected by the weak economic growth and the deflation (price breakdown), the Eurozone
would loose even more confidence from international investors. The crescent 'aversion to risk' due
to Greece's exit would provoke an increase in the performance of sovereign bonds (currently at minimum
levels). Panic would boost interest rates, severely shrinking the financial liquidity between countries.
Uncertainty will increase and the capital flows would be victim of a 'butterfly effect': slight
increase of volatility in sovereign bond markets, light drops in stock exchanges and any change in
the monetary policy, would be enough to detonate huge turbulences in credit circuits.
Nevertheless, the Troika seems decisive on backlashing the left's economic program. Syriza have
inaugurated the electoral failure of neoliberalism in Europe and due to that, it has become the lender's
favorite prey, who are ready to impose their will at any price. However, the Greeks should trust
themselves, establish partnership beyond its continental borders and aim for utopia.
Democracy was born in the ancient Greece and there is where the foundations of a new Europe, free
from the 'dictatorship of the creditors' should be built, if there is any alternative…
Keynes was there to check OLIGARCHY neo-feudalism. This crisis is about Oligarchy neofeudalism.
We need a balance between state and private enterprise. Right now we have "inverted totalitarianism" :an alliance between state and private Oligarchs
where, unlike Mussolini model; its private enterprise that RUNS THE WORLD; the 1%.
The state is their slave; even FED belongs to its paymasters : the TBTF aka JP Morgan and now
GS. Since Glass Steagall revoke; engineered by the GS squid cabal allowing Investment banks to
rule the roost to MAXIMISE shareholder returns, the whole shooting match of supply side deregulated
Reaganomics; all based on asset hiking based on short term quarterly reports; has morphed capitalism
beyond recognition.
The world of capital changed in 1981...the day all that mattered was shareholder value based
on short term steroid pumping that the 1971 "our money your problem" had initiated based on petrodollar
hegemony fueled on perpetual DEBT.
The cumulative effect of 1971/1981/1991 outsourcing NWO mantra post Iraq 1 and SU default was
what we have spawned today: a three step process where petrodollar debt + FIRE economy oligarchy
enrichment+ NWO outsourcing based on cheap oil and cheap labour have built this
casino capitalism model now compounded by derivative financialisation toxic shenanigans.
Now tell me WHAT has KEYNES got to do with this monetarist construct based on Friedman's 1971
mantra?
You guys deny the time line of facts and its irrefutable logic all based on petrodollar hegemony,
and arms bazar supremacy.
With intra-Europe relations hitting a new all-time low; and, having already been busted spying
on Merkel, Obama got caught with his hand in Hollande's cookie jar this week, the following exultation
from one of Germany's top politicians will hardly help Washington-Brussells relations.
As Russia Insider notes, Oskar Lafontaine is a major force in German politics so it caught people's
attention when he excoriated Ash Carter and Victoria Nuland on his Facebook page yesterday...
"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering
US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"
Here is the Facebook post (in German):
Lafontaine has been an outsized figure in German politics since the mid-70s.
He was chairman of the SPD (one of Germany's two main parties) for four years, the SPD's candidate
for chancellor in 1990, minister of finance for two years, and then chairman of the Left party in
the 2000s. He is married to Sarah Wagenknecht, political heavyweight, who is currently co-chairman
of Left party.
Lafontaine's outburst came a day after his wife, Sarah Wagenknecht, blasted Merkel's Russia
policy in an interview on RT.
Here is the full translation of the post:
"The US 'Defense' secretary, i.e., war minister is in Berlin. He called on Europe
to counter Russian 'aggression'. But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should
be opposing.
"The Grandmaster of US diplomacy, George Kennan described the eastward expansion of NATO as
the biggest US foreign policy mistake since WW2, because it will lead to a new cold war.
"The US diplomat Victoria Nuland said we have spent $5 billion to destabilize the Ukraine.
They stoke the flames ever higher, and Europe pays for it with lower trade and lost jobs.
"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering
US imperialism.
"F*ck US imperialism!"
* * *
When he comes out swinging this way, you know something is changing.
* * *
America - making friends and influencing people for 238 years...
remain calm
I see the CIA creating a little muslim terrorism in Europe to teach them the meaning of respect.
To date, the USSA adventurism in the Ukraine has hurt Germany financially and politically,
with more losses to follow.
Instead of integrating more closely with Russia, and becoming a key part of the New Silk Road,
Germany is blocked by the USSA, against her better interests. The USSA is creating a new berlin
style wall of lies and propaganda between Russia and Germany claiming that Russia plans to invade
the baltics, poland, moldova, blah, blah, blah.
Fortunately, most Germans are not anti intellectuals, and see through the lies, unlike the
average american shlub (30% of whom cannot name the current VP but know all of the names of the
Kardashians). Eventually, Merkel will get the boot, and be replaced by a more businesslike leader.
Not Too Important
30% is pretty generous, don't you think? More like 3%.
Even an aborigine in the middle of Africa with a cell phone knows more about the world than
97% of Americans.
Tall Tom
Fuck American Imperialism?
Actually it is GERMAN Imperialism over the nation states of Europe, using the European Union
as a subterfuge, is that which needs be quashed.
Fuck GERMAN Imperialism and the European Union as it serves as a tool for the advancement of
Germany's Imperialistic ambitions..
saveandsound
Oscar Lafontaine is member of the party "The Left". He used to be member of the "Social Democratic
Party of Germany".
Both parties are of rather marginal significance, since Merkel's CDU rules them all. ;-)
Anyway, "the Left" has been opposing US Imperialism ever since, so there is not much new to
see here.
that won't help and no more false flags will help either. The latest poll showed that only
19% of Germans would fight Russians in case Russia attacked any NATO country. I repeat: if Russia
attacked first. You can wonder, what would be the percentage of them willing to fight Russia just
for the sake of Ukraine. Close to zero, I think. The USA overstepped all boundaries, when it began
pushing EU countries into a military conflict with Russia. Continental Europeans are not Anglo-Saxons,
they think differently. They will bow down to any USA pressure, except for a military conflict
with Russia! Thats a big no no. Many of them still remember (especially Germans), what it was
like to fight wild-spirited Russians, who never surrender no matter what. These constant talks
about "Russian agression" by the USA politicians make Germans feel like a cornered animal with
nothing to loose. Such animal cannot be subdued anymore, when your existence and life is so directly
threatened, you bite. Or another example: try to force your slave to step on a rattlesnake. He
may be forced to do many things, but this time he will turn against you. I already said it before:
no war against Russia and Europe is possible, because even if the USA somehow forces us to any
such war, huge amounts of people will be so angry that they will flee to the side of Russia. We
are already discussing this openly. This is already happening in Ukraine. Already 10 000 Ukranian
soldiers defected to the other side (to fight Kiev), plus one Ukrainian general, some members
of the Ukranian intelligence service and about one and half million Ukrainians fled to Russia
to avoid draft. I saw a video where three entire units of soldiers sent from Kiev to Donetsk (with
tanks) changed side, threw out Ukrainian flags and put on Russian flags on their tanks under loud
cheers from the brave people of Donbass. There are certain very natural limits to what you
can force people to do, which bankers do not seem to understand. Yes, you can send many people
to war, but they simply will not fight, unless you give them something to fight for. For example
Hitler gave people something to fight for. But all bankers give us is chaos, no strong leader,
no ideology strong enough....I think they hoped that Putin would invade Ukraine and that would
be the reason for war (they provoked Hitler in a similar way). However, Putin is no Hitler, he
is way too intelligent to play these silly games. And it is impossible to repeat exactly what
was once so successful, because times change, people are different....you cant win with using
old outdated strategies over and over. That is why all empires fall in the end. They get stuck
in using the same tricks over and over, until they stop working. Even the old color revolutions
are not as efficient now as they were in the past and the same goes for those silly false flags.
cherry picker
He is absolutely correct. US is surrounded by two oceans and the North and South neighbor have
no intentions of invading the USA, so can anyone explain this war time nuclear, wmd, too many
carriers and so forth military and paranoia.
Can't uncle Sam keep his huge nose out of everyone's business?
Can't America just enjoy what is theirs and leave others alone?
Who needs a CIA except for Nazi types.
Fuck Nuland is a good start.
Albertarocks
And the neighbors to the north and south are non-too-pleased with the USA either. We know WTF
the USA is doing, although more and more are waking up to the fact that the USA is only being
used as the war branch of the banking mafia. Because of this we hold nothing against American
people.
In fact, up north we now probably feel more kinship with "the people" of the USA more than
ever before. Because we are learning how all this works. It is the global banking monsters and
the fascist corporations, the military industrial complex that is in bed with the fucking bankers.
It is those assholes who are causing every damned war in the world... not "the USA" as such. Putin
is a saint by comparison... not to mention the only sane leader of a superpower left on earth.
He is admirable, even from this side of the pond.
Mexicans might present a problem, I don't know. Mexicans never bother Canadians so we just
don't seem to have an opinion. Canadians are pretty calm, but fuck when we get mad there can be
one hell of a bar fight. I don't know how all this works out but it isn't going in the right direction.
I think 98% of Canadians would agree with Mr. Lafontaine. US Imperialism has got to come to an
end. Or the world will. And by "US", I mean "banker".
We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"
You know what the problem is?
It's not particularly the US, though they are the biggest players at the moment. It's the result
of the end of the Cold War.
Ever since WW2 the power blocs both had a big military and supporting intelligence service.
When the Berlin Wall came down, the Russians collapsed theirs. The West did not. And ever since
then it has been looking for a job. That's the reason we have had so much disruption. When your
major arm of government is a multi-trillion dollar armed forces, every problem looks like an excuse
for a war.
It is the imperialism of the Anglo-Zionist cabal which has hijacked the American treasury and
military.
Neocons, Interventionist "realists" and other assorted militarist scum.
Their control of the MSM is sound {they even acquired VICE News as that got too popular, and
Orwellized it, beginning with the Zionist sent to fake stories out of Ukraine}...
but not the internet. As younger people grow up, post comments and articles, this cleft between
the pre-internet and internet informed grows more and more obvious.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that expects aggressive moves against intent content.
We've seen some attacks on free speech already in the Fast Track bill - but it will take time
to really see how bad the TPP itself is in practice.
But it does seem clear that .gov is hoping to make an end run around various Constitutional
niceties by "treaty."
and no - treaties do not and can not over-ride the Constitution. Only amendment, not treaty,
can change the constitution.
... and while the US forces the other NATO members to apply more sanctions to Russia, US hypocrisy
rears its ugly head by 'allowing' products from sanctioned Russia that would benefit them ...
check this out
As someone who actually lives in Germany i can tell you that Lafontaine is an absolute has-been
and he plays no role in German politics, nor has he for years. His influence came to an end when
Schroeder kicked him out of his government over 15 years ago. To claim he is a heavyweight is
simply dead wrong.
Wagenknecht does play a certain role, but the Left is a pure protest party full of fundamentalist
hardline social democrats and former East German communists. The Left has no say on federal government
matters such as foreign policy. This post is pure alarmism.
Wild E Coyote
Actually US and Soviet Union both went bankrupt by Cold War.
Soviet Union accepted their fate.
USA still refuse to accept theirs.
Renfield
Upvoted, but I think technically it was Vietnam that bankrupted the US.
Then again, you could argue that it was the First World War, or the 1929 market crash -- although
its bankruptcy wasn't admitted until 1933.
"...Europe's neoliberal elite was after, especially after being fully aware of the fact that
Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government
but finishing them off completely to send a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area
of the fate awaiting them if they dared challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new
Rome." . "...Mr. Tsipras and his one-night "superstar" finance minister tied up with a dog chain and
paraded in front of the European political stage for all to see - utterly defeated and humiliated, with
their political futures up in the air, whether they accept or reject a humiliating Greek deal." . "...as it usually happens in situations of negotiations between ordinates and subordinates,
master and slave, rich and poor, strong and weak, the more compromises the latter makes, the more compromises
the former demands.""
IMF and Germany Are Hell-Bent on Finishing Off Even a Moderate Left in Greece
...Reflecting a political organization/party that had invited and accepted under the same roof
extremely diverse political and ideological groups, the Syriza-led government not only failed to
set out a clear strategic vision for getting the country out of its current crisis but walked straight
into the trap that the euromasters and the "criminal IMF" were setting up for them throughout the
course of the negotiations.
Indeed, the leftist Greek government failed to see that what Europe's neoliberal elite was after,
especially after being fully aware of the fact that Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely
a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government but finishing them off completely to send
a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area of the fate awaiting them if they dared
challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new Rome.
Working in collaboration with the IMF (whom Mr. Tsipras has charged with "criminal responsibility"
for the economic and social catastrophe of Greece), Germany's plan (a nation that has failed to pay
its debts repeatedly in modern times and had the bigger part of its foreign debt wiped off in 1953,
yet has the audacity now to try to teach moral lessons to Greece) is to have Mr. Tsipras and
his one-night "superstar" finance minister tied up with a dog chain and paraded in front of the European
political stage for all to see - utterly defeated and humiliated, with their political futures up
in the air, whether they accept or reject a humiliating Greek deal.
... ... ...
The members of the Greek government negotiation team had submitted a list of proposals for
the June 22 Euro summit that were fully in line with the logic of the EU/IMF bailout program for
Greece: more austerity and additional structural adjustments. All in all, the proposals they made
amounted to over 8 billion euro in additional cuts between 2015 and 2016! The leftist Greek government
even proposed a tax increase to incomes above 30,000 euro, thus suggesting that individuals in that
income bracket rank among the wealthy! Basic food items and services were to carry a 23 percent VAT.
The special VAT rate on Greek islands, which is so crucial for the tourist sector of the economy,
was to be removed. The early retirement age was to be increased as of the start of 2016, and a benefit
for low-income pensioners was to be gradually substituted, beginning from 2018.
The obvious capitulation on the part of the Syriza-led government to the euromasters and the IMF
thugs, which was not the first one, was made just to get a deal done as time was running out for
Greece (it has a huge payment to make to the IMF at the end of June in the tune of 1.6 billion euro)
and thus to remove the dark clouds of a Grexit that had begun to spread dangerously over Greece,
as it had finally become clear that Germany and the IMF were calling Syriza's bluff and were ready
for the unthinkable, i.e., the possibility of a Grexit.
But as it usually happens in situations of negotiations between ordinates and subordinates, master
and slave, rich and poor, strong and weak, the more compromises the latter makes, the more compromises
the former demands.
Thus, the Greek proposals were found to be inadequate, and there were demands for more blood and
tears. Germany and the IMF wanted to force the Syriza-led government to cross its last and final
"red line," which was over additional antisocial measures in the nation's social security and pension
system. Among other things, the Lagarde/Schäuble duo wants the benefit for low-income pensioners
to be completed eliminated by 2017. This would mean that a person who receives today a monthly
pension for the amount of 500 euro (close to 50 percent of Greek pensioners receive pensions below
the official poverty line) would be deprived of about 200 euro, which come as a welfare payment of
sorts.
... ... ...
Footnotes:
1. The political babel of Syriza consists of right-wing and ultra-nationalist
camps (ie., the Independent Greeks party, Syriza's coalition partner in government) to defunct social
democrats and outdated Keynesians who saw primarily the crisis in Greece as a threat to capitalism
itself and were suggesting, accordingly, all sort of interventionist schemes to keep Greece in the
euro area and the emergence of an alternative socio-economic system at bay, including recycling unemployment
schemes with the minimum wage so as not to upset the exploitation rate in the private sector (!)
and IOUs, and from remnants of euro-communism and the old communist left to post-leftism, postmodernist
tendencies devoid of any true understanding of contemporary political realities and without structured
support at the popular, working-class level. Indicative of its political nature, not even one large,
mass protest or demonstration has ever been organized or successfully carried out by Syriza. Its
official organ Avgi still sells thousands of copies less on a daily and a weekly basis than the official
organ of the Greek Communist Party, which in the elections of January 2015 barely got over 5 percent
of the popular vote.
2. Syriza had been converted long ago into an utterly
confusing, "non-left" left political organization, and the restructuring of the Greek economy and
its moribund political culture, the abandonment of outworn, antediluvian modes of political thinking
and behaviors, and the transformation of capitalism and its transition to a socialist economy had
been completely removed from its political radar. For an argument along those lines,
see C. J. Polychroniou, "To Change Greece Requires Changing the Political Culture - and This
Could Be a Tall Order, Especially for the Left." Truthout (September 1, 2013).
... ... ...
C.J. Polychroniou is a research associate and policy fellow at the Levy Economics Institute
of Bard College and a former columnist for a Greek major national newspaper. His main research interests
are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He has taught for many years at
universities in the United States and Europe and is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as
a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles
have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of
his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French,
Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish.
This is big: http://rt.com/news/270046-greece-debt-deal-referendum/
"The Greek PM has announced a national referendum on July 5 on the conditions of the debt deal
with international creditors. It's up to the Greek people, Tsipras said, to make a fateful decision
on the country's sovereignty, independence and future.
"These proposals, which clearly violate
the European rules and the basic rights to work, equality and dignity show that the purpose of
some of the partners and institutions was not a viable agreement for all parties, but possibly
the humiliation of an entire people," Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said in a televised
address to the nation, as cited by Reuters.
The referendum will be held on July 5, a few days past the June 30 deadline, Tsipras announced.
"
A clever move – what can EU do if the debt deal is voted down? Putin-like in its directness
and effectiveness.
"..."The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price."" . "...A recent New York Times editorial with the grandiose title, "The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling,"
claimed that president Putin has a "willingness to brandish nuclear weapons." There was no mention of
America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. " . "...The Obama administration is in the process of killing the Minsk accords which were shepherded
by France and Germany. This is the only process which can defang the beast, and that is why it is being
sabotaged. The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price.
It is like a serial criminal who remains at large and thus thinks of himself as invincible. This county
is responsible for carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria and that is the list
of victims only since 2001." . "...Not only does the United States have the most and the biggest guns but it has the corporate
media at its disposal, parroting every word as if they were gospel truth. " . "...The process of marginalizing Russia began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed."
"The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price."
"Information Clearing House" - "BAR" - This columnist recently said that "Russia Wins" in
its handling of America's attempt to eviscerate its influence and its economy. At the time those
words were written Secretary of State John Kerry met with Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia. The meeting
appeared to be an admission that the imperial power grab was not working out as Washington hoped.
Among other things, Kerry was concerned that the Ukrainian tail was starting to wag the American
dog.
In a public statement he warned Ukrainian president Poroshenko, who threatened to retake Crimea and
the Donbass. "We would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that
that would put Minsk [accords] in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what
the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be." Barack Obama promptly tossed Kerry
under the bus upon his return home.
Kerry's subordinate Victoria Nuland and the United Nations ambassador Samantha Power repeated
the very words that Kerry warned against and contradicted everything he said. Power went to Kiev
to sing the praises of the Ukrainians in person. She didn't have to mention Kerry by name, her presence
alone said that he and any talk of diplomacy were on the outs. Of course the meeting between Kerry
and Putin had to have been approved by president Obama, but just one month later it appears to have
been a figment of the world's imagination.
"Russia has every right to arm its own territory."
In the battle to stay on top of the world and remain in control of it, Washington inevitably lurches
back and forth in its policy decision making. Now they and their scribes in corporate media have
settled back into comfortable territory, simultaneously vilifying the Russian government and endlessly
repeating anti-Russian propaganda.
A recent New York Times editorial with the grandiose title, "The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling,"
claimed that president Putin has a "willingness to brandish nuclear weapons." There was no mention
of America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. Not content
to tell one lie the Times then criticized Putin for "aggressive behavior, including pouring troops
and weapons into Kaliningrad, a Russian city located between NATO members Lithuania and Poland."
Of course, Russia has every right to arm its own territory. The Times also neglected to mention that
the American military are positioning weapons and holding training exercises in Ukraine, Poland,
Romania and the Baltic states that border Russia. It seems that those provocations are not deemed
worthy of mention.
The New York Times and its counterparts always play this role. They cozy up to president Obama
as they have with all his predecessors and support any and all of their mischief. Far from being
a voice of information for the public, they do the bidding of the powerful and are accessories to
their crimes.
"Antagonizing Russia is riskier than paying jihadists to take over Libya."
The Obama administration is in the process of killing the Minsk accords which were shepherded
by France and Germany. This is the only process which can defang the beast, and that is why it is
being sabotaged. The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high
enough price. It is like a serial criminal who remains at large and thus thinks of himself as invincible.
This county is responsible for carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria and
that is the list of victims only since 2001.
One has to ask where and when the straw will break the camel's back. American military power has
allowed it to run rough shod over humanity, but antagonizing Russia is riskier than paying jihadists
to take over Libya.
Not only does the United States have the most and the biggest guns but it has the corporate
media at its disposal, parroting every word as if they were gospel truth. Americans who think
of themselves as well informed will be in for a shock if Moldova turns out to be the flash point
for open warfare that was instigated by their government.
"Russia will never be beholden to America."
Everyone knows that an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 pushed the world into war. In 2015 the
signs are ominous that something terrible may happen because of an incident in Transnistria or Donetsk
or some other locale Americans know nothing about.
The process of marginalizing Russia began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed. While
the Warsaw Pact disbanded, NATO grew at Russia's expense. But Russia will never be beholden to America.
There is no puppet they can place in the Kremlin. These fantasies have put the world on the brink.
Obama and his friends in NATO may not want to start a war but they may get one all the same. Of
course the president is concerned about his legacy. He ought to be. If he continues as he has done
since 2009, his legacy may be that he was head inmate in the asylum when the last war began.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere.
She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at
http://freedomrider.blogspot.com .
Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com
"...The central insight that animated the Congress of Vienna is that order, like liberty,
is fragile. It is contingent on political institutions and social norms and cultural prejudices and
a hundred other variables that, if undermined, lead to chaos. Order is easy to break, yet hard to build.
But if peace depends on it, then a politics grounded in prudence, caution, and realism is necessary.
To live through the traumatic experience of state failure-as all of the Congress's authors did, and
as many in the Middle East and North Africa do today-is to recognize that, in comparison to the anarchy
and chaos of a civil war, order is an enlightened principle too."
...The Congress of Vienna reminds us that not one but two traditions of cosmopolitan thought
trace their roots back to the 18th-century Enlightenment. One is a moralizing, militant worldview
that seeks peace by toppling despotic regimes in the name of liberty. It supposes that a new world
order, underwritten by an enlightened hegemon, can be crafted in the wake of these conquests. This
was the dream of the French revolutionaries, of Napoleon, of Woodrow Wilson. And to a large extent,
it remains the dream of today's foreign-policy establishment in Washington. In the past few decades
America has "liberated," in Napoleon's sense of the term, countries across the Middle East, North
Africa, and Eastern Europe. Whether through the hard power of military force (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya) or the soft power of moral cajoling and economic pressure (Egypt, Syria, Ukraine), our hope
has been that regime change will produce stable liberal democracies and lead to peace. But as the
litany of failed states in our wake suggests, this approach tends to undermine the very order it
seeks to moralize.
The second legacy of Enlightenment, the one witnessed in 1815, is more promising. It recognizes
that if peace depends on order and order on stability, then the moralizing power of a hegemon will
not of itself lead to a peaceful world. The central insight that animated the Congress of Vienna
is that order, like liberty, is fragile. It is contingent on political institutions and social norms
and cultural prejudices and a hundred other variables that, if undermined, lead to chaos. Order is
easy to break, yet hard to build. But if peace depends on it, then a politics grounded in prudence,
caution, and realism is necessary. To live through the traumatic experience of state failure-as all
of the Congress's authors did, and as many in the Middle East and North Africa do today-is to recognize
that, in comparison to the anarchy and chaos of a civil war, order is an enlightened principle too.
Jonathan Green is a doctoral student at the University of Cambridge.
Historically, great powers-including the United States, as a cursory look at its history
demonstrates-have resisted their rivals' attempts to extend influence into areas deemed vital for
national security and standing. But this observation cuts no ice with those who regard Moscow's
behavior as nothing more than an amalgam of mendacity and Machtpolitik.
They dismiss the proposition that Russia might have been unsettled by the prospect of a Ukraine
integrated into the EU. The EU, they point out, is an economic entity, not an alliance, and the
Kremlin knows this full well. Hence, its supposed apprehension about the strategic consequences
of Kyiv's alignment with the EU is bogus-another instance of Putinist propaganda-and those who
give it credence are either misinformed or dupes. Besides, they say, Ukraine has no chance of
joining the EU anytime soon.
That the EU, by virtue of its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), has a military
element-no matter how inchoate-seems to have gone unnoticed by this group. The same goes for the
near-total overlap in membership between the EU and NATO.
Those who believe that Russia alone bears the blame for the Ukraine crisis insist that NATO had
no plans to bring Ukraine into its ranks in the run-up to the 2014 crisis and that Moscow's
apprehensions on this score amount to little more than propaganda.
But back in the early 1990s, the chances that Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic trio would join
both coalitions seemed remote, and Ukraine's membership in NATO was in fact under discussion
during the tenure of President Leonid Kuchma. These, it seems, are inconvenient facts to be
forgotten because only lies emanate from the Kremlin.
Russia certainly sought, in multiple ways, to shape Ukraine's internal and external policies-and
well before Putin came on the scene, by the way. Yet it did not attempt to annex Crimea or to
sponsor secessionist statelets in Ukraine's east prior to 2014. On February 21 of that year, the
Kremlin teamed up with the EU to help forge a February 21, 2014 political settlement between
Yanukovych and the opposition that called for forming a national unity government, pruning the
powers of the presidency (by reverting to the 2004 constitution) and holding early (not later
than December) presidential elections.
To be fair, there are, on the other side of the Ukraine debate, those who have also succumbed to
hyperbolic simplemindedness. For example, the insistence that the conflagration in Ukraine stems
from NATO's expansion pure and simple represents a classic example of the single-factor fallacy.
The contention that Ukraine's own politics are fascist in a fashion or that anti-Semitism
represents a rising trend in Ukrainian society is no less inaccurate, and anyone who has spent
time recently in various parts of Ukraine and met its officials (in Kyiv and the outlying areas),
leaders of civic organizations, journalists and academics can attest that it is baseless. As all
countries do, Ukraine has its extremists, but they are scarcely the prime movers of its politics
and remain a fringe element. While there are sound reasons not to flood Ukraine with American
weaponry, the supposed extremism of Ukrainian politics is not among them.
As a sop to those who have pushed for arming Ukraine, the Obama administration has begun training
Ukraine's National Guard-regrouped private militias that, at least in an administrative, if not
substantive, sense are overseen by the defense and interior ministries. (Canada and Britain are
also providing training.) The White House has also allocated some $118 million for "nonlethal"
equipment to bolster Ukraine's defenses.
Meanwhile, the creaky Minsk II ceasefire could well collapse. Shelling across the line of control
remains routine. Moreover, the Kyiv leadership and the Donbas separatists both have reason to
torpedo Minsk II-the former to force Obama's hand, the latter to prevent Putin from abandoning
them for a deal with the West that lifts economic sanctions on Russia.
"..."It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and
they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause."
At rally of young people in Turin, Francis issues his toughest condemnation to date of the
weapons industry, criticizing investors as well as workers
People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves
Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday.
Duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another --
-- Pope Francis
Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands
of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin. "If you trust only men you have lost," he told the young people in a long commentary about war,
trust and politics, after putting aside his prepared address.
"It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and
they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause.
He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying "duplicity is the currency of
today ... they say one thing and do another."
Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second
world wars. He spoke of the "tragedy of the Shoah", using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.
"The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration
camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn't they bomb (the
railway lines)?"
Discussing the first world war, he spoke of "the great tragedy of Armenia", but did not use the
word "genocide". Francis sparked a diplomatic row in April, calling the massacre of up to 1.5 million
Armenians 100 years ago "the first genocide of the 20th century", prompting Turkey to recall its
ambassador to the Vatican.
"Ultranationalist and revolutionary Ukrainians like Bandera dreamt in the 1930s of becoming
leaders of fascist states like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The Ukrainian equivalent to
duce and Führer was vozhd' or providnyk. In the late 1930s and early 1940s the generation born
around 1910 took the initiative and continued elaborating Ukrainian fascism on their own. They
invented the Ukrainian fascist salute "Glory to Ukraine!" while answering "Glory to the Heroes!";
wanted to take care of the "Ukrainian race" and claimed that Ukraine needed a fascist state without
national minorities – in particular without Jews, Poles and Russians. They wanted to be a part
of the new fascist Europe like Ante Pavelić's Croatia or Josef Tiso's Slovakia. Bandera was supposed
to become the leader of a Ukrainian fascist state after Ievhen Konovalets' was assassinated in
1938 in Rotterdam and his follower Adrii Melnyk was considered inappropriate for the position."
Since the fall of the Soviet Union liberated Americans from our fear of nuclear Armageddon, the
foreign policy of the United States has come to rely almost exclusively on economic sanctions,
military deterrence, and the use of force. Coercion replaced diplomacy and for some reason several female psychopaths
was selected to implement this policy. all of them were single trick ponies: "my way or highway" was
the only method they have in their arsenal. For a while it produced results because dominance
of the USA after 1991, but since 2008 with crisis of neoliberalism, it started to produce the level
hate which became a became factor limiting possibilities of the USA to conduct foreign policy. As the result, as Chas Freena noted in
The American Conservative, "The United States has forfeited its capacity to pursue American
interests through negotiated solutions." Andrew Bacevich promoted the same thesis even earlier
in his book The
Limits of Power The End of American Exceptionalism
"...This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force
of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not."
"..."Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political
base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue."
"...While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her
European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well."
...In interviews with Foreign Policy, her European colleagues have described her as "brash," "direct,"
"forceful," "blunt," "crude," and occasionally, "undiplomatic." But they also stressed that genuine
policy differences account for their frustrations with her - in particular, her support for sending
arms to Ukraine as the country fends off a Russian-backed rebellion, a policy not supported by the
White House.
"She doesn't engage like most diplomats," said a European official. "She comes off
as rather ideological."
While European complaints about Nuland's diplomatic style are genuine and fairly ubiquitous, she
has also been dealt an incredibly difficult hand.
Nuland frequently meets with senior European leaders who outrank her and delivers messages they
often don't want to hear.
In a crisis of this magnitude, many of these delicate tasks would traditionally get kicked up
to Nuland's boss, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman. But Sherman has
been saddled with the momentous job of leading the U.S. negotiating team in the Iran nuclear talks,
giving Nuland an unusual degree of latitude and influence for an assistant secretary.
This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force
of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not.
"Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political
base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue.
In Europe, Nuland is widely presumed to be the leading advocate for shipping weapons to Kiev -
a proposal bitterly opposed by the Germans, Hungarians, Italians, and Greeks who fear setting off
a wider conflict with Moscow.
The White House has also argued against providing lethal assistance to Kiev because Moscow enjoys
what's known as "escalation dominance," or the ability to outmatch and overwhelm Ukrainian forces
regardless of the type of assistance the United States would provide.
Nuland is not the only Obama administration official who has supported arming Ukraine, but in
Europe, she has become the face of this policy, thanks to a pivotal event that occurred in February
during the annual Munich Security Conference.
At the outset of the forum, Nuland and Gen. Philip Breedlove delivered an off-the-record briefing
to the visiting U.S. delegation, which included about a dozen U.S. lawmakers in the House and Senate.
Unbeknownst to Nuland and Breedlove, a reporter from the German newspaper Bild snuck into
the briefing room and published a report that reverberated across Germany but gained little to no
traction in English-language media.
The report said Nuland and Breedlove were pressing U.S. lawmakers to support the shipment of defensive
weapons to Ukraine and belittling the diplomatic efforts German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French
President François Hollande were making in Russia.
"We would not be in the position to supply so many weapons that Ukraine could defeat Russia. That
is not our goal," Breedlove was quoted as saying. "But we must try to raise the price for Putin on
the battlefield."
Nuland reportedly added, "I would like to urge you to use the word 'defensive system' to describe
what we would be delivering against Putin's offensive systems," according to a translation.
... ... ...
In December, Democrats and Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation authorizing
the president to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, including ammunition, troop-operated surveillance
drones, and antitank weapons. The president agreed to sign the legislation only because it did not
require him to provide the aid, which he has yet to do. Trying a new tactic this week, the Senate
included a provision in its military policy bill that would withhold half of the $300 million for
Ukrainian security assistance until 20 percent of the funds is spent on lethal weaponry for Kiev.
The provision is opposed by the White House for fear that lethal assistance would only serve to escalate
the bloodshed in Ukraine and hand Putin an excuse for further violent transgressions.
While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her
European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well.
"Some tend to perceive Nuland's assertiveness as a bit too over the edge, at least for the muffled
European diplomatic environment," said Federiga Bindi, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University's
School of Advanced International Studies.
... ... ...
Despite the fact that Nuland is not outside the mainstream of many State Department views on the
Ukraine crisis, her reputation as the most pugnacious of hawks isn't likely to subside in the minds
of Europeans anytime soon. In many ways, that's because she'll never live down the moment that made
her famous: the leaking of a private phone call of her disparaging the European Union in 2014 as
the political standoff between the Ukrainian opposition and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
unfurled.
"...There are valid arguments on both sides but you don't get to walk this back. Once we have done
this we become a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on earth that
can destroy the United States. That's why this is a big deal." "
Jacob Heilbrunn has an
extremely
suggestive article in the latest National Interest which reminds readers that neoconservatives
essentially began as critics of Great Society liberalism and elite reluctance to defend bourgeois
standards and law and order in the 1960s. Heilbrunn has written
one of the finest
books about neoconservatism, and is generally a nuanced critic of the group. But one need not
go full bore with Norman Podhoretz-type linkages between homosexuality, cultural decay, and Munich
to recognize that the neocons were right about many things, and law and order in American cities
was one of them. In any case, Heilbrunn reminds us that Bill Kristol (son of Irving, founder of
The Public Interest, a magazine devoted to domestic policy) tweeted out in the aftermath
of the Ferguson riots (the second set, not the first) that it felt like 1968 all over again and some
politician would do well to speak, a la Richard Nixon, for the silent American majority which was
not anti-cop. In this case, Kristol was probably right.
It is also is apparent that no major politician
right, center, or left has yet risen to take the bait. Of course they all want to be "tough"-but
always somewhere else in the world. Neoconservatism has prevailed, but only in foreign policy. Today
the target is Vladimir Putin and Russia, and everyone in Washington agrees he needs to be taught
a lesson. Congress voted last week voted to compel the administration to provide lethal weapons to
Ukraine, including offensive weapons-against the administration's judgment. The
Times story noted that the arms shipments would open a rift between the Washington and
France and Germany, which are hesitant about any measure which would escalate the fighting. It would
seem that Congress has bought whole hog into the Wolfowitz doctrine, widely derided as extremist
when it was leaked in 1992, according to which the United States should maintain dominance in every
region of the world, and that no other nation should aspire to a greater role, even in its own geographic
area.
Major European governments are now doing their best to circumvent anti-Russian sanctions which
they themselves instituted. European publics make it clear that they are not willing to fight Russia
over the disposition of the territories of the former Soviet Union. The cease-fire between Ukraine
and its rebellious Russian-backed eastern provinces that was negotiated last February has been violated
repeatedly, and Putin has called openly for the West to persuade Ukraine's central government to
follow its provisions. It's not clear how many American congressmen voting for giving Ukraine offensive
weapons understand the implications of their weapons policy, which were
spelled out by the Kennan Institute's Matthew Rojansky:
There are valid arguments on both sides but you don't get to walk this back. Once we have done
this we become a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on earth that
can destroy the United States. That's why this is a big deal.
A proxy war with Russia, over Russian borderlands not one American in a hundred could locate on
a map-it's really the full triumph of Wolfowitz. Not to be outdone by Congress, the Obama administration
is now floating plans to deliver tanks and other heavy weapons, along with token numbers of American
troops, to several of our new NATO "allies," the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania. Those governments will inevitably conclude that Washington has their back in any conflict
with Russia and act accordingly. See Georgia, 2008, for an example of how this might play out.
There is something about Ukraine and the other Russian border regions which Europeans seem to
understand and Americans don't. Much of the "Maidan Revolution" was driven by ethnic Ukrainian nationalists
with deep hatred for Russia; while it's not a universal sentiment, many Ukrainians despise all things
Russian, including their own compatriots who identify with Russia. They want nothing more than to
draw the West into a war against their ancestral enemy. The newly minted anti-Russian regime in Kiev
is the fruit of American "pro-democracy" meddling involving billions of dollars of payouts to private
groups and individuals, the kind of thing the CIA used to do during the Cold War. Of course because
of its proximity to an unsettled region, the new Ukrainian government can find endless ways to keep
the pot boiling–shelling their own civilians in Donetsk, or instituting a
blockade against Transnistria , a pro-Russian breakaway province of Moldova. The average American
may not know much about Transnistria-or indeed likely has never heard of it at all-but you can be
assured that Putin does care about keeping the small Russian garrison stationed there supplied.
This is neoconservatism's triumph: the creation of an entire Beltway industry, honeycombed through
Congress and largely bipartisan, which finds political life not worth living without the prospect
of confrontation with a distant enemy. The notion of treating Russia as a great power, acknowledging
that Russia has serious security interests on its borders and treating those interests respectfully,
does not occur to its members. Detente for them is a dirty word, akin to appeasement.
The PEW Research Center has a new opinion
survey of several NATO countries and Russia with regards to the Ukraine conflict:
Publics of key member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) blame Russia for
the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Many also see Russia as a military threat to other neighboring
states. But few support sending arms to Ukraine. Moreover, at least half of Germans, French
and Italians say their country should not use military force to defend a NATO ally if attacked
by Russia.
... the opinion Ukrainians have about the Nuland installed puppet government:
Ukrainians give both their president and prime minister negative marks. A plurality disapproves
of President Petro Poroshenko's job performance (43%), while just a third approves. A majority
(60%) is unhappy with the way Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is handling his job. Roughly half
or more of eastern Ukrainians give Poroshenko (49%) and Yatsenyuk (66%) negative reviews. Western
Ukrainians also give Yatsenyuk bad marks (55%) but are divided on Poroshenko (39% approve, 39%
disapprove).
PEW did not survey the people in the federalist held areas in the east. With those included the
numbers for the Ukrainian government would be considerably worse. Given that the media in Ukraine
are mostly in the hands of pro-western oligarchs these results are really quite bad. There was speculation
some time ago that Nuland had planned to replace Poroshenko with the Scientology follower Yatsenyuk
but given these numbers there is no longer a chance for such a move.
Meanwhile the conflict in east Ukraine is flaring up again with Donetsk city again being under
daily artillery fire from the Ukrainian government side. The summer in east Ukraine will likely get
hot again.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Harold | Jun 10, 2015 11:42:00 AM | 1
Is there any real evidence that Yatsenuk is a Scientologist beyond Wayne Madsen, who is not
very believable?
Piece by Tony Ortega on Scientology and Yats. Yatsenyuk has also been linked to Obama follower
Soros.
Scientology and Soros don't mix, different sets of assets. ;-)
thepanzer | Jun 10, 2015 1:20:09 PM | 7
"But a war on Russia could become nuclear and then all bets are off even for those
living on the western side of the Atlantic. Did no one tell them?"
Americans are idiots. Even if someone did tell them I doubt it would register.
bjorn richter | Jun 10, 2015 3:06:20 PM | 14
Why are we not told ? Only 3% use of nuclear arsenal will create a global winter. No light,
no growth, freezing temperatures. No way to hide. We would all starve or freeze to death. So simple.
Check on the information while you are alive.
Wayoutwest | Jun 10, 2015 3:57:27 PM | 15
Reading polls is boring but setting off unstable Dynamite is fun and entertaining and surprisingly
easy.
psychohistorian | Jun 10, 2015 4:02:03 PM | 16
If you are a current oligarch/plutocrat that is connected to family that has been in control
of finance for centuries you know what is at stake and are probably willing to go nuclear to maintain
the status quo. The oligarchs/plutocrats might even be willing to go nuclear as a first strike
measure as the cumulative effects of Fukushima become apparent and retribution pressure starts
to build.
Russia , China and their friends are organizing to stand up to the oligarchs/plutocrats controlling
bully America. The kabuki in the Ukraine is part of that stand up.
The current global oligarchs and plutocrats are not necessarily American. The empire that America
represents is the transnational power base of the Western world controlled by private finance
which is owned by the oligarchs/plutocrats. Any country that deems itself beholding to the IMF
and World Bank are puppets of empire.
Life is short, eat dessert first. I thought for a while in my life that space exploration could
be the growth frontier to keep the capitalist myth going but we seem to be despoiling ourselves
and our home in a manner that reeks of extinction.
You lot have forgotten what it might be like to to be nuked. I posted The "http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kwz5u_the-war-game-peter-watkins-1965_tv"
The War Game the other day. But that might be too British for you. I've ordered "Failsafe",
more American, but haven't seen it yet. I don't think that "Dr. Strangelove" is ever likely to
discourage US nuclear ambitions.
Media analyst Mark Dice asked beachgoers in San Diego, California to sign a petition supporting
President Obama's supposed plan to launch of preemptive nuclear attack against Russia to help
keep the United States of America the world's leading superpower.
The idea that those poll numbers against intervention would stay the same after a military
attack is just silly.
Support for intervention, more sanctions, political isolation from the west etc, would all
rise highly In the polls of the people in such circumstances.
Most of the people's fear and hate complex would immediately rise, and in the example of the
Western people's concern against the Russians generally, they are ready to, if not already, think
of Russia as the USSR.
You'll have to see for yourself what he says about our Beloved Nobel Laureate, but here's a
teaser on Maidan.
By no stretch of any reasonable imagination can it be considered that the imposition of new
leadership in Kyiv was either democratic or constitutional.
So if there was not a legal transition, what happened?
If you examine the facts you will find it hard to disagree that a complete constitutional
collapse occurred. The president was forced under threat of death to leave the country, and
the democratically installed constitution was nullified.
And what do you know, I didn't cut myself with the scissors! Well, this time, anyway....
For the Azov, it's not just a matter of the occasional very confused kid hung up on some twisted
variant of the Nazi ideology who wants to enlist.... [T]here is a recurring history of Nazi ideology
in the battalion that goes back to its founder, Andriy Biletsky, who pulled together the neo-Nazi
group called the Social-National Assembly (SNA) in 2008.
Last year, Biletsky and the SNA created the Azov Battalion as a volunteer militia. Both the
battalion and the SNA sport what is essentially a crude swastika on their logo, although they
publically deny that it is a swastika. Some members of the Azov Battalion even wear the swastika
symbol against a yellow background as armbands. A significant portion of the Azov Battalion denies,
at least publicly, that it has any neo-Nazi or white supremacist beliefs. Instead these members
claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I
combined to mean "national identity."
This is a hard sell considering the ideology of Biletsky, their founder and military commander.
Also, the numerous swastika tattoos of different members and their tendency to go into battle
with swastikas or SS insignias on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the
group to plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations.
This creates a problem for those members of the battalion like Kharkiv who are clearly not
neo-Nazis. But it creates a far larger problem for the Ukrainian government, which relies immensely
on the group, as one of its most effective fighting forces, to defend the city of Mariupol and
100 kilometers of the front line. Last summer it was the Azov brigade, led by Biletsky, that liberated
Mariupol from the Russian-backed separatists. Azov is completely entrenched in the power structure
of the country. "We work with all defense systems of the Ukrainian government," Kharkiv says.
The Ukrainian government isn't the only government that should be concerned. The United States
government at this moment is training parts of the Azov Battalion along with other Ukrainian National
Guard battalions near the city of Lviv in western Ukraine. This unfortunate reality gives what
Kharkiv calls "Putin TV" and the rest of the Kremlin propaganda machine everything it needs to
portray the Ukraine government as fascist and the Americans as backing crypto-Nazis
"Instead these members claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags
and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I combined to mean 'national identity.'"
The symbol is a simple bind rune, an old Scandinavian magical glyph. The thing about putting
runes together is getting as many meanings into one bind rune as possible.
Remember whose symbol this is now, and who they took it from. They might go on in public about
the N and I, but amongst themselves it is an SS.
The latest attempt at another Maidan resulted in a man who was photographed with John McCain being
beaten by 'unknown assailants'. This encapsulates Washington's hypocrisy perfectly.
PEW also released a report on USAian various legislative polls through the years, compared
to Congressional voting records, and found no statically significant trace from a informatics
POV that Congress pays the slightest attention to what USAians say in the polls or at the ballot
booth.
H-1B Hindustanis are flying over the borders by the 787 load, now, taking 98% of new high-tech
jobs, and continuing the riff-down of USAian WASPs for Hindustanis, while birthing Ms of future
Anchor Babus, leaving USAians in the same boat as the disenfranchised, de-stated Ukrainians.
And in one year, 13,000,000 Califucian's will be on the road as climate refugees, in search
of water, 8a-EBT welfare, fighting those very same Hindustanis for housing, jobs and the green,
green grass of home.
It is a little funny how the opinions that are skeptic toward NATO policies can be dismissed as
results of Russian dangerous propaganda machine.
Pew did not ask if the respondents watched RT, but my bet is that few did, and even fewer as
the main news source.
Western media is dominated by the output of western corporate groups: kind of by definition,
if you do not own TV network with wide viewership, you are not a major corporation.
So if there is a perception that USA is arrogant and untrustworthy, this cannot be explained
by Russian propaganda alone, given its relatively minor reach.
There's quite a bit of data online that casts doubt on Pew's alleged non-partisanship.
The PEW Charitable Trusts were established by the surviving sons and daughters of Joseph N.
Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company, known today as Sunoco. The founding fortune of PEW's trusts
came from the often brutal tactics of the early American oil industry. By the end of fiscal
year 2008, the total assets of PEW Charitable Trusts had grown to over $5 billion. When your
independent public charity corporation is worth over $5 billion, it takes a lot of moxy to
call yourself a "non-profit" organization.
. . .
PEW also has a history of investing in companies its alleged "principles" are in direct contrast
with. For example, PEW has for years made sizable donations to environmentally conscious groups
like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund. In spite of this, one
of the seven PEW trusts, Pew Memorial Trusts, contains over $24 million worth of purchased
stock in Exxon-Mobil, one of the premier faces of the fracking industry that is destroying
eco-systems throughout the US.
Another member of the PEW trusts, J.N. Pew Jr. Trust, has
over $9 million invested in 12 different oil ventures, including Chevron, Marathon Group, and
Phillips Petroleum. Unbelievably, the PEW Charitable Trusts formed a joint trust with 6 other
"non-profit foundations" that included the Rockefeller Foundation, bringing its total assets
to over $21 billion, in order to form the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation is the main
financial supporter of the most prominent anti-Exxon Mobil activist group, the Texas Fund for
Energy and Environmental Education.
An apparently right-wing org called "Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library" seems to thinks that
PCT is a devilish left-wing outfit devoted to bringing down capitalism by funding environmental
groups:
A non-profit conglomerate of epic size and ambition, operating many projects, all designed
to reduce the power of the for-profit sector and increase government power over all aspects
of American life.
. . .
Transparency is not a Pew virtue. Even the basic 2008 income and asset information above is
so puny compared to the real money behind the organization that it stirs mistrust. Pew Charitable
Trusts
This page lists Pew's gifts in year 2001 to environmental organizations. This list can't be
cut-and-pasted, so I have manually typed just a few of the ones over a million dollars:
(2001) Clear the Air Campaign, $4,997,00 (funded through a grant to Pace University)
(2001) National Forest Planning Public Education, $3,475,000 (funded through a grant to US
Public Interest Research Group Education Fund)
(2001) Farmed Salmon Contaminant Study, $2,530,000 (funded through a grant to Research Foundation
of State University of New York)
(2001) The Columbia and Snake Rivers Campaign, $1,375,000 (funded through a grant to Save Our
Wild Salmon Coalition)
This same Ron Arnold page lists the disclosed assets of some of the trusts with the PCT. This
is the list for one them, the Pew Memorial Trust:
Corporation # of Shares Value (in 2008?)
Burlington Resources 38,300 $1,934,150
Coastal Corporation 40,654 $3,590,256
Exxon Mobil Corporation 97,641 $8,488,664
Kerr McGee Corp 27,222 $1,822,173
Occidental Petroleum Corp 159,800 $3,875,150
MCN Energy Group Inc 69,400 $1,921,513
Helmerich & Payne Inc. 44,700 $1,961,213
Occidental Petroleum Corp 295,100 $7,156,175
Ocean Energy Inc 132,000 $2,293,500
Pittston Brink's Group 30,800 $612,150
Swift Energy Co 128,986 $4,853,098
Vintage Petroleum Inc 41,850 $899,775
Southern Energy Inc. 37,500 $1,061,719
Energy East Corp 16,430 $3,234,656
Burlington Resources 24,725 $1,248,613
Chevron Corp 9,100 $768,381
Coastal Corporation 18,800 $1,660,275
Exxon Mobil Corporation 50,895 $4,424,684
Kerr McGee Corp 18,150 $1,214,916
Occidental Petroleum Corp 34,125 $827,531
Schlumberger Ltd 16,325 $1,304,980
MCN Energy Group Inc 62,525 $1,731,161
Chevron Corp 40,600 $3,428,163
Exxon Mobil Corporation 53,700 $4,668,544
Schlumberger Ltd 46,600 $3,725,088
Transocean Sedco Forex 6,800 $2,152,800
Duke Energy Corp 29,400 $2,506,350
Burlington Resources 59,550 $3,007,275
Coastal Corporation 62,300 $6,902,838
Exxon Mobil Corporation 79,400 $6,902,838
Kerr McGee Corp 41,950 $2,808,028
Occidental Petroleum Corp 241,525 $5,856,981
Duke Energy Corp 31,550 $2,689,638
MCN Energy Group Inc 10,4200 $2,885,038
It seems obvious to me that the value of these stocks is far more important to the people running
PCT than the values of the enviro orgs that they throw a few million bucks to, and that these
donations are not intended to bring down capitalism, but to undercut and to neuter the recipient
organizations.
One of Pew's functions is to track opinion to inform how well the Media Power is doing.
This alerts pols. and others on public sentiment, etc. It keeps away from really serious or revealing
questions, on the whole.
Note in this poll (top part) very innocuous and vague questions are posed, sending economic
aid to Ukraine (which is already taking place…) is a kind of no-brainer, economic aid is a 'good
thing' for 'poor countries / ppl' and happens all the time.
Support will be high, all responders
want to be decent ppl - though there may be some country differences, they will be meaningless
as based on all kinds of 'other' considerations.
Ukraine joining NATO / EU are hypotheticals, and generally 'positive sounding' and don't inform
about attitudes towards Russia or war.
A little more specific is 'sending arms to Ukraine' (err.. which Ukr? To whom? To what purpose?
Too ambiguous…) Here though we might imagine finding some 'meat' as any mention of 'arms' makes
ppl consider the question more seriously.
For the countries listed, one can forget Poland (in
a way, 50% for is low?), we see that Spain, Germany, Italy, are not keen (25, 19, 22 % for respectively),
which when you substract margin of error plus saying yes to something vague, amounts to very low
support. France, on the other hand, at 40% for is a good notch above and creeps very close to
joining the 5-eyes (Canada and the US being the only ones in the poll, here at 44 and 46 % for.)
Which we knew already, France has turned hyper-atlanticist and the media have done a fantastic
job.
The part on 'should or should not use force to defend allies' within NATO is more interesting,
as it shows that public support for NATO pact is barely a majority, and nationalistic attitudes
are probably playing a role. Pew thereby sends a message ..
Note that there will have been few respondents who could actually quote who the NATO countries
are, what the pact is, and so forth. So the pollsters and the polled are talking past each
other, it is a kind of fake discourse.
In addition to sanctions, Western-controlled Ukraine increases pressure on the Russian elite,
by going after their property.
We already wrote about the Ukrainian junta making moves primarily, legal, on the seizure of Russian
state property in Ukraine -
http://pravoe-org.livejournal.com/521470.html
Perhaps the most serious take over was a pipeline in Western Ukraine of the Russian state corporation
"Transneft".
Now, however, the situation has changed. Ukraine started seizing the property of the Russian oligarchs.
The hype just increased in the last few days, especially on June 10 and 11, when it became clear
that the Minsk-2 is going down the drain. Basically, the flood gates had opened.
In the period from June 8 to 11 a process of requisition of property of the Russian oligarchs
began in Ukraine. First of all, Oleg Deripaska lost (in favor of the state) the Zaporozhye Aluminum
plant, and Viktor Vekselberg, with a combination of pressure from the Prosecutor's office and an
armed takeover, is losing the Pobuzhsky Ferronikel plant.
However, ukies honestly warned about such scenario by the raider №1 in Ukraine - Gennady Korban
(a person close to "Benya" Kolomoisky [Korban is former deputy governor of Dnepropetrovsk region
- KR], and Korban had the experience of seizing the Russian property in the pre-Maidan era). At the
end of May, Korban announced his plan on how to repossess the Russian property:
"Russian banks on the territory of Ukraine shall be confiscated in the first place. They can affect
both the exchange rate and loan servicing and property of state corporations. Today a number of Ukrainian
state corporations just service the enemy credits".
"If these or other capitals, originating from Russia, are related to specific individuals, directly
or indirectly involved in the funding or facilitating terrorism, separatism and the war in our country,
then, on the basis of this law, their property on mainland Ukraine must be confiscated," - said Korban,
and as an example, listed a number of large Ukrainian enterprises, owned by Russian oligarchs:
Nikolaev Alumina refinery and ZAlK [Zaporozhye Aluminum plant] of Oleg Deripaska
Pobujsky Ferronickel plant of Viktor Vekselberg
Coal coke enterprises, the "South" mine and Dnepropetrovsk Petrovsky metallurgical plant,
belonging to the group "Evraz"
Purchased by VTB group, assets of the Industrial Union of Donbass
Today, the "Cunning Plan of Korban", unlike the CPP [the Cunning Plan of Putin], is being implemented.
Actively implemented. Here are the facts:
First, nationalization
On June 9, junta has completed the process of "nationalization" of Zaporozhye Aluminium plant:
ZALK was adjudged from the holding "RUSAL" of Russian Oleg Deripaska. The controlling stake, which
is 68.01% of the total number of shares was credited to the account of the State Property Fund of
Ukraine. State raiding by the junta became possible after March 11, when the supreme court upheld
the "legitimacy" of demands for the return of shares to the state due to the failure by the investor
(Deripaska's holding company) to fulfill obligations (formally, the Russian "AVTOVAZ-Invest" and
Cyprus company Velbay Holdings could not settle a debt). The official message of junta Prosecutor
General can be found here:
http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=157430
It's also important to note that Korban's gang set its sights on ZALK since the end of last year:
"In early November, the plant (ZALK) came under the cross-hairs of fighters of battalion "Aidar",
the financing of which is connected to the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, Igor Kolomoisky. On
the night of November 9, 2014 the fighters of Aydar barricaded themselves in the building of Zaporozhzhye
Aluminium plant, allegedly "to prevent looting". Zaporozhye police had to aid in liberating
the plant from the patriots.
But it was too rough, now they decided to maintain the facade of legitimacy.
Second, revocation of licenses and liquidation
On June 11, in the afternoon, the National Bank of Ukraine adopted the decision on revocation of
the banking license and liquidation of "Energobank", according to the resolution of the board of
the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) No. 370, dated June 11.
Formally "Energobank" is owned by a Russian businessman, Anatoly Danilitskiy. Previously, it belonged
to the group of oligarch Alexander Lebedev, the one who likes to engage in publishing activity in
London. However, two years ago information surfaced, that there is a written obligation of the new
owner Anatoly Danilitsky on reissuance of shares of the bank to the "National Reserve Company" (NRK)
of Lebedev. Thus, Danilitsky owns "Energobank" nominally, but the real owner is still Alexander Lebedev.
Security services of Ukraine considered the bank a financial "wash" of the Russian oligarchs.
June 11, in the evening. A capture of Pobujsky Ferronickel plant (PFC). This is the only enterprise
in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union, producing ferronickel on an industrial scale from poor oxidized
nickel ores. Located on the territory of Kirovograd region, on the border with Nikolaev region.
Here is the sequence of events:
1. In Golovanevsk district, Kirovograd region, at around 21:00 a group of armed men tried to enter
the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant, at the moment they were negotiating with the administration, reported
the head of the village council of Dolgaya Pristan of the Nikolaev region, Sergey Titarenko (this
settlement is adjacent to the Kirovograd region). "About an hour ago armed men tried to enter the
Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant. Our town is a mile from the plant. We could hear shooting. At the moment
there is information on negotiations between the invaders and the administration, " said Sergey Titarenko.
In Pobuzhye, the village head, Sergey Slobodyanyuk explained: "Even this morning the representatives
of the prosecutor and tax authorities of Kirovograd region, accompanied by the detachment of police,
tried to enter the territory of the enterprise, but only a tax investigator went into the plant.
At 9 p.m. about 50 people with guns in black uniforms arrived on buses. They failed to get inside,
facing resistance from the staff and the guards. Meanwhile, armed men accompanied the man, who declared
that according to the decision of the court, he is the new owner of the Ferronickel plant", - said
Sergey Slobodyanyuk. He also added that tomorrow morning, to avoid bloodshed a meeting for the employees,
the current administration and the alleged new owner of the enterprise will be held in Pobuzhye House
of Culture to determine the fate of the plant.
2. In the evening, at a press conference in Kiev, the CEO of the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant,
Oleg Bespalov has informed that on June 11, unknown persons were trying to block the products of
Pobujsky Ferronickel plant in Kirovograd region, the investor of which is Solway Investment Group:
"Actions by unknown persons to block the import of a large batch of nickel ore and ferronickel
and the prosecutor's office of Kirovograd region conducting simultaneous search actions, we
consider as an attempt of illegal seizure of the property of the group"
Deputy director of the PFC on legal affairs, Rustam Dzhamgurov, in turn added that accusations
towards PFC are absurd, because PFC provides processing services and does not produce the product,
and added that enforcement proceedings opened against PFC were opened due to a claim of a physical
person, who has no relation to the company. Dzhamgurov clarified that this individual has never appeared
in court and did not provide explanatory materials on the case:
"In this case we are talking about an organized judicial arbitrariness and lawlessness ... 72
thousand tonnes of ore and 7 thousand tons of ferronickel were arrested. The company is carrying
huge losses."
3. The products of PFC are shipped through the port of Ilyichevsk, and there it was detained.
(Ilyichevsk - is Odessa region, where Saakashvili is now governor). It is important that on June
8 a scandal was raised claiming the products of PFC are used for defense purposes and are illegally
shipped to Russia:
"Press service (of the port) stated that on Monday, June 8, false information was circulated about
the alleged illegal shipment of ferronickel products used in the defense industry, in particular,
in the production of alloy steel for armored vehicles. At the port this media campaign to discredit
the head of the enterprise, Yury Kruk, was connected to the search for the position of director of
the Ilyichevsk Commercial Sea Port, conducted by the Ministry of Infrastructure. On June 8, some
online media, indeed, reported that allegedly the arrested batch of 7 thousand tons of ferronickel
was being loaded on the ship "Seldonis" at terminal 4 of Pier 18 of the Ilyichevsk port. ... The
shipment of ferronickel is allegedly owned by "Bowring Trading", and it was going to be transported
to Russia."
Oh, and by the way, who is watching TV? Is there anything on Russia-24 or the Channel 1 on the
an armed seizure of a Ferronickel plant, which essentially belongs to Russian investors? And on the
liquidation of a Russian Bank? Nothing? Let's pretend, it's not ours?... Oh, well...
And more. Such an attack on the property of the Russian oligarchs (Deripaska, and most importantly,
Vekselberg, and the attack will likely continue) is going on with the full support of the state -
Prosecutor General. Therefore, it is planned. Consequently, it's a part of a master plan. A
plan of pressure on their property, in addition to the sanctions of the West against Russia, which
were largely intended to cause discontent in the Russian oligarchy. Today, yesterday, the day before
yesterday a second front was opened in this direction.
…Yet even America's stunning victory in the Cold War with the implosion of the Soviet
Union would not transform the geopolitical fundamentals of the world island. As a result, after
the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Washington's first foreign foray in the new era would
involve an attempt to reestablish its dominant position in the Persian Gulf, using Saddam Hussein's
occupation of Kuwait as a pretext.
In 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, imperial historian Paul Kennedy returned to Mackinder's
century-old treatise to explain this seemingly inexplicable misadventure. "Right now, with
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in the Eurasian rimlands," Kennedy wrote in the Guardian,
"it looks as if Washington is taking seriously Mackinder's injunction to ensure control of
'the geographical pivot of history.'" If we interpret these remarks expansively, the sudden
proliferation of U.S. bases across Afghanistan and Iraq should be seen as yet another imperial
bid for a pivotal position at the edge of the Eurasian heartland, akin to those old British
colonial forts along India's Northwest Frontier…
…Instead of focusing purely on building a blue-water navy like the British or a global aerospace
armada akin to America's, China is reaching deep within the world island in an attempt to thoroughly
reshape the geopolitical fundamentals of global power. It is using a subtle strategy that has
so far eluded Washington's power elites.
After decades of quiet preparation, Beijing has recently begun revealing its grand strategy
for global power, move by careful move. Its two-step plan is designed to build a transcontinental
infrastructure for the economic integration of the world island from within, while mobilizing
military forces to surgically slice through Washington's encircling containment…
####
It can't be much clearer than that. Re-balancing to land based infrastructure reduces China's
exposure to the USA's control of the seas. All they need to to is push back the USA little by
little, regularly to change the risk equation. Russia, the shortest route for goods from Asia
to Europe is also fundamental to this. Instead of sending massive cargo ships to Europe, go by
rail & Russia is putting the Trans-siberian railway through a deep upgrade. The US is then just
left with drones & air power, one single arm of the pincer and also quite vulnerable.
US supplies defensive sniper arms to Ukraine. But uses Bulgaria as an intermediate destination
to hide what it is doing?
I can't decide whether these were weapons used to train the National
Guard, which just happened to pass through Bulgaria, or if the US has been gun running arms into
Ukraine (using Bulgaria) as the article suggests.
"...The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who
made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic.
It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. "Unprecedented" is considered a dangerous
word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration's furious efforts to manufacture a
Ukraine narrative and our media's incessant reproduction of all its fallacies."
A sophisticated game of manipulation is afoot over Russia: power, influence and money. U.S.
hands are not clean
A couple of weeks ago, this column guardedly suggested that John Kerry's day-long talks in Sochi
with Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, looked like a break in the clouds on
numerous questions, primarily the Ukraine crisis. I saw no evidence that President Obama's secretary
of state had suddenly developed a sensible, post-imperium foreign strategy consonant with a new era.
It was force of circumstance. It was the 21st century doing its work.
This work will get done, cleanly and peaceably or otherwise.
Sochi, an unexpected development, suggested the prospect of cleanliness and peace. But events
since suggest that otherwise is more likely to prove the case. It is hard to say because it is hard
to see, but our policy cliques may be gradually wading into very deep water in Ukraine.
Ever since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, reality itself has come to seem up for
grabs. Karl Rove, a diabolically competent political infighter but of no discernible intellectual
weight, may have been prescient when he told us to forget our pedestrian notions of reality-real
live reality. Empires create their own, he said, and we're an empire now.
The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who
made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic.
It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. "Unprecedented" is considered a dangerous
word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration's furious efforts to manufacture
a Ukraine narrative and our media's incessant reproduction of all its fallacies.
At this point it is only sensible to turn everything that is said or shown in our media upside
down and consider it a second time. Who could want to live in a world this much like Orwell's or
Huxley's-the one obliterating reality by destroying language, the other by making historical reference
a transgression?
Language and history: As argued several times in this space, these are the weapons we are not
supposed to have.
Ukraine now gives us two fearsome examples of what I mean by inverted reason.
One, it has been raining reports of Russia's renewed military presence in eastern Ukraine lately.
One puts them down and asks, What does Washington have on the story board now, an escalation of American
military involvement? A covert op? Let us watch.
Two, we hear ever-shriller charges that Moscow has mounted a dangerous, security-threatening propaganda
campaign to destroy the truth-our truth, we can say. It is nothing short of "the weaponization of
information," we are provocatively warned. Let us be on notice: Our truth and our air are now as
polluted with propaganda as during the Cold War decades, and the only apparent plan is to make it
worse.
O.K., let us do what sorting can be done.
Charges that Russia is variously amassing troops and materiel on its border with Ukraine or sending
same across said border are nothing new. They are what General Breedlove, the strange-as-Strangelove
NATO commander, gets paid to put out. These can be ignored, as most Europeans do.
But in April a new round of the escalation charges began. Michael Gordon, the New York Times'
reliably obliging State Department correspondent, reported in a story with a single named source
that Russia was adding soldiers and air defense systems along its border.
The sources for this were Marie Harf, one of State's spokespeople, and the standard variety of
unnamed officials and analysts. Here is how it begins:
In a sign that the tense crisis in Ukraine could soon escalate, Russia has continued to deploy
air defense systems in eastern Ukraine and has built up its forces near the border, American officials
said on Wednesday.
Western officials are not sure if the military moves are preparations for a new Russian-backed
offensive that would be intended to help the separatists seize additional territory.
"Could," "has continued," "not sure," "would be." And this was the lead, where the strongest stuff
goes.
Scrape away the innuendo, and what you are reading in this piece is a whole lot of nothing. The
second paragraph, stating what officials are not sure of, was a necessary contortion to get in the
phrase "new Russian-backed offensive," which was the point of the piece. As journalism, this is so
bad it belongs in a specimen jar.
Context, the stuff this kind of reporting does its best to keep from readers:
By mid-April, Washington was still at work trying to subvert the Minsk II ceasefire, an anti-Russian
assassination campaign was under way in Kiev and the Poroshenko government, whether or not it approved
of the campaign, was proving unable, unwilling or both to implement any of the constitutional revisions
to which Minsk II committed it.
A week before the April 22 report, 300 troops from the 173rd Airborne had arrived to begin training
the Ukrainian national guard. The Times piece acknowledged this for the simple reason it was the
elephant in the living room, but by heavy-handed implication it dismissed any thought of causality.
Given the context, I would not be at all surprised to learn that Moscow may have put air defense
systems in place. And I am not at all sure what is so worrisome about them. Maybe it is the same
reasoning Benjamin Netanyahu applied when Russia recently agreed to supply Iran with air defense
technology: It will make it harder for us to attack them, the dangerous Israeli complained.
Neither am I sure what is so worrisome about Russians training eastern Ukrainian partisans-another
charge Harf leveled-if it is supposed to be a mystery why American trainers at the other end of the
country prompt alarm in Moscow.
Onward from April 22 the new theme flowed. On May 17 Kiev claimed that it had captured two uniformed
Russian soldiers operating inside Ukraine. On May 21 came reports that European monitors had interviewed
the two under unstated conditions and had ascertained they were indeed active-duty infantry. This
gave "some credence" to Kiev's claim, the Times noted, although at this point some is far short of
enough when Kiev makes these kinds of assertions.
On May 30-drum roll, please-came the absolute coup de grâce. The Atlantic Council, one of the
Washington think tanks-its shtick seems to be some stripe of housebroken neoliberalism-published
a report purporting to show that, in the Times' language, "Russia is continuing to defy the West
by conducting protracted military operations inside Ukraine."
Read the report here. It's first sentence: "Russia is at war with Ukraine."
"Continuing to defy?" "At war with Ukraine?" If you refuse to accept the long, documented record
of Moscow's efforts to work toward a negotiated settlement with Europe-and around defiant Americans-and
if you call the Ukraine conflict other than a civil war, well, someone is creating your reality for
you.
Details. The Times described "Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine" as "an independent
report." I imagine Gordon-he seems to do all the blurry stuff these days-had a straight face when
he wrote three paragraphs later that John Herbst, one of the Atlantic Council's authors, is a former
ambassador to Ukraine.
I do not know what kind of a face Gordon wore when he reported later on that the Atlantic Council
paper rests on research done by Bellingcat.com, "an investigative website." Or when he let Herbst
get away with calling Bellingcat, which appears to operate from a third-floor office in Leicester,
a city in the English Midlands, "independent researchers."
I wonder, honestly, if correspondents look sad when they write such things-sad their work has
come to this.
One, Bellingcat did its work using Google, YouTube and other readily available social media technologies,
and this we are supposed to think is the cleverest thing under the sun. Are you kidding?
Manipulating social media "evidence" has been a parlor game in Kiev; Washington; Langley, Virginia,
and at NATO since the Ukraine crisis broke open. Look at the graphics included in the presentation.
I do not think technical expertise is required to see that these images prove what all others offered
as evidence since last year prove: nothing. It looks like the usual hocus-pocus.
Two, examine the Bellingcat web site and try to figure out who runs it. I tried the about page
and it was blank. The site consists of badly supported anti-Russian "reports"-no "investigation"
aimed in any other direction.
I look at this stuff now and think, Well, there may be activity on Russia's borders or inside
Ukraine, but maybe not. Those two soldiers may be Russian and may be on active duty, but I cannot
draw any conclusion.
I do not appreciate having to think this way-not as a reader and not as a former newsman. I do
not like reading Times editorials, such as Tuesday's, which institutionalizes "Putin's war" and other
such tropes, and having to say, Our most powerful newspaper is into the created reality game.
A few things can be made clear in all this. Straight off the top it is almost certain, despite
a logical wariness of presented evidence, that Russia has personnel and weapons deployed along its
border and in Ukraine.
I greatly hope so, and whether they are on duty or otherwise interests me not at all.
First of all, it is a highly restrained approach to a geopolitical circumstance that Moscow recognizes
as dangerous, Washington does not seem to and Kiev emphatically does not. In reversed circumstances,
a troubled nation would have long back turned into an open conflict between two nuclear powers. Fig
leafs have their place.
I have written before on the question of spheres of influence: They are to be observed if not
honored. Stephen Cohen, the Russianist scholar, prefers "spheres of security," and the phrase makes
the point plainly. Russia cannot be expected to abandon its interests as Cohen defines them, and
considering what is at issue for Moscow, the response is intelligently measured.
Equally, Moscow appears to recognize that without any equilibrium between the Russian-tilted east
and the Western-tilted west, Ukraine will be a bloodbath. Irresponsible as it has proven, and with
little or no control over armed extreme rightist factions, Kiev cannot be allowed even an attempt
to resolve this crisis militarily.
One has to consider how these things are conventionally done. I had a cousin who piloted helicopters
in Vietnam long ago. When we spread the conflict to Laos and Cambodia he flew in blue jeans, a T-shirt,
sneakers and without dog tags. "If you go down, we don't know you," was the O.D.
A directly germane case is Angola in the mid-1970s. When the Portuguese were forced to flee the
old colony, the CIA began supplying right-wing opportunists in the north and south with weapons,
money, and agency personnel. Only in response did Cuba send troops that quickly proved decisive.
I remember well all the howls of "aggression"-all of them hypocritical rubbish: American efforts
to subvert the movement that still governs Angola peaceably continued for a dozen more years.
advertisement
The Times editorial just noted is headlined, "Vladimir Putin Hides the Truth." This is upside-down-ism
at its very worst.
It is not easy to put accounts of the Ukraine crisis side by side to compare them. Think of two
bottles of unlabeled wine in a blind taste test. Now read on.
I do not see how there can be any question that Moscow's take on Ukraine and the larger East-West
confrontation is the more coherent. Read or listen to Putin's speeches, notably that delivered at
the Valdai Discussion Club, a Davos variant, in Sochi last October. It is historically informed,
with a grasp of interests (common and opposing), the nature of the 21st century environment and how
best outcomes are to be achieved in it.
Altogether, Moscow offers a vastly more sophisticated, coherent accounting of the Ukraine crisis
than any American official has or ever will. This is for one simple reason: Neither Putin nor Lavrov
bears the burden American officials do of having to sell people mythical renderings of how the world
works or their place in it.
Russia's interests are clear and can be stated clearly, to put the point another way. America's-the
expansion of opportunity for capital and the projection of power-must always remain shrouded.
The question of plausibility is a serious imbalance, critical in its implications. In my view
it accounts for that probably unprecedented propaganda effort noted earlier. It has ensued apace
since Andrew Lack, named in January as America's first chief propaganda officer (CEO of the new Broadcasting
Board of Governors), instantly declared information a field of battle. A war of the worldviews, we
may call it.
This war grows feverish as we speak. In the current edition of The Nation, a journalist named
James Carden publishes a remarkable piece detailing the extremes now approached. I rank it a must
read, and you can find it here.
Carden's piece is called "The New McCarthyism," and any reader having a look will know well enough
why our drift back toward the paranoid style of the 1950s is something we all ought to guard against.
A great deal of this column would be banned as "disinformation." Whatever your stripe, I urge you
to recognize this as serious.
The focus here is on a report called "The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information,
Culture and Money." It is written by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss. It is published by an Internet
magazine called The Intepreter, as a special report sponsored by the Institute for Modern Russia.
Credential problems galore. Weiss is an "expert" on flavors of the month, a main-chancer who sat
at the late Christopher Hitchens' feet and inhabited a think tank in London before taking the editor's
chair at The Interpreter. Pomersantsev was a TV producer in the most decadent corners of the Russian
media circus, wheeling against it all only when he lost out. Now he is a darling of our media, naturally.
Both, most important, seem to carry water for Michail Khodorkovsky, the oligarchic crook whom
Western media, from the Times on down, now lionize as a democrat because he and Putin are enemies.
Khodorkovsky funds the Institute for Modern Russia, based in New York. The IMR, in turn, funds The
Interpreter.
Got the fix? Ready to take this report seriously, are we?
Astonishingly enough, a lot of people are. As Carden reports, Weiss and Pomerantsev cut considerable
mustard among the many members of Congress nursing the new Russophobia. Anne Applebaum, the prominent
paranoid on all questions Russian; and Geoffrey Pyatt, Obama's coup-cultivating ambassador in Kiev:
Many weighty figures stand with these guys.
Carden lays out his thesis expertly. Putin's weaponization of news makes him more dangerous than
any communist ever was, "The Menace of Unreality" asserts, and he must be countered. How? With "an
internationally recognized ratings system for disinformation."
"Media organizations that practice conscious deception should be excluded from the community,"
Weiss and Pomerantsev write-the community being those of approved thought.
No, Carden is not kidding.
It may seem odd, but I credit Weiss and Pomerantsev with one insight. The infection of ideology
now debilitates us. Blindness spreads and has to be treated. But there agreement ends, as I consider
their report to be among the more extreme cases of the disease so far to show itself.
You can follow the internal logic, but I would not spend too much time on it because there is
none once you exit their bubble. There is only one truth, the argument runs, and it just so happens
it is exactly what we think. There is no other way to see things. All is TINA, "there is no alternative."
It would be easy to dismiss Weiss and Pomerantsev as supercilious hacks, and I do. But not the
stance. They say too clumsily and bluntly what is actually the prevalent intellectual frame, a key
aspect of the neoliberal stance. TINA, the argument Thatcher made famous, applies to all things.
To say "The Menace of Unreality" advocates a kind of intellectual protectionism is not strong
enough. Their idea comes to the control of information, which is to say the control of the truth.
And if you can think of a more efficient way to define the production of propaganda, use the comment
box.
Fighting alleged propaganda with propaganda: This is upside down for you. It is what we get when
people make up reality for us.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the
International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During
this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous
books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly,
and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.
"...The nature of the war in Donbass seems to have changed lately, and not in a good way for Novorossiya." . "...The latest battle in Marinka was a good demonstration. The Kiev junta used Marinka as a
base for shelling other parts of Donetsk. The junta also fortified Marinka well with the help of their
US advisers. As the civilian casualties started to mount the NAF had no other options than to start
an offensive against Marinka. The NAF suffered heavy losses (hundreds of KIA according to pro-Novorossiyan
sources) and managed to capture only a small part of Marinka. The Kiev junta considered the outcome
as a victory since they managed to inflict heavy losses for the NAF and keep most of Marinka."
.
"...Yes, I think you're right, and the days of cheap victories – relatively speaking, I don't mean
to trivialize NAF losses and civilian casualties, but I'm talking about victories like Ilovaisk and
Debaltseve – are over for Novorossiya. The new strategy does appear to be to draw the NAF in and make
them commit to an offensive which will give Kiev's forces a chance, an excuse, to strike.
The nature of the war in Donbass seems to have changed lately, and not in a good way for Novorossiya.
Instead of suicidal offensives and going into cauldrons the Ukrainian military is staying put
and shelling both the military and civilian targets in Donbass. In this week hundreds of civilians
in different parts of Donbass have been killed by the shelling of Kiev. I'm sure the American
advisers have played their part in this change of strategy.
What does this mean? The NAF (Novorossiyan Armed Forces) have to go for an offensives against
well fortified junta positions. This will
cause great losses in manpower and arms for the NAF
give Kiev and the West a good pretext to blame the NAF for escalation and breach of Minsk
agreement (as they ignore the previous shelling of Kiev and only take notice when the NAF goes
for an offensive) and extend the sanctions on Russia.
The latest battle in Marinka was a good demonstration. The Kiev junta used Marinka as a
base for shelling other parts of Donetsk. The junta also fortified Marinka well with the help
of their US advisers. As the civilian casualties started to mount the NAF had no other options
than to start an offensive against Marinka. The NAF suffered heavy losses (hundreds of KIA according
to pro-Novorossiyan sources) and managed to capture only a small part of Marinka. The Kiev junta
considered the outcome as a victory since they managed to inflict heavy losses for the NAF and
keep most of Marinka.
I'm afraid that outcomes like happened in Ilovaysk and Debaltsevo are not going to happen anymore.
The Ukrainian military is simply better than it was then. They have become wiser. They "bait"
the NAF to attack by killing scores of civilians and then repel these attacks while inflicting
heavy losses for the NAF.
The current standings in the war are in favor of Kiev, since Novorossiya is in a constant survival
mode. The war has been going on for a year and the enemy has not even been driven out of Donetsk
yet. In order to do so Donbass needs increased Russian help which may not be coming. Expect this
war to continue for at least two or three more years with thousands of more civilians dying.
Yes, I think you're right, and the days of cheap victories – relatively speaking, I don't
mean to trivialize NAF losses and civilian casualties, but I'm talking about victories like Ilovaisk
and Debaltseve – are over for Novorossiya. The new strategy does appear to be to draw the NAF
in and make them commit to an offensive which will give Kiev's forces a chance, an excuse, to
strike.
But what then? Have the UAF grown mighty and skilled in their idleness, with battalions
of crack troops and tactics up the wazoo? Hardly. A major lunge at Novorossiya will likely end
the way the other attempts have, and Ukraine cannot really afford to lose another major battle.
So if the NAF will not be drawn, it's a grinding war of attrition that holds no promise of a blinding
victory for Kiev, which must keep its troops deployed in the field while the NAF is at home. The
recent curtailment of water and food supplies suggest Kiev is getting impatient, but those measures
only make the state look heavy-handed and oppressive as well as a violator of international law
– and while there will be no punishment, naturally, make no mistake; people notice – and are most
unlikely to break Novorossiya's will as Ukraine does not control the border.
The constant shelling is just Porky's way of being seen to do something, but it is unlikely
to produce any tactical successes unless the NAF lunges for the bait and the two sides commit
to a major battle. And in that case, unless Kiev can get heavy weapons to the front in a hurry,
it is likely to lose again and perhaps the demarcation of Novorossiya will expand again.
The NAF suffered heavy losses (hundreds of KIA according to pro-Novorossiyan sources)
I think he exaggerates in both cases. The only figure into 100s I've seen was something about
200 KIA from Kiev-1 which is a Right Sector force. And something about 2 Ural trucks of bodies.
Now that would not be truckloads of bodies picked up (UAF is not good about taking their dead
especially in mid-battle) but sounds more like 2 truckloads of arriving soldiers killed before
getting out, ie the trucks were blown up. The "200 KIA" is a translation error, ie 200(KIA) meaning
they "became 200s (dead)" explaining what the 200 code means.
Civilian deaths for the whole past week I think are around 20 but a lot of wounded, many not
directly shot but by collapsing walls etc. About 100 were evacuated from a Donetsk hospital, including
sick people, not freshly wounded. For Maryinka NAF admitted to about 30 KIA and 90 wounded, only
a few seriously; I've seen video showing some with single bandages on what seem to be single shrapnel
wounds.
Oh for the good old days of Minsk1, when many areas were just holding the line, no advance
possible, so they didn't try very hard. "Hey! we're trying to cook breakfast here" "Oh sorry,
we'll give you half an hour" before desultory shelling starts.
Nixon's and Kissinger's dangerous games in the Vietnam War – The Madman strategy
Recent documents show that the hardcore branch of the US policy during the Vietnam war, was
playing dangerous games with North Vietnam and the Soviets, in order to drag the other side to
negotiations.
We see today a similar game played by the neocons in Ukraine and Asia-Pacific. In the new Cold
War, neocons are playing more dangerous games with Russia and China, as they try to persuade that
they will not hesitate to proceed in a nuclear strike against both their rivals, because they see
that the Sino-Russian bloc threatens the US global sovereignty.
From National Security Archive:
"Nixon's and Kissinger's Madman strategy during the Vietnam War included veiled nuclear
threats intended to intimidate Hanoi and its patrons in Moscow. The story is recounted in a new
book, Nixon's Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War,
co-authored by Jeffrey Kimball, Miami University professor emeritus, and William Burr, who
directs the Archive's Nuclear History Documentation Project. Research for the book, which
uncovers the inside story of White House Vietnam policymaking during Nixon's first year in
office, drew on hundreds of formerly top secret and secret records obtained by the authors as
well as interviews with former government officials."
"With Madman diplomacy, Nixon and Kissinger strove to end the Vietnam War on the most
favorable terms possible in the shortest period of time practicable, an effort that culminated in
a secret global nuclear alert in October of that year. Nixon's Nuclear Specter provides the most
comprehensive account to date of the origins, inception, policy context, and execution of 'JCS
Readiness Test' -the equivalent of a worldwide nuclear alert that was intended to signal
Washington's anger at Moscow's support of North Vietnam and to jar the Soviet leadership into
using their leverage to induce Hanoi to make diplomatic concessions. Carried out between 13 and
30 October 1969, it involved military operations around the world, the continental United States,
Western Europe, the Middle East, the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Sea of Japan. The operations
included strategic bombers, tactical air, and a variety of naval operations, from movements of
aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines to the shadowing of Soviet merchant ships
heading toward Haiphong."
"The authors also recount secret military operations that were part of the lead-up to the
global alert, including a top secret mining readiness test that took place during the spring and
summer of 1969. This mining readiness test was a ruse intended to signal Hanoi that the US was
preparing to mine Haiphong harbor and the coast of North Vietnam. It is revealed for the first
time in this book."
"Another revelation has to do with the fabled DUCK HOOK operation, a plan for which was
initially drafted in July 1969 as a mining-only operation. It soon evolved into a
mining-and-bombing, shock-and-awe plan scheduled to be launched in early November, but which
Nixon aborted in October, substituting the global nuclear alert in its place. The failure of
Nixon's and Kissinger's 1969 Madman diplomacy marked a turning point in their initial exit
strategy of winning a favorable armistice agreement by the end of the year 1969. Subsequently,
they would follow a so-called long-route strategy of withdrawing U.S. troops while attempting to
strengthen South Vietnam's armed forces, although not necessarily counting on Saigon's long-term
survival."
"In 1969, the Nixon's administrations long-term goal was to provide President Nguyen Van
Thieus government in Saigon with a decent chance of surviving for a reasonable interval of two to
five years following the sought-after mutual exit of US and North Vietnamese forces from South
Vietnam. They would have preferred that President Thieu and South Vietnam survive indefinitely,
and they would do what they could to maintain South Vietnam as a separate political entity. But
they were realistic enough to appreciate that such a goal was unlikely and beyond their power to
achieve by a military victory on the ground or from the air in Vietnam."
"Giving Thieu a decent chance to survive, even for just a decent interval, however, rested
primarily on persuading Hanoi to withdraw its troops from the South or, if that failed,
prolonging the war in order to give time for Vietnamization to take hold in order to enable Thieu
to fight the war on his own for a reasonable period of time after the US exited Indochina. In
1969, Nixon and Kissinger hoped that their Madman threat strategy, coupled with linkage
diplomacy, could persuade Hanoi to agree to mutual withdrawal at the negotiating table or lever
Moscows cooperation in persuading Hanoi to do so. In this respect, Nixon's Nuclear Specter is an
attempt to contribute to better understanding of Nixon and Kissinger's Vietnam diplomacy as a
whole."
"...His partner in this long-running routine, Sen. Lindsey Graham, also reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove's
Mr. President, we must not
allow a mineshaft gap!" "
. "...It's a deadly fandango that places national security in the balance, while lawmakers play rhetorical
games, often crossing,
if not leaping, the usual boundaries of diplomatic propriety and control."
John McCain and Lindsey Graham try to rewrite history to vindicate the Iraq war, and blame
Obama for ISIS.
...McCain's widely known and tolerated flair for the dramatic now
places an "episode" that most Americans could not rightly pin down, much less explain without
the aid of Google, alongside slavery, the Trail of Tears, the federal crackdown on World War I-era
Bonus
Marchers, and the entire Vietnam War.
His partner in this long-running routine, Sen. Lindsey
Graham, also reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove's
Mr. President, we must
not allow a mineshaft gap!", laid out the latest talking points in an
interview about the ISIS
takeover of Ramadi in Iraq this month:
It's a predictable outcome of withdrawing all forces back in 2011…The military advised [Obama]
to leave 10,000 troops. When he refused to take their advice, everything you see before you is
a result of that big mistake.
Graham, McCain, and their fellow Republican hawks, energized by an election over a year away,
are once again using foreign policy overseas to bludgeon Obama, presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton, and by extension, the whole Democratic Party in the arena of domestic politics here
at home. It's a deadly fandango that places national security in the balance, while lawmakers
play rhetorical games,
often crossing,
if not leaping, the usual boundaries of diplomatic propriety and control.
"Imperial senators, basically that's what they are … playing this real life version of
Risk," said Matthew Hoh, an Iraq War veteran, referring to the strategy board game in an interview
with TAC.
Hoh was the highest U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghanistan war policy when he
quit his State Department post in 2009.
Hoh says playing "real life Risk" is all about deception, and in the case of Iraq, a larder of
revisionist history, which, as McCain and Graham have demonstrated, involves an elaborate tweaking
of the story of how the U.S. withdrew from Iraq in 2011, and why. It also requires the ambitious
assumption that a) American forces had every right and opportunity to stay there indefinitely, and
b) there would be no consequences if they did so
...Negotiations reportedly wore on until the eleventh hour, but finally broke down when Maliki
could not promise criminal immunity for U.S. troops there. "Frankly, given that less than 20
percent of the Iraqi public wanted American troops to stay, and given the great resentment in the
Iraqi population …there wasn't much sympathy to grant Americans full legal immunities in the Iraqi
parliament," said former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey
in 2014. The withdrawal was complete in 2011.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and TAC contributing
editor. Follow her on Twitter.
Viktor Yanukovych tried to play both EU and Russia but the US had already decided his fate. Rostislav
Ishchenko argues that:
Yanukovych attempted to use Russia's resources to pay for the integration with the EU
He was naïve enough to believe that just because he is presenting the West with the whole
of Ukraine he will be allowed to stay president
US and EU wanted free trade agreement with Ukraine to act as the "wormhole" from the US directly
into the CIS and make Eurasian Customs Union worthless, thus negating all integration plans of
Russia in Eurasia
The text below is an excerpt from a longer essay from Rostislav Ishchenko, a prominent Russian
commentator.
This article
originally
appeared at the Russian website Odnako. It was
translated by Eugenia
at The Vineyard of the Saker.
At that time [end of 2010], the oligarchic-nationalistic block believed that Russia should be
treated as a source of all possible economic preferences, whereas the policy should be geared towards
the West. By 2010, the "orange" Maidan team was completely discredited and lacked significant public
support. Furthermore, the team had demonstrated total inability to create an acute conflict with
Russia (like the one with Georgia) that would have tied up the Russian resources at the Ukrainian
direction preventing Russia from interfering with the global affaires.
For that reason, the US did not object against the election of Yanukovich as President in 2010.
Washington knew that Yanukovich would try to return to the Kuchma-style policy of multi-vector that
presupposed the use of Russia's resources to pay for the integration with the EU.
At the beginning of 2000s, such policy no longer suited the US, and that was what prompted the
coup of 2004. Then Washington no longer needed allies (no matter how loyal and dependent); it needed
executors of already made decisions. But in 2010 the situation has changed: the US was pushed to
support the Ukrainian multi-vector stance by the general weakening of its global geopolitical position
as well as by the growing problems in the American economy. The US no longer had money to support
its allies. Now the voiceless vassals were expected to pay for the American policy out of their own
pocket.
In the situation of 2010, Yanukovych was the only Presidential candidate suitable for the US.
The Yushchenko team (including the present day "heroes" Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko) was completely
discredited, and it would require time to restore its image. Timoshenko earned the reputation of
been unpredictable and prone to constantly cheat her partners. The only dirt the US had on her (her
cooperation with Lazarenko) has already been presented in the Ukrainian media and produced minimal
effect. On the contrary, Yanukovych was not only under control of the American agents (the group
of Levotchkin-Firtash) but sincerely wanted to "integrate into the EU" by signing the association
agreement. Apparently Victor Feodorovitch decided to prove to all who deposed him in 2004 that he
was the only one who could "unite Ukraine" reconciling the East and the West. In reality it meant
the refusal to honor his election promises and the beginning of the pro-Western policies.
Yanukovych was expected to sign the association agreement that would destroy the Ukrainian industry,
completely discredit himself, concentrate everything negative on his own persona and then lose the
2015 elections to the American protégée. To make sure this scenario is followed (in case Yanukovich
refuses to go peacefully), another Maidan was being prepared for 2015.
Yanukovych was naïve enough to believe that just because he is presenting the West with the whole
of Ukraine, he would be allowed to get reelected in 2015. To that end, he and his surrounding actively
financed and supported Nazi organizations (not only "Freedom" but also "Ukraine Patriot", UIA-OUN
and others). "Dander of fascism" was supposed to unite around Yanukovych the anti-fascist voters
from the South-East.
For moderate nationalists and "eurointegrators", the signed association with the EU was expected
to serve as the incentive. Finally, to preserve the loyalty of the majority of the population, particularly
those concerned exclusively with their economic wellbeing, it was planned under the pretext of the
association to obtain a 15-20 billion credit from the EU, which would be enough, according to Azarov's
calculations, to keep up or even improve the living standards until the 2015 elections.
The plan of Yanukovych was logically perfect. The EU getting its hands on Ukraine – an assest
worth trillions – was expected to open up its wallet for a mere twenty billions. Yanukovych and Azarov
thought that if Greece received 200 billions, then Brussels could find 20 billions for Ukraine.
The problem was that the US did not plan on keeping in power Yanukovych, who represented the interests
of the national industry, and those interests would sooner or later collide with the abstract but
unprofitable "European values". He was supposed to be replaced by completely tame comprador, and
the national Ukrainian business was supposed to die out replaced by the European companies.
Maidan instead of the golden key
As result of that 5-year operation, the US would have established in Ukraine by early 2015 perfectly
tame and legitimate Russophobic regime. The EU would have the free trade zone with Ukraine, which,
first, after the demise of the Ukrainian industry, provided Europe with the 45 million-strong Ukrainian
market (albeit with the decreasing buying power but still able to last a while longer), but, most
importantly, via the free trade zone within the CIS the EU should obtain the access to the market
of all CIS countries, particularly that of Russia. That would have minimized the European losses
from the planned free trade agreement between the EU and US that was disadvantageous for the EU.
Europe hoped to cover the losses form the free trade zone with the US at the expense of Russia and
CIS.
Obviously, the US cared not about the compensation of the European financial and economic losses
but about its own geopolitical interests. Most importantly, that free trade agreement acting as the
"wormhole" from the US directly into the CIS made the Custom Union [Eurasian Customs Union] worthless
and negated all integration plans of Russia in Eurasia. In one hit, the US would restore its political
and economic dominance in the world, and the most dangerous American rival – Russia – was expected
to pay for it.
That was a very elegant plan, and I can imagine how mad the Washington politicians were when that
lummox Yanukovych finally realized that he would never see the European billions to support the social
stability and suddenly only three months before the signing of the association agreement postponed
the event. Yanulovych thought that he would bargain, get the money, and then sign. To make the EU
more amenable, he went to Moscow, in accordance with the old Ukrainian tradition, where the coveted
billions were promised to him on much easier terms. Putin tried at the last moment to play the Ukrainian
cards he was dealt, that was why the decisions were made quickly and big money was given freely.
In contrast to Yanukovych, people in Washington know full well what the window of opportunities
is. All interconnected elements – from the signing of the association Ukraine-EU agreement to Maidan-2015,
including the free trade agreement the US-EU – were built into a rigid scheme and coordinated in
time. Taking out one block made the whole building come down. As a result, Yanukovych got himself
Maidan as early as the end of 2013.
Notable quotes: . "... What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance? This is no small
matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The
embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for
resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew
after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole
new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of
the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter
what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe." " . "...The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at
perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian
Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial
overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the
sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power
to defend all of them simultaneously."" . dir="ltr">"...But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the
pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill
for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates)
to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures
abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality."
Think of this as a little imperial folly update -- and here's the backstory.
In the years after invading Iraq and disbanding Saddam Hussein's military, the U.S.
sunk about
$25 billion into "standing up" a new Iraqi army. By June 2014, however, that
army, filled with at least
50,000 "ghost soldiers," was only standing in the imaginations of its generals and perhaps
Washington. When
relatively small numbers of Islamic State (IS) militants swept into northern Iraq, it collapsed,
abandoning
four cities -- including Mosul, the country's second largest -- and
leaving behind enormous stores of U.S. weaponry, ranging from tanks and Humvees to artillery
and rifles. In essence, the U.S. was now standing up its future enemy in a style to which
it was unaccustomed and, unlike the imploded Iraqi military, the forces of the Islamic
State proved quite capable of using that weaponry without a foreign trainer or adviser in sight.
In response, the Obama administration
dispatched thousands of new advisers and trainers and began shipping in
piles of new weaponry to re-equip the Iraqi army. It also filled Iraqi skies
with U.S. planes armed with their own munitions to
destroy, among other things, some of that captured U.S. weaponry. Then it set to work
standing up a smaller version of the Iraqi army. Now, skip nearly a year ahead and on
a somewhat lesser scale the whole process has just happened again. Less than two
weeks ago, Islamic State militants took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province.
Iraqi army units, including the elite American-trained
Golden Division, broke and fled, leaving behind -- you'll undoubtedly be shocked to hear
-- yet
another huge cache of weaponry and equipment, including tanks, more than 100 Humvees and
other vehicles, artillery, and so on.
The Obama administration reacted in a thoroughly novel way: it immediately
began shipping in new stocks of weaponry, starting with
1,000 antitank weapons, so that the reconstituted Iraqi military could take out future "massive
suicide vehicle bombs" (some of which, assumedly, will be those captured vehicles from Ramadi).
Meanwhile, American planes began roaming the skies over that city, trying to destroy some of
the equipment IS militants had captured.
Notice anything repetitive in all this -- other than another a bonanza for U.S. weapons
makers? Logically, it would prove less expensive for the Obama administration
to simply arm the Islamic State directly before sending in the air strikes. In any case,
what a microcosm of U.S. imperial hubris and folly in the twenty-first century all this training
and equipping of the Iraqi military has proved to be. Start with the post-invasion
decision of the Bush administration to totally disband Saddam's army and instantly eject
hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sunni military men and a full officer corps into the chaos
of the "new" Iraq and you have an instant formula for creating a Sunni resistance movement.
Then, add in a little extra "training" at
Camp Bucca, a U.S. military prison in Iraq, for key unemployed officers, and -- Voilà!
-- you've helped set up the petri dish in which the leadership of the Islamic State movement
will grow. Multiply such stunning tactical finesse many times over globally and, as
TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes clear today, you have what might
be called the folly of the "sole superpower" writ large.
Delusionary Thinking in Washington
The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower
Take a look around the world and it's hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower
in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles,
ignoring Washington's dictates, or actively combating them. Russia
refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China
refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia
refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS)
refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed
to do in the face of such defiance?
This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic
of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States
assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through
the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole
responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell
famously
exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying,
'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe."
Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington
Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington's power brokers assumed that there would always
be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance. In the wake of the utterly unexpected
Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a "sole superpower"
(aka Rome on the Potomac).
In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon
adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense
Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it
declared: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed
formerly by the Soviet Union."
H.W.'s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing
Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he
told military
cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be "to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity
-- given few nations in history -- to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future.
A chance to project America's peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years."
For Bush, of course, "extending the peace" would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting
a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after
it began, he did not doubt -- nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight)
does he today -- that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted
status as the world's sole superpower.
The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed
at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian
Paul Kennedy, in his classic book
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch."
As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total
of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to
defend all of them simultaneously."
Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What's curious, however, is just
how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the
planet's first "hyperpower,"
a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.'s miscalculation in Iraq
and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and
a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing
the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to
challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying,
in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas -- among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, and the South China Sea -- but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.
Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington's power elite -- Senators
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule -- seems to have the slightest
urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President
Obama, who is clearly
all too aware of the country's strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness
to retreat from such a supremacist vision. "The United States is and remains the one indispensable
nation," he
told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. "That has been true for the century past and
it will be true for the century to come."
How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment
to global supremacy?
The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire
circus act. It involves the constant juggling of America's capabilities and commitments, with
its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one
place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and
deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration.
Call it the
Obama
Doctrine.
After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and
Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers
decided
to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in
the western Pacific. Announcing this shift in 2011 -- it would first be called a "pivot to
Asia" and then a "rebalancing" there -- the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.
"After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United
States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region," he
told members of the Australian Parliament that November. "As we end today's wars, I have
directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.
As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense
of the Asia Pacific."
Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained
army there collapsed with the loss of
four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming
threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting
-- this time
sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country,
putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict
there.
Meanwhile, Republican critics of the president, who
claim he's doing too little in a losing effort in Iraq (and Syria), have also taken him to task
for
not doing enough to implement the pivot to Asia. In reality, as his juggling act that satisfies
no one continues in Iraq and the Pacific, he's had a hard time finding the wherewithal to effectively
confront Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the various
militias fighting for power in fragmenting Libya, and so on.
The Party of Utter Denialism
Clearly, in the face of multiplying threats, juggling has not proven to be a viable strategy.
Sooner or later, the "balls" will simply go flying and the whole system will threaten to fall apart.
But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response
to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.
For those who adhere to this outlook, it's not America's global stature that's eroding, but its
will -- that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more
loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt
away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you're prepared to back up your threats with
actual force, or "hard power,"
as some like to call it.
Among the most vocal of those touting this line is
Senator John McCain, the chair
of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. "For five years,
Americans have been told that 'the tide of war is receding,' that we can pull back from the world
at little cost to our interests and values," he
typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Times op-ed. "This has fed a perception
that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative." The only
way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is "to restore the
credibility of the United States as a world leader." This means, among other things, arming the
Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe,
combating "the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses," and playing a "more
robust" role (think: more "boots" on more ground) in the war against ISIS.
Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. "When aggressive rulers
or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us," he
declared last November, "what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility,
and global reach of American hard power."
A similar approach -- in some cases
even more bellicose -- is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the
race for president, Rand Paul again excepted. At a recent "Freedom Summit" in the early primary
state of South Carolina, the various contenders sought to out-hard-power each other. Florida Senator
Marco Rubio was
loudly cheered for promising to make the U.S. "the strongest military power in the world." Wisconsin
Governor Scott Walker received a standing ovation for pledging to further escalate the war on international
terrorists: "I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight
to us."
In this overheated environment, the 2016 presidential campaign is certain to be dominated by
calls for increased military spending, a tougher stance toward Moscow and Beijing, and an expanded
military presence in the Middle East. Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed
Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions.
In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office in January 2017 will be expected to wield a far bigger
stick on a significantly less stable planet. As a result, despite the last decade and a half of
interventionary disasters, we're likely to see an even more interventionist foreign policy with
an even greater impulse to use military force.
However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing
body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes
that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq
invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional
thinking. China is far more powerful
than it was 13 years ago, Russia has
largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has
replaced
the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater
freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in
Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.
Time to Stop Pretending
Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face
of this predicament?
Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it's
not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting
the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well
would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie
of other major powers -- none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the
threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power,
Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers -- Russia, China,
and Iran among them -- and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous
regional firestorms.
If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this
country's "war capital," this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others
have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas
A&M
argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global
superpower status and, "rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis…
should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion." Layne and
others have
spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge
to garrison the planet, reduced
military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling
infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.
But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense
that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for
the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates)
to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military
adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with
reality.
Washington runs things in Ukraine. It newest colony. Kiev's illegitimate puppet government serves
its interests. Ruthlessly exploiting its people in the process. America wants unchallenged control over Ukraine's entire land mass. As a dagger pointed at Russia's
heart.
Ukraine is a pretext. Regime change in Russia the objective. Gaining another US colony. Eliminating
a major rival. Stealing its vast resources. Exploiting its people. Turning them into serfs. Isolating China.
Repeating the process against Beijing. Transforming nations into a ruler/serf societies. More unfit to live in than ever. Coups, assassinations,
false flags and permanent wars its tactics of choice.
No nation in world history reflects more pure evil than America. Wrapped in the American flag.
People manipulated to believe destructive US policies benefit them. Governments lie about everything. Media scoundrels repeat Big Lies like gospel. No one can possibly
understand world events by watching mainstream television. BBC is as bad as Fox News. Owned and operated by Britain's government. Its propaganda bullhorn. So-called US public radio and broadcasting are government and corporate controlled. Qatar's despotic
monarchy runs Al Jazeera. The New York Times and other major publications are instruments of state propaganda.
Try finding a single MSM report explaining Ukraine's coup. Instituted by Washington. Ousting a
democratic government. Replacing it with illegitimate fascist thugs. Systematically destroying human and civil rights.
Eliminating opposition elements. Prohibiting a free press. Instituting total control over all information disseminated. Attacking independent journalists. Shutting down Russian language print and electronic media.
Calling them "security threats." In bed with Western financial interests. At the expense of their own people. At war with them
in Donbas. Dirty war. Without mercy. Using chemical and other illegal weapons. Conflict continues daily despite illegitimate/oligarch president Petro Poroshenko's "regime of
silence." More on this below.
On January 12, he lied. Saying war in Donbas will be over in two weeks. Ending it requires "simply
fulfill(ing) the Minsk agreements signed in September." Like Hitler declaring peace in Europe before launching WW II.
Fact check
Last April, Washington, EU nations, Russia and Ukraine agreed to end violence. Deescalate tensions.
Restore peace and stability. Kiev violated the four-party agreement straightaway. Escalated war. Blamed it irresponsibly on
Donbas freedom fighters.
On September 5, Kiev agreed to Minsk protocol provisions. Plus additional ones in a follow-up
September 19 memorandum. Calling for ending hostilities. Banning all offensive operations. Withdrawing Kiev troops and
foreign mercenaries from conflict areas. Dialoguing for peace, security and stability.
Fighting never stopped. Shelling continues. Including throughout the holiday period. Into January. Kiev bears full responsibility for naked aggression. Since last April. With Washington's full
support and encouragement. Kiev agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. According to Donetsk People's Republic
(DRP) deputy legislative speaker Denis Pushlin:
Poroshenko's posturing "is pure bluff…He controls nothing in Donbas. Ukraine does not fulfill
the Minsk agreements, and this is a fact." "What we are talking about? We see that they are shelling our settlements. Commanders of Ukrainian
battalions openly say they are not obeying Poroshenko's orders."
"How can he fulfill the Minsk agreements then? How can he be so definite about these two weeks?"
He's a serial liar. Notoriously saying one thing. Doing another. Taking orders from Washington. Wanting Donbas democracy entirely crushed. Fascist rule replacing it. What area freedom fighters
won't tolerate. Nor should anyone. On Monday, the Kiev Post headlined "Ukraine seals off roads to Donbas as fighting escalates."
DPR leader Oleksandr Zakharchenko was quoted saying: "Honestly speaking I'm tired of all these negotiations. People who don't keep their words…well,
I don't know." ... "We are ready for any talks. But in case it would be impossible to solve the conflict peacefully,
we are ready to fight."
Kiev intends greater conflict ahead. Stop NATO reported increased Ukraine military spending. During economic crisis conditions. Potential bankruptcy. Ukraine unable to operate without significant
financial aid. It plans increasing its armed forces this year. To 250,000. "(A)s well as six mechanized brigades,
a mountain infantry regiment, three artillery brigades and two army brigades," said Stop NATO. Why when Ukraine's only enemies are ones it invents. Its own Donbas citizens.
Russia despite Moscow's all-out efforts for responsible dialogue. Diplomacy. Peaceful conflict
resolution. Strict observance of international law. Washington systematically spurns it. So does Ukraine. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff expressed justifiable
concern. Something has to give. East/West confrontation assures trouble. Possible "nuclear war," he warned. On Monday, the reliable Vineyard of the Saker web site headlined "Je suis Ukraine. I fight terror.
Yats (Yatsenyuk) is Charlie." Ukraine's "junta…dramatically stepped up shelling of Novorossiya (its Donetsk and Lugansk territories). "(T)ypical terror strikes…randomly aimed at the civilian sectors…(Most) worrisome…is confirmation
by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that (Moscow has) intelligence showing (Kiev plans) a full scale
assault…"
On the one hand, extending peace overtures. On the other, intending escalated conflict. Blaming
its aggression on Donbas victims. US and rogue NATO partners echo its Big Lies. Media scoundrels repeat them. When anything about
Ukraine is reported.
Propaganda substitutes for hard truths. Readers and viewers are systematically lied to. MSM scoundrels are a machine for the manufacture of Big Lies. It bears repeating. Ignore them.
Nothing they report should be believed. Voice of Sevastopol (VoS) is a reliable source of Ukrainian news and information. Kiev's "so-called
silent mode (was) accompanied by heavy artillery shelling of settlements of Donbas and active hostilities,"
it reported. Kiev junta attacks continue. Much like summer fighting. Ignored by media scoundrels. Kiev murdering
civilians doesn't matter. Or destroying their homes and other property. Or causing hundreds of thousands to flee for their
lives.Seeking safe havens. Many finding them in Russia. An oasis of stability amidst neighboring hostility.
One of last year's key Maidan demands was ending corruption. Today it's greatly increased, said
VoS. "Almost 80% of Ukrainians (say) over the last year…corruption became more spacious."
On Monday, German, French, Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers met in Berlin. The so-called
Normandy Quartet. Established last June. In Normandy, France. Seeking solutions to Ukrainian crisis conditions. Monday's talks resolved nothing. Nor will future ones. Kiev deplores peace. Washington won't tolerate
it. Conflict wasn't initiated to resolve things diplomatically. Fascist regimes don't operate this
way.
Sergey Lavrov said "the political process can be successful only when you start a direct dialogue,
in this case between the representatives of the Ukrainian government and the proclaimed DPR and LPR,
and they should feel fully involved in the political process as equal partners." Nothing remotely close to this exists. Nor will it ahead. Washington rules apply. Kiev intends crushing Donbas resistance. Wants despotism replacing democracy. Wants human and
civil rights eliminated altogether.
Its dirty war without end continues. Ceasefire is pure fantasy. None whatever exists. Nor will
Kiev tolerate one. Short of unconditional surrender. What Donbas freedom fighters won't ever agree to. Nor should
they. Freedom is too precious to sacrifice. Kiev blocked seven entry corridors to Donbas. A DPR Foreign Ministry statement accused it of violating
fundamental free movement rights. "Additional restrictions…will only exacerbate the catastrophic humanitarian situation that our
people have faced," it said.
Kiev wants Donbas residents isolated. Starved to death. Total MSM silence on what demands headlines. Since April, Kiev committed continued high crimes against peace. They remain ongoing daily. Vauro Senesi is an Italian journalist. On January 1, he headlined "Non è possibile non scorgere
un disegno pianificato di pulizia etnica." Senesi toured Lugansk. Impossible not to see ongoing ethnic cleansing, he said. Kiev-instituted
slow-motion genocide. Targeting defenseless civilians. "(T)he local population, is being, on a daily basis, killed by battalions of the extreme right
in the service of the puppet state of Kiev," said Senesi. "All this in the most absolute silence of the Italian (and other Western) media." "(F)ollowing the United States in this mad rush to the abyss against Russia." Donbas conditions are deplorable. A shell-caused breach in one apartment building reflects similar
damage throughout the area. It's "so big you can see the other side of the building. (A) wall burned by fire…A mother lived
there with her three kids." "There's nothing left of her or her children. The explosion blew everything to bits." "Grief, pain, fear – maybe all her emotions have been burned, reduced into rubble like the city
she continues to live in."
Pre-war, the area had 25,000 residents. Less than 8,000 remain. Most others fled to Russia. Where
else could they be safe? "There is no electricity, no running water. The power plants, the water treatment plants, all
destroyed by the bombardment," said Senisi. Artillery fire is constant. Senesi quoted a young man named Roman. Fighting for Donbas freedom. Unsure how much longer war will last. "We want peace," he said. "(B)ut on our bit of land." "Becoming part of Ukraine again is no longer a possibility. The Army of Ukraine has fired on its
own people." "There's nothing for us but to resist to the end. Against the Nazis" representing Kiev. "They have swastikas on their uniforms. How is it possible that Europe supports them?" And America. "No Pasaran," said Roman! With raised fist. The salute of Spanish Civil War republicans. Committed
to continue fighting.
Senisi went from Lugansk to Stakanov, Pervomaisk and other areas. Everywhere he went he saw "schools,
hospitals, factories, power plants, water pumping stations, all destroyed." "(S)corched earth," he said. Wanting an entire population eliminated. By slaughter or ethnic cleansing. Few people remain in Novosveltovka, he said. An old man took refuge in a basement. For days in the dark without food or water. Hungry dogs are dangerous. They attack people like
beasts. Ukraine is Obama's war. LIke ongoing Afghan conflict without end. Iraq war III.
Libya. Syria. Yemen. Somalia. Partnered with Israel against Palestine. Homeland wars against Blacks,
Muslims and other targeted Americans. Wars without mercy. Permanent ones. Continued mass slaughter and destruction. It bears repeating. No nation in world history reflects more pure evil than America. No time more
perilous than now. More urgent than ever for resistance. World peace hangs in the balance.
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA, raised in a modest middle income family, attended
public schools, received a Harvard BA in 1956 and a Wharton MBA in 1960. After six years as a marketing
research analyst, Lendman became part of a new small family business in 1967, remaining there until
retiring in 1999.
Since then, he has devoted his time to progressive causes, extensive reading, and since summer 2005
writing on vital world and national topics, including war and peace, American imperialism, corporate
dominance, political persecutions, and a range of other social, economic and political issues.
...Now Poroshenko clearly understands that his country plays virtually no role, neither in the
EU nor NATO. Meanwhile, it becomes clear the future of the Eurozone. So far as the state is not
able to become an EU member, the prospect of accession to EU and adopting common currency is very
elusive. In other words, Western countries have excommunicated Ukraine from all associations to
which she had once dreamed of entering.
The fact is that the West is using Ukraine for their own geostrategic purposes, and the events
taking place in this country, created great economic hardships for Ukrainian people, hardships
that increase with each day. Flirting by opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and
the European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, the conflict with Russia, the
growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and
the reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU. In
other words, the cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with the two organizations
turned into a complete fiasco.
In such conditions Poroshenko should be extremely concerned about his future and the future of
his government. It is quite obvious that in the event of any military conflict between Russia and
Ukraine NATO command, not having taken any formal obligations in respect of Kiev, will not
directly participate. They will only watch the fall of Kiev from the sidelines. By the way,
exactly the same thing happened in Georgia in 2008.
Then Mikhail Saakashvili stated that in the event of a military conflict between Moscow and
Tbilisi, NATO members will immediately defend Georgia. During the clashes, the representatives of
the Alliance really has condemned Russia's position, however, refrained from starting a direct
confrontation with her. In the end, Saakashvili raised the white flag, admitting complete
defeat in the Ossetian front.
If we return to the situation in Ukraine, we can say that now Poroshenko has lost the
ability even in the slightest degree to analyze the events occurring in his country.
Aggravates the current situation is that the White House and NATO have exploited weak Ukrainian
government. The fact that the West is using Ukraine for their own purposes, and the events taking
place in this country, created the conditions for Kiev to dteriarate ecomonically and
politically with weach day.
To date, the results of flirting opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and the
European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, led to the conflict with Russia, the
growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and
the alarming reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU.
The cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with those two organizations turned into
a complete fiasco.
"...And don't forget folks: Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev
"government" repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and
has invaded its eastern territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands. And with the same
breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which previously supplied Russian
natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions."
"...Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply
be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident,"
And don't forget folks:
Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev "government" repeatedly
state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and has invaded its eastern
territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands.
And with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which
previously supplied Russian natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions.
They need a decent English proofreader: "by the end of the year" means a discount extension
should be agreed upon before this year ends.
What the RT headline should is, I suspect: "Ukraine asks to extend discount on Russian gas
up to the end of the year", meaning they want their present discount extended up to and including
31 December 2015.
Remember the "Are Slavs Stupid" thread of a while back?
I'm seriously beginning to believe that Ukrainians are, or at least many of their public figures
are, in that they consistently make contradictory statements in almost the same breath, which
might indicate that they have a very short memory span (surely a sign of being slow witted) or
that they are so stupid not to recognize that the clear stupidity of their contradictory statements
must surely be recognized by most people who are in possession of a normal intellect.
Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply
be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident,
e.g. the statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …"
was composed by slaveowners almost to a man, in that several of the Founding Fathers of the USA
were in possession of hundreds of human beings that were listed in their account books as personal
property and worked for them as slaves, namely George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, and Patrick Henry were all slave-owners. And Hilary Clinton "misspoke" when saying
publicly that she had been fired upon by a sniper when arriving at Belgrade airport with her daughter;
not forgetting the US lies concerning Iran and Iraq, of course, and the destruction of the USS
Maine at Havana; and the role of the US Marine Corps in maintaining "freedom and Democracy" for
the benefit of United Fruit and Wall St. in Central and Southern America, as revealed by General
Smedly Butler …
Apparently the Fifth Columnists
have taken to snooping around graveyards, looking for evidence to hand over to NATO, of Russian servicemen
dying in Ukraine civil war.
Neocons are always neocons... They are becoming more reckless with time. The key problem
for Washington with Russia position (which is no doubt pretty costly for Russia itself) is that it enable
and encourage to say No to Washington's demands other countries making geopolitical domination for the
USA a lot more costly. Something like small scale revolt against the USA post-war domination.
It also catalyze economic ties of Russia and China (and by extension other BRICs members), making
the situation with dollar as world reserve currency and status of IMF more fuzzy...
Nevertheless, Russia failed to deliver the knockout blow last spring, allowing Kyiv to recover and
establish firm control throughout most of the country, even its Russophone portions. Moscow retains
the military upper hand as the two countries settle into a protracted stalemate in the Donbass, but
the Kremlin's strategy must take into account a number of factors that bode ill for Russia in the
longer run.
Ukraine has stumbled upon a most improbable ally-Saudi Arabia. In a stark example of
the law of unintended consequences, the Russian economy has sustained heavy collateral damage from
the Saudi campaign against North American shale-oil production (and secondarily, against Iran). The
war of attrition in the Donbass is in large measure hostage to the economic war of attrition in the
Bakken formation. This situation, unanticipated by Russia (or anyone else, to be fair) when it invaded
Ukraine, appears likely to depress energy prices for years to come, sapping the strength of Russia's
economy and hence the country's ability to wage war. A major cataclysm in the Middle East could turn
energy prices around, of course, but it is instructive that oil prices have plummeted even in the
face of Islamist depredations in Iraq and chronic chaos in Libya-and the loosening of sanctions on
Iran would bring even more oil and gas onto the market.
If the Saudi factor was unforeseeable, the Western response to the invasion of Ukraine appears to
represent an actual miscalculation by Moscow. The Kremlin no doubt expected something akin to the
reaction over Georgia in 2008-some harsh Western rhetoric, a few pro forma sanctions, and,
six months later, a proffered reset button and the resumption of business as usual. Instead, Western
governments have imposed fairly extensive sanctions and have thus far stuck to them. Sanctions against
individuals are largely symbolic, but restrictions on lending are a genuine hardship to Russian companies,
especially in the current economic downturn.
The Kremlin has naturally responded with a variety
of tactics to undermine Western unity and determination. Above all, Moscow has tried to demonize
the United States and present Europe as a co-victim of sanctions imposed by Washington. The Maidan,
in the Kremlin's creative retelling, was not about Ukrainian disgust with corruption or a yearning
for European standards, but was just cynical American manipulation in order to strike a blow against
Russia. The Russian narrative about the U.S. puppet master, of course, glosses over the enormous
role played by Europeans in nurturing Ukrainian institutions and civil society over the years, and
the influence on Ukrainians of the sheer example set by the transformation of Ukraine's erstwhile
socialist neighbors. If Poles, Balts and Romanians can enjoy a modicum of prosperity and good governance
by joining Europe, then why shouldn't Ukrainians move in the same direction?
... ... ...
Besides vilifying Washington as the bogeyman, Moscow is understandably hard at work mobilizing any
and all European governments and groups that can be used to undermine sanctions. Putin has found
a worthy acolyte in Hungary's Viktor Orbán, the man who would be Magyarbashi, and can count on a
degree of sympathy from a variety of European leaders ranging from Slovakia's Robert Fico to the
new Syriza government in Greece. However, Putin has struck out completely with the individual who
matters more than any other: Angela Merkel. If there were any question about the impact of individuals
on the course of history, one need only ponder how different the European reaction to Russia's invasion
of Ukraine would be if Gerhard Schröder were sitting in the German chancellor's office rather than
on the board of Gazprom.
Besides working sympathetic European leaders, Moscow has also cultivated
a motley array of right- and left-wing extremists, people often of diametrically opposed political
orientations united only by their hatred of Washington and Brussels. However, even where such groups
attract a stable portion of their national electorates and can reasonably aspire to enter governing
coalitions, they tend to have only a marginal influence on policy, particularly foreign policy. Electoral
surprises can happen, of course, but Moscow is unlikely to see much return on its investment in these
European groups.
The country is on the cliff of bankruptcy. A spate of politically motivated killings and
mysterious suicides of former government officials has sown fear in the capital. Infighting has
begun to splinter the pro-European majority coalition in Parliament. And a constant threat of war
lingers along the Russian border.
A year after the election of Petro O. Poroshenko as president to replace the ousted Viktor F.
Yanukovych, and six months after the swearing in of a new legislature, Ukraine remains deeply
mired in political and economic chaos.
"Poroshenko, whether you like him or not, he's not delivering," said Bruce P. Jackson, the
president of the Project on Transitional Democracies, an American nonprofit group. "The Ukrainian
government is so weak and fragile that it is too weak to do the necessary things to build a
unified and independent state."
Victoria J. Nuland, a senior State Department official, in Kiev, Ukraine, on Saturday. She
will be in Moscow for talks Monday.
Efforts to forge a political settlement between the government in Kiev and Russian-backed
separatists who control much of the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk have hit a deadlock
over procedural disputes, despite a cease-fire in February calling for decentralization of power
and greater local autonomy as the linchpins of a long-term accord.
The question is interesting ;-). The answer of pressitutes from Zeit is pathetic... They
definitely know about amount of cash shipped via diplomatic mail during Maydan event and the about
the amount of cash confiscated by police from Batkivshchina office during the raid in December 2014.
But they prefer do not metion it. This is what pressitution is about. When Jen Psaki is a role mode
;-)
When someone mentions Ukraine nowadays, Russia automatically springs to mind. What will happen
next: Will it be war or peace?
As soon as Russian President Vladimir Putin moved to attack the eastern Ukrainian port city of
Mariupol in an attempt to build a bridge to already annexed Crimea, the West would feel obliged to
react. And then it would quickly become apparent that the West is not united.
It would also bring to the fore another problem that has so far been hidden by the conflict with
Russia: The problem between Europe and America. At that point, many in Washington would want to send
arms to Ukraine. In Brussels, very few would. In Berlin, no one would. That would give rise to another
question: What do the Americans really want in Ukraine?
A few months ago, the Ukrainians asked the United States for tanks and missile defense systems.
They received instead 300 American military advisors, off-road vehicles and night-vision equipment.
That was all the help for a country at war. Anyone attempting to measure the gap between the Ukrainian
wishes and American response will see that there hasn't been anything more than gestures and symbolism
so far. But what does that actually mean?
To understand the American relationship to Ukraine, it's necessary to go back to the beginning.
Back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Kiev. The Cold War was over. The Soviet Union
still existed, but it was crumbling. The West had won. What now?
Mr. Bush had no interest in seeing the complete collapse of the Soviet Union. He feared there
would no longer be an organizing power in the region. Which is why he appeared before the Ukrainian
parliament to warn against the drive for independence and "suicidal nationalism."
The Ukrainians paid no heed, voting in a December 1991 nationwide referendum – including Crimea
– for independence. There was no way Washington could ignore that, so cooperation with Kiev was strengthened.
The nuclear weapons in Ukraine, in cooperation with Russia, were destroyed. Ukrainian soldiers
received training in the United States.
In the second half of the 1990s, Ukraine had more military cooperation with the United States
than with any other country. Not even with Russia. There were dreams of joining NATO, even while
Ukraine's Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych was in power. The Russians didn't seem to mind
much.
But such harmony didn't last long. As Ukraine's economic and political reforms stagnated and corruption
remained rampant, the Americans slowly lost interest in the country. Only after Mr. Yanukovych, suspected
of vote fraud, was kept from ascending to the presidency by the 2004 Orange Revolution did U.S. attention
revive.
In December 2004 Viktor Yushchenko was elected Ukrainian president, guaranteeing closer ties with
America, especially since his wife grew up there and had even worked for the U.S. State Department
for a time.
It's then that the theories of U.S. meddling in Ukraine started to gain traction. The British
journalist Ian Traynor claimed in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian that the Yushchenko campaign was
an American plot, citing as evidence American payments to train election observers and protest groups,
as well as American financed polls designed to back up accusations of Mr. Yanukovych's vote fraud.
Not many believe Mr. Traynor's theory, but one person who does is the respected Professor
John Mearsheimer, who teaches political science at the University of Chicago. He says that Washington
continues to try to influence Ukraine even a decade after the Orange Revolution. He's convinced that
the Maidan protests – eventually responsible for the ousting of Mr. Yanukovych on February 22, 2014
– were several years in the making and backed by American cash. A putsch. "America wanted a change,
because it wanted to gain influence over Ukraine," Prof. Mearsheimer says.
It's at this point that a large sum of money and a telephone call become part of the story.
Victoria Nuland, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, spoke of
$5 billion, or €4.5 billion, for Ukraine in a call to the American ambassador in Kiev on January
28, 2014. That was just a few weeks before Mr. Yanukovych was chased out of the country. Ms. Nuland
also spoke of whom from the opposition could join the new government as if she could influence such
things. That all came to light after the conversation was tapped and made public – apparently by
a Ukrainian intelligence service officer still loyal to Mr. Yanukovych.
At first glance, $5 billion is a hefty sum of money – but is it hefty enough to buy an entire
revolution?
The money flowed from 1991 to 2014. Most of it from the U.S. State Department, which handles foreign
affairs, and its development arm USAID, which was set up by John F. Kennedy. He saw it as successor
to the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe after the Second World War.
The agency's funds come from the U.S. federal budget. In 2016, USAID will have $22.3 billion to
spend worldwide, but it has to stick to the president's foreign policy guidelines. It is therefore
a political instrument that is never completely without a political goal in mind. But how will that
money be used exactly?
The Kiev offices of USAID are on the edge of the Ukrainian capital, on the same compound as the
U.S. Embassy. It's a gigantic building surrounded by a high fence.
Ann Marie Yastishock, the deputy regional USAID director, has frequently had to answer questions
about the money. "We don't finance revolutions, we support civil society and NGOs," she said. "We
financed neither the Orange Revolution nor the Maidan protests in 2014. Those were citizens out there
at the Maidan, rising up against their corrupt government."
USAID became active in Ukraine in 1992 at the behest of the Ukrainian government, just as it did
in Russia, Georgia and many other post-Soviet countries. "We thought at the time that we would be
here at most 20 years and then everything here would blossom," Ms. Yastishock remembers.
America has supported many projects with the money since then with the intention of helping strengthen
democracy: Anti-corruption groups, election monitoring, parliamentary expertise. Much more money
was spent on health projects, environmental projects and economic development.
But the expenditures have decreased substantially over the years. It was still $195.6 million in
2011, but that had shrunk by 2014 to just $86.1 million. Only in 2015 did that figure rise a little.
Could such amounts have led to people risking their lives during the long weeks of struggle at
Maidan?
Mr. Putin seems to think so. He sees the foreign money as interference in the domestic affairs
of a country. That's why NGOs in Russia that receive money from abroad are now subject to the country's
foreign agent law. American NGOs are no longer allowed to operate there. The foundation of the U.S.
investor George Soros had to shut down its HIV and methadone projects, helping contribute to Russia's
increasing HIV infection rate.
Mr. Putin, on the other hand, has invested heavily in a number of NGOs meant to increase Russia's
influence abroad since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Starting in 2012, $130 million has flown each
year into organizations operating in post-Soviet countries and the Balkans, but particularly in Ukraine.
The overall amount is growing, according to a soon-to-be-released study from the respected London-based
think tank Chatham House, which is predominately funded by international corporations. The study
shows a huge network in service of Russian interests using fear-mongering and manipulation to influence
a country's populace and attempt to bias it against the West. The biggest difference to the American
soft power concept is that Russia isn't trying to win anyone over with the attractiveness of its
own model, but rather makes use of economic pressure and political intimidation.
But even someone failing to see a difference between Russian and American influence has to recognize
that neither side now has the upper hand and neither is seriously in any position to steer the course
of Ukrainian history. The Ukrainians, just as they did when Bush Senior spoke to them, have always
decided their own future.
And it should stay that way, because it could be a highly dangerous scenario if Ukraine became
a geostrategic playing field for foreign powers. For example, what would happen if a U.S. president
unwilling to ignore Russian provocations, such as a U.S. Republican like John McCain, came to power?
President Barack Obama thinks differently. He avoids conflicts with Mr. Putin and would prefer
to leave the problem with Europe, that is, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by Putin there was the policy of not doing anything to
provoke the Russians," says Karen Donfried, Mr. Obama's former Europe advisor. A high-ranking advisor
in the White House connects the dots: "We can't deal with the Ukraine problem in an isolated fashion,
since there are other interests as well. We want to keep open our lines of communication with the
Russians on topics such as Syria, Islamic State, Assad or Afghanistan." In other words: Mr. Obama
believes he still needs the Russians.
In Kiev, the co-founder of the independent broadcaster Hromadske TV, which is financed by Ukrainian
citizens, as well as donations from E.U. foundations and the Dutch and American embassies, says that
it's become harder to get money from the Americans. And that's despite the fact that independent
media in Ukraine can only exist with outside help.
Ukrainian TV channels, all owned by the country's oligarchs, simply can't be trusted. The Americans,
however, are hesitant. They want to avoid at all costs any semblance of meddling.
Back in Washington there are still memories of Russia's war with Georgia in 2008, when relations
between the Bush administration and Russia had reached a low point. America had previously lavished
Georgia with massive amounts of money and weapons in an attempt to build a strategic bridgehead in
the southern Caucasus region. But as Russia marched into Georgia, it wasn't prepared to intervene.
Washington's Russian policy lay in tatters.
A year later, Mr. Obama became president and attempted to restart ties with Russia. From the economy
to disarmament, there were many common interests. Karen Donfried says: "We were honestly convinced
that Russia had decided to cooperate with the West instead of risking an open military conflict.
We were just as surprised by the events on the Maidan as by Putin's reaction to them. We knew, of
course, that Russia had reacted sensitively to the NATO expansion. But we never thought that it would
react in such a way to an E.U. association agreement."
Because Mr. Obama wants to avoid an escalation of the conflict, he's continued to speak out against
arms shipments. Anyone supplying weapons would simply fuel the logic of an arms race. Mr. Putin wouldn't
watch idly, he would send more weapons into eastern Ukraine. That's why Mr. Obama has up until now
ignored those in Washington demanding a more hawkish course of action against Russia.
Ukraine is not an American priority, according to the government advisor, the White House is merely
trying to improve the security situation there.
American interest in Ukraine has ebbed and flowed dramatically over the past quarter century.
Sometimes it wanted to help build up the country's democratic society, while other times it wanted
to contain its strategic rival Russia. Should the situation escalate anew in the coming months, America
will likely change its policy yet again. Barack Obama will then have to again consider sending weapons.
His political opponents and some of his political allies will ask him the following question: Should
America tolerate such behavior from Mr. Putin?
And then there will be that problem again between America and Europe.
Poor Ukrainian citizens got back to 90th instead of EU...
Notable quotes:
"... and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. ..."
The contraction in Ukraine's economy accelerated to 17.6% in the first quarter compared with a
year earlier, the State Statistics Service said Friday, hammered by a conflict with Russia-backed
separatists in its eastern industrial heartland that has slashed industrial output.
Gross domestic product for the period slid 6.5% from the final quarter of 2014, the agency said.
Ukraine reached a cease-fire deal with the separatists in February that has reduced--but not ended--fighting.
Talks over a longer-term political resolution to the conflict have stalled with each side blaming
the other.
The contraction was "a little bit worse than we estimated," according to Olena Bilan, chief economist
at Dragon Capital brokerage. She said the economy had also been damaged by shrinking domestic consumption
after the country's currency collapsed and inflation shot up. Retail spending was down 31% in March
compared with the same month last year, according to Dragon Capital.
Still, analysts said the contraction in the last quarter is likely to be the worst for the year,
as the economy's plunge began last summer as fighting picked up. Ukraine's government has forecast
a 5.5% contraction this year, but the World Bank said last month that Ukraine's economy would shrink
by 7.5%.
"In certain sectors are showing that the economy is testing the bottom," said Alexander Valchyshen,
head of research at ICU investment firm, citing transportation and agriculture as examples of industries
experiencing a turnaround. " Going forward I think the stronger decline we are having in the first
quarter, the stronger rebound in the second half of the year, because last year it was the second
half of the year when we started registering the collapse."
See also
Ukraine eyes strategic investors in sell-off of state-owned assets: Kiev
has drawn up a list of around 280 companies it hopes to privatise, earning up to 17 billion hryvnia
($821.26 million) in the process. The list includes three thermal power plants and 13 ports.
So Ukraine's GDP drop in 2015 is likely going to be over 20%. I recall Moody's, etc forecasting
a GDP drop of 2% for Ukraine and 6% for Russia. The 2% figure actually is looking more realistic
for Russia this year and is total BS if applied to Ukraine.
These numbers are full on depression ones. The USA's GDP went down 25% during the Great Depression.
I see Ukraine going down 30% and Ukraine was not doing so well before this disaster started.
First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship
with Russia.
I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe
(I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will
blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the
assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would
get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption
that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset
Russophobia in many parts of Europe.
This piece is proposing a bit of a conspiracy theory; but also making a solid prediction,
that can proved or disproved in the short term.
The theory is this:
One of Vickie Nuland's tasks, in her recent trip to Kiev, was to groom a man named Sergei
Levochkin for the Prime Minister job. (to replace Yats).
Levochkin is a former Party of Regions type who was in Yanukovych government. Now he is
head of the so-called "Opposition Bloc".
Levochkin confirmed that, yes, he met with Nuland; and, yes, they discussed regulation of
the crisis in Donbass.
The theory is that Americans have not placed all their eggs in one basket; and that Opp Bloc
of former Regions is being groomed to take over Ukie government, since Porky & Co have failed
miserably. Nuland is said to be auditioning replacements for both Porky and Yats.
Again, this is all provable/disprovable, we just wait to see if it happens.
The more interesting aspect is: What will Russia do? Is Kremlin in on this conspiracy to throw
Porky under the bus (if indeed such a conspiracy exists)?
Everybody knows that Russia wasted years of time supporting Yanukovych government, and in fact
it was Russia that put all its eggs in Party of Regions basket. Will Russia now accept the return
of a basically Regions government; and if so, will they throw independent Donbass under the bus?
These are all questions that we await eagerly to see the answers.
Zuckerberg said
that he did some research and found that the Ukrainian posts taken down included elements of ethnic
slurs and hate speech towards Russians. Posts with such content are not allowed on Facebook, he
said.
"I think we did the right thing according to our policies, in taking down those posts and
I agree that we must not support hate speech," said Zuckerberg.
I like very much that
(1) Zuckerberg defended the actions of his staff and did not throw them under the bus to service
anti-Russian agenda of Washington. I really respect the guy for doing that.
(2) that Zuckerberg put Ukrainians in their place: he made it clear they are not special people,
he doesn't care if their President appealed to him, he is not impressed by Porky's power; and
Ukies don't have the right to post murderous hate speech if other people don't have the same right.
Having said that, Russia's version of Facebook "V Kontakte", is obviously more loosy-goosy
than Zuckerberg's Facebook, since they tolerate just about anything. In fact, they sponsor the
page of Vita Zaverukha, with her swastikas galore and photos of murdered Odessans; and comparing
the scorched bodies to Kentucky Fried Colorado Beetles, etc etc.
Having said that, Zuckerberg's Facebook enforces a code of conduct which excludes ethnic hate
speech or calls to violence; and it is commendable that they actually enforced those rules even
when the targets of the hate speech were the much-despised Russian ethnos.
The comment section to this piece is quite telling:
"Czech Friend" who is some pro-Banderite
troll calls Zuckerberg a kiss-up to totalitarian dictators, and then encourages every "freedom-loving"
person to stop using Facebook.
"puttypants", who is pro-Banderite, pro-Fifth Column, agrees with this, and repeats the slander
(as stated in the movie "Social Network") that Zuckerberg is a plagiarist, who stole the Facebook
idea from his college friends.
"Mick Jones" then points out that he has seen examples of the kind of Ukie hate speech which
call Russians "Mongols" (as if being a Mongol is a bad thing).
"Calibra" replies to a comment that was deleted – I read the comment earlier, before it was
deleted, I don't remember the exact words, but the person said some mean things and then dropped
the ultimate threat: To quit their Facebook account. "Calibra" replies: "O my god, i'm sure Mark
[Zuckerberg] will not sleep tonight knowing you left, how could you."
Russ M. points out how Zuckerberg's nerd brigade laughed their asses off when Porky sent in
a question. God, how embarrassing, I would cringe if I were Ukrainian myself…
Having such a joke for a President. Oh wait! Russians used to have Yeltsin…
At least Yeltsin used to knock back the vodka and take a bite out of a salted gherkin like the
true provincial muzhik he was, the bastard, and not sip at Frog cognac and nibble at ladies' chocolate
assortments as Porky Porosyonok does.
Porky's still head of Roshen, hasn't divested himself of his business investments, so it's his
(as he sees it) duty to scoff all the chocolates his fat snout can snuffle out.
There's another
reason for him to indulge in his favourite comfort foods and beverages: he's been caught constructing
a new mansion on a plot of land right by a historic district in Kiev which he obtained through
an arrangement involving a private company that morphed into a fake housing co-op.
And how, pray tell, have they organized this boycott?
Why, through social media, naturally.
And which social media, you might ask?
Why, on Facebook, of course!
You can't make this stuff up!
As the author of this piece notes:
Svidomites and Logic – 2 things that are completely incompatible, one with the other.
For one thing, this sounds an awful lot like an official admission that the USA did something wrong
rather than Snowden.
For another, it is important to remember that the "control of the geopolitical narrative"
he speaks of was based on lying and secret snooping, and there is no reason to believe the USA would
ever have stopped doing it on its own, or taken steps to admit it was doing it, so long as secret
intelligence continued to keep them on top.
The problem that West and first of all the USA and Germany face now is that Ukraine is another Greece.
To keep it afloat financially requires tremendous and continues investment. 40 billions from IMF is
only a start. Economic ties with Russia are destroyed. And without tens of billions of annual aid that
means death sentence. Allowing it to fail with shake Western financial system and we do
not know how many derivatives were written on Ukrainian debt and who holds them. . Looks like MentalToo was on duty for this article with support of usual gang. There was even
some backlash against "Hillary bots", specifically against alphamysh.
By paying a price I clearly meant the very expensive support for Ukraine that EU has to provide,
about 40 billion so far. The Ukraine's economy is down about 14% from just three years ago - this
is going to get very, very expensive.
If you want to compare Russia's and EU's losses due to sanctions, they have been very substantial
for both. EU has so far lost about 10 billion in exports and in the long run it is not clear who
will end up losing more. Russia's GNP will drop by 3% after years of high growth (more than double
in 10 years). EU has been largely stagnant and many countries there are still below where they
were in '09 (Italy, Spain, ...).
Finally, militarily all that matters is who has local superiority. Russia has it in eastern Ukraine.
You can squirm, hallucinate, cry all you want, there is no f...ing way that Nato can defeat Russia
there.
They know it, thus the coming deal.
Dannycraig007 -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 21:34
You would prefer I use the corrupt and obviously biased mainstream Western media as sources
I assume, rather than first person video accounts from the victims themselves? Award winning war
correspondent and Guardian journalist John Pilger has a few words for you.
http://www.discussionist.com/101459708
This is a must watch video about how the Western media operate from a man who was once a part
of the establishment here at the Guardian.
Standupwoman -> Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 17:08
Yep. I think my own Pollyanna moment is already beginning to seep away.
But the stakes are so high! NATO's revival of the 'hotline' has unilaterally put us back on a
Cold War footing, and at a time when the Doomsday clock is already set at 3 minutes to midnight.
Putin has shown incredible restraint so far, but if the provocations don't stop then I'm genuinely
worried about what might happen.
Bosula -> samanthajsutton 11 May 2015 20:43
Neither side is very open about what support it provides.
Russia says openly it doesn't stop volunteers from Russia, often family, cross the border to fight
with the East Ukrainians. They are also probably supplying weapons, but we don't really know.
And no Russian troops have been captured despite the huge battles. To capture a Russian soldier
in a fighting zone would be worth gold in terms of PR value.
The Eastern Ukrainian are having difficulties training all their volunteers (just too many) with
a million refugees, many based in camps in Russia, providing a fertile source of volunteers. The
West provides no humanitarian help - a short sighted strategic decision, maybe?
The US and their allies are also pretty secret about what support they provide - best estimates
are around 1,500 advisers, trainers - and 'volunteers' fighting alongside privately funded far
right militias and the Ukrainian army.
The US are not really in a position to take the self- righteous moral high ground in a civil
war tens of thousands of kilometres from their home.
nnedjo -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:17
What little influence US has on events in Ukraine is irrelevant.
Because of this "little influence" the whole Ukrainian government has become irrelevant. You
know, the fact that you do not see the strings that move their limbs does not mean that they are
not puppets on the strings. And that guys from Washington hold the ends of the strings, that's
probably clear to everyone after the cookies of Victoria Nuland. Or Toria, as poster Dipset called
her.:-)))
Funny guy that Dipset, wonder why he is not here yet.
Standupwoman 11 May 2015 20:09
'Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country'
Are we really sure of this? Yes, Kiev has predictably denied Russian claims that American troops
have been spotted in the Donbass, but the odd thing is that several pro-Kiev supporters have uploaded
this footage of American training under the following description:
In Severodonetsk, Luhansk region instructors from Georgia, Israel and the US carried out
military exercises with the soldiers of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Ukraine
Luhansk is in the ATO region - and Severodonetsk is very, very near to the front line.
geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:05
Irrelevant ...?
Just the CIA advisers, military trainers, $billions of dollars, political cover, a propaganda
machine.
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:59
Not proper interviews, are they? Just clips of sentences without knowing the question that
is being answered. They wrap narrative around the comment. Not one of those nine soldiers admits
to fighting in Ukraine, and the claim of written evidence from NGOs is negated towards the end
of the article with the caveat that 'Ukraine' wasn't actually mentioned in the NGO's documentary
evidence.
You're easily duped by propaganda.
Standupwoman -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:50
Understood. If governments had to actually fight the wars they started, the world would be
a very different place...
Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:35
If your still doubtful about what the Kiev regime do to people who post unflattering information
online, I present to you them demonstrating firsthand what happens when people step out of line.
Graphic warning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnNDbJ7r0k&feature=youtu.be
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:31
"What about the guys in military uniforms with weapons, mortars, mines, grenades, anti-tank
weapons..."
What about them? They're defending themselves - the self-defence activists - after the Kiev regime
sent tanks and aircraft to attack the protesters in what they called an Anti-Terror Operation
as this example shows (see all four videos)..
Your question answers itself, in that the Kiev Regime have been tracking down people who post
videos on the internet and in social media that criticize the regime, hence the lack of video
out of Slavyansk now.
The Residents of Slavyansk have disappeared; the town is being re-populated with migrants from
Western Ukraine.
POSTED BY S. NAYLOR ⋅ AUGUST 14, 2014 ⋅ 27 COMMENTS
In Slavyansk, occupied by Ukrainian troops, the local residents have practically disappeared.
The town is being inundated with migrants speaking in a foreign dialect, who take over the housing
of those who left to escape the Ukrainian bombing campaign.
This is reported by one of very few residents of Slavyansk who, trusting Ukrainian official propaganda,
made the decision to return to his native city. The picture that he saw is terrifying. He realized
that the information about residents of Slavyansk returning home is nothing but a vile lie.
"Please, heed our plea! The people have disappeared from Slavyansk!
"I am a native of Slavyansk, residing here already for twenty-seven years. Or better to say 'I
was residing', having left the town three months ago, when it was becoming dangerous to stay.
During this time I found refuge with relatives in Odessa. I made a decision to return when all
the Ukrainian media started saying that everything in Slavyansk was back to normal, that over
sixty percent of residents have come back.
"In the three months of my absence my apartment remained untouched by shells from the junta's
bombardment or by its marauding thugs. I had already started to unpack when I heard the sound
of my neighbour's doors opening across the hallway. I thought it must have been my neighbour,
Sergey Ivanovich, but then I saw a young man unknown to me. To my question about his identity
he replied that he was Sergey Ivanovich's son.
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:27
Here's an example:
Slaviansk: 10 self-defense activists and some 30 unarmed civilians killed
Can you tell us how many people have been killed in Slayvansk?
Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:06
Here's another video for you that proves the Kiev regime are Nazis as it shows them marching
through Kiev in uniform holding the Waffen SS Wolfsangel flag and was filmed by Poroshenkos very
own Chanel 5 TV outlet.
The rest of the hour and a half long video is a bloodbath showing them killing hundreds of
innocent civilians. Get back to me after you've cleaned your conscience.
Investors, such as Franklin Templeton and George Soros' Foundation, who planned to make blood
money and placed their bets off of the inside information right before the coup back in November
2013, have a combined $7 billion at stake in Ukraine.
The IMF is trying to convince them to take a haircut on the massive amount and get put on the
back burner for the time being, but Russia put it's $3 billion loan in strict terms back in 2012
and has payback priority.
Those human flesh eating Western sharks want their money. This makes those 1%ers and their
IMF vassals very upset as they didn't actually expect to lose money......they thought they were
gonna double their billions with the rape of Ukraine. Now it's hard earned.
Standupwoman ID5868758 11 May 2015 18:41
I completely understand that. It's a very sensitive subject, and must be far more so for those
with personal experience.
Part of the problem is the difference between what we knew then and what we know now. At the time,
as you say, we all thought My-Lai was a 'one-off' by a few bad apples, but now so much material
has been declassified a very different picture has emerged.
BUT there's still a world of difference between 'a lot' and 'all', and we must never allow
those war crimes to taint the reputation of the good soldiers, or to belittle what they endured.
It is indeed wrong to apply excessively broad brush-strokes, and I want to apologize to you personally,
because I think in my post I was guilty of doing just that.
SoloLoMejor -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:40
Yep all good points and there's definitely some push back from Merkel and Hollande. I just
don't think the US can relinquish control of our military or monetary systems as would happen
if Europe developed independently and naturally became close to European Russia. This is a superpower
making sure that it stays a superpower. That said, this is Europe & Russia, not the under developed
middle East so they may not get it all their own way but 6000 lives so far is tolerable collateral
damage for them
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 18:37
There are 1,000 American, British, Polish and Canadian troops in Ukraine. Officially. Plus
endless civilian advisors, agents, private security companies, etc...
Maybe Russians have more people there, but it is after all on their border.
"given control of Ukraine's border back to Ukraine, in contravention of the Minsk II agreement"
No. The Minsk II specifically says that the border will be returned to Kiev control AFTER the
Donbass area gets autonomy. Where is the "autonomy"? You can't cherry-pick from an agreement.
If Nato steps over the line in Ukraine, as they are about to do, the nuclear option will be on
the table. It is absolutely horrible, but that's where we are heading. Try to get your head out
of your behind to understand what is going on there - it is playing with a huge fire on the border
of a nuclear power that said they will not allow Nato missiles 400 km from Moscow. You want to
test them?
nnedjo -> Tattyana 11 May 2015 18:32
I believe there is no need in any meetings for any further escalation as well.
That's right, Tattyana, that's exactly what I said. My only criticism was related to Miss Marie
Harf, who apparently recited a prepared statement, which aims only to reduce the importance of
the visit of John Kerry to Russia.
By the way, a true pleasure for me is to watch the exchange of opinions between US spokeswoman
Marie Harf and her favorite "reporter", Matt Lee, at the State Department press conferences.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Marie+Harf+Matt+Lee
Standupwoman -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:23
Yes, that all makes good sense - but I still think personal integrity can have an (admittedly
tiny) role to play. Carter is a case in point.
I'm even (don't laugh!) inclined to extend that to Obama. Yes, he's technically responsible for
this mess, and he must have supported Nuland and Pyatt in the original coup, but I still think
things would be very much worse if either Biden or HRC had been at the helm.
Obama (like Putin) has hawks screaming at him for being weak, but the fact he's holding out
suggests there's a little shred of integrity still there.
It's not much, but it's all we've got. Sometimes it feels as if the whole world is screaming
for war, and in the centre is this little patch of stillness where two men are holding firm against
the madness. If anything happens to either Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin then I think we really
are sunk.
geedeesee -> SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 18:22
Yes, there clearly is a strategic plan being played out, though I don't think it has gone to
plan for the Americans. The release of the Nuland/Hyatt phone call obviously came from Russian
intelligence, which was an embarrassment for US. I suspect this is all a prelude to the coming
clash for stakes in Arctic oil. There are a number of competing nations but US probably wants
to minimise Russian access.
However, there is a lot of strain within the EU at the moment, and we know the views of EU
leaders were disregarded by Nuland last year ("Fvck the EU").
It's possible the whole thing has gone far enough for EU leaders (see link below to comments
identifying reasons) and they're pushing back on US behind the scenes to cool it down now.
See the original post by Beckow and replies. Link direct to individual comment number:
Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country, well away from the conflict
zone, Russia has questioned their purpose.
So I do not see how it could be otherwise. Had the US sent their "trainers" in the conflict
zone in the east of Ukraine, it is possible that in that case Russia would not complain at all.
In that case, Russia would also send their "trainers" who would soon be found "in the west
of the country [Ukraine], well away from the conflict zone".:-)))
normankirk -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 18:04
and the German gold still locked up in US vaults
Popeyes 11 May 2015 17:53
Once again on Saturday Putin completely outclassed the West, and the decision by Western leaders
to stay away in the end showed their total irrelevance.
Closer ties between China and Russia is Washington's worst nightmare, and a very different
new World Order is emerging from the rubble of the post-Cold War period. Today Russia proposed
that Greece become the 6th member of a new Development Bank set up by the BRINCS, and with some
European leaders desperate to end sanctions things are not going as planned for the empire.
Dannycraig007 -> Bradtweeters 11 May 2015 17:52
Oh, I'm an 'authentic' Guardian reader alright. i'm on my 20th account after being constantly
banned this past year for posting the truth about Ukraine. And when they bane me again I'll be
right back. True Brits don't give up so easily.
ID5868758 -> Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 17:51
Well, it's printed in English only, given away free in places like the Metro and coffee houses,
so it's not like it's the Russian equivalent of the New York Times, to begin with. My son says
it's read mostly by ex-pats in Russia, tourists, that kind of audience, it's certainly not anything
that Russians read on a regular basis.
ID5868758 -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:45
Good grief, what fiction. Vladimir Putin's only problem is that he is not Boris Yeltsin,
opening the door to the international banks and the multinational corporations to continue their
rape of the assets and resources of the Russian people. He is slowly but surely returning
Russia to Russians. Contrast that to Ukraine, going in the opposite direction, with the privatization
of the assets and resources of the people just beginning, and the predators like Monsanto, Cargill,
Chevron, banging at the gate.
normankirk -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:44
Oh I know! its his nature! He can't help it! And vindictively, at home, he's raised the standard
of living and life expectancy! the bastard, only a lunatic would do so.And when he walks among
the people he's forcing them ... at gunpoint!.... to put on forced smiles you can tell by looking.
he.s a maniac! getting Assad to give up his chemical stores! crazy!
Kaiama -> BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 17:43
There was some indication that the ships could not be sold without the explicit permission
of the Russians - probably because they provided the middle part of the hull and if they were
feeling bad have the right to ask for it to be cut out and given back to them.
nnedjo 11 May 2015 17:42
"This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman
Marie Harf said in a written statement.
I do not see what it was unclear so far in the views of the State Department at the Ukrainian
crisis. I mean, if John Kerry is going to Sochi to repeat the usual accusations against Russia,
which US officials have said so far, then there's really no need for him to go to Russia only
because of this, nor Putin is interested to hear it one more time.
Thus, rather it will be some other reason behind this visit, about which we can now only guess.
And none of us is so naive to believe that the Ukrainian crisis can be resolved without direct
negotiations between the United States and Russia. So, either to make a deal, or to enter a further
escalation of the military conflict.
I am inclined to believe that the latter, less predictable solution, is not in anyone's interest.
Kaiama -> Metronome151 11 May 2015 17:41
Maybe, but if the US did cut Russia off of SWIFT for instance, the Russians have already said
that they would regard it as a declaration of "war". The US might start it but the Russians will
definitely finish it.
MichaPalkin -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:40
It finally happened: A REAL nutjob.
Now why don't you put your money where you mouth is, you pos and go join the fight against Putin
yourself um?.. See? Told ya.
geedeesee -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:31
On the glimmer of hope, I think you maybe right, though its early days. History books on 20th
century show that when there's been a stand-off for sometime an intermediary, or unofficial envoy,
is often sent to explore the basis for talks. And the history books also show confidence-building
measures are used, such as making an announcement via the media acknowledging part of the grievance
of the other side which can use for domestic purposes.
This happened with the IRA talks, for example, both in 1970s and 1990s. Last week Jimmy Carter
visited Putin in Moscow, not on its own remarkable, but what suggested this wasn't an initiative
of his own volition was the interview he gave to Voice of America (official US Gov. channel) immediately
after the meeting in Moscow - indicating they'd travelled with him.
The narrative is for the press and the accompanying 45 second video of Carter saying all the
right things for the Russians can be used by Russian TV/media in news reports.
You'll be disappointed if you look for integrity with the players at this level, because it doesn't
exist. They have their plans and self-interests; integrity doesn't come into it.
Dannycraig007 -> dmitryfrommoscow 11 May 2015 17:30
The Moscow Times is actually operated out of Scandinavia and their readership has been dropping
due to the obvious anti-Russian propaganda.
ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:27
Well, My-Lai was, of course, just a horrific example of evil behavior on the part of a few
of our troops, but Kerry came home and, without personal knowledge, painted the entire military
with the same broad brush, made up stories, and just so disgraced himself with this nation that
he would never have won a Senate seat if he had not run in Massachusetts.
I still to this day cannot listen to him speak for more than a few minutes at a time, his betrayal
of the men who were fighting and dying in the hellhole that was Vietnam will stay with me forever.
dmitryfrommoscow -> Havingalavrov 11 May 2015 17:26
The Moscow Times is one of those pro-Washington mouthpieces which, according to the claims
by Putin's critics, have been ruthlessly wiped out of the scene.
SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 17:15
I saw the Merkel Putin press conference in full. Merkel fully acknowledged and apologised for
the horrors inflicted on the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, and quite rightly.
When asked specifically about what she still blamed Russia for with respect to Minsk she became
a lot less clear and rambling and very non specific. I couldn't make out what her beef was although
I really wanted to know.
She's going to need some very clear reasons to reinstate EU sanctions on Russia and the phrase
Shaun Walker regurgitates in virtually every piece he writes, "mounting evidence" of Russian involvement
(but without producing any) won't be enough this time round.
MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 11 May 2015 17:15
l though I find your comments stupid, and what is absolutely amazing is that guests such as
you have had zero effect on anything.
Some fascist parties did once praise you and still do, ahem, "purely for the funding you was willing
to give". Some grammar problems here eh.
But this has had no effect on nothing, or the policy of the EU in general.
One does not even see you loonies demonstrating in the street, shouting "hail" to Poro & Co."
Poro's only real "western" base of support comes from RFE and probably Guardian. Even Americans
begin having their reservations now.
Period
Indeed, we may well have all your clownish incompetence to thank for your highly unsuccessful
trolling.
OK, klopets?
John Smith -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 17:06
You can forget about Crimea.
Nothing will come out from this talks because the US will not let off their 'great prize'
as the NED head called it. Unfortunately for Ukrainians.
ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:31
Standupwoman, I rarely disagree with you, but as an American who lived through Vietnam as the
wife of a Marine Corps officer, and the sister of a brother in country as a cryptologist, may
I just tell you that John Kerry's actions in front of Congress were not seen by most as heroic
at all, not borne of courage and integrity, especially since he had spent only a very short time
in country, and had awarded himself 2 or 3 purple hearts, but strangely enough, has no scars of
those wounds remaining today. He lied, it was a performance that caused much of America to shun
him even today, and that's the truth.
Igor1980 -> GoodOldBoy1967 11 May 2015 16:29
I am in Sochi now, a navy ship is patrolling the area of the Residence and many police cars
can be seen. It is not surprising . I was surprised by the number of cars with Ukrainian license
plates. The hosts say that many Ukrainian citizens moved to the area on the coast with their money.
Standupwoman -> cabaret1993 11 May 2015 16:22
I agree. If this were HRC rather than Kerry I'd think we were doomed. Do you remember her hilariously
rabble-rousing claim that Putin had no soul - 'He's KGB, it's a given!' - and Putin's dry response?
That woman ought never to have been allowed within a hundred miles of foreign affairs, and if
she ever becomes President then it'll be time to start stocking up on the potassium iodide...
Igor1980 -> Beckow 11 May 2015 16:12
Great and sober analysis. The reality is harsh for both parties and very painful for the
USA: the people in the West are not ready to die for the cause of the American dominance.
It is easy to hate Putin, it is difficult to sacrifice your lives in a war to punish Russia
for a little border change in the most unpleasant part of Eastern Europe.
MaoChengJi -> DogsLivesMatter 11 May 2015 16:11
state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement
That's just standard bs. What do you expect them to say.
Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:06
Maybe I'm having a Pollyanna moment, but I wonder if there isn't just the littlest, tiniest
glimmer of hope in this. The fact the US is prepared to talk to Russia on its own ground is definitely
a step in the right direction, and the fact it's John Kerry is even better.
Because Kerry was once an honest man. Back in 1971 he testified to Congress about American war
crimes in Vietnam, and showed the kind of courage and integrity it's almost impossible to mention
in the same sentence as 'politician'. He talked openly about the everyday reality of rapes, torture,
desecration of the dead, and killing civilians for fun – the American toolbox we're all familiar
with in Afghanistan and Iraq, but which in 1971 was genuinely shocking news. Nationalists hated
him, but I think he showed genuine American patriotism when he explained: 'We feel that because
of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it - not the Reds, not redcoats,
but the crimes which we're committing are what threaten it – and we have to speak out.'
OK, he's a politician now, and his words have frequently been used against him to show the hypocrisy
of his support for America's current wars, but deep down he's still in some way the same man he
was then. He and Lavrov certainly used to have a good relationship until he made that unbelievably
stupid remark about Russians 'lying to his face'.
That kind of populist rudeness plays well with the 'Murica, F*ck yeah!' mob, but grown-up countries
tend to choose a calmer, more courteous approach when it comes to negotiations which could lead
to the threat of nuclear war. Kerry will need to apologize for that (even if only in private)
if he hopes to get in the same room as President Putin.
But maybe he will. Maybe he'll even confound the words of that Psaki-Manqué Harf and actually
listen as well as talk. If he does, and if there's any integrity left in him, then maybe, just
maybe, there'll really be a chance of peace.
PlatonKuzin -> oleteo 11 May 2015 16:03
The Ukies think that the US and EU do them gifts for granted. And they were very suprised
as they knew that, for example, in Poland, an organization named "Restitution of Kresy" was established
that in the nearest future will expropriate, from Ukraine, the property belonging to the Poles.
And more than 100,000 such Poles are now ready to start proceedings to return their property
from there.
Dannycraig007 -> PlatonKuzin 11 May 2015 15:57
Agreed on the 50,000. I am just citing the US/MSM 'official' number. I have been keeping up
with the real numbers also. Petri Krohn has done a great job establishing a proper count of the
dead form various events and battles. The majority of those 50,000 dead are Ukrainian conscripts
and Kievs Baghdad Bob intentionally played the numbers way down in order to not have to pay dead
soldiers families and hide the truth of the war, which the US and EU media simply parroted with
no investigation whatsoever. Here's a link to the numbers:
The US could have prevented all this by keeping there nose out of Ukraine . In the words of
Obama we brokered the change of government in Ukraine.
Now their are 6000 plus people dead . east of Ukraine destroyed, Crimea gone never
to return.
Only the US could imagine you could get away with this.\
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:54
Hmmm...don't fool yourself, he meant the Maidan crowd in Kiev. The problem Kiev government
has is that as economy gets worse, the large cities like Kharkov, Odessa, etc... will become ungovernable.
Except through brute force.
How do you "join EU" if you have to be suppressing large portion of your population? I am
sure EU would love to look the other way, but the cognitive dissonance might get too much, with
YouTube, refugees, etc...
Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 15:52
Kerry will offer to swap Ukraine for Assad's head + no S300 missiles to Iran + sanction relief.
Putin and Lavrov will tell Kerry to stick the offer where the sun don't shine and then it's back
to square one.
Obumbler won't be involved, he's too busy on the golf course, watching the NBA playoffs, and making
hollow speeches filled with platitudes about race issues and police violence.
Meanwhile back in the increasingly irrelevant Euroweenie land, the NSA-compromised Frau Merckel
has a desk and a phone and will do as told by her masters
Dannycraig007 -> DIPSET 11 May 2015 15:47
I'd still like to see what those US spy satellites saw the day MH-17 was shot down. They first
said they had proof Russia did it, then they went quiet, then they relied on social media BS,
then they said they had a drunk Ukrainian that made a confession that the rebel put on Ukrainain
uniforms, then they stayed quiet. All the while they had ships in the Black Sea monitoring that
airspace and they had AWACS flying over Europe.
They obviously know what really happened but they have chosen no to show that 'evidence'....there
can only be one reason.......because it implicates the Kiev regime...and thereby....themselves.
geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:42
"...the army of Ukraine is not at war with "protesters"."
Yes they are, they called it an Anti-Terror Operation and not war against an army. The facts are
against you. Hard luck. ;-)
Dannycraig007 -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 15:40
Many people have no idea that Merkels father was in the Hitler youth. Sad but true fact. Hence,
maybe that partly explains her allegiance to Ukraine.
Horst Kasner
Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Kasner
Kasner was born as Horst Kaźmierczak in 1926, the son of a policeman in the Pankow suburb of Berlin,
where he was brought up. His father Ludwig Kaźmierczak (born 1896 in Posen, German Empire) - died
1959 in Berlin) was born out of wedlock to Anna Kazmierczak and Ludwik Wojciechowski.[1] Ludwig
was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and sent to France, where he was taken prisoner of
war and joined the Polish Haller's Army fighting on the side of Entente.[2] Together with the
army he returned to Poland to fight in Polish-Ukrainian war and Polish-Soviet war.[3] After Posen
had become part of Poland, Ludwig moved with his wife in 1923 to Berlin, where he served as a
policeman, and changed his family name to Kasner in 1930.
Little is known about Horst Kasner's wartime service, and he was held as a prisoner of war at
the age of 19. During his high school years he was a member of the Hitler Youth, with the last
service position of a troop leader.[citation needed] From 1948 he studied theology, first in Heidelberg
then in Hamburg. He married Herlind Jentzsch, an English and Latin teacher, born on 8 July 1928
in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) as the daughter of Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch, and their
daughter Angela was born in 1954.
PlatonKuzin -> Kaiama 11 May 2015 15:38
There is another side of this medal: Novorussia said that, if Ukraine violates the ceasefire
one more time, the Army of Novorussia will make no stops any longer and will free Kiev.
Beckow -> MichaPalkin 11 May 2015 15:35
Threats are simply a part of making deals. When one threatens, there is an implicit understanding
of what the alternatives are. It is how countries negotiate.
Look at it from Russia's point of view: they prefer to deal with useless twats. Putin has been
smart to keep all his threats, options and deals to himself. He speaks very diplomatically and
applies pressure on the ground. There is a Russian saying: "let the punishment tell" - that's
what Russia is doing and it drives the likes of Kerry crazy.
Unless US escalates into a nuclear confrontation, Russia has the upper hand in the long run.
That was obvious from the beginning. So the question is why did Peace Price Winner do this? Why
did he start? Is he and people around him that stupid or that desperate? I hope, it is just stupidity.
"Poro & Co would be applying for the political asylum in the US" - that's going to happen anyway,
but I think Canada will take the bulk of them...
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:24
Let's be clear: Kerry is flying in with a proposal to review with Lavrov. If Russia accepts,
Kerry will meet Putin. If not, we will know that sh..t is about to escalate - on both sides.
Regarding "military involvement": both sides are heavily militarily involved with arms, training,
"advisors" of all kinds, intelligence, logistics. And both sides downplay it ("lie", if you prefer).
Why is that even an issue? Or "news"?
It is infantile to discuss it. In a war there is always "military involvement". And this is
a war, has been for about a year, this is the way wars are fought now (see Syria, Libya, etc...).
And yes, of course Putin can change weather. Anyone with enough nukes can.
BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 15:15
Looks like India's participation in the Moscow parade is also paralleled by the cutting of
80% of the French fighter order (remembering that the govt. in New Delhi stated several months
ago that its confidence in France as a supplier would be related to its vulnerability to political
pressuring vis a vis the RU ships that will end-up being scrapped or bought by by a third party,
and it might be that said party, if also participating in said parade, might sell in turn to RU
for a 'cut'). IDK if this is related, big new orders from India for SU's:
These cannot be made in Russia, in any event, as Russia is entirely isolated.
Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 15:09
The US has really hurt itself with the WW2 remembrance ceremony snub. Russia won't be soon
forgetting what the US has been doing in Ukraine and Europe either. After all the 7,000 people
killed by the Kiev regime that came to power through the US backed coup were all ethnic Russian
Ukrainian civilians. So many lives could have been saved if only the US would have allowed federalization
of the obviously ethnically diverse regions of the country.
For those that missed it, here's link to the amazing WW2 Red Square commemoration concert. It
truly was a sight to behold.
Turn Ukraine into a federation. Of a rich pro western part that is member of the EU and a poor
pro Russian part that is member of the Eurasian Union.
In ten years time the East Ukrainians will have had enough of their Russian propaganda-ridden
life without a decent standard of living. We will then have another Euromaidan, but this time
in Donbass.
History always discloses propaganda lies. In the end the people of Donbass will understand they
have been used by Russia for its geopolitical games. And chose for a prosperous future in Europe
as well.
Beckow -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 14:14
Yes, there are huge problems.
But if US accepts a de facto defeat in Ukraine, they are done in many other places too.
My guess is that they will try to weasel out of it by offering a deal to Russia:
- US backs down, Kiev goes back in the box (over time), things quiet down, BUT no victory
speeches or remarks by Russia. US has to be able to maintain that they "won".
It is a disease for insecure people. They fear being seen as losers more than anything else.
Thus we might still see the fire-works if Russia refuses to oblige.
vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:09
"Unfairly blaming Russia for the crisis in Ukraine, which was actually in the main provoked
by the US itself, Obama's administration in 2014 went down the road of ruining bilateral links,
announced a policy of 'isolating' our country on the international stage, and demanded support
for its confrontational steps from the countries that traditionally follow Washington."
Why does the press want us feel so amazed about this quote? What part of it isn't true?
1. US did and does blame Russia for crisis in Ukraine.
2. US did provoke the crisis.
3. US did go down the road of ruining bilateral links.
4. It did announced a policy of "isolation."
5. And it did demand support for its steps from other countries in Europe.
Putin actually appears to be a straight talker.
vr13vr -> caliento 11 May 2015 14:05
"The first question asked should be... "
Kerry doesn't get to ask questions as if he were running a deposition. He can talk politely
and be nice. Outside of the US police TV show and court drama, nobody in the world allows anyone
to speak like this, especially in the diplomatic talks with Russia.
vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:03
"Russia believes that the US is meddling in Ukraine..."
No, it's not just Russia believes. It is a fact. And everyone knows it, not just Russia.
geedeesee -> Beckow 11 May 2015 13:46
Add to your list:
EU unity under considerable strain. Divisive issues on it's plate include Greece and Grexit, UK
referendum and possible Brexit, UK Human rights exit, unresolved Eurozone crisis, migrant quotas,
all made worse by further US spying revelations and German betrayal of EU businesses to the benefit
of US companies.
Putin now supporting/funding anti-EU parties in Europe.
MH17 report and voice recorder info, clearly delayed for political reasons, is due this summer.
Obama administration needs cooperation at UNSC on Iran nuclear deal.
Putin supplying arms to Iran is giving Obama more problems from Netanyahu.
If Obama has plans for a last attempt at cracking Israel/palestine then he'll need as much international
support as he can muster.
Russia opening spying and military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
BunglyPete 11 May 2015 13:46
Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda
exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war,
That suggests that it is equivalent to the RFE/RL campaigns of the Cold War.
The reports they produced in 1984 relating to showing the Ukrainian nationalists in a good light
were described by Richard Pipes as "blatant anti-semitic propaganda". Not my words, the words
of Richard Pipes.
These same reports are reprinted today in the Guardian and if you disagree you are a "Putin propagandist".
Even though Richard Pipes agrees that it is distasteful propaganda.
Other activities involved sending millions of balloons across eastern Europe, campaigns in the
US to ask for "Truth Dollars" to fund said balloon campaigns, leaflets pretending to come from
a fictional resistance organisation intended to militarise citizens against their governments,
and much much more. There are many books and articles on the subject.
Senator Royce said in May 2014, in an instruction to Victoria Nuland at a senate subcommitee hearing,
he wants them "producing the stuff they did years ago". Indeed they granted more money than they
did during the cold war to BBG campaigns.
In comparison to the rather pathetic RT, the US campaigns are far more serious in scope and effects.
madeiranlotuseater 11 May 2015 13:27
and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said
in a written statement
In other words, do as the USA says or we shall continue to hound you.
"Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda
exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war," Kerry said in February. "And
they have been persisting in their misrepresentations, lies, whatever you want to call them,
about their activities to my face, to the face of others, on many different occasions."
There speaks the nation that admits to being involved in forcing regime changes all over the
world since 1947. To arm twisting and invading Iraq on the basis of a known lie. If Mr Kerry believes
he has been lied to he should present his evidence. We can all relax then. But he doesn't. He
says to trust him to tell the truth. Why should we. The USA is a massive war machine intent on
ruling the world. China and Russia are not interested in being bullied.
Beckow -> deathbydemocracy 11 May 2015 12:53
I see that even indirect criticism of the media coverage is not allowed. Interesting, but somehow
understandable.
DIPSET 11 May 2015 12:31
First when they thought they thought they were "winning" they did not want to talk and
instead, instructed their media to do the talking for them.
Okay.
Then reality happened hahaha
As a consequence, we now have all sorts of chatter coming out of Washington and the urgent need
to talk to Russia. So now it's......
Let's "talk" about East Ukraine
Let's "talk about Iraq
Let's "talk" about Syria
Let's "talk" about Yemen
Let's "talk about Iran
Lets "talk" about Latin America
Funny how seeing China and Russia stand next to each other has sharpened some minds across
the Atlantic.
Pity they could not "talk" before Crimea was 'liberated' right in front of the American satellites
circling in space lol
;-)
Fascinating times
Ilja NB 11 May 2015 12:28
Which mounting evidence ??? I haven't seen a single one provided ?
**The Russian foreign ministry said: "We continue to underline that we are ready for cooperation
with the US on the basis of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and that Russian interests
are taken into account without attempting to exert pressure on us."**
Of-course USA will never agree with it, since USA wants to put it's nose in everyone's affairs.
BMWAlbert -> BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:55
Mr. Semenchenko is clearly referring to Greater Ukraine here that extends east into the Kuban,
including some buffer areas around the mount Elbrus region (intruded upon on this 2008 occasion)
to the south, and north to the Middle Don and Upper Donets basins, to include Beograd and steppe
lands east of Voronezh.
Beckow -> miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:40
Kerry is going to make a deal. Probably surrender after one more chest-beating threat. If Putin
doesn't meet him (also possible), we will have a very hot summer in Ukraine. And maybe elsewhere.
Beckow 11 May 2015 11:34
Kerry is going for a reason, and it is not to restate US views. The reality is:
- Ukraine cannot win the war in its east
- Ukraine is going bankrupt
- EU has just basically said no to Ukraine in EU for foreseeable future (decades?)
- EU denied visa-free access for Ukrainians
- the whole f...ing adventure in Kiev is getting really, really expensive
- time is on Russia's side, they can sit and watch Kiev collapse or West spending billions
to prop it up
- EU cannot currently survive without Russia's gas. Russia has deals with China and Turkey,
in 3 years EU will be screwed or pay a lot, lot more
These realities on the ground drive US crazy. They don't like to deal with reality, it
is too hard. They prefer the fantasy play world where US is god-like, others are scared and geography,
resources and other realities are wished away. Infantile. Stupid. Self-defeating. Russia is actually
doing US a favor by bringing them back to the real word.
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians; they will suffer for years enormously. They rebelled against
a miserable life, were used by a few hustlers from Washington, Berlin and a few Polish ultra-nationalists,
now they will pay for it all. Those are the wages of naivete...
emb27516 miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:32
Yes, especially if they wrestle.
BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:32
"Mr Putin, look at these images provided to our Senator Inhofe, from Mr Semenchenko of Ukraine's
official government designation to Washington.
As you can see, these images from Georgia in 2008 clearly show you invaded Ukraine last year.
We feel these images prove the invasion so strongly, Senator Inhofe wrote a bill authorising arms
to Ukraine, and we passed this quite easily.
What, Mr Putin, will you do about this? If you continue to send tanks to Georgia in 2008 then
we will assume you have no interest in fulfilling the terms of Minsk accord and will enact necessary
measures to ensure the stability of Ukraine."
alsojusticeseeker Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:27
"He may be a son of a b..., but he is our son of a b...". Just another typical example
of US hypocrisy.
BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 11:25
If only his brain were as big as his hair (obviously, not the bald one).
warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:25
"Western leaders mainly boycotted the parade in protest at Russia's actions in Ukraine."
Aka people's will in Crimea, and Russian people's will to help Donbass, they are not exactly hiding
it there are donation kiosks all over the country almost in every major city. Not on government
level though. There are no on duty Russian troops in Ukraine.
RudolphS 11 May 2015 11:24
So, Barry is too chickenshit to go to Russia himself?
Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:19
Americans should be asking why their government is supporting a Ukrainian governmnet which
honours veterans of an insurgency which massacred Poles, Jews and Russians across Ukraine in 1943
and 1944.
Here they are, members of the UPA-OUN. Rehabilitated by Poroshenko's governmnet. It was an organisation
which formed the Nachtigall Battalion, in German service, and tasked with clearing the Lvov ghetto,
and which took men from SS auxiliaries (Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201), which cleared Belarus
of partisans and Jews.
Most notoriously, the UPA ran a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Poles in Ukraine, killing
some 100,000 of them (mostly women and children).
So there are the veterans, in Ukraine's parliament.
Here's a history of one of their
massacres.
America, you should know.
Steve Ennever 11 May 2015 11:15
"The US has placed several rounds of sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine"
It has indeed. And badgered Europe into sanctioning Russia further. All of which
has affected the US little but has been an immense pain economically for it's "allies."
Strangely though, in 2014, business between the US & Russia actually increased by 7%.
Honestly, you get taken for a ride as recently as Iraq & Libya & you still don't learn a thing.
StatusFoe11 May 2015 11:08
"This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed,"
i.e. "If you don't do what we say and submit to our will there'll be more costs."
warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:00
"While Washington has pointed to mounting evidence of Russian military involvement in
the east of the country."
Yet unable to provide any concrete evidence for over a year...
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which
approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance
has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter.
In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to
40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
Notable quotes:
"... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
"... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
"... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
"... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
"... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight
over Ukraine's constitution
One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest
city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed
his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several
hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his
face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected
himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was
waiting to grill him.
"Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his
name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question
coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor
state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict.
Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine
to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally,
I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.
It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile
ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over
its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization,"
a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute
it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern
provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.
The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and
President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to
the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is
like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President
said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."
Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse,
a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy
cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless
how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.
"That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which
is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking
sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of
the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact
of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question,
he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund,
which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that
assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since
last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation
shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions
to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest
factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes
up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete
with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director,
Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis.
About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the
turbines that run its nuclear power stations.
"Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky
says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally
interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as
part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result
to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.
At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines
aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced
at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that
don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed
institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with
open arms."
Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in
eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades,
one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin,
who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since
at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence –
an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.
His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military
means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore.
"If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in
his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia
could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view
on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir,
and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."
It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in
the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted
with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's
government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even
brought charges
against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in
Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison,
Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow
his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.
"And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising
near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet
pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as
a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was
able to return to his post.
It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as
adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a
video of them trying to film
a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence
and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived
that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.
Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he
continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against
him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part
of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia.
"They don't want to listen to reason," he says.
But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business
with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid
Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories
of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind
that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.
To mark the 70th anniversary of the Victory against Nazism, we publish a study of Valentin
Katasonov on financing of the NSDAP and the rearmament of the Third Reich. The author deals with
new documents that confirm the organization of the Second World War by US and UK Bankers, covered
by President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in the hope of destroying
the USSR. This study raises new questions that will be addressed in a future article.
The war was not unleashed by frenzied Fuhrer who happened to be ruling Germany at the
time. WWII is a project created by world oligarchy or Anglo-American "money owners". Using
such instruments as the US Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England they started to
prepare for the next world conflict of global scale right after WWI. The USSR was the target.
The Dawes and Young Plans, the creation of Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the
Germany's suspension of reparations payments it had to pay according to Paris Peace Treaty and
the acquiescence of Russia's former allies in this decision, large-scale foreign investments
into the economy of Third Reich, the militarization of German economy and the breaches of
Paris Treaty provisions – they all were important milestones on the way of preparing the war.
There were key figures behind the plot: the Rockefellers, the Morgans, Lord Montagu Norman
(the Governor of the Bank of England), Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and
Minister of Economics in the Hitler's government). The strategic plan of Rockefellers and
Morgans was to subjugate Europe economically, saturate Germany with foreign investments and
credits and make it deliver a crushing blow against the Soviet Russia so that it would be
returned into the world capitalist system as a colony.
Montagu Norman (1871 - 1950) played an important role of go-between to keep up a dialogue
between American financial circles and Germany's business leaders. Hjalmar Schacht organized
the revival of Germany's defense sector of economy. The operation conducted by "money owners"
was covered up by such politicians as Franklin Roosevelt, Neville Chamberlain and Winston
Churchill. In Germany the plans were carried out by Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht. Some
historians say Hjalmar Schacht played a more important role than Hitler. Simply Schacht kept
away from spotlight.
The Dawes Plan was an attempt following World War I for the Triple Entente to compromise
and collect war reparations debt from Germany. The Dawes Plan (as proposed by the Dawes
Committee, chaired by Charles G. Dawes) was an attempt in 1924 to solve the reparations
problem, which had bedeviled international politics following World War I and the Treaty of
Versailles (France was reluctant to accept it got over 50% of reparations). In 1924-1929
Germany got $2, 5 billion from the United States and $ 1, 5 billion from Great Britain,
according to Dawes Plan. In today's prices the sum is huge, it is equal to $1 trillion of US
dollars. Hjalmar Schacht played an active role in the implementation of Dawes Plan. In 1929 he
summed up the results, saying that in 5 years Germany got more foreign loans that the United
States in the 40 years preceding WWI. As a result, in 1929 Germany became the world's second
largest industrial nation leaving Great Britain behind.
In the 1930s the process of feeding Germany with investments and credits continued. The
Young Plan was a program for settling German reparations debts after World War I written in
1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929–30) by
American industrialist Owen D. Young, creator and ex-first chairman of Radio Corporation of
America (RCA), who, at the time, concurrently served at board of trustees of Rockefeller
Foundation, and also had been one of representatives involved in previous war reparations
restructuring arrangement – Dawes Plan of 1924. According to the plan, the Bank of
International Settlements (BIS) was created in 1930 to make Germany pay reparations to
victors. In reality the money flows went in quite a different direction - from the United
States and Great Britain to Germany. The majority of strategically important German companies
belonged to American capital or were partly under its control. Some of them belonged to
British investors. German oil refinery and coal liquefaction sectors of economy belonged to
Standard Oil (the Rockefellers). Farbenindustrie AG, chemical industry major was moved under the
control of the Morgan Group. 40% of telephone network and 30% of Focke Wulf shares belonged to
American ITT. Radio and AEG, Siemens, Osram electrical industry majors moved under the control
of American General Electric. ITT and General Electric were part of the Morgan's empire. At
least 100% of the Volkswagen shares belonged to American Ford. By the time Hitler came to
power the US financial capital practically controlled all strategically important sectors of
German industry: oil refining, synthetic fuel production, chemistry, car building, aviation,
electrical engineering, radio industry, and a large part of machine-building (totally 278
companies). The leading German banks - Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank and some
others - were under US control.
***
On January 30, 1933 Hitler was named the Chancellor of Germany. Before that his candidacy
had been thoroughly studied by American bankers. Hjalmar Schacht went to the United States in
the autumn of 1930 to discuss the nomination with American colleagues. The Hitler's
appointment was finally approved at a secret meeting of financiers in the United States. He
spent the whole 1932 trying to convince the German bankers that Hitler was the right person
for the position. He achieved the goal. In mid-November 1932 17 German largest bankers and
industrialists sent a letter to President Hindenburg expressing their demand to make Hitler
the Chancellor of Germany. The last working meeting of German financiers before the election
was held on January 4, 1933 in Kölnat the home of banker Kurt von Schröder. After that the
National Socialist Party came to power. As a result, the financial and economic ties of
Germany with Anglo-Saxons elevated to a higher level.
Hitler immediately made an announcement that he refused to pay postwar reparations. It put
into doubt the ability of England and France to pay off WWI debts to the United States.
Washington did not object to the Hitler's announcement. In May 1933 Hjalmar Schacht paid
another visit to the United States. There he met with President Franklin Roosevelt and big
bankers to reach a $1 billion credit deal.In June the same year Hjalmar Schacht visited London
to hold talks with Montagu Norman. It all went down smoothly. The British agreed to grant a $2
billion loan. The British offered no objections related to the Germany's decision to suspend
debt payments.
Some historians say the American and British bankers were pliant because by 1932 the Soviet
Union had fulfilled the 5-year economic development plan to make it achieve new heights as an
industrial power. A few thousand enterprises were built, especially in the sector of heavy
industry. The dependence of USSR on import of engineering production has greatly dwindled. The
chances to strangle the Soviet Union economically were practically reduced to zero. They
decided to rely on war and launched the runaway militarization of Germany.
It was easy for Germany to get American credits. By and large, Hitler came to power in his
country at the same time as Franklin Roosevelt took office in the United States. The very same
bankers who supported Hitler in 1931 supported Roosevelt at the presidential election. The
newly elect President could not but endorse large credits to Germany. By the way, many noticed
that there was a big similarity between the Roosevelt's "New Deal Policy" and the economic
policy of the German Third Reich. No wonder. The very same people worked out and consulted the
both governments at the time. They mainly represented US financial circles.
The Roosevelt's New Deal soon started to stumble on the way. In 1937 America plunged into
the quagmire of economic crisis. In 1939 the US economy operated at 33% of its industrial
capacity (it was 19% in the heat of the 1929-1933 crisis).
Rexford G. Tugwell, an economist who became part of Franklin Roosevelt's first "Brain, a
group of Columbia University academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to
Roosevelt's New Deal,wrote that in 1939 the government failed to reach any success.There was
an open seatill the day Hitler invaded Poland.Only the mighty wind of war could dissipate the
fog. Any other measures Roosevelt could take were doomed to failure. [1]
Only the world war could save the US capitalism. In 1939 the money owners used all leverage at
their disposal to put pressure of Hitler and make him unleash a big war in the east.
***
The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) played an important role during the Second
World War. It was created as an outpost of American interests in Europe and a link between
Anglo-American and German businesses, a kind of offshore zone for cosmopolitan capital
providing a shelter from political processes, wars, sanctions and other things. The Bank was
created as a public commercial entity, it's immunity from government interference and such
things as taxes collection was guaranteed by international agreement signed in the Hague in
1930.
The bankers of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who were close to the Morgans, Montagu
Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, German financiers: Hjalmar Schacht (President of
the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler's government), Walther Funk (who later
replaced Hjalmar Schacht as President of the Reichsbank) and EmilPuhl – all of them played an
important role in the efforts to establish the Bank. The central banks of Great Britain,
France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and some private banks were among the founders. The Federal
Bank of New York did its best to establish the BIS, but it was not listed as a founder. The US
was represented by the private First National Bank of New York, J.P. Morgan and Company, the
First National Bank of Chicago – all parts of the Morgan's empire. Japan was also represented
by private banks. In 1931-1932 19 European central banks joined the Bank of International
Settlements. Gates W. McGarrah, a banker of Rockefeller's clan, was the first BIS chairman of
the board. He was replaced by Leon Fraser, who represented the clan of Morgans. US citizen
Thomas H. McKittrick was President of the Bankduring the war years.
A lot has already been written about the BIS activities serving the interests of Third
Reich. The Bank was involved in deals with different countries, including those Germany was at
war with. Ever since Pearl Harbor the Bank of International Settlements has been a
correspondent bank for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was under Nazi control during
the war years, no matter American Thomas Huntington McKittrick was the Bank's President.
Soldiers were dying on the battlefields while the leadership of BIS held meetings in Basel
with the bankers of Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and the United States.
There, in the Swiss offshore zone, it was all peaceful, the representatives of belligerents
quietly worked in the atmosphere of mutual understanding.
Switzerland became the place where gold seized by Germany in different corners of Europe
was transported to for storage. In the March of 1938, when Hitler captured Vienna, part of
Austrian gold was transferred to BIS vaults. The same thing happened with the gold of Czech
National Bank (48 million USD). As the war started, the flows of gold poured into the Bank of
International Settlements. Germany got it from concentration camps and as a result of
plundering the wealth of occupied countries (including whatever belonged to civilians: jewels,
gold crowns, cigarette cases, utensils…). It was called the Nazi Gold. The metal was processed
into ingots to be stored in the Bank of International Settlements, Switzerland, or outside
Europe. Charles Higham in his Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of The Nazi-American Money
Plot 1933-1949 wrote that during the war Nazi transferred $378 million into the accounts
of Bank of International Settlements.
A few words about the Czech gold. The details surfaced when after the Bank of England's
archives were declassified in 2012. [2]
In the March of 1939 Germany captured Prague. Nazi demanded $48 million of national gold
reserves. They were told that the sum had already been transferred to the Bank of
International Settlements. Later it became known that the gold was transferred from Basel to
the vaults of Bank of England. Upon the command from Berlin the gold was transferred to the
ReichsbankBIS account. Then the Bank of England was involved in transactions done upon the
orders of Reichsbank given to the Bank of International settlements. The commands were
retransmitted to London. There was collusion between German Reichsbank, the Bank of
International Settlements and the Bank of England. In 1939 a scandal broke out in Great
Britain because the Bank of England executed the transactions with Czech gold upon the
commands coming from Berlin and Basel, not the Czech government. For instance, in the June of
1939, three months before the war between Great Britain and Germany started, the Bank of
England helped Germans to get into their accounts the amount of gold equal to 440 thousand
pounds sterling and transfer some gold to New York (Germany was sure that in case of German
intervention into Poland the United States would not declare war).
The illegal transactions with Czech gold were implemented with tacit approval of the
government of Great Britain which was aware of what was going on. Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon and other top officials did their best
to hide the truth, including outright lies (the gold was returned to the lawful owner or had
never been transferred to Reichsbank). The recently declassified materials of Bank of England
reveal the truth and show that the government officials lied to cover up themselves and the
activities of the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements. It was easy to
coordinate the joint criminal activities because Montagu Norman, the head of Bank of England,
served as the chairman of the board of Bank of International Settlements. He never made secret
of his sympathy for fascists.
The Bretton Woods Conference, formally known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial
Conference, was the gathering of 730 delegates from all 44 allied nations at the Mount
Washington Hotel situated in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the United States, to regulate the
international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II. The
conference was held from 1 to 22 July 1944. All of a sudden the issue of the Bank of
International Settlements hit the agenda. It was reported that the bank collaborated with
fascist Germany. Leaving many details aside, I'd only mention that with great difficulty (some
US delegates opposed the motion) the delegates reached an agreement to close the BIS. The
decision of international conference has never been enacted. All the discreditable information
related to the BIS wartime activities was classified. Today it helps to falsify the history of
the Second World War.
Finally, a few words about Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970) who served as President of the
Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the fascist Germany's government. He was a key figure
controlling the economic machine of Third Reich, an extraordinary and
plenipotentiaryambassador representing Anglo-American capital in Germany. In 1945 Schacht was
tried at Nuremberg to be acquitted on October 1, 1946. He got away with murder. The same way
it happened to Hitler. For some unexplained reasons he was not in the 1945 leading wartime
criminals list. More to it, Schacht returned to his profession like if nothing happened and
founded Schacht GmbH in Düsseldorf. This detail may go unnoticed, though it serves as another
testimony to the fact that Anglo-American "money owners" and their plenipotentiary
representatives in Germany prepared and, to some extent, influenced the outcome of the Second
World War. The "money owners" want to rewrite the history of the war and change its results.
Source : "Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II", by Valentin
Katasonov, Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia), Voltaire Network, 7 May 2015,
www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html
Valentin
Katasonov
Professor, Department of Moscow State Institute of International Finance, doctor of economic
sciences, corresponding member of the Academy of Economics and Commerce. He was consultant of the
United Nations (1991-1993), member of the Advisory Council to the President of the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (1993-1996), head of the Department of international
monetary relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russia (2001-11).
Meanwhile, back in Banderaland,
more info is coming
out about the latest political murder. Oleg Kalashnikov, former Parliament Deputy for Party
of Regions.
.
According to the VZGLIAD piece, Kalashnikov was organizing and planning to hold some kind of march
to celebrate the 70 anniversay Victory Day in Kiev. One of his relatives reported to the press,
that he (Oleg) had received death threats in conjunction with these activities. He had also been
threatened by SBU types.
During the time in the Rada (2006-2007) Oleg had made several important
political enemies, including Julia Tymoshenko and Anatoly Gritsenko.
On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov wrote a letter to a friend, including the following
words: "Открытый геноцид инакомыслия, угрозы физического уничтожения и постоянные грязные оскорбления
за открытый призыв к празднованию 70-летия Победы в Великой Отечественной войне стали нормой в
оккупированной нацистами сегодняшней Украине, – писал Калашников. – Этот "подарок" я получил 13
апреля вместе с очередной порцией угроз и оскорблений", – говорится в письме.
TRANSLATION
"The open genocide of dissident thinking, threats of physical extermination, and the constant,
dirty insults (directed at my) calls to celebrate the 70th Anniversay or Victory Day in the Great
Patriotic War – these have become the norm in today's Ukraine, which is occupied by Nazis," Kalashnikov
wrote. "This so-called 'gift" was received by me on 13 April…"
END OF TRANSLATION
By "gift" what Oleg meant was that, all of his personal demographic info, including his address,
was published in the publication called "Mirotvorets" on April 13. "Mirotvorets" is a "resouce"
which publishes all known info about separatists. This resource is under the purview of
Anton Gerashchenko,
one of the big-shots in the junta government.
Within a day of his data being published, Oleg Kalashnikov was gunned down and assassinated
near his home.
The piece adds, intriguingly, that this "Mirotvorets" database of separatist info, is supposedly
only accessible to Ukrainian Internal Police and SBU. Therefore, the implication is, that this
was a government-sanctioned assassination of a political opponent.
Continuing with more info from above piece (is a long article):
Kalashnikov had ended his letter
with the following words: "Маски сброшены! Нацизм со звериным оскалом жаждет крови, чтобы скрыть свои преступления против
многострадального народа современной Украины!" – так заканчивает свое письмо Калашников.
TRANSLATION
"The masks are off! Nazism with its beastly grin, is thirsty for blood, and tries to hide its
crimes against the long-suffering people of contemporary Ukraine."
END OF TRANSLATION
On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov's friends begged him to flee the country.
He said he could not, for 2 reasons: (1) He was an officer in the intelligence services, and (2)
he could not in conscience leave his fellow-thinkers behind.
Political writer Vladimir Kornilov confirms, that Kalashnikov was very worried about all his
personal, demographic data being published in "Mirotvorets", which he calls a "stool-pigeon rag".
A few months ago, back in January, Gerashchenko
proudly presented his new plan of tracking political dissidents. In a separate comment, I
will translate a bit (if I have time) of Gerashchenko's "presentation" of this totalitarian project
for tracking and eliminating dissidents. For now, suffice that the title of Gerashcheno's "oeuvre"
is called: "Gifts for Christmas: or Every Creature gets what he deserves".
Meanwhile Ukrainian totalitarian media are all over this too, the general tone being:
(1) Kalashnikov was an odious "Regional" who deserved to die; however
(2) It was probably his Russian "sponsors" who whacked him, maybe because he was about to spill
some beans, or something like that….
Around the murder itself, some strange events:
Oleg was shot dead with 4 shots.
Oleg's wife heard the noise and rushed out, as husband was being gunned down.
She immediately called the police.
Within minutes, according to her, police from Internal Ministry were on the spot.
While this was going on, Oleg's daughter-in-law was suddenly mugged; somebody grabbed her purse,
right there at the crime scene.
Here, by the way , is the site Mirotvorets.
This is the site where you go if you are Ukrainian and want to denounce your neighbour as a separatist.
Just skimming through the site, one gets a glimpse into Gerashchenko (aka "Fat Bastard") sick
Nazi mind. For example, scroll down a bit to see him bragging about collecting a database of 20,500
"individuals" (with more negative connotation than English equivalent).
Иначе этих нелюдей назвать не можем, поскольку именно они принесли беду в наш общий дом: изменники
родины, сепаратисты, террористы и боевики, наемники российского происхождения, военные преступники
из вооруженных сил РФ, а также пособники разных мастей всей этой нечисти.
TRANSLATION
We don't know what else to call these in-humans, since they have brought woe into our common home:
traitors of the motherland, separatists, terrorists and militants, mercenaries of Russian origin,
war criminals from the army of the Russian Federation, and also collaborators of various stripes
of all this filth.
END OF TRANSLATION
The rest of the site has the same tone: all heavily anti-Russia and in your face, tone is basically
that of some loud-mouth mobster bully.
Which is exactly what Gerashchenko is.
Here is Mirotvorets post from March 16, pertaining to Crimean citizens:
В последнее время
к нам неоднократно официально обращаются представители ряда государственных ведомств Украины с
просьбой предоставить имеющуюся информацию об изменниках Родины, сепаратистах, пособниках российских
оккупантов и боевиках НВФ, проживающих в настоящее время на временно оккупированной территории
АР Крым (Украина). Учитывая эти просьбы, а также в полном соответствии с действующим Законодательством
Украины, мы решили открыто разместить на сайте Центра "Миротворец" указанную информацию в форматах,
удобных для интеграции в любые автоматизированные системы обработки. Данные представлены в формате
CSV. С учетом постоянного накопления данных, список периодически будет обновляться. По состоянию
на 16 марта 2015 года в Чистилище находится информация о более чем 7500 особей, большую часть
из который представляют изменники Родины.
TRANSLATION
Recently we have been approached officially by representatives of a series of governmental authorities
of Ukraine, with a request to present all the information we have pertaining to traitors of the
motherland, separatists, collaborators with Russian occupiers, and fighters in illegal formations
who dwell at the current time on the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic
of Crimea (Ukraine).
Taking into account these requests, and also in full accordance with existing legislation of Ukraine,
we have decided to place on the "Mirotvorets" site the information indicated, in formats convenient
for integration into any automated databases. The data is presented in the .CSV format [yalensis:
ASCII text file with comma-separated fields]. Taking into account the continuous accumulation
of data, the database will be refreshed periodically. As of 16 March 2015, in our database we
have information on more than 7500 individuals, the major portion of whom are traitors to the
motherland.
END OF TRANSLATION
yalensis: And now, in April, the database is up to 20K traitors.
All in their comma-delimited traitorous glory.
"Fighters in illegal formations", Dear God, you could scream. According to the Ukrainian constitution,
all formations except for the state military and law enforcement are illegal. But only half-hearted
attempts are made to "legalize" the volunteer battalions, which are not even paid by the government,
or were not until Benny's bottomless purse flew away with him. And the ever-alert-for-illegal-behavior
west which brought you the suggestion that Ukraine could ignore its debt to Russia as "odious
debt" says not a word about Kiev's own making up what is legal as it goes along.
It's like a caricature of reality, as if someone either not too imaginative or with the brilliant
talent for mockery that results in films like "Springtime for Hitler" were making an educational
film about the growth of fascism in a fertile society.
All this, I'm sure, contributes to Brussels'
ambition to make a close partner and chum of Ukraine. It certainly displays European values. Of
course, you never know how much they know and how much they are just pretending not to know.
"pro-Russia" and "Russia-leaning" and "Kremlin-friendly" are the new "nothing to see here; move
along" in Ukrainian discourse. What a name that benighted nation is making for itself! I must
confess – somewhat guiltily, because there is nothing funny about the desperate situation of ordinary
Ukrainians – that I get a great deal of amusement over the west's continuing hamfisted attempt
to portray this hellhole as a brave emerging country stumbling towards democracy. It is nothing
of the kind – it is like some sort of college frat party spun out of control in which the most
wicked and deviant of the population are allowed to fully indulge their secret fantasies.
It seems you can kill just about anyone with impunity in the brave new Ukraine provided you put
"pro-Russian" before their occupation. I am becoming steadily more supportive of all Ukraine except
the southeast, without any source of income and crazy as a bedbug, going to the EU. They deserve
to live cheek by jowl with their project and the result of their meddling.
The 'Russian economy returns to growth' headline is actually a little misleading, because although
the stock exchange and currency are up, it still seems as though GDP will decline this year. That
said, the rise in the ruble will reduce inflation which will allow the Central Bank to cut interest
rates, which should permit GDP to start rising again sooner than expected. So not all is rosy,
but the Russian economy is looking much more resilient than critics had suggested.
Yes, that's true – "stabilized" would have been more accurate. But I believe stability is going
to look like growth in today's economic climate; countries that were struggling are going to be
desperate, while those who were on shaky ground are going to have an increasingly hard time of
it. And that's going to be without a coalition of the most prosperous countries all united in
an effort to take them down. Russians have good reason to be more confident, because indeed the
sanctions, long-term, are going to have hurt those who imposed them much more than those upon
whom they were imposed.
Is there a video of your TV appearance? I'd like to see it. How did
it go?
What has impressed me is how the bad news about western sanctions was handled. Rather than the
usual "There's nothing to see. Move on!.", they explained the potential consequences, the reasons
for it and most importantly of all, a reasonable time scale of when it should be over.
I also
strongly suspect that they deliberately overplayed the figures of potential damage to the economy
knowing that it would be highly unlikely that the figures would ever play out as such, the flip
side being that any performance better than those figures is a victory.
On the one hand it gives a pyrrhic victory to the Pork Pie News Networks, western politicians
and Russophobes for Russia to admit it will be significantly damaged and importantly allows Western
states to claim they are taking tough and decisive action against Russia when they have not
done so despite having multiple opportunities to do so – a very useful face saving exercise.
The sanctions could have been much, much worse.
So both sides get something. The West pretends to slap on draconian sanctions and swing its
gigantic pot belly and balls aggressively to its own adoring congregation proving that they are
indispensable and exceptional nations that the rest of the world should be modelled
on, Russia plays the "I'm sexy and I know it" card to the rest of the world. Everyone is pleased.
Washington continues to drive Europe toward one or the other of the two most likely outcomes
of the orchestrated conflict with Russia. Either Europe or some European Union member government
will break from Washington over the issue of Russian sanctions, thereby forcing the EU off of the
path of conflict with Russia, or Europe will be pushed into military conflict with Russia.
In June the Russian sanctions expire unless each member government of the EU votes to continue the
sanctions. Several governments have spoken against a continuation. For example, the governments of
the Czech Republic and Greece have expressed dissatisfaction with the sanctions.
US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged growing opposition to the sanctions among some European
governments. Employing the three tools of US foreign policy–threats, bribery, and coercion–he warned
Europe to renew the sanctions or there would be retribution. We will see in June if Washington's
threat has quelled the rebellion.
Europe has to consider the strength of Washington's threat of retribution against the cost of a continuing
and worsening conflict with Russia. This conflict is not in Europe's economic or political interest,
and the conflict has the risk of breaking out into war that would destroy Europe.
Since the end of World War II Europeans have been accustomed to following Washington's lead. For
awhile France went her own way, and there were some political parties in Germany and Italy that considered
Washington to be as much of a threat to European independence as the Soviet Union. Over time,
using money and false flag operations, such as Operation Gladio, Washington marginalized politicians
and political parties that did not follow Washington's lead.
The specter of a military conflict with Russia that Washington is creating could erode Washington's
hold over Europe. By hyping a "Russian threat," Washington is hoping to keep Europe under Washington's
protective wing. However, the "threat" is being over-hyped to the point that some Europeans
have understood that Europe is being driven down a path toward war.
Belligerent talk from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from John McCain, from the neoconservatives,
and from NATO commander Philip Breedlove is unnerving Europeans. In a recent love-fest between
Breedlove and the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by John McCain, Breedlove supported arming
the Ukrainian military, the backbone of which appears to be the Nazi militias, with heavy US weapons
in order to change "the decision calculus on the ground" and bring an end to the break-away republics
that oppose Washington's puppet government in Kiev.
Breedlove told the Senate committee that his forces were insufficient to withstand Russian aggression
and that he needed more forces on Russia's borders in order to "reassure allies."
Europeans have to decide whether the threat is Russia or Washington. The European press, which Udo
Ulfkotte reports in his book, Bought Journalists, consists of CIA assets, has been working hard to
convince Europeans that there is a "revanchist Russia" on the prowl that seeks to recover the Soviet
Empire. Washington's coup in Ukraine has disappeared. In its place Washington has substituted a "Russian
invasion," hyped as Putin's first step in restoring the Soviet empire.
Just as there is no evidence of the Russian military in Ukraine, there is no evidence of Russian
forces threatening Europe or any discussion or advocacy of restoring the Soviet empire among Russian
political and military leaders.
In contrast Washington has the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is explicitly directed at Russia, and now
the Council on Foreign Relations has
added China as a target of
the Wolfowitz doctrine.
The CFR report says that China is a rising power and thereby a threat to US world hegemony. China's
rise must be contained so that Washington can remain the boss in the Asian Pacific. What it
comes down to is this: China is a threat because China will not prevent its own rise. This makes
China a threat to "the International Order." "The International Order," of course, is the order determined
by Washington. In other words, just as there must be no Russian sphere of influence, there must be
no Chinese sphere of influence. The CFR report calls this keeping the world "free of hegemonic control"
except by the US.
Just as General Breedlove demands more military spending in order to counter "the Russian threat,"
the CFR wants more military spending in order to counter "the Chinese threat." The report concludes:
"Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget."
Clearly, Washington has no intention of moderating its position as the sole imperial power. In defense
of this power, Washington will take the world to nuclear war. Europe can prevent this war by asserting
its independence and departing the empire.
"Once again a country "liberated" by the West is sinking deeper and deeper into chaos." - This
could be anyone of the countries in conflict, where Washington and its Western and Middle Eastern
stooges sow war – eternal chaos, misery, death – and submission.
This is precisely the point: The Washington / NATO strategy is not to 'win' a war or conflict, but
to create ongoing - endless chaos. That's the way
(i) to control people, nations and their resources;
(ii) to assures the west a continuous need for military - troops and equipment - remember more
than 50% of the US GDP depends on the military industrial complex, related industries and services;
and
(iii) finally, a country in disarray or chaos, is broke and needs money - money with hardship
conditions, 'austerity' money from the notorious IMF, World Bank and other associated nefarious 'development
institutions' and money lenders; money that equals enslavement, especially with corrupt leaders that
do not care for their people.
That's the name of the game - in Yemen, in Ukraine, in Syria, in Iraq, in Sudan, in Central Africa,
in Libya.... you name it. Who fights against whom is unimportant. ISIS / ISIL / IS / DAISH / DAESH
/ Al-Qaeda and whatever other names for the mercenary killer organizations you want to add to the
list - are just tags to confuse. You might as well add Blackwater, Xe, Academi and all its other
successive names chosen to escape easy recognition. They are prostitutes for the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon
Empire, prostitutes of the lowest level. Then come elite prostitutes, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain
and other Gulf States, plus the UK and France, of course.
... ... ...
And since the US army and its big brother (or sister) NATO cannot be everywhere, doesn't want
to be seen everywhere, they hire to kill. Washington invents and creates, then funds with its endless
money stream, the ISILs, Daesh's, AlQaedas – and the repertoire grows as the masters please – to
fight for them, to kill for them, to produce chaos and false flags – so that eventually they – NATO
and the Pentagon bulldozer – can come in and make believe 'destroying' those mercenaries that they
generated in the first place. But the mainstream media won't tell you the truth.
They have you believe that the Houtis, a secular humanitarian left-leaning group of Shias, and the
Sunnis are fighting each other in Yemen for power; that the Saudis and their GCC cronies are just
freeing Yemen from a bunch of terrorists; that the Houtis are supported by Iran (a predominant Shia
country) – recently vehemently denied by a UN official – so, the Houtis have to be subdued. At the
same time there is more reason for Washington to put yet another blame on Iran. Once the Houtis are
dominated and killed off in sufficient numbers, a puppet president will be put in place, like the
ex-President Saleh, or his successor Hadi, so that Washington can keep calling the shots – oppressing
the country's population to maintain unlimited access to the strategic port of Aden – and to the
Gulf.
Ukraine is the same: Are ISIS / ISIL/ Daesh, AlQaed, or whatever their names may be, in the Ukraine?
– You bet they are, under the command of CIA and some 6,000 US troops, trainers of course. They train
the Kiev troops how best and fastest to kill their brothers in the Donbass; they train them how to
create lasting chaos. And if the soldiers refuse to be trained to kill their brothers, the Kiev Nazi
regime will shoot them as traitors. Point blanc. So easy. So that nobody will resist.
Not least, the US military 'advisors' and CIA with the help of their hired killers, the Kiev Nazis,
the ISIS / Daesh / AlQaeda, are attempting to provoke President Putin into war – possibly a third
World War. Yes, the third in less than hundred years, potentially devastating Europe, and possible
the world. So far, the world has been spared this disaster, largely thanks to Mr. Putin's wise strategy
of non-confrontation.
So – no question whether the ISIS / Daesh / AlQaeda are in the Ukraine. They are everywhere the empire
orders them to be. That's what they are paid for. That's what prostitutes do. Especially created
prostitutes; well-paid prostitutes. Ideology is just a fig leave, conveniently used by the western
media – so we all may believe that the Muslims are evil, some even more than others. The west must
fight them, because they are a serious and present danger for our freedom, our liberty our democracies
- and especially our neoliberal everything-goes free market values.
Because that is the ultimate goal: humans as a market commodity, dispensable, reducible to cannon
fodder, to be killed off in masses by (poisoned) genetically modified food, by drones, by bombs,
by artificially created famine, so that at the end the survivors are serfs to a small elite which
controls the four corners of the globe and ALL its resources, to maintain a lifestyle of exceptional
people – yes, the exceptional nation, will be reduced to a bunch of exceptional people living in
grand splendor.
Remember Henry Kissinger's infamous words, the vision of one of the most atrocious war criminals
still alive today – another Nobel Laureate (sic) – spoken some fifty years ago:
"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control
whole continents; who controls money can control the world."
These words ring truer every day. But only as long as we allow it; as long as We, the People,
We the 99.999% of the globe's inhabitants, allow it.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and
worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He is the author
of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction
based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
US and UK deploy troops to Ukraine, but they're just "advisors"
American
combat troops deployed in Ukraine will soon number in the hundreds, at least, but US officials claim
they're there only as "advisors" or "trainers," not as an in-place threat to Russia. Whatever advising
or training they may do, they are also an in-place threat to Russia. US officials are also lobbying
to arm Ukraine with "defensive" anti-tank rockets and other lethal weapons in hopes of escalating
the fighting, maybe even killing some Russians. In other words, American brinksmanship continues
to escalate slowly but recklessly on all fronts.
To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating
class of chickenhawk hardliners,
the warring sides in
Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day
with no casualties). The
government in Kievand the
would-be governments of the
People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk have been acting as if they're not hell-bent on mutually
assured destruction after all. They've exchanged prisoners. They've agreed to double the number of
ceasefire monitors to 1,000. They've pulled back their heavy weapons. Both sides have stopped the
random shelling that has caused "heavy civilian tolls of dead and wounded," according to theMarch
2 report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.
The calmer heads of Europe,
in Germany and France particularly, are presently prevailing over the
fear-mongered
countries closer to Russia who seem bewitched by US enthusiasm to subject Europe to yet another
devastating war in which those
near-Russia
countries would be the first to feel the pain. But for now, most of Europe seems willing to accept
the notion that the Russians have a rational view of their reasonable security needs, that the cost
of further Russian advances
outweighs any
rational gain, and that all the mad babbling of bellicose Americans is just unprocessed cold
war hysteria amplified by the need to deny decades of imperial defeats.
What is it with exceptional American irrationalists' love of war?
Ashton Carter, President Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense, assured senators during his
confirmation hearing in February that he would push for more aggressive military action for the
rest of Obama's term, that he favors lethal arms for Ukraine, and that he would not be pressured
into faster release of innocent prisoners held in Guantanamo.
John Kerry, Secretary of State, advocated in early February in favor of sending arms to the
Ukraine government.
Since April 2014, Kerry has been demonizing Russia, blaming Russia for growing violence in
eastern Ukraine even as Kiev militias were attacking the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, calling
them "terrorists." Kerry, the highest ranking American diplomat, recently and publicly accused
the Russians of
lying to his face.
James Clapper, director of national intelligence, has told the Council on Foreign Relations
that he wants to give "lethal- defensive weapons" to the Kiev government to "bolster their resolve"
and persuade them "that we're with them." Clapper was calling Russia one of the
greatest threats to the US as early as 2011.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, jumped on the arm-Ukraine bandwagon
March 3, saying "I think we should absolutely consider lethal aid." (He didn't add that the big
danger of non-lethal aid is that it might help people settle differences without killing each
other.)
Victoria Nuland, formerly security advisor to Dick Cheney, now an assistant secretary of state
for European affairs, has long engaged in working for regime change in Russia. Nuland is famous
for her "f-k the EU" attitude
during the Maidan protests in 2014. On March 4 she became the first US official to call Russian
actions in eastern Ukraine "an
invasion." She claimed there were hundreds of
Russian
Tanks in eastern Ukraine, though no credible evidence supports the claim.
"NATO now exists to manage the risks created by its existence."
From the Russian perspective, NATO aggression has continued for the past 20 years. Secretary of
State James Baker, under the first President Bush, explicitly promised the Russians that NATO would
not expand eastward toward Russia. For the next two decades, at the behest of the US, NATO has expanded
eastward to Russia's borders and put Ukrainian NATO membership in play. The unceasing madness of
"US and NATO aggression in Ukraine" is argued forcefully by attorney
Robert Roth in Counterpunch, who notes that US-sponsored sanctions on Russia are already, arguably,
acts of war.
NATO continues to maintain nuclear weapons bases around Russia's periphery while adding more anti-missile
missile installations. Anti-missile missiles to intercept Russian missiles are generally understood
to be part of the West's nuclear first strike capability.
Then there's the months-old, expanding Operation Atlantic Resolve, an elaborate US-sponsored NATO
show of force deploying thousands of troops to NATO countries that are also Russia's near-neighbors.
Beginning in April 2014, Operation Atlantic Resolve started sending troops to Baltic countries (Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) that border Russia. Those troops remain, and
Defense News reported that more
US saber-rattling is coming:
The US military's plans to send troops into Romania and Bulgaria as a deterrence to Russian aggression
could expand to include Hungary, the Czech Republic and Russia's southern neighbor, Georgia….
by the end of the summer, you could very well see an operation that stretches from the Baltics
all the way down to the Black Sea….
In the Black Sea itself, NATO forces continue to project force through "training
exercises" involving the Navies of at least seven nations: US, Canada, Turkey, Germany, Italy,
Romania, and Bulgaria. NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove complained in late February that Russia
had deployed "air defense systems that reach nearly half of the Black Sea" – as if it were surprising
that Russia would respond to hostile military activity close to one of its oldest and
largest naval bases, Sevastopol,
in Crimea.
Breedlove admits that NATO naval forces have approached Crimea, provoking Russian naval responses.
Breedlove's warmongering reportedly
upsets German officials, but they don't object publicly to American lies.
This pattern of provocation and response is familiar to those who know the Viet-Nam War, when
similar US tactics provoked the so-called "Tonkin Gulf incident." That manipulated set of events,
deceitfully described by the White House and dishonestly amplified by most American media, was used
to gull a credulous and lazy Congress into passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president
authority to wage that disastrous, pointless war. Watch for the sequel coming to a Black Sea theatre
of war near you.
Congress is as eager for Ukraine War as it was for Iraq and Viet-Nam
War mongering has a large, noisy cheering section in Congress.
Eleven American lawmakers
including House Speaker John Boehner have signeda
bi-partisan letter to President Obama demanding in the shrillest tones ("defend against further
aggression") that the US ship lethal arms to the Kiev government now. The eleven Congress members
(8 predictable Republicans and three veteran, dimwit Democrats) write about Ukraine what they had
never had the wit or courage to say about US aggression in Iraq. They assert with grotesque oversimplification
and false premises about "the crisis in Ukraine" that:
It is a grotesque violation of International law, a challenge to the west, and an assault on the
international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II.
Fatuous warmongering. At the end of World War II, Crimea was indisputably part of Russia (within
the USSR) and the anti-Russian military alliance of NATO did not exist, much less had it pushed its
existential security threat to the Russian border. You want an all-out, unambiguous assault on international
law, look to Iraq and all the "little Iraqs" that the American hegemon executes with impunity and
nearly endless destructiveness to peace, order, and culture.
The weak-kneed Democrats mindlessly signing on to this reflexive Republican rage to kill someone
are: Eliot Engel of New York (Westchester County), lawyer – first elected in 1988,
he's been a strong supporter of violence in Palestine, Kosovo, and Iraq (voting for the war in 2002);
Adam Smith of Washington (Seattle), lawyer – first elected 1997, he's supported
violence in Afghanistan and Iraq (voting for the war in 2001) and he sponsored a bill to allow the
US government to lie to the people; and Adam Schiff of California (Burbank),
lawyer – he's supported violence in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (voting for the
Iraq war in 2002). "Bi-partisanship" is pretty meaningless when the imperial warmaking ideology is
monolithic, as in this basic lie also in the Boehner letter:
We should not wait until Russian troops and their separatist proxies take Mariupol or Kharkiv
before we act to bolster the Ukrainian government's ability to deter and defend against further
aggression.
The core of this lie is those "separatist proxies." That's an Orwellian phrase used to turn the
roughly 5 million residents of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk into un-persons. These 5 million
people are predominantly Russian-speaking and ethnic-Russian. They have legitimate, longstanding
grievances with Ukrainian-dominated governments in Kiev, especially with the current illegitimate
one which is neo-Nazi-tinged and Russo-phobic.
It is important for these 5 million people seeking self-determination to disappear from the American
argument for war sooner rather than later. The American war justifiers require "Russian aggression"
as a crediblecasus belli, but the would-be war makers offer no credible evidence to support
that propaganda claim ("Remember the Maine!").
The American news bubble distorts and excludes the world's realities
The blandly mindless media repetition of the phrase "Russian aggression" is a reliable measure
of how much the news reports the government propaganda, at the expense of something like real world
complexity. Dissenting voices are few in America's media world, and seldom heard, especially those
who ask: "What aggression?"
Somehow, in the well-washed American collective brain, it's aggression when an oppressed minority
declares its independence from its oppressors, the coup-installed Kiev government (and some of its
predecessors). But that same scrubbed brain believes it's not aggression when another minority, aligned
with foreign interests, carries out a violent overthrow of Ukraine's legitimately elected government.
Newsweek has demonized
Russian president Vladimir Putin for months now, including on a cover with the headline "The Pariah"
over a picture showing
Putin in dark glasses that seem to reflect two nuclear explosions. (This imagery worked with
deceitful perfection in 2002 when President Bush and Condoleezza Rice terrified audiences with the
possibility that the "smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.") Newsweek has even called for
regime change
in Russia. Newsweek is hardly alone in demonizing Putin without considering the realities of his
situation. Others, like CNN, simply resort to
calling him "completely mad," even though Russian actions have been largely measured and limited,
especially when considered in the context of two decades of western provocation.
At pivotal moments in the crisis, such as the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper fire that killed both police
and protesters and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 passengers
and crew, the U.S. political/media establishment has immediately pinned the blame on Yanukovych,
the ethnic Russian rebels who are resisting his ouster, or Putin. Then, when evidence emerged
going in the opposite direction – toward "our side" – a studied silence followed, allowing the
earlier propaganda to stay in place as part of the preferred storyline.
When reality intrudes upon propaganda, reality must be discredited
In a somewhat mocking story about Russia's denunciation of US troops arriving in Ukraine as a
threat to Russia security, the
Los Angeles Timesgive roughly equal time to a NATO commander denouncing the Russian denunciation.
The casual reader who stops halfway through the story is easily left with the impression that the
Russians are behaving badly again and maybe sending lethal weapons is a good idea. Only in the last
two paragraphs does the Times, quite unusually, report some real things that matter about Ukraine:
Ukraine, which proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 as the communist-ruled
federation was collapsing, had pledged to remain nonaligned, and in any case would need years
to carry out reforms and assimilation of its armed forces with those of NATO before it could be
inducted into the Western defense alliance.
But since the Russian-backed insurgency began ripping Ukraine apart, Kiev authorities have
renounced the nonalignment pledge and set their course for eventual NATO membership.
The first of these two paragraphs is a partly reasonable explanation of why Russia would feel
betrayed by the US and NATO. A nonaligned Ukraine remains an obvious possible alternative to the
present conflict ignited by decades of NATO aggression.
The second paragraph serves as a warning, packaged as a justification based on a lie. The
lie is that it's a Russian-backed insurgency that's ripping Ukraine apart, when Ukraine has been
ripping itself apart for years, a reality that led to the coup-government in Kiev. The explanation
– which is false – is that the insurgency has forced the Kiev government's hand, even though the
government took power with EU and NATO links obviously in mind. The warning is that Ukraine may just
join NATO as soon as it can.
Until Americans – and especially American policy makers – face fundamental realities in and about
Ukraine, the risk that they will take the rest of us into an unjustified, stupid, and potentially
catastrophic war will remain unacceptably high. One of the realities Americans need to face is that
the Ukraine government is corrupt, as corrupt an some of the most corrupt governments in the world,
and nothing the US has done is likely to change that any time soon. What any war would ultimately
be about is: who gets to benefit from that corruption?
Ukrainians know this and despair as, for example, Lilia Bigeyeva, 55, a violinist and composer
did when she told
her family's
storyfrom Dnipropetrovsk in central Ukraine:
I was born in Melitopol, raised in Zaporizhzhya, and have spent all of my adult life in Dnipropetrovsk.
It hasn't been easy, this past year in Ukraine. The loss of Crimea is a tragedy, the war is a
tragedy. And it's far from clear that our government and our people are really prepared to institute
rule of law….
The war is very close to us, here in Dnipropetrovsk. Every day there's bad news. But we continue
to play music, my pupils and I. Culture and art, these are the things that have always helped
us through frightening times.
This was published in The Moscow Times on March 6, but it was originally recorded and distributed
by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In other words, there's no excuse, for anyone on any side, to
say they didn't know what was happening to the Ukrainian people for the sake of geopolitical greed.
END NOTE: HOW YOU CAN HELP THE WEST'S WAR EFFORT
[Craigslist posting, edited, from Orange County, California, March 3, 2015.]
GTS (Glacier Technology Solutions LLC) – We are military contractors working directly with
the US Marine Corps assisting them with their immersive simulation training program.
Currently, we are looking for role players of Ukrainian and/or Russian ethnicity and language
skills. Need MEN ranging 18-65 years of age.
This is temporary, part time, on-call work based on need and availability.
At the moment, we are staffing for an upcoming training to take place on: March 29-31, 2015.
The scheduled hours will vary from 8-12 hours per working day.
Compensation is $15.17/hr. plus another $4.02/hr. Health and Welfare benefit for up to 40
hours of work in a workweek. (Overtime rates will be paid if necessary). Register for work
at: www.Shiftboard.com/wforce
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print
journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors
from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely
granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Activista 2015-03-10 13:22
rt.com/op-edge/239205-baltic-states-us-military-troops/ NATO uses 'Russia threat' as excuse to halt defense cuts ... these are make up threats to keep profit/militari sm/NATO going ...
EU does not want to pay 2% GDP to NATO ... and US military expenditure and debt is growing .. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#mediaviewer/File:Top_ten_military_expenditures_in_$_in_2013.jpg.jpeg
jdd 2015-03-10 18:52
You have it backwards. While it may be less disturbing to believe that NATO exists merely to justify
military spending, you have missed the point. NATO's was originally created as a military alliance
against the Soviet Union, even though the Warsaw Pact was later dissolved, NATO was maintained and
expanded to threaten and encircle Russia. Nuland, Carter and other believe that they can cause "regime
change" in Russia, or alternatively win a "first strike" victory in a "limited nuclear war." Now,
in response to the successful cease-fire, made possible by Putin's cooperation, we have EU Commissioner
Juncker calling for an EU army to confront Russia. The response from a prominent Russian parliamentarian
:
"In a nuclear age, extra armies do not provide any additional security. But they surely can play
a provocative role...One should presume that a European army is seen as an addendum to NATO...never,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War, had anyone dared to make such a proposal." If only it were
merely about military spending.
and continue to provoke the Russians
lorenbliss 2015-03-11 02:13
If I did not know better, I would assume there is someone in the State Department channeling Hitler,
someone in the Defense Department channeling Goering, someone at Homeland Security channeling Himmler
and someone at the head of the media monopoly channeling Goebbels.
And in their resurrected madness -- exactly as in 1941 -- they are forgetting the lessons the Scythians
taught the Persians and the Scythians' Russian descendants taught the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols
and Bonaparte, not to mention the lessons Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebbels were themselves taught
by the Russian "untermenschen."
Such are the darkest times in our species' history...
REDPILLED 2015-03-10 17:13
The 11th COMMANDMENT:
No nation shall DARE defy the United States and its Puppets by attempting to be truly independent!
That right is reserved only for the God-chosen United States.
wantrealdemocracy 2015-03-10 20:06
Too bad the "God chosen United States" is not independent. Our nation is under the control of Israel.
Israel wants this war against Russia, and all those wars in the Middle East, so that the Christians
and Muslims will kill each other leaving Israel the winner. The state of Israel and the Zionists
will then control the whole world. That is the 'New World Order' you have heard about.
arquebus 2015-03-10 17:20
NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia,
then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German
invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.
skeeter 2015-03-10 19:07
Quoting arquebus:
NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against
Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German
invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.
Let's get real...the Europeans are threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO, a military alliance established
and maintained to challenge the Soviet Union. No Russian leader in his right mind could stand by
and let this happen. Imagine if the Soviets had approached Mexico or Canada a few years ago and tried
to convince them to join the Warsaw Pact. The Russians paranoid...can you blame them?
Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23
First I read the (very excellent) piece of journalism from people like William Boardman.
Then I "scroll to the troll" and give the predictable right wing doublethink a thumbs down.
Then I go to PayPal and give RSN 10bux all the while complaining that trolls don't pay to clog up
important discussions on RSN. Penny a word from the troll factory is all I ask.
Merlin 2015-03-10 21:05
Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23
Spot on and well said!
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:15
If Russian troops began to maneuver on the US border, like US troops (NATO) are now doing on the
Russian border, the US would go "ballistic." That's called "hypocrisy," by the way.
MJnevetS 2015-03-13 14:52
"Russia already did that and invaded killed people and are feeding a false insurgency that is being
dubbed freedom fighters .. they even shot down a domestic airliner in the summer flying over that
territory over the UKraine from Amsterdam. don't you know the news even on this subject"
There is a sad lack of facts in these statements. NY Times had to retract the allegations of a 'Russian
Invasion', as the evidence proved to be fabricated. The only 'false insurgency' was the coup initiated
by the US and with regard to the shooting down of the commercial liner, show me one SINGLE piece
of evidence that Russian backed rebels were involved. It was a false flag operation and when people
demanded evidence over propaganda, the news story magically disappeared, as the evidence would show
that it was a terrorist attack by the Nazis currently in control of Ukraine.
jdd 2015-03-11 08:15
When you "see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia" it will not
be the time to converse with you, but rather then you may kiss your loved ones a final goodbye as
that will be the beginning of a war of human extinction, all over within an hour.
Thank goodness
for Putin and s few sane voices in the West who are trying to avoid ever getting to that point while
others in the West, such as the Newland gang, seem hell-bent on making it happen.
Activista 2015-03-11 20:36
... see NATO bombers in Libya, Yugoslavia .. US troops in Kosovo US Sending 3,000 Troops To Latvia,
Estonia ... www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-us-sending-... International Business Times 2 days ago - An Abrams main battle tank, for U.S. troops deployed in the Baltics as part of NATO's
Operation Atlantic Resolve, left the port in Riga, Latvia ....
Trish42 2015-03-10 18:03
When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world
from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking
other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our
intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
Kev C 2015-03-10 21:19
Allow me to explain why they won't. Education. The entire system is based on US centric thinking
and behaviour. There is limited information available about the rest of the world and what there
is is painting the US as the God Given Saviour of humanity. Hell they won the war after all. Single
handed. They saved the UKs ass by coming to our rescue didn't they? Not!
Until the vast majority of Really decent but hypnotized Americans get the real info they will continue
to believe what they are told because there isn't really an alternative to the Faux news/MSN bullshit
and the pre programmed education system. Its not the peoples fault. The system was rigged long before
they were born.
dsepeczi 2015-03-11 09:38
Quoting Trish42:
When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world
from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking
other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support
our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
Sadly, I'm starting to believe the answer to your question is ... "Never". If Iraq wasn't a big enough,
loud enough, and obvious enough mistake to wake up ALL Americans to the fact that our government
lies to us and we should take everything they say with a grain of salt and request that they provide
solid proof of their allegations against another nation ... I can't think of any event that will.
:(
pbbrodie 2015-03-11 09:45
"get warmongers out of Washington." Yes, especially the complete idiots who are making insane comments about "limited nuclear war." There
is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Once one is exploded, it is all over.
Johnny 2015-03-10 18:15
How soon we forget. The U.S. must punish Russia, and, more importantly, divert the attention of Russia
from the Middle
East, because Russia has supported Syria, which is an obstacle to open war against Iran, because
Iran arms Hezbollah, and the last time the Zionists invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah chased them out. Hezbollah
is an obstacle to annexation of the whole area by Israel. And now that the Zionists smell the opportunity
to induce the U.S. to attack Iran, they are creating another front on which Russia must try to defend
itself and its allies. The U.S. Congress is not the only part of the U.S. government that Jewish
supremacist banksters have bought, lock, stock, and barrel. (Before some asshole starts to howl about
anti-Semitism, let him explain why we should not criticize other proponents of racism, such as white
supremacists; Zionism, after all, is merely warmed over Nazism, with a different "chosen" people
and different victims.)
dquandle 2015-03-10 20:05
In fact, the neo-nazis now in control in the US/NATO supported Ukraine have been blatantly anti-semitic
for decades, having supported the Nazis at that time and are even more egregious now.
"For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state
power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in
the borderland through which Hitler's invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported
by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called
"vermin". The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelli
ng Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia"
and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left."
In addition to Ms. Nuland and her PNAC founding husband, Robert Kagan, two of the three Democrats
cited by Mr. Boardman as signees on the "arm Ukraine" letter are Jewish. In fact, Congressman Engel
is of Ukrainian Jewish ancestry.
As the "protests" in Ukraine grew in late 2013/early 2014, Ukrainian Jewish groups reported skyrocketing
cases of anti-Semitic rhetoric and attacks. But those reports were buried by Zionist organizations
who insisted that Russia was the real threat to Ukrainian Jews, not the frigging Nazis in Ukraine!
At first, this sort of thing confused me, before I realized it wasn't a Jew against Jew thing. This
is Zionist fascists supporting Nazi fascists.
Vardoz 2015-03-10 22:23
Sorry it just boils down to profits and power and any excuse to wage endless war for profits period
end of story.
L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06
I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military
action. Those troops are advisors and instructors. This interpretation is very cynical and pessimistic
and I don't buy it.
My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge
this interpretation and find it very unhelpful and in itself can be contributing towards War rather
than supporting the diplomatic actions towards Peace.
Merlin 2015-03-10 21:02
L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06
So talk to me about the advisors that Eisenhower put in Viet Nam. Then talk to me about Kennedy expanding
on their number. Then talk to me about the Viet Nam War.
You state:
"My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge
this interpretation"
I challenge YOU because either you a not what you claim or you sure did not learn very much.
Kev C 2015-03-10 21:24
If you don't see what is happening now then your a lousy chess player. Don't give up though. Practice
makes perfect. However beware there are not many nations left that haven't been smeared then bombed
by the US and we are running out nations and out of time before the US blow all our asses off the
face of the planet for that self serving act of pathetic vanity which will be countersigned in hell
with 'Property of The US Military.'
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:17
"Advisors and intructors" - Don't be naive. And what happens when some of them get killed? What is
the likelihood or statistical probability of escalation after that? This is clearly provocative and
dangerous and does absolutely nothing for "peace" or "security" of anyone.
Radscal 2015-03-11 00:27
L.S. "...I am watching the chess pieces on the board..."
Does your use of that analogy imply that you read Ziggy Brzezenski's 1998 book, "The Grand Chessboard,"
in which he explains why the U.S. must take control of Ukraine as key to controlling Eurasian resources,
and ultimately to conquer Russia and China?
RODNOX 2015-03-11 05:14
history has shown the USA always has some underhanded agenda--some self serving plan---and often
plays BOTH sides of the problem--just to escalate it----WHEN WILL WE STOP THEM ????? THIS IS TRULY
THE 1 % IN ACTION--WE--THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM
wrknight 2015-03-12 20:47
Quoting L.S.:
I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in
military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors.
Like the advisors the U.S. sent to South Vietnam in the 1950's.
Archie1954 2015-03-10 20:16
Exceptional, indispensable? More like irrational, despicable! What we need is for Putin to call up
Obama and tell him point blank that if the US doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine, Russia will make
it! If you don't think it can, think again!
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:20
I appreciate your emotion here, but that would be really really scary because I imagine the US would
respond with even greater belligerance and "justify" it by saying "Putin is threatening us" - even
though, ironically, it is the US that is doing all the threatening.
Vardoz 2015-03-10 21:17
It's more like war madmen then warmongers and it's all very frightening. Putin is crazy too and we
have no right getting involved so that the Fuking military can make profits!!!! Enough!!!!! Our military
is out of control with a suicidal war agenda and they don't care about the consequences or the collateral
damage. It's just war all around, kick out the jams no matter how many die- they don't give a damn.
Seemed like Germany was making some constructive headway and Merkel should tell the US where to go.
This is all so dirty and obscene and wrong.
Radscal 2015-03-11 00:33
You do know that the U.S. was not even invited to the peace talks, right?
Similarly, it was EU members, Russia and then-president Yanukovych who signed the agreement with
the Maidan Protest leaders on 2/21/14 in which Yanukovych acquiesced to every one of their demands.
That was when Vickie Nuland's "Fuck the EU" plan went into action and the neo-nazis stormed the government
buildings, including the Parliament and drove about 2 dozen Members of Parliament and the President
to flee for their lives.
And that, is why those who followed the events call it a "coup."
jdd 2015-03-11 07:28
The ceaae-fire came about because the "Normandy Four" excluded the US and UK, whose participation
would have guaranteed failure. Now the efforts of all, but especially that of Putin have led to a
fragile peace. The response from a disappointed Victoria Nuland crowd continues to speak of sending
arms and "advisors" to Ukraine in order to throw gasoline on the embers.
dsepeczi 2015-03-11 08:21
Quoting ericlane:
Another moronic article. Who do you think was behind the peace deal?
Ummm. I believe the organizers of that peace deal were Europe, Ukraine and Russia. The US, wisely,
was not invited to the table.
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:13
Is "US Goes Ballistic" a scary pun here? I.e., as in "nuclear armed ballistic missiles". Also,
isn't that how it all started in the Vietnam War - with "advisors"? This is batcrap crazy, but
then many people have now begun to realise that US politicians have become homocidally psychotic.
It's "back to the future" and return of Dr. Strangelove.
We have no business in Ukraine, we have no business antagonizing the Russians. We Slavs have been
demonized, mocked and denigrated as imbeciles and barbarians by the West for centuries. Stay the
hell away from us, already. We don't need to be like you.
Buddha 2015-03-11 17:10
"To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating
class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has
almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties)."
John McCain's dick just got limp again. Oh well, there is always ISIS and Iran to try to stoke up
WWIII, right Uncle Fester?
Kootenay Coyote 2015-03-16 10:12
"Until Americans, and especially American policy maker, face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine….".
Or any fundamental realities, for that matter: cf. Global Warming. The nearest thing to reality that's
considered is that of the weapon makers & warmongers, & that's pretty meagre.
Sectarianism in the Middle East is regularly inflamed by the Sunni Salafi/Wahhabi groups and countries in the Middle East. It
is directed against all other strains of Islam as well as against all other religions.
But as the "western" governments and media favor the Saudi Arabian side and often denigrate the "resistance" side, be it Shia,
Sunni or whatever else, they insist that it is the Shia side that is preaching sectarianism. One can often experience this with reports
on speeches of Hizbullah leader Nasrallah who is always very careful to not ever use sectarian language. When Nasrallah condemns
Takfiri terrorists like AlQaeda and the Islamic State as non-Muslim and calls them the greatest danger to Sunnis, Shia and Christians
alike the "western" media like to report that he warns of Sunnis in general and is thus spreading sectarianism.
Many such reports come from "western" reporters who are stationed in Beirut, speak no Arabic and depend on the spokespersons and
translators in the offices of the Saudi-Lebanese Sunni leader Hariri. For an ever growing collection of typical examples see the
Angry Arab here and
here.
The finding of non-existent sectarian language in "resistance" leaders' communications and the emphasizing of it has been internalized
by "western" reporters. You can clearly see the process in the exemplary Twitter exchange copied below.
Liz Sly is the Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post in Beirut and does not speak Arabic. Elijah J. Magnier is Chief
International Correspondent for the Kuwaiti TV station AL RAI. He speaks Arabic and has covered the war on Iraq and other wars on
the ground for decades.
The issue at hand is a defense bill in front of the U.S. Congress which
refers to Sunni militia, Kurds and other groups in Iraq as distinguished "countries" which are to be armed separately from the
state of Iraq. "Divide and rule" writ large. Many Iraqi politicians including the Prime Minister have spoken out against it. The
Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr
warned
of the consequences should the bill go through which he says would include an unleashing of his troops against U.S. interests.
Notice how Liz Sly insist on a sectarian aspect/intent in Sadr's proclamation even when there clearly is none. She keeps in insisting
on it even after she gets pointed to an official denial of any sectarian intent by a Sadr spokesperson. The
exchange:
Liz Sly 17h17 hours ago
Moqtada Sadr to the US: if you arm Iraq's Sunnis, we will fight Americans in Iraq. https://twitter.com/jihadicas/status/593512749235249152
…
Elijah J. Magnier 8h8 hours ago
@LizSly Moqtada didn't say that https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/593324552437903360 …
Liz Sly 6h6 hours ago
@EjmAlrai Didn't mean literally fighting US troops, but to fight against US presence in Iraq. Presumably would hit embassy, personnel
etc?
Elijah J. Magnier 6h6 hours ago
@LizSly U r right as Moqtada said he will fight USA in Iraq and abroad but didn't say if Sunni are armed.
Elijah J. Magnier 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly "We shall hit US interest in Iraq & abroad, as possible, ', if US approves supporting each religion independently",
Liz Sly 5h5 hours ago
@EjmAlrai Right, he means if Sunnis are armed directly by the US under that weird bill
Elijah J. Magnier 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly I spoke to S. Ali Seism who said it is not directed to Sunni but 2 all religions (incl Kurds) as there are more than Sunnis
in Iraq.
Elijah J. Magnier 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly In fact the communique' doesn't say in any line the word "Sunni" but "all religions".
Liz Sly 5h5 hours ago
@EjmAlrai The bill is aimed at arming Sunnis and my tweet makes it clear Muqtada is against the US arming Sunnis, not against
arming them
Liz Sly 5h5 hours ago
@EjmAlrai Ok, but it's clear he's against a bill whose goal is to permit the US to directly arm Sunnis, not eg Fayli. As are many
Iraqis.
The last paragraph of Sadr's statement says:
American should know that if it wants to exacerbate sectarian sentiment, we would continue to tread on the path of national unity.
Let sectarianism fall out of existence! This is the very sectarianism that seeks to create [artificial] borders.
The U.S. Congress introduces a law that would exacerbate sectarianism in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr responses with a statement explicitly
speaking out against sectarianism. Liz Sly insist that it is therefore Sadr who is playing a sectarian card.
Is this insistence by Liz Sly on sectarian "Shia leader Sadr is against Sunnis" justified by anything but sly, willful exaggeration,
and even falsification, of what Sadr wrote? Who is the sectarian here?
Another good example of this is the NYT story from yesterday,
An Eroding Syrian Army Points to Strain, about various religious sects and ethnic groups in Syria losing confidence in the
SAA. Penned by Anne Barnard and Eric Schmitt, it is clearly a CIA-sponsored tale, built mostly out of quotes from an anonymous
"Syrian with security ties."
The chief target of the anonymous source's ire is of course Hezbollah.
thanks b. given the background on this, i'm inclined to believe it's intentional. or is it that it fits with the constant
mantra on the problem in the middle being one of sectarian conflict that the usa and the west want to always present?
@2 mike. thanks more of the same bs from the same sources, in this case cia, although i they aren't referenced in the article..
nyt - cia/blackhouse mouthpiece..
"It is extremely delusional and childish to assume that tens of thousands of well-armed and battle-hardened Jihadists who have
gotten accustomed to roaming their (and other people´s) country to kill "infidels", "apostates", "traitors" (e.g. fellow Sunnis
who fight in the Syrian army) or simply "Shabiha" (a derogatory expression used to defame and dehumanize all kind of Sunni and
non-Sunni militias and civilians who reject the rebels) would lay down their weapons and re-enter their ordinary civilian life
on the day the Syrian government falls and Assad is killed..."
Al Sadr and his Iranian allies don't want any US involvement in Iraq. He certainly doesn't want the Kurds armed by anyone for
obvious reasons and the Sunni tribes are considered a possible threat especially because they remember how Sadr's Mahdi Army carefully
planned and viciously executed the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad's Sunni civilian population. Actions speak much louder than words.
Nasrallah has to carefully chose his words because the Shia are a minority in Lebanon but again actions are more telling than
words. Hezbollah attempted to overthrow the government of Lebanon to create a Shia led Islamic Republic which I think is still
their goal.
I wonder what would happen if the media started talking about US support for Jewish terror groups ???
@ WOW as per usual your talking shit. Maybe you should ask sadr about his father and unclear death, while their killers were
at the time roaming around free under US protection, kinda the same as KSA now
I really do admire your methods of being a paid propagandist -- Whether your in India or Tel Aviv or receive your pay checks
from them, you really do have a way of talking doo doo
Yes maybe you should ask the nuns of maloola that your friends Way Out West seemed to have forgotten about if Hezbollah wants
a Islamic Republic
You clearly are a Zionist because you seem to know enough about the Middle East, yet those who know as "much" as you so would
not generally distort the truth unless they had an agenda, and most people who tread your path and masturbate heavily Iran Syria
Hezbollah are generally yids
Sorry dude u have been exposed
I also wonder if Israel will comply with UNIFIL new resolution demanding they withdraw from all Lebanese territory and stop
violating its air space
Israel sure is a funny country shame they cant beat a "rag tag" militia lol
' sly, willful exaggeration, and even falsification ' is the basis for the US aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,
Ukraine ... the issue is not so much the sly exaggerators and falsifiers in the government ... all 546 of those at the top are
owned lock, stock and barrel by the aggressors, and so, of course, are their mouthpieces and hired hands ... but us, zombified
cogs on the wheels of imperial slaughter, sitting on our thumbs and switching from cnn, to foxx, to msnbc eating popcorn and the
'news' along with. At what point do you call our self-delusion willful, and how long ago was that point passed?
The only people among us asserting ourselves are Americans of color, who've been pinched, lynched, and gunned down in the streets
long enough. For far too long, of course, but now, with a black president and successive attorneys general leading the charge
against them, black Americans have given up all hope of help from above/outside their own ranks.
White/Black - Sunni/Shia - Xtian/Muslim ... divide, devastate and destroy worldwide. The US is as monstrous in 2015
as Germany was in 1935, but no one seems to notice. And the EUnuchs, Israel and the KSA are filling in for Italy and Japan.
I see this tweet exchange between Sly and Magnier as an example of Sly having been told by her employer (and probably the US
govt through its embassy) to ratchet up the Sunni / Shia sectarian divide whenever and wherever possible. In addition Sly seems
quite brainwashed and primed to see sectarianism even where it doesn't exist. This would explain her idiotic responses to Magnier's
tweets.
The US govt is using identity politics as part of its "divide and rule" strategy to set different religious and ethnic
groups at one another's throats. To their credit, people like Moqtada al Sadr and Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah among others recognize
that this strategy encourages tensions between and among various groups leading to continuous instability, turbulence and chaos
that the US and other foreigners can use to their advantage.
The Western media is also at fault for deploying to the Middle East and other areas around the world as foreign correspondents
people who have no background knowledge or understanding of the peoples, languages and cultures in the areas they have to report
on.
Liz Sly and Ann Barnard are the mini-version of the notorious Judith Miller, the NYT journalist that has been the promoter
of lies that lead to the Iraq war.
Judith Miller was on Israel payroll. Whose payroll Liz Sly and Ann Barnard are on?
Thanks for yet another enlightening post about the inner workings of the so-called MSM. Their efforts to reproduce a narrative
that combines official government views with those of the WaPo's editorial board are truly pathetic.
@mcohen@3
why do we not hear from liz sly herself... hey liz what do you think of these allegators made against you in this article
by the blogger
i await your reply
Good try, but no cigar. You will wait until hell freezes over. She cannot step down from her clay feet pedestal to answer a
commoner's question. No sir. She would be fired if she does for violation of...submission.
@Wayoutwest@7
Hezbollah attempted to overthrow the government of Lebanon to create a Shia led Islamic Republic which I think is still
their goal.
This time, Way-out-there outdid himself, his ignorance about Hezbollah, Lebanon and the Shia, of galactic proportions.
@Jen@11
I see this tweet exchange between Sly and Magnier as an example of Sly having been told by her employer (and probably the
US govt through its embassy) to ratchet up the Sunni / Shia sectarian divide whenever and wherever possible. In addition Sly seems
quite brainwashed and primed to see sectarianism even where it doesn't exist. This would explain her idiotic responses to Magnier's
tweets.
Bingo. Great summary of the whole guacamole. Thanks.
emma sky wrote this in 2014.....now petraeus is back in iraq looking almost a year later and .....and .......and liz on the
sly is tweeting about ........not sure what .....anyone understand this stuff,
there is so many billions up for grabs the whole thing looks like one big criminal exercise.....
one thing is for sure ....sectarianism is just a cover, surely a religion would not stoop this low
In his June 19 statement, U.S. President Barack Obama said,
"Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq's future. Shia, Sunni,
Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process
rather than through violence."
Obama is right to pressure Iraqi politicians to form a new government, rather than insisting that they support Maliki. He correctly
recognized that any military options would be effective only if they were in support of an overall political strategy that a new
broad-based government agreed to.
The United States has a key role to play in helping broker a new deal among the elites that creates a better balance among
Iraq's communities. A new broad-based Iraqi government will need to win back the support of Sunnis against ISIS -- and the Obama
administration should be prepared to respond positively to requests for assistance to do so.
"General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, told CNN that the Islamic Emirate ("Daesh") had been "created by our
friends and allies to defeat Hezbollah."
General Clark thus clearly put into question the responsibility of Israel.
Since 2001, General Clark has been the spokesman for a group of senior officers opposed to Israeli influence on the foreign
policy of the United States, its aggressive imperialist developments and the remodeling of the "Greater Middle East". He had opposed
the deployment of troops in Iraq, and wars against Libya and against Syria." (With accompanying video).
Some reminder regarding pretend-journalists/model-type cupcakes you may wanna put the boots to (well not Emma Sky) slanting
stories to influence people to believe that USSA, Israel and KSA ONLY are fighting ISIS, Daesh, ISIL, Al-Qaeda, whatever name
their bosses want to give them this week.
Selling lies thru their fascist party dolls taking pouty selfies on the side.
"...Hezbollah rocket attacks also targeted and succeeded in hitting military targets in Israel. The Israeli military censorship
was, however, very strict and explicitly forbade Israel-based media from reporting such incidents. The war time instruction
to media stated that "The Military Censor will not approve reports on missile hits at IDF bases and/or strategic facilities."[131]
A notable exception was the rocket attack 6 August, on a company of IDF reservists assembling in the border community of Kfar
Giladi, which killed 12 soldiers and wounded several others. Initially Israel did not confirm that the victims were military
but eventually relented..."
In fact the subject of this post and that of the last Ukraine famine post are very similar. It is the same game being played,
with many of the same methods. Make no mistake: given its position so far from.the consequences of sparking these deep-seated
ethnic conflicts, the sheer fact of any fighting, no matter what the outcome, is a "victory" for.our cynical masters. Nothing
new - similar games were.played in Nicaragua w the Miskito (sorry for spelling). Its quite remarkable display the.power.to split
people and turn them against one another. People w/ hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence.
...It's been evident for some months that Israel was trying to turn Hizbullah's flank.
Good point. No better proof can be found of the proxy links between ISIS and Israel than ISIS drive into the Qalamoun Mountains.
mcohen@30, 34 is way off line with his opinions about Hezbollah's "miscalculations." Just recently, Syria's Defense Minister
visited Iran and got all the support Syria needs, and more to continue its existential fight against the Axis of Terror, US/Israel/KSA
et al.
The war on Syria has geopolitical repercussions beyond the region, and neither Iran, nor Iraq, or Russia will allow the fall
of Assad. Hezbollah will not allow the taqfiris control of the Qalamoun and surroundings, for obvious strategic reasons; ISIS
would have direct access to the Bekaa Valley. Iran will not permit the taqfiris to succeed in their efforts to drive a strategic
wedge against Hezbollah, which will expose Syria's northern front and Lebanon; Iraq cannot afford losing Syria to the taqfiris
and get surrounded by a hostile sea of Sunnis, and Russia will support Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah efforts to avoid cutting
Syria in two on a SW/NE axis, that will effectively isolate the port of Tartus, Russia's naval base on the Mare Nostrum.
Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah is not a man prone to miscalculations, whether political or military and he learns from his mistakes.
For example, he admitted the Israeli response to the kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers that ignited the 2006 Summer War,
was a surprise for Hezbollah, which didn't expect such a reaction, even though Israel had concrete plans after getting kicked
out of southern Lebanon in 2000, to bomb Lebanon as a punishment for not disarming Hezbollah. Hezbollah intervention in Syria,
after Nasrallah deemed the taqfiris an "existential threat" for the Shiites and Lebanon has been confirmed correct by later developments.
"If what is happening in Baltimore happened in a foreign country, here is how Western media would cover it:
International leaders expressed concern over the rising tide of racism and state violence in America, especially concerning
the treatment of ethnic minorities in the country and the corruption in state security forces around the country when handling
cases of police brutality. The latest crisis is taking place in Baltimore, Maryland, a once-bustling city on the country's Eastern
Seaboard, where an unarmed man named Freddie Gray died from a severed spine while in police custody.
Black Americans, a minority ethnic group, are killed by state security forces at a rate higher than the white majority population.
Young, black American males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than white American males.
The United Kingdom expressed concern over the troubling turn of events in America in the last several months. The country's
foreign ministry released a statement: "We call on the American regime to rein in the state security agents who have been brutalizing
members of America's ethnic minority groups. The equal application of the rule of law, as well as the respect for human rights
of all citizens, black or white, is essential for a healthy democracy." Britain has always maintained a keen interest in America,
a former colony.
Palestine has offered continued assistance to American pro-democracy activists, sending anti-tear-gas kits to those protesting
police brutality in various American cities. Egyptian pro-democracy groups have also said they will be sharing their past experience
with U.S.-made counter-protest weapons.
A statement from the United Nations said, "We condemn the militarization and police brutality that we have seen in recent months
in America, and we strongly urge American state security forces to launch a full investigation into the death of Freddie Gray
in Baltimore. There is no excuse for excessive police violence." The U.N. called on the United States to make a concerted effort
to make databases of police violence public to improve transparency and cut down on corruption in the justice system.
International analysts predict the seeds of a so-called "American Spring," fomented by technology. "It's amazing what social
media is doing for the cause of justice in America," said a political rights analyst based in Geneva. "The black youth of America
are showing what 21st-century civil rights activism looks like, using technology, social media and a decentralized organizing
strategy to hold authorities accountable and agitate for change. These kids represent what modern-day freedom fighting looks like.
The revolution will be tweeted, Periscope-d and Snapchatted."
Local leaders in the American township of Baltimore imposed a state of martial law this week after peaceful protests turned
violent. In response, countries around the world have advised darker-skinned nationals against non-essential travel to areas noted
for state violence against unarmed people of color, especially in recent hot spots such as New York, Missouri, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Ohio, California, Michigan, Virginia and now Maryland.
International human rights groups have appealed to the global community to facilitate asylum for America's ethnic black minorities.
When asked whether the European Union was willing to take on more black refugees risking their lives in fleeing American state
violence, an E.U. human rights spokesman said: "More black refugees? We are dealing with our own Mediterranean crisis, so now
is not really a good time for that for us. Furthermore, we believe in American solutions to American problems." The African Union
has not responded to requests for comment.
American government officials took to state media, characterizing the protesters as "thugs," a racially coded word increasingly
used to describe black males in America. Commentators in national media have frequently compared the protesters and riots to various
characters and events from the popular television series "The Wire," set in early-2000s Baltimore.
America's ethnic blacks have been displaced from many of their communities due to a phenomenon experts on the region call "gentrification,"
when wealthier residents move into a lower-income area. Baltimore is no exception to this trend, with some areas seeing home values
rise as much as 137 percent after corporate dollars move in on opportunities in poverty-stricken areas.
Resident Joe Smith, a member of the white majority ethnic group, said outside of a brand-new Starbucks near Baltimore's Inner
Harbor, "I don't know why these blacks are destroying their own communities. Why don't these people follow Martin Luther King's
example? Those guys got it good from the police back then too, but they didn't try to rise up and fight back and make everyone
uncomfortable, you know?"
The media in Mordor has been all "sectarianism" all the time, since late 2003. They needed an explanation for the ongoing violence
in Iraq, besides "guerilla war", which was completely unacceptable with an election approaching.
So they invented the nonsense that the Iraqis were attacking themselves and the noble Orcs were desperately trying to prevent
it. I think the nonsense was that al-Ciada was targeting the anti-occupation Arabs to provoke a civil war thereby forcing the
occupation to continue since they were 'winning' and about to leave. Apparently al-ciada hadn't heard about the permanent bases.
This protection conveniently involved treating the Arab population like the Palestinians and putting them under guard behind concrete
and barbed wire wherever possible.
Why the pro-occupation Kurds didn't need to be forced into dozens of bantustans, was something I've never seen asked by anyone.
That the Iraqi population was heavily intermarried and had never had a 'civil war' or any history of 'sectarian violence' was
also deemed not newsworthy.
After 10+ years of even the 'alternative' media repeating this garbage it has become accepted as fact among the limited portion
of the population who are even vaguely aware of the endless colonial wars.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Balazs Jarabik, who is associated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and who
focuses on Ukraine, has an
article titled "Ukraine: The War Must Go On?". It's a pertinent article because both sides are
re-arming and both sides are more skilled now at war. Renewed fighting, if serious war breaks out
again, will be more devastating than the earlier engagements. It will likely enter new areas and,
in the process, undermine Ukraine altogether.
Jarabik writes "As terrible as it sounds, Kyiv's endless dysfunction is the Kremlin's most powerful
ally in the current crisis-a point that is glossed over in Western policy debates on sending lethal
aid to Ukraine."
Critics of the libertarian positions on Ukraine should read and heed what the non-libertarian
Jarabik says about Kiev and Ukraine. U.S. and NATO aid, bank financing, training and military advice
are not helping Ukrainians. Quite the opposite.
The libertarian refrain calling for U.S. disengagement from Ukraine (and other of the Empire's
venues) strikes some as being either pro-Russian or not anti-Russian enough. This is a false conclusion
that doesn't follow from a non-interventionist stance. It only follows from a non-libertarian perspective
of supposing that the U.S. should be helping Ukraine achieve independence from Russian pressures.
But such so-called help is destroying Ukraine and promises worse to come.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Both U.S. disengagement from Kiev and criticism of Kiev's war-making are policies that will help,
not harm, ordinary Ukrainians. Sons will not be drafted, ill-trained, ill-equipped and sent into
unwinnable and destructive wars. The government won't go bankrupt in the process. Huge debts won't
be levied on generations of Ukrainians. The currency won't crash, as it has, destroying the wealth
of anyone holding it, small savers or holders of debt denominated in that currency. Resources can
be put toward peaceful purposes. Similarly, people in Donbas won't face the severe destruction wrought
by war. Refugees can come home. People won't be driven from their homes. Population centers, ranging
from villages to major cities, won't be shelled.
The war-making and other related decisions are promoted by the U.S. and NATO. The U.S. is re-arming
one side and improving the weaponry. The Russians are re-arming the other side, and that side too
will bring in new ways of fighting. The level of destructiveness can only escalate as a consequence
of a U.S. and Kiev decision to bring Donbas back into Ukraine by military means.
Libertarian calls for the U.S. completely out of Ukraine are for the good of Ukrainians themselves,
although surely not all of them. This policy doesn't satisfy Ukrainian nationalists who insist on
union of west and east, come hell or high water. Hell it may be.
The megalomaniacs of the Washington power elite actually think they can mold the Middle East to
their specifications. No calamity resulting from their clumsy machinations ever causes them to rethink
this preposterous conceit.
Look at some of their more recent handiwork. In 2003, on the basis of shoddy intelligence if not
conscious lies, President George W. Bush had the U.S. military overthrow Iraqi dictator (and former
ally) Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim whose secular regime discriminated against the Shia majority.
With Saddam gone and his Ba'ath party dispersed, the Shiites inevitably assumed power, assisted by
American forces that put down a Sunni insurgency and enabled Shiite militias to ethnically cleanse
most of the capital, Baghdad. Millions were killed, injured, and displaced.
Next door, of course, is the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been America's bête noir
since 1979, when a revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed autocratic shah and militants held American
hostages, 26 years after the CIA helped to oust a prime minister and restore the shah to power. Iraq
under Saddam had also been Iran's enemy; he launched an eight-year war of aggression against the
Islamic Republic in the 1980s, aided by the United States. (Among other assistance, US satellite
intelligence helped Saddam
wage chemical warfare against the Iranians.) In balance-of-power terms, Saddam was the counterforce
that checked Iranian influence. But now Saddam's regime was gone.
One did not need to be an expert to know that Iran would benefit. Iraq's sectarian Shiite prime
minister from 2006 to 2014, Nouri al-Maliki, was favored by Iran, as is his successor, Haider al-Abadi.
Even Bush administration's original pick to lead post-Saddam Iraq,
Ahmed Chalabi, had long been close to Iran.
So despite some 30 years of America's cold, covert, cyber, and proxy war against Iran, the Bush
administration was indispensable in helping Iran gain greater influence in the Middle East.
This influence has
grown even greater now with the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which was a predictable
consequence of Saddam's overthrow and sectarian Shiite rule, before which there was no Sunni al-Qaeda
in Iraq, much less ISIS, its even more virulent offshoot. The Obama administration has assumed the
lead in the effort to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, which is officially regarded as a "threat to the
homeland," but Obama's method is largely confined to airpower, with only a small force on the ground.
Most analysts believe that airpower alone will not suffice. The fight on the ground in Iraq is being
handled by that country's Shiite army and an assortment of vengeful Shiite militias, making the Sunnis
fearful of sectarian violence and even accepting of the brutal and intolerant ISIS. Who advises these
forces? None other than Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Army of the Guardians of the Islamic
Revolution and commander of the Quds Force, a division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Soleimani
reportedly is playing a major role in the current effort to retake
Takrit, Saddam's hometown, from ISIS.
This objectively places the United States on the same side as Iran, but the Obama administration
cannot acknowledge this without granting Iran prestige. Indeed, American and Israeli officials worry
that the price of defeating ISIS will be a Middle East dominated by Iran as never before.
Of course, ISIS also controls territory in next-door Syria, which is ruled by Iran's ally Bashar
al-Assad, a member of a minority Shiite sect whose regime is embroiled in a civil war. Obama has
called for Assad's departure, but Assad is also fighting ISIS (as well as Syria's al-Qaeda franchise),
putting him, too, objectively on America's side.
The question arising from this tangled tale is: What were the American and Israeli advocates of
war with Iraq thinking back in 2003? Was their plan to build up Iranian influence in order to justify
war and regime change? That would explain why advocates of the Iraq policy are trying to torpedo
multilateral talks with Iran over its
nonexistent
nuclear weapons program. But war with Iran, which is much larger and more populous Iraq, would be
a catastrophe.
In light of all this, should Americans trust their lives and well-being to the arrogant Washington
power elite?
Sheldon Richman is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute,
which is based in Oakland, California.
Listened on the way to work the record of the meeting of the Senate Committee on Ukraine and anti-Russia.
First, the names of speakers and respondents. Kornblum, Kantor, Nudelman and joined them boy Bobby
Corker and others have wives from Ukraine, they said. Second, Putin is such a chronic incarnation
of Satan that he looks larger them even the whole country. Now there are even concepts in his name,
for example - "Putin's economy", what a beast it is unclear, but in the minds of American senators
it's definitely evil. And just a bad person who alone lives in seven rooms and actively that fact
that the members of the Congress did not like one bit and expressed strong desire to move him to
something with less rooms. the third is that those gentlemen with the German-Yiddish surnames discussed
the entire countries and territories as if they were just deserts, forests and steppes. As
if there no population on this territories, who may have their own views on the subject, distinct
from opinion by Committee members. Fourth, in some moments of the meeting, reminded the congregation
in the local synagogue, and sometimes the PTA meeting which analyzed the behavior of poor students.
Main memes and beliefs expressed at the meeting:
Russia backward and unable to progress and development of the country.
In Russia there is no infrastructure.
Russia lives from the sale of oil and only.
Russia is financing all and with all the oil revenue.
Russia is very aggressive.
She attacked Ukraine. The existence of civil war not only not denied, this concept is just
not even considered by Committee members. That completely changes everything, not war within one
nation, when brother rose up against brother, and external invasion of a neighbor!
Russia is aggressive towards the Baltic States and the Baltic States should be armed.
Tomorrow Russia will attack Estonia.
America has vital interests in Ukraine.
To return the Crimea to Ukraine is America's vital interests.
Putin is enemy No. 1.
There were suggestions from the field. For example, start to give Ukraine the money for one billion
dollars a year for three consecutive years. This money, Ukraine will buy weapons from the USA and
defend against Putin. We must begin to arm Estonia and to send battalions because there is a lot
of Russians and Putin's aggression will be the first thing sent to Estonia. This was repeated several
times and in different ways. I.e. looks like you have already decided to arrange provocations in
Estonia. As this is done, he starts revealing to cut Russian compactly living in Narva or Estonia
will satisfy the invasion by type Saakashvilis, only where? In Narva? He then tried to attack South
Ossetia which was legally in Georgia, but not inhabited by the same nationality as the rest of the
country and there was revolt. In Estonia like no no revolt. But it is clear that the next for some
expensive and stupid military supplies is Estonia. Funny, Yes?
evolt. But it is clear that the next for some expensive and stupid military supplies is Estonia.
Funny, Yes?
"From the Protocol of interrogation of the Ukrainian oligarch Firtash today in Vienna, Austria:
The judge: I Repeat the question: how are you supported Yanukovych?
Firtash: I traveled around the country, I personally campaigned people, communicated with the
trade unions on the subject of support for Yanukovych.
C: did You Finance it?
F: No. Then, when Yanukovych won in 2010, we began to light the differences. And in 2012 I became
clear that Yanukovych will not have to carry out reforms. And then I realized that the country
needs a strong candidate who will run for elections and win them. And in the meanwhile I found
a Klitschko. He is very famous person in the country and the world, young, athlete. He has achieved
a lot in sports and I was sure that he would be able to achieve this and in politics. And when
Klitschko made a political force of the BLOW, I supported him financially. Then, in 2013, the
conflict between Russia and the USA was already obvious. I realized the struggle begins, begins
the tug of war. America understands that I have my own position regarding the fate of Ukraine
and it does not coincide with their position. In August 2013, the serious conflict begins – trading,
I am persuaded that it is necessary to settle differences peacefully, because Russia for us is
a huge market.
And then the American government created a case against me and tried to blackmail this way
Yanukovych (you will be next). Then took place the meeting of Yanukovych with Putin. At the same
time Americans start pressing charges against me . Then comes European Commission to persuade
Yanukovych to sign the Association agreement. Then Nuland arrives and says:
1. Sign Association with EU.
2. Release Tymoshenko for treatment abroad.
3. Give Kharkiv field to Chevron.
And Yanukovich promises Nuland everything she wanted. And you remember, after they finished
a meeting, in an hour they dropped drop the charges against me.
Victoria Nuland (eng. Victoria Nuland born. 1961, new York) is an American diplomat and politician,
a spokesman for the U.S. State Department from 2011 to 2013, Then - assistant Secretary of state
for Europe and Eurasia.
In general, if anybody tells you that you have gone crazy and suffer from paranoia and that
the USA wants us only good as well as naive blabbering about the "independent choice of the Ukrainian
people", please show them this piece."
Andrew Bacevich has a wonderful essay, in the form of an open letter to Paul Wolfowitz,
in the
current Harper's. You have to subscribe to read it -- but, hey, you should be
subscribing
to any publication whose work you value. This essay isolates the particular role Wolfowitz had in
the cast of characters that led us to war. As a reminder, they included:
Dick Cheney, who was becoming a comic-book churl by this stage of his public life;
Colin Powell, the loyal soldier, staffer, and diplomat whose "Powell Doctrine" and
entire life's work stood in opposition to the kind of war that he, with misguided loyalty, was
to play so central a role in selling;
Tony Blair, the crucial ally who added rhetorical polish and international resolve
to the case for war;
Donald Rumsfeld, with his breezy contempt for those who said the effort would be
difficult or long;
Paul Bremer, whose sudden, thoughtless dismantling of the Iraqi army proved so disastrous;
Condoleezza Rice, miscast in her role as White House national-security advisor;
George Tenet, the long-time staffer who cooperated with the "slam-dunk!" intelligence
assessment despite serious disagreement within the CIA;
and of course George W. Bush himself, whose combination of limited knowledge and
strong desire to be "decisive" made him so vulnerable to the argument that the "real" response
to the 9/11 attacks should be invading a country that had nothing to do with them.
But Paul Wolfowitz was in a category of his own because he was the one who provided the
highest-concept rationale for the war. As James Galbraith of the University of Texas has put it,
"Wolfowitz is the real-life version of Halberstam's caricature of McNamara" [in
The Best and
the Brightest].
Bacevich's version of this assessment is to lay out as respectfully as possible the strategic duty
that Wolfowitz thought the U.S. would fulfill by invading Iraq. Back before the war began, I did
a much more limited version of this assessment
as an
Atlantic article. As Bacevich puts it now, Wolfowitz was extending precepts from
his one-time mentor,
Albert
Wohlstetter, toward a model of how the United States could maximize stability for itself and
others.
As with the best argumentative essays, Bacevich takes on Wolfowitz in a strong rather than an oversimplified
version of his world-view. You have to read the whole thing to get the effect, but here is a brief
sample (within fair-use limits):
With the passing of the Cold War, global hegemony seemed America's for the taking. What others
saw as an option you, Paul, saw as something much more: an obligation that the nation needed
to seize, for its own good as well as for the world's....
Although none of the hijackers were Iraqi, within days of 9/11 you were promoting military
action against Iraq. Critics have chalked this up to your supposed obsession with Saddam. The
criticism is misplaced. The scale of your ambitions was vastly greater.
In an instant, you grasped that the attacks provided a fresh opportunity to implement Wohlstetter's
Precepts, and Iraq offered a made-to-order venue....In Iraq the United States would demonstrate
the efficacy of preventive war.... The urgency of invading Iraq stemmed from the need to validate
that doctrine before the window of opportunity closed.
Bacevich explains much more about the Wohlstetter / Wolfowitz grand view. And then he poses the
challenge that he says Wolfowitz should now meet:
One of the questions emerging from the Iraq debacle must be this one: Why did liberation at
gunpoint yield results that differed so radically from what the war's advocates had expected?
Or, to sharpen the point, How did preventive war undertaken by ostensibly the strongest military
in history produce a cataclysm?
Not one of your colleagues from the Bush Administration possesses the necessary combination
of honesty, courage, and wit to answer these questions. If you don't believe me, please sample
the tediously self-exculpatory memoirs penned by (or on behalf of) Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Rice, Tenet, Bremer, Feith, and a small squad of eminently forgettable generals...
What would Albert [Wohlstetter] do? I never met the man (he died in 1997), but my guess is
that he wouldn't flinch from taking on these questions, even if the answers threatened to contradict
his own long-held beliefs. Neither should you, Paul. To be sure, whatever you might choose to
say, you'll be vilified, as Robert McNamara was vilified when he broke his long silence and
admitted that he'd been "wrong, terribly wrong" about Vietnam. But help us learn the lessons
of Iraq so that we might extract from it something of value in return for all the sacrifices
made there. Forgive me for saying so, but you owe it to your country.
Anyone who knows Andrew Bacevich's story will understand the edge behind his final sentence.
But you don't have to know that to respect the challenge he lays down. I hope Paul Wolfowitz will
at some point rise to it.
For another very valuable assessment of who was right and wrong, when, please see
John Judis's piece in
The New Republic.
The Washington Post's Michael Birnbaum invented a
new funny way to equalized victims and perpetrators of serious crimes:
MOSCOW - A pro-Russian Ukrainian journalist was gunned down in Kiev on Thursday, authorities said,
a day after a Ukrainian politician supporting Moscow was found dead.
The killing of Oles Buzyna, 45, raised fears of a new wave of back-and-forth violence in the
streets of Ukraine after a string of unsolved deaths that has touched both sides
of the conflict between Ukraine's Western-allied government and pro-Moscow separatists.
Indeed the "unsolved deaths" "touched both sides" with eleven people on one side getting murdered
while the other side covered up these murders as "suicides" and very likely also provided the killers.
Eight
politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S. inspired
coup, were killed as were three
journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
There is some curious connection between some of the recent killings and NATO. As RB
at NiqNaqprovides (recommended):
On Apr 14, a profile of Oles' Buzina was added to https://psb4ukr.org/ site (where Ukrainian government
encourages people to fink the authorities on the people suspected of separatism); on Apr 15, Oles'
Buzina was killed near his home with 4 shots. I (my correspondent – RB) looked up the
Web address where they posted Buzina's address, and found that it's hosted on a NATO server.
The Niqnaq post provides details and screenshots demonstrating the connection to NATO.
(A short take is also here.) I was myself researching the issue for MoA when I found that
Niqnaq post and I can confirm the findings and add a bit.
Two names and personal data of persons recently assassinated in Ukraine were posted on a "nationalist"
website shortly before those persons were killed. That website,
screenshot)
screenshot), is
headlined:
"Peacemaker"
RESEARCH CENTRE FEATURES OF CRIMES AGAINST UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY, PEACE, SECURITY AND
HUMANITY international law
Information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists,
separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.
Next to some news pieces the site carries a list for download with some 7,700 names of "saboteurs"
and "terrorists".
On a first view the name "psb4ukr.org" is anonymously
registered through the U.S.
company Wild West Domains.
A "traceroute" command shows that Internet Protocol requests to the server "psb4ukr.org" end in
a datacenter in Dallas, Texas at dallas-ipc.com and the IP number 208.115.243.222.
A "nslookup" command with the input "psb4ukr.org" confirms in its output the registered IP Number
to be "208.115.243.222" (screenshot).
A reverse "nslookup" command with the input "208.115.243.222" provides the output "psb4ukr.nato.int".
(screenshot).
"nato.int" is the Internet domain namespace registered and reserved for NATO. Why is a server
for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been killed - registered
within the NATO Internet namespace?
After some additional research we find that the non-anonymous registration to "psb4ukr.org"
is to one Vladimir Kolesnikov, 98 Lenin St, Velyka Oleksandrivka, Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine.
Further searching for Vladimir Kolesnikov we
find that Mr. Kolesnikov has registered several other websites through Limestone Networks, Inc
in Dallas, Texas.
Some of these website seem to be concerned with crypto payment, teletraining and unrelated stuff.
Some others are related to the nasty "nationalist" side of the Ukraine conflict.
Operativ.info asks for tip offs about "saboteurs"
and "terrorists" and their operations while informnapalm.org
is a general "nationalist" news collection.
There is no hint of any NATO-relation in these other sides. A reverse nslookup like the one that
shows a relation like between "psb4ukr.org" and "psb4ukr.nato.int" does not deliver such results
for the other website registered to Mr. Kolesnikov.
One possible explanation for the "psb4ukr.nato.int" lookup result might be that the website was
originally build or tested within the NATO namespace and later transferred outside without cleaning
up some of the original name references.
Posted by b on April 17, 2015 at 03:06 PM |
Permalink
james | Apr 17, 2015 5:45:27 PM | 1
thanks b.. any connection to nato is really riveting if true.. the fact all the people murdered
are opposed to the present gang in kiev speaks volumes as well.. i hope some western msm will
pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.. it will be more bs like the wapo is famous for..
spewing propaganda 24/7, these media outlets make the prvada of previous times look like amateurs..
jfl | Apr 17, 2015 6:33:22 PM | 2
Excellent work, b. It is true that the MSM sill never publish anything like this ... but it
is also true that the 'market' for news has been bifurcated at this point : those who want to
know the truth are engaged in the search for it on their own and those who definitely do NOT want
to know the truth are reading, viewing the MSM.
Attending to the MSM has become an act of complicity with the crimes of the empire in itself.
JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 17, 2015 6:43:55 PM | 3
So, death squads on the menu?
Ah, takes me back to those golden times in Iraq, El Salvador...
Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17, 2015 11:55:44 PM | 5
I've come to appreciate the value of the "both sides" meme.
It's a 24ct guarantee that USrael or one of their "good friends" has been caught perpetrating
inexcusable atrocities, upon civilians, which need to be urgently diluted.
The "Israelis" have turned it into an art form - an absolute necessity given that ALL the victims
of the Shitty Little Country's insane anti-Palestinian hubris have been civilians.
It's quite clever in a cowardly, sneaky, "Israeli" kind of way...
Fete | Apr 18, 2015 12:41:56 AM | 604/17/2015 19:57
Russian Spring
Commenting an appeal of Donbass community to the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, Presidents
of Russia and France, Vladimir Putin and François Hollande as well as Angela Merkel, the Chancellor
of Germany, the Chairman of Peoples Council of Donetsk Republic Andrey Purgin assumed that today's
Kiev moves toward Ukrainian Nazism.
"Mass arrests and intimidation are common. Those who disagree to live with the Ukrainian
ethnic nazism are prosecuted. The most active ones are incarcerated", asserted Purgin
According to him, thousands are jailed for their political convictions.
"Of course, there are calls to (international) community, to Merkel, Europe to interfer.
Unfortunately, those live in framework of different (double) standards and are not going to
do anything. Instead, they call to yield to Ukraine, where arrests and burning houses are taking
place", added Purgin.
@b
Why is a server for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been
killed - registered within the NATO Internet namespace?
Russian Defense Minister summed it up very well, at Moscow's annual security conference.
"The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev
into their orbit..."
JerseyJeffersonian@3 is right on target reminding us of the infamous "Death Squads" in El Salvador
and Iraq. Targeting of opposition figures by parallel security forces killing not-so anonymously,
is an integral part of any regime hell-bent on imposing by force a quasi-fascist form of government.
The purpose is to inflict terror on a massive scale, a psychological war that aims at paralyzing
others from opposing the regime. It is the ABC of any counterinsurgency manual, and it clearly
shows the hand of the CIA behind the systematic killing of Yanukovich allies, perceived or real
pro-Russian individuals/organizations/regional or city governments, as it happened recently in
Kharkov, and a couple of days ago in Odessa.
This is lustration on a higher level, not just firing from government posts all of those
considered "opposition," not enough for the Ukrainian neo-nazis, they have to be physically eliminated.
As bastard children of nazi ideologues, they have to follow their German masters in their
"purification" of society (lustration from Latin = purification), cleansing it from any elements
that could endanger the "purity" of their new fascist dystopia.
The WaPo, a mouthpiece of Neoconland/Deep State, is an accomplice to murder not only in Ukraine,
and has played a crucial role white-washing the crimes of the criminal Kiev junta from day one.
Shame on you, Michael Birnbaum, you're justifying the slaughter of innocents just to keep a miserable
job writing horseshit, and killing them a second time with your blatant lies.
i hope some western msm will pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.
The western msm have picked up on it but to claim that an anti-Kiev oligarch who funded the Party
of Regions is killing them off to cover his tracks over that funding.
An organisation called the 'Ukrainian Insurgent Army' has claimed responsibility for the murders
of Chechetov, Peklushenko, Miller, Kalashnikov and Buzina.
I second your recommendation. I spotted some short extracts at Russia Insider,
and I share their recommendation that you read the whole piece. Here's a small sample, .
Q: In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?
Well, I can't think otherwise.
I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since
February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything
went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history,
25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier....
Q: I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist
campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.
But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington,
Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't
call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations
because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with
murderous intent....
So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and
peoples....
Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who
are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine....
Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian
crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like
Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and
the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.
See also his comments on Yeltsin. Increasing ill and under the thumb of the oligarchs, he cozied
up to Washington. Cohen reports that Medvedev, a number of years ago, advised that Zyuganov of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation had actually won the election that gave Yeltsin his final
term.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 11:04:39 AM |
12
New detentions of peaceful protesters in Odessa: 30 people reported detained at Odessa rally
for cultural autonomy and a peaceful solution to the civil conflict: "The People's Council [of Bessarabia]
is the grassroots, peaceful initiative."
So far the People's Council of Bessarabia is looking like an effort to use what legal space seems
to exist under current junta law to organize "within the system," while the Odessa People's Republic
appears to be extralegal and separatist. But the reality is that there is no legal space within fascism
for any opposition to organize:
Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 18, 2015 11:43:21 AM |
13
jj, lw, bb at 3, 7 & 10 --
Extrajudicial repression has been a staple of the ruling class since antiquity. See the murder
of Tiberius Gracchus in the 2nd. cent. BC. But along with creating "insurgencies" (Nicaragua, Afghanistan)
the Amercan Century has really made it one of its art forms. A sort of "Abstract Repressionism;"
we're disinclined to think of the human cost, let alone accept responsibility for it.
If you want some good fantasy fiction writing, I'd recommend the Kyiv Post's weirdly informative
article,
Murders of two journalists, ex-lawmaker spook Kyiv. It begins, "The atmosphere was spooky in
Kyiv on April 16 as news broke about the murder of a third prominent person in four days." Quite
lit'ry, weren't it? It's the Party of Regions, it's the Russian, it's a scheme to disrupt Victory
Day.
It goes on to some highly negative spin about Kalashnikov and Buzina, and finishes with short
accounts of rash of "suicides" amongst regime opponents.
Meanwhile, repression is spreading in
Odessa. A mixed group of local Maidan activists, police, and PravSek militiamen detained protesters.
They wanted a free trade zone and were unhappy with utility prices and pensions. A clear and present
danger. Whereabouts presently unknown. -- VR at 13, just saw yrs. I'll have to ck'out the NeoNazi
bit.
VR -- well that was depressing. In part 'cause it lead me to what the link called "Drunk With
Permissiveness: Nazis Execute Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." The page itself is a little
more mundane,
Ukrainian
Insurgent Army Claims Responsibility for Death of Reporter Buzina. It provides further details
than the Fort Russ account above.
It links the rise in violence to the recent proclamation of the collaborators as victors over
their fascist patrons, taken as a green light for a bit of the ultra-violence. They promise "a ruthless
insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and Moscow henchmen..." They seem as
good as their word. Too bad....
These incidents are so historically familiar. When reading your article b, I couldn't help thinking
about Italy and the murders and terrorism that occurred through out the 1950's to 1980's. Incorrectly,
many of our contemporaries believe that the Gladio which was created by NATO, the UK and the US is
defunct. As revealed by Professor Daneile Ganser, Gladio is a live and well and operates globally.
Yes, NATO is the culprit. Just as it was the instrumental culprit that was used as a tool in Kosovo
for US interests. As for the monsters in Kiev, Reinhard Gehlen, one of the Nazi architects of the
stay-behind-network would be proud.
en1c at 15 -- Very droll! It's been renamed "plausible deniability" to suite modern sensibilities.
vr at 13 -- I followed your link.
Depressing, in part 'cause I followed this link there, "Drunk With Permissiveness: Nazis Execute
Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." It provides further details than the Fort Russ
item cited at 14. Folks will have to find it on their own, I'm afraid. It wouldn't post my link from
Sputnik -- though the link in the preview worked. Others have had that problem.
"We are unfolding a ruthless insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and
Moscow henchmen...." They claim five murders, including Kalashnikov and Buzina. So they look to be
as good as their word. Too bad.
Thank you for your links, CTuttle @ 8. I don't know Stephen Cohen very well, but I took a dislike
to Katherine his wife way back when the Nation came out so strongly against Ralph Nader as a candidate,
and seeing her on Charlie Rose didn't warm me to her either. There are some folk on the 'left' who
need to come right out and admit they have been wrong to endorse anti-common-folk principles in the
past, due to the damage they have caused by supporting the oligarchs.
They are taking a page out of Putin's book: he was in government during the Yeltsin era when policies
were strongly skewed to get along with US oligarchies and Russia's own. Putin has changed course,
no two ways about it, and his people as a consequence love him. I just hope these folk will have
the same intention - Katherine, you will have to stop sniping at Ralph if you want us to love you.
The problem of Ukrainian nationalism is that they do not have "democratic template", heroes of
the past were hetmans, otamans and fascists. To be patriotic, you have to be bloody minded. So patriots
are murdering enemies of the people, and the West gives green light by giving aid and not raising
stink. [disclamer: I do not despise patriotism, but like love and religion, it can motivate excesses
including murder, mass murder, lies, mass lies and so on, emotional attachment can be a positive
force, but as we know, it is not always the case. Below, "patriot" describes the self-assessment.]
The Newsweek story
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/17/ukraine-plagued-succession-unlikely-suicides-former-ruling-party-320584.html
that b found is extremely symptomatic. American patriots in the media are following the official
clues how to cover stories from the confusing lands outside our borders. Apparently, in the case
of Ukraine, one has to follow explanations of Ukrainian patriots. And the version plied in Newsweek
was that an oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, is ordering murders of his former confidants and benefactors
to "remove witnesses", somehow failing to consider the following clues: murders are being covered
up by the current authorities, the minister in charge of police is a fascist (according to Guardian,
"there is only one fascist in Ukrainian cabinet"), and Akhmetov is not allied with the current authorities.
Since 1945, members of UPA and related organizations were cooperating with CIA, so when American
government want to find reliable familiar faces in Ukraine they will always start with "fascists".
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat weird
disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically, in
Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist" (for parochial reason,
as they murdered ca. 100,000 Poles).
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into "moderate
mayhem", contrasting with much more grandiose approach advocated by GOP and neocons (who can be Democrats
and Republicans).
In 1976, journalist Peter Watson was at a NATO conference in Oslo, when a U.S. Navy psychologist,
Dr. Thomas Narut, from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Naples told Watson and New Jersey psychologist
Dr. Alfred Zitani, that the Navy sought men to train as assassins in overseas embassies. The following
is from the London Sunday Times, "The soldiers who become killers," September 8, 1974, but reproduced
from a conspiracy site, as the original, and most references to it, plentiful even when I first
read about it some years ago, are limited now to a few dozen conspiracy sites. The story is also
told at some length in Watson's book (out of print), War on the Mind: The Military Uses and
Abuses of Psychology, published by Basic Books in 1978.
[Narut's] naval work involved establishing how to induce servicemen who ma[y] not be naturally
inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. When pressed afterwards as to what was
meant by "combat readiness units," he explained this included men for commando-type operations
and – so he said – for insertion into U.S. embassies under cover, ready to kill in those countries
should the need arise. Dr. Narut used the word "hitmen" and "assassin" of these men.
The method, according to Dr. Narut, was to show films specially designed to show people
being killed and injured in violent ways. By being acclimated through these films, the men
eventually became able to dissociate any feelings from such a situation. Dr. Narut also added
that U.S. Naval psychologists specially selected men for these commando tasks, from submarine
crews, paratroops, and some were convicted murderers from military prisons. Asked whether he
was suggesting that murderers were being released from prisons to become assassins, he replied:
"It's happened more than once."
"For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive
lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names
were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those
who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials," Kathy Kadane wrote for South
Carolina's Herald-Journal on May 19, 1990. [Kadane's article also appeared in the San Francisco
Examiner on May 20, 1990, the Washington Post on May 21, 1990, and the Boston Globe on May 23,
1990.]
The Indonesian mass murder program was based in part on experiences gleaned by the CIA in the
Philippines. "US military advisers of the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) and the CIA
station in Manila designed and led the bloody suppression of the nationalist Hukbong Mapagpalaya
ng Bayan," notes Roland G. Simbulan (Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines).
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat
weird disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically,
in Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist"
One often hears Novorossiyans and Russians saying that the present Banderites are actually worse
than the German Nazis were. I concur with that view.
As for American attitudes to Ukie fascism, that's not hard to understand. All you have to think
about is the US training death squads in Central America. Fascist thugs are a tool of US foreign
policy, in the same way that Islamist terrorists are. This is now a commonplace in the progressive
blogosphere.
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into
"moderate mayhem"
I recently ran across an interview witb a Ukrainian political scientist who had to flee to Moscow,
in which he said that Europeans are finally cottoning on to the true nature of the Kiev regime, so
the US no longer has any reason to restrain the fascists. Hence the recent slew of assassinations
and terror. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up the link.)
Hey, thanks, man. I forgot it was a video. I just remembered it being in Russian, which confused
me. Well worth watching, IMO. Americans have no idea of what Russians think.
To repeat myself, the prevailing Russian view (and with the Internet, the collapse of communism,
and Putin's revival of Russia, I think that pretty much all Russians are on the same page except
for the 10% or less of the Russians who are "liberals") seems to be that the EU was totally eager
to make Ukraine an economic colony of the West, but unlike the US, it does not want war in Ukraine.
So the views of the US and the EU on the Ukraine diverge significantly, although net everyone here
thinks that. (Of course, Russian policy towards the Ukraine since the coup has been largely predicated
on that.)
And thanks for the second link.
His change of view is prompted by the law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament on April 9
glorifying World War.
It was pretty predictable that this would happen eventually. And then it turns out that Poles are
saying what Russians have been saying since last May:
Their savagery was beyond human imagination. Nazi Germany did not come up with what those Ukrainians
were doing
The American public has no idea of this. (In Europe, it's probably only England and the pesky Balts.)
"Poles know what's going on" ... it is more complex than that. The government and more established
media took very pro-American and anti-Russian perspective. The main opposition party build its current
set of slogans around anti-Russian paranoia. That said, in Communist times the issue of the massacres
of Poles in Volhynia and other regions with mixed population was almost hidden by the authorities,
but now it is common knowledge, and after the law acknowledging the perpetrator as heroes the critique
of the government is increasingly mainstream.
In particular, the U-turn of Gen. Skrzypczak is related to perceived "slap in the face". Polish
president made a speech to Ukrainian parliament with very warm support, and the law that is extremely
irritating to Poles was passed "few hours later", and that was duly noted by leftist opposition in
the Parliament. That is not insignificant, because there are good chances that the ruling party will
be forced into a coalition with those people.
As nationalists go, Ukrainian ones seem worse than most. The last election were preceded with
massive nationwide intimidation campaign and few little massacres. The really have a cult of force
and violence, which is reflected in putting boxers in the parliament, and -- surprise, surprise --
getting fist fights in that parliament. The lie compulsively -- recall American senators who got
photos taken in Georgia as the proof of Russian columns in Ukraine (see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Franz_Roubaud._Count_Argutinsky_crossing_the_Caucasian_range._1892.jpg
). They seem to care nothing about the economy, instead, they want to eliminate Communism and Russian
language. Poor Ukrainian people seemed to have the choice of hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly insane,
so kicking out the previous corrupt lot is not as much of an improvement as Western liberals (and
the Russian emigrants who are cited in the mainstream media) perceive.
Thanks for the link to the Polish military adviser. Links like that, where a guy with impeccable
'pro-West' credentials says the right things about Ukraine, can be used to persuade our 'normal,
conventional' friends.
About European Union Army: there is a whiff of hilarity there. On one hand, the dangers from ISIS
and Russia are both quite remote, so they are not treated seriously. The force being pencilled is
about as large as the part of Ukrainian army that was encircled in Debaltsevo (should there be a
Wiki entry "Debaltsevo debacle"?). Of course, it makes some sense of practicing coordination of national
units so it is not a moronic project, but a very smallish project with very outsized among of debates,
announcements, analysis and so on.
While Europe has few problems defending itself against some putative onslaught, "projecting force"
is another matter. The French can do it in Chad, Mali etc., but how large a European Corps should
be to make a difference in conflicts between local nationalists of Georgia and Ukraine with Russian-supported
internal opponents? It is like trying to defend Paraguay against the forces of Triple Alliance: we
could promise economic sanctions on Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay would they invade Paraguay again,
but above all, we would urge Paraguay not to pick fights with the neighbors. (Incidentally, currently
Paraguay has a "pro-Western" government, and the three former opponents, "anti-Western", so it is
a good case study for comparisons.)
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 19, 2015 9:05:36 AM |
34
side board
On : Eight politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S.
inspired coup, were killed as were three journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
I suspect there are many names of murdered unknown, unlisted.
Political 'covert' or open, blatant assassinations are unfortunately normal in such situations.
Tallying them is arduous, because the murderous impulse is reflected right down into the street,
it is not just a State - Power - Corp enterprise.
Viktor, 33, son of Viktor Yanukovych died in March 2015, in an accident on Lake Baikal. His vehicle,
with 6 on board, went through the ice, 5 survived, he died. He was the driver.
I'm not advocating he should be added to that list. Abandonment (one article suggested that all
scrambled to save themselves thus leaving Viktor with no help..) is part of that…
Just to say, that lists like this are dodgy and depend on the MSM, snippets from blogs and the
like. Viktor Junior might easily have been included, his death is exremely suspicious, etc. Or it
might be considered a typical rich son demise due to hubris, stupidity, assumed invicibility
forging ahead in a risky 'sport.'
Lone Wolf at 29 -- "Land of Confusion" is a good call, suits the time now better than it did before.
Unfortunately the vid you linked to was not available in my loc. But I happen to have it in my browser
history, for anyone that missed their daily dose (or yearly allotment) of
Genesis. And let me throw
in my favorite early Peter Gabriel track,
Here Comes the Flood. The
problems of global warming give it a different meaning now than in 80's. Best live version, IMHO.
"It'll be those who gave their island to survive...."
I don't think that there's much doubt that the Apollo program was America's pinnacle. (As is the
case with other great human achievements, it took a German to make it happen.) Compared to when America
made it to the moon, the country is now absolutely pitiful and pathetic, and I think everyone understands
that on one level or another.
I read up on the Apollo program at Wikipedia recently. It really was a mind boggling achievement.
Think of the self-confidence those scientists and engineers must have had to work out such a project,
when no one had any experience of being in space. No wonder there is a conspiracy theory that it
was all a hoax. (Of course, the Russians deserve some credit even here, since it was they who provided
the motivation to the Americans to get to the moon.)
How could America fall so low from such a peak? To hazard a guess, what made the Apollo program
possible was the inheritance from the US WW II effort. Not just Werner von Braun, but also central
economic planning and the restraint of avarice by a sense of national purpose.
Perhaps America's fate was sealed when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. That made
the dollar an international reserve currency that could be printed without limit, removing any pressure
from the US to be economically competitive or have a manufacturing base. Thus the current situation,
in which the main way that the US interacts with the outside world is by waging one war after another,
all to keep the dollar in place.
And finally, since we're sharing music videos again, here is an 80s antidote to Genesis:
P. Berman at 33 -- While I've not followed it too closely (I stay busy watching the Banderaists),
the problem of the EuroForce is puzzling. It's the kind of rapid reaction force that the French have
had for decades with Foreign Legion -- professional interventionists. And as they were volunteers,
often foreign, little political cost for use.
So you'd think in principle it's well with the the organizational and logistical capabilities
of the Eurozone. Clearly the problems are political, around domestic sovereignity and foreign entanglement.
As well as the one you raise, who will it be used against, and where?
I'm not sure the Paraguay analogy fits, but I'd have to bone up on that one. I'm glad that we've
drawn someone capable of bringing it up, good fit or bad. I always find it hard to think of land-locked
Paraguay has having been a power frightful enough to unite its neighbors against it in the late 1800's.
The main source of power of the Ukrainian military machine... is in its reliance on wide array
of means of waging war in pursuit of "Ukrainianness".
This machine is based on lies, cruelty,
direct terror, the use of forbidden weapons (I think that if the regime had nuclear weapons it
would have used them by now), and the lowest imaginable methods of warmaking, such as the destruction
of the civilian population, hostage-taking, torture, and the murder of prisoners of war and opponents....
It is not especially subordinate to the political leadership, but instead is purposed for,
to some extent or another, the destruction of everything that does not fit into the "one state-one
nation-one idea" conception.
The power of the Ukrainian military machine also resides in the fact that it is backed by the
entire "civilized world" which is rendering Kiev moral, political, financial, military, and legal
support.
He goes on to note that the Ukrainians have no effective leadership, capable of inspiring the
ranks to sacrifice and victory. This is in part due no cohesive, appealing ideology.
As translator J. Hawk points out about Ukrainian nationalism, "Everyone who's ever adopted it,
lost. They did not merely lose badly, they lost ugly, and made the ideology appear even more despicable
and monstrous than it was before." Having cut themselves off from the Russian and Soviet past, they're
left with Bandera and the OUN-UPA atrocities as models of "Ukrainainness."
I sadly expect this run of bad luck on the part of the heroes of the Ukraine will continue.
If you're trying for true anonymity, you've already failed because this web site records IP addresses
of all who post, unless you've already sought ways to block or falsify your IP address from the very
beginning.
Equally email access has the same problem: irrespective of what information the email provider
requires you to give, all a surveillance agency would need would be to access the IP addresses from
which a given account is logged into.
True, the IP address isn't necessarily very accurate - typically in the 3-5 mile range - but additional
filtering can narrow that down considerably, especially if traces are then put on said IP address
to look for patterns of behavior (times of day a target typically uses the internet, writing/grammar
patterns, lists of web sites frequented, etc).
I am not trying for true anonymity. I just don't want my identity to be obvious to any fascist
(at this current point in history, the word "fascist" is more or less synonymous with "Ukrainian")
idiot who might be reading this blog.
@ALL:
If Atlantos were civilized, they would commit harikiri: Bridge Burning: EU to Bring Antitrust
Charges against Gazprom http://t.co/8TrQ4LWoze
On a darker note, here's a very well-made threat for you. Security forces say
"Ukrainophobes" ought to "lower their rhetoric to zero". Senior SBU investigator Vasiliy Vovk,
speaking officially, said "I think that... when we are practically at war... we should not have people...
who are speaking out against Ukraine and against Ukrainianness. I advise them to do it because nothing
good will come of it."
When asked if he could define "Ukrainophobia," Vovk said "No. But we know what we are talking
about."
"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a
new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire
to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests…..We
must, however, be mindful that…Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and
the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."
-The Wolfowitz Doctrine,
the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia…and America's global primacy is directly
dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."
The Laussanne negotiations between Iran and the so called P5+1 group (the United States, Russia,
China, France, Britain, and Germany) have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. They are,
in fact, another attempt to weaken and isolate Russia by easing sanctions, thus allowing Iranian
gas to replace Russian gas in Europe.
Laussanne shows that Washington still thinks that the greatest threat to its dominance is the
further economic integration of Russia and Europe, a massive two-continent free trade zone from Lisbon
to Vladivostok that would eventually dwarf dwindling US GDP while decisively shifting the balance
of global power to Asia. To counter that threat, the Obama administration toppled the elected government
of Ukraine in a violent coup, launched a speculative attack on the ruble, forced down global oil
prices, and is presently arming and training neo-Nazi extremists in the Ukrainian army. Washington
has done everything in its power to undermine relations between the EU and Russia risking even nuclear
war in its effort to separate the natural trading partners and to strategically situate itself in
a location where it can control the flow of vital resources from East to West.
Laussanne was about strategic priorities not nukes. The Obama administration realizes that if
it can't find an alternate source of gas for Europe, then its blockade of Russia will fail and the
EU-Russia alliance will grow stronger. And if the EU-Russia alliance grows stronger, then US attempts
to extend its tentacles into Asia and become a major player in the world's most prosperous region
will also fail leaving Washington to face a dismal future in which the steady erosion of its power
and prestige is a near certainty. This is from an article titled "Removing sanctions against Iran
to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan":
"If Washington removes energy sanctions on Iran…then a new geopolitical configuration will
emerge in the region. Connecting with Nabucco will be enough for Iran to fully supply Europe with
gas…
Iran takes the floor with inexhaustible oil and gas reserves and as a key transit country.
Iran disposes of the 10% of the reported global oil reserves and is the second country in the
world after Russia with its natural gas reserves (15%). The official representatives of Iran do
not hide that they strive to enter the European market of oil and gas, as in the olden days. Let's
remember that the deputy Minister of Oil in Iran, Ali Majedi, offered to revive project of Nabucco
pipeline during his European tour and said that his country is ready to supply gas to Europe through
it…
"Some months earlier the same Ali Majedi reported sensational news: 'two invited European delegations'
discussed the potential routes of Iranian gas supply to Europe," the article reads." … It is also
noted that the West quite materially reacted to the possibility of the Iranian gas to join Nabucco."
(Removing
sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan, Panorama)
So, is this the plan, to provide "energy security" to Europe by replacing Russian gas with Iranian
gas?
It sure looks like it. But that suggests that the sanctions really had nothing to do with Iran's
fictitious nuclear weapons program but were merely used to humiliate Iran while keeping as much of
its oil and gas offline until western-backed multinationals could get their greasy mitts on it.
Indeed, that's exactly how the sanctions were used even though the nuclear issue was a transparent
fake from the get go. Get a load of this from the New York Times:
"Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence
finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according
to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed
in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America's
16 intelligence agencies." (U.S.
Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb, James Risen, New York Times, February 24, 2012)
See? The entire US intelligence establishment has been saying the same thing from the onset: No
Iranian nukes. Nor has Iran ever been caught diverting nuclear fuel to other purposes. Never. Also,
as nuclear weapons physicist, Gordon Prather stated many times before his death, "After almost three
years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, IAEA inspectors have yet to find
any indication that Iran has - or ever had - a nuclear weapons program."
The inspectors were on the ground for three freaking years. They interviewed everyone and went
wherever they wanted. They searched every cave and hideaway, every nook and cranny, and they found
nothing.
Get it? No nukes, not now, not ever. Period.
The case against Iran is built on propaganda, brainwashing and bullshit, in that order. But, still,
that doesn't tell us why the US is suddenly changing course. For that, we turn to an article from
The Brookings Institute titled "Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter" which sums it up quite
well. Here's a clip:
"At heart, this is a fight over what to do about Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the
Middle East and the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies, particularly
Israel and Saudi Arabia. Proponents of the deal believe that the best way for the United States
to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to seek to integrate Iran into the regional order,
even while remaining wary of its ambitions. A nuclear deal is an important first step in that
regard, but its details matter little because the ultimate goal is to change Iranian intentions
rather destroy Iranian capability." (Why
the details of the Iran deal don't matter, Brookings)
Notice how carefully the author avoids mentioning Israel by name although he alludes to "the threat
that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies". Does he think he's talking to idiots?
But his point is well taken; the real issue is not "Iranian capability", but "Iran's challenge
to U.S. leadership in the Middle East". In other words, the nuclear issue is baloney. What Washington
doesn't like is that Iran has an independent foreign policy that conflicts with the US goal of controlling
the Middle East. That's what's really going on. Washington wants a compliant Iran that clicks its
heals and does what its told.
The problem is, the strategy hasn't worked and now the US is embroiled in a confrontation with
Moscow that is a higher priority than the Middle East project. (The split between US elites on this
matter has been interesting to watch, with the Obama-Brzezinski crowd on one side and the McCain-neocon
crowd on the other.) This is why the author thinks that easing sanctions and integrating Iran into
the predominantly US system would be the preferable remedy for at least the short term.
Repeat: "The best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to
integrate Iran into the regional order." In other words, if you can't beat 'em, then join 'em. Iran
is going to be given enough freedom to fulfill its role within the imperial order, that is, to provide
gas to Europe in order to inflict more economic pain on Russia. Isn't that what's going on?
But what effect will that have on Iran-Russia relations? Will it poison the well and turn one
ally against the other?
Probably not, mainly because the ties between Iran and Russia are growing stronger by the day.
Check this out from the Unz Review by Philip Giraldi:
"Moscow and Tehran are moving towards a de-facto strategic partnership, which can be easily
seen by the two groundbreaking announcements from earlier this week. It's now been confirmed by
the Russian government that the rumored oil-for-goods program between Russia and Iran is actually
a real policy that's already been implemented, showing that Moscow has wasted no time in trying
to court the Iranian market after the proto-deal was agreed to a week earlier. Providing goods
in exchange for resources is a strategic decision that creates valuable return customers in Iran,
who will then be in need of maintenance and spare parts for their products. It's also a sign of
deep friendship between the two Caspian neighbors and sets the groundwork for the tentative North-South
economic corridor between Russia and India via Iran." (A
Shifting Narrative on Iran, Unz Review)
But here's the glitch: Iran can't just turn on the spigot and start pumping gas to Europe. It
doesn't work that way. It's going to take massive pipeline and infrastructure upgrades that could
take years to develop. That means there will be plenty of hefty contracts awarded to friends of Tehran
–mostly Russian and Chinese–who will perform their tasks without interfering in domestic politics.
Check this out from Pepe Escobar:
"Russia and China are deeply committed to integrating Iran into their Eurasian vision. Iran may
finally be admitted as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the upcoming
summer summit in Russia. That implies a full-fledged security/commercial/political partnership involving
Russia, China, Iran and most Central Asian 'stans'.
Iran is already a founding member of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB);
that means financing for an array of New Silk Road-related projects bound to benefit the Iranian
economy. AIIB funding will certainly merge with loans and other assistance for infrastructure
development related to the Chinese-established Silk Road Fund…" (Russia,
China, Iran: In sync, Pepe Escobar, Russia Today)
Get the picture? Eurasian integration is already done-deal and there's nothing the US can do to
stop it.
Washington needs to rethink its approach. Stop the meddling and antagonism, rebuild relations
through trade and mutual trust, and accept the inevitability of imperial decline.
Asia's star is rising just as America's is setting. Deal with it.
Quote: "The [crisis now] grew out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy
toward what was thought to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in
the '90s to think of Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II:
Russia would decide its internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role
as a state in international affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national
interests."
From comments: When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics,
like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but
to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US.
At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural
resources and being in a subservient position.
The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say": Stephen F. Cohen on
the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won't tell you
There's an alternative story of Russian relations we're not hearing. Historian Stephen Cohen tells
it here
It is one thing to comment in a column as the Ukrainian crisis grinds on and Washington-senselessly,
with no idea of what will come next - destroys relations with Moscow. It is quite another, as a long
exchange with Stephen F. Cohen makes clear, to watch as an honorable career's worth of scholarly
truths are set aside in favor of unlawful subterfuge, a war fever not much short of Hearst's
and
what Cohen ranks among the most extravagant expansion of a sphere of influence-NATO's-in history.
Cohen is a distinguished Russianist by any measure. While professing at Princeton and New York
University, he has written of the revolutionary years ("Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution," 1973),
the Soviet era ("Rethinking the Soviet Experience," 1985) and, contentiously but movingly and always
with a steady eye, the post-Soviet decades ("Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist
Russia, 2000; "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives," 2009). "The Victims Return: Survivors of the
Gulag After Stalin" (2010) is a singularly humane work, using scholarly method to relate the stories
of the former prisoners who walk as ghosts in post-Soviet Russia. "I never actually lost the uneasy
feeling of having left work unfinished and obligations unfulfilled," Cohen explains in the opening
chapter, "even though fewer and fewer of the victims I knew were still alive."
If I had to describe the force and value of Cohen's work in a single sentence, it would be this:
It is a relentless insistence that we must bring history to bear upon what we see. One would think
this an admirable project, but it has landed Cohen in the mother of all intellectual disputes since
the U.S.-supported coup in Kiev last year. To say he is now "blackballed" or "blacklisted"-terms
Cohen does not like-is too much. Let us leave it that a place may await him among America's many
prophets without honor among their own.
It is hardly surprising that the Ministry of Forgetting, otherwise known as the State Department,
would eschew Cohen's perspective on Ukraine and the relationship with Russia: He brings far too much
by way of causality and responsibility to the case. But when scholarly colleagues attack him as "Putin's
apologist" one grows queasy at the prospect of a return to the McCarthyist period. By now, obedient
ideologues in the academy have turned debate into freak show.
Cohen, who is 76, altogether game and remembers it all, does not think we are back in the 1950s
just yet. But he is now enmeshed in a fight with the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian
Studies, which last autumn rejected a $400,000 grant Cohen proposed with his wife, Katrina vanden
Heuvel, because the fellowships to be funded would bear Cohen's name. Believe it, readers, this is
us in the early 21st century.
The interview that follows took place in Cohen's Manhattan apartment some weeks after the cease-fire
agreement known as Minsk II was signed in mid-February. It sprawled over several absorbing hours.
As I worked with the transcript it became clear that Cohen had given me a valuable document, one
making available to readers a concise, accessible, historically informed accounting of "where we
are today," as Cohen put it, in Ukraine and in the U.S.-Russia relationship.
Salon will run it in two parts. This is an edited transcript of the first. Part two follows next
week.
What is your judgment of Russia's involvement in Ukraine? In the current situation, the
need is for good history and clear language. In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia
justified?
Well, I can't think otherwise. I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in
the '90s. I've been saying since February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev]
that the 1990s is when everything went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So
you need at least that much history, 25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier.
As I've said for more than a year, we're in a new Cold War. We've been in one, indeed, for more
than a decade. My view [for some time] was that the United States either had not ended the previous
Cold War, though Moscow had, or had renewed it in Washington. The Russians simply hadn't engaged
it until recently because it wasn't affecting them so directly.
What's happened in Ukraine clearly has plunged us not only into a new or renewed-let historians
decide that-Cold War, but one that is probably going to be more dangerous than the preceding one
for two or three reasons. The epicenter is not in Berlin this time but in Ukraine, on Russia's borders,
within its own civilization: That's dangerous. Over the 40-year history of the old Cold War, rules
of behavior and recognition of red lines, in addition to the red hotline, were worked out. Now there
are no rules. We see this every day-no rules on either side.
What galls me the most, there's no significant opposition in the United States to this new Cold
War, whereas in the past there was always an opposition. Even in the White House you could find a
presidential aide who had a different opinion, certainly in the State Department, certainly in the
Congress. The media were open-the New York Times, the Washington Post-to debate. They no longer are.
It's one hand clapping in our major newspapers and in our broadcast networks. So that's where we
are.
The Ukraine crisis in historical perspective. Very dangerous ground. You know this better
than anyone, I'd've thought.
This is where I get attacked and assailed. It's an historical judgment. The [crisis now] grew
out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy toward what was thought
to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in the '90s to think of
Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II: Russia would decide its
internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role as a state in international
affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national interests.
That was the pursuit that Clinton and Strobe Talbott, who's now very upset about the failure of
his policy, in the Yeltsin era. That's what they wanted, and thought they were getting, from Boris
Yeltsin. You can read Talbott's memoir, "The Russia Hand," and know that all the official talk about
eternal friendship and partnership was malarkey. Now it's all gone sour, predictably and for various
reasons, and has led us to this situation.
The problem is that by taking the view, as the American media and political establishment do,
that this crisis is entirely the fault of "Putin's aggression," there's no rethinking of American
policy over the last 20 years. I have yet to see a single influential person say, "Hey, maybe we
did something wrong, maybe we ought to rethink something." That's a recipe for more of the same,
of course, and more of the same could mean war with Russia….
Let me give you one example. It's the hardest thing for the American foreign policy elite and
the media elite to cope with.
Our position is that nobody is entitled to a sphere of influence in the 21st century. Russia wants
a sphere of influence in the sense that it doesn't want American military bases in Ukraine or in
the Baltics or in Georgia. But what is the expansion of NATO other than the expansion of the American
zone or sphere of influence? It's not just military. It's financial, it's economic, it's cultural,
it's intermarriage-soldiers, infrastructure. It's probably the most dramatic expansion of a great
sphere of influence in such a short time and in peacetime in the history of the world.
So you have Vice President Biden constantly saying, "Russia wants a sphere of influence and we
won't allow it." Well, we are shoving our sphere of influence down Russia's throat, on the assumption
that it won't push back. Obviously, the discussion might well begin: "Is Russia entitled to a zone
or sphere in its neighborhood free of foreign military bases?" Just that, nothing more. If the answer
is yes, NATO expansion should've ended in Eastern Germany, as the Russians were promised. But we've
crept closer and closer. Ukraine is about NATO-expansion-no-matter-what. Washington can go on about
democracy and sovereignty and all the rest, but it's about that. And we can't re-open this question….
The hypocrisy, or the inability to connect the dots in America, is astonishing.
The nature of the Kiev regime. Again, there's a lot of fog. So there're two parts to this
question. The coup matter and the relationship of the Yatsenyuk government to the State Department-we
now have a finance minister in Kiev who's an American citizen, addressing the Council on Foreign
Relations here as we speak-and then the relationship of the Kiev regime with the ultra-right.
It's a central question. I addressed it in a Nation piece last year called "Distorting Russia."
One point was that the apologists in the media for the Kiev government as it came to power after
Feb. 21, and for the Maidan demonstrations as they turned violent, ignored the role of a small but
significant contingent of ultra-nationalists who looked, smelled and sounded like neo-fascists. And
for this I was seriously attacked, including by Timothy Snyder at Yale, who is a great fan of Kiev,
in the New Republic. I have no idea where he is coming from, or how any professor could make the
allegations he did. But the argument was that this neo-fascist theme was Putin's, that what I was
saying was an apology for Putin and that the real fascists were in Russia, not in Ukraine.
Maybe there are fascists in Russia, but we're not backing the Russian government or Russian fascists.
The question is, and it's extremely important, "Is there a neo-fascist movement in Ukraine that,
regardless of its electoral success, which has not been great, is influencing affairs politically
or militarily, and is this something we should be worried about?"
The answer is 100 percent yes. But admitting this in the United States has gotten a 100 percent
no until recently, when, finally, a few newspapers began to cite Kiev's battalions with swastikas
on their helmets and tanks. So you've gotten a little more coverage. Foreign journalists, leaving
aside Russians, have covered this neo-fascist phenomenon, which is not surprising. It grows out of
Ukraine's history. It should be a really important political question for Western policy makers,
and I think it is now for the Germans. German intelligence is probably better than American intelligence
when it comes to Ukraine-more candid in what it tells the top leadership. Merkel's clearly worried
about this.
It's another example of something you can't discuss in the mainstream media or elsewhere in the
American establishment. When you read the testimony of [Assistant Secretary of State] Nuland, this
is never mentioned. But what could be more important than the resurgence of a fascist movement on
the European continent? I'm not talking about these sappy fascists who run around the streets in
Western Europe. I'm talking about guys with a lot of weapons, guys who have done dastardly things
and who have killed people. Does that warrant discussion? Well, people said, if they exist they're
a tiny minority. My clichéd answer is, "Of course, so was Hitler and so was Lenin at one time." You
pay attention and you think about it if you learn anything from history….
We say we're doing everything we're doing in Ukraine and against Russia, including running the
risk of war, for a democratic Ukraine, by which we mean Ukraine under the rule of Kiev. Reasonably,
we would ask to what extent Kiev is actually democratic. But correspondents of the Times and the
Washington Post regularly file from Kiev and basically re-write whatever the Kiev authorities say
while rarely, if ever, asking about democracy in Kiev-governed Ukraine.
Rewriting handouts. Is that actually so?
Until recently it was so…. I haven't made this a study, and one could be done in a week
by a sophisticated journalist or scholar who knew how to ask questions and had access to information.
And I would be willing to wager that it would show that there's less democracy, as reasonably understood,
in those areas of Ukraine governed by Kiev today than there was before Yanukovych was overthrown.
Now that's a hypothesis, but I think it's a hypothesis the Times and the Post should be exploring.
I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist
campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.
But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington,
Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't
call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations
because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with murderous
intent.
By saying that this is not a civil war, it's just Russian aggression-this omits the human dimension
of the entire war, and also the agency of the people who are actually fighting in the east-the hairdressers,
the taxi drivers, the former newspaper reporters, the school teachers, the garbage men, the electricians,
who are probably 90 percent of those fighting. There are Russians there, from Russia. But Ukraine's
army has proved incapable of defeating or even holding off what began as a fairly ragtag, quasi-partisan,
ill-equipped, untrained force.
The horror of this has been Kiev's use of its artillery, mortars and even its airplanes, until
recently, to bombard large residential cities, not only Donetsk and Luhansk, but other cities.
These
are cities of 500,000, I imagine, or 2 million to 3 million. This is against the law. These are war
crimes, unless we assume the rebels were bombing their mothers and grandmothers and fathers and sisters.
This was Kiev, backed by the United States. So the United States has been deeply complicit in the
destruction of these eastern cities and peoples. When Nuland tells Congress there are 5,000 to 6,000
dead, that's the U.N. number. That's just a count of bodies they found in the morgues. Lots of bodies
are never found. German intelligence says 50,000.
Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who
are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine.
You've got 1 million people or more who have fled to Russia-this is according to the U.N.-another
half a million having fled elsewhere in Ukraine. I don't notice the United States organizing any
big humanitarian effort. Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut
our eyes to a humanitarian crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether
you like or don't like Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of
American policy and the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate
this.
You've written about the second Minsk accord as the only hope we've got left. Tell me
briefly your take on Minsk II and whether there's a chance it will hold.
The second Minsk Accord has a lot of moving parts. The primary part is the cease-fire and the
withdrawal by both sides of heavy artillery. It would appear that this has been significantly accomplished,
but the cease-fire is very unstable. The political parts are supposed to come now. Kiev is supposed
to pass certain constitutional reforms, giving a certain autonomy to the eastern regions. The eastern
regions are supposed to hold new elections that in some way comply with Ukrainian law. If all that
happens by December, then the Ukrainian-Russian border will be turned over to the Kiev authorities
along with some European monitors. The political parts are going to be the hardest because there
is no political support for this in Kiev.
[President] Poroshenko went to Minsk because he had no choice: Merkel told him he had to sign
Minsk II. But Kiev is ultra-nationalist. They want no concessions to the east or to Russia. Getting
Minsk II through parliament in Kiev will be very difficult. But the main fact for now is that
Minsk II is the last, best choice to avoid a wider war that might well cause a direct war with Russia.
[Since this interview the Kiev parliament has passed legislation either contradicting or negating
the Minsk II terms.]
Minsk II was Merkel's initiative with President Hollande of France, and why, at the last minute,
she suddenly realized that the situation was different than she thought-desperate-I don't know. And
remember, this is a woman with enormous executive responsibilities for the economic crisis of the
European Union and Greece. The enemies of Minsk II…
I think the main enemy is Washington.
That's right. I wouldn't call them the enemy, but we can't be children about this. Washington
controls the IMF. Washington controls NATO. NATO and the IMF are the two agencies that can make war
happen on a broader basis in Ukraine and in regard to Russia, or stop it. Whoever is the decider
in Washington, if it's Obama, if it's somebody else, now has to make the decision.
All the enemies of Minsk II speak freely and are quoted in the papers and on the networks as rational
people. And yet there's not one dissenting voice from the establishment. Outwardly, it appears to
be a very uneven struggle. One hopes that somewhere in dark corridors and dimly-lit rooms in Washington,
serious conversations are taking place, but I don't think so. [One March 23, 48 members of Congress
did vote against sending weapons to Kiev, a point Cohen commended in an email note.]
Our post-Soviet politics after 1991, it turns out to be war by other means. The Cold War
never ended, in my view. The tactics changed, perhaps the strategy did, too, but there was very little
by way of even a pause.
It's complicated. The main problem today of getting the American political class to think freshly
is Putin. They use Putin as the excuse to do whatever they want and not rethink anything. But Putin
came much later.
The historical facts are not convenient to the triumphalist narrative, which says that we defeated
the Soviet Union and thereby ended the Cold War, and therefore and therefore. According to Gorbachev,
Reagan and Bush, the Cold War ended either in 1988 or 1990. When Reagan left the White House-I think
he wrote in his diary in January 1989, "We have ended the Cold War"-so he thought he had ended it
with Gorbachev. I was in Moscow when he walked across Red Square in that heat, I think it was July
1988, and somebody shouted to him "President Reagan, is this still the Evil Empire?" And he, in that
affable way, said "Oh, no, that was then… everything's changed."
The Cold War was a structural phenomenon. Just because the president says its over doesn't mean
it's over, but then there was Malta in December 1989, when [George H.W.] Bush and Gorbachev said
the Cold War was over, and that continued all through the reunification of Germany. Between '88 and
'90 we were told repeatedly by the world's leaders that it was over. Jack Matlock, Reagan's ambassador
to Russia, has written very well about this, and because he was there as a personal testimony, of
how this truly was. So the conflation of the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
is an historical mistake.
Bush then continued to maintain the official line that he had pursued with Gorbachev that there
were no losers at the end of the Cold War, everybody had won. Bush maintained that position until
the polls showed he was running behind Clinton in his reelection campaign. And then he declared in
1992 that we, and he in particular, had won the Cold War. I saw Gorbachev shortly thereafter. My
wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and I had been friends with him for several years. He was deeply, deeply
hurt, with a sense of betrayal. He's forgiven Bush, being a forgiving man.
But at that moment, '91 and '92… well, words are words, but as Russians say, words are also deeds.
By announcing that we had won the Cold War, Bush set the stage for the Clinton administration's decision
to act on an American victory, including the expansion of NATO.
This history brings us to where we are today.
What has changed in U.S. policy toward Russia between 1991 and now, and what hasn't?
I think the history that we know is what I just told you. Behind the scenes, there were clearly
discussions going on throughout the '90s, and there were different groups. Big historical decisions,
whether we talk about the war in Vietnam, or, a subject that interests me, why slavery and segregation
lasted so long in the American South, where I grew up, can never be explained by one factor. Almost
always they're multi-factored. But you got, in the 1990s, some people who genuinely believed that
this was the moment for an enduring post-Cold War, American-Russian, full-scale strategic partnership
and friendship between equals. There were these Romantics, so to speak.
On this side of the ocean?
I think there were people who believed in this. Just like there're people who really believe in
democracy promotion as a virtuous profession-some of my students have gone into it. They believe
in it: It's a good thing. Why not help good countries achieve democracy? The dark side of democracy
promotion for them is either not visible or not in their calculation. People are diverse. I don't
judge them harshly for their beliefs.
There were others who were saying Russia will rise again, and we have to make sure that never
happens. To do that, we need to strip Russia of Ukraine, in particular. Brzezinski was writing that.
At some point during this time he wrote that Russia with Ukraine is a great imperial power, without
Ukraine it's a normal country. But there were people in Washington, the same people I heard in private
discussions, saying that Russia's down and we're going to keep it down. They were feeding opinion
into the Clinton administration, and that clearly helped lead to the NATO expansion.
They use the excuse that everybody wants to join NATO. How can we deny them the right? It's very
simple. People say every country that qualifies has a right to join NATO. No, they do not. NATO is
not a junior Chamber of Commerce. It's not a non-selective fraternity or sorority. It's a security
organization, and the only criterion for membership should be, "Does a nation enhance the security
of the other member countries?" The Ukrainian crisis proves beyond any doubt, being the worst international
crisis of our time, that the indiscriminate expansion of NATO has worsened our international security.
That's the end of that story. I don't know what they think NATO is. Is it like AARP membership and
you get discounts in the form of U.S. defense funds? It's crazy, this argument.
But then you got these guys who are either Russophobes or eternal Cold Warriors or deep strategic
thinkers. You remember when [Paul] Wolfowitz wrote this article saying Russia had to be stripped
of any possibility ever to be a great power again? These people were all talking like…
It goes back to your comparison with Japan in '45.
The question is why Clinton bought into this. That would then take you to Strobe Talbott. Strobe
was a disciple of Isaiah Berlin, who taught that if you want to understand Russia, you have to understand
the history, the culture and the civilization. And certainly if you took that view, you never would
have done, as George Kennan said in 1996 or 1997, you never would have expanded NATO. I knew George
during my 30 years at Princeton. George's social attitudes were deeply alarming, but about Russia
he had a very important idea. Russia marches to its own drummer, let it, don't try to intervene or
you'll make things worse. Be patient, understand Russian history, the forces in Russia. That was
Isaiah Berlin's position. Once, that was Strobe's position. Look at Strobe Talbott today: We have
to send in weapons and overthrow Putin and turn Russia around. Now it's all outside agency.
How did this guy go from A to B?
Well, they say power corrupts, or at least changes people. He had been Clinton's roommate at Oxford,
and he ended up in the White House as a Russia aide, very smart guy. I think Russia disappointed
him. One phenomenon among Russia-watchers is that you create an artifice, and that's your Russia.
And when it disappoints you, you never forgive Russia. Check out Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post.
Fred was writing from Moscow during the '90s that democracy was going to be great. So did most the
guys who are now were still in editorial positions. Russia let them down. They can't forgive Russia
anymore than they can the ex-wife who cheated on them. They can't think anew. It's a phenomenon,
probably not only American, but it's particularly American. You cannot reopen any discussion with
these people who bought into Yeltsin's Russia in the 1990s and were certain that though the road
was rocky, as they liked to say… "Failed Crusade" is about this. They can't get over it.
Part of it also had to do with Yeltsin. He was so desperate, not only for American affirmation
but for American affection. He was so insecure, as his health declined and he became more and more
the captive of the oligarchs, that he wanted to mean as much to Washington as Gorbachev had. He was
getting close to virtually giving Washington anything, saying anything, until the Serbian war. Then
it dawned on him that Washington had a certain agenda, and the expansion of NATO [was part of it],
but by then it was too late, he was a spent force.
Later, when Dmitri Medvedev was president [2008-12], I think, he told a group of people that Yeltsin
hadn't actually won the election, that Gennadi Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party, had. So assuming
that Medvedev wasn't lying and assuming he was in a position to know, all this talk of American support
for democracy, when it comes to Russia, at least, is, shall we say, complex.
Let's go to Putin. What is your view here? What is he trying to accomplish?
It's impossible to answer briefly or simply. This is a separate university course, this is a book,
this is for somebody with a much bigger brain that I have. This really is for historians to judge.
I wrote an article in, I think, 2012 called the "The Demonization of Putin," arguing that there
is very little basis for many of the allegations made against Putin, and that the net result was
to make rational analysis in Washington on Russian affairs at home and abroad impossible, because
it was all filtered through this demonization. If we didn't stop, I argued, it was only going to
get worse to the point where we would become like heroin addicts at fix time, unable to think about
anything except our obsession with Putin. We couldn't think about other issues. This has now happened
fully. The article was turned down by the New York Times, and an editor I knew at Reuters published
it on Reuters.com.
The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and
the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included
Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered
a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though
he had been at the KGB.
When he came to power, both the Times and the Post wrote that Putin was a democrat and, better
yet, he was sober, unlike Yeltsin. How we got from 2000 to now, when he's Hitler, Saddam, Stalin,
Gaddafi, everybody that we have to get rid of, whom we know killed Boris Nemtsov because from the
bridge where Nemtsov was killed [on February 27] you can see the Kremlin…. Well, remember, Sarah
Palin could see Russia from Alaska! It's preposterous. But the demonization of Putin has become an
institution in America. It is literally a political institution that prevents the kind of discussion
that you and I are having.
Kissinger had the same thought. He wrote, last year, I think, "The demonization of Putin is
not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." That's half correct. It's much worse now,
because they did have a policy. I think the "policy" growing in some minds was how to get rid of
Putin. The question is, "Do they have the capacity to make decisions?" I didn't think so, but now
I'm not so sure, because in a lot of what comes out of Washington, including the State Department,
the implication is that Putin has to go.
I asked a question rhetorically several years ago of these regime changers: Have you thought about
what would happen in Russia in the event of regime change? If what you say is true, if Putin is the
pivot of the whole system, you remove Putin the whole system collapses. Russia has every known weapon
of mass destruction in vast quantities. What would be the consequence of that conceit on your part-that
we're going to get rid of Putin-for the rest of the world?
So this Putin phenomenon has to be explained. How did he go from a democrat for sure, now to maybe
the worst Russian leader since Ivan the Terrible. How do you explain it? Does that tell us more about
Putin or more about us?
I think his sin is an unacceptable take on, broad-brush terms, Eastern ethos vs. Western
ethos, and on narrower terms a rejection of a neoliberal economic regime in the Washington consensus
style. Although he's got a lot to answer for, I think, in this respect, he's not an evangelist for
what he's doing. What does he face domestically? What's he trying to do?
Let me tell you just briefly. When I ask Russians, they think the answer is American presidential
envy. We've had a lot of unsuccessful presidents lately. Clinton left basically in disgrace,
Bush left not beloved for the war that he had got us into and lied about, Obama is before our eyes
a shrinking, failing president. And here's Putin, now in his 15th year of growing stature inside
Russia.
And by the way, until recently the preeminent European statesman of his time, no doubt of this.
In the 21st century, only Merkel can stand anywhere near him as a European statesman, whether you
like what a statesman does or not. This, of course, changes everything. Not to take the famous cop-out,
but let history judge. X number of years from now, when we've joined the majority, as Lenin used
to say, historians will undoubtedly look back and do the pluses and minuses, and it's going to be
a very close call.
For my short-term take on Putin, he was put in power to save the Yeltsin family from corruption
charges, and the first decree he signed upon becoming acting president was to exempt the Yeltsin
family from future prosecution. He has honored that, by the way. One of the beefs against Putin in
Russia is that he's honorable to his friends and appointees to an extreme; he can't bring himself
to fire anybody. He's got this KGB code of honor. I kind of like it. I'd rather that than people
stab you in your back….
I operate under the assumption that no matter how or why people come to power, when in power they
begin to ponder what their mission is, what history asks of them. For Putin it was quite clear: The
Russian state had collapsed twice in the 20th century. Stop and think what that means. It had collapsed
in the 1917 Revolution and the Soviet Union didn't collapse in 1991- it was plucked apart- but then
the state collapsed and the result was what Russians call smuta, a time of troubles. It
means misery; it means foreign invasion; it means civil war; it means that people fall into poverty.
This is the Russia that Putin inherited. Remember, when he came to power in 2000, Russia was on the
verge of collapsing for a third time as a result of Yeltsin's policies. The governors were corrupt,
were not obeying the law, were not paying taxes, were running criminal fiefdoms in scores of regions.
Russia was highly vulnerable, NATO was expanding, Russia had no influence in world affairs.
Putin comes to power and perceives that his first mission has to be to stop the collapse of the
Russian state- which he calls the vertical, because Russia has always been governed from the top
down, which has made it ungovernable because it's so big- and, most of all, to make sure it never,
ever, ever happens again. In Russian history, the worst thing that can happen to Russia
is smuta, when the state collapses. Stop and think: Between 1917 and 1991, it happened twice
in the largest territorial country in the world. Is there any precedent for that in history? How
a leader could come to power and not see that….
The second piece of this conversation will run next week.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century."He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau
chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from
Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently
to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on
Twitter, @thefloutist.
Americans are like Legos, designed to be manipulated, used, to build structures whose existence
is unknown to them. Part of the design is their incapacity to deal with an idea that would threaten
the structure of which they are the fundamental element. And so we see in these comments the ingredients
of the very plastic from which they are made: deflection, ad hominemism, demonization, etc. By the
time they are finished the discussion will be about someone's character, or the exchange of speculative
analyses of some historical event that didn't happen. The comments are a reduction in scale of what
happens at the level of diplomacy and policy.
Smith an Cohen know this, and yet they carry on trying to educate and inform against great resistance.
They have my respect.
Since 1990, the US is the only nation that's faught wars against nations not on its border. Only
the US has military bases nearly everywhere on earth. Only the US routinely violates nations' sovereignty,
and we do so seemingly every week. We've even classified the number of nations we're bombing. And
still, our hawks yearn for more. A recent world Gallup poll found that the world views us as the
greatest threat to workd peace by a huge margin, Russia was 2nd by over 20 points. If, by some miracle,
we've not become insane, it's impossible fo know because we've classified the evidence. Which may
be itself evidence for insanity.
It's funny how people can't even say "I think Cohen is wrong about this." They have to say he's
a "Putin apologist" or "on the Kremlin payroll." They're so offended that anyone could even suggest
that Putin in 2015 isn't the contemporary equivalent of Hitler in 1938 that they have to resort to
obvious falsehoods. That alone should tell you something: This demonization of Putin isn't about
the facts.
It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne Applebaum,
are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.
(Sorry, posted the fragment below by accident and ran out of time to edit it.)
It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne
Applebaum, are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.
Those warmongers are incapable of learning, even from recent disaster.
And this is what happens when Obama refused to prosecute Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other monsters
responsible for all of that destruction and death. Had we had the war crimes trials America
desperately needed, even the tools on this very thread would have gotten a thorough education, and
perhaps even a clue.
@PGrajnert
@markwriter
@Bitter Scribe It is naive , borderline stupid to think that Washington's aim is to defend the
Baltics or former subservient Slavs from a Russian boot. Washington uses fear at home and abroad
to reach one ultimate goal: economic gain (a.k.a. profit). Simplification some say, well Washington
is not that complex just look who has been in charge in the past 40 years. US policies of late are
obnoxiously primitive and transparent, but not to American audience.
Isn't it funny how Cohen thinks 'The New York Times basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities
say' when he himself seems to shadow and echo the Kremlin narrative ad verbatim. Is Cohen not aware
of the lack of independent Russian media portals and echo chambers (domestic and international) that
are bought and paid for by the Kremlin? Does Mr. Cohen not see the distortion and disinformation
he helps spread? If he does not, then his lack of objectivity makes him simply a Stalinist
(or in this case Putinist) apologist. However, if he does, then he is certainly on the Russian
payroll---in some form or another---and is no better than the Russian trolls residing in St. Petersburg.
It's really amazing with people like Noam Chomsky become imperialists. Russia invades Chechnya,
Georgia, now Ukraine, and it's all OK. So we should have invaded Cuba, or any other country nearby
that decides to make a treaty with Russia or China. There are people who think that, but you have
to go to some really extreme right wing xenophobic imperialistic new sites to find them. Who would
have thought that the likes of Noam Chomsky (and someone like Patrick Smith) would become imperialists?
I guess you think NATO is an empire ruled by the Pope or someone? Yeah, NATO is the Holly Roman Empire
of neocons, right? Is that really what you think Patrick? It is one thing to be against neoconservatism,
it is another to take your dislike of it so far that you become an imperialist, it's like something
out of the 17th century.
Chomsky and Smith strike me as people who if they were Russians, living in Russia, they would
be supporting the United States. They are natural dissenters to public opinion. That's a great thing
to have, especially when it's well-researched and articulated.
The problem is that they cannot get past their American-centric views. It's always about what
America is doing, to whom, and why. They excuse the actions of other countries as purely reactionary.
The truth is likely somewhere in between and overlapping with good, bad and survivalist intentions
from both sides. And the truth is that with a globalized economy, this fading superpower (United
States) and former superpower (Russia) are trying to maintain their polarity in this multipolarized
world that no longer needs either of them, and their ideologies, to survive.
@jsmith499 Invading Cuba? You have tried and failed, killing Castro? You have tried and
failed. You got your fav. pres. shot for failing so many times to return investments to US mafia.
NATO is a tool and it is used by IMF and Washington for one ultimate goal: economic advantage. Your
childish arguments reveal how incapable you are at analysis. Read what informed people are writing
and grow intellectually by accepting the shades of gray in RL. This is not discussion about baseball.
What is it about the threat of putting an op-positional military alliance at the doorstep of a
potential adversary that the America does not get? Would we tolerate a federation of Soviet
alliances to put troops, missiles, armaments, missile defense systems, and nukes in Canada and Mexico
aimed primarily at all of the US major cities.
Please people. Get some sense. Drunken Yeltsin let Bill Clinton humiliate Russia by
expanding NATO into countries like Poland and Hungary after the US previously promised Gorbachev
that they would not do so. Putin is a different animal.
He knows that what happened in the Ukraine was engineered by neo-cons. He knows we can't be trusted
(thank you Bill Clinton). He saw our attempt to get our fingers into Georgia. Remember John
McCain's "We're all Georgians now." He knows that the NATO alliance is waiting to bring the
Ukraine into their fold both economically and militarily. He's drawn a red line and said, "No more."
We'd be wise to heed it and back off. Russia has her back against the wall and it's dangerous
for us to keep playing this game of empire with such a country.
@Pacific Blue I don't think making an argument that the US should back away out of fear of an
unstable Russia is the best one to make for the pacifist viewpoint. If that's what this is.
The argument is not that anyone is unstoppable. Rather, it's that we seem to have forgotten MAD.
Russia and the US are the world's only nations capable of destroying the planet in s few hours, We
used to know the dangers and the necessary protocals, things we must have forgot to teach our current
generation in gradeschool history.
Even in conventional wars the US hasn't won anything since WW2, but we leave unimaginable misery
in our wake and excell at creating enemies with our continuous wars. Can anyone give a rational explanation
to US foreign policy since 1995?
Are they talking about William Randolph Hearst? Hearst was a pacifist, certainly vis-a-vis Roosevelt's
military assistance to Russia starting back in the 30's, and all the subversive influence behind
him - and Churchill.
The point is our State Department - anyone with half a brain - knew from the beginning what Russia's
reaction would be if we installed this new (sleazebag) government in Ukraine. It's our inheritance
from England's Lower Danube Policy, and it's stupid, criminal, suicidal for both the named combatants.
Any action to bring about the Ukraine "regime change" of 2014, as with practically all our regime-change-actions
over the long haul, including that dispatching Hitler, have been criminally motivated.
They are about 800 miles from the eastern front. American troops in Ukraine is a small step of
provocation, but you're carelessly misrepresenting the truth.
Did I say nothing to worry about? Again, you distort the truth. If we are looking to equate things,
then the truthful claim is that the are Russian paratroopers on the border of Guatemala, across the
entire country from our southern border, who are training Mexicans.
It's a concern, but I would not be so careless to imply they are near the battlefields, nor would
I (unlike you) deny that there are covert American soldiers fighting in Mexico to destabilize, let's
say Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.
The problem with US foreign relations -- especially with countries perceived as "adversaries"
such as Russia and Iran -- is that we neglect to consider their point-of-view.
Worse, we neglect to consider that they might even have a point-of-view that differs from our
own.
This is usually the result of the idiotic concept of "American exceptionalism" that presupposes
that we are always good and that therefore our opponents are, by definition, bad -- instead of simply
pursuing what they perceive as rational self-interest.
This is a childish worldview that guarantees conflict.
How would we react if the Russians were establishing military ties with Canada and Mexico? Would
we react differently than the Iranians if other countries demanded that we eliminate our nuclear
industries or be subject to trade embargoes or military action?
US and NATO military forces do not belong on Russia's borders, any more than Russian forces belongs
on ours.
Neocon apologists want the US sphere of influence to span the globe, while Russia's sphere has
been shrunk to nothing. That's not paranoia, that's recent history.
The alleged "wants" of a subset of Ukranians do not come close to justifying the risk of global
thermonuclear war.
But get back to the root of the problem - the US sponsored coup of Feb, 2014, and ongoing US support
of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Because, you cannot explain those things away on the basis of nebulous
Ukrainian "wants".
What explains those things is the Neocons' PNAC agenda (look it up). Jane Cullen
@Jane Cullen
@markwriter Aha. This is all based on that secretly taped and released (by Russia) conversation
between US diplomats. The conversation was about trying to prevent a hero boxer with no
expertise from becoming a senior political leader of the uprising, amidst a general tone of trying
to catch up to events on the ground, including the UN wanting to step in to mediate as well.
The US certainly was in favor of what was happening, we can agree upon that. But the uprising
and eventual coup was organic and a direct result of the government's violent action and killing
of its own citizens.
To call it US (or UN, for that matter) 'sponsored' is inaccurate and is a deliberate word chosen
on purpose to evoke comparisons to other US blunders and the 'neo-cons running amok' narrative,
some of which you might be surprised to learn I would agree with.
I would close with this: although I completely disagree with the "sponsored" designation, bringing
up that taped call is relevant for this discussion, kudos.
@Jane Cullen
@spriddler Jane, you lose all credibility when you blather on about a 'coup' inKiev while
totally ignoring the actual coups that happened in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and Slavyansk at the
hands of Russian forces.
You are just a typical Kremlin propagandist, perhaps even one of the paid ones judging from
your posts.
In decades past, the likes of you called antiwar activists pinkos, Reds, commies. A decade
ago, anyone opposing the Neocons was called a Saddam apologist.
I wear your absurd personal attack as a badge of honor.
@spriddler@Jane Cullen Well the problem is the Ukrainians want different things. Isn't that what the
conflict is all about. First they had an election and then they had a coup. Then they had an election
in which the opposition opted out.
Some Ukrainians want to break away from Ukraine. Besides, you're underestimating the amount of manipulation
occurring on both sides of the conflict.
We have outside forces on both sides meddling in the Ukraine but I'll tell you this. Russia
has much more at stake than we do.
I need to celebrate your knowledge! You're the first person who understands this break in Ukraine
(something Smith and Cohen forget, since neither are Ukrainian scholars).
However, I will argue they do not want to separate Ukraine, even though the west has historical ties
to Poland and Austria-Hungary, and the east and south has ties to Russia (and Turkey).
90% of Ukrainians, including those in the east, want to stay Ukrainians. If they wanted to be Russians,
they could have easily immigrated there long ago (as the second-largest nationality in Russia is Ukrainian).
In many ways, it's like the old North and South or liberal and conservative views of
America. They have their own views of what America is and the will of its people. Perhaps it
would have been beneficial to allow the ideological break in America to occur. Similar to the
old American North, Russia is far more willing to see the country split than we are.
It's a difficult question where both sides have some merit. But Russia has shown with its breakaway
regions in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and now Crimea, they do not take care of them. Maybe it's a
complete disregard, maybe its corruption in the government, and maybe it's a poor economy that cannot
afford to finance the size of its territory. A problem America has with its own infrastructure across
the country.
@spriddler@Jane Cullen Wait a second are we living in the same World?
How did you deduced from a small
radical Maidan protest helped by US what all Ukranians want? Ukrainians have expressed their will
through elections, no not the traveling circus that put Poroshenko in charge the real elections before.
Amazing isn't it that a bunch of American ignoramuses proclaim they know what Ukrainians want. (shakes
it's head)
The Neocon aggression in Ukraine is absolutely unprecedented, and Norway is in no way equivalent
to Ukraine, sitting as it is next to the heart of Russia, and containing Russia's main port to the Atlantic.
But I'm sure that you'll be proud of your lobbying for war, those few minutes between the WEA alert
on your cell phone, and the end of all you know.
Russia has collapsed twice and almost 3 times in the last 100 years, and is ungovernable except
by ruthless central control since any other governing system leads to an immediate threat of the
internal disintegration of the country.
Therefore, the US should have realized it was forbidden from engaging with countries that have
suffered due to Russia and are terrified by it, because of Russia's secret feelings that it's falling
apart.
Furthermore, intervening in the Balkans against genocide was a terrible mistake because Serbians
share the same church or something with Russia, and it threatened Russia.
And, according to Cohen, Ukraine was the final straw in this disastrous US policy of trying to
pay attention in Europe. The Maidan protests against overwhelming corruption should be completely
discredited because it responded in kind when some protesters were killed, and... fascism.
The conflict in eastern Ukraine is being fought by hero hairdressers and taxi drivers. The efforts
by the Ukrainian government to respond are war crimes.
Merkel, the German leader, is responsible for Greece, and therefore is another misguided leader
who dangerously threatens Russia by refusing to push her "Kiev agrees to Minsk II" button that's
on her desk. The fact that the agreement has a "II" in its title because the first one a few months
ago was untenable within the first day is immaterial.
Russia is always allowed to disappoint, because Russia. Smart scholars like myself, Stephen Cohen,
know this is so, and know how to move on. By the way, I have no idea about Putin except that he's
somehow holding his country together, one day at a time, just doing what he has to do.
Man, that Putin, he's so unknowable and loving to his friends. My god, compare him to Obama who
doesn't even know how to circumvent term limit protections! I think he's one of the best, and all
my future imaginary historian friends agree with me. You'll see when you can listen to them too.
The core problem with this interview, and the many articles making similar points, is that they
start from an assumption that the perspectives and feelings of Russians matter more than those of
the people living in the nations that used to be in the Warsaw Pact but now are in NATO or would
like to be in NATO.
The people of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. have resisted Russian influence
for centuries. For most of that time, they have ruled themselves and associated with western Europe
or, in the case of Poland, tried to do so. These ties run deep; for example, their dominant churches
have been Roman Catholic; not Eastern Orthodox.
The same is true for the western half of Ukraine. It is culturally part of western Europe and
has been for a very long time.
Given centuries of conflict with Russia and their natural affinity with the nations of NATO, it
is not wrong for western European people to want to belong to NATO. Nor was it wrong for NATO to
expand to include these nations after the end of the Warsaw Pact.
Russia's hurt feelings here, for the most part, are grounded in the loss of its expanded sphere
of influence after WWII. There are two ways of viewing this: maybe Russia fears another invasion
from the West; or perhaps Russia is upset that it's former client states prefer to associate with
their historical allies and patrons. If it is the former, then the USA and NATO need to do more to
make it clear that they will not attack Russia. If it is the latter, however, then it is right for
the West to disregard Russia's hurt feelings.
Although there may be a good deal of truth in what Stephen Cohen and Patrick L Smith write regarding
the treatment of Russia by the West, and by the USA in particular, their argument largely fails because
it does not explain why Russia legitimately fears an invasion from the West. If, indeed, Russia does
have such a fear instead of just bemoaning the loss of influence it never legitimately had.
A voice of moderate reason! Rather than viewing this as either/or, I'd assume that all the claims
about Russia and United States are correct. Russia does feel a loss of influence, Russia does fear
a military threat, and Russia does dislike Ukraine's interest in affiliating with the West. United
States does want to expand influence, United States does want to remove corruption from Ukraine,
and United States does want a strategic location against both Russia and the Middle East. There's
also probably a corporate element too, where corporations want to open markets in Ukraine and find
the corruption too infringing on this ability to expand, so they lobby western governments to intervene.
There's also something revealing about Putin's past claim that "Ukraine is not a real country."
It's borders and its peoples have been re-drawn and forced to migrate dramatically over the last
100 years. So, it's easy to see how Russia feels claim over Ukraine, especially when one is raised
under the Soviet Union as a brotherhood. But, the fact is that Ukraine is now a country in its own
right.
To me, Russia and United States' biggest failings over Ukraine was not foreseeing (or for political
reasons, willing choose) potential conflict. Ukraine should have immediately, after banishing Yanukovych,
moved to model itself after Canada (who balances French and English backgrounds) and militarily &
diplomatically commit to neutrality like Switzerland.
I am the person with Russian background , who came to the uSA for good in spring of 1990. I am
american citizen, I have no Russian citizenship, as, when I immigrated it was required to denounce
Soviet citizenship. I am intelligent (two Ph.Ds.) and I am unbiased. So, the truth and, the very
obvious one, is that Clinton's policies and what happened further, brought to the world the much
heavier than before shape of cold war between two most powerful nuclear country of the world.
I like Putin, like his understanding of his duties, his role in world's history, and his code
of behavior. More important that the overwhelming majority of Russians like him also, as all polls
show. I can write a lot of how idiotically I have been treated here, in the USA. But i've been here
for 25 years, the treatment has been fully idiotic and very damageable for those, who were treating
me this way, and I do not have here enough space to describe even a little bit of this despicable
stupidity.
What I want, nevertheless, to emphasize, is that I completely can't understand how democrats could,
currently even think, not even advertise, that Mrs. Clinton, one of main architect of Clinton's time
international policies, if not the leading person of them, should become their nominee for 2016 presidential
run. This person is heavily responsible for the obvious return and the heavy escalation of the cold
war, not mentioning her numerous internal achievements. How is it possible AT ALL to present her
as the future nominee, ah?
@author0072002 My sentiments exactly. There are American officials and other well-connected
people who are obsessed with making Russia another client state in much the same way the Baltic states
are now: An outlet for American goods and a source of cheap labor, lax environmental laws and
other sorts of exploitation, and outposts for the expansion of American military power (via NATO).
Putin has always acted to American provocations in a calm, measured manner and I think it
drives the American powers-that-be insane. Hillary Clinton was a very hawkish secretary of state
and all indications are that she will act similarly if we are unfortunate enough to see her elected
president.
The Megathatcher has compared Putin to Hitler, and to Saddam. The woman is a dangerous fool.
She will push, hard, for war with Russia, if the world hasn't already burned by the time she's elected.
@Jane Cullen
@nyabingi Now, who was it who said "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? Who STILL wants to bomb
Iran? Who opposes diplomatic solutions. Republicans. It's really crazed to think voting for a Republican
President is the path to peace with ANYONE.
Neither mainstream party has offered an acceptable candidate. Maybe I could conceivably take some
of the tolerable positions from each of the candidates and create a Frankenstein Republocrat to vote
for, but our choices in 2016 make me want to write in Nader.
@author0072002 I'm sorry to hear that you've been treated badly in the USA. Even someone who
likes the way Putin governs shouldn't be treated badly. But my question for YOU is: why would you
vote for someone whose response to other countries not doing what they want is to bomb or invade
them?
Those are your ONLY choices on the Republican side. Don't confuse their admiration for "tough
guys" like Putin as any sort of support for Russia. And if you are still being treated badly, why
would you vote for a party that brags about being hostile to immigrants?
@RaisingMac
@Aranfell
@author0072002 He can't believe the Democrats would nominate Hilary Clinton. But so far as I
can tell, EVERY Republican who might be nominated is much more of a war-monger than Hilary, even
assuming that his claims about her are correct. That's my point. Does he really think that US policy
toward Russia would have been or will be friendlier with a Republican as President? If so, I'd sure
be interested in his reasoning.
@author0072002 I am sorry to hear about how you have been treated in the US. You've probably
been here long enough by now to realize that Democrats and Republicans really aren't all that different
on foreign policy (among other things). The main differences have to do with culture-war.
Your old USSR was a one-party state; our USSA is a one-and-half-party state. Sad, but that's how
it is.
Would that more people felt this way: "" People are diverse. I don't judge them harshly for their
beliefs.""
The elephant in the living room seems to be that we are hell-bent for regime change -- via
the usual method that fails time and time again -- economic sanctions, destroying the economy in
the belief that "the people" will force him out.
Didn't work in Iraq, didn't work with Iran, probably won't work in Russian if only because the
BRICS will not let it succeed. No one knows who's next. The poorly-thought-through demonization of
Putin is reminiscent of our character assassinations of Assad, Hussain, Karzai, Maliki, Kim Jong
II, etc. - all "bad men" who we discovered were not actually easy to replace. Too many fingers in
too many pies.
The Times has never gotten it right about Russia. Not once. I can still hear Thomas Friedman telling
us that Yeltsin giving trillions in state assets the oligarchs is good for capitalism. Those old
Stalin ladies on the street selling packs of Prima cigarettes for a ruble apiece to pay skyrocketing
electric bills should just deal with it. They would never, ever vote for someone who promised to
put a stop to the whole thing and take on the West.
@Philadelphia Steve I think the original quote -- which I cannot find -- was that the problem
was that Obama has a "stance" wrt Russia and Putin, but lacked a policy ... which at the time seemed
a very good way to describe various gesture-like reactions by Obama to Putin and escalating sanctions
on Putin's "inner circle"... very whack-a-mole ...
Possibly because Obama was cowardly avoiding having a stated policy (see other F.P. situations)
or because (my personal guess) serious lack of consensus among his various advisors and advising
agencies (see also Syria). It has seemed as if Nuland has prevailed simply by ad hoc actions taken
(See Cohen on the Obama/Putin deal struck on the eve of the ouster). Both Susan Rice and Samantha
Power are at the top of the best reasons not consider voting for Clinton ... and their silence (and
apparent recent low profile generally) on the Ukranian humanitarian crisis (and god knows the Syrian/Iraqi
humanitarian crisis.... etc.) is stunning as Cohen brought up. Obama also apparently has a stance
on R2P, but not a policy that might force his hand or limit his "flexibility" -- end whack-a-mole
-- for something with a goal or end-point, y'know coherent or decisive.
(see Seumas Milne's recent report on our remote control continuing wars).
@PGrajnert He quoted Kissinger in one instance, and you're assuming he's basing his "analysis
of history" on that? Quoting someone isn't the same as saying you agree with that person or their
actions 100%. Calm down man.
@jab670
@Jane Cullen
@battleaxe "Russia is likely encouraging a destabilized/breakaway territory..." Yes, as the US
of A encouraged the destabilization and overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, no?
"Russian military are operating in eastern Ukraine." Yes, as the US of A is operating overtly
and covertly in Ukraine, no?
Why is it with you folks who have to always make it a "Yes, but you..." argument.
The United States doesn't benefit from destabilization as Russia does. The reason? We don't share
a border with Ukraine. We actually need the opposite, which has benefited from the destabilization
Russia and separatists have caused in the east.
Look at political, historical, religious, linguistic, etc. maps of Ukraine and you'll see that
with Donetsk and Lugansk's regions' voices being diminished due to violence, and now the exclusion
of Crimea, the Ukrainian government is actually more stabile and more pro-western aligned.
Of course, there are many fractured between pro-western and pro-Ukrainian nationalist factions,
but the notion America would want destabilization is no represented by the facts. It IS troubling
though. It is America post-Civil War where the South's electoral power was greatly diminished. It
is undemocratic. It's a "chicken or the egg" situation until violence stops, which can only happen
with granting the east more autonomy, but the Ukrainian government cannot do that at gun point.
Sadly, the reference will be lost on most of the authoritarians who applaud the latest, suicidal
Cold War with Russia, because a Democratic State Dept is leading the charge.
As a Russian, I should say that Mr. Cohen's understanding of "cause - effect" dependency, in application
to present U.S.-RF tensions, is clear and logical.
Mr.Cohen tries to stay focused on the main confrontation line. Obviously, there are dozens and
dozens of issues directly or indirectly related.
Like "what is the present U.S. representative system and why is it called "democracy?"
In my view, we have a conflict between the U.S. plutocracy and the Russian national state.
However. Expanding the discussion to the level of institutions would be too much for this format.
So Mr. Cohen is trying to avoid such issues.
The same way the author doesn't mention the world outside Russia and U.S + 32 U.S.-aligned national
states.
I liked this aspect - staying focused.
And I will be waiting for Part Two.
I am truly intrigued how Mr. Cohen is going to assess president Putin.
In the past three days, three opposition figures have been murdered in Kiev, two journalists and
one ex-MP. Comparing the total lack of media coverage of these (and a whole wave of "suicides" of
opposition figures in the past months) to the front page headline coverage of the Nemtsov murder
in Moscow shows the complete double standard of the Western media. The NY Times isn't writing that
even if he didn't give the orders, Poreshenko is personally responsible for creating an "atmosphere"
in which journalists can be gunned down in the streets. It's much easier to ignore it, because it
doesn't fit the media narrative of a democratic, Western-striving Ukraine. It's like only Russia
is allowed to be bad in that part of the world. And as Cohen says, that's OUR problem, because the
corrupt, oligarch-run Kiev regime is propped up with US tax dollars and EU money in the name of democracy.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliament passed a law proclaiming the Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators in WWII
(who murdered hundreds of thousands of people) to be "freedom-fighters", as Kiev (and the US) continues
arming neo-Nazi battalions and sending them to kill Ukrainians. By turning a blind eye, the West
is helping foster and nurture, as well as funding these fascist tendencies in Europe, all in the
name of Western values. If that's what they lead to, those Western values aren't worth much.
@C_COOK
@Frank Knarf You are correct that our US-led system suck. But that does not take away the fact
that living under Muscovite rule sucks more. It'd be great for the EU to get our sh-t together and
create an alternative... But until that's the case, we have to chose sides. And Patrick and Stephen,
cowards who have never lived under the Muscovite boot, are simpleton scumbags for thinking that people
should be forced to.
So those few speaking up against more Neocon war are cowards, and simpleton scumbags.Sounds exactly
like the filthy slurs used against those few who stood up to Neocon war against Iraq.
The immorality of the Neocon warpigs who brought death and dismemberment to Iraq is the same now
as then, as is the immorality of their chickenhawk enablers.
There's a tremendous abuse of the facts by all media on Ukraine, including Russian, Ukrainian
and American media. Cohen offers a good perspective, but it's only a Russian perspective. But the
media is failing us because they keep turning to Russian scholars. Would Russia report on the United
States by talking to a Mexican scholar? It can tell part of the story, but you never hear Smith or
Cohen mention the historic divide in Ukraine between East and West.
I know I am probably a conspiracy theorist, but here goes.
When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics,
like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but
to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US.
At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural
resources and being in a subservient position.
Remember Marc Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
? I remember he had many dealing with the Russians. This allowed the US to diminish its dependence
on South Africa resources and probably contributed to South Africa's collapse. I suspect that this
could happen because Russian governmental leadership supported the Russian oligarchy and gave western
businessmen a small cadre of Russian businessmen to negotiate with. I suspect Yeltsen supplied these
relatively easy connections and they had the same deal with Putin. And now those Western businessmen
would like access to Russian oil. Especially now that the Middle East is going pear shaped thanks
to Bush the Junior.
The American reaction to that time period is best summed up by Jeffery Sachs book which has a
chapter on the American intervention in the Russian economy after his success in the Polish economy.
That chapter is unsatisfyingly short and goes something like, the Russian economy was way too complex
and I failed because it is impossible to understand.
I think he ran into American/Russian forces that were way more powerful than he, and that they
were rushing to the money and ran he and his team over.
I would be very interested in someone writing more about this time period in Salon. I suspect
that these writings would help people understand many of today's attitudes driving politics in the
the region, and specifically attitudes driving Putin.
I also remember vaguely a story about a Russian female banker working for one of the major US
banks who was in effect laundering money and how she was caught. I bet she was getting money out
for the oligarchs. Her story would also be interesting.
""The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and
the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included
Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered
a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though
he had been at the KGB.""
I was utterly shocked by the PBS/Frontline report stating baldly that "the Kremlin" -- the FSB
from Wiki:
"" The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk
on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian
city of Ryazan on September 22.[1]
The next day then-Prime
Minister of RussiaVladimir
Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of
Grozny, which marked the beginning
of the Second Chechen War.[2]
A few hours later, three FSB
agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to
be a training exercise. These events led to allegations that the bombings were a "false
flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities
in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to power.[4]
The Russian investigation concluded on the other hand:
"" The official Russian investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that
all the bombings were organized and led by
Achemez Gochiyaev, who
remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords
Ibn Al-Khattab and
Abu Omar al-Saif, who
have been killed. Five other suspects have been killed and six have been convicted by Russian courts
on terrorism-related charges.
It's pretty shocking to me -- myself having mixed feelings about Chechnya until Beslan (2004)
and as I recall at that time there was no suggestion that the apartment bombing and Chechen suppression
had been a "false flag" to put Putin into power -- rather that he had shown impressive leadership.
... Wikipedia has even more conspiracies within conspiracies that make 09/11 Truther Movement's main
tenets appear boy-scout simple
Am I remembering wrong? As far as I can tell, there was a drastic sea change -- likely spurred
by the death/assassination of
Alexander Litvinenko, but involving allegations from that camp apparently dating back to 1998.
{wiki Litinenko: "In 2007,
Sergey Dorenko provided
The Associated Press
and The Wall Street
Journal with a complete copy of an interview he conducted in April 1998 for
ORT, a television
station, with Litvinenko and his fellow employees."" }
I am at a loss to understand that "honeymoon" period Cohen speaks of in light of what I what I
would guess was freely shared intelliegence by Putin's rivals (including the late Mr. Nemtsov ---
widely interview in the Frontline prior to his death -- who as I recall lost-out-to Putin -- also
back in 1998). It feels like the Russian people don't buy into this false flag conspiracy somehow
only gained currency 5-6 years after the event, despite claimed "evidence" almost immediately.
Putin is getting the Saddam Hussain treatment in which the past cooperation and applause is erased
in favor of a damning portrait of a ruthless murderer to rival the Borgias, etc. -- or as Cohen references
Ivan the Terrible. As I felt wrt to the Truther movement, It's really "something" to accuse a sitting
administration of the deliberate murder of hundreds or thousands of citizens for political gain ...
I'm fascinated by the repetition of "Putin's alleged crimes" -- seems so reckless.
Oh, and the martyred Litvinenko also claimed Beslan was another false flag ... making him sound
like Thierry Meyssan or something ... Unified theory of everything
wiki Beslan
"Several hostage-takers, including one of the leaders,
Vladimir Khodov had been
previously involved in terrorist activities, but released from government custody prior to the attack
despite their high profiles. According to a publication in Novaya Gazeta, "the
so-called Beslan terrorists were agents of our own special forces – UBOP [Center for Countering Extremism]
and FSB."[236]According to FSB defector
Alexander Litvinenko,
the Russian secret services must have been aware of the plot beforehand, and therefore they themselves
must have organised the attack as a
false flag operation.
He said that the previously arrested terrorists only would have been freed if they were
of use to the FSB, and that even in the case that they were freed without being turned into FSB assets,
they would be under a strict surveillance regime that would not have allowed them to carry out the
Beslan attack unnoticed"
In for a penny, in for a pound. Looking forward to next week -- Thank you Patrick ...
The BBC has been ramping up the alarm for the last few days wrt to the imminent entire breakdown
of that oh-so-imperfect cease fire which has already exceeded everyone's dire predictions at its
inception.
If you've read Cohen before, there won't be any surprises here. He obviously has a valid point in
reference to the US overplaying it's hand in the Ukraine and generally with the expansion of NATO. It
was clumsy and shortsighted thinking to believe a former (now-semi) superpower wouldn't respond to our
attempt at militarizing its borders.
On the flip side, the author complains about Cohen being branded 'Putin's apologist', but Cohen rarely
delves into Putin's failures as a leader. And Cohen's bugle call that were on the edge of a 'more dangerous
Cold War' is pure talking-head hyperbole. The world has changed a bit since the last Cold War and most
of that change has diminished Russia's ability to project power. Unfortunately, with Putin in charge
for the foreseeable future, we are left with tried and true 'containment' as our best policy going forward.
Pushing beyond containment just plays into Putin's hands and makes him appear a 'strong' leader at home
(and to Fox News).
@Hifisnock Have you factored TPP in your calculations? Between TPP and TIPP, we're doing our
damnedest to lock Russia in and out ... and we're actively courting China and India -- Pretty chilly
obviously this article thinks both are Tony Tiger grrrreaaaat ... but there's no subtlety
""First, Russian aggression is an unpleasant balance of power problem that is unlikely to go away
any time soon. TTIP isn't a panacea, but it would strengthen the West's balance of power position.
It would help European economies grow, provide more opportunities for European companies to turn
from Russia to the United States and enhance the prospects for further trans-Atlantic economic policy
coordination. The United States and its European allies need to prepare for more rounds of economic
sanctions against Russia in the near term, and they have to build a stronger, more united economic
front for the long haul.
Second, turning to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our
time. The TPP isn't a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce
the United States' position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific
countries that worry about China's rise – that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new,
strong multilateral accord in a region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would
be stability-enhancing developments.""
@susan sunflower
@Hifisnock Yes, TPP and TTIP are more or less transparent schemes to lock down Europe and East
Asia before they drift into the Russo-Chinese orbit. That's why they both exclude Russia and China.
Quote: "If basic rule of law and tolerance for dissent are not observed, what chance does
Ukrainian democracy have? Therefore, it is in Poroshenko and Ukraine's interest to see that the
fighting in the east stops for good, even if it means the country de facto loses control of that
territory, at least temporarily. If such a loss proves to be part of the price Ukraine pays for a
functioning democracy, it will be well worth it. It is also in the interest of Poroshenko and his
supporters to not misdiagnose political violence and radicalism as a purely foreign import or as
something that hurts the country only to the extent that it discredits the current government."
Ukraine has had a string of opposition figures die in 2015. Between
late
January and early March, seven former officials associated with deposed President Viktor
Yanukovych died in apparent suicides,
but many suspect they were murdered. Then this week, Oles Buzina, a pro-Russian journalist, Oleh
Kalashnikov, a former member of parliament from Yanukovych's political party, and
Sergey Sukhobok were
shot and killed. On Friday, Kiev political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko wrote on his
Facebook
page that he had received a letter from a group called the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)
claiming responsibility for the murder of Buzina and Kalashnikov and for three of the seven
"suicides." UPA, incidentally, was the name of the Ukrainian partisan paramilitary force that
fought Soviet and German armies in the 1940s, suggesting Ukrainian nationalists were taking
credit.
... ... ...
...Of course we do not know if the note Fesenko received is genuine, or who committed these murders,
or how many were actually murders, as opposed to suicides. We do know, though, that Ukraine has a
serious problem with radical politics and politically motivated violence and that these problems
are greatly exacerbated by the war in the east.
Unable to raise an army sufficient to fight the Russian-backed
separatist movement, the government has relied on nationalist paramilitary groups to do a good part
of the fighting. While this strategy may be a necessity, it does raise questions about the government's
ability to control these groups or even to defend itself from them, should it need to. Last fall,
right-wing protesters
clashed
with police outside the parliament building, and this spring, the Dnipro-1 paramilitary group
briefly took
a state-owned oil company as part of dispute between the government and the oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.
The war has also sparked
proliferation of weapons in Ukraine, with gun violence on the rise across the country.
Beyond
the dangers posed by paramilitary groups and freely available arms, the war has seriously
aggravated
divisions within Ukrainian society between those who feel culturally or linguistically closer
to Russia and those who are more oriented toward western Europe. As these recent killings would seem
to show, these divisions can be deadly even outside of areas where the war is being fought.
If
basic rule of law and tolerance for dissent are not observed, what chance does Ukrainian democracy
have? Therefore, it is in Poroshenko and Ukraine's interest to see that the fighting in the east
stops for good, even if it means the country de facto loses control of that territory, at least temporarily.
If such a loss proves to be part of the price Ukraine pays for a functioning democracy, it will be
well worth it. It is also in the interest of Poroshenko and his supporters to not misdiagnose political
violence and radicalism as a purely foreign import or as something that hurts the country only to
the extent that it discredits the current government. As Ukrainian sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko
put
it,
"In this twisted logic the far right are criticized first of all for putting their partisan
interests above Ukraine's national interests. In other words, they are criticized not for being anti-democratic,
reactionary, xenophobic and for propagating discriminatory ideas, but for not being nationalist enough."
... ... ...
Raymond Sontag is an adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for The National Interest
As for question "What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?" the answer is chick
hawks ("liberal interventionalists" which are indistinguishable from neocons) from current
administration and military industrial complex.
"Could a U.S. response to Russia's action in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russia
War?" This jolting question is raised by Graham Allison and Dimitri Simes in the cover article of
The National Interest.
The answer the authors give, in "Countdown to War: The Coming U.S.
Russia Conflict," is that the odds are shortening on a military collision between the world's largest
nuclear powers. The cockpit of the conflict, should it come, will be Ukraine.
What makes the article timely is the report that Canada will be sending 200 soldiers to western
Ukraine to join 800 Americans and 75 Brits on a yearlong assignment to train the Ukrainian army.
And train that army to fight whom? Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine whom Vladimir Putin has said
will not be crushed, even if it requires Russian intervention. Says Putin, "We won't let it happen."
What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?
On our side there is President Obama who "enjoys attempting to humiliate Putin" and "repeatedly
includes Russia in his list of current scourges alongside the Islamic State and Ebola." Then there
is what TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn calls the "truculent disposition" that has become the
"main driver of Republican foreign policy." A "triumphalist camp," redolent of the "cakewalk war"
crowd of Bush II, is ascendant and pushing us toward confrontation.
This American mindset has its mirror image in Moscow.
"Putin is not the hardest of the hard-liners in Russia," write the authors. "Russia's establishment
falls into … a pragmatic camp, which is currently dominant thanks principally to Putin's support,
and a hard-line camp" the one Putin adviser calls "the hotheads."
The hotheads believe the way to respond to U.S. encroachments is to invoke the doctrine of Yuri
Andropov, "challenge the main enemy," and brandish nuclear weapons to terrify Europe and split NATO.
Russian public opinion is said to be moving toward the hotheads.
Russian bombers have been intruding into NATO air space. Putin says he was ready to put nuclear
forces on alert in the Crimea. Russia's ambassador has warned Copenhagen that if its ships join a
NATO missile defense force, Denmark could be targeted with nukes.
In coming war games, Russia will move Iskander missiles into the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad
on Poland's northern border. "Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable
of turning the United States into radioactive ash," brays the director of the television network
Rossiya Segodnya.
As of now, the "pragmatists" represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov retain the upper hand.
They believe Russia can still do business with the United States and Europe. "The 'hotheads' take
the opposite view," the authors write, "they argue that NATO is determined to overthrow Putin, force
Russia to its knees, and perhaps even dismember the country."
In Ukraine, Putin has drawn two red lines. He will not permit Ukraine to join NATO. He will not
allow the rebels to be crushed.
Russia hard-liners are confident that should it come to war in Ukraine, Russia would have what
Cold War strategists called "escalation dominance." This is what JFK had in the Cuban missile crisis-conventional
and nuclear superiority on sea and land, and in the air around Cuba.
With Ukraine easily accessible to Russian forces by road and rail, sea and air, and Russia's military
just over the border while U.S. military might is a continent away, the hard-liners believe Russia
would prevail in a war and America would face a choice-accept defeat in Ukraine or escalate to tactical
atomic weapons.
The Russians are talking of resorting to such weapons first.
The decisive date for Putin to determine which way Russia will go would appear to be this summer.
The authors write:
Putin will attempt to exploit the expiration of EU sanctions, which are scheduled to expire
in July. If that fails, however, and the European Union joins the United States in imposing additional
economic sanctions such as excluding Moscow from the SWIFT financial clearing system, Putin would
be tempted to respond, not by retreating, but by ending all cooperation with the West, and mobilizing
his people against a new and 'apocalyptic' threat to 'Mother Russia.'
As a leading Russian politician told us, 'We stood all alone against Napoleon and against Hitler.'
As of now, the Minsk II cease-fire of February seems to be holding. The Ukrainian army and pro-Russian
rebels have both moved their heavy weapons back from the truce lines, though there have been clashes
and casualties.
But as Ukraine's crisis is unresolved, these questions remain: Will the U.S. train the Ukrainian
army and then greenlight an offensive to retake the rebel-held provinces? Would Russia intervene
and rout that army? Would the Americans sit by if their Ukrainian trainees were defeated and more
Ukrainian land was lost?
Or would we start up the escalator to a war with Russia that few Europeans, but some Americans
and Russians, might welcome today?
Fearing that Russia could retaliate against Ukraine following the entry into force of the Deep
and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) later this year, the European Commission is now pushing
Ukraine to agree to a trilateral trade format, including Russia.
On Wednesday (15 April), a Ukrainian parliamentarian reacted angrily to messagess from EU officials,
who said that Ukraine should seek to accommodate its EU free trade agreement with an older arrangement
his country had with Russia.
Ironically, it was Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich who appealed for such an approach two
years ago, which was flatly rejected by Brussels…
…Neighbourhood Commissioner Johannes Hahn backed the main conclusions of the paper in the following
terms:
"The study rightly recognises that integration [for Ukraine] with Russia and EU are not in principle
mutually exclusive. The study goes on to suggest that at least partial restoration of links with
Russia, and the so-called Eurasian Economic Union will be important to Ukraine's economic recovery,
and that Ukraine should diversify its export markets and develop trade relations in many directions."
The Commissioner said that the EU wasn't looking for an exclusive economic relationship with Ukraine.
"This is important to be stressed. There is nothing in our new agreement that would stop Ukraine
from continuing to export products to Russia. Approximation with EU standards will not prevent Ukraine
from trading with Russia," he went on. In his terms, the Association Agreement left Ukraine free
to determine its own trade policy.
"Ukraine already has preferential trade relations with the members of the Eurasian economic
union within the framework of the Community of Independent States free trade area. These are perfectly
compatible with the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, and there is no reason why they should
not be maintained. So the EU-Ukraine bilateral DCFTA does not impose a false choice on Kyiv. Those
who say so are wrong or may have their own agenda," Hahn said…. ####
More at the link.
So Brussels admits failure and that it was wrong? No. Brussels has got the message from Germany
and others that they will not take over Russia's former subsidy of the Ukraine.
So there you have it – Brussels wants this unfortunate misunderstanding brushed under the
table with the backing of EU states that still want to continue sanctions against Russia. Silence
from the US.
Please Note: The following is a note from The National Interest's Editor, Jacob Heilbrunn.
Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon professor of government and
Director of the Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School and a member of the National Interest's
Advisory Council, has enjoyed a long and distinguished career both in academia and government. His
accomplishments include his landmark book
Essence of Decision, a study of the Cuban missile crisis as well as serving as assistant secretary
of defense for policy and plans in the Clinton administration. His approach to realism in foreign
policy -- a habit of thought that he calls an "endangered species" -- is grounded in a practical and hardheaded
understanding of international affairs. As he notes in this interview, it was Henry Kissinger who
profoundly influenced his thinking. Other Harvard professors who helped shape his thinking include
Samuel Huntington and Ernest May, both of whom were keen students of history and international relations.
In his numerous essays and books, Allison focuses on statesmanship -- averting and ending crises.
His most recent book, together with Robert D. Blackwill, consists of extended interviews with
Lee Kuan Yew, the former leader of Singapore who, as Kissinger puts it in a foreword, is "not only
one of the seminal leaders of our period, but also a thinker recognized for his strategic acumen."
Currently, Allison is completing a book on what he calls
the
Thucydides Trap -- the moment when an established power is challenged by a rising one, as, for example, Wilhelmine Germany sought to surpass the British empire with calamitous results both for itself and
the rest of Europe. Indeed, with a number of contributions to the National Interest web site, Allison
has examined the legacy of World War I for contemporary events, asking whether the crisis in Ukraine
might, as the Balkans once did, presage a larger and even more sanguinary conflict that could menace
the very foundations of the Western world that has existed since the end of World War II. It's an
unsettling thought. But then again, Allison is a provocative thinker who is rarely satisfied with
what passes for conventional wisdom in Washington, DC or elsewhere.
In the lively and engaging interview above, he discusses his understanding of how the past may
shape the present, the deep impression left upon him by Kissinger, and what lessons World War I and
the Cuban missile crisis may offer. Perhaps most provocatively, he dismisses the notion that President
Obama has failed in foreign policy, withholding great praise for Obama but also noting that he disagrees
with the prescriptions offered by leading neoconservatives. Nuanced, cogent, meditative -- these are
all adjectives that might be appropriately applied to Allison, who knows that simple truculence cannot
substitute for discerning diplomacy when conducting foreign affairs.
Despite the Obama administration's narrative of a Russia that is not a player in global affairs
-- Moscow
matters. Yet, major challenges remain if the Ukraine crisis remains unresolved.
"If Ukraine is to have a chance to succeed as a modern nation, it will require a degree of acceptance
and cooperation from Russia as well as its Western neighbors."
In the previous issue of The National Interest,
John Mueller argued
that the threats from nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war are exagger
As unpleasant and as frightening as it may be, the United States must come to grips with the prospect
of facing a terrorist strike using nuclear materials--a "nuclear 9/11"--within the coming decade.
Forging a U.S.-Russian alliance to prevent nuclear terrorism should be America's top priority
in the post-September 11 world; here is a blueprint for one.
Quote: "However, when at the beginning of the 21st century the new economic giants China and India,
with their almost inexhaustible hunger for energy, started organizing their own supply, the U.S.-dominated
oil regime collapsed. The oil markets henceforth followed the pricing laws for exhaustible
goods; oil prices therefore rose drastically and have subsequently been guided by market mechanisms."
With last fall's U.S. Congressional elections, the Barack Obama 'era' has entered its
final phase. Shortly before coming to power, the new U.S. president had sparked a massive
uproar when he proclaimed a new 'Pacific century.' Since then, roughly two years before the end of
his term in office, we can see more clearly. First and foremost, the proclamation of an allegedly
new orientation towards the Pacific served the purpose to put Europe, and particularly Germany, under
pressure so that they fill the allegedly emerging security gap. In reality, however, it is not the
Pacific that forms the epicenter of U.S. geostrategic interests, neither – despite the Crimea crisis
– is it the 'old (European) world,' but it is still the Middle East. For the latter's fate
defines whether American hegemony stands or falls.
America's interest in this region is as old as the discovery of enormous Mideast oil reserves
– albeit not at the moment, as is generally but falsely suggested, because of her own domestic oil
supply. Thanks to its immense domestic energy resources, historically the U.S. has since the dawn
of the last century been independent from importing oil. And with the current widespread use of fracking
technology, it is once again about to become self-sufficient. As the new hegemonic power in the wake
of the Second World War, the U.S. quickly realized that it could make rivaling world powers dependent
on it by way of controlling the Middle East with its tremendous reserves of oil – the global economy's
fuel. Originally, the U.S., together with Saudi Arabia – its main ally in the region – established
a global oil supply regime that could provide the West, China, and all BRICS countries with energy
security. In this regime, Saudi Arabia arranged for constant overproduction. Thanks to this system
that was politically controlled by the U.S., both its Western allies and its rivals enjoyed unimpeded
oil supply at low prices – and all this despite great political turbulence raging during the entire
second half of the last century. At the same time, the U.S. dollar, pegged to the oil price, acted
as the global reserve currency.
However, when at the beginning of the 21st century the new economic giants China and India,
with their almost inexhaustible hunger for energy, started organizing their own supply, the U.S.-dominated
oil regime collapsed. The oil markets henceforth followed the pricing laws for exhaustible
goods; oil prices therefore rose drastically and have subsequently been guided by market mechanisms.
The irony of history: Albeit the U.S. has lost the ability to steer the oil price – one
of its central political leverages –, it has in another way been able to drastically strengthen its
hegemony via the new prices set by the global market. For the high oil prices have multiplied
the percentage share of oil trade within global trade, which caused massively higher demand for dollars
and U.S. government bonds. As a result, for the foreseeable future the U.S. dollar will thereby remain
the indisputable reserve currency.
It is precisely here that we can identify the actual basis for U.S. dominance: By way
of an unlimited creation of the dollar as the globe's reserve currency, the U.S. constitutes the
only economy in the world that can finance several mega-projects at once – such as the bailing-out
of banks and gigantic defense spending – through public debt and the issuing of government bonds.
After the 2008 crash, no other national economy could have managed the banking crisis on its own
without suffering any severe consequences. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), whose
financial basis is essentially formed by the U.S Treasury's government bonds, provided the U.S. with
the required capital. The FDIC is an institution specifically created by the U.S. Congress to promote
"stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system." Thereby, in fact, in 2009 the
United States successfully nationalized all ailing banks in order to dispose its debt, and subsequently
privatized them again. Meanwhile, in the European Union the banking crisis turned into a sovereign
debt crisis.
Nonetheless, the global economic figures for the U.S. are anything but rosy: Its trade balance
has witnessed deficits uninterruptedly since 1987, which until 2013 had led to an accumulated deficit
of $9,627 billion. This is caused by the fact that the U.S. economy in parts, for a long time now,
is no longer competitive vis-à-vis its main competitors – the EU, China, and Japan. Moreover, the
fiscal deficit has chronically been on the rise, as result of from drastically growing defense spending.
For decades, various U.S. administrations have 'solved' both problems – the trade deficit
and concomitantly the constantly rising fiscal deficit – by allocating government bonds and engaging
in money creation.
Technically, both objectives are being realized as follows: In order to conduct
current government expenditures, the U.S. Treasury swaps government bonds with the FED in exchange
for the latter's freshly printed dollars – in 2013 alone, $1,100 billion were thus brought into circulation.
The FED in turn places those government bonds on the world market and thereby continuously channels
new capital into the U.S. economy, which provides for the balancing of the trade deficit. The price
for this policy of money creation is the gigantic U.S. public debt, which climbed from $6,731 billion
in 2003 to $17,556 billion in 2013. In the same time period, the public spending ratio rose from
60% to 108% (in comparison that of the EU 'only' rose from 60% to 87%).
No surprise then that such an economy suffering from trade as well as budgetary balance deficits
has transformed into a consumptive surplus economy – amassing the largest national debt of all time.
Between 2001 and 2013 only, these consumption surpluses accounted for a total of $11,550 billion.
To put it plainly, per year an average $962.5 billion – capital corresponding with real economic
performance – flowed from the rest of the world to the United States, while the latter confined itself
to printing new money and bringing it into circulation.
To make it even more clear: In 2012, the $1,250 billion that flowed into the U.S. made up 7.9%
of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). This additional capital stock flowing into the economy
also explains why the saving rate in the U.S. had drastically sunk during that period. Americans
consumed nearly the totality of the goods and services they produced, while the rest of the world
paid for investments allowing the U.S. economy to keep going.
Essentially, the U.S. has become to resemble Arab rentier states. Instead of oil, the
U.S. uses the dollar – the international reserve currency – as leverage for appropriating its global
purchasing power. While Saudi Arabia at least exports oil in exchange for other countries'
goods and services, the U.S. merely pumps paper into the global cash cycle.
The dollar as leverage
Here is the reason why: The significantly largest part of world trade is still being processed
in dollars. This is why international demand for dollars is enormous, and is rising in proportion
to world trade. Therefore, with the assistance of FED, the U.S. can continuously inject dollars into
circulation, thereby financing its trade balance and budgetary deficits (and ultimately its constantly
growing government debt). Hence, Nobel economics laureate Roger B. Myerson does not bother too much
about U.S. debt: "U.S. debts are in dollars and the U.S. can print dollars. […] We may have inflation.
But we are sure we can pay back the debt."
Yet, contrary to Myerson's contention, in reality the U.S. will never pay back its debt, which
has already been clear in the 1970s to U.S. economist Michael Hudson:
"To the extent that these Treasury
IOUs are being built into the world's monetary base they will not have to be repaid, but are to be
rolled over indefinitely. This feature is the essence of America's free financial ride, a tax imposed
at the entire globe's expense."
In truth, the U.S. can simply absorb the excess purchasing power that is created all over
the world. All of this, however, only works as long as oil is being traded in dollars and the status
of the U.S. currency is not being jeopardized by other potential reserve currencies, such as the
euro or China's renminbi. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, almost
without anyone noticing, the gold standard got replaced by oil henceforth backing the dollar: oil
was increasingly in demand by all countries – except for oil exporters; it is a homogeneous and scarce
commodity with rising prices. As such, oil trade as a proportion of world trade continuously rose
from 1.7% in 1970 to 6% in 2001, and to 12% in 2011 – resulting in a massively rising demand for
dollars. Moreover, the 'oil standard' freed the U.S. from all shackles of the Bretton Woods agreement;
it could henceforth accumulate new debt even more uninhibitedly than before.
The military as instrument
Yet, ensuring that the global oil trade will be carried out in dollars for decades to
come requires a Middle East controlled by the U.S. as complete as possible. This can be
done through regime changes wherever necessary in order to nip possible anti-dollar alliances in
the bud. In this vein, the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was from the
very start targeted towards such a direction, with its willingness to create a 'Greater Middle East'
that ought to be subordinated to the U.S. to the greatest possible extent. In PNAC documents there
is no mention of creating conditions for peace but instead for wars, for expanding military bases
all around the world, for military superiority on land, in water and in the air, for nuclear defense
shields in the earth's atmosphere, and above all for further increases in defense spending.
Over the last decade, the U.S. with its annual defense budget of $500 billion to $800
billion has spent as much on armaments as the rest of the world combined. Any other national
economy would have collapsed long ago under such tremendous unproductive spending. Indeed, the arms
race during the Cold War did lead to the demise of the Soviet Union. In contrast, after the end of
the bloc confrontation U.S. arms spending rose exponentially from $150 billion in 1990 to the astronomic
sum of $739 billion in 2011. The share of military expenditure as a proportion of GDP is currently
4% in the U.S., more than twice that of other Western industrialized nations. The opposition, otherwise
loudly opposing administration policies of increasing other budget items, refrains from criticizing
military spending as a matter of principle, the exception being when an increase in military spending
is deemed too low. Nor is this massive military spending subject to any substantial debate in the
media or in society at large. But how can these enormous arms expenditures be explained and how are
they justified to the people? Ultimately, this is done by the fact that the U.S. also covers its
military spending by government debt and printing money. Instead, financing the costs of war via
direct taxes would mobilize people against any war. Both World Wars were financed by public debt,
not only by European but also all U.S. administrations. Through the continuity of wars, especially
since the First World War, the U.S. public debt has continued to grow.
The de facto monopoly over world money explains how a national economy like that of
the U.S., which in many areas is simply not competitive and shows chronic trade balance deficits,
can finance not only such mega-projects as the military-industrial complex and various quite expensive
wars, but also has a relatively stable financial sector and a currency that attracts magnet-like
surplus capital from all over the world.
A world without order and chaos as opportunity – for the U.S.
To maintain its hegemony, the U.S. must by all means prevent the emergence of rival powers
and impede possible current as well as future threats that could emanate from oil states.
The ideal condition for enforcing its own goals at a low cost would be the fragmentation of antagonistic
power centers through ethnic and religious strife, civil wars, chaos and deep-seated mistrust in
the Middle East – always following the well-known premise of 'divide and rule.' In this way,
for decades to come no other power would be able to even consider trading oil in a currency other
than dollars. In addition, as all the opponents need petrodollars to purchase weapons, the
oil wells gush merrily on – as they currently do in Iraq despite daily acts of terror and chaos paralyzing
the country.
In fact, we are currently experiencing tremendous changes towards such a chaotic state
of affairs. Meanwhile, there have been regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In
all these countries, discord and distrust, tribal conflicts, territorial separations among ethnic
lines and mutual terror have been raging – particularly from Sunnis against Shi'ites. However, the
regime change project has not ended here. Now, Syria and Iran have been put in crosshairs: U.S. neo-cons
have spared no efforts to torpedo the nuclear negotiations with Iran. And Al-Qaeda – officially the
main reason for the U.S. 'war on terror' – has in the meanwhile attained unprecedented strength.
This prowess provides, in turn, the best basis of legitimacy for the U.S. military-industrial complex.
The old military-industrial complex
This way all the strands of 'dollar imperialism' come together: oil, dollars, and the
military. The military-industrial complex is the main beneficiary of the 'new American century'
of New Wars. Especially in the Middle East both a nuclear and a conventional arms race is taking
place, which is increasingly putting the arms race of the 1970s that had led to three Gulf Wars in
the shade. While the recycling of petrodollars for weapons has resulted in a dangerous vicious circle
which could at any time trigger a conflagration across the whole region, the U.S. defense sector
can remain confident: All U.S. administrations, regardless of their political persuasion, will continue
with impunity the policy of public debt and thus keep on financing the military budget. Thanks to
the rising demand for dollars and the FED's continued money printing (also under the new Board of
Governors Chair, Janet Yellen), the U.S. banking system has such extensive money reserves that the
politically dangerous U.S. military industry can be easily financed.
However, 'dollar imperialism' is fundamentally a highly unstable construction, producing
absurdities difficult to imagine.
On the one hand, it keeps alive a gigantic apparatus of
violence in the U.S. – at the expense of (and ultimately financed by) the whole of humanity.
On the
other, this construction is based on chaos, violence, and civil wars, particularly in the oil-rich
regions that may therefore collapse at any time, plunging the world into serious crises.
In short,
what could be more absurd than the fact that money belonging to all of us helps finance an industrial
sector whose ultimate survival depends on there never being peace on the planet? Even the NSA scandal
– revealed thanks to Edward Snowden – appears in a new, very particular light when seen against the
background of the prevailing dollar imperialism. For, of course, this highly unstable construction
generates a seemingly limitless greed for the widest possible control of all communication channels,
including spying on the heads of all foreign administrations, even those of friendly states.
Despite worldwide outrage, in his January 2014 speech, Barack Obama emphasized that "[o]ur intelligence
agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments [...] around the
world."
The massive U.S. security apparatus is being legitimized – today as in the past – exclusively
on the grounds of national interests. When the NSA was founded in 1952, there was no talk
of Al-Qaeda and '9/11,' rather of the benefits and interests of a then aspiring hegemonic power.
Today, the NSA is above all concerned with recognizing in due time all the steps and movements in
the world that could endanger the current status of the U.S. currency, and nipping them in the bud
by any means necessary. It thus functions in the interest of the influential alliance between the
military-industrial complex and the U.S. financial sector, which is dependent on such knowledge for
its own survival.
On the other hand, it has become clear that the NSA poses the biggest threat to democracy
in the U.S. and in the West as a whole – and in a way in which President Dwight Eisenhower
could not even imagine when he warned about the military-industrial complex in his farewell address
on January 17, 1961: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry
is new in the American experience. […] In the councils of government, we must guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must
never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
Roughly 50 years after Eisenhower's warning, the U.S. has taken a major step 'forward.' This powerful
complex has been struggling for its continued existence since the end of the bloc confrontation and
has done everything possible to permanently consolidate American hegemony. It is indeed not the case,
as was eagerly anticipated, that the world has become safer and more peaceful since 1989. On the
contrary, it has become more insecure and warlike – as was the case at the dawn of the last century.
This makes it even more urgent that the international community finally – and still perhaps just
in time – defends itself against this highly dangerous development.
The alternative: The global energy transition and the diversification of reserve currencies
The question of democratizing the global economy by abolishing the U.S. monopoly over
world money must definitely be placed on the global political agenda. In the long term,
this goal can be most effectively attained by a global energy revolution – away from fossils and
towards extensively expanding renewable energies. In the short term, a range of reserve currencies
can and ought to be established, which would finally account for the real economic balance of forces.
One such alternative would also serve the long-term interests of American citizens and
would contribute to the U.S. finally offloading the parasitic and ultimately unproductive parts of
its economy – namely, the alliance between finance and the military. On the other hand,
the example of Barack Obama, who had to move away from nearly all his positive reform initiatives,
shows that America on her own and using her own abilities is barely capable of pushing back this
all-powerful alliance including the political forces sustaining it.
This leads to Europe and Asia assuming responsibility: Only a new reserve currency – pushed
forward by the EU and China – can help the U.S. leave its previous path of increasing prosperity
through imperialist methods, to the benefit of its own immeasurable productive potentials.
The BRICS countries' establishment in Brazil in July 2014 of an international development bank and
a monetary fund could evolve into a serious competitor to the Bretton Woods system. You could imagine
the dollar being no longer the only world currency, and necessarily losing its stability in a lively
international competition involving the euro and renminbi. International excess capital would then
be withdrawn, to a considerable extent, from the U.S. and invested in the euro or renminbi zone.
The previous U.S. policy of public debt by issuing government bonds would stall, and the bipartisan
taboo on tackling military spending would lose its validity. In order to reduce chronic budget deficits,
U.S. administrations would then have no other choice but to drastically cut the disproportionately
high military budget.
How would such a new situation impact American hegemony? Inside the U.S. there
would – finally – emerge a fierce debate over the sense and non-sense of military spending as well
as its global military capacities (including over 800 bases) – with the prospect of the U.S. demilitarizing
to a level corresponding to its actual economic weight. As such, the U.S. would no longer be the
'only remaining superpower,' but merely one among several world powers. Wholly new global power structures
and balances of power would then become conceivable: Asia but also the Middle East, South America,
Africa, and even Europe would have real opportunities to come together in cooperative and common-security
regional architectures. At the same time, nationalistic and racist resentments and conflicts would
strongly lose traction. Perhaps international cooperation would also finally shrink the financial
sector to a reasonable level – in so doing also significantly increasing the possibility of an equitable
distribution of income.
In short, we would finally have the prospect of a world with more justice and less financial speculation
– a more democratic and peaceful world. Yet, the losers of such a scenario would be the military-industrial
complex, the financial sector and its beneficiaries, and above all the neoconservatives. This is
why we must expect fierce resistance. However, in the interest of a more just and peaceful world,
this fight is nothing less than inevitable.
RPI Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed on RT. Transcript below; video
here.
Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics,
seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more
arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.
RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is
generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?
Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined
to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is
failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict
in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding
Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own
people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp.
The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq;
they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.
RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable
proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?
DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except
for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are
true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the
war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global
nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not
provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this
week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it
only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?
RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?
DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with
Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders
of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came
back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons
- whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide
lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military
industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.
RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another
round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?
DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland
said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of
activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was
one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there. Related
Yves here. Andrew Bacevich excoriates policy intellectuals as "blight on the republic". His case
study focuses on the military/surveillance complex but he notes in passing that the first policy
intellectuals were in the economic realm. And we are plagued with plenty of malpractice there too.
by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations emeritus
at Boston University's Pardee School of Global Studies. He is writing a military history of
America's War for the Greater Middle East. His most recent book is
Breach
of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country. Originally published at
TomDispatch
Policy intellectuals - eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office
- are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where
their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability
to perceive reality. A benign appearance - well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating
in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch - belies a malign impact.
They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.
It all began innocently enough. Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great
Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join
the ranks of his New Deal. An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR
believed. Whether the contributions of this "Brains
Trust" made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash)
remains a subject for debate even today. At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph
Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington's bourbon-and-cigars social
scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet.
Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought
to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on "national security."
This eminently elastic concept - more properly, "national insecurity" - encompassed just about anything
related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design,
decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance
to the nation's survival. National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world's
equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving.
People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as "defense intellectuals."
Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think
tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions.
Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn, who took pride in "thinking about the unthinkable,"
and Albert Wohlstetter, who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining "the delicate balance
of terror."
In this wonky world, the coin of the realm has been and remains "policy relevance." This
means devising products that convey a sense of novelty, while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing
enterprise. The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is
Dr. Strangelove's
discovery of a "mineshaft gap" - successor to the "bomber gap" and the "missile gap" that, in the
1950s, had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing
to catch up. Now, with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet, the United States
is once more falling behind, Strangelove claims, this time in digging underground shelters enabling
some small proportion of the population to survive.
In a single, brilliant stroke, Strangelove posits a new raison d'être for the entire
national insecurity apparatus, thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever.
A sequel to Stanley Kubrick's movie would have shown General "Buck" Turgidson and the other brass
huddled in the War Room, developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred.
The Rise of the National Insecurity State
Yet only in the 1960s, right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie
theaters, did policy intellectuals really come into their own. The press now referred to them
as "action intellectuals," suggesting energy and impatience. Action intellectuals were thinkers,
but also doers, members of a "large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure
niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face
the nation," as LIFE Magazine put it in 1967. Among the most perplexing of those problems
was what to do about Vietnam, just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth
into.
Over the previous century-and-a-half, the United States had gone to war for many reasons, including
greed, fear, panic, righteous anger, and legitimate self-defense. On various occasions, each
of these, alone or in combination, had prompted Americans to fight. Vietnam marked the first
time that the United States went to war, at least in considerable part, in response to a bunch of
really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence. More
surprising still, action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it
had become self-evident, even to members of Congress, that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed
to end in failure.
As Exhibit A, Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser first for President
John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson. Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale, who famously
became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, having gained tenure there
without even bothering to get a graduate degree.
For Exhibit B, there is Walt Whitman Rostow, Bundy's successor as national security adviser.
Rostow was another Yalie, earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD. While taking
a break of sorts, he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. As a professor of economic
history at MIT, Rostow captured JFK's attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 book The Stages
of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, which offered a grand theory of development
with ostensibly universal applicability. Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories
of "modernization" in places like Southeast Asia.
Finally, as Exhibit C, Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington's contributions to
the Vietnam War. Huntington also attended Yale, before earning his PhD at Harvard and then
returning to teach there, becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World
War II era.
What the three shared in common, apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven, was an
unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War. Foremost among those verities
was this: that a monolith called Communism, controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden
behind the walls of the Kremlin, posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies,
but to the very idea of freedom itself. The claim came with this essential corollary: the only
hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist
threat wherever it reared its ugly head.
Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. North Vietnam, from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. South Vietnam,
into a single unified country; in other words, that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and
dying for. Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington not only bought that argument hook, line, and sinker,
but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well.
Yet even as he was urging the "Americanization" of the Vietnam War in 1965, Bundy already entertained
doubts about whether it was winnable. But not to worry: even if the effort ended in failure,
he counseled President Johnson, "the policy will be worth it."
How so? "At a minimum," Bundy wrote, "it will damp down the charge that we did not do all
that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own."
If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam, at least Americans would have died trying to
prevent that result - and through some perverted logic this, in the estimation of Harvard's youngest-ever
dean, was a redeeming prospect. The essential point, Bundy believed, was to prevent others
from seeing the United States as a "paper tiger." To avoid a fight, even a losing one, was
to forfeit credibility. "Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean
no major risk" - that was the problem to be avoided at all cost.
Rostow
outdid even Bundy in hawkishness. Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to
influence North Vietnamese policymakers, Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic
Hamlet Program. The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly
relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government
would provide security, education, medical care, and agricultural assistance. By winning hearts-and-minds
in this manner, the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow, with the people of South
Vietnam vaulted into the "age of high mass consumption," where Rostow believed all humankind was
destined to end up.
That was the theory. Reality differed somewhat. Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable
from concentration camps. The government in Saigon proved too weak, too incompetent, and too
corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain. Rather than winning hearts-and-minds, the program
induced alienation, even as it essentially destabilized peasant society. One result: an increasingly
rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam's cities where there was little work apart from
servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population - hardly the sort of activity conducive
to self-sustaining development.
Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat, Rostow still claimed vindication
for his theory. "We and the Southeast Asians," he wrote, had used the war years "so well that
there wasn't the panic [when Saigon fell] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene."
Indeed, regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news, all of it attributable to the American war.
"Since 1975 there has been a general expansion
of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West. In Thailand we have
seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs. Malaysia and Singapore have become countries
of diverse manufactured exports. We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats
in Indonesia."
So there you have it. If you want to know what 58,000 Americans (not to mention vastly larger
numbers of Vietnamese) died for, it was to encourage entrepreneurship, exports, and the emergence
of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility
for seeing the upside of catastrophe. In Huntington's view, the internal displacement of South
Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower, along with the failure of Rostow's
Strategic Hamlets, was actually good news. It promised, he insisted, to give the Americans
an edge over the insurgents.
The key to final victory, Huntington
wrote, was "forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question
out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength
to come to power." By emptying out the countryside, the U.S. could win the war in the cities.
"The urban slum, which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans, often becomes for the poor peasant
a gateway to a new and better way of life." The language may be a tad antiseptic, but the point
is clear enough: the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously
transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up
for social revolution.
Revisited decades later, claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy, Rostow,
and Huntington - action intellectuals of the very first rank - seem beyond preposterous. They
insult our intelligence, leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them
were ever taken seriously.
How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence? Why were those
ideas so impervious to challenge? Why, in short, was it so difficult for Americans to recognize
bullshit for what it was?
Creating a Twenty-First-Century Slow-Motion Vietnam
These questions are by no means of mere historical interest. They are no less relevant when applied
to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals, specializing in national
insecurity, whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and
prosecute the Vietnam War.
The present-day successors to Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities.
Chief among them is this: that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism, inspired by a
small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East, poses
an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but - yes, it's still with us - to the
very idea of freedom itself. That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and
imported from the Cold War: the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United
States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head.
At least since September 11, 2001, and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date, U.S.
policymakers have taken these propositions for granted. They have done so at least in part
because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question
them.
Indeed, those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions. Think
of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity. More or less like
Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter (or Dr. Strangelove), their function is to perpetuate the ongoing
enterprise.
The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such
efforts. Once widely known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, it has been transformed into
the War with No Name. A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography: we
can't define it, we just know it when we see it, with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington's
attention.
All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end
in sight. It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam, stimulating remarkably little honest
reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future. If there is an actual
Brains Trust at work in Washington, it operates on autopilot. Today, the second- and third-generation
bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington - the Center for this, the Institute
for that - spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets, with nary a thought
given to more fundamental concerns.
What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter's return to the Pentagon as President Obama's
fourth secretary of defense. Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy, Rostow,
Huntington mold, having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in "the Building."
He, too, is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar, with a PhD. from Oxford. "Ash" - in Washington, a
first-name-only identifier ("Henry," "Zbig," "Hillary") signifies that you have truly arrived
- is the author of books and articles galore, including
one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for
preventive war against North Korea. Military action "undoubtedly carries risk," he bravely
acknowledged at the time. "But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race
to threaten this country would be greater" - just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the
likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter.
As Carter has taken the Pentagon's reins, he also has taken pains to convey the impression of
being a big thinker. As one Wall Street Journal
headline enthused, "Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats." That multiple global
threats exist and that America's defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are, of
course, givens. His predecessor Chuck Hagel (no Yale degree) was a bit of a plodder.
By way of contrast, Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up.
So on his second day in office, for example, he dinedwith Kenneth Pollack, Michael
O'Hanlon, and Robert Kagan, ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one
and all. Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution, the three share the distinction
of having supported the
Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today. For assurances
that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound - we just need to try harder - who better
to consult than
Pollack,
O'Hanlon, and
Kagan (any
Kagan)?
Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions? Or was he letting
Washington's clubby network of fellows, senior fellows, and distinguished fellows know that, on his
watch, the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct? You decide.
Soon thereafter, Carter's first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions.
In Kuwait, he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the
campaign against ISIS. In a daring departure from standard practice, the new defense secretary
prohibited PowerPoint briefings. One participant described the ensuing event as "a five-hour-long
college seminar" - candid and freewheeling. "This is reversing the paradigm," one awed senior
Pentagon official
remarked. Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to "look at this problem differently."
Of course, Carter might have said, "Let's look at a different problem." That, however, was far
too radical to contemplate - the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing
the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined.
In any event - and to no one's surprise - the different look did not produce a different conclusion.
Instead of reversing the paradigm, Carter affirmed it: the existing U.S. approach to dealing with
ISIS is sound, he announced. It only needs a bit of
tweaking - just the result to give the Pollacks, O'Hanlons, and Kagans something to write about
as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate.
Do we really need that chatter? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy? If policy/defense/action
intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure?
Let me propose an experiment. Put them on furlough. Not permanently - just until the last of the
winter snow finally melts in New England. Send them back to Yale for reeducation. Let's see if we
are able to make do without them even for a month or two.
In the meantime, invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS.
Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers. Book English
majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows. Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up?
In other words, many of the "free-market reforms" are aimed at making the hard lives of average
Ukrainians even harder – by cutting pensions, removing work protections, forcing people to work into
their old age and making them pay more for heat during the winter.
Exclusive: In House testimony, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland blamed
Russia and ethnic-Russian rebels for last summer's shoot-down of MH-17 over Ukraine, but the U.S.
government has not substantiated that charge. So, did Nuland mislead Congress or just play a propaganda
game, asks Robert Parry.
An early skill learned by Official Washington's neoconservatives, when
they were cutting their teeth inside the U.S. government in the 1980s, was how to frame their arguments
in the most propagandistic way, so anyone who dared to disagree with any aspect of the presentation
seemed unpatriotic or crazy.
During my years at The Associated Press and Newsweek, I dealt with a number of now prominent neocons
who were just starting out and mastering these techniques at the knee of top CIA psychological warfare
specialist Walter Raymond Jr., who had been transferred to President Ronald Reagan's National Security
Council staff where Raymond oversaw inter-agency task forces that pushed Reagan's hard-line agenda
in Central America and elsewhere. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The
Victory of 'Perception Management.'"]
One of those quick learners was Robert Kagan, who was then a protégé of Assistant Secretary of
State Elliott Abrams. Kagan got his first big chance when he became director of the State Department's
public diplomacy office for Latin America, a key outlet for Raymond's propaganda schemes.
Though always personable in his dealings with me, Kagan grew frustrated when I wouldn't swallow
the propaganda that I was being fed. At one point, Kagan warned me that I might have to be "controversialized,"
i.e. targeted for public attack by Reagan's right-wing media allies and anti-journalism attack groups,
like Accuracy in Media, a process that did indeed occur.
Years later, Kagan emerged as one of America's top neocons, a co-founder of the Project for
the New American Century, which opened in 1998 to advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ultimately
gaining the backing of a large swath of the U.S. national security establishment in support of that
bloody endeavor.
Despite the Iraq disaster, Kagan continued to rise in influence, now a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, a columnist at the Washington Post, and someone whose published criticism so alarmed
President Barack Obama last year that he invited Kagan to a White House lunch. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Obama's
True Foreign Policy Weakness."]
Kagan's Wife's Coup
But Kagan is perhaps best known these days as the husband of neocon Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, one of Vice President Dick Cheney's former advisers and a key
architect of last year's coup in Ukraine, a "regime change" that toppled an elected president and
touched off a civil war, which now has become a proxy fight involving nuclear-armed United States
and Russia.
In an interview last year with the New York Times, Nuland indicated that she shared her husband's
criticism of President Obama for his hesitancy to use American power more assertively. Referring
to Kagan's public attacks on Obama's more restrained "realist" foreign policy, Nuland said, "suffice
to say … that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put
it that way."
But Nuland also seems to have mastered her husband's skill with propaganda, presenting an extreme
version of the situation in Ukraine, such that no one would dare quibble with the details. In
prepared testimony
to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, Nuland even slipped in an accusation blaming Russia
for the July 17 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 though the U.S. government has not presented
any proof.
Nuland testified, "In eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable
violence and pillage; MH-17 was shot down."
Now, it's true that if one parses Nuland's testimony, she's not exactly saying the Russians or
the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine shot down the plane. There is a semi-colon between the
"unspeakable violence and pillage" and the passive verb structure "MH-17 was shot down." But anyone
seeing her testimony would have understood that the Russians and their "puppets" shot down the plane,
killing all 298 people onboard.
When I submitted a formal query to the State Department asking if Nuland's testimony meant that
the U.S. government had developed new evidence that the rebels shot down the plane and that the Russians
shared complicity, I received no answer.
Perhaps significantly or perhaps not, Nuland presented similarly phrased
testimony to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday but made no reference to MH-17. So, I submitted
a new inquiry asking whether the omission reflected second thoughts by Nuland about making the claim
before the House. Again, I have not received a reply.
However, both of Nuland's appearances place all the blame for the chaos in Ukraine on Russia,
including the 6,000 or more deaths. Nuland offered not a single word of self-criticism about
how she contributed to these violent events by encouraging last year's coup, nor did she express
the slightest concern about the actions of the coup regime in Kiev, including its dispatch of neo-Nazi
militias to carry out "anti-terrorist" and "death squad" operations against ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Nuclear
War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives."]
Russia's Fault
Everything was Russia's fault – or as Nuland phrased it: "This manufactured conflict - controlled
by the Kremlin; fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers' expense
- has cost the lives of more than 6,000 Ukrainians, but also of hundreds of young Russians sent to
fight and die there by the Kremlin, in a war their government denies."
Nuland was doing her husband proud. As every good propagandist knows, you don't present events
with any gray areas; your side is always perfect and the other side is the epitome of evil. And,
today, Nuland faces almost no risk that some mainstream journalist will dare contradict this black-and-white
storyline; they simply parrot it.
Besides heaping all the blame on the Russians, Nuland cited – in her Senate testimony – some of
the new "reforms" that the Kiev authorities have just implemented as they build a "free-market state."
She said, "They made tough choices to reduce and cap pension benefits, increase work requirements
and phase in a higher retirement age; … they passed laws cutting wasteful gas subsidies."
In other words, many of the "free-market reforms" are aimed at making the hard lives of average
Ukrainians even harder – by cutting pensions, removing work protections, forcing people to work into
their old age and making them pay more for heat during the winter.
Nuland also hailed some of the regime's stated commitments to fighting corruption. But Kiev
seems to have simply installed a new cast of bureaucrats looking to enrich themselves. For instance,
Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko is an expatriate American who – before becoming an instant
Ukrainian citizen last December – ran a U.S. taxpayer-financed investment fund for Ukraine that was
drained of money as she engaged in lucrative insider deals, which she has fought to keep secret.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
Finance Minister's American 'Values.'"]
Yet, none of these concerns were mentioned in Nuland's propagandistic testimony to the House and
Senate – not that any of the committee members or the mainstream press corps seemed to care that
they were being spun and even misled. The hearings were mostly opportunities for members of Congress
to engage in chest-beating as they demanded that President Obama send U.S. arms to Ukraine for a
hot war with Russia.
Regarding the MH-17 disaster, one reason that I was inquisitive about Nuland's insinuation in
her House testimony that the Russians and the ethnic Russian rebels were responsible was that some
U.S. intelligence analysts have reached a contrary conclusion, according to a source briefed on their
findings. According to that information, the analysts found no proof that the Russians had delivered
a BUK anti-aircraft system to the rebels and concluded that the attack was apparently carried out
by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military.
After I published that account last summer, the Obama administration went silent about the MH-17
shoot-down, letting stand some initial speculation that had blamed the Russians and the rebels. In
the nearly eight months since the tragedy, the U.S. government has failed to make public any intelligence
information on the crash. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The
Danger of an MH-17 'Cold Case.'"]
So, Nuland may have been a bit duplicitous when she phrased her testimony so that anyone hearing
it would jump to the conclusion that the Russians and the rebels were to blame. It's true she didn't
exactly say so but she surely knew what impression she was leaving.
In that, Nuland appears to have taken a page from the playbook of her husband's old mentor, Elliott
Abrams, who provided misleading testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s – and
even though he was convicted of that offense, Abrams was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush and
thus was able to return to government last decade to oversee the selling of the Iraq War.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the
Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes
America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
Friend (MakePeaceNotWar), March 11, 2015 at 7:25 pm
I'm terribly sorry, but I would like to post this small joke from the other side of the ocean.
The knowledge of geography and facts shown by representatives of the U.S. State's Department is
so overwhelming that one can proudly claim:
"1 nuland = 100 psakis"
Thank you for your attention, please don't be insulted.
PS Jane Psaki and Marie Harf are inventors of the Belarussian sea (Belarus is a landlocked
country), Rostov mountains (Rostov region in Russia consists of flatlands only) and the dependence
of Russian on European export and gas (it's the opposite in reality). For Europeans it's like
saying Grand Hill of America instead of the Great Canyon and Lincolnton instead of Washington.
PSS Mrs. Nuland claimed that Crimeans are mostly unhappy about joining Russia (well, according
to the German GfK survey published in BloombergReview only 4% are unhappy – but it's of course
a lie, evil Putin must have put pressur eon GfK to puvlish these data).
Cookie Nudelman is perhaps beginning to lose some of her chocolate chips?
2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy [armor – Vietnam era] retired.
xxx, March 11, 2015 at 9:15 pm
The crash occurred over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists, during a battle in Donbass,
in an area controlled by the Donbass People's Militia. According to American and German intelligence
sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile
fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russians denied any and all access to the
wreckage, contravening standards for investigating civilian aircraft disasters. Evidence from
open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on
17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne.
Immediately after the crash, a post appeared
on the VKontakte social media website attributed to Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists,
claiming responsibility for shooting down an AN-26, but after it became clear that a civilian
aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down.
Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of MH17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation
was necessary to be certain that a surface-to-air missile brought down the plane.
US sources attributed the downing to a missile fired from separatist-controlled territory,
with their judgment based on sensors that traced the path of the missile, analysis of shrapnel
patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed
credit for the strike, as well as photos and other data from social media sites.
The underlying assumptions of this and other articles by Mr. Parry on this and other questions
regarding Russia is that anything the West says is always a lie and anything Putin says is always
the truth.
What absurdity!
Gregory Kruse, March 11, 2015 at 11:04 pm
You should apply for a job at the State Department, but I have a few points to question.
1. The territory held by the "separatists" is so small that it would be impossible to determine
that anything occurred "over" that territory.
2. According to German and US propaganda, the plane was shot down by ….etc.
3. The Russians denied any and all access to the wreckage, but the US analyzed the shrapnel patterns
and there was plenty of pictures and other data from social media.
4. There were sensors all over the place but there has been no presentation of such data.
5. Some separatists admitted to downing the plane, proven by "voice print analysis of their conversations".
6. Parry thinks the West always lies, and Putin always tells the truth. This is called personalization.
How about, " the West always lies, but the East always tells the truth". Or, Victoria Nuland always
lies, and Putin always tells the truth". None of these ways of saying it are true, but the first
one seems less absurd because it is clever propaganda, and that's the point.
Nick Gibbon, March 12, 2015 at 3:13 am
If from this article you don't question US sources on, oh, most things these days then pity
you.
Meanwhile here's some proper, rational analysis about MH17:-
Your sources are not credible at all. None of those "analyses" have any value at all, and the
suppression of information by the US proves the deception.
1. "sensors that traced the path
of the missile"
In fact no such evidence was presented or claimed: the whole debate would be different if that
existed. The US denied any such photos and presented none. Russia claimed photos showing Ukraine
fighter planes near the plane.
2. "analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage"
The evidence was concealed, reports were of shrapnel vs. bullets although photos showed bullet-like
holes. If a missile it might have just as well have been air-launched. If ground-launched, both
sides had SAMs in the area.
3. voice print analysis of separatists' conversations … from social media sites.
This evidence is absurdly vague and suspect. If such persons so claimed, it was apparently
gossip; we are of course not given the contrary gossip.
The fact that the USG suppressed the aerial photos, flight recorder data, ATC communications,
etc., and accused Russia repeatedly of sending in armored divisions with no evidence whatsoever,
proves the intent to deceive We the People by any and all means whatsoever. No USG "evidence"
in this matter has any credibility, and those who accept it at face value merely state a lack
of concern for truth and justice.
Joe L, March 12, 2015 at 10:31 am
Have you read Robert Parry's article "Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case" (October 20, 2014)?
I believe this article is based on a Der Spiegel article where German Intelligence, the BND, claim
that they believe that the "rebels" shot down MH-17 but they did it with a "captured" BUK missile
system from a "Ukrainian Military Base"! Also in the article it points out that the German BND
dismiss Russian evidence of an SU-25 shoot-down but also that photos provided by the Ukrainian
Government of MH-17 "have been manipulated". Also, you are using "evidence" from "social media"
as evidence? Well for me, if this truly was shot down by Russia or the "rebels" I am sure that
the US would have satellite data since I believe there was a satellite overhead on that day and
the US being the largest surveillance apparatus on the planet. With such surveillance power available
to the west, why has the investigation of MH-17 devolved to mainly evidence from "social media"?
By the way, here is the article to Mr. Parry's article.
Russia told the EU that they had a sat image proving Kiev Right Wing Nazis in charge of the
Kiev military actually shot down the plane in an effort to blame Russia. Immediately Merkel and
Holland made a desperate trip to Moscow to keep them from responding…Notice, not one corporate
media has ever brought that issue up again. EU and foreign governments also know who really did
911, and PUTIN threatened to go public on that issue too.
madeleine, March 12, 2015 at 12:32 am
thank you for showing how deceitful these neocons really are.
seems like the US is the new USSR !
Huley, March 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm
No, that is totally wrong: The necon-US is getting more and more a HITLER-style regime, a NAZI-regime,
mentally sick, preparing and organizing chaos, regime-change, war, ethnic clensing all over the
world: "Exceptionalsm", "leader of the world", "to be the first", are nothing but synonyms for
conquering the world. The US is getting the most hatetd state in the world.
The neocons should be eliminated before they take their chance destroying the world.
Andrew Nichols, March 12, 2015 at 12:43 am
Nuland is of the Goebbelsian propaganda school where it doesnt matter whether or not what she
says is true, it becomes the truth because its repeated enough. I do wonder if she thinks she
can survive nuclear war. We live in dark times a pivotal moment where the Empire really is upping
the ante. We may not survive it.
Why did Hillary Clinton bring Nuland, former adviser to VP Dick Cheney, into the State Department?
The answer to this seems very relevant to the next presidential election.
I completely agree, the answer to this question may well be the answer to All of our perplexing
questions…
jimbo, March 12, 2015 at 11:49 am
I have been with Parry and his view that the Russians are the better guys in this conflict but
I am being swayed in another direction especially due to a report on Vice which shows how active
duty Russian soldiers had been killed in the Ukraine.
Huley, March 12, 2015 at 1:18 pm
This rotten mad creature should be brought to justice like the complete bunch of neocon organized
criminals and fascists.
Tom Coombs, March 12, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Hey Robert keep up the good work. I was checking my bookmarked "Project for New American Century"
today (it's been a long time since i visited the site) the website is gone, is there anyway to
get an archived copy? I was introducing your website and your books to a friend of mine who is
the editor of the "Valley Voice" a bi-weekly paper in the Slocan Valley of British Columbia in
Canada. I lent her the four books of yours and was trying to show her the American Century website.
Could you e-mail me and let me know how i can get a copy of their manifesto, i consider it the
mein kamf of our time…Tom Coombs
Charron, March 12, 2015 at 2:35 pm
I saw the testimony Ms. Nuland gave before the Senators of the Foreign Affairs Committee last
week on CSpan. After hearing a number of questions and comments by the Senators of the Foreign
Relations committee I was extremely depressed. I have never heard such drivel in all my 84 years.
One Senator wanted assurance that we would install a nuclear missile system in the Ukraine,
and I well remember what our reaction was when we learned that Soviet Russia was installing missile
systems in Cuba. They were so cocksure and oblivious to reality I felt we were being governed
by mad men.
I mean I came away extremely scared. They were all so unconnected with reality, it was unbelievable,
and the Democrat Senators on the committee were as bad as the Republican. They had no understanding
of what was going on in the Ukraine! You would think that as Senators they would have some slight
understanding but they were all posturing as defenders of freedom and protectors of America from
the evil Putin. They were all playing out a role in the morality play that they had created, that
had no connection with reality. I mean I am used to baloney from our members of Congress, but
this was on another level. Unbelievable!
Jen Psaki: The ousting of Putin is not our goal: we want to change the direction that Russia
is taking
Extracts and précis:
-----------------------------------The official U.S. state Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki
is soon to go on maternity leave and will quit her post, which has become famous even in distant
Russia. But before doing that, on Wednesday night Jen gave an interview with Ksenia Sobchak in
a live "Dozhd" transmission.
Psaki: We cooperate with Russia on many issues, but we have serious disagreements about
the Ukraine. About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences
of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets
international standards.
Psaki then said what would happen following the U.S. Congress request that Obama begin arms
shipments to the Ukraine:
Psaki: Congress gives authority for the president to act, but it is up to him to decide
whether to take any action. Of course, our goal is to make Russia and Pro-Russian separatists
in the Ukraine strictly comply with the Minsk agreement. We are not going to wage a proxy war
with Russia, but we are considering different options depending on what is happening. We are only
talking about defensive weaponry, but weighing all the facts, we are trying to understand what
decision will bring a resolution to the conflict in the Ukraine. There are many other levers:
the introduction of new sanctions, negotiations with our external partners. The USA has a lot
of options…
Russia and Pro-Russian separatists have encroached into Ukraine territory. There are Russian
troops there, so there are good reasons for what Congress has recommended.
Asked by Sobchak if she thought Putin was a dictator, Psaki answered:
It is a pity that he seems to have ignored the economic decline of the country, which is
having a direct impact on the Russian people, and is focusing on unlawful interference in Ukrainian
affairs. Political leaders in America would be prosecuted if they chose such a path.
Sobchak:Is the purpose of the US to oust Putin?
Psaki:No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to stop the illegal invasion by Russia and
pro-Russian separatists of Ukrainian territory. This is not about changing the leadership of the
country. This should be the choice of the Russian people. But Russia is taking action specifically
in Ukrainian matters, and Russia has the opportunity to change its course of action.
Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian
coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical as, for example, in the case of the expulsion
of Yanukovych.
Psaki:We tried to work with Yanukovych, but he left the country. There was chaos, and we
are reminded of this today- and with deep regret.
Sometimes Psaki clearly deviated from the general line of the US leadership. For example,
she
apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the
Russian economy was in tatters. She said:
"We do not consider Russia as an opponent. We wish you success and prosperity."
Psaki did a lot of talking about cooperating with Russia – over both achievable and desirable
goals. However, the sincerity of her statements did not lend itself to be very much believed.
-----------------------------------
End of excerpts and précis.
kat kan, March 28, 2015 at 4:40 am
About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences
of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action
meets international standards.
Hmmm…. good question., What ARE international standards about people living where they
live? When does living in your own house turn into an invasion?
"I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst
those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere)
will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled." ... "How
embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted
their credibility on the altar of propaganda." This neocons who run the show has thrown Ukrainian
people into abysmal poverty and horrors of civil war and now want to sell all the assets for pennies
on the dollar. Note activity of Psakibots (psigone, jessam,
nickpossum,
Mike_UK, etc) in comments. Quote: "I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation.
Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all.
I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing
than the wrong thing."
Finance minister Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so
Ukraine can move towards stability
Jeremn -> MartinArvay 26 Mar 2015 09:04
It is Shock Therapy II. Deregulation. Privatisation ("privatization of everything that can
be privatized and we plan to start it this year," she said on 13 March). Selling off assets. Firing
staff.
See the number of staff being sacked from state institutions. 50% from the economic ministry
alone. The minister helpfully remarked
"One can't do anything with old staff."
OldStickie -> Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 06:53
East European oligarchs usually buy themselves Israeli citizenship. There is no extradition
from Israel so that is where you go when justice begins to catch up with you.
sodtheproles Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 05:47
Common sense dictates federalisation for the whole of Ukraine. The existing situation benefits
only the US, and their arms manufacturers, no one else
61gvern 25 Mar 2015 21:12
I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation.
Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad
at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer
to say nothing than the wrong thing.
nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 17:37
As far as I understand, with Ukraine is happening now something similar with the patient
over which performs open-heart surgery. So, while the surgeons do not complete the operation,
they must attach a patient to the artificial heart and artificial lungs, otherwise he would have
died.
Similarly, the Ukraine until recently was inextricably linked with Russia's economic and industrial
complex. Severing those ties were equally to the separation of man from his heart during surgery.
And, IMF now plays the role of an artificial heart, which should maintain the patient's bloodstream
until they implanted a new heart to him. How long the operation will last, and whether it will
ever be successful, it is obvious that neither the IMF knows himself. Because, as Natali Jaresko
said, Ukraine is a very big country, and throughout the EU is currently a major crisis.
Also, it is not known how the patient (Ukraine) will pay "the cost of the operation" to the
IMF, if one day he really healed, and will he ever be able to do so.
sodtheproles -> Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 17:12
I meant for ability to use government to line her own pockets, certainly not for her investment
'skills'
Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 17:02
Prof. Steven Cohen, of Princeton and NYU, calls the Ukraine situation "the worst international
crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis":
That $150 million WNISEF fund handed by Jaresko has lost more than a third of its value since
the Ukrainian economy tanked. As she steps into office, Kiev's foreign reserves are down to $10
billion and shrinking, while inflation roars at 22 percent.
my sources mostly Russian and Ukrainian news agencies or blogs. There has been occupations
and clashes between the regime forces and battalions in Kiev, Dniepr and also in Odessa.
However my best independent source is Colonel Cassad.
Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 15:43
Some background on Natalie Jaresko:
Ukraine's new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. State Department officer who
was granted Ukrainian citizenship only this week, headed a U.S. government-funded investment project
for Ukraine that involved substantial insider dealings, including $1 million-plus fees to a management
company that she also controlled.
Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF),
which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) with $150 million
to spur business activity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and managing partner of Horizon Capital
which managed WNISEF's investments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding
$1 million in recent years, according to WNISEF's 2012 annual report.
The growth of that insider dealing at the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF is further underscored
by the number of paragraphs committed to listing the "related party transactions," i.e., potential
conflicts of interest, between an early annual report from 2003 and the one a decade later.
In the 2003 report, the "related party transactions" were summed up in two paragraphs, with
the major item a $189,700 payment to a struggling computer management company where WNISEF had
an investment.
In the 2012 report, the section on "related party transactions" covered some two pages and
included not only the management fees to Jaresko's Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689
in 2012) but also WNISEF's co-investments in projects with the Emerging Europe Growth Fund [EEGF],
where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko's Horizon Capital also
managed EEGF.
From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian
brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova's Fincombank for $5 million,
the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF
and Horizon Capital.
Though it's difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals,
they could reflect negatively on Jaresko's role as Ukraine's new finance minister given the country's
reputation for corruption and cronyism, a principal argument for the U.S.-backed "regime change"
that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
"Russian President Putin's game plan now in Ukraine is to turn it into a failed state as
an example to the others in his EurAsian (customs) Union."
As if Putin and Lavrov need to do anything - it's already a failed state. All thanks to Washington,
its NATO stooges and a woefully naive Ukrainian population.
Jeff1000 -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 13:07
Ukraine is a disaster - anybody can see that. Your decidedly odd efforts to convince...somebody...that
Ukraine is about to turn around and become a healthy economy is, frankly, mad.
If there isn't another coup, or at least huge unrest in Kiev, by the end of the year it will
be a near miracle.
HollyOldDog -> SHappens 25 Mar 2015 10:38
The foundations of the bridge between Russia and Crimea are due to go in this spring though
the bridge completion could take 2years. Has anyone heard of how the pipelines from Russia to
Crimea are progressing - one for gas and the other for water. I think it's best for Crimea to
be totally physically seperated from Ukraine for the safety of the Crimean citizens.
Griffon79 -> nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 10:09
pretty sure the shadow government in the US has decided to destroy the US - the social compact
has been broken - no longer do they act in national interests, but private, commercial ones.
I give them about a half century before collapse followed by civil war.
Griffon79 -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 10:05
Incorrect, but either your juvenile patriotism, or ignorance, or possibly payola prevents you
from seeing the absurdness of your position.
Luckily, the rest of the world as they say is not so dim.
Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 10:01
No, there isnt. This little coup has made that clear to the intellectuals in the West -
you know, the ones not in government in journalism, the ones who make the society tick, that our
media is at least as, if not more corrupt than any media, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, with the possible
exception of North Korea.
So, I guess the elite thought we would either swallow this, after Syria, Iraq, Libya and countless
other misadventures, or that they could retain some credibility after this propaganda assault.
Check out the insignia on the vehicle behind 'anaconda'. Really great people our 'leaders'
have elected to ally with eh?
Just to defend against your next deflection, it is in fact the neonazo simple 1488, as the
Guardian, under pressure BTL, was forced to admit.
I bet some poor staffer got in trouble for that.
Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:55
Ukraine was not attacking anyone until they had a coup, didnt like resistance in the East,
and so sent a bunch of neonazi hooligans and their poorly equipped army to attack civilian populations.
Facts. Unsubjective ones. You feel me, Guardian?
Griffon79 -> psygone Mar 2015 09:52
Yes, and America will be nowhere to be seen. America likes to talk big but when it comes down
to the wire, they will sacrifice their 'allies' in a heartbeat.
Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:42
They weren't Ukrainian nuclear weapons ; they were Russian. The Russians were taking back what
they owned. Also, given recent history, its probably a good thing the nutcases in the Ukrainian
coup government do not have nukes, n'est pas?
What do you think happens to the US economy when oil is no longer being traded almost exclusively
in US dollars?
Just curious what the Langley view is.
Griffon79 -> rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 09:38
This point, from the HEAVENS:
"This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia
had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated."
Griffon79 -> Systematic 25 Mar 2015 09:35
They don't conform to their dishonest narrative, so they wont report on it.
Right now meetings are being held to determine the best possible way to spin the news for the
few dullards who remain supportive in Western nations of the Ukrainian coup government.
Griffon79 -> TOR2000 25 Mar 2015 09:34
ah yes but don't expect the vaunted Guardian to report that; they think we are rubes who
will swallow their outrageous lies hook line and sinker
newsflash, kids in short pants, you are the ones killing your creditibility, not us
johnbonn -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 09:31
You are on fire today, 'how are you'. Keep it going.
Griffon79 -> GreatMountainEagle 25 Mar 2015 09:31
Erm. Ukraine can. Ukraine is like a child that does not understand why her parents wont give
her more money after she spends her allowance on candy.
Only instead of candy, she is spending her money on weapons with which to attack her own (former)
citizens.
Griffon79 -> Demi Boone 25 Mar 2015 09:26
Its getting bad then since this has been true from the start.
How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots
who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda.
johnbonn -> retsdon 25 Mar 2015 09:25
How else was the US going to conduct a regime change. And speaking of thugs and carpet baggers
Joe Biden fits in nicely.
And why would you put the words western and credibility together - - a contradiction in terms.
Griffon79 -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 09:19
"Ukraine will not be allowed to founder by the West whatever "
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you really that naive? Explains a lot, if you are Ukrainian. Idealists, not realists.
Griffon79 -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 09:16
Well, as a Canadian, I certainly don't support your blatant lies and distortions.
The misinformation campaign headquartered in Langley has failed, miserably. People are only
too aware of how our corrupt governments have connived in order to support a coup. People are
only too aware that the coup government is a mashup of neonazi nationalists, corrupt oligarchs
and poorly trained and equipped (and led - look at Debaltseve) conscripts who are deserting in
droves.
We are aware the vast majority of the roughly 1 MILLION refugees fled East, to Russia. Not
West, to the people trying to kill them. We are aware the vast majority of the killed civilians
were killed by the Ukrainian coup government using artillery and that those same forces are being
trained and equipped by our subservient governments.
We are aware Ukraine is a financial black hole that our governments will throw taxpayer dollars
into, despite a crumbling domestic economy.
Oh - on the neonazis, dont even try to deny it. The Guardiane even posted an article about
'women of the revolution' unintentionally exposing their neonazi leanings when they were photogrpahed
next to a van showing the brigade insignia of the SS (yes, that SS, WAFFEN SS)
Long and short, the battle for 'hearts and minds' is long lost. If the US agitates for WWIII
to save their bankrupt state, I think the leaders best check their heads are still attached to
their shoulders. People are the power, not the banksters and their puppets.
This conflict has done more to awaken Western citizens to the utter abrogation of our soverignity
to US aggression than any of their previous illegal adventures. We dont like what we see.
sodtheproles -> MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:34
That's why they called shelling their own citizens an anti-terrorist operation. The Americans
have a lot to answer for, not least their abuse of the English language. Anyone remember 'collateral
damage'?
MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:26
I thought the IMF was not permitted to lend to countries in a state of civil war
todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 08:08
Poroshenko: Ukrainian army among five strongest in Europe
Yet they have to "orderly" retreat in the middle of the night from Debaltsevo leaving dead
and injured behind as well as equipment. Furthermore they keep on begging for more money to arm
these army while the population cannot afford to feed itself...
retsdon 25 Mar 2015 07:56
As this well-researched article at the Saker makes evident, the Ukrainian leadership is
a rat's nest of criminals, thugs, and carpet-baggers. It debases western credibility entirely
that we even deal with such people at all, leave alone support and court them. And it dirties
the rest of us by association.
Victoria Nuland's background is even more telling. Quite frightening in fact.
todaywefight -> Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 07:28
I have taken the liberty to copy your post to a series of documents that I keep since the beginning
of this sad episodes...as your comment is one of the very few posts that is solid and deeply relevant,
as such it affects ones feelings just as deeply, thank you.
Crimea has been experiencing an upsurge in development following its reunification with Russia
thanks to the country's investment in the republic. "Crimea has not developed at such a pace as
it has in the past year over the past twenty years.
Unfortunately, the 23-year-long tenure in Ukraine has been the time of regression for Crimea.
The Ukrainian government did not invest a single penny into Crimea, at the same time it sucked
out all possible resources from here," Polonsky told Sputnik, stressing that Russia "is taking
an entirely different route" which is making a "drastic" difference on the peninsula. But even
if Crimea residents were told not to expect any investment from the Russian government a year
ago, they would have "still made the choice of becoming part of Russia," the minister stressed.
The social standards, salaries and the level of medical services in Crimea grew sharply in the
past year.
Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 06:49
"Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that
has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour".
Listen, Ms 'Insider Trading' Jaresco, and I'll tell you what you and your country have actually
done to Britain.
You've damaged our economy by unjust sanctions, and used our taxpayers' money to fund your
murderous war on your own people. British citizens are reduced to living off food banks, but you're
demanding we divert our spending into NATO defence – to fight an enemy that would never have been
a threat if you hadn't interfered in the first place.
You've released a poison into Europe that will take generations to cure. You've split us in
two, revived old racial hatreds, and brought back the spectre of Nazism to the countries that
suffered from it most. You've forced us into provocations that have brought us to the very brink
of war – and one that threatens to destroy us all.
You've insulted our war dead by your revision of history. You've hailed Hitler as a liberator,
deified those who committed mass murder under the Nazi flag, and defiled monuments to those who
resisted him. You've made our war sacrifices worthless, and forced us to stand by while Nazi sympathizers
glorify their heroes at the site of our own Cenotaph. You've forced us to insult our war allies
by snubbing the May 9th acknowledgement of the millions of Russian dead whose sacrifice enabled
our own country to survive. You've dishonoured us all.
You've taken away our self-respect, and put us for ever on the wrong side of history. You've
forced us to condone the destruction of democracy, and made us complicit in war crimes. You've
put us in breach of the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Conventions for
the protection of Embassies, and even made us abandon the presumption of innocence. God knows
we didn't have much moral credibility after our colonial past, but you've taken from us every
last little shred of decency we had left.
And now you want us to pay for the privilege?
No, Ms Jaresco. You can take your begging bowl back to Washington and tell them, 'You broke
it – you own it.' Get them to stop the war, bring justice to the innocent, and give freedom to
the people of the East. Get them to help those ordinary decent Ukrainians who only wanted the
chance of a better life, and were misled by you to their ruin. Get them to rebuild Donbass, give
back homes to the 1.5 million displaced people, help and compensate the bereaved families of those
60,000 dead. And when they've done all that, then it'll be time to start thinking about what reparations
you can make to us…
Its fantastic isnt it? You couldnt script better characters than a self styled President in
rent a Prop Poroshenko, Pre Menstraul Yatsintook, 'Its a miracle i can walk' Tymoshenko.. The
list goes on..
TrueBrit1066 -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:42
Thanks for this. Why does this not surprise me? :)
oleteo -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:37
I'd wish a success to Ukies but ultranationalism can't be a success
HollyOldDog -> justTR 25 Mar 2015 06:37
Except for those countries who refuse to keep filling the pot.
Sargv_ -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:35
> The only countries in recent history that have resorted to mass killings of their own people
are Russia, China and Cambodia
USSR was not Russia, not even by a long shot. For starters, Russians were a minority on all
levels of early-days soviet state machine, and were, by far, the most oppressed nation during
communist rule. Consider the gains and losses for all the nations occupied by bosheviks prior
to communist revolution, and after the Soviet collapse.
It's Russians, Chechens Russian Germans who lost the most, while Georgia - a homeland of Stalin,
and Ukraine - a homeland of Kruschev and Brezhnev, gained enormous territories and industries.
They lost most of this in just 25 years, but that's anothe story.
todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:32
Sorry I don't see any mention of demonstrations and the army getting ready mate..just give
me a link please
Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:32
she is the only candidate who does not scream for war. People, especially his allies, are fed
up with Yatsenyuk's foul, nonsense, warmongering language. Let's see who will be the winner of
this fight for power.
todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:28
Thank you very much
oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:27
Good girl, good start.
At the beginning there was the begging for money, now and then there would be an incessant
begging to write off.
Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:27
Porkoshenko's website.
Verbum -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:25
The US spent 5 billion between 1991 and 2014 on the development of standard democratic institutions
in Ukraine
Is Kolomoisky and his private army one of the 'standard democratic institutions' funded by
the US in Ukraine?
Verbum -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:23
Kolomoisky, Poroshenko, Yats... Is it the 'democracy' the Yanks spent 5 billion dollars on?
The dollar doesn't seem to buy much nowadays. And Nuland's cookies to top it all up... All wasted.
Sargv_ 25 Mar 2015 06:21
With all that constant 'donate for the good cause' narrative here and there, Ukraine should
finally drop the idea of being a sovereign state (as they are clearly suck at this) and register
as a World-first 45mln-strong charity organisation instead.
Goodthanx -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:19
I say let them! The fighters of DPR are looking forward to the resupply!
Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:18
Finance minister Natalie Jaresko...
Interesting notes on the career/life of Ms Jaresko:
- Born in America, still a US citizen.
- Not a Ukrainian citizen until 2014, Poroshenko pushed a special law through parliament in order
to make her FM.
- Her dual citizenships are illegal under Ukrainian law (they seem to be OK with it).
- Held jobs at: The US State Dept, the US Treasury and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
Just another sign that the USA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the mess in Kiev, and
it certainly isn't about grabbing money, influence and/or natural resources.
Goodthanx -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:17
I have never lived there, but a close examination and reading of history plus an attitude that
remembers we are talking about human life.. Is enough to convince me to the virtues of this cause.
ID075732 -> Parangaricurimicuaro 25 Mar 2015 06:16
But it's no secret where she came from!
todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:16
Apparently he resigned... and Poroshenko accepted his resignation and installed one of his
followers to the position.
Do you have any links to the rest of your post? if that lady becomes the PM Ukraine is gone
for all money.
Sargv_ -> nickpossum 25 Mar 2015 06:15
> Two simple truths. The West does not want a war with Russia. If Russia attacks the West,
it will be destroyed.
If Russia attacks the West, it'll attack the part it can reach, which is, obviously, the EU.
So the outcome will be slightly more complicated: Russia attacks The West, EU and Russia are
both destroyed, while The Rest of The West grab all the gains (nobody will ever mention that $17tln
debt; there'd be no high-end market competition wit US goods - and so on, and so forth).
There's only one winner in this conflict, no matter how hot it will get: the USoA. Europeans
are predefined to the role of economical donor for pro-US Ukraine at best, WW3 cannon fodder at
worst.
todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 06:12
What is sad is that, having lived in the country for many years I feel so sorry for the people,
the normal people, not the Gucci, Ferragamo and Zegna brigade the guys wearing $4000 suits wth
a black tee shirt, the ones that their idea of being part of parliament is to sit the whole day
in Passage, or go to Da vinci fo lunch or go to Mafia for dinner and look important when their
chauffeurs open the door of the black mercs a disgusting low life.
It will never be the same, forces were unleashed last year by Nuland that helped create
a generational hatred and the loss of life not to mention the lose of 1/5 of the country and if
Poroshenko or anyone else think that the eggs can be unscrambled I can advise them that they do
not need the IMF but a bunch of Clinical Psychiatrists
HollyOldDog vr13vr 25 Mar 2015 06:09
But it won't last. The Anericans always screwup.
Sargv_ -> geedeesee 25 Mar 2015 06:06
> "Jaresko said that, in five years, she wanted to see a Ukraine at peace"
"In five years I want to be a five years sober." We definitely need an international AA for
country-wide hangovers caused by 'we are the people' riots.
HollyOldDog -> someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 06:05
But the USA fallout is to destroy whatever is left of the Ukraine economy leaving it citizens
with far higher food and fuel costs.
While Russia is finding new friends and markets the World over. Strange how many countries
are now learning that if you don't protect your back then expect an USA knife trying to rip your
guts out .
DerFremde -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 06:05
wag the dog, Holly, wag the dog
first law of democratisation, you will open your markets to us in full. nationalised assets
will be privatised and you will take out IMF loans to do the 'restructuring' not the so-called
investors. this debt will be paid for by the population in due course.
Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:03
Kolomoisky sacked by Poroshenko, the former's private army is on alert to attack government
buildings, hundreds protest in Kiev asking Yatsenyuk's head, the reports suggest that the finance
minister, the Chicago born lady to become PM, the junta still shells Donetsk towns, and what the
Americans want: send more weapons. Only continuing conflict would save the Americans' crooks in
Kiev in short term.
todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 05:57
Yes actually I saw one of the interviews, she wants the Russians not to call the debt, she
also wants peace and then she turns the switch on and talks like Nuland and proceeds to shit all
over Russia, It think the girl will be done like a dinner in no time...
todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:47
Probably the most important part about your posts is that they are totally disconnected
from reality, and, as such we do not really have to even give you the courtesy of an answer.
todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:42
...the 2,000,000 to 3,600,000 killed in Vietnam and the millions left without limbs and the
destruction of their cities. How about the hundreds of thousands dead in latin america due to
the intervention of the US...the exceptional country...the thing is that all these deaths were
based on lies invented by your country
What exactly do you call the targeted wooden buildings and the firebombing of these buildings
by 300 b29s killing an US official "100000" and two days later the bombing of Hyrishima and Nagasaky,
the 1,000,000 killed in Ira
Goodthanx -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 02:36
As a Jew myself, i can tell you that Kolomovsky and the likes of him, does not represent me
or the greater Ukrainian Jewish community. Referencing a 'dial-a-jew', does not provide validity
to your argument, just provides further fuel to the propoganda fire.
Lastly i believe the question was, 'who do you work for?'
MSM is full of articles and comments that demonise Putin and Russia. The problem is, there
is no where near enough attention and scrutiny brought towards the country that staged a violent
coup helped by neo nazis who now control critical ministerial positions in the Rada, declared
an ATO on their own civilian population in the east, murdered opposition and intimidate the rest,
burn thru international funds and pocket the rest, war crimes..etc
These are the issues.
PlatonKuzin 25 Mar 2015 02:04
Kolomoisky id no longer a governor but the questions remain and the conflict between the oligarchs
in Ukraine gains strong momentum. What next?
todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 01:58
In 1887, the struggle for control of Hawaii was at its height as David Kalakaua was elected
to the Hawaiian throne. King Kalakaua signed a reciprocity treaty with the United States making
it possible for sugar to be sold to the U.S. market tax-free, but the haole - or "white" -
businessmen were still distrustful of him. They criticized his ties to men they believed to
be corrupt, his revival of Hawaiian traditions such as the historic Hula, and construction
of the royal Iolani Palace. A scandal involving Kalakaua erupted in the very year he was crowned,
and it united his opponents, a party of businessmen under the leadership of Lorrin Thurston.
The opposition used the threat of violence to force the Kalakua to accept a new constitution
that stripped the monarchy of executive powers and replaced the cabinet with members of the
businessmen's party. The new constitution, which effectively disenfranchised most native Hawaiian
voters, came to be known as the "Bayonet Constitution" because Kalakaua signed it under duress.
Replace Nuland for Thurston and there you have a good example of there is no reason for reinventing
the wheel.
irishinrussia -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 01:16
Russia is not broke by any stretch of the imagination. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio.
It still has $360 billion in reserves (even if that figure continues to decline at its current
rate - unlikely as the rouble has stabilised - that would still give them almost three years before
that money ran out). The budget deficit for last year was very small. This year it is projected
to be around 3% (incidentally, about what the US deficit was last year and is projected to be
for the next ten years). It continues to run a balance of payments surplus even with lower oil
prices. The situation in Russia is certainly not peachy, but it is a far cry from "broke".
Demi Boone -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 01:09
Oh Vlad, take a look at the marches honoring the Ukranian SS that just took place across Ukraine
where thousands showed up, or the SS armbands worn by extreme right participants in the Maiden
or the Azov Battalion who brags of their SS devotion (but they are quick to denounce the atrocities
of WW2) I challenge you to show any article promoting NeoNazi's in Russia. You have obviously
not read any Russian History to know the hatred these people have for the idea of the Nazi. Your
accusations of Nemstov's murder are pure speculation based on your biased opinion. There were
no Nuclear threats made by Russia rather they were saying that all systems were on alert. When
a Russian plane flies close to the UK you had better believe they are on the same high alert.
With regards to your statement about News credibility most media sources in the US whitewash the
news. Did you read anything in any major papers about the people who were run over by Ukranian
forces and given permission to "shoot to kill" if the crowd got too out of hand and began to fight
back?
someoneionceknew -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 00:57
What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova?
CIA, buddy. She's a company gal.
someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 00:51
"The good news is that we have made great progress on stability."
Words fail me.
These CIA types certainly can gild a lily when required.
Jerome Fryer normankirk 25 Mar 2015 00:44
The Russian economy in GDP terms is expected to have a 5% contraction year on year, then pick
up growing. That assumes no favourable changes in oil price, and doesn't factor in Putin's attempts
to steer the Russian economy into greater self-sufficiency. Oil is likely to recover, and the
attempt to shift / diversify the economy could go either way.
(At a minimum, they will be replacing as much of Ukraine's former supply of critical components
as quickly as possible. Russia have been handing out citizenship papers and jobs like candy to
any Ukrainians that were working in the defense related industries. Putin isn't trying to rebuild
the USSR, but he is trying to maintain the capabilities of the USSR by drawing critical personnel
-- and allegedly machinery -- into Russia.)
Jerome Fryer -> BorninUkraine 25 Mar 2015 00:33
It is very sad.
Western propaganda used to be a lot smarter, presumably because of the 'clash of ideologies'
background. Now we are back to the old, pre-Communist threat, standard of "The Kaiser eats babies".
Most people tend to only 'believe' this nonsense at a superficial level, though. Ask them about
the 'reporting' and you'll find that they consider the assertions dubious. Effective propaganda
is intended to operate at more of a subliminal / emotional level, and bypass our thinking abilities.
Jerome Fryer -> pantaraxia 25 Mar 2015 00:25
He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates
into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel.
That is debatable, and incorrect. See here for why he resigned from the ECJC and started his
own "European Jewish Union".
Kolomoisky is no less divisive than Poroshenko. He is, however, very much an 'old school'
Jewish mafia type -- and prone to blatant aggressive behaviour such as the recent takeover of
the UkrTransNafta building by his 'private security'.
Oh, and it appears that Poroshenko has gone with the option to try to arrest Kolomoisky's
'private security', as a start. (Source seems to be RT, though, so about as reliable / unreliable
as the BBC.)
todaywefight -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 00:17
Are you from the newly created Ministry of Truth in Kyiv? or "ukraine tomorrow"?
The former is an oxymoron Truth and Ukraine should never be on the same sentence unless it says
Ukraine failed to tell the truth...that is acceptable...
I dont know Vladimire...in view of the current events and the little fight amongst the Oligarchs...and
accusations against Kolomoisky, his partners and his rather strong response, I am not sure who
the crazy ones are here.
HollyOldDog ID075732 25 Mar 2015 00:15
I could be wrong but I half remember a political cartoon depicting the USA as a Wreaking Ball
against some other economy. I will have to check later.
BorninUkraine rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 00:04
Wow! The circus keeps going.
Poroshenko relieved Kolomoisky of duties of Dniepropetrovsk governor (directive 173/2015).
In response, Kolomoisky promised to take his battalions from the war zone with LNR/DNR and
direct them to take over Kremenchug power plant and the office of Ukrtransgas (Ukrainian "state"
company involved in transport of natural gas). Mega-thieves started all-out struggle, revealing
the criminal nature of current Ukrainian state for all to see in the process.
How can Western media report such a piece of evidence directly incriminating the US and EU?
Old_Donkey 24 Mar 2015 23:53
Let's hope that Natalie Jaresko's skills as a financier are better than her skills as a diplomat.
She's asking Russia to accept a haircut on $3 billion of debt, and Ukraine's situation is so desperate
that you can't blame her for trying. But if she wants the Kremlin to "buy into this vision", she
will need to learn some manners and show Russia some more respect first. Jaresko presents Ukraine
as a country that is "protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour". No one who wanted to persuade
Vladimir Putin to restructure the debt would say that unless they were either very stupid or dutifully
repeating State Department propaganda (or both).
The fundamental problem with the Ukrainian government is that it is incapable of restoring
stability to Ukraine and instead seems hell-bent on a continuation of the civil war. The Kiev
government remains absolutely opposed to finding a political solution to the problems in Eastern
Ukraine and refuses to recognize the authority of the rebel leaders, who, in Donetsk and Lugansk,
are clearly "the only game in town". Jaresko's own government is busily wrecking the Minsk 2 agreement
and has thereby enormously increased the political risks attached to any new loans. Already, Ukrainian
forces have violated the ceasefire by firing on Russian journalists and OSCE observers near Shirokino.
The purpose of an IMF loan is not to enable a country to rearm or to continue fighting a civil
war but to help it to rebuild its financial system. Until we can be confident that Kiev is committed
to implementing Minsk 2, all IMF loans to the Kiev government would therefore be irresponsible
and offered on a dishonest basis. The IMF is specifically prohibited from offering war loans by
its own charter. At the moment, it looks as though Kiev needed Minsk 2 merely for form's sake,
so that it could screw some more cash out of Christine Lagarde to pay for a reconquest of the
Donbass once spring arrives.
Madame Lagarde's career has always benefitted from American support, and her eagerness to return
the favour is understandable. She knows how the game is played but she also knows that loyalty
to a patron has its limits. So if Jaresko and her State Department controllers expect Madame Lagarde
to violate the IMF's own rules by continuing to fund Ukraine's neo-Nazi war machine, they may
find themselves disappointed. Madame Lagarde still has a reputation to protect but Jaresko lost
hers as soon as she joined the criminal regime in Kiev.
Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:46
"we are lucky to have the support of the IMF."
Yes well according to Jaresko's biography which includes very cosey relationship with the IMF,
i dont think luck played any hand in it.
What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova? Conflict of interest?
Or just business as usual?
Jaresko said she could not complain that Ukraine had been ignored while the European Union
tried to sort out the problems of Greece.
It's a joke isn't it?
Jaresko parachuted in by the US to help shore-up the coup they created financially and think
it should have the same status as Greece. Now claiming a similar restructuring package that the
EU refused for Tsipras?
The difference being that Ukraine is not part of the EU, nor part of NATO.
Jaresko is claiming that Russia is a threat to Europe? We all know Putin's big idea was for
more trade integration with Europe that was the actual threat the US didn't want. So they turned
Ukraine into a buffer against this happening, although its become more of a punch bag.
Another wreaking US intervention, we're all wise to this now. And when it's wreaked buy it
cheap - great for Amerika's business. A win win for US backed business, a lose lose for the Ukrainian
people!
EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 23:31
Well, the oligarch war in Ukraine is intensifying. Kolomoiskyi threatened the head of Naftogas
to take his battalions out of the war zone and to occupy the office of Ukrtransgas and Kremenchug
power station. Poroshenko just fired Kolomoiskyi from his position of the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk
region, which Kolomoiskyi is not about to give up, of course. The Ukrainian parliament, Rada,
in the meantime is considering privatization of Privatbank owned by Kolomoiskyi, the move that
could crush whatever is left of the Ukrainian financial system. Curiouser and curiouser.
I do hope that even those people in the West who had no clue before now realize that kind of
personages their governments brought to power in Ukraine. Ukraine is in chaos, there is no government
to speak of, and all these colorful individuals keep their personal airplanes ready for immediate
departure.
Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:09
"There is always a risk of a default," she added, noting that several factions in Ukraine's
parliament were demanding that the government go down that route.
In Ukraine, we call it the classic 'Ha Ha..screw you maneuver.'
twiglette 24 Mar 2015 23:04
This absurd narrativeve that Ukraine is a beacon of Western democracy! It is a corrupt racist
state whose current elite came to power in a U.S. inspired coupe that threw out the elected government
that wished to join Russia. It has fought a viscous war against its Russian east. It deserves
nothing.
rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 23:03
Looks like Kolomoiskyi has had it. The "Kyiv Post" just ran an article in which they mention
that Kolo has (gasp) "connections to organised crime".
:-D
Last week they were *very* careful about what they said about Kolomoiskyi to the point of barely
reporting the events. But now the rats are fleeing the sinking ship.
Kolo had better skedaddle before we see yet another mysterious defenestration.
OneTop 24 Mar 2015 22:58
Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can
move towards stability
Jaresko is a US citizen who was appointed by Nuland [Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs] to run the finance ministry of the Ukraine. (the Ukraine granted her citizenship
-- to give the appearance of legitimacy).
The Ukraine is run by very powerful oligarchs who have to date, much more political and real
power than the western installed and supported Poroshenko.
There is no doubt the US / West will continue to support Poroshenko as he desperately needs
US support to maintain his position, the more powerful "other" oligarchs with their private armies
do not.
Jaresko is simply parroting US diktat (her paymasters) which is building the narrative that
Ukraines' debt to Russia (primarily for energy) be legally declared as odious debt.
Which means that the Ukraine could stiff Russia for the billions it owes for goods and services
already rendered.
In plain words, Jaresko is a mindless mandarin installed by America in an effort to wrest Ukraine
from their evil Russian masters.
Vaska Tumir Kata L 24 Mar 2015 22:11
America's Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, has now informed him, in no uncertain
terms, that "the law of the jungle" must end in Ukraine.
Ambassador Pyatt's statements are taken very seriously by Ukrainian Government officials.
Really?
They ARE the "law of the jungle" enforcers in Ukraine, as Pyatt knows perfectly well. In this
instance, what we have is a situation in which a set of criminals of exactly the same sort as
those in power but currently not in the government itself (Kolomoysky and his lot) is stronger
than the set of criminals the USA put in power in Kiev. That's what comes from having a foreign
policy based on pure banditry.
ChristopherMyers 24 Mar 2015 22:09
I realize this may be a very bizarre thought, but the situation here in the Ukraine bears a
striking resemblance to the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 by the United States.
BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:57
It's not only the media, it is much broader than that. When I left USSR in 1991, most educated
people believed BBC, Voice of America, and Western media in general, and had fairly good feelings
about the US and Europe.
When I started reading Russian news sites last year (simply because the Western narrative about
Ukrainian crisis made no sense to someone who has friends and relatives all over Ukraine), I was
appalled by the level of anti-American and anti-EU feelings. Americans are called almost invariably
"pindós" [Cyrillic spelling пиндос], which is a pretty derogative term, the US is called "pindostan",
and most people think that Western media lie almost as much as Ukrainian media, which are notorious
for ludicrous lies (like the story that Russia used nukes in the fight for Lugansk airport).
In the USSR I always knew that Soviet media are spewing propaganda, using half-truths and
blatant lies. However, compared to current reporting on Ukraine in the Western media, even Soviet
papers look truthful. It is very sad.
pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 21:45
It will be fascinating to see which way the US goes with Kolomoisky vs. Poroshenko.
On the one hand a lot of time and energy has been expended propping up the Poroshenko gov't.
In spite of this he is rapidly losing popularity with the populace and may be seen as expendable.
A convenient scapegoat for the failed military operation in eastern Ukraine. However another regime
change at this point would threaten the country with absolute chaos and would make external financing
arrangements problematic to say the least.
Kolomoisky is hooked into the US state department, via Bursima, the murky gas company where
both VP Biden's son and Kerry's stepson(?) are members of its Board. He is also president of European
Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests
in the US and Israel. Kolomoisky and Nuland seem to be kindred spirits both in their advocacy
for a military solution as well as their general ziocon tendencies.
Interesting times indeed.
whitemangotnodreamin -> normankirk 24 Mar 2015 21:41
Because they are probably under instructions to support Poroshenko and his side kick no matter
what..lest they want their hard drives smashed to smithereens in the carpark as it happened before.
They did it with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Torture and Kidnapping, Diego Garcia...all of these glossed
over...lately even the "suicide" of 7 party of regions members they reported as 4 and did not
open for comments...such is life
frankverismo -> Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 21:39
"I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the
rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article."
I don't think you get how this works. Or you simply don't wish to see the sheer depth of the
venality at work. Jaresko has been put there by Washington. The plan is exactly the opposite of
granting Ukraine its sovereign independence but rather to put it even further into debt thus putting
it completely at the mercy of outside forces. It's already a black hole - and she's asking for
the death blow.
"And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have
been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous
leaders too."
Correct.
"Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present"
Kindly tell us all about this 'aggression'. Be specific. You are, I assume, aware that Russia
has had its Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea since the 18th century? What was Russia going
to do when a US-backed coup happened on her doorstep? Hand her naval base over to NATO and let
Kiev do to Crimea what they've been doing in Donbass? Really? Be honest. What would you have done?
"Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions,
tied to the feet of a sinking Russia."
Were the Russian economy remotely similar to the US' this might be so. But it isn't. It has
a low debt-to-GDP ratio, an expanding manufacturing base and countries other than Europe and the
US perfectly willing to trade with it (and not in US$). The sanctions are certainly an annoyance
as is the low oil price but long-term this will only serve to further divorce Russia from the
West's sick fiat system - a very healthy thing.
rogermell1e Systematic 24 Mar 2015 21:34
"I wonder how long can The Guardian & Co."
I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst
those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere)
will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled.
This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia
had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated.
TOR2000 24 Mar 2015 21:33
Kiev continues to violate the ceasefire (OSCE):
Between 09:40 and 10:40hrs, whilst at an observation point in the eastern outskirts of Sopyne
(government-controlled, 15km east of Mariupol, 2.5km west of Shyrokyne) the SMM heard heavy
engagement of small arms, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and mortars, including
70 outgoing 82mm and 120mm mortar shells. The SMM assessed that the fire originated from one
kilometre to the east and was directed further east of the SMM's position. An additional ten
82mm mortar shells hit 400m east of the SMM's position, some of which detonated in the air
indicating that they were fitted with distance or time delay fuses. Due to the security situation,
the SMM relocated to another observation point 4km north-west of Shyrokyne ("DPR"-controlled,
20km east of Mariupol, 102km south of Donetsk). Between 11:33 and 12:06hrs the SMM observed
three incoming 82mm mortar shells exploding above Ukrainian Armed Forces positions north of
Berdyanske (government-controlled, 18km east of Mariupol). It also heard small arms and light
weapons fire as well as ten mortar detonations but was not able to ascertain the direction
and calibre.
The SMM unarmed/unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitored both sides of the contact line east
of Mariupol. At 17:38hrs, in Shyrokyne the SMM UAV observed outgoing mortar fire from a Ukrainian
Armed Forces position.
The SMM revisited four Ukrainian Armed Forces heavy weapons holding areas, all of which
comply with the respective withdrawal lines and remain in situ. All serial numbers are consistent
with previous visits. Additionally, the SMM intended to monitor two additional holding areas,
but these sites no longer contained any heavy weapons.
BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:33
Yes, the competition between two mega-thieves, Kolomoisky and Poroshenko, intensified in the
last few days. Considering that the head of SBU (Ukrainian KGB) Nalivaichenko, who is CIA agent
and US citizen, took the side of Poroshenko, the US plans to play against Kolomoisky. This does
not guarantee Poroshenko win, though: this is about a lot of money to be made on oil, gas, etc,
and then on grain that will be paid by farmers in return for credits for gas, diesel, and lubricants
they need for planting.
It is well known (not in the West, I am sure, where people are fed ridiculous lies) that for
this amount of money Kolomoisky would kill his own mother, let alone Poroshenko or even US ambassador.
So buying some popcorn is a good idea.
whitemangotnodreamin -> Jerome Fryer 24 Mar 2015 21:21
No prospect to repay 'loans' makes those loans unlikely.
Precisely, what Jaresko is essentially saying is give us the money but don't ask for it back...
Nick is a confused soul...or a purposely confused one.
whitemangotnodreamin 24 Mar 2015 20:41
I actually watched one of her interviews on Bloomberg, full of softballs, she seldom if ever
answered a question, in particular what would happen if Russia demands payment at the end of the
year, and the fact that they are asking creditors to take a rather large haircut. The softest
thing about this woman are her teeth, but as we will see being hard does not translate to being
tough, hit a brick in the right place and it breaks.
So let's see who is Natalie Jaresko:
" A Chicago-born investment banker who received her Ukrainian citizenship in December 2014,
she. is Ukraine's finance minister and in total control of Ukrainian financial policy. In the
late '80s and early '90s, she just so happened to hold several positions at the US State Department
before taking the position of Chief of the Economic Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine. She
also managed the USAID-financed Western NIS Enterprise Fund, which kindly provided funds for
'pro-democracy' movements in Belarus, Moldova and, predictably, Ukraine. "
Ms.Jaresko, is involved in court proceedings, again. This time for breaching US passport laws.
She was previously a US State Dept. employee and was granted Ukrainian citizenship so she could
take the job.
She has previously been in court over the misappropriation of US funding through her previous
company Horizon Capital. This company just happened to be a partner of Yatsenyuk's pre maidan
campaign. The other party in the case is her husband who she has been attempting to silence by
court order. She has also so far managed to silence her former husband spilling the beans of some
significant loan improprieties.
But, hey what would one expect of a President who, was secretly palling up to the US's embassy
in Kyiv when he was a minister for 3 different administrations in Ukraine, a man whose latest
Human resource success was the employment of "Help me or I'll eat my red tie" Saakashvili a man
wanted in Georgia who was being kept quietly in the US until now.
bobby_fisher 24 Mar 2015 20:33
US citizen, financial shaister and former State Department employee Natalie Jaresko is well
positioned as Finance minister of Ukraine to oversee implementation of the H.R. 5859, the Ukraine
Freedom Support Act, that among other things gives control to Washington over Ukrainian Energy
policies, provides protections to American oil, gas, biotech, financial corporate interests over
legitimate interests of Ukrainian people.
This seals the fate of Ukraine as US colony, instead of an independent state.
Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 20:32
I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant
corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article.
And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been
the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders
too.
Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present,
but there will have to be real and substantial changes in the way Ukrainians conduct their businesses
and government before they're going to get the kind money the finance minister is asking for.
It does seem fitting though, that given the economic ties between the two countries, Ukraine's
failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet
of a sinking Russia.
HollyOldDog DerFremde 24 Mar 2015 20:23
The Russian Steppes? The Ukrainian fracking has not shown commercial quantities of gas/oil.
To try the same techniques in East Ukraine would mean closing down the existing coal mines first
and even then there is a serious risk of contaminating the fresh water both underground and surface
waters. All this with only minor prospects of finding commercial quantities of Fracked oil/gas.
If the existing cialthey mines in East Ukraine were closed down then where would West Ukraine
get its coal of a suitable quality to be used in its coal fired power stations?
HollyOldDog Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 20:11
And not forgetting the looting of the Iraq museums by any sneak theif who walked through the
unguarded doors . Only the Oil Ministry was important to the Americans.
pantaraxia HollyOldDog 24 Mar 2015 20:09
The Japanese had been attempting to surrender months before Hiroshima. The back channels went
through the USSR with no constructive response from the American side.
According to a number of analysts there was another reason for dropping the nuclear bombs
- to showcase to the USSR and the world the raw power available to the US military. A scare tactic.
Manolo Torres -> DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 19:30
That seems indeed a very good book, but one may end up extremely disgusted after reading it.
From the review, to give our friends an idea of what Mrs Jaresko might be up to now and why her
urgent plead:
An unprecedented account of life in Baghdad's Green Zone, a walled-off enclave of towering
plants, posh villas, and sparkling swimming pools that was the headquarters for the American
occupation of Iraq. The Washington Post's former Baghdad bureau chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran
takes us with him into the Zone; into a bubble, cut off from wartime realities, where the task
of reconstructing a devastated nation competed with the distractions of a Little America-a
half-dozen bars stocked with cold beer, a disco where women showed up in hot pants, a movie
theater that screened shoot-'em-up films, an all-you-could-eat buffet piled high with pork,
a shopping mall that sold pornographic movies, a parking lot filled with shiny new SUVs, and
a snappy dry-cleaning service- much of it run by Halliburton
In the vacuum of postwar planning, Bremer ignores what Iraqis tell him they want or need
and instead pursues irrelevant neoconservative solutions-a flat tax, a sell-off of Iraqi government
assets, and an end to food rationing. His underlings spend their days drawing up pie-in-the-sky
policies, among them a new traffic code and a law protecting microchip designs, instead
of rebuilding looted buildings and restoring electricity production.
Mordantdude 24 Mar 2015 19:14
Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has
given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.
Meanwhile with the little help from "the free world" Ukraine downgraded further into junk by
Moody's. Do you need more?
pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 19:14
The whole IMF program is a con job, transferring debt onto the Ukrainian government and its
taxpayers (with the inevitable austerity and privatization programs to follow), while leaving
the back door wide open to systemic abuse by well-connected oligarchs.
As for where the IMF money which has been paid into the Ukrainian banks has gone, the report
discloses … the banking system faced large foreign currency outflows (US$3.1 billion). Capital
controls likely prevented larger outflows, but were not fully effective in stemming them."
In short, of the $3.2 billion disbursed to the Ukrainian treasury by the IMF at the start
of May, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the middle of August.
The looting continues.
HollyOldDog -> nickpossum 24 Mar 2015 19:08
There is a history of the other side of the coin with the actions of the USA. When Japan was
on the point of defeat and negociations for Japan's surrender to the USA and its allies were occuring
, the USA decided to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. A senior military spokesman from that period
gave the reasons why.
1. To force Japan to surrender more quickley and solely under the terms Givern solely by the
USA.
2. If it saved only ONE DAY of negociations then dropping nuclear bombs on Jalan would be worth
it.
Millions of Japanese citizens died either through the the blasts themselves or by radiation
sickness just for the Americans to save ONE DAY of negociations.
pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 18:36
For the sordid backstory on the IMF loan to Ukraine:
The new loan terms announced by the IMF last week, postpone reform by the commercial banks
until well into 2016. In the meantime, the IMF says it will allow about $4 billion of its loan
cash to be diverted to the treasuries of the oligarch-owned banks. That is almost one dollar
in four of the IMF loan to Ukraine.
The biggest beneficiary of last year's IMF financing is likely to repeat its good fortune,
according to sources close to the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU). This is PrivatBank, controlled
by Igor Kolomoisky , governor of Dniepropetrovsk region and financier of several units fighting
on Kiev's side in the civil war.
snip
…Kolomoisky has been assured by the IMF that he is one of the few Ukrainian taxpayers to
be safe from an increase in income tax.
snip
The justification for the PrivatBank payout, …
For collateral, Gontareva (NBU Governor) has accepted a shareholding in the bank, plus an undisclosed
number of airplanes owned by Kolomoisky, or by airlines associated with the Privat group. ….
They are all bankrupt, and so the asset value is uncertain and the subject of creditor claims
pending in several countries
and the punch line:
…." A Geneva banker with an office close to Kolomoisky's residence in the city comments:
"Not even the Swiss have thought of war financing like this – funding civil war, then taking
international loans for compensation, then banking the profit margin in Geneva."
DIPSET Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 18:17
Be fair, most of that money to rebuild Iraq was stolen by the same homicidal maniacs that destroyed
the country in the first place.
True that.
You won't find a better tome than this book on the whole debacle and financial corruption the
Yanks got into in Iraq.....
Because of bureaucratic delays, only 2 percent of the $18.4 billion Supplemental had been
spent. Nothing had been expended on construction, health care, sanitation, or the provision
of clean water, and more money had been devoted to administration than all projects related
to education, human rights, democracy, and governance combined. At the same time, the CPA had
managed to dole out almost all of a $20 billion development fund fed by Iraq's oil sales, more
than $1.6 billion of which had been used to pay Halliburton, primarily for trucking fuel into
Iraq.
Or this......
The first guy who was assigned to help rebuild Iraq's health sector was named Skip Burkle.
And Skip is physician. He has a Master's degree in public health. He has four postgraduate
degrees. He teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. He had worked in Kosovo,
in Somalia and in Northern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. He also was employed by the U.S. Agency
for International Development, and a USAID colleague called him the single most talented post-conflict
public health specialist in the U.S. government. But a few weeks after the fall of Saddam's
government, Mr. Burkle was informed by an email from a superior at USAID that he was being
replaced. He was told that the White House wanted, quote/unquote, "a loyalist" in the job.
And I write in the book that Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with
the President.
In his place was sent Jim Haveman. Jim Haveman does not have a medical degree. He was a
social worker, and he was the former Director of Community Health in the State of Michigan.
Prior to his stint in government, he had a little bit of international experience, but it was
largely in the context of being a director for International Aid, a faith-based relief organization
that promotes Christianity in the developing world in conjunction with development assistance.
And prior to that, he headed up a large adoption agency in the State of Michigan that urges
pregnant women not to have abortions.
Well, Haveman showed up, and his view was that, look, Iraq didn't need a huge infusion of
money to rebuild its hospitals, even though I and other people who have been to Iraqi hospitals
have seen them to be thoroughly decrepit and really, you know, in need of an overhaul, and
particularly with the violence that's wracking that country today and the number of injured
from insurgent attacks. You would think that really putting resources toward rebuilding emergency
rooms would be a top priority.
Instead, Haveman devoted resources to other projects.
And now they have moved onto Ukraine.
Good luck is all i can say......
Bosula -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:56
Ukraine is a country not a business. The interests of countries are very different from fund
mangers, hedge funds, etc.
Very unusual to bring in a foreigner to a country to run a finance ministry when there are
serious legal allegationS about propriety hanging over her head.
Could you imagine bringing in a Sate Department official to run the finances of the UK?
Ukraine has a lot of smart people...
Another Nuland buddy meddling in Ukrainian affairs.
DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:53
now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the corporate takeover
Ah yes, the faustian pact and it's tentacles are eating Ukraine up (and soon to spit out an
empty husk) right in front of our eyes.
Remember that American company that brought up all that pure and rich soil and agricultural
land in Ukraine ?
Look what's been happening back at the ranch in Yankee Land......
After paying an original sum of $2.4 million to reimburse farmers for contaminating their
fields with genetically modified wheat that had not even yet been approved for farming, Monsanto
has been forced to pay another $350,000 in order to settle a class action lawsuit brought upon
by numerous farmers from over seven different states.
The news comes amid economic struggles for the biotech juggernaut that have resulted in
the loss of share value and poor projections for the long term future. In last year's fourth
quarter, Monsanto reported a loss of $156 million. And for the multi-billion dollar company,
it's not about the monetary figure, but the future of its genetically modified creations that
the public just simply isn't buying.
In the latest legal settlement, we find that Monsanto's new method of simply paying off
farmers just isn't going to cut it when it comes to international trade. Following the news
that GMO wheat had contaminated nearby wheat supplies, Japan and South Korea suspended a number
of wheat orders from the United States - a blow towards the national economy in full thanks
to Monsanto.
And these are the "friends" Ukraine have placed their trust in since this whole think kicked
off last year.
Who needs enemies, eh ?
Fascinating times...
frankverismo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:36
"Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild
occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do
we even think of that as "policy"?
The Wolfowitz Doctrine is a giant boot sworn to crush national self-determination wheresoever
on the globe it may be found. If ordinary Americans have to pay the bill, so be it.
It's not much of a policy - but it's what happens when Washington is taken over by those the
White House used to rightly refer to as 'The Crazies'.
BunglyPete DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 17:30
9
10
It gets better! Pinchuk made donations to the Clinton fund before Maidan, and not only this he
was the top contributor.
Back in September 2013 they all met with Blair, Branson, IMF and more to hash it all out in Yalta
at a Pinchuk bash.
Check vesti-ukr.com a Ukraine news site now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament
to the coporate takeover. Fantastic stuff.
Some images remain like scars on my memory. One of the last things I saw in Iraq, where
I spent a year with the Department of State helping squander some of the $44 billion American
taxpayers put up to "reconstruct" that country, were horses living semi-wild among the muck
and garbage of Baghdad. ...
I flew home that same day, a too-rapid change of worlds, to a country in which the schools
of my hometown in Ohio could not afford to pay teachers a decent wage. Once great cities were
rotting away as certainly as if they were in Iraq, where those horses were scrabbling to get
by.
To this day I'm left pondering these questions: Why has the United States spent so much
money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its
own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?
Canigou 24 Mar 2015 17:24
I like the picture at the top of the article-----it shows burning tires, tired and hungry-looking
men sitting on makeshift seats and shivering, trash strewn about, some motley men in the background
standing about doing nothing, some sinister-looking smoke rising as a backdrop. A bleak, hellish,
desperate, post-apocalyptic landscape.
It seems to be from the Maidan riots of last year, but makes a fitting image for an article
about the Ukraine economy of 2015.
EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 17:23
Well, people of Europe, it's time to open up your wallets to pay for the handiwork of your
leaders. Ukraine is indeed a large country on the verge of economical collapse marred in a civil
war. The present "government" did everything in its power to ruin the economy succeeding quite
well. They alienated and then destroyed Donbass responsible for a good part of the country's economic
output. They disrupted economic ties with Russia, the main trading partner, so most enterprises
have closed or are closing throwing workers out on the streets.
Give these people more money - and they'll spend some on the war they'll lose, and steal the
rest. It is hard to tell whether they are more inept or corrupt - I guess they are just well-rounded
individuals combining the highest degree of greed and corruption with utter stupidity/ineptitude
and total disregard for their country's interests. One example: Ukraine is short on coal, but
the miners in Volyne region, the only coal deposit outside of Donbass, haven't been paid for months
and are now on strike. Is that what they mean by "structural reforms", not paying salaries any
more?
HollyOldDog -> UncleSam404 24 Mar 2015 17:23
Interesting, so you agree with the Ukrainian Oligarts having a right to plunder the assets
of Ukraine - Let the People eat cake. Perhaps this attitude that the West has to Ukraine will
bolster the undercurrent of discontent within West Ukraine citizens to boot out its current government
and Western Freeloaders.
A French style revolution baring the gillotine is in the cards.
nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:19
Jaresko said the IMF loan was enough to stabilise the economy but not sufficient to "reorganise
and renew" it.
The intention to "reorganise and renew" Ukraine's economy is very generous indeed. However,
before accepting this job, Ms. Jaresko should draw some lessons from previous unsuccessful attempts
of the kind:
The U.S. has spent more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany
after World War II. And it's not done yet.
Released: January 18, 2013
The United States has invested more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than
it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. $60.45 billion has been spent in Iraq, more than
$100 billion in Afghanistan. For comparison, the U.S. spent less than $35 billion in today's
dollars in Germany from 1946 through 1952...
These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts
exceeds $1.4 trillion.
babalua Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:18
Ukraine is not to be compared to anything, let alone to a company. Parasite living off Russia,
EU and everyone else. Should not really be a state. With crooks in power? Not only crooks, but
literally scum?! You call it a country and compare it to whatever? Oh, god, wake up. You know
, the funnu thing is that this black hole of Europe even wants to compete with Russia. Who are
these people from U? Are they taking LSD?
DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:17
She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre
all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.
:-)
As always, you are spot on Sir.
I'm sure you have read this but sharing is caring as they say lol..........
Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department,
she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons.
......a new Cold War took shape. Prominent neocons, including Nuland's husband Robert Kagan, a
co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which masterminded the Iraq War, hammered
home the domestic theme that Obama had shown himself to be "weak," thus inviting Putin's "aggression."
In May 2014, Kagan published a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get
to Retire," in which Kagan castigated Obama for failing to sustain American dominance in the world
and demanding a more muscular U.S. posture toward adversaries.
According to a New York Times article about how the essay took shape and its aftermath, writer
Jason Horowitz reported that Kagan and Nuland shared a common world view as well as professional
ambitions, with Nuland editing Kagan's articles, including the one tearing down her ostensible boss.
Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on her husband's attack on Obama, she indicated that
she held similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that
I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."
Horowitz reported that Obama was so concerned about Kagan's assault that the President revised
his commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of the criticism and invited Kagan to lunch
at the White House, where one source told me that it was like "a meeting of equals."
I found this bit even more fascinating......
And, whenever peace threatens to break out in Ukraine, Nuland jumps in to make sure that the interests
of war are protected. Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande
hammered out a plan for a cease-fire and a political settlement, known as Minsk-2, prompting Nuland
to engage in more behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sabotage the deal.
In another overheard conversation - in Munich, Germany - Nuland mocked the peace agreement as
"Merkel's Moscow thing," according to the German newspaper Bild, citing unnamed sources, likely from
the German government which may have bugged the conference room in the luxurious Bayerischer Hof
hotel and then leaked the details.
Picking up on Nuland's contempt for Merkel, another U.S. official called the Minsk-2 deal the
Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."
Nuland suggested that Merkel and Hollande cared only about the practical impact of the Ukraine
war on Europe: "They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia." According
to the Bild story, Nuland also laid out a strategy for countering Merkel's diplomacy by using strident
language to frame the Ukraine crisis.
"We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them," Nuland reportedly
said
Europe has got itself entangled in some bullshit it is going to regret for a looooong time.
Hope them cookies tasted good and were worth it.
BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 16:57
Jaresko is quite possibly the most poorly judged person to be in her position, nevermind
make these claims.
She is not only a US citizen ex State Dept employee who was granted Ukrainian citizenship just
to take the job, she is involved in other affairs that seriously question her credibility.
Firstly she is involved in a lawsuit filed by her ex husband who claims she missappropriated
USAID funds through her Ukrainian company Horizon Capital. She had a court injuction taken out
to prevent her husband discussing the case.
Furthermore, Horizon Capital funded Yatsenyuk's Open Ukraine campaign in the years before
he came to power.
The whole idea of the new government was to get rid of corruption and outside influence and
move to a new honest and accountable system.
Now we have a foreigner trying their hardest to push more IMF debt which benefits very few
people other than those friendly to Jaresko; which would be, western financial and corporate
interests, the main IMF stakeholders and the Yatsenyuk government.
Ukrainian citizens lose pensions and fight over food in supermarkets as Jaresko is chaffeuered
around in the most expensive car her ministry has ever bought.
She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member.
Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.
nnedjo -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:56
What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded that justified armed take over of
police stations and tanks being sent into Ukraine.
The government which the Ukrainian people voted in the previous election was violently
overthrown in Kiev, by the people for which the people from the Donbas not only never voted,
but in many cases not even know them.
So, it's very simple. People from Donbas took care to protect their police stations and
other government buildings that foreign visitors would not have entered into them.
frankverismo 24 Mar 2015 16:56
"Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country
that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour,"
she said.
Was a more incorrect statement ever made? The 'democracy' of which she speaks was, sadly,
Victoria Nuland's idea of democracy: "the democracy Ukraine deserves".
Does Ukraine really 'deserve' to be torn apart by warring oligarchs while being used by
Washington as a proxy war theatre to bait Russia into a wider conflict? Should the Ukranian
people have seen this coming? Probably. Did they ever have much choice in the matter? Little,
if any. A bloody tragedy.
brianboru1014 psygone 24 Mar 2015 16:44
Russian economy going down the tubes?
I very much doubt it. They have what the West needs, and lots of it
The article is about this Ukrainian Foreign Minister, a woman with a begging bowl and really
zero to offer the West except a monstrous headache. Too bad Bush's neocon Victoria Nuland (who
should have been dismissed by Obama, but wasn't) but was able to poison everything in this
particular part of the world with her now famous obscene comment referring to the European
Union.[11] After discussing Ukrainian opposition figures Nuland stated that she preferred the
United Nations as mediator, instead of the European Union, adding "Fuck the EU,".
So as a result, the EU will give her zero.
nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 16:34
"Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that
has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she [Mrs
Jaresko] said.
So, practically until yesterday, in its economic existence Ukraine relied on its
"aggressive neighbor." This is what Russian PM Medvedev wrote about it in his article, at the
end of last year:
How Russia supported the Ukrainian economy
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this (including the gas transport system)
went to Ukraine. In addition, Russia took on the entire Soviet debt. Ukraine entered a new
era in its history, free of any burden. That is why in 1991 its initial conditions for
economic growth were among the best in the post-Soviet space. And that's precisely why the
economy of independent Ukraine managed to remain afloat. Until recently, Ukraine was using
its past achievements to survive. It continued to rely on cooperation with Russia. And it
used our resources.
Does Mrs. Jaresko thought to this when she said that "Ukraine protects Europe from its
aggressive eastern neighbor." Okay, no problem. Aggressive eastern neighbor no longer needs to
pumped gas and money to Ukraine with its invasive methods. As of this moment its "less
aggressive" Western friends can take on this responsibility. In particular, the country of
origin of Mrs. Jaresko, United States, could take care of it. It is also a very big country,
and besides, they constantly boast to their economic superiority over Russia.
Well then, if you wanted, here you go, be our guest!
SHappens -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:26
It's the same with ISIS supporters and ISIS terrorists, they need each other for
their terrorist activities to spread
Indeed, what we do not hear about is that while we fight the Islamic State, alias ISIS, in
Iraq and Syria, Washington and the Caliphate are fighting on the same side in Ukraine.
Nobody is paying attention to the role played by the Dudayev Battalion, a fighting force of
Islamic radicals consisting of Chechens, but also including fighters from the Caucasus and
some Ukrainians.
geedeesee -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:24
"What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded..."
If the Russians had invaded it would be a war, whether declarations had been made or not.
The Ukraine-Russian War. But there is no war between the two states. Kiev instead calls it an
"anti-terror operation". Objective observers like me would call it a civil war.
Steve Ennever 24 Mar 2015 15:48
That's American, Natalie - I'm Ukrainian now - Jaresko, right? Strange, even David
Cameron had some thoughts on this subject...
It appears supporting the overthrow of one democratically elected president because you
didn't like him & he was corrupt, apparently doesn't remove the corruption.
But other things should be raising the eyebrows of lenders right now, & Jaresko.
This is a country that has given its life to democracy......
The major loss of life has been in the Donbass, where its civilians have been killed in the
tens of thousands.They are the ones who can be said to have given their lives to democracy.
Once again "democracy" has been the trojan horse for corporate interests and the Wolfowitz
doctrine.
I hope that one day Ukraine does achieve a true democracy,but it wont be through the
efforts of the criminal Nuland-Pyatt crowd.
DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 15:24
C'mon Larry, it ain't a plea for "help".
It's pure, unprincipled, without a sliver of self pride and shame begging.
Beg for gas
Beg for coal
Beg for weapons
Beg for money
Beg for EU membership
Beg for money again
Beg for cookies
Beg for a football tournament to be cancelled
Beg for men to be sent to die in the East
After they stupidly get the real war and invasion they have been moaning for, watch them *beg
for mercy.
*Shout out to G-Unit for those that know ;-)
Watch them in the next couple of weeks beg Russia to not call in that 5 Billion loan repayment
that is due.
2015 is going to be one helluva year.....
brianboru1014 24 Mar 2015 14:58
Ukraine is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbor she said with a straight face.
She says the country had 70 years of Communism, which it had, and 23 years of incomplete
reforms.
She should have said 23 years of thievery because the people of Ukraine didn't see too much
benefit. Twenty three years of neo liberalism. That's a very hard sell.
Though "Bibi" Netanyahu won re-election last week, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
will still look into whether the State Department financed a clandestine effort to defeat him.
Reportedly, State funneled $350,000 to an American NGO called OneVoice, which has an Israeli subsidiary,
Victory 15, that collaborated with U.S. operatives to bring Bibi down.
If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders
President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against
democracies.
After World War II, my late colleague on CNN's "Crossfire," Tom Braden, delivered CIA cash
to democratic parties in Europe imperiled by communist parties financed from Moscow.
But that was done to combat Stalinism when Western survival was at stake in a Cold War that ended
in 1991.
Hopefully, after looking into OneVoice and V15, the Senate will expand its investigation into
a larger question: Is the U.S. using NGOs to subvert regimes around the world? And, if so, who decides
which regimes may be subverted?
What gives these questions urgency is the current crisis that has Moscow moving missiles toward
Europe and sending submarines and bombers to probe NATO defenses.
America contends that Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and backing for pro-Russian rebels
in Ukraine is the cause of the gathering storm in Russian-NATO relations.
Yet Putin's actions in Ukraine were not taken until the overthrow of a democratically elected
pro-Russian regime in Kiev, in a coup d'etat in which, Moscow contends, an American hand was clearly
visible.
Not only was John McCain in Kiev's Maidan Square egging on the crowds that drove the regime from
power, so, too, was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
In an intercepted phone call with our ambassador in Kiev, Nuland identified the man we preferred
when President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. "Yats," she called him. And when Yanukovych fled after
the Maidan massacre, sure enough, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was in power.
Nuland also revealed that the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 1991 to bring about the reorientation
of Ukraine toward the West.
Now, bringing Ukraine into the EU and NATO may appear to Nuland & Co. a great leap forward for
freedom and progress.
But to Russia it looks like the subversion of a Slavic nation with which she has had intimate
ties for centuries, to bring Ukraine into an economic union and military alliance directed against
Moscow.
And if NATO stumbles into a military clash with Russia, the roots of that conflict will be traceable
to the coup in Kiev that Russians believe was the dirty work of the Americans.
If the U.S. had a role in that coup, the American people should know it and the Senate should
find out whether Nuland & Co. used NGOs to reignite a Cold War that Ronald Reagan brought to an end.
And if we are now using NGOs as fronts for secret operations to dump over regimes, we are putting
all NGOs abroad under suspicion and at risk.
Not in our lifetimes has America been more distrusted and disliked. And among the reasons is that
we are seen as constantly carping at governments that do not measure up to our standards of democracy,
and endlessly interfering in the internal affairs of nations that do not threaten us.
In this new era, U.S. foreign policy elites have boasted of the "color-coded" revolutions they
helped to foment in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi. In 2003, we helped to overthrow the Georgian regime
of Eduard Shevardnadze in a "Rose Revolution" that brought to power Mikheil Saakashvili. And Saakashvili
nearly dragged us into a confrontation with Russia in 2008, when he invaded South Ossetia and killed
Russian peacekeepers.
What vital interest of ours was there in that little nation in the Caucasus, the birthplace of
Stalin, to justify so great a risk?
Nor is it Moscow alone that is angered over U.S. interference in its internal affairs and those
of its neighbor nations.
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has expelled members of U.S. NGOs. Beijing believes U.S.
NGOs were behind the Occupy-Wall-Street-style street blockages in Hong Kong.
If true, these U.S. actions raise a fundamental question:
What is the preeminent goal of U.S. foreign policy?
Is it to protect the vital interests and national security of the Republic? Or do we believe with
George W. Bush that, "The survival of liberty" in America "depends on the success of liberty in other
lands."
If it is the latter, then our mission is utopian – and unending.
For if we believe our liberty is insecure until the whole world is democratic, then we cannot
rest until we witness the overthrow of the existing regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam,
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, most of the Arab and African nations, as well as Venezuela
and Cuba.
And if that is our goal, our Republic will die trying to achieve it.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain
Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features
by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
This strikes me as very good big picture analysis:
"So there are two ways by which the current stand-off will play out.
The first one, and arguably the less likely one, is that Russia backs down and ultimately,
under continued economic pressure, agrees to privatize its national monopolies or even sell
them directly to Western firms, and thus become a sort of Saudi Arabia of the North.
The second one is that Russia fends off this latest Western encroachment, forcing the
West to re-examine the structure of its post-Cold War political economy. With economic expansion
no longer on the table, the West will have a choice of rediscovering the benefits of redistributive
policies, or embark on exclusionary policies that would have to be backed by a police state."
If the MSM will ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing,
then Western governments will take what they have learned from the junta and apply them to their
own societies.
Fern, March 23, 2015 at 6:23 am
Tim, thanks for posting the 'fortruss' article by J Hawk – a very good analysis. FWIW, my own
thoughts are that it is absolutely essential for the EU and the West generally that Crimea does
not prosper. i would go so far as to say that, to a large extent, the future of the neo-liberal
economic order depends on Crimea becoming an economic disaster zone. For what has happened as
a result of its reunification with Russia, almost an accidental bi-product, you might say, is
that the world and its wife has the opportunity to watch two different development models in action,
literally side by side. In Ukraine, there's the IMF 'austerity' model – privatisation, asset stripping,
foreign ownership of key parts of the economy, cutting back the role of the state to the bare
minimum, poverty for much of the population etc. In Crimea's there's a different model, one that
sees a role for the state as well as private enterprise – much like the mixed economies of the
west in the 1970's before the neo-liberals grabbed control – and where's there's genuine job-creating,
value-adding investment in infrastructure planned and already happening.
If Crimea delivers a much higher standard of living for its people than is achieved in Ukraine,
then what price neo-liberalism, what lessons might Greece, Spain, Portugal etc learn? Crimea cannot
be allowed to succeed, the threat of a good example is too dangerous.
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 7:49 am
An excellent point, Fern, and that might make a good subject for a post in the not-too-distant
future.
Oddlots, March 23, 2015 at 9:10 am
I think you are dead right. The stakes could barely be higher.
It's funny, Russian politics kind of reminds me of Canada in the 70s under Trudeau. Before
the southern strategy and the radical "government is the problem, not the solution" ideology of
Reagan, Thatcher etc. it was still possible in the west to voice a common purpose that roughly
mapped onto government initiative. After 30 years of this pro-oligarchy drivel we can barely conceive
of a common purpose. The parasite has taken over the host's mind.
et Al, March 23, 2015 at 9:45 am
I would quibble with this:
However, while Globalization was marketed as a win-win proposition for both the global North
and South, in reality the developing states have gotten the losing side of the bargain.
The smaller southern states have been picked off but are fighting back, as we see in Ecuador,
Venezuela, Boliva. The 'Developing World' successfully stopped the Doha round of globalization
talks because the North wanted full liberalization of their markets at drop of a hat so that they
can waltz in and buy anything worthwhile.
Brazil has refused this, India has (for example its textile and other industries) and Africa
was mostly ignored because the North is racist and thinks they have nothing to offer except South
Africa and a few northern bits (which is blatantly wrong as China has been the trailblazing investor
in Africa with serious money, development and actually building roads, hospitals and infrastructure
– followed eventually by Japan, India & the US).
I think that maybe the North's dismissing of Africa may well be part of its undoing.
As for the rest of it, I can agree, but I am weary of being presented with such a limited number
of outcomes.
rymlianin, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 am
Noam Chomsky agrees . Free markets are for the third world, so that 1st world countries can
easily get rid of their excess products.
yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 10:28 am
Here we go again! At first I thought this item was from a few days ago, but it's from today.
Then I thought it was GroundHog Day!
Because Kolomoisky has done it again, and his guys (maybe not him personally) have invaded
a different oil company, this time UkrNafta (not to be confused with UrkTransNafta, which is a
different company). Benny's guys have barricaded themselves inside the company HQ, at Nesterovsky
Street in Kiev.
A spokesperson says this siege is a continuation of the story (explained by Jen, in comment
above) whereby the rules were changed for what constitutes a quorum among shareholders.
The Ukrainian government owns (50% + 1) share of UkrNafta. Now, just like the previous case,
the government wants to put in its own management, while expelling Benny's henchmen from the big
boardroom.
The article states that Benny must not have listened to Pyatt's warnings.
[yalensis: I mentioned in comment, above, that Benny is a proud and stubborn man, who listens
to nobody.]
james, March 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm
thanks for these kolowonky updates… what i find fascinating is a guy being allowed to have
a goon squad and parading around ukraine with the goon squad doing these kinds of acts.. what
would happen if he had some competition and goon squads started to lock themselves into privatbank
locations?
how do ordinary citizens of ukraine view this guy? there are no parallels in western societies
that i am aware of!
2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".
3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:
"Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be
allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).
see the article for more..
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 pm
He is setting himself up for a mini civil war in Kiev if he thinks to order Benny to disperse
his private army now, because they are loyal to their employer – Benny, who pays them directly,
when they know all too clearly they are not going to be allowed to have this much fun roughing
up and killing people ever again while getting paid for it – and the time to do it was the second
it became known Benny was doing it, because the constitution forbids it and Porky always knew
that.
He let him get away with it because it was useful, and there is no use in his attempting to
stand on the law now: funny how when you trample on the law every day and only obey what suits
you, how difficult it is to get back to the world of law when you need to. And what else does
Porky have but the moral high ground he is attempting to claim? Would the Ukie army obey him if
he ordered them to wipe out Benny and his boys? Glad it's not my decision. If you run for it now,
Porky, you might avoid being turned into bacon. Yes, I said it. Bacon.
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am
Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on? Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta
yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:29 am
VZGLIAD is taking online poll as people place their bets on their cock-fight.
Results so far (of 11609 people voting):
64.6% think Benny will win the fight
15.7% think Porky will win.
19.7% say it will end in draw
I explained my reasons in above comment, I placed my bets on Porky, and I went ALL IN!
(or "va bank" as the Russians say!)
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 3:03 am
The Germans also use the expression "Va banque" – sometimes spelt "Vabanque".
A well known usage of this term allegedly took place during a conversation between Hermann
Göring und Adolf Hitler on their hearing of the British declaration of war against Germany on
September 3rd, something which they had not expected to happen as a result of the German invasion
of Poland two days earlier and had therefore considered that invasion a risk worth taking.
Apparently, Göring said to Hitler:
"Wir wollen doch das Vabanque-Spiel lassen", worauf Hitler antwortete: „Ich habe in meinem
Leben immer Vabanque gespielt.
"We should go for broke", whereupon Hitler answered: "I have my whole life always gone for
broke".
It means to play against the bank, to lay all your stakes against what the bank has; if you
win, you win big time: if you lose, you lose everything.
The vulgar expression where I come from is "shit or bust".
So rephrasing Hermann and Adolf's little exchange above:
TRANSLATION (of piece done by Bochkala on Ukrainian TV)
The (Ukrainian) people are suffering
real poverty. Here is just one sad example:
Yesterday I happened to be in Zaporozhie. We popped into a deli. Ahead of me in the queue was
a young girl and an old woman. And some very basic products on the belt. The girl was purchasing
yogurt, some hot dogs, margarine, and eggs. All this came to around 70 or so.
When she was ready to pay, she studied the receipt, and discovered that the real price was higher
than what was marked (on the products). "What you have on the price tags is lower than this,"
she told the check-out clerk. She said this matter-of-factly, not like she was disputing the price,
just complaining about it.
"We didn't have time to change the price tags. Sorry," the young clerk apologized. I concluded
that the young girl had calculated in her head how much she would pay, when selecting her products.
In other words, for her this was a serious sum. She doesn't have the option of just buying yogurt,
without factoring in the price. Then my attention was turned to the sound of coins clanking.
The old woman was pouring out of a cellophane (baggie) a small heap of coins, of varying denominations.
"That's all I have," she said. "I don't have any more money." The old woman was neatly dressed,
but looked hopeless.
The clerk methodically moved the coins from one heap to another (while counting them). "You
need 27.5 but you only have 25," he concluded, counting the money again. It became an issue (for
her): what should she put back, the bread, or the flour?
I took out 200 hryvnas and gave it to the woman. She looked at me, with the look of a dog who
has been many times abused and deceived.
Then she burst out crying.
And such people are ever more numerous in Ukraine.
marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:39 am
I don't have the words to tell you how sad that is to me.
kirill, March 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm
Not a single squeak about this theme in the whole western media.
Quite the propaganda chorus the western media is.
Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:16 am
Igor Mosiychuk heads a meeting in mourning for and dedicated to the victims of the Holodomor.
kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:31 am
I should take this opportunity to point out, once again, that the western Ukraine did not live
through Holodmor. All of western Ukraine not just some part of it. But the Donbas did live through
Stalin's forced collectivization famines.
So we have the Nazi allied Bandera vermin using the deaths of people in the Donbas as a pretext
to kill people in the Donbas. Sick.
But they have the following logic: Before the Holodomor the Donbas was populated by virgin
ethnic Ukrs. The residents of the Donbas after the famine are all Russian squatters. My relatives
believe this SHIT. I need to stop treating them as my relatives.
Some facts about the Donbas:
There are many Ukrainians living there, which is inconsistent with the genocide claim.
Genocides totally remove demographic traces. You can see this in western Ukraine where there
are no longer Poles and Jews in regions they previously populated in large numbers.
There are Serbs and Greeks still living in eastern Ukraine. Did Stalin settle them there?
We should ask the current residents of the Donbas who tend to graves going back into the
1800s what they think about the Banderite claims.
kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:43 am
Ignore this BS map in the east. Novorossia was not part of Ukraine until the Soviets.
marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:42 am
I don't suppose he sees any irony at all in commemorating an event in which people starved
to death when he himself displaces roughly as much water as a Buick Skylark.
kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:47 am
To be fair, he likely has a thyroid disorder and insulin resistence. Obesity is not simply
due to stuffing your face and it is a fact that thin people can consume more calories than obese
people.
This applies to the insulin resistant who instead of turning glucose into heat (as "normal"
people do) turn it into fat. Calorie restriction for insulin resistant metabolism types is guaranteed
to fail.
They need high fat, low carbohydrate type diets.
Jen, March 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm
Symptoms of iodine deficiency include obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. They go together
in a vicious circle and teasing out which causes which almost amounts to time-wasting Titanic
deckchair rearrangements.
The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom
had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million
figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the
Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against
Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it?
So, one year after George W. Bush dedicated the monument, designed to exasperate the Chinese
government, then the first anniversary of this exercise in extreme hypocrisy, was held in Crimea,
with Tatars playing the role of "victims du jour".
The event organizers had selected Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as the background music. This
well-known symphony is regarded a symbol of both the beginning and the end of Communism in Eastern
Europe. In 1918, the top Communist leaders, including Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, participated
in the first anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution by attending a performance at
the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Seventy-one years later, shortly after the collapse of the Berlin
Wall in 1989, the American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein conducted the Ninth Symphony
on Christmas Day in West Berlin.
It was very touching to see more than 20 wreaths lined up in the grassy area adjacent to
the Memorial site waiting to be presented at the ceremony. They were in alphabetical order, starting
with Afghanistan and ending with Ukraine. (……)
The Crimean Tatar wreath was presented in the name of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (Assembly),
Simferopol, by the International Committee for Crimea (ICC), Washington, DC. The inscription on
one of the ribbons read: "Honoring the memory of more than 200,000 victims of famine, deportation
and political repression." I had the honor of presenting the Crimean Tatar wreath in person. We
are grateful to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for providing a platform where we
can link to other people of different national, ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who
were victimized by Communist authorities. Together we can support the Foundation and work toward
the common goal of educating the public about Communism's crimes against humanity.
Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose!
yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm
P.P.S. – one link leads to another . ICC still exists, and still sobbing about violated Tatars
rights. Meanwhile, in reality Tatars have more rights now, in Russian Crimea, than they ever had
in Ukie Crimea.
ICC logo appears to be a Ukie trident flipped upside down and ready to sink into the Black
Sea…
It's how things work: once a group of people has become a designated 'victim group', they
can do no wrong in the eyes of the MSM and of course their supporters in the West. It doesn't
matter if these designated 'victim groups' are in foreign countries or actually living on the
soil of a Western country.
I have no idea how the process of selecting a 'victim group' works. For example, in the UK
Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslims are 'victims' – Kurds, who've been persecuted by various Turkish
regimes, are not. And it's not about skin colour either, because neither Sikhs nor Hindus are
'victim groups' …
I think someone ought to do a bit of research into this!
(Not me – I'm pounding the pavements and doing other electioneering, until May 7th)
Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:57 am
Referring back to the previous posting concerning Psaki's replacement, Rathke, and Harfe and
how Matt Lee tackles these double-talking spokespersons for the State Department:
Miguel Francis, a Los Angeles film school graduate, travels to Crimea to discover how life
there has changed since it was reunited with Russia. He explores the beautiful peninsula's history
and cultural heritage, as well as taking in some of Crimea's tourist attractions while talking
to locals about their attitudes to becoming Russian citizens.
Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Did he graduate?
Jen, March 22, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Miguel Francis Santiago also made a documentary on Donetsk and the Donetsk rebels. From memory,
I think he visited the airport with the rebels and talks to Givi. http://rtd.rt.com/films/donetsk-an-american-glance/
Benny wants 90% of regions' tax take to stay with regional authorities.
So much for the champion of edina Ukraina.
kat kan, March 23, 2015 at 12:07 am
He'd love them to stay separate. With 90% of taxes? he has a racket worked out already for
taking it off them. Whereas they're of a bent to nationalise things they believe were illegally
obtained.
yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:07 am
American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine fires its president , most probably for his "pro-Russian"
views.
Namely, Bernard Casey was outspoken in his views against Maidan as a violent coup, and felt
that Crimea should return to Russia.
KievPost "exposed" Casey; after their expose, he was toast, and then he got fired from his
job.
Casey apparently hails from San Jose California [yalensis: I have been there, it's actually
a lovely place, the local inhabitants keep their property in perfect shape, almost obsessively
landscaping their yards], anyhow Casey's expertise is small business and start-up companies.
Nothing in Casey's bio that suggests that he is a rebel, or even anything "ethnic" going on
there…
Maybe he is simply an honorable man who tells the truth as he sees it, and pays the consequences
for that?
kirill, March 23, 2015 at 5:47 am
He is definitely a heretic. NATO is even going to establish rapid internet reaction forces
to stop the spread of Russian false narratives. We are back in the era of the crusades.
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 8:05 am
Because everyone knows the people are too stupid and unwordly to know for themselves that they
are being fed bullshit. In fact, NATO's successful transmission of its own narrative depends on
it.
james, March 23, 2015 at 8:46 am
thanks yalensis.. the kiev post is an interesting american publication, or at least that is
what it looks like to me! reading the article on caseys views which were also published in the
kiev post confirms the fact he was looking for objectivity in an atmosphere which was opposed
to it..i am surprised the kiev post let his thoughts be known!
KievPost has the WORST commenters, bunch of low-IQ, prejudiced Banderite diaspora trash.
Like this one, for example:
A commenter called "OlenaG" makes gratuitous attack not only against Mr. Casey but entire San
Jose State University, which is actually a component of the California State University system
(which is highly respected educational system, even internationally):
"He received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering at the San Jose State University
and an MBA degree at Santa Clara University."
Anyone that knows the reputation of San Jose State as a "Party College" (rated by U.S. News
and World Report in its annual College ratings) and knows the Political Correctness of Santa Clara
County both in California and in South San Francisco Bay would know to not have hired Casey.
(….)
Talk about ad hominem attacks! This idiot has no proof whatsoever that Mr. Casey spent his
time partying instead of studying electrical engineering; and moreover, the very fact that Mr.
Casey joined the Chamber of Commerce probably indicates that he was NOT politically correct at
all!
Pavlo Svolochenko, March 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm
The worst American university would still compare favourably with the best Ukrainian one, I
suspect.
yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 3:34 am
Well, Ukraine USED to have good universities, especially in Soviet times.
Now, I am not so sure…
yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:24 am
More on Kolomoisky's antics.
Linked piece is entitled: "Kolomoisky goes va-banque", which is a Russian phrase (actually
French), meaning, as Americans would say, in a poker game, "all in".
In other words, Benny continues to occupy the UkrNafta company offices in Kiev.
(Not to be confused with the other oil company, UkrTransNafta, which Benny had to cede.)
To beef up the ranks of his goons, Benny sent his personal battalion "Dnepr-1″. Leaving the
war zone of the "Anti-Terrorist Operation", this battalion arrived back in Kiev to seize UkrNafta.
Benny has explained that his military operation against UkrNafta is necessary to thwart the
"raider" attempt by his (Benny's) arch-enemy, Igor Eremeev. Eremeev is a fellow oligarch and also
a member of Ukrainian Parliament.
This exciting event is all happening on Monday, March 23.
There was a confrontation when one of Porky's allies, the deputy named Mustafu Nayem, attempted
to enter the building. Benny's goons would not allow Mustafu inside. Ukrainskaya Pravda reported
that Mustafu was beaten up. (see the video)
Mustafu elucidated on his Facebook that he was roughed up, but not badly beaten.
According to the description of the video (which I have not had time to watch), Mustafu asked
Benny: "What are you doing here, Igor Valeryevich?"
To which Benny replied: "I came to see a Parliamentary Deputy. And who are you, a journalist or
a deputy?"
Mustafu replied that within 2 months, UkrNafta will be a nationalized company belonging to
the state.
Benny shot back, that this will not happen, because UkrNafta is a private company, and that
he himself (=Benny) owns 42% of it.
And on and on… lots more… but the thrust of the article is that things are getting serious
now.
james, March 23, 2015 at 8:58 am
yalensis, i am confused by these actions. in most countries where the rule of law supposedly
operates, the police would come and evict these squatters… why isn't this happening here? or is
this the type of system they have where oligarchs goon squads can do whatever their goon demands
they do without any legal ramifications?
james, March 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm
2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".
Kolomoisky funds at least five paramilitary battalions including Aidar, Azov, Dnepr-1, Dnepr-2
and Donbass which are part of the National Guard.
A good proportion of his "goons" are probably members of these battalions. Whatever passes
for the police (under Arsen Avakov's authority) in Kiev doesn't have a hope against these people.
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm
Baby, what you said. Hopeless. Run for it, Porky.
yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:05 am
Are we in the process of placing bets? Because I am still betting on Porky. To be sure, he
doesn't have much of an army.
But he has Geoffrey Pyatt and the American marines behind him. That has to count for
something!
"From the halls of Montezuma, to the walls of UkrNafta…"
(or something like that)
colliemum, March 24, 2015 at 2:23 am
He's also got a squad of UK army 'instructors' …
;-)
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:33 am
Which side is Yats Rats on? I reckon he's the one that runs the show there: he's Nudelman's
boy after all.
Alastair Crooke has posted two new articles at Conflicts Forum. The first discusses a possible
Iran agreement. To quote from the article:
"Iran has already dropped the dollar as a means of trading. And as the non-dollar economic
system expands with a SWIFT financial clearing system already launched, with Central Bank non-dollar
currency swaps in place and a putative non-dollar jurisdiction banking system under construction
by China and Russia, Iranians are now seeing the alternative, and getting fed up with hanging
on the eternal "will they/won't they" lift sanctions hiatus."
The second of Alastair Crooke's posts considers Greece's travails with the EU "system", which
he sees as similar to Russia's conflict with the global "system".
Kolomoisky is out of control – before any of those too-rich-to-give-a-fuck oligarchs start
thinking about an armed takeover, they should consider how their plan meshes with the west's plan.
Because if they are in competition rather than harmony, that oligarch will be squashed. And Benny
is embarrassing – it was already inconceivable that Ukraine would be accepted for membership in
the European Union, the west just wants to use it as a "stone frigate" against Russia, but how
much more inconceivable is it now, with Benny's antics? Besides, he did not even make Nuland's
"A" list, so obviously the notion of his being the rebel King of Ukraine was never entertained.
Nuland wants Yats, who is watching with interest to see who will emerge victorious from this street
fight.
On a totally unrelated subject, I just picked up Mrs. Stooge from the Ferry home; she spoke
glowingly of your handsomeness, enviable bearing and manner. Mrs. Exile will have to keep you
on a short leash, you lady-killer. For the prizewinners Jen and James, I have acquired perhaps
the only set of metal Novorossiyan soldiers in Canada. I haven't seen them yet, the missus just
dropped me off at work and headed home without even taking her suitcase out of the car, but I
will get about the business of sending them forthwith. I think I will save Strelkov for last or
for the 100,00th comment, but once I have a look at them I will describe the others for the winners'
choice – Jen first, and then James.
et Al, March 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm
RT OpEd: Anti-Russian propaganda is 'unconvincing', because Western narrative is false
Neil Clark doesn't mess about and it is not complicated. The West's response to the failure
of the general public to swallow hook, line and sinker its bs line on Ukraine is because it is
bs an people know it. Their strategy to counter 'Russian propaganda' is nothing more than shouting
louder. Now how retarded is that? As I posted from an earlier piece from euractiv, Brussels would
like a return on this investment! That's Planet Brussels for you!
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm
In other news, there was no protest in Odessa yesterday, it was all a faked, crappy provocation
by a Kremlin-sponsored TV station that provided not only the phony protesters, but phony Right
Sektor goons to attack them. Totally phony, from the word "Go". Nothing to see here, return to
your homes.
Moscow Exile, March 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm
By way of Russia Insider by A. Karlin:
The Moor Has Done His Duty*
Freedom! Don't ya'll just love the sound of that word!
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press! You just cannot get enough of it in the Land of the
Free.
From a comment to the above:
I even think that Putin, where [sic] he a sane man, could have obtained the return of Crimea
peacefully had he not been a psychotic killer.
Another Internet clinical psychiatrist, I presume.
* "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go" .
From Schiller's "Die Verschwörung des Fiesco zu Genua" [Fiesco's Conspiracy at Genoa]: Der
Mohr hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, der Mohr kann gehen, meaning "once you have served your purpose,
you are no longer needed".
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend
to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt
ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government
somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability
created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention
there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air
traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least
£100m
to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access
to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed
due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period
of time, the government spent
$1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth
structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a
yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined.
A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every
single trace of your electronic life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent
patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state
whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial
cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in
the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex
societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation.
In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the
Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution
is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.
Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine
enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that
allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
More:
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is
not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is
Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as
a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status
quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own
best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On
March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of
these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when
we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will
have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the
chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically
abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes.
It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies,
if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second
career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried
government employee.
[3]
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities
we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin,
Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves
persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David
Petraeus
joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity
firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance.
General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however,
is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do
not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident
senior fellow at theBelfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred
bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the
protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus.
More:
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on
terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic
social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and
its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening
sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal
till ruin stared it in the face."
The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive
ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term
coined
by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents
a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers
have enumerated the
platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic
election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional
sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature
of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's
left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging
10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.
You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation?
labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that all
Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading
up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically,
I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the
Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at
all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with
Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus
has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for
some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage
is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the
thing. Lofgren:
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views
of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized
by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries.
Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in
the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing
move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they
work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man
to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of
it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life
is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol
dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening
and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience
that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary
of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least
noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You
mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is
classified?" No wonder so few people
are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless
one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of
one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that
I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social
circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that
the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were
attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized
by the events.
Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final
quote, one from
the Moyers interview with Lofgren:
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat
or republican, not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind
of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend
to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security
or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which
is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American
exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere
in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.
This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.
I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses - and
it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.
Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee
a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only
survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is
the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to
reform itself? If so, what then?
For years, Winston
Churchill's famous quote, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all the others that have been tried," has served as Americans' last word in
any political discussion which requires validation of the US government, no matter how corrupt or
flawed in its behavior, as the best in the planet, comparatively or by default. Never mind
the meaning that Mr. Churchill had intended back in 1947, or how the international political panorama
has changed during the past seven decades.
These remarks were made by Britain's prime minister before the House of Commons a few months
before there was a changing of the guards in the "Anglo-Saxon Empire" as the Brits gave
away their colonial hegemony in favor of the super-influential economic and military power represented
by the United States. And that was symbolically marked by Britain's relinquishing
its mandate in Palestine, and the creation of Israel.
Such reference to democracy in the quote, explicitly defining it as a "government by the people,"
basically applied to Britain and the United States at the close of World War II; but such
condition has deteriorated in the US to the point where the "common people" no longer have a say
as to how the nation is run, either directly or through politicians elected with financial support
provided by special interests, undoubtedly expecting their loyalty-vote. Yet, while
this un-democratization period in our system of government was happening, there were many nations
that were adopting a true code of democracy, their citizens having a greater say as to how their
countries are governed. Recognizing such occurrence, however, is a seditious sin for an American
mind still poisoned by the culture of exceptionalism and false pride in which it has been brainwashed.
And that's where our empire, or sphere of influence, stands these days… fighting the
windmills of the world, giants that we see menacing "American interests," and doing it under the
banner of "for democracy and human rights." Such lofty empire aims appear to rationalize
an obscene military budget almost twice as large as those of Russia, China, India and United Kingdom
combined! Americans, representing less than 5 percent of the world's population, are footing
a military bill almost twice as large as that expended by half of the world's population.
If that isn't imperialistic and obscene, it's difficult to image what other societal behavior could
be more detrimental to peace and harmony in this global village where we all try to co-exist.
Empires and global powers of the past most often resorted to deposing of antagonistic foreign
rulers by invading their countries and installing amicable/subservient puppet rulers. The
United States and the United Kingdom, perhaps trying to find refuge, or an excuse, in their democratic
tradition, have resorted to regime change "manipulations" to deal with adversary governments-nations.
[Bush43's Iraq invasion stands as a critical exception by a mongrel government: half-criminal (Dick
Cheney-as mentor), and half-moronic (George W. Bush-as mentee).]
Regime change has served the United States well throughout much of the Americas from time immemorial;
an endless litany of dictators attesting to shameless in-your-face puppetry… manipulations taking
the form of sheer military force, or the fear of such force; bribery of those in power, or about
to attain power – usually via military coup; or the promise of help from the Giant of the North
(US) in improving economic growth, education and health. Kennedy's 1961 Alliance for Progress
proved to be more political-PR than an honest, effective effort to help the people in Latin America…
such program becoming stale and passé in Washington by decade's end; the focus shifting in a feverish
attempt to counter the efforts by Castro's Cuba to awaken the revolutionary spirit of sister republics
in Central and South America (Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua…).
After almost two centuries of political and economic meddling in Latin America under
the Monroe Doctrine (1823) banner, much of it involving regime change, the US is
finally coming to terms with the reality that its influence has not just waned but disappeared.
Not just in nations which may have adopted socialist politics, but other nations as well.
US' recent attempt to get other regional republics to label Venezuela (Maduro's leftist government)
as a security threat not only met with opposition from the twelve-country Union of South American
Nations (UNASUR) but has brought in the end of an era. It's now highly unlikely that secretive
efforts by the CIA to effect regime change in Latin America will find support; certainly not the
support it had in the past.
To Washington's despair, similar results, if for other reasons, are happening throughout
North Africa and the extended Middle East; certainly not the results the US had hoped for or anticipated
from the revolutionary wave in the Arab Spring, now entering its fifth year. It is
no longer the flow of oil that keeps Washington committed to a very strong presence in the Middle
East. It is America's Siamese relationship with Israel.
But if regime change is no longer an effective weapon for the US in Latin America or the Middle
East, the hope is still high that it might work in Eastern Europe, as America keeps corralling
Russian defenses to within a holler of American missilery. Ukraine's year-old regime
change is possibly the last hurrah in US-instigated regime changes… and it is still too early to
determine its success; the US counting on its front-line European NATO partners to absorb the recoil
in terms of both the economy and a confrontational status now replacing prior smooth relations.
Somehow it is difficult to envision an outcome taking place in Ukraine which would allow
the United States a foothold at the very doorsteps of Russia; something totally as inconceivable
as if China or Russia were contemplating establishing military bases in Mexico or any part of Central
America or the Caribbean.
The era of using regime change as a weapon of mass deception may have already ended for
the United States of America… and hopefully for the entire world.
8. Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, 1964) -- Lies: Johnson said Vietnam attacked
our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in August, 1964.Truth: The US didn't want to lose the southeast
Asia region, and its oil and sea lanes, to China. This "attack" was convenient. Kennedy initiated
the first major increase in US troops (over 500).
9. Gulf War (G.H.W. Bush, 1991) -- Lies: To defend Kuwait from Iraq. Truth:
Saddam was a threat to Israel, and we wanted his oil and land for bases.
10. Balkans (Clinton, 1999) -- Lies: Prevent Serb killing of Bosnians. Truth:
Get the Chinese out of Eastern Europe (remember the "accidental" bombing of their embassy in Belgrade?)
so they could not get control of the oil in the Caspian region and Eastward. Control land
for bases such as our huge Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and for the proposed Trans-Balkan Oil pipeline
from the Caspian Sea area to the Albanian port of Valona on the Adriatic Sea.
11. Afghan (G.W. Bush, 2001) -- Lies: The Taliban were hiding Osama. Truth:
To build a gas/oil pipeline from Turkmenistan and other northern 'xxstan' countries to a warm water
(all year) port in the Arabian Sea near Karachi (same reason the Russians were there), plus land
for bases.
12. Iraq (G.W. Bush, 2003) -- Lies: Stop use of WMDs -- whoops, bring Democracy,
or whatever.Truth: Oil, defense of Israel, land for permanent bases (we were kicked out of Saudi
Arabia) to manage the greater Middle East, restore oil sales in USD (Saddam had changed to Euros)
Very poorly written article.
Better to say that Andy Jackson was about the last bad ass to fight of the banksters and die a natural
death, then Salmon Chase and his buddies passed the legal tender laws, and shortly thereafter (or
possibly before) London dispatched the Fabian socialists with their patient gradualism. We
were firmly back under the yoke of London banking cartel come 1913. And you are correct, a
republic is an EXTREMELY limited form of democracy (not truly akin to traditional 51% takes it democratic
concepts at all). The elected leader's function was supposed to be to guard the principles
of the Constitution and the limited Republic, and history will remember that, despite this cruft
of an article.
In the eyes of many who founded this nation, it was only a stepping stone to a global government,
the new Rome - but the new Rome will be the UN with a global bank, and the multinational corporations
holding court, and then the end come.
Like in the Middle East? And you will counter by saying that people are forced to live
under those governments and, yet, thousands are freely going there from around the world to join
ISIS.
Otherwise, such a system would work right up until one government church decided there wasn't
enough room in the area for competitors (probably within a year, maybe six months). Let the
political/religious tribal wars begin.
How should libertarians assess the crisis in Ukraine? Some would have us believe that a
true commitment to liberty entails (1) glorifying the "Euromaidan revolution" and the government it
installed in Kiev, (2) welcoming, excusing, or studiously ignoring US involvement with that
revolution and government, and (3) hysterically demonizing Vladimir Putin and his administration for
Russia's involvement in the affair. Since Ron Paul refuses to follow this formula or to remain
silent on the issue, these "NATO-tarians," as Justin Raimondo refers to them, deride him as an
anti-freedom, anti-American, shill for the Kremlin.
Dr. Paul takes it all in stride of course, having endured the same kind of smears and
dishonest rhetorical tricks his entire career. As he surely knows, the price of being a principled
anti-interventionist is eternal patience. Still, it must be frustrating. After all he has done to
teach Americans about the evils of empire and the bitter fruits of intervention, there are still
legions of self-styled libertarians whose non-interventionism seems to go little further than
admitting that the Iraq War was "a mistake," and who portray opposition to US hostility against
foreign governments as outright support for those governments.
"Yes, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake, but we have to confront Putin; we can't let
Iran 'get nukes;' we've got to save the Yazidis on the mountain; we must crush
ISIS, et cetera, et cetera. What are you, a stooge of the Czar/Ayatollah/Caliph?"
Some of these same libertarians supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and presumably
laughed along with the rest of us when the neocons tried to paint him as "pro-Saddam" for opposing
the Iraq War and for debunking the lies
and distortions that were used to sell it. Yet, today they do not hesitate to tar Dr. Paul as a
"confused Pro-Putin libertarian" over his efforts to oppose US/NATO interventions in Ukraine and
against Russia. Such tar has been extruded particularly profusely by an eastern-European-heavy
faction of Students for Liberty which might be dubbed "Students for Collective Security."
It should be obvious that Ron Paul holds no brief for Putin and the Kremlin. Let me
inform the smear-artists and their dupes what Ron Paul is trying to do with his statements and
articles about Ukraine and Russia. He is not trying to support Putin's government. He is doing what
he has always done. He is trying to prevent US intervention. He is trying to stop war.
Some NATO-tarians have responded to this assertion by asking, "If that is so, why can't
he just limit himself to simply stating his principled opposition to intervention? Why must he go
beyond that, all the way to reciting Kremlin talking points?"
First of all, this is one of the most egregious fallacies that Ron Paul's critics
regularly trot out: the allegation that, "because A voices agreement with B about statements of
fact, then A must be doing so in the service of B."
To see the fallacy involved clearly, let us draw out the Iraq War comparison a bit
more. Before and during that war, in spite of Bush Administration and media propaganda to the
contrary, Ron Paul argued that Saddam Hussein did not have a weapons of mass destruction program or
ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam argued the same thing. So was Ron Paul just "reciting Baghdad talking
points" back then? Was he being a "confused pro-Saddam libertarian"? No. Do you know why Ron Paul
was saying the same thing as Saddam? Because it was true. As is widely accepted today,
Saddam did nothave a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda. Is it valorizing Saddam to admit that
he told the truth? Again, no; it is simply to abstain from hysterically demonizing him. Of course
Saddam was a head of state, and as such, he was a lying murderer. But in this instance, telling the
truth happened to serve his interests, which included trying to avoid a war in which he might be
overthrown and killed. Ron Paul also told the truth, because he's not a lying murderer, and
because he also wanted to prevent such a disastrous war: although of course not for Saddam's sake,
but for the sake of avoiding all the catastrophic results that would surely (and did) flow from it.
Ron Paul had no love for Saddam then or for Putin today, just as, notwithstanding
endless smears to the contrary, there was no love nurtured by Murray Rothbard for Khrushchev, Justin
Raimondo for Milosevic, Lew Rockwell for Lukashenko, or Jacob Hornberger for Chavez. Rather, it just
so happens that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the truth has a well-known anti-war bias.
That is the only reason why, when speaking about the same international crises, principled
anti-war voices so frequently find themselves in agreement over points of fact with tyrants who want
to avoid being attacked. The truth can, in some cases, happen to serve the purposes of both good and
evil men. That doesn't stop it from being the truth.
Similarly, there are a great many true(and intervention-disfavoring) points
of fact concerning Ukraine and Russia that are being completely ignored by the media, which instead
regurgitates the intervention-favoring propaganda it imbibes directly from Washington, London, and
the NATO bureaucracy. These truths are broadcasted, and this propaganda refuted, both by the Kremlin
and by Ron Paul. But again this coincidence does not occur because the two are in cahoots. The
Kremlin engages in this broadcasting and refuting because it considers avoiding US/NATO intervention
to be in its state interest. Ron Paul does so because, again, it is the truth, and because he
considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be moral and in the interest of humanity in general
(Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians, included).
What is this propaganda that Ron Paul labors to refute, along with his Institute for
Peace and Prosperity, and like-minded alternative media outlets like Antiwar.com and
LewRockwell.com?
According to the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative, a peaceful protest movement
emerged in Kiev against an oppressive government, was met with a deadly, unprovoked, and
uncompromising crackdown, but ultimately prevailed, causing Ukraine's dictator to flee. A
popularly-supported, freedom-loving, self-determination-exemplifying government then emerged. But
dastardly Putin horribly invaded and conquered Crimea, and engineered a "terrorist" revolt in the
east of the country. Putin is the new Hitler, and if the US and Europe don't confront him now, he
will continue his conquests until he has recreated the Soviet Empire and re-erected the Iron
Curtain.
The reality of the situation, which Dr. Paul and only a handful of others strive to
represent, is far different.
First of all, the chief grievance of the protesters was not about domestic oppression;
it was over foreign policy and foreign aid. They wanted closer ties with the west, and they were
angry that (the duly elected) President Viktor Yanukovych had rejected a European Union Association
Agreement over its severe stringency.
Far from "organic," the movement was heavily subsidized and sponsored by the US
government. Before the crisis, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged about
the US "investing" $5 billion in "helping" Ukraine become more western-oriented.
Once the anti-government protests in Kiev were under way, both Nuland and Senator John
McCain personally joined the demonstrators in Maidan Square, implicitly promising US support for a
pro-western regime change. Nuland even went so far as to pass out cookies, like a sweet little
imperial auntie.
Far from peaceful, the protesters were very violent, and it is not clear which side
fired the first gunshot. The Foreign Minister of Estonia, while visiting Kiev, was shown evidence
that convinced him that protest
leaders had hired snipers to shoot at both sides. And the BBC recently
interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted to firing on the police before the conflict had
become pitched.
In fact, the hard core of the Euromaidan movement, and its most violent component, was
comprised of Nazis. And no, I don't mean to say "neo-Nazi," which is a term really only appropriate
for people who merely glean inspiration from historical Nazis. On the other hand, the torchlight
marching fascists that spearheaded the Ukraine coup (chief among them, the Svoboda and Right
Sector parties) are part of an unbroken lineal tradition that goes back to Stepan Bandera, the Nazi
collaborator who brought the Holocaust to Ukraine. Even a pro-Maidan blogger wrote
for The Daily Beast:
"Of course the role that the Right Sector played in the Euromaidan cannot be underestimated.
(…) They were the first to throw Molotov coctails and stones at police and to mount real and
well-fortified barricades."
Maidan protesters bearing armbands with the neo-Nazi wolf's hook symbol
More fundamentally, what is often forgotten by many libertarians, is that revolutionary
street and public square movements like Euromaidan are not "the people," but are comprised of
would-be members of and partisans for a new state, every one of which is inherently an
engine of violent aggression. What we saw in the clash at Maidan Square was not "Man Vs. State," but
"Incoming State vs. Outgoing State."
Far from being completely intransigent, Yanukovych agreed to early elections and
assented to US demands to withdraw the riot police from the square. As soon as he did that, the
government buildings were seized. The city hall was then draped
with white supremacist banners.
Far from being supported and appointed popularly and broadly, the new government's
backing is highly sectional and heavily foreign. It was installed by a capital city street coup, not
a countrywide revolution. In a deeply divided country, it only represented a particularly aggressive
component of one side of that divide. Moreover, its top officeholders were handpicked by
Nuland, and its installation was presided over by the US Vice President, as was famously revealed in
an intercepted and leaked telephone
recording.
And the only thing saving the extravagantly warlike new government from bankruptcy is
the unstinting flow of billions of dollars in aid from the
US, the
EU, and the
IMF, as well as "non-lethal"
military aid (including drones, armored Humvees, and training) from the US.
Far from being freedom-loving, top offices are held by an ex-bankster (Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom Nuland handpicked when she said "Yats is our guy" in the above
recording), a corrupt
oligarch (chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko), and, yes, Nazis (including
Andriy Parubiy, until recently the National
Security chief, and Oleh
Tyahnybok, also mentioned by Nuland in the recording as a key advisor to the new government, and
pictured at the top of this article with Nuland and "Yats").
Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda Party, formerly the "Social-National
Party." Get it? Social-National: National Socialist?
Far from being an exemplar of self-determination, the new regime responded to eastern
attempts to assert regional autonomy with all-out war, shelling civilian centers (with cluster
bombs, even) and killing
thousands. Of course Nazis have also played a key role in the war. As the famous journalist
Robert Parry wrote:
"The U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is knowingly sending neo-Nazi paramilitaries into
eastern Ukrainian neighborhoods to attack ethnic Russians who are regarded by some of these
storm troopers as "Untermenschen" or subhuman, according to Western press reports.
Recently, one eastern Ukrainian town, Marinka, fell to Ukraine's Azov battalion as it waved
the Wolfsangel flag, a symbol used by Adolf Hitler's SS divisions in World War II. The Azov
paramilitaries also attacked Donetsk, one of the remaining strongholds of ethnic Russians
opposed to the Kiev regime that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February."
Whatever involvement Moscow has in it, the revolt in the east is far from engineered.
People there do not need Russian money and threats to know they had absolutely no say in the regime
change in distant Kiev, and that it was executed by their political enemies. Russian-speaking and
heavily industrial, it would have suffered grievously, both economically and politically, had it
been dragged into a new expressly anti-Russian order. It was made abundantly clear which way the
wind was blowing when Tyahybok's Svoboda, as the Christian
Science Monitor put it, "pushed through the cancellation of a law that gave equal status to
minority languages, such as Russian," even if the cancellation was temporary.
Far from "terrorists," the rebels are not trying to destabilize or overthrow the
government in Kiev, but are seeking to establish autonomy from it. If anything, it is Kiev, with its
high civilian death toll, that has been more engaged in terrorism.
And far from Soviet revanchism, Russian policy has been largely reactive against US
aggressiveness. Since Moscow dropped its side of the Cold War by relinquishing its empire, including
both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the US has taken advantage by progressively expanding
NATO, an explicitly anti-Moscow military pact, all the way to Russia's borders: a policy that even
Cold War mastermind George Kennan, in 1998, predicted
would prove to be tragic. Moscow warned Washington
that Russia could not abide a hostile Ukraine, which would be a bridge too far.
But Washington blithely pushed on to snatch Ukraine anyway. The sheer flippancy of it can be seen
most vividly when Gideon Rose, editor of the US foreign policy establishment organ Foreign
Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) went on The Colbert Report in
the midst of the crisis and jocularly
boasted about how "we want to basically distract Russia" with the shiny Olympic medals it was
winning at the Sochi Olympics while getting Ukraine "to flip sides." Colbert aptly characterized
this geopolitical strategy as, "Here's a shiny object! We'll just take an entire country away from
you," to which Rose enthusiastically responded, "Basically!" (Perhaps to atone for such an
embarrassing and pandering display of naïveté and frivolity, Rose later published an excellent
article by respected establishment foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer arguing "Why
the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." Even that old CFR-associated murder-monger Henry
Kissinger has
urged reconsideration.)
The takeover included Crimea which is heavily Russian-speaking and has been under effective
Russian control since the 18th century. Unsurprisingly, Washington's brilliant "Shiny Object"
doctrine failed miserably, and rather than see its only warm-water port pass under the sway of an
increasingly antagonistic rival, Russia asserted control over Crimea, doing so without loss of life.
Later, following a referendum, Crimea was formally annexed.
Of course this act was not "libertarian"; hardly anything that a state does is. But it
is simply a warmongering distortion to characterize this bloodless foreign policy counter-move
as evidence of reckless imperial Russian expansionism, especially when you compare the "invasion" of
Crimea with the bloody havoc the US has wreaked upon the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest
Asia for the past 14 years.
As for whatever meddling Russia is guilty of in eastern Ukraine, let's try to put it in
perspective without absolving it. Just imagine what the US would do if Russia had supported a coup
in Ottawa that installed an anti-American Canadian government right on our border, and then
perpetually re-armed that government as it bombed English-speaking separatists in British Columbia.
Compared to what you'd expect to follow that, Russia's response to a US-sponsored, anti-Russian
junta bombing Russian speakers right on its border has been positively restrained.
After all, it is Putin who has been constantly pushing for ceasefires against American
militant obduracy and European reluctance, just as, in 2013, it was Putin who successfully pushed
for a deal that prevented the US from launching yet another air war, this time against the
Syrian government.
Again, this is not to claim that any foreign intervention on the part of Moscow is at
all justified on libertarian grounds, or to argue that Putin is anything more than a lying murderer
who happens to be more intelligent and sane than our own lying murderers. It is only to make clear
that in this respect too, Russia's involvement in the affair is hardly evidence of grand imperial
designs.
As an aside: Putin's foiling of neocon war aims in Syria (and potential future such
foilings) may be the reason that the anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, and the new Putin-threatening
Cold War it engendered, was advanced by Nuland, who is a neocon holdover from the Bush
Administration and the wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan, in the first place.
To think that any country is too big or too dangerous (especially if
destabilized) to be targeted by neocons for regime change would be naïve. And to think Putin is too
naïve to know this would be equally naïve.
So much for the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative. Now to return to the NATO-tarian
objection from above: why must Ron Paul stress these points of fact, especially when they make
wicked Putin look better, or at least not-so-wicked? Why can't Dr. Paul merely state his principled
opposition to intervention?
It might make sense for him to do so if that were enough to make a difference. But the
thing is, it's not. The sad but inescapable fact is that the American people are not
operating under the same moral premises as Ron Paul and other principled libertarians. As such, the
public is susceptible to war lies and distortions. And the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon
narrative about Ukraine and Russia is nothing but a tissue of war lies and distortions.
As the warmongers are abundantly aware, if Kiev is sufficiently falsely valorized,
Washington/NATO sufficiently falsely absolved, and Putin and the eastern separatists sufficiently
falsely demonized, then American opinion will provide cover for US intervention, regardless
of what principled libertarians say. So the only way to practically stop such intervention is to go
beyond statements of principle and to debunk those war lies and distortions; moreover, to debunk
them bravely and forthrightly, even if the Kremlin is also trying to debunk them, and even if
simple-minded or lying critics will use that parallel to smear you as an agent of a foreign power.
Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda,
how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing
in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has
is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the
only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention.
So much for Ron Paul's "ulterior motives." But what about some of his critics? A
question actually worth asking is as follows: Why are some of his avowedly libertarian critics, many
of whom profess not to favor intervention (or at least studiously avoid talking about that question
concretely) so absolutely livid over Ron Paul's challenge to their narrative? Their English-language
blasts against Dr. Paul are also not likely to effect Putin's domestic support one way or the other.
Their only possible impact is also on US foreign policy. So, why are they so extremely sensitive
about the acceptance in America of a narrative that lends itself toward intervention and
confrontation? The question answers itself.
Let me close with a few additional questions.
Why is it "defending tyranny" for Ron Paul to agree with Putin on points of fact, but
not for "libertarians" to hail a government that rose to power in a violent putsch, that welcomes
outright Nazis in its ranks, that conscripts its people, and that drops cluster bombs on civilians?
What exactly is "libertarian" about NATO, which amounts to an hegemonic,
dual-hemisphere, nuclear tripwire, species suicide pact?
What is so secure about a state of "collective security" in which petulant, reckless
nationalists in small eastern European countries can drag the whole world into nuclear war over a
border dispute?
And finally, why should a new Cold War be launched, and the risk of nuclear
annihilation for all our families and hometowns be heightened over the question of which clique
rules a particular river basin on the other side of the world?
Ron Paul has excellent, solidly libertarian answers to all these questions. Do his
critics?
Wow, what a sad mess the U.S. government is. It's quite frustrating how
little say we peons have on what our rulers arbitrarily do to other countries that are
no threat to us whatsoever. And these wannabe Ukrainian Nazis...I had no idea they were
so powerful in number. Are their attacks on ethnic Russians some sort of "cosmic
revenge" for the Soviet Union's starvation of Ukrainians in the 30's? The whole thing is
a nightmare. May our leaders burn in hell for the misery they've helped create.
johndavit66
Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior
pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda?
He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's
domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the
English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he
could hope to have is to dissuade intervention. Thank for share
Friv 100000
Michael
mind blowingly rational stream of conscious and geo-political conscience!
It makes tremendous sense particularly if you feel we have been recently duped into 20
or so highly profitable (for oligarchs and financial institutions) wars. Assuming they
are going to have another real war with Russia for fun and neo-con profit, where are
they going to live in blissful retirement to spend the loot without getting attacked or
dripped-on by glow-in the dark irradiated zombies? Are some wars better not started
regardless of the causus belli or opportunity for plunder? Is setting-up a game of
nuclear armed chicken with the second most powerful alliance on the planet still a good
idea if you were planning to retire and spend time growing rhodos and fishing and
playing baseball with your grandchildren?
Do neo-cons have a we-were-just-kidding plan "B" or are they truly to
committed to a global sepuku / samson option if they / we lose? Do neo-cons do anything
other than dream big about obliterating evil comic book enemies and ruling the world? Is
it too late to invent a drug or make a video game or addictive snuff porn to keep them
better occupied? How come all the neo-cons are moving to the USA and no one elsewhere is
complaining about a shortage of them?
Claus Eric Hamle
It is really like 2+2=4: Deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe (Poland
and Romania) leads to Launch On Warning (probably by 2017) and Suicide by
accident/mistake. What else can the Russians do to defend themselves ? Will they even
announce when they adopt Launch On Warning=Suicide Guaranteed. The crazy Americans asked
for it -- The Russians want to be certain that they won't die alone. Stupid, crazy,
bloody fools in the Pentagon !!!
The new authoritarianism,
by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Vox EU: The changing dictatorships Dictatorships
are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
or Pol Pot – employed terror, indoctrination, and isolation to monopolize power. Although less
ideological, many 20th-century military regimes also relied on mass violence to intimidate dissidents.
Pinochet's agents, for instance, are thought to have tortured and killed tens of thousands of
Chileans (Roht-Arriaza 2005).
However, in recent decades new types of authoritarianism have emerged that seem better adapted
to a world of open borders, global media, and knowledge-based economies. From the Peru of Alberto
Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without
fencing off their countries or resorting to mass murder. Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian
states remain – such as Syria and North Korea – but the balance has shifted.
The new autocracies often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost
always win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing comprehensive
political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010).
Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals.
State propaganda aims not to 'engineer human souls' but to boost the dictator's ratings. Political
opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate,
rather than being murdered en masse.
Dictatorships and information
In a recent paper, we argue that the distinctive feature of such new dictatorships is a preoccupation
with information (Guriev and Treisman 2015). Although they do use violence at times, they maintain
power less by terrorizing victims than by manipulating beliefs. Of course, surveillance and propaganda
were important to the old-style dictatorships, too. But violence came first. "Words are fine things,
but muskets are even better," Mussolini quipped. Compare that to the confession of Fujimori's
security chief, Vladimir Montesinos: "The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs".
Killing members of the elite struck Montesinos as foolish: "Remember why Pinochet had his problems.
We will not be so clumsy" (McMillan and Zoido 2004).
We study the logic of a dictatorship in which the leader survives by manipulating information.
Our key assumption is that citizens care about effective government and economic prosperity; first
and foremost, they want to select a competent rather than incompetent ruler. However, the general
public does not know the competence of the ruler; only the dictator himself and members of an
'informed elite' observe this directly. Ordinary citizens make what inferences they can, based
on their living standards – which depend in part on the leader's competence – and on messages
sent by the state and independent media. The latter carry reports on the leader's quality sent
by the informed elite. If a sufficient number of citizens come to believe their ruler is incompetent,
they revolt and overthrow him.
The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into thinking he is
competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools – propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation
of the elite, and censorship of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from
taxing the citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their estimate
of the dictator's competence. Hence the trade-off.
Certain findings emerge from the logic of this game.
First, we show how modern autocracies can survive while employing relatively little violence
against the public.
Repression is not necessary if mass beliefs can be manipulated sufficiently. Dictators win
a confidence game rather than an armed combat. Indeed, since in our model repression is only used
if equilibria based on non-violent methods no longer exist, violence can signal to opposition
forces that the regime is vulnerable.
Second, since members of the informed elite must coordinate among themselves on whether
to sell out to the regime, two alternative equilibria often exist under identical circumstances
– one based on a co-opted elite, the other based on a censored private media.
Since both bribing the elite and censoring the media are ways of preventing the sending of
embarrassing messages, they serve as substitutes. Propaganda, by contrast, complements all the
other tools.
Propaganda and a leader's competency
Why does anyone believe such propaganda? Given the dictator's obvious incentive to lie, this
is a perennial puzzle of authoritarian regimes. We offer an answer. We think of propaganda as
consisting of claims by the ruler that he is competent. Of course, genuinely competent rulers
also make such claims. However, backing them up with convincing evidence is costlier for the incompetent
dictators – who have to manufacture such evidence – than for their competent counterparts, who
can simply reveal their true characteristics. Since faking the evidence is costly, incompetent
dictators sometimes choose to spend their resources on other things. It follows that the public,
observing credible claims that the ruler is competent, rationally increases its estimate that
he really is.
Moreover, if incompetent dictators survive, they may over time acquire a reputation for competence,
as a result of Bayesian updating by the citizens. Such reputations can withstand temporary economic
downturns if these are not too large. This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian
leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez).
While a major economic crisis results in their overthrow, more gradual deteriorations may fail
to tarnish their reputations significantly.
A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes. As Turkey's growth rate fell from 7.8% in 2010 to 0.8%
in 2012, the number of journalists in jail increased from four to 49. Declines in press freedom
were also witnessed after the Global Crisis in countries such as Hungary and Russia. Conversely,
although this may be changing now, in both Singapore and China during the recent decades of rapid
growth, the regime's information control strategy shifted from one of more overt intimidation
to one that often used economic incentives and legal penalties to encourage self-censorship (Esarey
2005, Rodan 1998).
The kind of information-based dictatorship we identify is more compatible with a modernized
setting than with the rural underpinnings of totalitarianism in Asia or the traditional societies
in which monarchs retain legitimacy. Yet, modernization ultimately undermines the informational
equilibria on which such dictators rely. As education and information spread to broader segments
of the population, it becomes harder to control how this informed elite communicates with the
masses. This may be a key mechanism explaining the long-noted tendency for richer countries to
open up politically.
References
Esarey, A (2005), "Cornering the market: state strategies for controlling China's commercial
media", Asian Perspective 29(4): 37-83.
Gandhi, J (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Levitsky, S, and L A Way (2010), Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after
the cold war, New York: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J, and P Zoido (2004), "How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru",
Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 69-92.
Rodan, G (1998), "The Internet and political control in Singapore", Political Science
Quarterly 113(1): 63-89.
Roht-Arriaza, N (2005), The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human
Rights, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Peter K.:
"A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes."
Instead of military Keynesianism, it's "police state" Keynesianism.
More social spending coupled with more social control.
ilsm:
The corporation runs the governors.....
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is a new twist where the actions of government, like investor
"losses" from shuttering frackers would be compensated by a standing unelected nor appointed by
the locals "board" filled with corporate cronies to take sovereignty from governments when foreign
investors are denied pillaging "rights".
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is why you should oppose TPP fast track.
The kleptocarcy is well advanced in the US!
GeorgeK:
..."This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on
to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez"...
Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored. If you were
wealthy or upper middle class Chavez was a failure, if you were poor or indigenous he was a savior.
..."Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South
will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social
and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[262] The project is
endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of
the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those
in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the
market for development lending."[263]"...
Guess nobody told Stiglitz about Chavez's authoritarian incompetence.
Julio -> anne...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly
interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers;
and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.
But in a government attempting left-wing reforms, and where the government is less stable, there
is less room for the government to accept the unanimity and hostility of the press; it may need
to intervene more strongly to defend itself. Take e.g. Ecuador where Correa has been accused of
suppressing press liberties along these very lines.
anne -> Julio...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist,
since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness
of information is no threat to the regime....
[ Thinking further, I realize that the United States is wildly aggressive with governments
of countries considered strategic and does not hesitate to use media in those countries when our
"needs" do not seem met. I am thinking even of the effort to keep allied governments, even the
UK, France and Germany, from agreeing to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank that China has begun. ]
Peter K. -> GeorgeK...
"Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored."
This is how I see it. There are no objective standards.
Lefties criticize Obama for going after whistle blowers. Snowden is treated as a hero. Then
guys like Paine and Kervack defend the behaviro of a Putin or Chavez because the U.S. doesn't
like them.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
I think a lot of the older left is stuck in a Cold War mind set.
Opposing America is good because you're opposing multinational capitalism. So they'll provide
rhetorical support to any nutjob who opposes the West no matter how badly he mistreats his people.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
It's the flipside to the Dick Cheney-Security State rationalizations of torture and police
state tactics like warrantless surveillence.
It's okay if we do it, because they're trying to destroy us.
The ends justify the means.
hyperpolarizer -> Peter K....
I am the older left (born right after WW II). I grew up with the cold war, but -- despite its
poisonous legacy (particularly the linking of the domestic labor movement to international communism)--
I have assuredly left it behind.
In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United
States has undergone a coup d'etat.
Roger Gathmann -> anne...
Defending Chavez doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. So, Peter K., do you defend, say, Uribe?
Let's see - amended constitution so he could run again - Chavez, check, Uribe check. Associated with
paramilitaries, Uribe, check, Chavez, demi-check. Loved by the US, Uribe, check, Chavez, non-check.
Funny how chavez figures in these things, and Uribe doesn't. https://www.citizen.org/documents/TalkingPointsApril08.pdf
Peter K. -> Roger Gathmann...
I never said a thing about Uribe. I said there should be single standards across the board
for Uribe, America, Chavez, Putin, China, etc...
Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....
Right. Double standard. That is what I am talking about. The double standard that allows US
tax dollars to go into supporting a right wing dictator like Uribe. I don't have to piss off.
You can piss off. I doubt you will. I certainly won't. It is adolescent gestures like that which
make me wonder about your age.
Are you going to slam the door next and saY I hate you I hate you I hate you?
You need to get a little pillow that you can mash. Maybe with a hello kitty sewed on it.
Nietil -> Roger Gathmann...
I don't see how any of these criteria has anything to do with being an autocrat.
Autocracy is an answer to the question of the source of legitimacy (democratic, autocratic,
or theocratic). It has nothing to do with either the definition of the sovereign space (feudal,
racial or national) or with the number of people running the said government (anarchy, monarchy,
oligarchy).
The UK for example was a national and democratic monarchy for a long, long time. Now it's more
of a national and democratic oligarchy. And it can still change in the future.
DrDick -> Peter K....
I really do not think that is at all accurate. While there are certainly some like that, it
is far from the majority. Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they
have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their
refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people.
Much of that support is also conditional and qualified, for reasons that have been mentioned
here. All evaluations of current leaders is conditioned by both past history in the country and
region, as well as the available alternatives. By those standards, all of the men I mentioned
look pretty good, if far from perfect.
How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression
By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman
We develop an informational theory of dictatorship. Dictators survive not because of their
use of force or ideology but because they convince the public--rightly or wrongly--that they are
competent. Citizens do not observe the dictator's type but infer it from signals inherent in their
living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media.
If citizens conclude the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator
can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite,
or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings -- but he must finance such spending with taxes
that depress the public's living standards. We show that incompetent dictators can survive as
long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow
over time. Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of
propaganda. Repression of protests is a substitute for all the other techniques. In some equilibria
the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship.
The multiplicity of equilibria emerges due to coordination failure among members of the elite.
We show that repression is used against ordinary citizens only as a last resort when the opportunities
to survive through co-optation, censorship, and propaganda are exhausted. In the equilibrium with
censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda.
The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.
[ This is the discussion paper, which I find more coherent than the summary essay. ]
JayR:
Wow quite a few countries, maybe even the US with Obama's war on whistle blowers, could fit
this articles definition if the authors actually though more about it.
Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....
Yes, the people of Greece can vote to leave the Eurozone, just like the people of Crimea can
vote to leave the Ukraine, or the people of Kosovo could vote to leave Serbia. There are many
ways, though, of looking at soft dictatorship. I think the EU bureaucrats have been busy inventing
new ones, with new and ever more onerous chains. To say Greece can vote to leave the EU is like
saying the merchant can always defy the mafioso, or the moneylender. It isn't that easy.
After Israeli elections and Ukrainian coup d'état the key question is "to what extent [...] the
contemporary right [is] linked to classical fascism". And the picture is complex.
As one reviewer of the book
Fascism and Neofascism Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe noted "contrary to
common perception, the Nazi movement was not repressive towards sex. In fact, it sneered at
Christian morality much the same way that modern libertines and leftists do, and favored both
premarital and extramarital sex. Attempts were made to discredit the Catholic Church by accusing
priests in general of being homosexuals (sound familiar?). Much as modern feminists and other
humanists, the Nazis accused Christianity of having a dislike for the human body and for showing
disrespect towards women. This was supposed to be a carryover of "the Oriental attitude towards
women." Similarly hate toward particular ethnic or racial group was never absolute: Among Nazi Germany
fascist brass there were notable number of Jews. Also Italian fascism was quite different from
German as well as the level of Social Darwinism adopted.
Neofascism movement share with classic fascism the belief in the
necessary of hierarchical (authoritarian) world with the dominant and subordinate groups, as well as
ethos of masculine violence. It is deeply rooted in European culture with and as Adorno noted
that "totality" is a mode of domination that lies implicit in the Enlightenment drive to
de-mythologize the world. In this sense "totalitarism" in not unique to fascism and communism but
also is inherent in "consumer capitalism", which, as such, represent a potent background for
emerging neofascist groups and movements. Fascist myths were the means of constituting
identity and as such not tat different form mass advertizing . That also entails deep similarities
of Hollywood and Nazi films. At the same time, new radical right movement and groups are
clearly distinct from fascist of the past. While fascism emerged partially as a reaction to
brutalities and injustices of WWI, new radical right is in large part the result of unease with the
neoliberalism. Several members of Western European far right groups fight in Donbass with Donbass
militia as they consider Kiev junta to be Washington puppets promoting its globalization agenda.
At the same time several members of white supremacist groups fight with Kiev junta para-military
formations (death squads) which openly brandish Nazi symbols.
Neofascist movements are using "invented historical context" or myths as a
powerful means for making sense of human differences and organizing societies. Nationalism, based on
however fictive consent of national identity, is powerful mean of organizing the society along of
axis of domination and subordination, inclusion and exclusion. Racism and nationalism while not the
same things are closely linked together. In a sense any political system that operate on the base of
nationality of race is a neofascism in its essence. that includes Israel and Baltic states. In
this sense neither the USA nor Russia can be classified as neofascist regimes became they do not
adhere to the concept of "ingenious nationality" or white race supremacy. That does not exclude
existence of groups that adhere to this mythology.
It is extremely interesting those football fans, skinheads and hooligans, who
often utilized the gesture of rebellition against the society to trigger predictable outrage against
the general population were mobilized during EuroMaydan events. Behaviors once deemed antisocial and
vandalistic were harnessed in the service of the nationalist discourse and the they served as a part
of storm troopers for the coup of February 22, 2014. Ultimately like in Serbia before unruly
football hooligans were recruited into paramilitary formations that played important role in civil
was in Donbass (like Serbia paramilitary formation in wars of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) and
committed the most horrendous crimes against civil population. .
Ukrainian events definitely correlated with disillusionment of the
neoliberalism in specific form of crony capitalism of Yanukovich regime. In a way
marginalization of extreme right from 1945 to 1991 was more exception the a rule Western societies,
especially European, tend to generate powerful extreme right movements. In a few states
neofascist have chances of coming to power (Ukraine is actually is not a good example as events here
were externally driven).
The Marquis de Morés, returning to 1890s Paris after his cattle ranching venture in North Dakota
failed, recruited a gang of men from the Parisian cattle yards as muscle for his "national
socialism" project -- a term Paxton credits Morés' contemporary Maurice Barres, a French
nationalist author, with coining. Morés' project was potent and prophetic: his national socialism
was a mixture of anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism. He clothed his men in what must have been the
first fascist uniform in Europe -- ten-gallon hats and cowboy garb, frontier clothes he'd taken a
shine to in the American West. (Author Paxton suggests the first ever fascist get-up was the KKKs
white sheet and pointy hat). Morés killed a French Jewish officer in a duel during the Dreyfus
affair and later was killed in the Sahara by his guides during his quest to unite France to Islam
to Spain.
Morés had earlier proclaimed: "Life is valuable only through action. So much the worse
if the action is mortal."
Here assembled together are all of the elements of what Paxton would classify as first stage
fascism: "the creation of a movement." Most fascist movements stall in this first stage he notes
-- think, for instance, of the skinheads, the American Nazi Party and Posse Comitatus.
Paxton's
other stages are
the rooting of the movement in the political system;
the seizure of power;
the exercise of power; and
the duration of power, during which the regime chooses either
radicalization or entropy.
He notes that although each stage
"is a prerequisite for the next,
nothing requires a fascist movement to complete all of them, or even to move in only one
direction. The five stages permit plausible comparison between movements and regimes at
equivalent degrees of development. It helps us see that fascism, far from static, was a
succession of processes and choices: seeking a following, forming alliances, bidding for power,
then exercising it. That is why the conceptual tools that illuminate one stage may not
necessarily work equally well for others." pg. 23.
Paxton also tentatively offers a definition of fascism, but only after tracing the rise of
various movements from their beginnings in the 19th century through the present day. Other
historians and philosophers, he suggests, have written brilliantly on fascism, but have failed to
recognize that their analyses apply to only one stage or another. He also notes that often
definitions of fascism are based on fascist writings; he maintains that fascist writings while
valuable were often written as justification for the seizure of power, or the attempted seizure,
and that what fascists actually did and do is more critical to understanding these movements.
Indeed, the language of fascism has changed little since the days of the Marquis De Mores.
He hesitates in offering both his definition and his analytical stages, saying that he knows by
doing so he risks falling into the nominalism of the "bestiary." He demonstrates that this is a
common failing of definitions of fascism which are often incomplete or muddled as they typically
describe only one or two typically late stages.
Other historians, for instance, split fascism
into Nazism or Italian fascism, avoiding the problem of understanding their common elements by
concentrating on their differences, insisting that they are incommensurable. Finally in the last
pages, Paxton offers up this fairly comprehensive and useful definition:
"Fascism may be defined
as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline,
humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a
mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective
collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive
violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external
expansion."
Paxton is particularly strong in showing how the circumstances in post WWI Germany and
Italy -- the demobilized mobs of young soldiers, sent to war by elites who had no conception of
the destruction and suffering they had unleashed upon the younger generation -- were ripe for
fascism's appeals. For many, liberalism, conservatism and socialism all seemed equally
complicit in the crack-up of Europe in the Great War. Fascism, rising from the ashes, employed
the socialistic tools of mass marches, the military techniques of terror learned in the war, and
as they gained power, the new tools of mass communication and propaganda developed in the US
during WWI.
Fascists also reacted astutely to public discomfort toward the mass migrations from
southern and eastern Europe coming in the wake of political and economic distress in those
regions, using that fear to increase their power through scapegoating and its attendant rhetoric
of purity.
Fascism is both charged and blurry word these days, used by both the left and the right to
assail their critics and enemies.
The Nazi remains the evildoer par excellence in popular and
political culture, invoked for a thrill of fear or the disciplinary scare or emotional
incitement. In this masterful synthesis of writings in politics, history, philosophy and
sociology, Paxton untangles the vast literature fascism has generated, establishes some essential
ground rules for coming to grips with its many expressions, stages, and manifestations, and
clears a space for further, better focused research.
Although academic in its orientation, it is
well and clearly written. Finally, for the reader who is not familiar with modern European
history, it is a very useful and informative text as it takes into its scope by necessity much of
European and American history over the past one hundred years. Absolutely required reading.
Some experts believe that the reason of economic crisis in Russia are not the Western
sanctions, but decrease in oil price. What do you think?
While I think it is an organized action by the
US and Saudi Arabia, it's success to date in dramatically lowering oil prices has been possible
because of the global recession and worldwide drop in demand for oil. The price of oil would have
pulled back in any case but the policy has made the downtrend worse and of a longer duration.
But understand this is a complicated situation not just aimed at Russia as this also dramatically
cuts revenue for Iran another nation in opposition to US hegemony. Also Sunni Saudi Arabia rightly
fears Shia Iran, as most of the Saudi oil resources are right across the Persian Gulf from Iran including
the world's largest, the Ghawer field and most of the 15% Saudi Shite minority population lives in
the area where the reserves are located. Remember the Shite/Sunni divide in Islam makes the Israel/Arab
conflict pale in comparison and the Saudi Shites are treated quite badly so they and the Saudi oil
reserves could become a fertile ground for Iranian actions.
Is it an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia? If it is so, then Obama deliberately
endangered the shale miracle in the US, didn't he?
Yes, as I answered in the question above it is an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia but
the leadership of Saudi Arabia jumped both at the chance to close the fracking and shale oil production
competition in the United States as well as to put pressure on their arch enemy Iran.
Also much of the oil production industry votes and supports Republican candidates rather than
the Democrats so Obama is not paying a huge political price. Finally although shale oil production
is not profitable unless oil is near $100 a barrel, the public had already loaded up on these junk
bonds and Wall Street had made their money so it was time to fleece the unsophisticated investors.
Regardless of US shale oil production or losses, the opportunity to bring financial pressure against
Iran and Russia was worth the cost to the Washington political leadership.
What is needed for the oil price starting to rise at last?
Tyler Durden believes that it is Putin who should surrender Bashar al-Assad, who does not give
permission for gas pipeline installation from Qatar to Europe. Do you agree?
It is too late to surrender Bashar al-Assad and allow the Qatar pipeline as Washington has bigger
fish to fry, ie. Russia and Iran the last major energy suppliers outside of US domination and control.
Two events have to happen before oil gets expensive again.
First, the price of oil will rise when the global recession has ended and the world economy picks
up again. I believe the recession in China and the rest of the world is just starting and it is related
to overhanging amount of government debt and bonds floating around the world. I really don't know
how governments and the central banks get us out of the looming debt crisis without wholesale debt
repudiation.
Second, Washington must decide that the disadvantages of artificially low oil prices hurt the
US economy more than the intended victims Iran and Russia.
As for Germany and the EU, Hitler's violent goal of lebensraum for living spaces to farm, trade
and grow food for the Reich at the expense of the Russian people has today been modernized to a longing
for Russian natural resources ranging from timber, mining to oil and gas in order to benefit Europe
and Washington. I believe their goal is economic rather than a military threat and this is just an
expansion of an ongoing natural resource grab outside the Middle East as the long-term challenge
for world supremacy between Washington & Wall Street VS China and the Asian tigers slowly develop.
The issuance of unredeemable government debt and bonds are the ultimate control mechanism by the
Western interests utilized in order to keep politicians, national leaders and nations in line and
march in lockstep to their economic programs.
Russia under Putin is not over indebted like almost all other western nations thus allowing Putin
to exercise leadership independent of European and Washington demands and this makes Russia in their
eyes a threat to the continuation of the fake debt democracy system across the West.
The ultimate goal is to destabilize Russia by destroying the economy and limiting government revenue
and growth by holding oil prices at historically low levels. To do this they must depose Putin, the
national leader with the highest poll approval rating in the world and replace him with a compliant
quisling type of leadership submissive to western interests as has been done in Ukraine. This goal
could be achieved due to Russia's extreme over dependence on energy resource revenue.
In my view it wasn't the arms race, total failure of
Russian communism to benefit the masses nor the inability to compete with the western market
economies that overthrew the communist party leadership in the former Soviet Union and the rest of
the
Warsaw
Pact countries. Rather it was the government debt burden of Moscow and it's other eastern European
client states that eventually destroyed the Eastern Bloc as political leaders increasingly tried
to improve their low standards of living and satisfy consumers through government borrowing from
western banks.
This policy worked for the West and the Soviet style communism is thankfully no more but this
is the same policy used today by Washington and in the European Union in order to control the destiny
and leadership of what should be independent national governments. As you see with Greece, even in
voting democracies where the citizens demand a change, there can be no change because all politicians
are subservient to powerful foreign banking interests.
I would suggest that Washington is indeed acting rationally if their goal is to preserve their
power base as well as the support of powerful banking and economic interests. The US Empire has indeed
reached it's zenith of power and authority in the world and as America heads downhill as have all
major empires in the past. Therefore it is crucial to buy time by attempting to conquer or control
energy resources around the world hence why the US is involved across the Middle East and increasingly
in the Ukraine and is surrounding Russia and Iran.
Their goal for Russia, now the ultimate ally of a resurgent China is economic vassalage, territorial
dismemberment and the development of "spheres of influence" just like Great Britain did to India
and the western countries including Russia did to a weakened China in the 19th century.
Will Putin go the length of it?
Well this is a tough question for a non-Russian to comment on. He is the best politician on the
planet evidenced by his poll numbers and there is no question he is a patriot and wants the best
for his country, the people and of course your powerful oligarchs.
I love the
Washington propaganda always lambasting the evil Russian oligarchs because every country including
the United States have their own powerful interests or oligarchs that seek to use government as a
tool for their best interests. This is nothing new or sinister as government and politicians everywhere
have always operated this way.
Yes, I believe Putin and Russia will survive this attack on Russian sovereignty and it's over
emphasis on energy resource revenue which is a mistake made by Russia not by western interests. This
economic war will end in stalemate because Russia cannot be subdued by invasion, history shows us
that and the increasing alliance with China and other BRICS will help with better economic growth.
But I don't consider a standoff as a victory for Putin or Russia. It is just maintaining the status
quo with Russia still at risk from western expansionism and the control of your natural resources.
Russia is now engaged in an asymmetrical war with the American and European Union primarily over
resources and the strategy and tactics really differ between the West and Russia. Washington failed
in goading Russia into a military invasion of Ukraine as this could have drawn in other European
nations thus further weakening the Russian economy but the economic, currency and financial warfare
will continue hopefully short of military action.
To date Russia only reacts to western sanctions and economic warfare against your energy industry
thus there is neither real pain for the west nor any reason for them not to ratchet up the sanctions
against individuals, banking and other interests. They are logically attacking your weakest link,
the energy and financial sectors and they certainly do not expect a major response from your side.
Still dumping Treasury debt by Russia or China would probably be counter productive and both nations
would be smart of liquidate US dollar debt in an organized regular fashion during this near term
period of tremendous dollar strength. This is probably your last chance to unload US Treasury debt
at a profit.
A defensive war strategy even in an economic war is not a recipe for victory but rather a guarantor
of future wars or ultimate defeat. Putin and Russia
can win this economic war quite easily if you think and act outside the box so to speak. The
West is legitimately attacking your economy at its weakest link, your over dependence on the energy
sector hence why low oil prices and the gas pipeline revolution in the Ukraine were smart moves by
your energy adversaries.
Utilize your strengths and western weaknesses in your peaceful economic and financial responses
to the challenges they have made to your country. I've spent my entire career in the financial industry
and this is not rocket science on how to successfully counter western political moves against you.
The weakness of the Western banking and economic interests are massive government debt, the end
of the dollar as the world reserve currency and nationalism within the EU. There is no way citizens
or companies can escape the high taxes, massive debt service costs and the inability of citizens
or companies within Europe to escape their high tax, regulatory environment that is killing the economy
of Europe in order to defend the primarily German banking interests. Financial privacy and all wealth
in Europe are at risk from future bail-ins where depositor's funds are used to pay for excessive
bank lending losses. We've already seen it in Cyprus and soon it will happen in Greece and the PIGGS
countries.
To win, you must have other powerful economic interests outside Russia who can benefit and profit
from a sovereign independent Russia. The US has destroyed financial privacy and confidentially around
the world and no nation can stand up to their powerful threats to other banking interests which means
the private wealth of the entire West will eventually be at risk of bank bail-ins, confiscation of
retirement funds and confiscatory tax rates when the bond crisis finally hit because there is no
secure alternative to protecting honest earned wealth
As I've written in earlier editorials, Russia can win the financial/energy/economic war only by
finding new sources of revenue outside the energy sector and playing on its unique strengths. A low
tax rate and friendly regulatory environment to attract European/American industry and money is a
start. It appears Russia is now moving to offer economic citizenships and tax advantages in order
to attract entrepreneurs as I wrote a couple of months ago and this will help.
For example, I'm a skier and where can you ski in the winter and enjoy a tropical climate the
other 6 months outside of a couple of very expensive locations in Switzerland, Italy and France?
You have skiing at
Krasnaya
Polyana less than an hour from Sochi on the Russian Riviera the site of the 2014 Olympics that
could become another Hong Kong with the climate advantages and low taxes and secure banking opportunities.
Plus you have a relatively empty Olympic village that could be remodeled into condos and flats for
foreign entrepreneurs and investors.
Finally Russia must get aggressive in the economic war. You can win this economic contest in 24
months, if certain special zones in Russia simply are allowed to copy Swiss banking rules and regulations,
as wealth will always flow to secure locations where taxes are low. You know what banking privacy
and security did for Switzerland, it made a poor country with few natural resources the wealthiest
nation in the world. You will have foreign banks and financial institutions lining up to open offices
in Russia if you can guarantee financial privacy to a degree and wealth protection in total.
This will break the monopoly of West in financial and banking as well as their power to threaten
you. The coming bond debacle guarantees this will work as I've written earlier every nation has wealthy
interests and their own oligarchs so why not build support for Russia from wealthy foreigners as
they transfer a portion of their wealth as taxable income at a very low rate to your nation. This
will end the economic war.
Will there be set peace in Ukraine in the near future? Which role will the US have in it?
No the Ukraine is caught between competing sides in the East VS West conflict. Sadly it will likely
end up like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as a battleground and non functioning state at least economically
and maybe militarily caught between the US and EU verses Russia. Russia will protect the Russian
speakers and likely will open a land route to the Crimea and maybe as far west as Odessa thus cutting
off the Ukraine from the Black Sea. Still all Russia needs is a Ukraine non-aligned with the West
or a member of NATO. The US will continue to promote instability in the Ukraine for the foreseeable
future.
Ron Holland
Ronald Holland is the author of several books as well as numerous special reports and hundreds
of articles on finance, investments, history and politics. He speaks and moderates frequently at
financial and free-market conferences and has developed Swiss oriented financial products in the
US and Switzerland and his lived and worked in the US, Switzerland and Canada. He was head of a bank
trust department, president of an investment firm licensed in 47 states and involved in resort real
estate marketing and sales. He consults with a wide range of individuals, corporations and entities.
If you compare this with Nuland's recent testimony, it's clear
Condoleezza Rice was higher quality diplomat then Victoria
Nuland. Both are neocons although Ms. Rise was less supportive of Israel. But true to neocon doctrine when she said "especially
because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values." she means neoliberal values (aka "Washington consensus")
under which Russia should play the role of vassal of the USA (like all other countries). A colony.
You should replace "democratization" with "neoliberalization"
globally in the text to understand the real interests she defends.
What is the national interest? This is a question that I took up in 2000 in these pages. That was a time that we as a nation revealingly
called "the post-Cold War era." We knew better where we had been than where we were going. Yet monumental changes were unfolding
-- changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear.
And then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States
was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective on what constituted
threats and what might emerge as opportunities. And as with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and
change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.
What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of
policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the "relationships with the big powers" -- Russia, China, and
emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia
remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.
What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power
among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak
or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international
order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full
range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant
changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the
broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability,
especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As in the past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried
to marry power and principle -- realism and idealism. At times, there have been short-term tensions between them. But we have always
known where our long-term interests lie. Thus, the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the
superiority of democracy as a form of government, both in principle and in practice. This uniquely American realism has guided us
over the past eight years, and it must guide us over the years to come.
GREAT POWER, OLD AND NEW
By necessity, our relationships with Russia and China have been rooted more in common interests than common values. With Russia,
we have found common ground, as evidenced by the "strategic framework" agreement that President George W. Bush and Russian President
Vladimir Putin signed in Sochi in March of this year. Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by
its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge.
And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was
moving closer to us in terms of values.
Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent
enemy nor a strategic threat. Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in
their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great
power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the
technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of
Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.
The last eight years have also challenged us to deal with rising Chinese influence, something we have no reason to fear if that
power is used responsibly. We have stressed to Beijing that with China's full membership in the international community comes responsibilities,
whether in the conduct of its economic and trade policy, its approach to energy and the environment, or its policies in the developing
world. China's leaders increasingly realize this, and they are moving, albeit slowly, to a more cooperative approach on a range of
problems. For instance, on Darfur, after years of unequivocally supporting Khartoum, China endorsed the UN Security Council resolution
authorizing the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force and dispatched an engineering battalion to
pave the way for those peacekeepers. China needs to do much more on issues such as Darfur, Burma, and Tibet, but we sustain an active
and candid dialogue with China's leaders on these challenges.
The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China's rapid development of high-tech weapons systems.
We understand that as countries develop, they will modernize their armed forces. But China's lack of transparency about its military
spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion. Although Beijing has agreed to take incremental steps
to deepen U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchanges, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of peaceful intentions toward true engagement
in order to reassure the international community.
Our relationships with Russia and China are complex and characterized simultaneously by competition and cooperation. But in the
absence of workable relations with both of these states, diplomatic solutions to many international problems would be elusive. Transnational
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and instability stemming from poverty and disease
-- these are dangers to all successful states, including those that might in another time have been violent rivals. It is incumbent
on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant
differences.
Obviously, Russia and China carry special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, but
this has not been the only forum in which we have worked together. Another example has emerged in Northeast Asia with the six-party
framework. The North Korean nuclear issue could have led to conflict among the states of Northeast Asia, or to the isolation of the
United States, given the varied and vital interests of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Instead, it has
become an opportunity for cooperation and coordination as the efforts toward verifiable denuclearization proceed. And when North
Korea tested a nuclear device last year, the five other parties already were an established coalition and went quickly to the Security
Council for a Chapter 7 resolution. That, in turn, put considerable pressure on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and
to shut down and begin disabling its Yongbyon reactor. The parties intend to institutionalize these habits of cooperation through
the establishment of a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism -- a first step toward a security forum in the region.
The importance of strong relations with global players extends to those that are emerging. With those, particularly India and
Brazil, the United States has built deeper and broader ties. India stands on the front lines of globalization. This democratic nation
promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law. Brazil's success
at using democracy and markets to address centuries of pernicious social inequality has global resonance. Today, India and Brazil
look outward as never before, secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. In both countries, national interests
are being redefined as Indians and Brazilians realize their direct stake in a democratic, secure, and open international order --
and their commensurate responsibilities for strengthening it and defending it against the major transnational challenges of our era.
We have a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies with global reach, such as
Indonesia and South Africa. And as these emerging powers change the geopolitical landscape, it will be important that international
institutions also change to reflect this reality. This is why President Bush has made clear his support for a reasonable expansion
of the UN Security Council.
SHARED VALUES AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values, that is
transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic
states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore,
should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and
extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.
In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and
Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have supported struggling states, such as Haiti,
in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal
gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming
transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old
suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic
development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social justice and inequality.
I believe that one of the most compelling stories of our time is our relationship with our oldest allies. The goal of a Europe
whole, free, and at peace is very close to completion. The United States welcomes a strong, united, and coherent Europe. There is
no doubt that the European Union has been a superb anchor for the democratic evolution of eastern Europe after the Cold War. Hopefully,
the day will come when Turkey takes its place in the EU.
Membership in the EU and NATO has been attractive enough to lead countries to make needed reforms and to seek the peaceful resolution
of long-standing conflicts with their neighbors. The reverse has been true as well: the new members have transformed these two pillars
of the transatlantic relationship. Twelve of the 28 members of NATO are former "captive nations," countries once in the Soviet
sphere. The effect of their joining the alliance is felt in a renewed dedication to promoting and protecting democracy.
Whether sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq or fiercely defending the continued expansion of NATO, these states have brought new
energy and fervor to the alliance.
In recent years, the mission and the purpose of the alliance have also been transformed. Indeed, many can remember when NATO viewed
the world in two parts: Europe and "out of area," which was basically everywhere else. If someone had said in 2000 that NATO today
would be rooting out terrorists in Kandahar, training the security forces of a free Iraq, providing critical support to peacekeepers
in Darfur, and moving forward on missile defenses, hopefully in partnership with Russia, who would have believed him? The endurance
and resilience of the transatlantic alliance is one reason that I believe Lord Palmerston got it wrong when he said that nations
have no permanent allies. The United States does have permanent allies: the nations with whom we share common values.
Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region. This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing
the goals we share. Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too -- and perhaps
to an even greater degree -- will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian states. This is the defining
geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it. We enjoy a strong, democratic
alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan -- an economic giant that is emerging as a "normal" state,
capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond. South Korea, too, has become a global partner whose history
can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity. Finally, the United States has a vital
stake in India's rise to global power and prosperity, and relations between the two countries have never been stronger or broader.
It will take continued work, but this is a dramatic breakthrough for both our strategic interests and our values.
It is now possible to speak of emerging democratic allies in Africa as well. Too often, Africa is thought of only as a humanitarian
concern or a zone of conflict. But the continent has seen successful transitions to democracy in several states, among them Ghana,
Liberia, Mali, and Mozambique. Our administration has worked to help the democratic leaders of these and other states provide for
their people -- most of all by attacking the continental scourge of HIV/AIDS in an unprecedented effort of power, imagination, and
mercy. We have also been an active partner in resolving conflicts -- from the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which
ended the civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, to active engagement in the Great Lakes region, to the intervention
of a small contingent of U.S. military forces in coordination with the African Union to end the conflict in Liberia. Although conflicts
in Darfur, Somalia, and other places tragically remain violent and unresolved, it is worth noting the considerable progress that
African states are making on many fronts and the role that the United States has played in supporting African efforts to solve the
continent's greatest problems.
A DEMOCRATIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT
Although the United States' ability to influence strong states is limited, our ability to enhance the peaceful political and economic
development of weak and poorly governed states can be considerable. We must be willing to use our power for this purpose -- not only
because it is necessary but also because it is right. Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as
separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation
of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy.
Democratic development is a unified political-economic model, and it offers the mix of flexibility and stability that best enables
states to seize globalization's opportunities and manage its challenges. And for those who think otherwise: What real alternative
worthy of America is there?
Democratic development is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits
are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence. We saw this recently in Kenya, where democracy
enabled civil society, the press, and business leaders to join together to insist on an inclusive political bargain that could stem
the country's slide into ethnic cleansing and lay a broader foundation for national reconciliation. In our own hemisphere, democratic
development has opened up old, elite-dominated systems to millions on the margins of society. These people are demanding the benefits
of citizenship long denied them, and because they are doing so democratically, the real story in our hemisphere since 2001 is not
that our neighbors have given up on democracy and open markets; it is that they are broadening our region's consensus in support
of democratic development by ensuring that it leads to social justice for the most marginalized citizens.
The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian
capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in
delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages
to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing
pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least
an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long
run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.
For the United States, promoting democratic development must remain a top priority. Indeed, there is no realistic alternative
that we can -- or should -- offer to influence the peaceful evolution of weak and poorly governed states. The real question is not
whether to pursue this course but how.
We first need to recognize that democratic development is always possible but never fast or easy. This is because democracy is
really the complex interplay of democratic practices and culture. In the experience of countless nations, ours especially, we see
that culture is not destiny. Nations of every culture, race, religion, and level of development have embraced democracy and adapted
it to their own circumstances and traditions. No cultural factor has yet been a stumbling block -- not German or Japanese "militarism,"
not "Asian values," not African "tribalism," not Latin America's alleged fondness for caudillos, not the once-purported preference
of eastern Europeans for despotism.
The fact is, few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture. The vast majority create one over time -- through
the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share
power justly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grow the habits of democracy in the controlled environment of authoritarianism, to
have them ready and in place when tyranny is lifted. The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but
it is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. This is true but beside the
point. It is more likely that tyranny has to be imposed.
The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy -- the right to choose those who will govern them and
other basic freedoms. It is, instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient with them and holding
them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life. It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders, support
their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security,
especially when their nations have experienced crippling conflicts. To do so will require long-term partnerships rooted in mutual
responsibility and the integration of all elements of our national power -- political, diplomatic, economic, and, at times, military.
We have recently built such partnerships to great effect with countries as different as Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Indeed, a
decade ago, Colombia was on the verge of failure. Today, in part because of our long-term partnership with courageous leaders and
citizens, Colombia is emerging as a normal nation, with democratic institutions that are defending the country, governing justly,
reducing poverty, and contributing to international security.
We must now build long-term partnerships with other new and fragile democracies, especially Afghanistan. The basics of democracy
are taking root in this country after nearly three decades of tyranny, violence, and war. For the first time in their history, Afghans
have a government of the people, elected in presidential and parliamentary elections, and guided by a constitution that codifies
the rights of all citizens. The challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a strong enemy. The Taliban offers a political vision
that very few Afghans embrace. Rather, they exploit the current limitations of the Afghan government, using violence against civilians
and revenues from illegal narcotics to impose their rule. Where the Afghan government, with support from the international community,
has been able to provide good governance and economic opportunity, the Taliban is in retreat. The United States and NATO have a vital
interest in supporting the emergence of an effective, democratic Afghan state that can defeat the Taliban and deliver "population
security" -- addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity. We share this goal
with the Afghan people, who do not want us to leave until we have accomplished our common mission. We can succeed in Afghanistan,
but we must be prepared to sustain a partnership with that new democracy for many years to come.
One of our best tools for supporting states in building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society is our foreign
assistance, but we must use it correctly. One of the great advances of the past eight years has been the creation of a bipartisan
consensus for the more strategic use of foreign assistance. We have begun to transform our assistance into an incentive for developing
states to govern justly, advance economic freedom, and invest in their people. This is the great innovation of the Millennium Challenge
Account initiative. More broadly, we are now better aligning our foreign aid with our foreign policy goals -- so as to help developing
countries move from war to peace, poverty to prosperity, poor governance to democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, we have
launched historic efforts to help remove obstacles to democratic development -- by forgiving old debts, feeding the hungry, expanding
access to education, and fighting pandemics such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Behind all of these efforts is the overwhelming generosity
of the American people, who since 2001 have supported the near tripling of the United States' official development assistance worldwide
-- doubling it for Latin America and quadrupling it for Africa.
Ultimately, one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institutions and civil society is to expand free and fair
trade and investment. The very process of implementing a trade agreement or a bilateral investment treaty helps to hasten and consolidate
democratic development. Legal and political institutions that can enforce property rights are better able to protect human rights
and the rule of law. Independent courts that can resolve commercial disputes can better resolve civil and political disputes. The
transparency needed to fight corporate corruption makes it harder for political corruption to go unnoticed and unpunished. A rising
middle class also creates new centers of social power for political movements and parties. Trade is a divisive issue in our country
right now, but we must not forget that it is essential not only for the health of our domestic economy but also for the success our
foreign policy.
There will always be humanitarian needs, but our goal must be to use the tools of foreign assistance, security cooperation, and
trade together to help countries graduate to self-sufficiency. We must insist that these tools be used to promote democratic development.
It is in our national interest to do so.
THE CHANGING MIDDLE EAST
What about the broader Middle East, the arc of states that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan? The Bush administration's approach
to this region has been its most vivid departure from prior policy. But our approach is, in reality, an extension of traditional
tenets -- incorporating human rights and the promotion of democratic development into a policy meant to further our national interest.
What is exceptional is that the Middle East was treated as an exception for so many decades. U.S. policy there focused almost exclusively
on stability. There was little dialogue, certainly not publicly, about the need for democratic change.
For six decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a basic bargain defined the United States' engagement in
the broader Middle East: we supported authoritarian regimes, and they supported our shared interest in regional stability. After
September 11, it became increasingly clear that this old bargain had produced false stability. There were virtually no legitimate
channels for political expression in the region. But this did not mean that there was no political activity. There was -- in madrasahs
and radical mosques. It is no wonder that the best-organized political forces were extremist groups. And it was there, in the shadows,
that al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers in its millenarian war against the "far enemy."
One response would have been to fight the terrorists without addressing this underlying cause. Perhaps it would have been possible
to manage these suppressed tensions for a while. Indeed, the quest for justice and a new equilibrium on which the nations of the
broader Middle East are now embarked is very turbulent. But is it really worse than the situation before? Worse than when Lebanon
suffered under the boot of Syrian military occupation? Worse than when the self-appointed rulers of the Palestinians personally pocketed
the world's generosity and squandered their best chance for a two-state peace? Worse than when the international community imposed
sanctions on innocent Iraqis in order to punish the man who tyrannized them, threatened Iraq's neighbors, and bulldozed 300,000 human
beings into unmarked mass graves? Or worse than the decades of oppression and denied opportunity that spawned hopelessness, fed hatreds,
and led to the sort of radicalization that brought about the ideology behind the September 11 attacks? Far from being the model of
stability that some seem to remember, the Middle East from 1945 on was wracked repeatedly by civil conflicts and cross-border wars.
Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East -- for they yielded neither
justice nor stability.
The president's second inaugural address and my speech at the American University in Cairo in June 2005 have been held up as rhetorical
declarations that have faded in the face of hard realities. No one will argue that the goal of democratization and modernization
in the broader Middle East lacks ambition, and we who support it fully acknowledge that it will be a difficult, generational task.
No one event, and certainly not a speech, will bring it into being. But if America does not set the goal, no one will.
This goal is made more complicated by the fact that the future of the Middle East is bound up in many of our other vital interests:
energy security, nonproliferation, the defense of friends and allies, the resolution of old conflicts, and, most of all, the need
for near-term partners in the global struggle against violent Islamist extremism. To state, however, that we must promote either
our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice. Admittedly, our interests and our ideals do come into
tension at times in the short term. America is not an NGO and must balance myriad factors in our relations with all countries. But
in the long term, our security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and
the rule of law.
The leaders and citizens of the broader Middle East are now searching for answers to the fundamental questions of modern state
building: What are to be the limits on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders? What will be the role of the
state in the lives of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics? How will traditional values and mores be reconciled
with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls? How is religious and ethnic diversity
to be accommodated in fragile political institutions when people tend to hold on to traditional associations? The answers to these
and other questions can come only from within the Middle East itself. The task for us is to support and shape these difficult processes
of change and to help the nations of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states.
The first challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, as embodied by groups, such as al Qaeda, that thoroughly
reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial
structure of the ancient caliphate. To resist this threat, the United States will need friends and allies in the region who are willing
and able to take action against the terrorists among them. Ultimately, however, this is more than just a struggle of arms; it is
a contest of ideas. Al Qaeda's theory of victory is to hijack the legitimate local and national grievances of Muslim societies and
twist them into an ideological narrative of endless struggle against Western, especially U.S., oppression. The good news is that
al Qaeda's intolerant ideology can be enforced only through brutality and violence. When people are free to choose, as we have seen
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq's Anbar Province, they reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. Our theory of
victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully -- to develop their talents,
to redress injustices, and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency:
the center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.
Admittedly, our interests in both promoting democratic development and fighting terrorism and extremism lead to some hard choices,
because we do need capable friends in the broader Middle East who can root out terrorists now. These states are often not democratic,
so we must balance the tensions between our short-term and our long-term goals. We cannot deny nondemocratic states the security
assistance to fight terrorism or defend themselves. At the same time, we must use other points of leverage to promote democracy and
hold our friends to account. That means supporting civil society, as we have done through the Forum for the Future and the Middle
East Partnership Initiative, and using public and private diplomacy to push our nondemocratic partners to reform. Changes are slowly
coming in terms of universal suffrage, more influential parliaments, and education for girls and women. We must continue to advocate
for reform and support indigenous agents of change in nondemocratic countries, even as we cooperate with their governments on security.
An example of how our administration has balanced these concerns is our relationship with Pakistan. Following years of U.S. neglect
of that relationship, our administration had to establish a partnership with Pakistan's military government to achieve a common goal
after September 11. We did so knowing that our security and that of Pakistan ultimately required a return to civilian and democratic
rule. So even as we worked with President Pervez Musharraf to fight terrorists and extremists, we invested more than $3 billion to
strengthen Pakistani society -- building schools and health clinics, providing emergency relief after the 2005 earthquake, and supporting
political parties and the rule of law. We urged Pakistan's military leaders to put their country on a modern and moderate trajectory,
which in some important respects they did. And when this progress was threatened last year by the declaration of emergency rule,
we pushed President Musharraf hard to take off his uniform and hold free elections. Although terrorists tried to thwart the return
of democracy and tragically killed many innocent people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani people dealt
extremism a crushing defeat at the polls. This restoration of democracy in Pakistan creates an opportunity for us to build the lasting
and broad-based partnership that we have never achieved with this nation, thereby enhancing our security and anchoring the success
of our values in a troubled region.
A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the
present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism. The question is not
whether any particular state should have influence in the region. They all do, and will. The real question is, What kind of influence
will these states wield -- and to what ends, constructive or destructive? It is this fundamental and still unresolved question that
is at the center of many of the geopolitical challenges in the Middle East today -- whether it is Syria's undermining of Lebanon's
sovereignty, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability, or both states' support for terrorism.
Iran poses a particular challenge. The Iranian regime pursues its disruptive policies both through state instruments, such as
the Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds force, and through nonstate proxies that extend Iranian power, such as elements of the Mahdi
Army in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world. The Iranian regime seeks to subvert states and extend
its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East. It threatens the state of Israel with extinction and
holds implacable hostility toward the United States. And it is destabilizing Iraq, endangering U.S. forces, and killing innocent
Iraqis. The United States is responding to these provocations. Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build
one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.
But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression. The Iranian
people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities. Indeed,
the United States has reached out to them with exchanges of sports teams, disaster-relief workers, and artists. By many accounts,
the Iranian people are favorably disposed to Americans and to the United States. Our relationship could be different. Should the
Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community
of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent
enemies.
Ultimately, the many threats that Iran poses must be seen in a broader context: that of a state fundamentally out of step with
the norms and values of the international community. Iran must make a strategic choice -- a choice that we have sought to clarify
with our approach -- about how and to what ends it will wield its power and influence: Does it want to continue thwarting the legitimate
demands of the world, advancing its interests through violence, and deepening the isolation of its people? Or is it open to a better
relationship, one of growing trade and exchange, deepening integration, and peaceful cooperation with its neighbors and the broader
international community? Tehran should know that changes in its behavior would meet with changes in ours. But Iran should also know
that the United States will defend its friends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.
A third challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Our administration has put the idea of democratic development at the center of our approach to this conflict, because we came to
believe that the Israelis will not achieve the security they deserve in their Jewish state and the Palestinians will not achieve
the better life they deserve in a state of their own until there is a Palestinian government capable of exercising its sovereign
responsibilities, both to its citizens and to its neighbors. Ultimately, a Palestinian state must be created that can live side by
side with Israel in peace and security. This state will be born not just through negotiations to resolve hard issues related to borders,
refugees, and the status of Jerusalem but also through the difficult effort to build effective democratic institutions that can fight
terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their
lives. This confers responsibilities on both parties.
As the experience of the past several years has shown, there is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of Palestinian society
-- between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. The Palestinian people must ultimately
make a choice about which future they desire, and it is only democracy that gives them that choice and holds open the possibility
of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question at the heart of their national life. The United States, Israel, other
states in the region, and the international community must do everything in their power to support those Palestinians who would choose
a future of peace and compromise. When the two-state solution is finally realized, it will be because of democracy, not despite it.
This is, indeed, a controversial view, and it speaks to one more challenge that must be resolved if democratic and modern states
are to emerge in the broader Middle East: how to deal with nonstate groups whose commitment to democracy, nonviolence, and the rule
of law is suspect. Because of the long history of authoritarianism in the region, many of the best-organized political parties are
Islamist, and some of them have not renounced violence used in the service of political goals. What should be their role in the democratic
process? Will they take power democratically only to subvert the very process that brought them victory? Are elections in the broader
Middle East therefore dangerous?
These questions are not easy. When Hamas won elections in the Palestinian territories, it was widely seen as a failure of policy.
But although this victory most certainly complicated affairs in the broader Middle East, in another way it helped to clarify matters.
Hamas had significant power before those elections -- largely the power to destroy. After the elections, Hamas also had to face real
accountability for its use of power for the first time. This has enabled the Palestinian people, and the international community,
to hold Hamas to the same basic standards of responsibility to which all governments should be held. Through its continued unwillingness
to behave like a responsible regime rather than a violent movement, Hamas has demonstrated that it is wholly incapable of governing.
Much attention has been focused on Gaza, which Hamas holds hostage to its incompetent and brutal policies. But in other places,
the Palestinians have held Hamas accountable. In the West Bank city of Qalqilya, for instance, where Hamas was elected in 2004, frustrated
and fed-up Palestinians voted it out of office in the next election. If there can be a legitimate, effective, and democratic alternative
to Hamas (something that Fatah has not yet been), people will likely choose it. This would especially be true if the Palestinians
could live a normal life within their own state.
The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather,
there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist
group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people
are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately
deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility.
This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic
processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRAQ
Then, of course, there is Iraq, which is perhaps the toughest test of the proposition that democracy can overcome deep divisions
and differences. Because Iraq is a microcosm of the region, with its layers of ethnic and sectarian diversity, the Iraqi people's
struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape not just of Iraq but of the broader Middle
East as well.
The cost of this war, in lives and treasure, for Americans and Iraqis, has been greater than we ever imagined. This story is still
being written, and will be for many years to come. Sanctions and weapons inspections, prewar intelligence and diplomacy, troop levels
and postwar planning -- these are all important issues that historians will analyze for decades. But the fundamental question that
we can ask and debate now is, Was removing Saddam from power the right decision? I continue to believe that it was.
After we fought one war against Saddam and then remained in a formal state of hostilities with him for over a decade, our containment
policy began to erode. The community of nations was losing its will to enforce containment, and Iraq's ruler was getting increasingly
good at exploiting it through programs such as oil-for-food -- indeed, more than we knew at the time. The failure of containment
was increasingly evident in the UN Security Council resolutions that were passed and then violated, in our regular clashes in the
no-fly zones, and in President Bill Clinton's decision to launch air strikes in 1998 and then join with Congress to make "regime
change" our government's official policy in Iraq. If Saddam was not a threat, why did the community of nations keep the Iraqi people
under the most brutal sanctions in modern history? In fact, as the Iraq Survey Group showed, Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute
his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated.
The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international
security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question
of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was
no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important
to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only
a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe.
The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were thus linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked
to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of
them. It is very hard to imagine how a more just and democratic Middle East could ever have emerged with Saddam still at the center
of the region.
Our effort in Iraq has been extremely arduous. Iraq was a broken state and a broken society under Saddam. We have made mistakes.
That is undeniable. The explosion to the surface of long-suppressed grievances has challenged fragile, young democratic institutions.
But there is no other decent and peaceful way for the Iraqis to reconcile.
As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. Ultimately, the
states of the Middle East need to reform. But they need to reform their relations, too. A strategic realignment is unfolding in the
broader Middle East, separating those states that are responsible and accept that the time for violence under the rubric of "resistance"
has passed and those that continue to fuel extremism, terrorism, and chaos. Support for moderate Palestinians and a two-state solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for democratic leaders and citizens in Lebanon have focused the energies of Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, and the states of the Persian Gulf. They must come to see that a democratic Iraq can be an ally in resisting extremism
in the region. When they invited Iraq to join the ranks of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Plus-Two (Egypt and Jordan), they took an
important step in that direction.
At the same time, these countries look to the United States to stay deeply involved in their troubled region and to counter and
deter threats from Iran. The United States now has the weight of its effort very much in the center of the broader Middle East. Our
long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia,
and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of
helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.
A UNIQUELY AMERICAN REALISM
Investing in strong and rising powers as stakeholders in the international order and supporting the democratic development of
weak and poorly governed states -- these broad goals for U.S. foreign policy are certainly ambitious, and they raise an obvious question:
Is the United States up to the challenge, or, as some fear and assert these days, is the United States a nation in decline?
We should be confident that the foundation of American power is and will remain strong -- for its source is the dynamism, vigor,
and resilience of American society. The United States still possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race,
religion, and culture into the fabric of our national and economic life. The same values that lead to success in the United States
also lead to success in the world: industriousness, innovation, entrepreneurialism. All of these positive habits, and more, are reinforced
by our system of education, which leads the world in teaching children not what to think but how to think -- how to address problems
critically and solve them creatively.
Indeed, one challenge to the national interest is to make certain that we can provide quality education to all, especially disadvantaged
children. The American ideal is one of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. This is the glue that holds together our multiethnic
democracy. If we ever stop believing that what matters is not where you came from but where you are going, we will most certainly
lose confidence. And an unconfident America cannot lead. We will turn inward. We will see economic competition, foreign trade and
investment, and the complicated world beyond our shores not as challenges to which our nation can rise but as threats that we should
avoid. That is why access to education is a critical national security issue.
We should also be confident that the foundations of the United States' economic power are strong, and will remain so. Even amid
financial turbulence and international crises, the U.S. economy has grown more and faster since 2001 than the economy of any other
leading industrial nation. The United States remains unquestionably the engine of global economic growth. To remain so, we must find
new, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The industries of the future are in the high-tech fields
(including in clean energy), which our nation has led for years and in which we remain on the global cutting edge. Other nations
are indeed experiencing amazing and welcome economic growth, but the United States will likely account for the largest share of global
GDP for decades to come.
Even in our government institutions of national security, the foundations of U.S. power are stronger than many assume. Despite
our waging two wars and rising to defend ourselves in a new global confrontation, U.S. defense spending today as a percentage of
GDP is still well below the average during the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed put an enormous strain on our
military, and President Bush has proposed to Congress an expansion of our force by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. The experience
of recent years has tested our armed forces, but it has also prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and
counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more. This experience has also reinforced the urgent need for a new kind
of partnership between our military and civilian institutions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the provincial reconstruction
teams that we deploy in Afghanistan and Iraq are a model of civil-military cooperation for the future.
In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008,
it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that
has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions such as the new Civilian
Response Corps must lead diplomats and development workers in a whole-of-government approach to our national security challenges.
We must help weak and poorly functioning states strengthen and reform themselves and thereby prevent their failure in the first place.
This will require the transformation and better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power -- a
difficult task and one that our administration has begun. Since 2001, the president has requested and Congress has approved a nearly
54 percent increase in funding for our institutions of diplomacy and development. And this year, the president and I asked Congress
to create 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new positions for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Those
who follow us must build on this foundation.
Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will.
We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that
of a republic, not an empire. There have been times in the past eight years when we have had to do new and difficult things -- things
that, at times, have tested the resolve and the patience of the American people. Our actions have not always been popular, or even
well understood. The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will
for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight: we need to be right one hundred percent of the time;
the terrorists, only once. Yet I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still
want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need
to recognize that, too.
Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination.
It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that
we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States,
because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been
a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they
are indivisible.
This has freed America to imagine that the world can always be better -- not perfect, but better -- than others have consistently
thought possible. America imagined that a democratic Germany might one day be the anchor of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. America
believed that a democratic Japan might one day be a source of peace in an increasingly free and prosperous Asia. America kept faith
with the people of the Baltics that they would be independent and thus brought the day when NATO held a summit in Riga, Latvia. To
realize these and other ambitious goals that we have imagined, America has often preferred preponderances of power that favor our
values over balances of power that do not. We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless
to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies
expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time.
How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that -- what I have called our uniquely
American realism. This makes us an incredibly impatient nation. We live in the future, not the past. We do not linger over
our own history. This has led our nation to make mistakes in the past, and we will surely make more in the future. Still, it
is our impatience to improve less-than-ideal situations and to accelerate the pace of change that leads to our most enduring achievements,
at home and abroad.
At the same time, ironically, our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We understand how long and trying the
course of democracy is. We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to
three-fifths of a man. Yet we are healing old wounds and living as one American people, and this shapes our engagement with the world.
We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect. This gives us reason
to be humble in our own endeavors and patient with the endeavors of others. We know that today's headlines are rarely the same as
history's judgments.
An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues
to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome. Indeed, we already see glimpses of this better world. We see it in Kuwaiti
women gaining the right to vote, in a provincial council meeting in Kirkuk, and in the improbable sight of the American president
standing with democratically elected leaders in front of the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the future state of Palestine. Shaping
that world will be the work of a generation, but we have done such work before. And if we remain confident in the power of our values,
we can succeed in such work again.
quote: I think that Der Spiegel article that you mention is accurate, I read it myself, and I think
we need to place it within the overall context of the US global policy which is of course to launch
these pressures around the world so as to maintain a hegemonic position. And to maintain a hegemonic
position the concept is to sort of break-up or reduce the effectiveness of the BRICS countries, and
of course to divide Russia from China, and to divide Russia from Europe. It's part of a global strategy
and thus we have to discuss US-Russia relationship in the overall context of the US hegemonic global
policy.
Dominant neo-conservatives in the US are pursuing a very anti-Russian policy and seem to be hysterical
and delusional in it, Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe, Jr., former Senior Professional Staff Member of the
US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, told RT.
The US is going to send more non-lethal military aid to Ukraine US Vice President Joe Biden told
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in a phone conversation.
RT: We've heard from Victoria Nuland and David Cameron last week, both of whom alluded to "keeping
the pressure on Russia", including with more sanctions. Why do you think they keep blaming Russia for
everything that's happening in Ukraine, and what is your forecast for the future of US-Russia relations?
Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe:The tendency here in Washington is just to keep the so-called pressure
which means economic sanctions which is a form of economic warfare of course, and also the propaganda
this information warfare that's another aspect of the so-called pressure. So this information warfare,
economic sanctions are part of the package of so-called tools. I mean we can also see NATO is kind
of rattling sabers, etc. So a combination of this is coordinated through Washington, the White House,
and State Department with allies in Europe. I think the Europeans appear to me to be getting a little
bit tired of too much pressure and may not continue the so-called economic sanctions. I think the Europeans
are divided. Some Europeans sort of slavishly want to follow Washington. But on the other hand there
are some more sensible people in the EU who seek a more independent policy from Washington and therefore
would try for bettering relations with Russia after we get through this crisis. So I think the Europeans
are divided among themselves and also from Washington. In terms of Washington and the future of Russian
relations, the US will certainly continue the Cold War if you wish…actually it's worse than the Cold
War, because it was more stable during the Cold war… But I think Washington will continue along this
anti-Russian line and you can see reactions in Congress and commentary from the White House that indicated
a continuing hard-line toward Russia.
RT: Germany's Der Spiegel magazine goes as far as asking whether the Americans are trying to thwart
the peace efforts promoted by Germany and its EU partners. What do you think?
CK: I think that Der Spiegel article that you mention is accurate, I read it myself, and I think
we need to place it within the overall context of the US global policy which is of course to launch
these pressures around the world so as to maintain a hegemonic position. And to maintain a hegemonic
position the concept is to sort of break-up or reduce the effectiveness of the BRICS countries, and
of course to divide Russia from China, and to divide Russia from Europe. It's part of a global strategy
and thus we have to discuss US-Russia relationship in the overall context of the US hegemonic global
policy.
Thus the US launched the coup d'état in Ukraine. President Obama has already admitted that he indeed
was responsible for this so-called power transition. The coup d'état in Ukraine and the destabilization
of Central Europe generally is part of this process to go on with the offensive against Russia, to
try to block Russian-European relations. Obviously if we want to move to a new type of international
system, a more modern type of international relations in terms of a multi-polar world, polycentric
world or a pluralist world of course the NATO alliance is obsolete. But the intention of the US in
to continue to promote the NATO alliance, to use it against other powers in the world and to impose
hegemony. The opposite would be to have the NATO alliance dissolved… the Warsaw Pact of course has
dissolved…and to have as Russian side put forward a Common European House, a project to have a common
European space where Russians, the EU could cooperatively work together.
I think the main instrumentality
for blocking Russia that Washington is trying to use is this obsolete NATO alliance which is increasingly
being strengthened and expanded and aimed at Russia. We have to remember that that most Americans have
no idea of the geography: "Ukraine border from Moscow? What are we talking about? 300 miles, something
like that?" So these issues of Ukraine and the stability in Eastern and Central Europe are extremely
sensitive matters for not only Russia but also for the West Europeans which I think is reflected in
the Der Spiegel article, it's reflected in the sentiments of more sophisticated Germans and French
and others who have a grasp of the historical context as well. I mean Russia has been a part of Europe
for many centuries, how can you isolate Russia from Europe? Of course Russia has an Asian dimension
too and an Asian destiny as well. But you cannot isolate Russia historically from Europe - it's a part
of Europe. So the US policies, the neo-conservative point of view - which is dominant in Washington
- is fundamentally anti-Russian, no matter what Russia will do the neo-cons will always go for a Cold
War or worse with respect to Russia.
RT: Many in the West are calling on Russia to exert more pressure on the rebels in East Ukraine.
Do you think the West will be doing the same to the Kiev government, to stop this conflict?
CK: Yes I do. As I said before more sophisticated thoughtful Europeans are concerned about the US
perhaps manipulating NATO or the EU and we do have that call from Ms. Nuland about her attitude to
the EU. What we have now in Washington… the psychology, the mindset at the moment is almost hysteria
with respect to Russia and a very Cold War sentiment here in Washington. And this is being propelled
by the very dominant neo-conservative thinking and advisors throughout the Congress and the executive
branch. So in my own view while there are Europeans who would like to see a better relationship with
Russia as well as with the US, a more equal relationship with the US… I think Europe is split. It's
better for Europe to distance itself at the moment from the US particularly when Washington is so delusional;
I've never seen it this delusional before, except for the instance of the Iraq war… It's just this
delusion and hysteria in Congress and a very aggressive attitude in the State Department. One would
think diplomats would be more diplomatic…
I believe that the Europeans are somewhat divided: more thoughtful ones are reflecting the dangers
of the Ukrainian crisis potentially causing instability in Europe and moving out of Eastern and Central
Europe into Western Europe. I think irrespective of some language of some leadership elements in Europe,
I think there is well-known voices have been speaking out in favor of trying to get behind this crisis
and repair relations with Russia.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
2ndiceberg yesterday at 18:13
Benoit ZuccarellI
You know, something stinks about this whole set up. China has been made wealthy by the West sending
all manufacturing
more...
Not just neo-con but neo-liberal. Double whammy.
Enrique at 08:10 the day before yesterday
The NeoCon Mafia is the worst danger for World stability, worse than their ISIL puppets.
Remo Gutierrez at 00:26 the day before yesterday
The US is still trying to push TTIP trade deal with Europe. With Russia out of the picture US corporations
figure it will pressure Europe into signing the deal.
Jonni H. 3 days ago 19:58
That last comment from "the Word of God" is an uneducated point of view from someone that has probably
never been outside there precious USA. People in the US need to understand that there government lies
just like every other government. To even make statements like this is totally delusional.
What's going on in Ukraine is just another bunch of lies from the US Government. I have been there
and I have seen what's going on. The media in the US is totally filled with lies about what is really
happening. I only feel for the people of Ukraine. They are the real losers in all of this. This is
all about controlling the natural resources, nothing more. Civil Wars just make a good cover story!
The Word of God 3 days ago 19:28
Russians will always find someone prominent among 330 million Americans with an opinion they like
and can use for propaganda. This is because there is every possible opinion about everything among
them. Whatever the truth is, Russia's actions are aggressive, hostile, violate treaties it signed,
are illegal, and are not acceptable to most Americans and many in Europe. They do warrant a new cold
war, a war Russia will lose just the way it lost the last one. It was given a chance to become a civilized
nation, a part of the world in the 21st century. Instead its government chose to behave like a 19th
century imperial power. When it loses this time, it won't be given a second chance.
Benoit ZuccarellI 3 days ago 19:11
You know, something stinks about this whole set up. China has been made wealthy by the West sending
all manufacturing jobs there, 70 million of them, so they are not going to double-cross the West.
So with no problems with China, what does it matter about Russia.....?
Its starting to look as if this is all a big charade to induce world-wide 'austerity' on the 99%
while the 1% gets rich and the 1% then tells the 99% all about the big bad boogeyman that doesn't
even exist.
Enrique Ferro 3 days ago 18:41
If the US is thinking to drive a wedge between Russia and China, I think it is going to be a disappointment.
Likewise isolating Russia from the BRICS looks like a hard die mission. As for Europe, there is a
trend to repent. It has become even a fashion to go to Moscow for talks, the last pilgrim was, yesterday,
the Spanish FM, who is not a Podemos Minister, but from the PP government, the same party which had
Sr Aznar as its PM!!!
This RT interview with Michael Hudson focuses on the appalling state of the Ukraine economy
and the role of the IMF, both in its policy-violating rescue package there and on a more
general basis. Hudson points out that the IMF was always a vehicle of policy, and is
operating as an adjunct to the Pentagon. What is left unsaid is that the IMF loan is being
used as an alternative to a Congressional appropriation to fund the government in Kiev
against the aspiring breakaway region in the east.
They are not alone. Ukrainians are fleeing the country in record numbers: since February 2014,
600,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum or other forms of legal stay in neighboring countries, and thousands
more have moved to the U.S. and the European Union. Others have fled illegally: Poland reported a
100 percent increase in the number of detentions of illegal Ukrainian immigrants last year.
But the emigrants are not only asylum seekers. They are the Western-leaning intelligentsia,
the professional classes with relatives abroad, and the students of the Maidan who first organized
protests against former President Viktor Yanukovych's kleptocratic and violent government in November
2013.
You might have thought that a serious book on the Ukraine crisis, written by a distinguished academic
in good clear English, and published by a reputable house, might have gained quite a bit of attention
at a time when that country is at the centre of many people's concerns.
But some readers here now understand that publishing, and especially the reviewing of books, are
not the simple marketplaces of ideas which we would all wish them to be.
And so, as far as I can discover, this book :
'Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands , by Richard Sakwa. Published by I.B.Tauris
…though it came out some months ago, has only been reviewed in one place in Britain, the Guardian
newspaper, by Jonathan Steele, the first-rate foreign correspondent whose rigour and enterprise (when
we were both stationed in Moscow) quite persuaded me to overlook his former sympathy for the left-wing
cause (most notably expressed in a 1977 book 'Socialism with a German Face' about the old East Germany,
which seemed to me at the time to be ah, excessively kind).
I have said elsewhere that I would myself be happier if the book were more hostile to my position
on this conflict. Sometimes I feel that it is almost too good to be true, to have my own conclusions
confirmed so powerfully, and I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable
proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been?
But even so I recommend it to any reader of mine who is remotely interested in disentangling the
reality from the knotted nets of propaganda in which it is currently shrouded.
Like George Friedman's interesting interview in the Moscow newspaper 'Kommersant' ( you can read
it here http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/20/2561
) , the book has shifted my own view.
I have tended to see the *basic* dispute in Ukraine as being yet another outbreak
of the old German push into the east, carried out under the new, nice flag of the EU, a liberal, federative
empire in which the vassal states are tactfully allowed limited sovereignty as long as they don't challenge
the fundamental politico-economic dominance of Germany. I still think this is a strong element
in the EU's thrust in this direction.
But I have tended to neglect another feature of the new Europe, also set out in Adam Tooze's brilliant
'The Deluge' – the firm determination of the USA to mould Europe in its own image (a determination
these days expressed mainly through the EU and NATO).
I should have paid more attention to the famous words 'F*** the EU!' spoken by
the USA's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, in a phone call publicised to the world
by (presumably) Russian intelligence. The EU isn't half as enthusiastic about following the old
eastern road as is the USA. Indeed, it's a bit of a foot-dragger.
The driving force in this crisis is the USA, with the EU being reluctantly tugged along behind.
And if Mr Friedman is right (and I think he is), the roots of it lie in Russia's decision to obstruct
the West's intervention in Syria.
Perhaps the key to the whole thing (rather dispiriting in that it shows the USA really hasn't
learned anything important from the Iraq debacle) is the so-called 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' of 1992, named
after the neo-con's neo-con, Paul Wolfowitz, and summed up by Professor Sakwa (p.211) thus: 'The doctrine
asserted that the US should prevent "any country from dominating any region of the world that might
be a springboard to threaten unipolar and exclusive US dominance"'.
Note how neatly this meshes with what George Friedman says in his interview.
Now, there are dozens of fascinating things in Professor Sakwa's book, and my copy is scored with
annotations and references. I could spend a week summarising it for you. (By the way, the Professor
himself is very familiar with this complex region, and might be expected, thanks to his Polish ancestry,
to take a different line. His father was in the Polish Army in 1939, escaped to Hungary in the chaos
of defeat, and ended up serving in Anders's Second Corps, fighting with the British Army at El
Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then through Italy via Monte Cassino. Then he was in exile during the
years of Polish Communism. Like Vaclav Klaus, another critic of current western policy, Professor Sakwa
can hardly be dismissed as a naif who doesn't understand about Russia, or accused of being a
'fellow-traveler' or 'useful idiot'.
He is now concerned at 'how we created yet another crisis' (p xiii) .
But I would much prefer that you read it for yourself, and so will have to limit my references quite
sternly.
There are good explanations of the undoubted anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies of some strands in
Ukrainian politics. Similar nastiness, by the way, is to be found loose in some of the Baltic States.
I mention this n because it justified classifying the whole movement as 'Neo-Nazi', which is obviously
false, but because it tells us something very interesting about the nature of nationalism and Russophobia
in this part of the world. No serious or fair description of the crisis can ignore it. Yet, in
the portrayal of Russia as Mordor, and the Ukraine as Utopia, western media simply leave out almost
everything about Ukraine that doesn't appeal to their audiences, the economic near collapse, the Judophobia
and Russophobia (the derogatory word 'Moskal', for instance, in common use), the worship of the
dubious (this word is very generous, I think) Stepan Bandera by many of the Western ultra-nationalists,
the violence against dissenters from the Maidan view ( see
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-presidential-candidates-attacked-516/).
The survival and continued power of Ukraine's oligarchs after a revolution supposedly aimed at cleaning
up the country is also never mentioned. We all know about Viktor Yanukovych;s tasteless mansion, but
the book provides some interesting details on President Poroshenko's residence (it looks rather
like the White House) , which I have not seen elsewhere.
The detailed description of how and why the Association Agreement led to such trouble is excellent.
I had not realised that, since the Lisbon Treaty, alignment with NATO is an essential part of EU membership
(and association) – hence the unavoidable political and military clauses in the agreement.
So is the filleting of the excuse-making and apologetics of those who still pretend that Yanukovych
was lawfully removed from office: the explicit threat of violence from the Maidan, the
failure to muster the requisite vote, the presence of armed men during the vote, the failure
to follow the constitutional rules (set beside the available lawful deal, overridden by the Maidan,
under which Yanukovych would have faced early elections and been forced to make constitutional changes)
.
Then here we have Ms Nuland again, boasting of the $5 billion (eat your heart out, the EU,
with your paltry £300 million) http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm
which the USA has 'invested in Ukraine. 'Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States
has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation
and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations.
We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure
and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
It's worth noting that in this speech, in December 2013, she still envisages the supposedly intolerable
Yanukovych as a possible partner.
Other points well made are the strange effect of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, which has created
the very tension against which it now seeks to reassure border nations, by encouraging them, too, to
join, the non-binding nature of the much-trumpeted Budapest memorandum, the lack of coverage of the
ghastly events in Odessa, the continuing lack of a proper independent investigation into the Kiev mass
shootings in February 2014 .
Also examined is the Russian fear of losing Sevastopol, an entirely justified fear given that President
Yushchenko had chosen to say in Georgia, during the war of August 2008, that Russia's basing
rights in the city would end in 2017. The 'disappearance; of the 'Right Sector' and 'Svoboda' vote
in recent elections is explained by their transfer to the radical Party led by Oleh Lyashko.
Professor Sakwa also explores Russia's behaviour in other border disputes , with Norway and China,
in which it has been far from aggressive. And he points out that Ukraine's nationalists have made their
country's life far more difficult by their rigid nationalist approach to the many citizens of that
country who, while viewing themselves as Ukrainian, do not share the history or passions of the ultra-nationalists
in the West.
Likewise he warns simple-minded analysts that the conflict in the East of Ukraine is not desired
by Russia's elite, which does not wish to be drawn into another foreign entanglement (all Russian strategists
recall the disastrous result of the Afghan intervention). But it may be desired by Russian ultra-nationalists,
not necessarily controllable.
He points out that Russia has not, as it did in Crimea, intervened decisively in Eastern Ukraine
to ensure secession. And he suggests that those Russian nationalists are acting in many cases
independently of Moscow in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Putin seeks to control them and limit
them, but fears them as well.
In general, the book is an intelligent, well-researched and thoughtful attempt to explain the major
crisis of our time. Anybody, whatever he or she might think of the issue, would benefit from
reading it. It is shocking that it is not better known, and I can only assume that its obscurity,
so far is caused by the fact that it does not fit the crude propaganda narrative of the 'Putin is Hitler'
viewpoint.
How odd that we should all have learned so little from the Iraq debacle. This time the 'WMD' are
non-existent Russian plans to expand and/or attack the Baltic states. And of course the misrepresentation
of both sides in the Ukrainian controversy is necessary for the portrayal of Putin as Hitler and his
supporters as Nazis, and opponents of belligerence as Nazi fellow-travellers. The inconvenient fact
, that if there are Nazis in this story , they tend to be on the 'good' side must be ignored. Let us
hope the hysteria subsides before it carries us into another stupid war.
There should be a proper inquiry into who really started this conflict I recall watching on TV
as the boxer who was leading the Kiev mob came out of lengthy negotiations with the 3 EU ministers
and the crowds booing and erupting The infamous Julia also appeared on the scene. this was of course
after only a few hours previously that Obama announced that he had agreement with Putin to have a
peaceful resolution and elections in 3 months.
As I watched the eruption of the mob I Thought this will end badly and at that point the EU should
have withdrawn. However the subsequent violence and the removal of the elected leader followed. All
interviews with the people in the East and Crimea showed their distrust of the Kiev crowd and it was
clear that the oligarchs on the East who had many workers and controlled the manufacturing would not
support the East. Putin is a nasty man but to suggest that he deliberately caused this situation is
a travesty.Russia with refugees pouring over the border reacted to the situation and who can blame
them.? Now a less belligerent and frankly dishonest approach needs to be taken by the EU I can not
see that the Kiev regime can ever win the loyalty of the East after this bitter war.the only solution
is some sort of autonomous regios that allows the Esst of Ukraine to rule themselves.
"I haven't responded to your comments on McCain and Nuland because I thought that I had made it
clear that I thought external interference from any quarter was undesirable and I accept that there
has been such interference from both sides."
Oh really? You do not remember writing this then?
"It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych. They should be allowed to deal with their
internal disputes and decide their future alliances and associations."
or this?
"However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise
his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever
the faults on either side, should have been left at that."
And on this thread you had not even mentioned the USA involvement. You have been consistently dishonest
by omission. Well, at least you're consistent.
And now you manage the immortal words
"I do maintain, though, that the interference of the EU and USA" [well done for mentioning them
at last],"which cannot be denied" [but can, it seems, be ignored...] "and which was reflected in Russia's
own behaviour cannot be compared with Russia's subsequent blatant military involvement in a sovereign
country's internal conflict."
So on the one hand the EU and the USA have interfered, but on the other it is an "internal conflict".
@Alan Thomas By my reading of certain facts I deduce there is a de facto alliance between Russia
and China. These facts being that Russia trades arms to China but the USA will not trade arms to either.
On May 8th Xi Jingping will attend the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow accompanied by his junk
yard dog Kim Jong Un of North Korea. No Western leaders as far as I know will be in attendance. De
facto alliances such as the one Britain had with France in 1914 are always hard to call because unlike
formal ones such as Nato there is nothing in writing. I also suspect that one reason China has not
tried to match America in nuclear weapons so far is because Russia already does so. North Korea is
also very useful in that it can be used to threaten Japan without China appearing to be the aggressor.
I see you have ignored my request to answer the questions I posed to Hector (who has also yet to
respond) about the US presence at the Maidan. Perhaps you needed to ignore my request in order to
write this drivel with a straight face:
Re Yanukovych: "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU)
did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal
matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."
Some Ukrainians carried out the WW2 massacre at Khatyn (not Katyn) - does that mean that all Ukrainians
are responsible for it, approved of it, or that it was carried out on behalf of Ukrainians? Of course
not.
You have also studiously avoided mention of the presence at the Maidan of US Senator McCain and
US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, and the latter's meetings with the Maidan leaders, co-ordinated
with US Ambassador Pyatt.
You have also somehow omitted to mention Yatseniuk's ("Yats") lightning visit to Washington days
after the overthrow of Yanukovych, or the visit of CIA Director Brennan to Kiev.
And just for the record, I have first-hand oral evidence of people in Minsk, Belarus, being offered
money to go to the Maidan - so even that the Maidan crowd was completely Ukrainian is probably untrue.
You accuse Mr Klimenko of bias, and yet you yourself give and repeat a dishonest account of what
is known to have happened at the Maidan.
It's all very well to agonize about what Ukrainians may or may not want. We could all weep huge
quantities of crocodile tears over Ukraine's thwarted "self determination", but the essential fact
is that Ukrainians are not agreed about what they want. Some appear to want closer ties with the EU,
some appear to want to maintain the status quo and some appear to want closer ties with the Russian
Federation.
All of which is "interesting" until different factions within Ukraine start calling on their preferred
partners to back them up. It seems to me that the US and the EU have contributed more than one would
reasonably expect to the discord in Ukraine and silly expectations in a great many Ukrainians. To
describe this as "irresponsible" is something of an understatement.
We are now in a situation where the "preferred partners" might come to blows over the confused
and discordant expectations of Ukraine. In such a situation. it would be hard for me to care less
about what Ukrainians want especially when some of Ukraine's politicians sound as though they would
happily see the world burn if only it ensures "territorial Integrity" for Ukraine.
It's a very old trick for which "socialists" should be famous. Describe a group as deserving, noble
and disadvantaged... and use this supposed circumstance to justify the most ridiculous, regressive
and destructive policy the human mind can invent. Of course, with our own "socialists", the all important
thing is that they are not only well rewarded with a reputation for being "caring sharing human beings"...
but also very well paid for the disasters they inflict on us.
'did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an
internal matter'
What the EU did was the equivalent of persuading one party in a Mexican stand-off to lower his weapon
so that the other can shoot him safely. Yes, the EU most certainly organized Yanukovich's removal
- the EU normally takes a dim view of governments established by putsch, but recognized this particular
band of putschists almost immediately.
And why was it not an internal matter when Ukrainian police
were attempting to clear Maidan of the lawless occupying mob, but instead a human rights crisis demanding
sanctions against everyone from the Prosecutor-General to Yanukovich's barber?
'You should note, however, that he fled his country on the same day that he announced an agreement
with his opponents.'
You are mistaken, he did not flee the country the day the agreement was made. He left the city of
Kiev for Kharkov, his motorcade coming under fire as he did so. As the putsch developed, he called
a conference in Kharkov of regional governors still loyal to the rightful president, the participants
agreeing to administer their own regions until lawful authority could be reestablished in the rest
of the country.
Two factors brought about the failure of this effort: the first was the success of Valentin Nalivaichenko's
takeover of the SBU, and the second was the cowardly betrayal by Kharkov regional governor Mikhail
Dobkin and Kharkov city mayor Gennady Kernes, who panicked and fled when they heard that the SBU was
after them (both would later cut deals with the Maidan regime for their own survival). Fearing capture
by the SBU and feeling unable to trust anybody, Yanukovich then departed for the Crimea.
You might think this would be safe place for him to make his stand. You would be wrong - the mood
in Crimea at the time was one of utter disgust for Yanukovich and the Regions Party on account of
their utter failure to defend the state and the people, which only grew after it came to light that
the scum Yanukovich had appointed as mayor of Sevastopol had been conspiring to surrender the city
to the Right Sector. Crimea wanted out of the Ukraine, and had no interest in helping Yanukovich get
his seat back. Out of options, he finally fled to the Russian mainland on or about February 26.
As for the rest, I'll say it again: the 'Holodomor' is a fiction, an attempt to portray a famine that
affected a vast swathe of the USSR as campaign against Ukrainians specifically, when in truth it most
heavily affected the non-Ukrainian Donbass region. It is invoked by western Ukrainians whose ancestors
did not experience it to justify their racial hatred for eastern Ukrainians whose ancestors did. You
ought to be ashamed of spreading such rot, and you should stop trying to frame your own biases as
'objectivity'.
Everything Peter said was spot on. That other bloke who was challenging you is a dangerous idiot.
You pointed out to him that we do not call Chinese regime tyrants, or the Saudis, yet he immediately
replies calling Putin a vile tyrant. Totally obvious to what you just told him like he is a brainwashed
stuck record.
NATO is now the armed wing of EU expansion. They intentionally sent Russia that message
during the Kosovo war by including the Luftwaffe bombing in previous Russia spheres of influence.
If nothing else I like your style . Many contributors here think they know. And a few think you
know more than them. I think on this subject you certainly know more than I . Whether your correct
is unknown at least by me . But.
Oh that our snot brained, could have need for the dentistry they so deserve.
No matter whose in the right here , and I suspect neither are. Its their business and that of the
federation they once belonged . Just as northern Island was our business . But Clinton poked his snout
in .
The compromise, killers and bombers running the country might well be repeated with a split country just like the many created since the chaos following WWII.
@Alan Thomas The Eurasian hard men such as Putin, Erdogan , Modi and XI Jinping all seem to understand
one another and are doing business together.
They all lead countries which have been on the receiving
of Western aggression over the last few centuries Modern Westerners with their naive PC outlook like
to overlook this but the people in those countries have not forgotten from which direction the threat
to them has usually come from and the past losses and humiliations which resulted.
When someone sees
themselves as a benefactor to mankind but others see as a thief with a violent history there is always
going to be room for a big understanding.
Perhaps, when it comes to China, the 'west' cannot see a solution, in which case hurling - or even
simply registering - criticism might be seen as a waste of time and effort. In any case, since when
did it make sense to ignore lesser villains simply because one can't take on the bigger ones?
I suspect the neocons are now looking at the General Patton play of outsourcing a war against Russia
to Germany.
Germany should leave the EU together with France and the PIGS using the euro as an excuse. Their
departure might shake out a few others like Croatia, Hungary and Austria plus a few more. Let the
banks fail then go in with Russia and the other BRICS.
' Are you so sure that Ukrainians wanted their now ex-president?'
Almost twelve and a half million Ukrainians voted for him in 2010, and that is a far better indicator
of what Ukrainians wanted than the actions of around ten thousand Nazi terrorists in February 2014.
' It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych'
What a nonsensical and disingenuous remark. Yanukovich was the democratically -elected president(most
likely the last that the Ukraine will ever have). EuroMaidan was an assembly of Nazi terrorists and
their apologists. Europe used threats and blackmail to prevent Yanukovich from doing his duty and
protecting the country from this violent mob. Europe then tricked him into signing a 'peace agreement'
and pulling back the police from their positions, allowing the terrorist mob and its sponsors to rampage
freely through Kiev and seize the institutions of the state.
You will probably cite the lack of an immediate militant response to the putsch as proof that Ukrainians
wanted this abomination of a government. Well, there we have democracy according to Mike! No need
for elections, might makes right and proves the existence of an underlying consensus! Brilliant.
Let's take your logic a bit further. The rebellion now rules in Donbass, and no armed movement
has arisen there to demand the return of the region to Ukrainian rule. Do you accept this as evidence
of the people's wish not to be ruled by the Maidan regime? If the rebels break the Ukrainian lines,
and take control of the rest of the country, will you shrug and conclude that Ukrainians wanted to
be with Russia after all?
' , I would prefer people to be aggressive with me by throwing money in my direction, rather than
launching rockets,
Throwing money at the Ukraine enables the Maidan regime to throw rockets at Ukrainian citizens. Poroshenko
and Yatsenyuk have no legal authority to rule over anybody, yet your beloved EU insists that these
putsch-installed thugs are the government of the Ukraine, and that all Ukrainians must obey them or
die.
' Nothing the EU has done, though, justifies Russian military intervention in Ukraine'
Everything the EU has done justifies everything Russia has done, and would justify a good deal more.
The European officials who formulated European policy toward the Ukraine in the past year are responsible
for the war and for all the crimes of the Maidan regime, and they should all face the death penalty
- starting with Ashton.
Think on this: if not for the Crimea operation, all the depravity that the Ukraine has heaped upon
Donetsk would have been visited upon Crimea. You think that Crimeans would have been better off being
shelled, shot, raped and tortured by the Ukrainian military? Go and tell them so!
Just make sure that your health insurance covers reconstructive dentistry first.
Hector. You clearly have no idea about Hitler and Germany in the late 1930s.Germany was just taking
back land that was stolen in June 1919. Hitler had mass support from the Germanic people in those parts
and in some areas such as parts of Austria he was even more popular than he was in Germany itself.
It was madness that we went to war against Germany,we should have remained neutral like Spain or Switzerland
and let Hitler defeat Stalin on his own.
"Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why
they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from
view remain constant. But that's just my opinion."
It all depends on whether the facts/evidence supports the hypothesis. If they don't then no matter
how erudite it appears - it's wrong. What our media don't want you to question or look at is who started
this conflict. From day one, I've never been in doubt that Washington is the main driver and the EU
the junior partner. The Nato alliance acts as a bind and a figleaf. Time and again the facts sindicates
that the "west" is an aggressor bloc which tramples over sovereignty and makes a mockery of supposed
international law.
I think you'll find that, in circumstances such as those you describe, PH tends to quote the famous
retort attributed to Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I'm just
surprised that he hasn't done so (yet) in this instance.
Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why
they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from
view remain constant. But that's just my opinion.
In December 2011 The U.S Federal Reserve bailed out European banks to the
tune of Billions of Dollars.
It is reported that they tried to keep this bailout a secret at the time.
Do you think that this , and the latest E.U initiative to have The Ukraine
are linked ? i.e that it was a condition of the U.S bailout or expected of The
E.U that they continue to expand into The Ukraine in return for these U.S Dollars?
Yours N.Belcher.
While the West obsesses about the supposed threat from Putin it seems totally oblivious to the rise
of Xi Jinping a Chinese leader who looks like being of the magnitude of Mao.
He has described himself
as the leader of a party wedded to the ideology of Lenin, Stalin and Mao and is concentrating all the
power in his own hands.
There is no Western propaganda campaign against him yet although think about
it, ten years ago there wasn't one against Putin.
Xi has stated that he gets on well with Putin as they
have similar personalities.
'Might there be the slightest chance of Ukrainians' wishes being given some consideration?'
Capital idea. But you know what the Ukrainians wanted? They wanted Viktor Yanukovich as President
and they wanted the Parliament they elected in 2012. What scant regard America and Europe gave their
wishes!
Ronnie that purported paper was presented in early Feb 2014 well after Maidan was underway, not
exactly planned from day one. It was also Kiev at the behest of the US who started the ATO, resorting
to violence away from the Franco-German and Russian negotiations.
I might add the anti Russian propaganda in the media had started well before Sochi started. This was
all planned a while back and not by Russia.
It does not seem to me there is a "change of mind" or any inconsistency implied in Mr Hitchens's
recommendation of Richard Sakwa's book. There may be a slight change of emphasis but it was always
understood and mentioned that the US of A was an additional driving force to events in eastern Europe.
It does not alter the validity of the view that the EU is "Germany by other means" and that the EU/Germany
covets "lebensraum" in the east. So far as I can see, it can only be of academic interest whether the
developing crisis is primarily EU or US led.
Nor has Mr Hitchens ever attempted to exonerate President Putin or Russia, giving more than sufficient
emphasis to "Russian interests" and "Russia's perceived sphere of influence" ... to crudely paraphrase.
It does not matter if Russia is or is not entitled to these perceptions. That the perceptions exist
should be a major consideration in the policy of any other "player" who would prefer a continued, peaceful
existence.
What is important is whether either side can afford to "back down" and which side is "most guilty"
with regards creating this crisis. It seems fairly obvious that it is the US and the EU who can best
afford to "back off"... and it is the US and the EU whose posturing and behavior have contributed most
to the current situation.
For those who adhere to the "bad Putin"/"Naughty Russia" model, rest assured that the US and the
EU are unlikely to give up on this one. They are determined to give the big bad bear a spanking.
I
fear that they have got it badly wrong, seriously misjudged Russia's president and relied to heavily
on dated intelligence about Russian capabilities.
I think it's an oversight on PH's part (we're all human, right?) to have placed so much emphasis
on Germany in his analysis of the the crisis, and, in so doing to have tacitly downplayed the role
of the US. Plainly put Germany-although it is the de facto seat of power in the EU- doesn't have the
brass to so flagrantly antagonise Russia without back-up.
Moreover, if anyone doesn't think the EU
is 'briefed' on foreign policy by the US state department, they are living in an alternate reality.
America is a continuation of the British Empire by other means.
Pat Davers "Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were
genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine"
I do wish people would study the comments made by the EU leaders when initial proposals for third
way consultations with the Russians was proposed, they said things like "the last people we would speak
to over this would be the Russians".
The EU leaders detest everything Russia stands for, as they are enlightened supra nationalists.
It was precisely their arrogant and dismissive attitude that led to armed conflict and only after thousands
had died did they come to meet Putin in Russia to seek a peace.
I think we are seeing a shift of opinion as to who has the been the main driver behind the Ukraine
conflict; it was not so much EU (ie German-led) expansionism as NATO (ie US-led) imperialism that brought
us where we are now, as of course many people have been saying all along.
Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely
dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine, and are probably now regretting
their actions. The fact that is was Merkel and Hollande who brokered the Minsk agreement without US
involvement would seem to support this.
Ronnie you have clearly have never done any scenario planning or read position papers, obviously
the Kremlin would have several plans of action for the breakdown of the Ukraine. Regardless of the
document's validity, the title is invalid. "Direct interstate relations" cannot exist between Moscow
and regions annexed to Russia, the plan is obviously talking about a political breakup of Ukraine,
not annexation. Even then though, i dont entirely believe it.
If Russia's plan was to break up Ukraine into statelets, I see no reason why it still hasn't recognized
the independence of LPR and DPR and instead continues to treat them, in both language and action, as
regions of Ukraine seeking federalization. A federal and perhaps confederate Ukraine would obviously
be to Russia's interest. Complete breakup of Ukraine -maybe but it's difficult to see how.
Thank you for another thought-provoking article. It's nice to have some measured thinking amongst
the media-mob's clamour.
A little off the current topic but I was expecting to see a comment on the recent ACMD report in
which the scientist's covering letter states: 'international evidence suggests many popular types of
prevention activity are ineffective at changing behaviour, and a small number may even increase the
risks for drug use' . Paradoxically, thought not unexpectedly, the report ends up stating the that
the solution is more drugs education in schools.. Just thought it may be worth flagging as it reminded
me of your previous posts regarding sex education and its supposed 'benefits'.
I would not be alone here in welcoming PH's recognition of the importance of the role of the US.
I think Brian Meredith also expressed this view.
Michael Hudson (the American economist) expresses it up pithily: the US is saying to Europe, 'Let's
you and Russia fight' and Europe in going along with this invitation is damaging her own vital interests.
The Ukrainian Parliament has already moved 'Defender of the Fatherland Day' to October 14th - the
official founding date of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If anybody thinks that this is a coincidence,
they haven't been paying attention.
This very Thursday the Parliament of Ukraine reached a milestone - honoring with a minute's silence
the memory of UPA genocidaire Roman Shukhevich. I won't bother listing in detail the depravities that
Shukhevich organised in his capacity as a UPA commander - suffice it to say that women and children
were favourite targets, and blades were generally preferred to bullets - but those not familiar with
the subject are encouraged to look it up. In particular, search the name 'Zygmunt Rumel' to find out
what comes of trying to negotiate with Ukrainian nationalists.
The only consolation is that the Maidan project is less a political movement than organised mental
illness, and that failure is written in its DNA.
The Guardian is now hand-in-hand with "new east network." A somewhat disreputable amalgam of
George Soros, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe.
It's hard to imagine anything it promotes is reliable, unbiased or credible. Best to read it with a
sense of humour.
The ladies in the story use the word 'Nazi' about themselves. They paint the insignia on their
vans. And you think they are "amazing" and "brave".
musolen -> LesiaUkrainka 7 Mar 2015 09:17
That's utter rubbish.
If the West stopped playing global politics for financial gain and had the dignity to stick to
pre agreed treaties regarding the expansion of NATO to Russian borders then peace would still be
in Ukraine.
This conflict was started by agitation of Neo-cons like Jon McCain 15 months ago and was a
deliberate policy to destabilise the country. As has been successfully achieved. Just like it was
in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. It's the same policy. It's a war for profit
.
This, like every other war is not about the people, democracy or the good of the people. It's
about power and money.
CalvinTucker -> mikiencolor 7 Mar 2015 07:59
They're not promoting them for goodness sake, they are simply recording their views for the
benefit of readers.
Following the storm of protest here, the Guardian has now folded and changed the caption from:
'Anaconda says she is well treated by the men in her battalion, but is hoping that the war will
end soon.'
To a caption that closely resembles my suggestion: 'Anaconda alongside a van displaying the
neo-Nazi symbol 1488. The volunteer brigade is known for its far-right links.'
Bosula -> Kapusta 7 Mar 2015 02:58
Yes. Don't you agree this symbolism on these Ukrainian uniforms is important?
As for Russians there troopers maybe in East Ukraine. Most would appear to be volunteers but I
don't know. No proof. if the Ukies could catch a Russian soldier posted to East Ukraine alive they
would be worth their weight in gold in terms of publicity.
The point is any army that wears fascist symbols is a worry - don't you think, seriously?
jonsid -> RudolphS 6 Mar 2015 12:20
The Guardian is now hand-in-hand with "new east network." A somewhat disreputable amalgam
of George Soros, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe.
It's hard to imagine anything it promotes is reliable, unbiased or credible. Best to read it with
a sense of humour.
Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and
equipping Ukrainian
government forces. The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while the cease-fire
may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish the momentum, particularly on Capitol Hill, for shipping
arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian precedent, where a long-term program
to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed the Serbian separatist
entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that Ukraine is not committed to
a settlement, but will use the time to strengthen its forces and go back on the offensive later this
year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less than thorough in their own observation of
the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the accord will cause Washington to
put its plans on hold.
And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin
put enormous pressure on the separatists to accept the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once
the cease-fire takes hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that is not forthcoming,
what will be his continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands
for the "neutralization" of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions
veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.
The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement
breaks down-and it has many vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all
sides have the political will to make it work.
Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at
The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ
Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.
The government of the Unites States (GDP US$ 16,768,100 million)
declares that the situation in Venezuela (GDP US$ 371,339 million):
... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States
This, the White House says, requires to:
... declare a national emergency to deal with that threat
"Why," ask the Venezuelans, including the U.S. sponsored opposition, "do you think we are an
unusual and extraordinary threat which requires you to declare a national emergency?
"We do not believe for a moment that you are an unusual and extraordinary threat which
requires us to declare a national emergency", is the
answer:
Officials in Washington said that declaring Venezuela a national security threat was largely a formality.
"A formality?" ask Venezuelans. "Why is it a formality to see us as an unusual and
extraordinary threat to your national security? That does not make sense. What's next?
Will it be a simply a formality to kill us?"
"It is formality needed to be able to sanction some of your government officials," an anonymous
U.S. senior official explains. "To do so the law requires that we declare you to be an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security which requires us to declare a national
emergency."
"But we ain't no such threat. You yourself says so. So why would you sanction our officials when
you yourself say that there is no real basis for this? On what legal grounds are you acting? Why these
sanctions?"
"Because the the situation in Venezuela ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States which requires us to declare
a national emergency to deal with that threat."
"That is like declaring war on us. That does not make sense".
"Well, it's just a formality."
---
On might have hoped that the above would be the "most outlandish" nonsense the U.S. government could
produce. But that is not yet the case.
The Venezuelan President Maduro
responded in the National Assembly:
"The aggression and the threat of the government of the United States is the greatest threat that
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, our country, has ever received," he said to applause, [...]
"Let's close ranks like a single fist of men and women. We want peace."
He spoke of past American military interventions in Latin America and warned that the United States
was preparing an invasion and a naval blockade of Venezuela.
"For human rights, they are preparing to invade us," he said, ...
During the last 125 years the U.S.
intervened in South America
at least 56 times through military or intelligence operations. This ever intervening country is the
same country that just declared Venezuela to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security and foreign policy of the United States that requires to declare a national emergency.
It is certainly not outlandish for Maduro to believe that such a declaration will be followed by
one of those continued interventions. Especially not when
disguised U.S. officials travel around Venezuela and distribute money to opposition parties. Maduro
is not alone in seeing the threat of another U.S. intervention. All South American nations have condemned
the U.S. declaration and even pro-American opposition politicians in Venezuela were outraged about
it.
But for the ever anonymous U.S. officials
it is the victim of their outlandish exaggerations that doth protest too much:
"It's remarkable that the [Venezuelan] government can say the most outlandish things
about the U.S. government - what is this, the 16th or 17th coup attempt that we're doing? And now
we're invading?" the official said. "The shelf life of all of these accusations is what, a day or
two? Even the dullest of media consumers is going to see that there is no invasion."
Noting the U.S. doublespeak in this whole affair it advise to be very careful in believing that
"there is no invasion" claim.
Posted by b on March 12, 2015 at 11:01 AM |
Permalink
I doubt the US is going to be invading or blockading Venezuela any time soon. This asinine proclamation
was necessary for the increased sanctions the US has imposed and it is definitely a ratcheting-up
of pressure and intimidation. It also appears to be designed to cause the Maduro government to
overreact and institute decisions that can be demonized as harsh and undemocratic.
I hope the people of Venezuela and the other progressive countries of SA are ready and willing
to really confront these aggressive US moves.
Dan | Mar 12, 2015 12:20:15 PM | 3
The current government of Venezuela is a clear threat to the financial interests of the oligarchs
who control the US government.
For me the most interesting part of the US proclamation was not the National Security threat but the
claim of a threat to US Foreign Policy. This illustrates the power of the Bolivarian Revolution to
sever much of SA from US dominance and the level of US Ruling Class fear because of their diminishing
power and influence worldwide.
Ah yes. The old tried and true "making the economy scream" in preparation for a coup ploy. Venezuela
has held out so far but I have confidence in The Empire®. Their psychopathic persistence should be
able to turn that country into what Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia are--a chamber of fucking
horrors.
As a geography Nazi, I would insists that the list that was linked showed only four cases of interventions
in South America. Indeed, interventions in Central America and Caribbean are dime a dozen, and probably
the count was partial, South America is more distant and the countries are a bit too large for open
interventions. Diplomacy was almost always friendly to non-leftist military regimes or death squads,
but a direct engagement like coordination of the attempt to depose Chavez by military means were rare.
For some reason, it is almost 15 years that Jihad was declared in USA against Venezuela, and formal
fatwa proclaimed on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DykgMyTjWU4
(this video was from 2009, when Rev. Robertson wonder why Chavez was not assassinated yet). Since
USA is a democracy, and the people are Christian, it is a duty of the government to follow the will
of the Christian folks and at least attempt to execute fatwas of Christian clerics. However, I do
not know enough about Robertson's Christianity to figure out how the fatwa came about.
According to a link from the website of TeleSUR, a Venezuelan television station, on Feb. 28, 2015
an employee of NED (ie American agent) travelled to Venezuela for a secret meeting with opposition
figures (ie bought and paid for greedy foreign stooges) to settle an argument about the distribution
of millions of dollars previously contributed by NED.
The agent used a forged or stolen passport in a false name, and disguised her appearance to match
with the photo in the passport; and travelled to the meeting in a vehicle with forged or stolen plates.
This agent, whose real name is Sarah Kornblith, a few months previously had written an article
in NED's "scholarly journal" denouncing the Chavez and Maduro regimes and also:
"lauding the political arrangement that existed in Venezuela before Chavez. Known as the Punto
Fijo Pact, under that system, two traditional parties would alternate in power, deliberately excluding
the voices of Venezuela's poor majority."
You mean like Democrats and Republicans? You can't make this stuff up!
I'm just now reading a book about Gen. Vernon Walters, Der Drahtzieher: Vernon Walters -- Ein Geheimdienstgeneral
des Kalten Krieges, by Klaus Eichner and Ernst Langrock, which details all the coups and secret chicanery
that general was involved in, both in Latin America and in Europe.
In 2002 I thought Chavez was toast. Given the last century of US intervention in South America it
seemed obvious that Chavez would be over thrown by the US. But then the war in Iraq went very badly.
The US was was distracted and had to focus its energy on the Iraq war. Chavez was spared the focus
of US imperialism. For some time I thought the silver lining in the failed US war in Iraq was that
it distracted our interests away from South America. This permitted a number of Latin American countries
to drift away from US influence, not just Venezuela but also Bolivia and Nicaragua and some of the
other countries elected left wing governments.
The US has spent the last century trying to prevent
governments arising that actually represent all of the people and not just the upper middle classes
that are eager to please US corporations. I think what we are seeing today is that the US is now refocusing
on South America and are willing to devote resources towards removing those governments that have
arisen that attempt to represent the poor and not just the bourgeois elements. This has been happening
over the last few years. In Obama's first few years he threw his support (behind the scenes as it
developed) behind the Honduran upper classes that removed the popularly elected government of Manunel
Zelaya.
In any case, I think the Manuela government in Venezuela is going to be deposed through US intervention
and next will be the government in Bolivia. And there is little that the rest of world can do to stop
it. After all, the Monroe Doctrine has given the US that right and there is no outside force that
can stop us unless they are willing to engage in nuclear war.
However, the more the US flexes its muscle in Latin America, the less effective it will be in pushing
its policies in Ukraine and towards the 'pivot to Asia' that was supposed to be one of Obama's signature
policies. And this is not to mention Obama's efforts for more war in Iraq and Syria. So to the extent
that Venezuela might suffer today other parts of the world will be provided some respite from US attention.
The US is thoroughly over committed.
In Robert Parry words "Nuland offered not a single word of self-criticism about how she contributed
to these violent events by encouraging last year's coup, "
Neocon Nuland spins wild tales for Senate Foreign Relations Committee; plays into fascist hands
OKLAHOMA CITY – Neoconservative warmonger Victoria "Fuck
the EU" Nuland, America's Assistant Secretary of State, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
– with a straight face – that Crimeans are "suffering
a reign of terror" under the control of the Russians.
Nuland, who makes a living deceiving lawmakers
and anyone else who crosses her path, told the committee this week: "Today Crimea remains under illegal
occupation and human-rights abuses are the norm, not the exception, for many at-risk groups there."
The "at-risk groups," Nuland said, included Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians who refuse to surrender their
passports, gays and lesbians, journalists and "others," according to an AFP report.
Additionally, Nuland, an apologist for the pro-Nazi Svoboda and Right Sector fascists who are the
actual ones leading a reign of terror against innocents in eastern Ukraine, said pro-Russian separatists
in the those areas of Lugansk and Donetsk "unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."
However, the exact opposite is true.
Sputnik News, a Russian news outlet, offered a tongue-in-cheek article today headlined
"Life
'Under a Reign of Terror': What Nuland Doesn't Want You To See," countered each statement from
Nuland with recent photographs of the beautiful Black Sea coast, including a fantastic photo of a "sand
sculpture" celebrating the 70th anniversary of the February 1945
Yalta Conference
(aka Crimea or Argonaut Conference) with the Big Three – Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin
D. Roosevelt – there in Crimea, which was a part of the Soviet Union, and a traditional vacation spot
for the czars and later for other Russian leaders and workers. (As historian Webster Griffin Tarpley
has reported, Roosevelt was assassinated shortly after the conference and Truman – who replaced
pro-Soviet, peace-seeking VP
Henry Wallace – leading to the kick off of the Cold War).
A year after Crimea became part of Russia once again, "82-percent of those polled said they fully
supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only four-percent
spoke out against it," reports Sputnik News.
Additionally, despite Nuland's denunciations, 51-percent of Crimeans "reported that their well-being
had improved in the past year" and that Crimean retirees "have started receiving much higher Russian
pensions."
And believe it or not, as Nuland claims that Moscow is salting the earth of Ukraine, Sputnik
News reports that the Crimean peninsula will "receive 47 billion rubles (equivalent to $705 million
in US dollars), or 75 percent of its budget, from Russia." The news report notes that when Crimea was
under Ukrainian control they never financed Crimea at anything near that level.
And yet the US/Kiev axis continues to deny they are behind the crimes in the Donbass region, while
claiming those aforementioned thuggish Ukrainian Nazis (friends
of John McCain's, of course) are liberating democrats. And it certainly doesn't help that the Obama
administration is infested with
Nuland-esque
neocons and
raving Russophobes, particularly as NATO ramps up
military
maneuvers in the Black Sea and the US sends
600 paratroopers to Ukraine to train that country's fascist army. Russia, meanwhile, has flatly
stated that any efforts to threaten Russia's security, bad things will start to happen. Are we seeing
a new Cold War
or are we rapidly heading to a hot war?
And let's not forget, Ms. Nuland, that your Ukrainian "freedom fighters" – namely one crazed Ukrainian
MP named Yuriy Bereza
brazenly promised – on Ukrainian national television – to "burn down Crimea, with all of its residents
if needed." It starts to make sense that the Crimeans are far happier under Russian rule.
And as Webster Griffin Tarpley stated on World Crisis Radio this week, Victoria Nuland
is an "embarrassment" to the United States and our anti-fascist traditions. He added that Nuland is
"crude, scurrilous, ignorant and boiling over with venom." #ImpeachNuland.
German professor of history Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which
he advised the Ukrainian President not to expect a long-lasting friendship with the United States,
as the White House could change its attitude towards him in the blink of an eye when political trends
shift Washington.
German historian Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which he told the
Ukrainian president not to get too cozy with the White House, warning him that being a close ally of
the United States might not be the beginning of a long-lasting friendship.
"You should be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably
ends with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill
your enemies," said Pesek, who teaches courses in history and political science at the University of
Hamburg and Free University of Berlin.
Pesek went on to compare Poroshenko with other dictators, who were puppets of the United States
in the past, but then became the enemies of the White House after the tides shifted in Washington.
In particular, the historian reminded Poroshenko of Saddam Hussein, who was Washington's close ally
in the Middle East during the 1980s. However, after Cold War ended and the Americans changed their
views on the Middle East, Hussein was useful as an enemy rather than as a friend. The rest is history:
the former dictator was captured sitting in a hole and soon hanged in the dark of the night.
Pesek also talked about Mobuto Sese Seko, the long-standing former ruler of the Congo, and Manuel
Noriega of Panama who were both initially supported by the United States when its interests were at
stake, but were quickly disposed of when US political trends changed their direction.
"Lesson learned? You can kill as much as enemies of the US as possible, you can sell your natural
resources, but it will not shield you, when the storm from Washington takes another direction," Pesek
said.
On a final note, the German historian told Poroshenko that at the end of the day he will always
be an outsider in the United States, "a useful idiot in your best days" and a "burden" when the White
House changes its priorities or loses its interest.
"As a former apparatchik you will never know if your conversion to a democrat and capitalist is
taken seriously by your American allies. You will be under suspicion as all the other converted ex-terrorists,
ex-Marxists, ex-dictators, who bow to the American flag." – concluded Pesek.
Does that history include the army of the Taliban by the USA..try to see some of the pics in which
bonsay Bush was hosting the murderers...you may continue dancing on the head of a pin, precious and
defend the indefensible all you want
irishmand ShanghaiGuy 11 Mar 2015 23:22
And vice versa remember komrade... Putin likes to remind the world not to mess with a nuclear state...
indeed very good advice, some that paranoid sociopath to also consider
Don't call me comrade, I am not your friend. Paranoid sociopaths are in US government and they are
not going anywhere.
BloodOnTheWattle psygone 11 Mar 2015 23:13
oh dear...now I have seen revisionism but you take the cake psy you really do...you come here and
spout all this bullshit and, like your country does with the world you expect people to believe you...not
many do any more...
irishmand BloodOnTheWattle 11 Mar 2015 23:12
I was just looking at BBC news... it is interesting, apparently the Iran/Iraq coalition are pushing
back ISIS from Tikrit. The people in the liberated suburbs are coming on the streets to welcome these
fighters. Conversely I never witnessed that when it came to the US's invasions...or for that matter
the welcoming of Ukrainian soldiers in East Ukraine.
It is a good news indeed. The danger now US may pump more money into ISIS.
BorninUkraine SirHenryRawlins 11 Mar 2015 22:59
You are mistaken, censor.net.ua is not a conspiracy site. It is the Ukrainian site best known for
ludicrously inaccurate claims (less polite word is "lies"), like the use of Russia of nuclear weapons
in the battle for Lugansk airport. Most Russians say that it's much funnier than Comedy Club.
BloodOnTheWattle BlackStork 11 Mar 2015 22:56
What awaits you? is to make peace with the East and whatever the results are to live with them as
brothers and sisters and to give them a saying in their fate as citizens, lest you want generations
of hatred and wars
BloodOnTheWattle BlackStork 11 Mar 2015 22:54
Just a comment from a citizen, I also notice that you omitted 8 million citizens, that says a lot.
Be that as it may:
"I, as a native of Feodosia will answer you:
I remember 1992 very well, 1st Crimean referendum, when Crimea revolted and wanted to sail to Russia
and how a state of emergency was introduced, and Berkut was brought from Western Ukraine on armored
personnel carriers. As they stood at each intersection with Kalashnikov's and put anyone face first
in the dust, whom they didn't like. How they pulled over cars and threw on the pavement all the contents
of the trunks, tore the covers from doors and ripped the seats. Why? Just because. For fun.
How they
dispersed the march to Simferopol in defense of the First President of Crimea, Meshkov, firing from
automatic weapons above the heads. How the Russian officers left with tears in their eyes, who did
not want to live under Ukraine. Remember how they forced to wear [Ukrainian national shirts] on the
first day of school, and forced our children to learn [Ukrainian language]. How they shut off Russian
TV channels and planted their corrupt appointees. How they cut a hundred year-old rosary in the Botanical
garden and built villas for Kiev bozos, and made gates to the garden to walk their dogs.
And how did we suddenly become traitors? How can you betray the occupiers? From occupiers one can
only be freed. And about God and Karma, this is what's happening now. My ancestors who shed blood for
Crimea and Sevastopol, would not allow for the treacherous Ukry to sell my native Crimea to pin doses
[Americans] for their base.
WE WILL STARVE, AS LONG AS WE ARE WITHOUT YOU!!!"
BorninUkraine moncur 11 Mar 2015 22:45
Donbass people are defending their land, the troops Kiev sent are intruders, and they suffer typical
fate of intruders: inglorious defeat or death, both deserved for mass slaughter of Donbass civilians.
That's exactly why Donbass people fight willingly, unlike forcibly conscripted Ukrainian solders looking
for any opportunity to run away.
I have first-hand knowledge of that, as I grew up in Lugansk and have friends and relatives in Donbass.
irishmand -> GreatMountainEagle 11 Mar 2015 22:43
Russians love coke and McDonalds
Not everybody and not everything. I don't like McDonalds, but I like coke. Some people don't like
either of them. There are a lot of local food chains and drinks in Russia now. No need to drink coke
and eat McDonalds all the time.
irishmand -> ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 22:40
If the risk was understood everyone would be shaking from fear. This is not a game.
Exactly, but US and UK don't care. They just want to sell weapons and make money. Business as usual...
irishmand Trader -> SeerStrategy 11 Mar 2015 22:38
"Take over the world" - naive communistic talk, US just supporting new democracy and market capitalism
that finally has a chance to be build in Ukraine instead of state managed economy...
Like Iraq, Libya and Afganistan. Yea, smashing success...
BloodOnTheWattle -> GreatMountainEagle 11 Mar 2015 22:34
Actually, yes these drones could do that and demonstrate how your heroes have bombarded their own
citizens and secondly they can send some proof of a russian invasion something which thus far have
failed to do...As per usual your contributions are based on insults and try to blanket humiliate Russians
and or ethnic Russians who are federalists who are fighting against the coup aided and abetted by the
west...now go back and stick your head under the pillow or whatever you do.
ShanghaiGuy irishmand 11 Mar 2015 22:30
and vice versa remember komrade...
Putin likes to remind the world not to mess with a nuclear state... indeed very good advice, some that
paranoid sociopath to also consider
ShanghaiGuy ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 22:17
if it walks like a putinbot, talks like a putinbot then maybe it is a putinbot... we do tend to be up to our arses here with Pro kremlinites and apologists. at laest the early shills with their Anglo sounding names have either pissed off or become more sophisticated.
BloodOnTheWattle psygone 11 Mar 2015 22:13
Well you would say that wouldn't you but you must remember that your "exceptional; force for good
nation" has spent 93% of its existence in wars... To go to Afghanistan the Russians did not use any
false flags as the US did with the Tonkin Bay. Incidentally you lot are slow learners the same guys
you armed to fight Russia are fighting you today, similar to Libya, and Syria. Essentially the poster
is right you are comedy hour and ameteur hour at that.
BloodOnTheWattle paiduputinbot 11 Mar 2015 22:02
That is such an inane comment. There is a cease fire and it appears to be working. Frankly although
I am anti US I dont see any issues with Humvees and drones on the contrary. See? apparently they have
sent drones before and even these have no discovered columns of Russian tanks.
Ukraine is an Independent
country and thy can purchase weapons from whomever they want. Then again, they can complain if the
Russians put 100,000 close to the border?
BloodOnTheWattle Trader SeerStrategy 11 Mar 2015 21:57
"market capitalism" ? you mean like Lyibia or what happened in latin america for 40 years? you mean
a market based on bail outs to pay fund managers while people live in austerity compounded by a 34.5
% inflation rate in Feb 2015 and an implied inflation of 272% the highest in the world? You mean a
market economy in which budgets are passed without readings and when VH's members want to discuss said
budgt are essentially barred from commenting of punched in the face? is this what you want for this
wonderful country?
ContraryToDogma Trader SeerStrategy 11 Mar 2015 21:53
Pardon me but the US has a very well developed state managed economy of its own and market capitalism
is just a myth. Oligarchs run all these countries and they would never risk a true free market subject
to catastrophic economic crashes. It's not as simple or as black and white as you believe.
ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 21:38
A kid's cap gun in an Old West Six Gun revolver style will be awarded to the first loony commenter
to use the "Putinbot" moniker. Any takers?
ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 21:31
Putin denies arming rebels, Obama denies arming and fomenting fake revolutions pushed by corporate
& arms dealer interests. Tit for tat. Would the US enjoy Russian meddling in Mexico or Canada? Not
likely. Let's grow up about who is provoking whom and stop trying to take over the world. The days
of empire and war are obsolete except for armchair warriors and lunatics who lust for nuclear war and
nuclear winters who dream of bomb shelters with shelves of canned food and bottled water.
Bud Peart 11 Mar 2015 21:26
US vice-president Joe Biden told Ukraine's president on Wednesday the US will send more aid to the
country, which US officials said will include small drones and armored Humvees.
Are these for protecting Hunter Biden's gas interests in Ukraine?
Either way any weapons the US send Russia will send more to the separatists, the only result will
be more deaths and instability. But I guess that was the aim for the state department the whole time.
How is Ukraine paying for this? IMF loans for weapons? Great way to spend money.
irishmand kolf 11 Mar 2015 21:25
As I'm sure you're aware that is a very long way from even approaching an answer to the question.
Both sides in this conflict have claimed a great many things on their respective TV outlets without
sufficient evidence, made claims that have never been independently verified or which have later turned
out to be completely false.
Great points. I am just enjoying how the roles have switched after the rebels started presenting
the evidence of the west supplying arms to the Ukis army. Now the west is signing the song "do you
have any evidence?". I am glad to see the west demonstrating once more the lack of honesty and readiness
to lie. I don't ask you to believe me, but for myself, I've seen enough to believe ukies used NATO
weapons.
1) Has anyone backed up this claim, apart from the separatists and their Russian backers? 2) For example, did they submit this to any international monitoring body (eg OSCE in the area - which
contains Russian as well as western observers so they should have no problem with that) for independent
assessment?
No, I couldn't find any OSCE reports. OSCE is leaning towards Ukrainian side in this conflict. They
may or may not be reporting 100% honestly.
3) Are the weapons in question merely of a type used by NATO but also used by others or available
on the arms market (as the wording of the claim"typical NATO firearms" suggests), or of a type used
exclusively by NATO (which has not actually been claimed, as far as I can tell)? This is very important,
if the claim is of direct NATO supply or involvement. 4) Would it be possible for Russia be able to source such items and supply them to the separatists
for the purposes of a propagandist press conference? Is there evidence of where they were collected,
again is this verifiable by people not connected to the separatists themselves? The coincidence of
timing with Putin's claim that NATO were involved is quite significant here.
They are just standard NATO weapons, not the weapons exclusively used by NATO. Ukies themselves
could have sold the weapons to rebels or the weapons could have been captured.
irishmand toadvine 11 Mar 2015 21:05
Even when peace agreement WAS achieved and largely held, Americans still send arms to UKR. The only
goal of that?? If you have brains it's easy to see it
Americans just need to get rid of obsolete weapons.
irishmand moncur 11 Mar 2015 21:01
"DPR" + "LPR" = Russian forces. Easy.
That's just trolling. Do you have any thoughts? Reply | Pick
kolf nnedjo 11 Mar 2015 20:37
For this I have no comment because I do not have access to the details of the investigation. Let's
wait until the investigation is completed, and then, if it would be even a trial, to comment on it.
Link to the ongoing UK public inquiry is here. Most details of the investigation are already in
the public domai, so you do have access to them: https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/
Obviously there isn't going to be a trial because the chief suspect Andrey Lugovoi is immune from
extradition and has been rewarded for his, ahem, business trip to London with a seat in the State Duma.
It's a strange condition you're attaching - that it can only be discussed after a trial has taken place,
i.e. never?
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Statement Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC
...the situation in the country remains precarious. Ukraine's leaders, in the executive branch and
the parliament, know they are in a race against time to clean up the country and enact the difficult
and socially painful reforms required to kick start the economy, and meet their commitments to their
people, the IMF and the international community. The package of reforms already put forward by the
government, and enacted by the Rada, is impressive in its scope and political courage.
Just last week:
They passed budget reform expected to slash the deficit this year, and strengthen decentralization
by giving more fiscal control to local communities;
They made tough choices to reduce and cap pension benefits, increase work requirements
and phase in a higher retirement age;
They created a new banking provision to stiffen penalties for financiers for stripping assets
from banks at the public's expense, a common practice among oligarchs;
And, they passed laws cutting wasteful gas subsidies and closing the space for corrupt middlemen
that buy low, sell high and rip off the Ukrainian people. These laws will also enhance corporate efficiency,
incentivize domestic production, and use $400 million in increased revenue from state-owned gas companies
to help care for the poor including some of the 1.7 million people driven from their homes by the
conflict.
With U.S. support-including a $1 billion loan guarantee last year and $355 million in foreign assistance
and technical advisors-the Ukrainian government is:
helping insulate vulnerable Ukrainians from the impact of necessary economic reforms;
improving energy efficiency in homes and factories with metering, consumer incentives and infrastructure
improvement;
building e-governance platforms to make procurement transparent and basic government services
cleaner and publicly accessible;
putting a newly trained force of beat cops on the streets of Kyiv who will protect, not shake
down, the citizens;
reforming the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) - supported by U.S. law enforcement and criminal
justice advisors - and helping energize law enforcement and just prosecutions;
moving to bring economic activity out of the shadows;
supporting new agriculture laws-with the help of USAID experts-to deregulate the sector
and allow family farms to sell their produce in local, regional and wholesale markets; and
helping those forced to flee Donetsk and Luhansk with USAID jobs and skills training programs
in places like Kharkiv.
And there's more support on the way. The President's budget includes an FY16 request of $513.5 million-almost
six times more than our FY14 request-to build on these efforts.
To turn the page, Ukraine's hard work must continue. Between now and the summer, we must see budget
discipline maintained and tax collection enforced across the country-notably including on some of Ukraine's
richest citizens who have enjoyed impunity for too long. We need to see continued reforms at Naftogaz
and across the energy sector; final passage of agriculture legislation; full and impartial implementation
of anti-corruption measures, including a commitment to break the oligarchic, kleptocratic culture have
has decimated the country.
... ... ...
Throughout this conflict, the United States and the EU have worked in lock-step to impose successive
rounds of tough sanctions-including sectoral sanctions-on Russia and its separatist cronies as the
costs for their actions. In Crimea, we have shown through our investment sanctions that if you bite
off a piece of another country, it will dry up in your mouth. Our unity with Europe remains the cornerstone
of our policy toward this crisis.
And it is in that spirit that we salute the efforts of German Chancellor Merkel and French President
Hollande in Minsk on February 12th to try again to end the fighting in Ukraine's East. The Minsk Package
of Agreements-September 5th, September 19th and the February 12th implementing agreement-offer a real
opportunity for peace, disarmament, political normalization and decentralization in eastern Ukraine,
and the return of Ukrainian state sovereignty and control of its territory and borders. Russia agreed
to it; Ukraine agreed to it; the separatists agreed to it. And the international community stands behind
it.
For some eastern Ukrainians, conditions have begun to improve. Along long areas of the line of contact,
particularly in Luhansk Oblast, the cease-fire has taken hold; the guns have quieted in some towns
and villages; some weapons have been withdrawn; some hostages have been released.
But the picture is very mixed. Since the February 15th cease-fire, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission
has recorded hundreds of violations. Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the cease-fire lines, fell to
the separatists and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed and three days after the cease-fire
was to come into effect. In Shchastya, in villages near the Donetsk Airport, in Shyrokyne and other
towns around Mariupol the shelling continues, as verified by OSCE Special Monitor Authority.
In the coming days, not weeks or months-here is what we need to see:
A complete cease-fire in all parts of eastern Ukraine;
Full, unfettered access to the whole conflict zone including all separatist-held territory, for
OSCE monitors; and
A full pull-back of all heavy weapons-Ukrainian, Russian and separatist-as stipulated in the agreements,
under OSCE monitoring and verification.
The term "chaos" has been popping up a lot lately in the increasingly collapse-prone world in which
we find ourselves. Pepe Escobar has even published a book on it. Titled
Empire of Chaos, it describes a scenario "where an American] plutocracy progressively projects
its own internal disintegration upon the whole world." Escobar's chaos is tailor-made; its purpose
is "to prevent an economic integration of Eurasia that would leave the U.S. a non-hegemon, or worse
still, an outsider."
Escobar is not the only one thinking along these lines; here
is Vladimir Putin speaking at the
Valdai Conference in 2014:
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling
conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing
spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from
open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along
the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed
by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is
to say, make the same mistake over and over.
Indeed, Escobar's chaos doesn't seem to be working too well. Eurasian integration
is very much on track, with China and Russia now acting as an economic, military and political unit,
and with other Eurasian states eager to play a role. The European Union is, for the moment, being excluded
from Eurasia because it is effectively under American occupation, but this state of affairs is unlikely
to last due to budgetary problems. (To be precise, we have to say that it is under NATO occupation,
but if we dig just a little, we find that NATO is really just the US military with a European façade
hammered onto it Potemkin village-style.)
And so the term "empire" seems rather misplaced. Empires are ambitious undertakings
that seek to exert control over their domain, and what sort of an empire is it if its main activity
is stepping on the same rake over and over again? A silly one? Then why not just call it "The Silly
Empire"? Indeed, there are lots of fun silly imperial activities to choose from. For example: arm and
train moderate opposition to a regime you want to overthrow; find out that it isn't moderate at all;
try to bomb them into submission and fail at that too.
Some people raise the criticism that the empire does in fact function because somebody somewhere
is profiting from all this chaos. Indeed they are, but taking this as a sign of imperial success is
tantamount to regarding getting mugged on the way to the supermarket as a sign of economic success.
Success has nothing to do with it, but Escobar's "internal disintegration" does seem apt: the disintegrating
empire's internal chaos is leaking out and causing chaos everywhere.
Still, the US makes every effort to exert control, mainly by exerting pressure on friends and enemies
alike, and by demanding unquestioning obedience. Some might call this "controlled chaos."
But what is "controlled chaos"? How does one control chaos, and is it even possible? Let's delve.
Chaos Theory
There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory. It deals with dynamic systems that exhibit
a certain set of behaviors:
For any causal relationship that can be observed, tiny differences in initial conditions cause
large differences in outcome. The hackneyed example is the "butterfly effect" where the hypothetical
flapping of the wings of a butterfly influences the course of a hurricane some weeks later. Or, to
pick a more meaningful example, if the stock market were a chaotic system, then investing a million
dollars in an index fund might result in a portfolio of about a million dollars a few months later;
whereas investing a million and one dollars might result in a portfolio of minus a trillion dollars
and change.
Unpredictability beyond a short time-period: given finite initial information about a system,
its behavior beyond a short period of time becomes impossible to predict. Since information about
a real-world system is always finite, being limited by what can be observed and measured, chaotic
systems are by their nature unpredictable.
Topological mixing: any given region of a chaotic system's phase space will eventually overlap
with every other region. Chaotic systems can have several distinct states, but eventually these states
will mix. For example, if a certain bank were a chaotic system, with two distinct states-solvent and
bankrupt-then these states would eventually mix.
Mathematicians like to play with models of chaos, which are deterministic and time-invariant: they
can run a simulation over and over again with slightly different inputs, and observe the result. But
real-world chaotic systems are non-deterministic and non-time-invariant: not only do they produce wildly
different outputs based on very slightly different inputs, but they produce different outputs every
time. What's more, even if deterministic chaotic systems did exist in nature, they would be indistinguishable
from so-called "stochastic" systems-ones that exhibit randomness.
Control Theory
Another branch of mathematics deals with ways of controlling dynamic processes. A typical example
is a thermostat: it maintains constant temperature by turning a heat source on if the temperature drops
below a certain threshold, and off again if it rises above a certain other threshold. (The difference
between the two thresholds is called "hysteresis.") Another typical example is the autopilot: it is
a device that computes the difference between the programmed course and the actual course (called an
"error signal" and applies that error signal to a control mechanism to keep the boat or the plane on
course. There are many variations on this theme, but the overall scheme is always the same: measure
system output, compare to reference, compute error signal, and apply it as negative feedback to the
system.
In order to apply control theory to a system, that system must obey certain principles.
One is the superposition principle: output must be proportional to the input. Left rudder always causes
the boat to turn left; more left rudder causes it to boat to turn left faster. Another is time-invariance:
the boat reacts to changes in rudder angle the same way every time. These are necessities; but most
applications of control theory make an additional assumption of linearity: that changes in system behavior
are linearly proportional to changes in control input. Since all real-world systems are non-linear,
an effort is usually made to endow them with a relatively linear flat spot in the middle of their useful
range. Turn a boat's rudder a little bit, and the boat turns as expected; turn it too far, and it stalls
and no longer works.
Applying control theory to chaotic systems is tricky, because of the issue of "controllability":
is it possible to put a system in a particular state by applying particular control signals?
In a chaotic system, very small error signals can produce very large differences in system output.
Therefore, a chaotic system cannot be controlled. However, an uncontrollable system can sometimes be
stabilized and made to cycle around within a particular, useful, or at least non-lethal, part of its
phase space. Generally, to stabilize the system, it must be observable: it must be possible to measure
the output of the system and use it to issue corrections. However, even an an unobservable system can
still be stabilized, by detecting its state periodically and applying a control signal to push it incrementally
in the right direction.
Here is a real-world example. Suppose you are hurtling along a slush-covered
highway in a subcompact car with bald summer tires. At some point a very minor perturbation of some
sort will transform this controllable system into an uncontrollable one: the car will start spinning.
Since it can no longer be steered, it will slide toward the barrier on one side of the highway or the
other. It will also become unobservable: with the driver spinning along with the car, it will become
impossible to observe the car's trajectory based on short glimpses of the roadway spinning past. Can
this situation be stabilized?
Yes, it turns out that it can be. This is a trick I learned from a jet fighter pilot, which I was
then able to apply to the exact scenario I just described. If a jet starts tumbling out of control,
the pilot's job is to get it to stop tumbling and to get it back to level flight. This is done by twisting
one's head back and forth in rhythm with the spin, catching glimpses of the horizon, and working the
yoke, also in rhythm to the spin, to slow it down, and to make the horizon go horizontal.
In a car, the driver's job is to get the car to stop spinning without hitting the barrier on either
side of the highway. This is done by twisting one's head in rhythm to the spin, catching glimpses of
the barriers on each side of the road, and working the steering wheel, also in rhythm to get the car
to stop spinning while keeping it away from either barrier. If the car is spinning clockwise, then
a clockwise twist to the steering wheel will move it forward, a counterclockwise twist will move it
backward, and a stomp on the brakes will slow down its forward or backward motion somewhat.
This is typically the best that can be done in controlling chaos: using small perturbations
to keep the system within a certain range of safe, useful states, keeping it out of any number of useless
or dangerous ones. But there is one more caveat: such applications of control theory to chaotic systems
require finding out the properties of the chaotic system ahead of time. That's rather tricky to do
if a system evolves continuously in response to these small perturbations. In situations that involve
politics or military matters, applying the same control measure twice is about as effective as telling
the same joke twice to the same audience: you become the joke.
* * *
The moral of this story should be obvious by now: as with the car on a slush-covered
highway, any fool can get it to spin out, but that same fool is then unlikely to have the presence
of mind, the skill and the steel nerves to keep it from hitting one of the barriers. Same goes
for the would-be builders of an "empire of controlled chaos": sure, they can generate chaos, but controlling
it in a manner that allows them to derive some benefit from it is rather out of the question, and even
their ability to stabilize it, so that they are not themselves hurt by it, is in grave doubt.
In an extract from his new book, historian Richard Sakwa argues that the current conflict has
its roots in the exclusion of Russia from genuine partnerships since the end of the cold war
In 2014, history returned to Europe with a vengeance. The crisis over Ukraine brought back not only
the spectre but the reality of war, on the 100th anniversary of a conflict that had been spoken of
as the war to end all war. The great powers lined up, amid a barrage of propaganda and informational
warfare, while many of the smaller powers made their contribution to the festival of irresponsibility.
This was also the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the second world war, which wreaked so much
harm on central and eastern Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years earlier and the subsequent
end of the cold war had been attended by expectations of a Europe "whole and free".
These hopes were crushed in 2014, and Europe is now set for a new era of division and confrontation.
The Ukrainian crisis was the immediate cause, but this only reflected deeper contradictions in the
pattern of post-communist development since 1989. In other words, the European and Ukrainian crises
came together to devastating effect.
The "Ukrainian crisis" refers to profound tensions in the the country's nation and state-building
processes since it achieved independence in late 1991, which now threaten the unity of the state itself.
These are no longer described in classical ideological terms, but, in the Roman manner, through
the use of colours. The Orange tendency thinks in terms of a Ukraine that can finally fulfil its destiny
as a nation state, officially monolingual, culturally autonomous from other Slavic nations and aligned
with "Europe" and the Atlantic security community. This is a type of "monism", because of its emphasis
on the singularity of the Ukrainian experience.
By contrast, Blue has come to symbolise a rather more plural understanding of the challenges facing
Ukraine, recognising that the country's various regions have different historical and cultural experiences,
and that the modern state needs to acknowledge this diversity in a more capacious constitutional settlement.
For the Blues, Ukraine is more of a "state nation", an assemblage of different traditions, but above
all one where Russian is recognised as a second state language and economic, social and even security
links with Russia are maintained. Of course, the Blue I am talking about is an abstraction, not the
blue of former president Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions.
The Blues, no less than the Orangists, have been committed to the idea of a free and united Ukraine,
but favour a more comprehensive vision of what it means to be Ukrainian. We also have to include the
Gold tendency, the powerful oligarchs who have dominated the country since the 1990s, accompanied by
widespread corruption and the decay of public institutions.
Since independence, there has been no visionary leader to meld these colours to forge a Ukrainian
version of the rainbow nation.
The "Ukraine crisis" also refers to the way that internal tensions have become internationalised
to provoke the worst crisis in Europe since the end of the cold war. Some have even compared its gravity
with the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. The world at various points stood close to a new conflagration,
provoked by desperately overheated rhetoric on all sides.
The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system.
The failure to establish a genuinely inclusive and equal security system on the continent imbued European
international politics with powerful stress points, which in 2014 produced the international earthquake
that we now call the Ukraine crisis.
There had been plenty of warning signs, with Boris Yeltsin, the Russian Federation's first leader,
in December 1994 already talking in terms of a "cold peace". When he came to power in 2000, the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin devoted himself to overcoming the asymmetries.
In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow
The major non-state institution at the heart of the architecture of post-communist Europe, the European
Union (EU), exacerbated the tensions rather than resolving them. The EU represents the core of what
could be called "Wider Europe" – a Brussels-centric vision that extends into the heartlands of what
had once been an alternative great-power system centred on Moscow. The increasing merger of Wider Europe
with the Atlantic security system only made things worse.
Russia and some European leaders proposed not so much an alternative but a complementary vision
to the monism of Wider Europe, known as "Greater Europe": a way of bringing together all corners of
the continent to create what Mikhail Gorbachev in the final period of the Soviet Union had called the
"Common European Home". This is a multipolar and pluralistic concept of Europe, allied with but not
the same as the Atlantic community.
In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow. In the
absence of the tensions generated by the post-cold war "unsettlement", the peace promised at the end
of the cold war would finally arrive. Instead, the double "Ukrainian" and "Ukraine" crises combined
with catastrophic consequences.
For me, this is both personal and political. The cold war division of Europe is the reason I was
born and grew up in Britain and not in Poland, but, even before that, war and preparations for war
had scarred my family. In the inter-war years my father, an agronomist by profession but like so many
of his generation also a reservist in the Polish army, marched up and down between Grodno and Lwów
(as it was then called).
He told of the 25kg he had to carry in his backpack, with all sorts of equipment and survival tools.
The area at the time was part of the Second Polish Republic, and for generations had been settled by
Poles. These were the kresy, the borderlands of Europe grinding up against the ever-rising power of
the Russian empire. With the partition of Poland in the 18th century, Grodno and what is now the western
part of Belarus was ceded to Russia, while Lemberg (the German name for Lwów) and the surrounding province
of Galicia became part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
On gaining independence in 1918, and with Russia and the nascent Ukrainian state in the throes of
revolution and civil war, the various armies repeatedly marched back and forth across the region. In
the end the Polish state occupied an enormous territory to the east of the Curzon Line.
These were the lands occupied by Joseph Stalin, following the division of the area according to
the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939. Poland was invaded on 1 September and against the overwhelming
might of Adolf Hitler's armies the Polish forces fell back, only for the Soviet Union to invade on
17 September.
My father's unit soon came up against the Soviet forces, and when greeted initially by the Poles
as coming to support them against the Germans, they were asked to disarm. My father escaped to Hungary,
but many of his reservist comrades were captured, and eventually murdered in Katyn and other killing
sites.
My father subsequently joined the Polish second corps under General Anders, and with the British
eighth army fought at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then all the way up Italy, spending six months
at Monte Cassino. At the end of the war Poland was liberated, but it was not free. Unable to return
to their homeland, the family was granted refuge in Britain. In the meantime, the Soviet borders were
extended to the west, and Lwów became Lvov.
These were territories that had never been part of the Russian empire, and when Ukraine gained independence
in 1991 they became the source of the distinctive Orange vision of Ukrainian statehood. Today Lvov
has become Lviv, while its representation of what it means to be Ukrainian is contested by other regions
and communities, notably the Blues, each of which has endured an equally arduous path to become part
of the modern Ukrainian state.
As for the political, being a product of an ideologically and geographically divided Europe, I shared
the anticipation at the end of the cold war in 1989–91 that a new and united Europe could finally be
built. For a generation the EU helped transcend the logic of conflict in the western part of the continent
by binding the traditional antagonists, France and Germany, into a new political community, one that
expanded from the founding six that signed the Treaty of Rome in March 1957 to the 28 member states
of today.
The Council of Europe, established in 1949, broadened its activities into the post-communist region,
and now encompasses 47 nations and 820 million citizens, as its website proudly proclaims. The European
Convention of Human Rights and its additional protocols established a powerful normative framework
for the continent, policed by the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. Russia in the
1990s actively engaged with the EU, signing a Partnership and Cooperation agreement in 1994, although
it only took effect on 30 October 1997 following the first Chechen war, and the next year Russia joined
the Council of Europe.
However, another dynamic was at work, namely the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(Nato). Also established in 1949 to bring together the victorious western allies, now ranged against
the Soviet Union in what had become the cold war.
Nato was not disbanded when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the cold war came to an end. This
was the source of the unbalanced end to the cold war, with the eastern part dissolving its alliance
system while Nato in the 1990s began a march to the east.
An East German border guard looks through a hole in the Berlin Wall on 19 November 1989.
This raised increasing alarm in Russia, and, while notionally granting additional security to its
new members, it meant that security in the continent had become divisible. Worse, there was an increasing
perception that EU enlargement was almost the automatic precursor to Nato expansion.
The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist order generated what
some call a new cold war
There was a compelling geopolitical logic embedded in EU enlargement. For example, although many
member states had reservations about the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to join, there was a fear
that they could drift off and become western versions of Ukraine. The project of European economic
integration, and its associated peace project, effectively merged with the Euro-Atlantic security partnership,
a fateful elision that undermined the rationale of both and which in the end provoked the Ukraine crisis.
The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist political and security
order generated what some took to calling a "new cold war", or, more precisely, a "cold peace", which
stimulated new resentments and the potential for new conflicts.
It became increasingly clear that the demons of war in Europe had not been slain. Instead, the Ukraine
crisis demonstrates just how fragile international order has become, and how much Europe has to do
to achieve the vision that was so loudly proclaimed, when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989,
of a continent united from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The Ukraine crisis forces us to rethink European international relations. If Europe is not once
again to be divided, there need to be new ideas about what an inclusive and equitable political and
security order encompassing the whole continent would look like. In other words, the idea of Greater
Europe needs to be endowed with substance and institutional form.
Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite will happen: old ideas will be revived, the practices
of the cold war will, zombie-like, come back to life, and once again there will be a fatal dividing
line across Europe that will mar the lives of the generation to come. This is far from inevitable,
but to avoid it will require a shift in the mode of political intercourse from exprobration to diplomacy,
and from denunciation to dialogue.
Thus the personal and the political combine, and this book is much an exploration of failed opportunities
as it is an account of how we created yet another crisis in European international politics on the
anniversaries of the start of two world wars and a moment of hope in 1989. My father's generation suffered
war, destruction and displacement, and yet the European civil war that dominated the 20th century still
inflames the political imagination of the 21st.
To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330
333 6846
Richard Sakwa is professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent
See also:
The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war | Seumas Milne
Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account
jakartamoscow Bud Peart 10 Mar 2015 10:44
When an objective article shows up, expect another 3500 anti-Russian article the following two
months. SOP.
DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 10:29
The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system,
Which only served to accelerate the Russian pivot to China.
With the Chinese publicly and explicitly in the past week saying that they agree and support Russia's
actions in Ukraine, battle lines are being drawn.
Today brings further confirmation of the rubicon being crossed........
China's long-awaited international payment system to process cross-border yuan transactions is
ready, and may be launched as early as September or October, three sources with direct knowledge
of the matter told Reuters.
"The CIPS is ready now and China has selected 20 banks to do the testing, among which 13 banks
are Chinese banks and the rest are subsidiaries of foreign banks," one of the sources told the agency.
For a while China has been exploring methods to cut dependence on the dollar and other hard currencies
in international trade, hoping to settle more deals in yuan.
Now that you are about to become a close ally of the US and a dictator at the same time, you should
be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably ends
with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill your
enemies, with the warm feeling of security because your American advisers taught your people how
to get rid of your opponents, and with standing ovations at the UN Security Council for whatever
you will say against Russians and other foes.
This is a little history lesson to remind you that the weather in Washington is much more capricious
than the continental climate of Eurasia.
The US certainly won Cold War, but not necessarily their Allies. One of the first to experience
that fine difference was Saddam Hussein, Washington's close ally in the Middle East for much of the
1980s. Hussein was a CIA asset to overthrow the Qassim-Regime, which was for the Americans too close
to Soviet Union.
The first narrative on Ukraine and Russia that makes sense to me. Why don't the others get it?
Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Bildt, Merkel, Hollande? Because they are thick? Or because they don't want
to get it?
irishmand -> Oskar Jaeger 10 Mar 2015 10:17
Russia has been demonised during the last year, yes, but deservedly so.
The ruins of Ukraine are the reason.
Who decides about Russia deserves demonising? The people who can possibly profit from it, because
they want to supply more arms?
foolisholdman -> jasonbirder 10 Mar 2015 10:16
jasonbirder
Only after Stalingrad did the US President decide to circumvent the US Congress' specific ban
in getting involved in the European War and help the UK
I'm confused...didn't the US declare war on Germany in December 1941...whereas the German Forces
were defeated at Stalingrad in early 1943...over a year later!
Yes, you are confused. I think you have been deliberately confused. The USA did not declare war
on Germany. Germany declared war on the USA.
So it is not President Rooseveldt whom we have to thank for bringing the USA into the war on the
side of democracy and decency but Herr Hitler!
MoneyCircus Jonathan Stromberg 10 Mar 2015 09:46
An intelligent and detailed argument shot straight over your head, didn't it.
In his article Sakwa says that conflict was inevitable (if not over Ukraine, then over some other
point) because - primarily - of the failure of countries and blocs to adapt to changing realities.
It has been clear for 20 years that the EU has forgotten its origins as a way to prevent war and
has become a tool of commercial, mercantile and territorial expansion. The phrase "fortress Europe"
is a clue.
I'll add to Sakwa's point - that the centenary of the outbreak of WW1 was not marked by the sort
of reflection and self-analysis that many of us expected. And this was for good reason.
The build up of arms, the great game for resources and the alliances (launching wars of proxy terror
against each other) recall the run up to WW1, far more than they do WW2.
The rest is lies and half-truths as can be found in the so-called pluralistic western media. There
may have been a time in the past, but this has gone a long, long time ago.
Please also compare Cuba crisis and Kosovo with Nato east expansion and Crimea.
vr13vr jezzam 10 Mar 2015 12:10
"This crisis was triggered by Ukraine moving towards EU membership rather than Putins's Eurasian
Union. Since EU rules require such things as recognition of the rights of minorities, it is hard to
see how this could be any threat towards ethnic Russians in Ukraine."
From having the EU requirements to the mood on the street, the difference was huge. Whatever the
requirements could have been, the mood on the street at the moment wasn't meeting those requirements.
That "rather than Putin's Union" further instigated the anti-Russian mood.
That piled up on top of the fact that those areas never wanted to be part of Ukraine anyway. So
you have the areas that were reluctant to be in Ukraine to begin with, coupled with the nationalistically
energized mood on the streets elsewhere that would result in West Ukrainian desire to finally make
those areas loyal. Even if it is against the EU rules.
And of course the fact that the government voted for by the East and the South voters was overthrown
in violent uprising (for the second time in a decade) didn't give much confidence in the stability
either.
TOR2000 jezzam 10 Mar 2015 11:50
"The Kremlin then proposed to Brussels that negotiations be conducted between the EU and the Eurasion
Union -- directly between the two blocs of power. But European Commission President José Manuel Barroso
refused to meet with the leaders of the Eurasion Union, a bloc he considered to be an EU competitor.
As for Libya, it was not a US business as you like to portray it. A large number of states were
willingly involved to stop Khadaffi (like Assad) from killing his own people.
HaHa nice fairy tale )
Maybe they killed him because he wanted to sell oil in other currencies, and also wanted 160 bn$ from
Goldman Sachs and more from other financial institutions back.
Libya under Gaddafi:
GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention
* Part of pharmacies - free
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - none.
* Fees for electricity for households -none!
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited - prohibition.
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services were prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $
-If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of
the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
- A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens
-Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project,
to make water readily available throughout the desert country
TOR2000 psygone 10 Mar 2015 11:41
Weren't Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, the main rebel leaders in Chechnya, trained in CIA-sponsored
camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
DIPSET irishmand 10 Mar 2015 11:30
@irishmand
You nationality will, justifiably, make you wary but there is no evidence of them "stabbing" your
lot in the back. China fully understand that after the Yanks try and crush you, they are next.
Call it a marriage of conveniance of you must.
A common enemy (hello America "exceptionalism" lol) has sharpened minds. As the little incident
with Hong Kong last year showed, "freedom and democracy" is what they are itching to bring to the
Chinese mainland.
Incidentally, the way they banned the UK officials from entering Hong Kong was hilarious as our
MP's were reduced to moaning and whining on twitter that China was not playing fair lol.
In Lavrov you have a master diplomat who has ridden this redeo before and knows how to deal with
the European puppets.
In Putin you have a man that will never allow Russia to be subjugated. Ever.
The rest is just semantics as they say......
2015 is that year, either way
BorninUkraine -> DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 11:24
Unipolar world is dead, RIP. Right now, China, India, much of the rest of Asia, and most of Latin
America and Africa are happy to let Russia take the flak for standing up to the bully.
But they know that soon they will have to defend their own interests. That's why they side with
Russia not so much because they support its policies, but because it is giving a black eye to the
US.
geedeesee 10 Mar 2015 11:19
Professor Richard Sakwa can point to history, as if Obama was handed a difficult legacy, but it
doesn't justify or mitigate the crisis which erupted in 2014. Obama had the opportunity to shed any
past mistakes. Indeed, he recognised this with the "Re-Set' of US-Russian relations soon after taking
office.
The current crisis has its beginnings well within the Obama administration. When, in November 2013,
the Yanukovich government and civil-servant advisers decided the Russian offer was better than the
EU offer, someone in the Obama administration decided they were going to overturn it. Victoria Nuland's
speech the following month at the US/Ukraine Foundation in Washington, in which she revealed US had
spent $5 billion, demonstrated their resolve to overrule the government of Ukraine:
...it would be a huge shame to see five years' worth of work and preparation go to waste if the
AA [EU deal] is not signed in the near future. So it is time to finish the job.
Time to finish the job! A statement like that has the backing of senior level policy decision.
Obama has to have authorised that policy given the impact on Russia. And so it played out. Victoria
Nuland, again, caught out choosing the personalities in a new government in January. And then in February
there was a coup!
This crisis begins in the Obama administration and, more specifically, in Obama's second term.
RudolphS ID075732 10 Mar 2015 11:15
'Why was Russia excluded from true partnership with Europe after 1989? By the same reasoning
why was NATO not disbanded after the fall of the Berlin wall? The reason probably lies in the continued
need for the US to maintain control and influence in Europe.'
Well, the reason is quite simple. As the victor of a 60 year-old cold war (communism vs. capitalism)
you're of course temped to capitalize on it. But honest, the West should've known better. They should've
gone the way how Germany was treated after WWII: Helping to re-build and intergrate the country within
the international community, with as a result that the germans rapidly became the most loyal and valuable
ally the West could hope for.
John Smith Havingalavrov 10 Mar 2015 11:14
(Reuters) - Western powers should take into consideration Russia's legitimate security concerns
over Ukraine, a top Chinese diplomat has said in an unusually frank and open display of support for
Moscow's position in the crisis.
Qu Xing, China's ambassador to Belgium, was quoted by state news agency Xinhua late on Thursday
as blaming competition between Russia and the West for the Ukraine crisis, urging Western powers to
"abandon the zero-sum mentality" with Russia.
He said the "nature and root cause" of the crisis was the "game" between Russia and Western powers,
including the United States and the European Union.
He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow
would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.
"The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real security concerns of Russia
into consideration," Qu was quoted as saying.
His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position.
China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but Beijing has generally
not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.
After the collapse of communism, where was Russia's attempt to truly diversify its economy away
from the power oligarchs, commodities and oil/gas?
After the collapse of communism the oligarchs like Khodorkovsky were too busy helping US/EU corporations
to plunder Russia. It was the moment Russians lost their trust in US/EU democracy.
The German government finally wakes up, a little bit at least, and recognizes the obvious fact that
U.S. neocons want to drag Europe into a war. It is now
openly blaming certain circles within the U.S. government and NATO of sabotaging the Minsk ceasefire
agreement. Especially offensive is the fantasy talk of U.S. and NATO commander General Breedlove:
For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop
advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over
again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's
NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US
Congress and in NATO.
The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation
led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments
as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently
to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.
But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others
as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost
among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others
would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans
as well as many powerful Democrats.
Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's
diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to
increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that
Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general,
they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's
more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.
The U.S., including Obama, wants to strengthen the U.S. run NATO and thereby its influence in Europe.
And Europe, by losing business with Russia and risking war, is supposed to pay for it.
The German public, despite tons of transatlantic propaganda, has well understood the game and the
government can not escape that fact. It has to come back to some decent course and if that means trouble
with Washington so be it. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and the U.S. are currently meeting
in Paris and Secretary of State Kerry will not like what he will hear:
In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary
prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding,
but the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful
without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing
goals.
Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it
is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow's influence
in the region and destabilize Putin's power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change
in Moscow.
Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government
and leader then the largely liberal Putin.
The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of
U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position
of the United States. If production capabilities in Europe get destroyed through war the U.S. could
revive its export industries.
It seems that at least some European leaders now understand that they got played by Washington and
they are pushing back. A Eurasian economic sphere
is in Europe's interest. Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate
and risk the alliance with Europe? A first sign looks positive. The U.S.
called
off, on short notice, a plan to train Ukrainian National Guard (i.e. Nazi) forces:
[O]n Friday, a spokesman for US forces in Europe, confirmed the delay in a statement and said: "The
US government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled."
"The training mission is currently on hold but Army Europe is prepared to carry out the mission
if and when our government decides to move forward," the statement said.
Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed
to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But the surge in Afghanistan,
the destruction of Libya, the war on Syria and the trouble in Ukraine have all been run by the same
propaganda scheme: Obama does not want war, gets pushed and then reluctantly agrees to it. It is a
false view. The buck stops at his desk and Nuland as well as General Breedlove and other official hawks
concerned about their precious bodily fluids
are under Obama's direct command. He can make them shut up or get them fired with a simple 30 second
phone call. As he does not do so it is clear that he wants them to talk exactly as they do talk. Obama
is the one driving the neocon lane.
The Europeans should finally get this and distance themselves from that destructive path.
Posted by b on March 7, 2015 at 01:09 PM |
Permalink
The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that
of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.
It's rather insulting to the EU that the dumbass, gutless, Yankees would appoint a war-mongering
chicken-hawk called Breedlove to lecture them about The Importance Of Being Ernest - about hating
Putin.
"the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful
without the threat of military action."
Insisting that the "threat of military action" always be present during the practice of international
diplomacy is a fundamental repudiation of international law as proscribed by the United Nations at
the end of WW2. In the current Orwellian situation, the foreign policy hawks (in particularly
the Anglo 5 Eyes countries) articulate policy informed by this repudiation while on the other hand
insisting that they are motivated by upholding mid-century international law. Here is John Boehner
speaking for a bi-partisan Congressional committee quoted today in the Washington Times:
"It is even more than simply a component of a revisionist Russian strategy to redraw international
borders and impose its will on its neighbors,it is a grotesque violation of international law, a challenge
to the west and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of
World War II."
When this crisis in Ukraine first broke out last year it made no sense at all for Obama to have
let Nuland carry on as she was doing. He could have defused the whole thing simply by firing Nuland
or I thought. However, his actions over the past year seem to show that this was his policy as b says
here.
It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable
one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced
China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against
Russia.
So why did we do it? I will guess. Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok
to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US. Fear of
losing or at least lessening US hegemony over Europe was probably a major factor in deciding to 'pivot
back to Europe'. Our influence there must have seemed much more important than Asia or even the ME.
Ukraine provided an opportunity to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe or so US power brokers
thought. As a secondary reason, at least one that brought the US military on board with the new policy,
is that a new cold war with Russia provided an opportunity to reinvigorate NATO, that has always been
a favorite play thing the army and airforce. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was very difficult
to justify NATO's existence.
It would be ironies of ironies if this crisis now forces Germany to declare its independence and
work harder to rebuild relations with Russia and in the process become a major player in the Eurasian
Union. This is what Pepe Escobar just suggested this last week is a possibility.
Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior
pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But ...
You may be correct. But:
You haven't established that the evident appearance of `reluctance' is a "false view". In theory,
"The buck stops at his desk". The obvious fact that it hasn't, however, is -- at best -- by no means
creditable.
I can hardly wait 'til the `progressive' Twittercrats start calling for Obama to "go nuclear" with
Putin. ...
#2, I guess he's taking his cues from Noodles, here's some highlights from her Match 4 address to
Foreign Affairs Committee, lifted from Stephen Lendman
calledd murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov
a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
...called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at
peace.'
Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs
"peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
"They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new
nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political
reforms."
Claims-
"enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and
corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate
for business"
"it's "building a peaceful, democratic, independent" nation
... Crimea "under illegal occupation"
in Eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."
"MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling
the conflict."
"Sixteen Russian uninspected 'humanitarian convoys' entered Ukraine in violation of agreements
with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community."
"Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to
separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…"
"This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons;
financed at Russian taxpayers' expense and costing the lives of young Russians…"
Bizzaro world. Completely upside down from reality. And no I'm not trying to one up you #2! It's
just crazy stuff coming out of the mouths of every politician and official and media whore, I've never
seen anything like it.
Good report, b especially including the fact that this is a bipartisan project led by the Liberal
Democrats.
The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt
that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape
path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.
thanks b.. some good points in your post which i strongly share, this one in particular - The U.S.,
the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians
trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United
States.
when does this nightmare called us foreign policy die?
"Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government
and leader then the largely liberal Putin."
What is wrong with those two sentences? First, "Europe",
a landmass in western Eurasia usually demarcated by the crests of Ural and Caucasus mountain chains
and Ural river. The text refers mostly to the governments of France and Germany. Who are "NATO hawks"?
Danes and Norwegians, latter day Varangians? Or Latvians and Estonians who would like to have a re-match
of Battle on Ice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice_(Lake_Peipus)
Second, "The result …" This has to be a joke. "Europe" has many headaches with the governments
of Greece and Hungary, but can they change them? Actually, in the case of Greece, this sentence could
make sense, because in Greece they have a real opportunity of causing a government crisis and getting
a more extreme government. But in the case of Russia, it is only a question of having a long-term
gain in mutually assured economic destruction, or not.
Double-talk is bread and butter of diplomacy, but we simple folk can afford to express ourselves
more directly. The real problem in arming Ukraine is that the government there is untrustworthy and
it would probably use the aid to further neglect the economy and concentrate even more on futile military
endeavor, and it could also commit some atrocities as it would be at it. Being "a little bit Nazi"
is perfectly fine with Baltic governments and Croatia, plus USA and Canada, could be fine with Hungary
but the leader there is constantly on the prowl for good deals and just now got one from Putin, and
causes mixed feeling elsewhere.
So the trillion dollar question for most responsible European leaders is if US is more trustworthy
than Poroshenko crew?
Yes, good analysis. Especially the Empire of Chaos' goal of reimplementing the aftermath of WWII
: everyone outside North America flat on their backs and the US the colossus by virtue of still standing.
But ...
' Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance
with Europe? ... Obama is the one driving the neocon lane. '
Whether it's the neocon line or in the neocon lane, Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was
hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from
Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.
The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the
actors actually implementing it by turn are identified. The Nihilist Nobel Peace Prize Laureate gets
dunked everytime, hauls himself out of the tank, climbs back up on the stool, makes faces and jeers
at the crowd throwing balls at the trip target ... all absurdly trying to effect a change in policy.
It's just a job ... 2,236 days down, 686 days till payday.
Thanks for the analysis with Russia at the center rather than the USA. Catchy restatement
of the difference between 'the chicken then the egg' vs 'the egg then the chicken'.
I'm rooting for
Russia, and Putin's been in charge there. Of course, I'm really rooting for my USA, but for my USA
to survive the present oligarchy must be defeated : the Chicken's neck must be wrung and its carcasse
flung into the stew pot.
it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis
that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. There was quite a lot of support for Tymoshenko
from Merkel including her drive to boycott the Ukraine when Tymoshenko had been imprisoned for embezzlement.
she was also promoting Vitaly Klitschko for the longest time abruptly ending when Vickie Nuland
let it be known that he was not accceptable as a leader of Ukraine.
The German government has been a very willing stooge of the US in causing or continuing the unrest
in Ukraine. That many people in Germany have suffered due to this behavior from sanctions and embargoes
on both the European side as well as the Russian side might be a consequence that the German elite
decided they could live with rather than simply something forced upon them from the US.
As far as I can tell, the fecal matter hit the air moving device right after Yanukovich decided
to maintain close economic ties with Russia rather than throw in with the EU. EU for all intents and
purposes Germany.
"The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view
of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position
of the United States."
And it does not appear that the US cares what happens to Europe, either. If sanctions on Iran hurt
European business, meh. If sanctions on Russia push Europe back into recession...meh.
I felt like I was reading the lyin-ass New York Times. (How do these so-called journalists get ANY
work done with all that CIA/StateDept/JSOC cock in their mouth? Inquiring minds want to know. Anyway…)
Germany is presented like an old grandma, wringing her hands and saying, "Oh, mercy me! Can't we
all just get along?" … If it wasn't for that dang Gen. Breedlove…except, well, he's actually right,
don't you know, except, OK, he exaggerates a bit. There's LOTS of Russia aggression, and we have proof
we won't show you…but not as much as he says. I mean, credibility, and all, right?…And that
Vicki Nuland, well, she's bitch we all agree, but she gets things done and sometimes you need to get
tough, don't ya know. She "loves Russia" (yeah, I bet…like I love a nice rare steak….sliced sooooo
thin.) So…come on, dial it back a little won't you guys over in Langley…?
This seemed to me like CIA drizzle from Der Spigot!
A few carefully breaded pieces of True served with a piquant sauce of Lies and a side of Dissembling
and Disinformation. One of those articles that is structured like, "yeah, true…BUT!"
ToivoS @ | 3
Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been
seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US.
So says Mike Whitney in an important post re Nemtsov's assassination over at Counterpunch. I agree
with you and him. I wonder what Uncle Ruslan thinks? He must have some ideas, having lived with Graham
Fuller for all this those years.
Colinjames @ 5
Those excerpts really infuriated me. I have the most terrible desire to bitch slap Vicki Nudelman
until she falls down and begs me to stop. I see her face and my hand itches. I need to stop watching
Jess Franco movies.
Wayoutwest @ 6
The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt
that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape
path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.
Ayuh. I agree, with you (see above) --and dan of steele's very excellent and needful post at
13. Germany's in this shit up to their eyeballs. I recall reading in "The Brothers" that after
WW2 the CIA just basically took over (and presumably still owns) German intelligence. Took their Nazis
in and kept all the spy lines and assets. Gladio was an outgrowth of that, I guess.
But I don't think the blood-thirsty vampires in the US can dial it back. They are all up in that
snatch (to slightly paraphrase a vulgar version of the Petraeus bio's title that actually got shown
on US news.)
Piotr Berman's delightful rants at 18 @ 19
What interesting ideas and insights you bring to the discussion. If you don't mind saying, are
you German? If I was a German citizen I would be very upset and I have read that, like here in the
States, this Ukraine shit combined with NSA spying combined with that book about how all the media
are CIA assets has caused a crisis of confidence between reasonably-informed citizens and dissembling
government, media, military, etc.
I agree with all the posters here saying that Obama has never had hold of the levers of power. A few,
yes. But what with the "tunneling" of political appointees transformed into civil servants at the
end of the Bush admin…yeah, no. And that's not the only reason…just one.
Certainly Germany is covetous of Russia/the Ukraine. And Merkel, like Obama, knows how to get
along by going along with the ones who brung her. Used to be the Russians in East Germany, are now
the Americans in West/Unified Germany.
Both are puppets, 'loyal' to the their puppeteers. The rest of the EU apparat are in the pocket
of the US, and dance to the same tune piped to Obama.
Germany on its own is not capable of subduing Russia, yet hopes to be in position to reap the benefits
of the US' destruction of same.
They're all losers, betting on making a killing, benefiting from their neighbors' collapse. Their
neighbors have other ideas ... must have to survive. TIAA.
Love your vampires and vultures scenario. Tolstoy's Vourdalak or the folkloric Russian
Волколак or Volkolak is what I've been thinking of late, because I am a Mario Bava kind of gal.
You know, Russia is one of the few countries NOT 110% indebted to German/London/Wall Street/Brussels
banks. Seems to me that definitely has something to do with all this. They've got something to plunder.
(Lotta gold. yum!) I bet there's some truth to the assertion that the flaming tire of blame for global
economic collapse is being readied for Russia's neck...just in case. We're very close.
But perhaps there is no one Germany. I can only suppose that it must be like it is here in the
US...different factions with their own power bases pulling their own levers.
@24 I think the plan was for a rapid victory in Ukraine and Putin just stomping his feet. Keeping
Crimea, the uprisings, and the general thuggery/incompetence in Kiev weren't in the plans. The Chinese
didn't defend Russia against accusations about flight #mh17, the Chinese openly scoffed at the West
not even giving fools like Kerry the time of day.
German firms were supposed to win contracts
replacing Russian firms not see the SCO grow and face losses from self-imposed sanctions. Merkel
and people in her sphere overdid the rhetoric. Voters won't forget a major propaganda change, and
Merkel and her ilk know this but can't see how to get out of the mess especially with Kiev in need
of European cash.
So, you seem to be saying that this is rather like what WoW maintains...an offering
of an exit ramp to the US...because Germany really, really wants off this highway to hell.
Hideous to think they were all for it when it looked like easy rapings and little to no consequences.
International finance needs to be dismantled. That's what's behind all this shit. Bankster's wars.
The practices of Ms. Nuland (taking cookies out to support the demonstrators during the "Maidan" actions)
echoed exactly those of Amb. Robert Ford in Syria. In both cases it was a strange perversion and repudiation
of traditional standards of diplomatic practice. It was not just a Nuland aberration.
And we've
seen the outcome, a few years later, in both these war-ravaged countries. God help the people of both
countries.
Interesting points you make. I believe what we have here IS the pivot to Asia, - through
the backdoor. The US is haunted by the inevitable rise of Eurasia as a superpower. And, the fact is,
the "pivot" was unrealistic and a rather silly strategy. China's New Silk Road Economic Belt, both
rail and maritime - stretching from Beijing through Russia and across Europe to Madrid (with spurs
to India, Iran, the ME and down the African continent) - was a preemptive strike that neutered US
aspirations. Even worse, it's already funded.
Picture the US on the globe: Isolated and alone, separated from the lively Eastern Hemisphere by
two vast oceans. Adrift, stewing in its own juices, in desperate need of a world war to elevate it
once again out of its economic doom and into super-stardom.
This is further evidenced by the US desperation over the TPP and TTIF. It has reached a fever pitch,
with endless negotiations inside the super-secret US "cone of silence." For the US, these corporate-ruled
trade agreements are their last hope for hegemony over global trade, especially now that the Petrodollar
is dead. (Another consequence of the Ukraine stupidity.) But, both trade treaties seem to be failing
badly (there are anti-TTIF demonstrations throughout Germany today). In any event, China rendered
them both irrelevant with APEC and the New Silk Road, which popped into existence the very instant
that the US stepped into the Ukraine tar pit. For China, they are done deals. Even Australia and New
Zealand have come to their senses and seem to be climbing on board.
Surely, Europe already knows this. They've seen many empires decline. I suppose its only prudent
to string the US along and contain the chaos....
Well, no one knows whether either one of them will continue to exist, do they? The Kremlin's intention
is clearly to keep Ukraine's territory as it is (sans Crimea; that question is closed), but
Ukraine is increasingly entering into full-spectrum social collapse, so wha the outcome will be is
unpredictable, especially since the Ukraine was an artificial country to begin with, patched together
from the territories of other countries.
As for Syria, I am all for secular states in the Islamic world, like Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Libya before the US destroyed them. Our fan of the Islamic State Wayoutwest can say much
more about this than I can, but it is possible that states created by Sykes-Picot will disappear,
to be replaced by a caliphate. In the larger scheme of things, that would be a good thing because
(1) even though the caliphate would initially have a regressive form of Islam, once Arabs are in
control of their own destiny, they will not fear engaging in reforms;
(2) a caliphate would create one more pole for the emerging multipolar world.
@26 They are giving Obama an out and blame can be heaped on Nuland and Breedlove. Rasmussen didn't
make the Der Spiegel article, and he is completely deranged as anyone outside of GOP politics.
IMHO
Obama only responds to extreme embarrassment. Offering him an out won't work without tying Obama and
Nuland at the hip.
It's overlooked, but in 2012 when Obama came out for gay marriage, he cloaked his support in nonsense
about state rights but only after his campaign machine had worked against an effort in North Carolina
to defeat anti-gay/woman/child referendum. There were political reasons, but there was a growing anger.
Biden saw this and just randomly announced Obama's pro gay marriage views. It took three days, but
Obama got around to tepidly endorsing a form of gay marriage. Obama only acted because Biden forced
his hand. It took almost two weeks after everyone in the U.S. knew Shinseki from the Veteran Affairs
Department for Obama to dismiss him when Shinseki should have been fired right away, but Obama only
acts when faced with total embarrassment.
Obama is a puppet. Cheney, Kissinger, Negroponte, GHWBush and friends, CIA, Brzezinski, Rockefeller,
etc. Deep State pulls his strings. Obama was himself a CIA protege at BIC. There are no pesky
principles to contend with.
And he is not allowed to fire Nuland or any other neocon warmonger.
Did you see what they did to JFK for stepping out of line?
@ jfl | 11
But exactly!
Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal,
neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by
all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.
The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the
actors actually implementing it by turn are identified.
Although it seems there are two schools of thought about that around here, this has been my assumption
from the beginning.
@3 ToivoS
Forgot to mention,: You spoke of consequences. That is of particular interest, I believe, and speaks
to the destiny of the US as it stumbles about on the world stage, without future awareness.
It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable
one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly
forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations
against Russia.
There are more than a few significant unintended consequences that have come in short order as a result
of the Ukraine blunder. For example:
Certainly killing the Petrodollar is a big one, which was the natural result of pushing China and
Russia into the biggest oil/gas deal in world history, specifically written to bypass the dollar.
Compelling Gazprom to divert the destination of the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea
from Bulgaria to Turkey, with the distribution hub ending in Greece. So now Turkey and Greece control
the fuel coming into West and South Europe. That's quite the geopolitical accomplishment.
Pushing Iran into the BRICS. Russian allies are pulling together in many interesting ways these
days. US sanctions have become toothless.
The oil pricing scheme backfiring on the US economy. I'm of the school that oil overproduction
was a direct attack on Russia and the usual suspects: Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. I'm also of the
opinion that the US has lost control of OPEC.
The US is paying a mighty high price for its neocon folly.
In response to questions, I used my real name, I am Polish citizen living in USA.
European elite,
including Germany and France, are almost instinctively aligning themselves with American elite, but
they take exception to a favorite American trick: penciling a grandiose plan to be paid by EU.
Russian counter-sanctions fall on Europeans, and it is pointless to quibble if "dollar is dead"
-- it is not, but USA will not pay to integrate Turkey and Ukraine with EU, to cite some of the grandiose
ideas. German conservatives in particular are notorious bean counters, they generously paid to integrate
Eastern Germany, but are much less enthusiastic to have foreign beneficiaries. (In Poland, the consensus
is that it is OK to help Ukrainians, provided that it will not cost anything. There is also a minority
that hates Ukrainians more than Russians, and younger folks seem not to care at all.)
As it is, EU duly enacted sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia, and Merkel is resolute at sending
mixed signals, so to some extend there is no "divorce". If anything, they are on the same wavelength
as Obama. Recall how Europe resisted joining Bush jr. war in Iraq. "New Europe", including Poland,
provided a bunch of little contingents, and that proved to be quite unpopular domestically. Even so,
regime change in Libya was accomplished mostly by Europeans, and this is perhaps one of the unique
successes in history that has a dearth of claimants. On the heals of that feat, even ever supine Brits
rebelled when they had a chance to repeat the success in Syria. The belief that "Americans surely
know what they are doing" is eroding even as we scribble. But so far, there is hardly any "European
alternative".
I guess Putin will graciously lift sanctions on Hungarian and Greek produce, Ukraine will get some
weapons and training, but not a hell lot -- seriously, what scale of military aid would truly make
a difference?
@35 piotr.. thanks for pointing out euro's role in libya and how nothing is going to change, as i
personally believe just like the usa is bought and paid for, so is germany and france.. to suggest
there will be much of a fracture is to suggest the international banker mafia don't have these politicians
on the same page. i think they do.. whether they get elected again, or the required politicians to
do the job of the bankers do - i think they do..
as for obama being anything other then a rubber
stamp - i agree with @31 fast freddy.. step out of line and look what you will get.. it is hard not
to be cynical..
@36 tiktok.. what a pathetic pos we have for a leader here in canada, but like i say about most
of these western leaders and to which i include harper - they are all beholden to the same narrow
interests that have nothing to do with the common people's interest.. they continue to think we are
stupid or worse..
so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".
There does not need to be any European alternative. And the EU is dominated by Germany, the intelligence
services of which, as someone here observed recently, are infiltrated by the CIA (although there was
a report that Germany is now setting up a branch of its intelligence service independent of USG).
The alternative is Russia. It is too late for Europeans to come up with alternatives. (They
did that first with Hegel and then with Marx, but neither attempt held.) Europeans just need to realize
that since the world is becoming multipolar, they belong in the Eurasian pole, not a contrived Atlanticist
one.
Russia has grave flaws, an Europeans can help Russians fix those, if Europeans make a break with
the predatory and anti-human Anglosphere.
The push back is far too late. The gorgon Nuland and Dr Strangelove himself Zed Breszinski testifying
before the mouth breathers of the foreign affairs committee this week continued to ratchet up the
rhetoric:
"I wonder how many people in this room or this very important senatorial committee really anticipated
that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and seize it. I think if anybody said
that's what he is going to do, he or she would be labeled as a warmonger. He did it. And he got away
with it. I think he's also drawing lessons from that. And I'll tell you what my horror, night-dream,
is: that one day, I literally mean one day, he just seizes Riga, and Talinn. Latvia and Estonia.
It would literally take him one day. There is no way they could resist. And then we will say, how
horrible, how shocking, how outrageous, but of course we can't do anything about it. It's happened.
We aren't going to assemble a fleet in the Baltic, and then engage in amphibious landings, and then
storm ashore, like in Normandy, to take it back. We have to respond in some larger fashion perhaps,
but then there will be voices that this will plunge us into a nuclear war
I'll tell you what Brezinski's real horror night dream is dying before the US attempts a full on
takeover of Russia. Whether Germany likes it or not they'll continue to be a pawn in the dark lords
8 dimensional chess game. It's a little late to be thinking twice now that the breadbasket of Europe
is a basket case. The hope is that the whooping that's coming to the USSA shakes out the aristocracy
that brought it about and sends them fleeing with nothing but their assholes.
Oddly, Brzezinski himself not too long ago recommended the "Finlandization" of Ukraine. The neo-cons
and armaments industry have adopted a cartoonish version of his theories -- which, in any case, hark
back to the Geographical Pivot theory dating to 1904! It's become a crude dogma that doesn't even
rise to the level of ideology.
1) "Special British-US relationship" - US has been
a British colony for at least last 100 years, ie. a muscle-man for the Rothschildes-Jewish-Zionist
cabal with its HQ in the City of London, Israel plays a "mad dog" role for them, Canada, Australia,
and many other in the Commonwealth have their parts to play too. Because Obama since the evening of
his reelection turned against the Crow Corporation, they have been forced to increasingly rely on
themselves and other subjects - notice rapidly intensifying British military presence in the Central
(Poland, which is situated at the very heart of the continent) and Eastern Europe (Baltic republics),
as well as in the ME - Bahrain, police force now on the Turkish-Syrian border. Also British lying
propaganda has been very intense, by far the worst in the EU. The neocons, McCain, Soros et al respond
to the Rothschildes, always have. The British have been leading the charge recently and you will see
more and more of this soon.
2) Obama's team has been under the threats form the global criminal cabal many times itself. Security
breaches at the White House, warnings of assassination, "third force" trying to start a civil war
in the US by abusing the police powers and killing the police officers, fake social movements menacing
the White House with "marches" like the one of Jewish Adam Kokesh...
Summing up - it's been the City of London pulling the strings all along and Obama have been in
danger of a violent overthrow already for some time.
Juncker wies zugleich auf die organisatorischen und finanziellen Vorteile des Vorhabens hin. So würde
es zu einer intensiven Zusammenarbeit bei Entwicklung und Kauf von militärischem Gerät führen und
erhebliche Einsparungen bringen.
Brief translation: Juncker highlighted the organizatorial and financial advantages. Cooperation
in the development and procurement of military equipment could be shared and save considerable amounts.
[Vice President of the German Parliament (Bundestag) Claudia] Roth called Riyadh "the top terror
exporter in the Middle East," adding that "a large portion" of extremist militants in Syria, Afghanistan
and Iraq hail from Saudi Arabia.
Germany's guidelines on weapons exports make it "crystal clear
that deliveries cannot be made to such countries," she stressed.
"Besides the weapons deals, Germany is also discussing other trade ties with Saudi Arabia," she
said. "Pressure could certainly be brought to bear using these."
The results of a recent survey conducted for German daily Bild have shown that 78 percent of Germans
believe Berlin should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, while a further 60 percent favor breaking
off trade relations all together with the Persian Gulf monarchy due to its human rights violations.
Great place for the crack to open up/spread from/to Ukraine.
I would note that Merkel working with Timoshenko was more likely a tactical move - one in which Germany
would get some leverage vs. Russia regarding natural gas moving through Ukraine as well as benefits
within Ukraine.
This is very different than the American tactic of exaggerating ethnic tensions on order to create
a failed state a la Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, ad nauseam. American doesn't necessarily intend to create
a failed state - the correct view is that the goal is a puppet regime, but a failed state in someone
else's backyard is almost as good...or good enough.
I'd also note that this is different than the British Empire tactic - the British would also arm
"their" rebels, but they would put skin in the game (soldiers on the ground) in order to ensure that
they wound up with the correct puppet regime.
It is still unclear to me whether the American abridgement of Byzantine/Ottoman/British Empire
tactics is an evolution or a devolution.
If the EU and Russia can edge the United States out of the situation, it is a win/win for everyone
except the US, who will have seen $5B and an old Cold War dream go up in smoke.
If the US can be ejected, it will be the EU and especially the Germans who have gained the most
mightily by the Maidan. The partition of Ukraine - getting rid of those parts that did vote more heavily
for the Party of Regions and the Communists, leaves the EU with a "Orange", oligarchical Ukraine forever.
A Ukrainian horse that the EU can hitch their currently broken cart to, a huge area for Germany to
dominate in the heart of Europe - (one of Germany's oldest dreams). It's not something I'd personally
wish on the Ukrainian population, but Ukraine becoming a proper EU member would require the suppression
of the Nazis who, if they are not, would at least be loud, violent, internal opposition allied with
the trouble-making USA, or at worst would try and wage a disruptive terrorist war over Crimea and
the East.
Would this situation be acceptable to Russia? Wins there would be the retention of Crimea with
no question as to its return to the rump Ukraine, plus the advantage of having the US out of the Ukraine
completely and having caused an EU/US fissure. The status of the East would have to be determined,
but it would seem that independence or becoming part of Russia would be the best bets there now that
they'd no longer be able to offset the vote of the far west.
Anyway, that's all details. The real good thing here - for people all over the globe - would be
that the war-making US elite would have been ejected from another region where they've been making
trouble.
So far when it comes to any "divide" all I've seen is rhetoric and posturing. Considering the Fourth
Reich and it's vassals are owned and controlled by the same puppet-masters I don't see any actual
schism happening. Small European countries that actively resist will find a "color" revolution brewing.
Large nations who actually push back will be hit with economic warfare. The courage to stand up for
their people and stop the lunatics in D.C. doesn't exist in the currant political actors in Europe.
I truly hope I'm wrong, but until we see DEEDS instead of mere WORDS...the steady slide toward war
will continue.
...To get back on topic, Russia Insider considers the broader question of the regime's attitudes;
the open fascism of the junta is I think at root of much of European unease.
Kiev's Drive to Dehumanize East
Ukrainians is certainly a key component of that mentality.
All the European leaders are compromised in some way, the NSA probably has everything they have written,
said, or done in a database. Merkel looks to have been involved in some shady activities in East Germany
if you look closely enough. Don't expect Europe to break from Pax Americana.
I think that the unease in Europe about the rise of open fascism is superficial and more a
PR concern than true opposition at least among the Ruling Class. So long as fascism serve their purposes
and feeds their true agendas but remains obscured it is supported and protected.
OT again, many of us Oldies experienced music somewhat differently than today where albums or sides
of albums were how we enjoyed the performances. Even radio DJs were judged by the way they programmed
their shows and we were always in search of the perfect segway.
...On topic -- the fascism by itself is not too great a worry. That they're incompetent and it
will cost someone lots of money to fix things more so. Events may not break up "the Allies" now, but
with the proper moves and missteps by the varied parties involved.... Someone's planning a few moves
ahead, and I don't think it's DC. Sadly, we can't overlook the power of short-sighted deviousness.
It looks to me as if the differences between Obama and Merkel on Ukraine are tactical not strategic,
viz:
Merkel doesn't have to deal with the infamous American "bottom line" every 90 days, and this
gives her leisure to actually think about what she is doing.
German voters have a mind of their own and are not compliant stooges like American voters, who
only require a few weeks of cheap propaganda to go along with the most crackpot of schemes. The saying
"the burned child fears the fire" does not apply in their case.
The goal from Merkels point of view must be the neoliberal exploitation of Russia - not bringing
Ukraine into NATO, which is only useful in an aggressive war against Russia; or for use as a provocation
resulting in the removal of Putin.
Therefore Merkel has no qualms about putting the Western project against Russia on hold until a
more opportune time.
Hm, excellent article b, as always, though my first thoughts were, 'overly optimistic' ...
However, upon some reflection and reconsideration, there does seem to be a confluence/pattern of
events occurring recently, which may signal that a real 'Newer Great Game' may be afoot, in our currently
Unipolar, sole superpower, Empire dominated world.
The Minsk agreement was done without US involvement, in fact explicitly excluded US involvement,
and the subsequent events of the EU players give every indication of having continued in that vein
... ie. Germany and France clearly acting independent of the Empire ... Poroschenko exposed as
a powerless puppet, purely a pawn, a mere agent of influence of the US.
Now there are firm calls for no new sanctions by the EU, 'give Minsk a chance' ...
The reports re Breedlove/NATO and German governments new 'perspective' re Ukraine/Russia in this
thread ... effectively denouncing the Empires warmongering, baseless propaganda, and willingness to
have the EU 'go fuck itself' re Russia/Ukraine for no-ones benefit except the US. History, and US
geopolitical strategy repeats ...
Now the EU (President Junckers) calling for the creation of an EU Integrated Army ... with only
the UK and France so far having expressed concerns. France has always had a firm view to an independent
military, regardless of NATO. UK view is irrelevant as they are merely viewed as the US suborned 'spoiler'
in the EU, so again no surprise and no leverage/clout. Reports are Germany support the EU/Junckers
proposal ... claims an integrated EU army would be far more effective and significantly less costly,
as well as utilizing EU resources for the EU's benefit, not that of the US. Which would be quite true
if micro and macro duplication at all levels was reduced by allocating specific functions and roles
to relevant EU nations militaries within such a 'truly integrated' force ... for example, German Armored
Corps, French Naval/Marine forces, Spanish Airborne/Airmobile, Italian Air Defence, a smaller member
state to speciliaze as MPs, etc. The very proposal implicitly and explicitly would result in the dissolution
of NATO, which has only ever been a US political-military agency within Europe serving exclusively
the US interest. Such a proposal is NOT for the Empires benefit and very far from a trivial event.
The Empire appears to have completely missed this coming ...
Reports the German government has created a new 'independent' offshoot of the BND, ie. a true German
Intelligence service (or the seeds of ?) actually serving German National interests, as opposed to
the US created and ever since suborned BND since the end of WWII ... is this also happening 'under
the radar' in other EU states ?
Escalation of explicit diplomatic rhetoric calling out the prime US ally and Empire linchpin in
the ME, Saudi Arabia, as the major source of terrorism, in the War on Terra ...
The extensive Snowden revelations, and fallout (latest blatant example - GEMALTO sims), re AUSCANUKUSNZ
(Five-Eyes), could probably have led to the actual realization that there is the US and its four privileged
'Vassals', Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand, first and foremost actually comprising
the 'West' as far as the Empire is concerned, and only then so called 'third tier' pseudo allies,
such as Germany, France, etc (which are treated as actual 'potential hostiles' by the five eyes),
and then lastly all the rest of the 'Barbarians' in the world ... all the Empires sweet words and
false comforts/assurances over the years may have finally come home to roost.
China and Russia, are clearly progressively entering ever closer into an integrated Political/economic/defence
anti Empire bloc at multiple levels ... significant overtures between Egypt and Russia, Russia and
Iran ... the BRICS economic and South American economic 'exit' from the domination of the Empires
Petrodollar and previous economic/political exploitation/dominance.
Perhaps the Empire and the five eyes have been so busy attempting to 'collect it all' and endlessly
pivot from here to there and back again, whilst playing divide and rule from one nation state to the
other, filled to the brim with their own exceptionalism, that they have missed the bigger picture,
missed seeing the new 'forest' emerging, having paid far to close attention to their brushfires and
all those individual trees ...
OTOH, however, there would appear to be enough concurrent events occurring quickly enough to envisage
the ground moving from under the feet of the Empire and the five eyes ... and in plain view ...
.. it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the
crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. -- dan of steele at 13.
You bet. Merkel is an unexamined mover in these stories. (Germany has paid penance and is so cool…not.)
Recall the break-up of Yugoslavia, under the radar Germany was the no 1 champion and mover, with the
US.
Merkel has been meddling in Ukraine since forever, due to for a large part to up EU expansionism
(Germany is the only country that benefits from the Eurozone, not in an evil or illegit way, all the
other countries agreed..), to stretch out again, for more territory, cheap labor, factories run at
low labor costs, the well-off in 'satellite' countries and elsewhere buying German products, finance
ad loans, and so on. See Poland.
German expansionism! (Not that France is any better but they have less clout so are wimpy followers.)
The Eurozone works like that: lend, give, money to poor 'southern' countries so that they buy your
goods, when they stop buying or believing, you cut them off, and look for new markets. Or downscale
etc.
Re. Ukraine, the fantasy was it could join the EU (not considered realistic by any reasoned analysts
or actors unless talking about 20 years down the road without war) and Merkel pushed that.
Cuddled up to the US who had other aims, to make it short, provoke Russia, the whole thing was
to be wrapped up with a lot of love-handshakes, as the Coup-Kiev Gvmt. was expected to maintain it's
hold on a 'unitary' country which would be, it goes without stating, open to new 'industrialism',
'farming', 'reforms' (open up for foreign capital to make huge profits), and/or from the Nuland-type
side, attack Russia by cutting ties, banning trade with Russia (see sanctions), forbidding Russian
influence, media, commerce, and pushing for war, etc.
Donbass ppl objected, rose up, and it turned out that the Ukr. Gvmt could not deliver, - no army
that could perform, no will, incompetence, also thieves...
These completely contradictory aims, of the EU and the US, are now public.
Many 'perhaps's and certainly not clear yet what the EU Army proposal truly indicates
yet, but Germany is clearly behind and for it ... Ultimately the EU is Germany-France and there are
many new possibilities emerging.
The geopolitical consequences of the reality of the Snowden revelations re the five-eyes conduct/actions/objectives
and falsity of supposed alliances for 'mutual' as opposed to exclusive benefit of the Empire at every
level may well have triggered recalculations amongst the 'pseudo allies' governments, this may well
be the case with Germany, at least.
Usually very pessimistic, in this instance 'overly optimistic', or momentarily envisioning an alternate
possible ?
Is it really in the EU interests to take a hit for the Empires benefit re Cold War 2.0 or the possibility
of WW3 or move towards a less Atlanticist future ?
@dh #50
With the single exception of the Romans - because they literally ruled everything - every other empire
always tries very hard to present the best front.
The British had their "White Man's Burden", the
US had the "American Dream" but which has since been switched with the "War on Terror".
No doubt because only the least informed believe that old lie anymore.
An European Army would be the final act of the divorce from US, since it would be
a de facto ending of NATO. No wonder why both US and their major "European" puppet UK radically
oppose the idea. NATO's purpose was not only to counter Soviet military, but also to make sure Germany
would never "rise again". That purpose is still biding and Germans know it. But under NATO umbrella,
there's not much they can do to restore even a glimpse of the military power they had in the past.
They "voluntarily" abdicate from developing nuclear weapons and most of their military spending is
restricted to defensive air/ground capabilities, instead of means of projecting power such as naval
vessels and long-range missiles. However, in an European unified defense system most of these restrictions
should be lifted so to allow Germany to fulfill its obligations to the European allies. Most of American
military bases would be rendered futile, and it's almost certain that NATO's nuclear silos stationed
in Europe would have to be redeployed elsewhere, since an European defense agreement would demand
full control of all military assets in European territory. Finally, Eastern Europe would turn to Germany
and France instead of US when dealing with Russia, thus bringing more political stability to the region
(violent "Maidans" would be less likely in the presence of foreign troops who, unlike Americans, have
to answer for their actions when they come back home).
Needless to say, all these events would be catastrophic for US global domination strategy, since
they would lose not only military control over strategic assets in Western Europe, but also major
influence in the only part of the European Union they are actually welcome today. But one should remember
none of this is new: since its creation European Union was conceived to have its own unified defense
system, but this part of the European pact was sabotaged by British and Americans from the beginning.
Even French nationalist leader De Gaulle became fond of the idea, but his efforts would be futile
while Germany was not reunified and European Union was still a project. And one should notice an unified
Europe is still a project today. Eurozone is crumbling, resentment among the periphery is running
high and both Germans and French know it. One of the necessary solutions for preserving European Union
is a unified defense system, for it would lift the minor associates defense spending burden while
allowing the major ones to exert much more effective political influence among them, so to prevent
that every economic crisis in those countries become a threat to the stability of the entire bloc
itself.
Noirette #63
Undoubtedly Germany played a role in Maidan and there's enough evidence of that, but I don't think
their objective was to produce a violent divorce between Ukraine and Russia. As far as I know German
ambassadors were the major force in bringing to the negotiating table both President Yanukovitch and
the opposition groups, who then signed the 21st of February agreement for Constitutional reform and
anticipated elections. This agreement was also supported by Russia, and since Germany is the natural
interlocutor for Moscow in "European" affairs, I assume the whole thing was arranged by Berlin. Problem
is, no one really expected what happened the day after - except of course the Americans who had already
decided to sabotage the deal and take it all for themselves, bypassing both Europe and Ukrainian "moderates"
(like Yulia Timoshenko) through bribing the major oligarchs and former members of Yanukovitch's cabinet
and the use of Right Sector thugs to attack Government buildings and seize power at once.
Germany won absolutely nothing with this outcome. Sure, Ukraine turned to West, but at what price?
Now it's a devastated and bankrupted country with no control over a large portion of its own territory.
And guess who will have to pay for their reconstruction? Yes, Germany. Merkel is anything but stupid.
She knew from the beginning how Russia would react if threatened in her most sensitive interests.
Georgia is not a far off memory for them. So yes, Germans would sure act to topple Yanukovicth if
they had the chance, but only in a way "negotiated" with Russia. And that's exactly what they thought
they had achieved in February 21st, 2014. Yanukovicth would be turned into a powerless President;
there was to be new elections and Merkel's favorite Timoshenko would certainly win; Ukraine would
join EU soon; and Russia would have to be satisfied with her Crimea's bases, and nothing more than
that. The German plan was going too well, until Vic Nuland decided to f.. the EU once again. And here
we are now.
It seems obvious to me that the EU - Germany - is much better off with Russia, the junior partner,
than it is with the USA, the dominant partner.
Ok... but that's the way Germany sees itself vis a vis Russia and the way the US sees itself vis
a vis Germany.
I guess the only question is on the downside of the switch ... how much pain can the US inflict
on Germany thereafter?
And that's relative to how much pain the US' vicious, one-sided schemes can elicit for Germany
(the EU) from the Russians. And that seems, everyday in every way, to be increasing.
I imagine that if the US does get a real war going with Russia they will have tipped the balance
... everything will then get unfrozen and move really quickly.
The reality will be apparent before news of it reaches our ears. Supersonically.
If the intent is to replace NATO would you declare it or justify it 'falsely' by using
the Empires propaganda justifications as a false cover ?
Again with the US puppet proposal crap, and why would the US want to create such a force when it
would undermine nay invalidate NATOs very reason for existence for the last 60 plus years. NATO has
been a political-military Trojan within Europe effectively controlled and literally commanded by the
US, serving US interests for all that time.
Respectively, and reluctantly your 'point' suggests you are either naive, a fool or trollish, perhaps.
Ed Lozano #66 touches on some relevant history and context if you are not aware of it ...
Ultimately nations only have and act on thier 'interests'.
Too much optimism in this thread. Heads of NATO, both European and US, have been urging NATO countries
to "spend more on defense" - also many US politicians. There is a faction in Germany that have
'dreams' of their own MIC. Ukraine offers the chance to fulfill those dreams, they're pushing hard
while they see the chance.
All but two of NATO members are headed by neoliberal scumbags, Greece and Hungary are the exceptions.
France and Germany lead the way. Merkel has always been a neoliberal, Hollande has come to it only
slightly reluctantly.
Neoliberalism is what US and EU have most in common - politically/economically. Very important.
I don't think Germany has given up on buying up and privatizing as much of Ukraine as they can; and
certainly the US based multinational corps are already buying Ukraine's assets - probably those corps
in Europe too.
Perhaps the Spiegel article is a kind of false flag - or not; nonetheless it airs out what I see
as a false resistance meme. Merkel, like Thatcher before her, is a committed neoliberal. THERE IS
NO ALTERNATIVE!
The fact that the main "cause" for EU Army is the need containing Russia changes nothing on the
discussion about EU-US "divorce". Containing Russia has always been the issue of any Western alliance.
Problem is, US and EU have major divergences about how to do it. US favors a far more provocative
and offensive approach, by positioning military bases, missile shields and naval fleets around Russian
border, and encouraging Russia's neighbors to cut their ties with Moscow and join Western partnerships.
Europe on the other hand advocate a strictly defensive pact, that respects Russia's interests and
influence over its near abroad.
The main reason for this divergence is quite easy to understand. European leaders know that in
the event of war with Russia, the battlefield will be in their own lands. US on the other hand has
nothing to risk and much to gain with a conflict between Russia and Europe, unless of course Russia
decides to end the World (but for some odd reason that possibility never comes into account for neocons).
But again, the divorce between US and EU is quite clear in this case. And I believe it's needless
to say Russia would strongly support an European Army proposal, even if it's main purpose was to counter
Russian military. For threats should be perceived not by one's alleged purposes, but by the means
one employs to achieve those purposes.
Yes, the powers that be did that to JFK when he stepped out of line. But they must know that, if they
did the same thing to Obama, there would be riots all over the country. So Obama has power that JFK
never had, but he's too cowardly or opportunistic to use that power.
Agreed, though the US has always been cowardly, has always avoided risking open conflict with
first world countries. It far prefers to have others fight it out between or amongst themselves and
benefit from picking up the spoils at little cost afterwards. Everyone else is weaker thier economies
damaged and the US relevant power enhanced.
See the Iran-Iraq war, see the US conduct in WWI, profiting handsomely throughout and only entering
the conflict at the last moment once Germany was already on her knees and France and UK were crippled.
Rinse and repeat in WwII letting the Nazis and Japanese Empire do their worst and handsomely profiting
from all sides until they were dragged in on Dec 07 41. The cost exacted from 'helping' the UK was
a takeover of their former empire and relegation to junior poodle vassal status. The UK was required
to pay every single last dollar owed including interest accrued for Lend Lease during WWII and they
only cleared the debt a few years ago.
The US doesn't want actual war with Russia, however, ongoing conflict both economic and low-medium
military in Europe weakens all the europeans at no cost to and for the further benefit of the Five-eyes.
It would seem the economic cost to Germany and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU regarding
Russia is more than acceptable to the US, which ultimately has little skin in the game, for the US
its a win-win, though apparently Germany and the EU? may be developing an entire different perspective,
again all comes back to national 'interests'. And there appears to be no upside for Europe's interests
re 'fuck the EU' ... even the somewhat rabid Poles are questioning the economic cost of Russia baiting
re sanctions which are only hurting Russia and EU, US cost/pain=nil.
You are right, too much naive folks here suddenly. When people say that the EU army
will somehow be "defensive" and will go against America's policies its just get too much to even comment
further.
The Military Commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - *barf*) is always a US General
Officer and says publicly exactly what he is instructed to say by DC (ie. Breedlove), his counterpart
the NATO Secretary-General supposedly speaks for all NATO members however due to the US largely rigging
the appointments has most often been little more than a rabid Atlanticist warmonger also receiving
his talking points from DC, former Anders Fogh Rasmussen having been one of the worst, and the current
Jens Stoltenberg is no better (he's a champion for NATO getting its very own Nukes, yay), hence there
isn't much room for other individual members of NATO to even get airtime re issues relative NATO.
Yes, the US Commander of NATO and the effectively US appointed Secretary-General sockpuppet and
lots of US politicians want the Europeans to spend a lot more of their Euros on an expanded NATO military
that the US commands, especially if its US armaments, and even more so if that caused the Russians
to have to waste more money to further counter/offset a NATO expansion, for the benefit of US interests.
Cost/pain to US=nil.
However, there has been little discernable success because of sustained resistance to this call
for some time now by NATO member countries, regardless of the over-the-top US propaganda re Russia
and Ukraine, as NATO members have better things to do with those Euros given the state of the EU economy
(austerity - public antipathy to military expenditure) since the GFC and the only beneficiary would
be the US including indirectly by further weakening the EU economy to further US economic advantage
globally. The indications are that even the UK poodle intends to further cutback, not expand, its
military budget after the upcoming election.
The selling points of this possible EU Army apparently being put forward by Junckers/Germany are
an EU Commander (ie. Not a US officer, rotating national appointment ?), under EU command serving
EU interests, supposedly greater effectiveness/efficiency/reduced duplication, and therefore purportedly
costing less Euros overall re current military expenditure (compared to US controlled NATO ?).
Nah, can't for the life of me see why the UK and US would be adamantly opposed ... *cough*
I would separate German policies in the rest of the EU/world with German policies within their
own borders.
A strong proxy for the presence of neoliberal economic policies is property prices. Nations which
undergo a property bubble - are almost always neoliberal. Germany in this respect had pretty much
the lowest property price growth of any EU nation.
If American foreign policy can engineer a war based around the Ukraine where European troops fight
russian troops at the same time as a major schism develops in Europe between the 'new Europeans' of
the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech republic and the old Europeans of France germany italy and
spain, the amerikan empire will have killed two birds with one stone.
I reckon the European schism
won't be splintering along such neat and tidy fault lines if it splinters at all, however.
While the old school euro politicians may be reluctant to go to war, I am unsure their military
leadership shares that view.
For too long Nato command structures have been trained with an American ethos and a value set likely
to see war as being 'a good thing'. The alacrity with which Nato tossed its European defense goal
aside to jump into Afghanistan and then encouraged Nato members to deploy to then, despite both deployments
being at odds with the wishes of their fellow citizens, ably illustrates the fault line between political
and military leadership which successive euro pols have desperately tried to conceal from their voters
In the immediate post war period the euro governments had little say in the matter but with the
occasional exception of france the bulk of european pols have been content to let amerika pick up
the training tab for staff officers. With the short term goal orientation typical of elected leaders,
most euro pols chose to believe they were getting 'free' training for their military commanders, rather
than the truth - that europe was paying vast sums for a military whose commanders would dance the
washington jig.
The short-sightedness of europe's pols has them choking their Greek brothers and sisters while
the euro continues to decline yet the US$ arcs ever upwards, and never asking themselves "why are
we working so hard to help amerika at the expense of fellow europeans?"
I have no doubt however much Merkel and co claim to oppose a full on war with Ukraine; instigated
at least in part by their own military leaders whose patriotism must be open to question, that in
the end they will acquiese to Nuland's strategy.
Not to do so would rquire vision and personal courage both of these in short supply among euro
neo-liberals.
Especially for Merkel there is an easy out. All she needs to do is to tap into the just below
the surface and rarely enunciated beliefs of a substantial number of her fellow citizens - that Germany
has the 'right' to expand its influence further east.
He is "President" yes, but is he really? Or is he just a token face for the McCain´s and the other
white House plantation owners to hold up for the 99%, a mere House n*gger?
Everytime the man open his mouth accompanied as always by his Telepromter or advisors, even then
puerile stupidities ansd ridicolous threats comes out. I think he is doing a better characterization
of himself than the North Koreans possibly could imagine...
The whole purpose of NATO from inception was to undermine and suborn the military
command of the NATO members military forces to US control for the benefit of the Empire. To have
leverage of those militaries and direct command influence outside of their 'sovereign' governments.
To keep Germany 'down'. Many Non-US-UK NATO officers are very aware indeed of what NATO really is,
US provided 'training' or not. De Gaulle was well aware of the threat and gave NATO 'the finger' many
times.
Five-eyes military officers are routinely utilized by their intelligence agencies to actively and
aggressively cultivate and suborn any military officer who is not Five-eyes. The same process is aggressively
pursued by the intelligence agencies against their counterparts amongst their tier three and four
pseudo-allies such as Germany, France, Italy, etc. This has been going on for many decades.
The Chinese learnt this lesson during WWII and under no circumstances allow any officer with Operational/Line
command in the PLA to have direct contact with US military counterparts except under very strict circumstances.
The PLA has a dedicated corps of officers to conduct such interaction and liasion who will never
be given PLA Operational/Line commands in their career as a result. To say the least, this really
pisses the US off no end. A PR/Liaison officer in the PLA is of no use as an agent or future agent
of influence given such policies, bummer.
These 'harmless' military-military and intelligence-intelligence interactions have been the very
basis/foundation stone of the vast majority of the coups and destabilization operations the US has
conducted on every continent since WWII.
There is the Five-eyes and then every other country on the planet, who are merely given different
ratings of 'hostile' or 'enemy' and treated accordingly, regardless of any public utterings re so
called 'alliances' and 'partnerships'.
'Old Europe' has dragged its feet and more many times despite dictats from the US. Latin America
provides many examples of where the US polices/actions are ultimately counter-productive, compare
its current state to the 60's-70's-80's absolute US dominance.
Regardless of US Neoliberal politics/virus the serving militaries of NATO as a whole would be bound
more tightly to their own communities and individual national interests, should push come to shove,
me thinks, given histories lessons.
IF the EU is to get out from under US domination/control/influence which is more and more
counter to its own and europes interests (and many of its individual nations interests), it has to
create separation of its intelligence services from the Five-eyes and take back control of its own
military commands and agencies. A very big IF indeed ...
The civil war in Ukraine has exposed a fundamental rift between the US and Europe in terms
of vision and goals for the region, as powerful US hardliners are working tirelessly to escalate the
crisis with a broader agenda in mind, Der Spiegel news magazine said.
US hawks, including the likes of Victoria Nuland, the head of European affairs at the US State Department,
and General Philip Breedlove, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, are seeking to destabilize Russia
and undermine its influence. To that end they are trying to heighten tensions between the West and
Russia over Ukraine, undermining peace efforts led by Germany and France. Although the US president
currently supports the European initiative, he has "done little to quiet those who would seek to increase
tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine," Der Spiegel said.
A relatively calm situation in Ukraine's eastern regions following the latest Minsk agreements does
not play into the hands of US hawks. So instead of being cautiously optimistic that the ceasefire holds,
General Breedlove warned in late February that the situation "is getting worse every day."
These and many other remarks made by the top NATO European commander with regard to Russia's alleged
involvement in the Ukrainian crisis "stunned" and "alarmed" German leaders, since these claims are
often not supported by the data provided by Germany's foreign intelligence agency BND, the news magazine
said.
General Breedlove "repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements,"
Der Spiegel pointed out. However, he refused to revise them telling the media outlet that "it is normal
that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide."
Berlin is concerned that Breedlove's stance "could harm the West's credibility," Der Spiegel said.
Consequently, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is determined to discuss the issue with
his American counterpart John Kerry to rule out any possible misinterpretations in the future. However,
on Saturday, Steinmeier downplayed the US-German differences highlighted in Der Spiegel's article by
emphasizing that German officials "have no interest in any dispute emerging from this."
Indeed, German authorities "have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary
prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding,
but the dispute [between Germany and the US] is a fundamental one - and hinges on the question of whether
diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action," Der Spiegel said.
Moreover, while
Germany and France seek to stabilize situation in Ukraine, US hardliners seem to have a different goal
in mind. "For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow," the magazine said.
What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity
or intelligence. Smear Campaigns, Bullying, Flattery ... All set of tricks of female sociopaths...
What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity
or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender.
But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in
American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.
Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language
in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting
as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel
eye.
Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged
to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador
to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government
in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it
is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should
or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.
We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev,
Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was
an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare
the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans
have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from
afar.
But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own
admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal
breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering
a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k
the EU."
What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt
for international law and norms.
Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top
negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the
American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle
for a brain.
Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose
and moronic than her male American peers.
Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming
negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well
as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.
Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra
of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the
government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.
Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the
same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went
on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That
is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.
"Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and
Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof
and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.
The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran:
"What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms
of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments,
or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp
up new sanctions."
Remember that Sherman and her State Department boss John Kerry are considered "soft on Iran" by
the likes of Menendez, John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Mark Kirk, and the other political psychopaths
in Washington. So, we can tell from Sherman's callous words and mean-minded logic that the scope for
genuine rapprochement between the US and Iran is extremely limited.
Sherman finished her performance before the Senate panel with the obligatory illegal threat of
war that Washington continually issues against Iran: "We retain all options to ensure that Iran cannot
obtain a nuclear weapon."
In the goldfish-bowl environment of Washington politics, perhaps such female officials are to be
even more feared. The uniform monopoly of America's political class is dictated by militarism – weapons
manufacturers, oil companies and Zionist lobbyists. The only way to "succeed" in this cesspool is to
be even more aggressive and imperialist than your peers.
Nuland and Sherman illustrate the cold-hearted logic at work in American robotic politics: it's
a system programmed for imperialism and war, and it doesn't matter whether the officials are Democrat,
Republic, male or female. They are all clones of a war criminal state.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles
published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career
in journalism.
Nuland somewhat reminds Madeleine
Albright. Both are so fund of bulling their opponents, that probably might be classified as female
psychopaths... As one commenters
noted "I take it that
"hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of temperament?"
While Russia's envoy to NATO notes that statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the
fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia's internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan," Washington has a bigger problem... Germany.
As Der Spiegel reports, while US President Obama 'supports' Chancellor Merkel's efforts at
finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, hawks in Washington seem determined to
torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either
with sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous
propaganda."
Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back
the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy
concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia,
even saying "I love Russia." Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged
to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.
She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been
known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov,
who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland
basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan
protests. "No violence against the protesters or you'll fall," Nuland told him according to Asarov.
She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the
country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the
protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the
country would be made public.
Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European
weakness and is famous for having said "Fuck the EU" during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis
in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the
originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to
realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.
When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove
work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two
gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's
resistance to arming Ukraine.
On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who
began coaching. "While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case
that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians
defend against these systems," Nuland said. "It is defensive in nature although some of it has
lethality."
Jurassic
general Breedwar or Breedhatred? Hes war maniac!
cossack55
Typical wingnut general. Notice you don't hear the grunts talkin' shit. Gotta go. Dr.
Strangelove is about to start.
XqWretch
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best that 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 in
America, 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.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same way in any country.
bania
Breedlove? Heading up an army? Can't make this stuff up!!!
Took Red Pill
"Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine." We all are!
chunga
Hmmm...Nudelman and Kagan aren't from Mars or Venus are they?
Urban Redneck
Frau Ferkel is just a muppet cocktease, and so is the "concern". It's nothing but political
cover for the political whores. If they were seriously alarmed, they would simply revoke General
Ripper's diplomatic credentials and issue an arrest warrant for the psychopath.
On a reporting trip to Saudi
Arabia seven years ago, I went to Idi Amin's house. I had heard that Mr. Amin, the former Ugandan
dictator who died last weekend at the age of 78, was living in Jidda, the Red Sea port, and I
wanted to see for myself. Was it possible that a man who, in the 1970's, had ordered the deaths of
300,000 of his countrymen, raped and robbed his nation into endless misery and admitted to having
eaten human flesh was whiling away his time as a guest of the Saudi government?
It was. There, in a spacious villa behind a white gate, Mr. Amin made his home with a half-dozen
of his 30 or so children. He was not there the day I rang (a son said he was out of town), but
locals said he could often be seen pushing his cart along the frozen food section of the
supermarket, being massaged at the health club, praying at the mosque. He had long ago abandoned
his British-style military uniform for the white robe of the Saudi man, but as an African
measuring 6-foot-3 and nearly 300 pounds, he did not exactly blend in.
A former Sudanese colonel who worked as a manager at the local supermarket said, "People greet him
and say, `Hello, Mr. President.' " Why? Wasn't he a savage dictator?
"Oh yes" he used to eat people," the manager replied, laughing. "But this is our nature. We
forget."
But what would prompt the Saudi government to play host to such a man?
The answer, when the question was posed to Saudi officials, was an excursion into the desert
habits of hospitality, and Mr. Amin's conversion to Islam. His support for the Arab boycott of
Israel in the 1970's certainly also endeared him to his hosts.
During the nearly quarter-century of his soft exile, no nation tried to bring Mr. Amin to justice.
A few years ago, after Spain's government went after Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet,
Human Rights Watch did bring up Mr. Amin's case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,
but to no avail. Under international law, any nation, including Saudi Arabia, could have and
should have prosecuted Mr. Amin.
But, as Reed Brody, special counsel for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch, says, "If you kill one
person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go to an institution for the insane; if you kill
20,000, you get political asylum." Mr. Brody keeps a melancholy map on his wall of other tyrants
gone free: Alfredo Stroessner, dictator of Paraguay, lives in Brazil; Haiti's Raoúl Cedras is in
Panama; Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia is in Zimbabwe; Hissí¨ne Habré of Chad lives in Senegal.
Today there is the International Criminal Court, which can bring a future Amin to justice,
although the United States is among 100 countries that have shortsightedly declined to participate
in the court.
I was sorry not to have had a chance to talk to Mr. Amin
directly. But those who did speak with him suggest that I missed little. An Italian journalist,
Riccardo Orizio, asked him in 1999 whether he felt remorse. No, Mr. Amin replied, only nostalgia.
Six years earlier, a British writer, Tom Stacey, saw him. At one point, Mr. Amin pulled from his
pocket a paraphrase of Psalm 22 and commented: "Remember we are special to God. He sees a beauty
in us few see."
Harbanger
"The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the
anti-Stalinist LEFT to the camp of American conservatism."
-Straight from the definition for the morons that don't know how to do research..
I continue to believe that the US
goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,
and thousands of Ukrainian lives, both of which are truly dirt cheap in Washington's calculus.
This is to be followed by the USA's ultimately just walking away, leaving a broken Ukraine for its
neighbors, chiefly Russia, to reconstruct.
Every now and then, though, some US spokes-toady makes statements that imply that the USA actually
wants a major war... with Russia. I hope and pray that this is merely Grand Chessboard Theatre,
but I am starting to have doubts. For a taste of the motivational fare now offered to US
"conservatives", you might want to take a look at the recently posted anit-Russia piece posted at
National Review, which openly calls for regime change in Moscow. It's a well-written polemic which
makes some sense... provided that you accept that Washington and Brussels are citadels of freedom
and human rights, Russians are ignorant, drunken blockheads, and Putin is evil incarnate.
sunaJ
"I continue to believe that the US
goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,"
In your estimation is the second
part of this Kansas City Shuffle being Syria and pipelines to Europe, or are they also symptoms of
some greater neocon fear, ie. Russian oil dominance in a petrodollar world?
Jack Burton
Breedlove is talking his book. His glory and promotions would increase and his power would
expand the more he can talk the NATO into war. Breedlove will be secure in the command bunker, and
like the Iraq war command, be fully secure while his men faced possible death and mutilation.
The text book for this is Yugoslavia. Europe had brokered a few peace deals, but the USA stepped
in and undercut them all with lies and flase intelligence, leading to several bloody wars. Right
now Washington seeks the Yugoslavia solution, a long bloody war.
Ignatius
"According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan
Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made
public."
Did Nuland also say that about Occupy to the Obummer administation?
Escrava Isaura
Ohh Boy.
The US military industrial complex doesn't care about European press, or America press, for
that matter. US military industrial complex doesn't' even care who the President is.
Do you think the US military complex cares if the US government bails out lots of big
lemons-banks, insurance, auto makers, airlines, and food stamps to the working poor? No, they
could care less, because US military industrial complex is immune to budget constraints and they
are the biggest supporters of failing industries and projects.
Do you think that the US military complex cares for what industries the analysts and brokers at
an investment firms such as JP Morgan, Goldman, or Rothschild's picks as winners for government
contracts or a stock market bubble? Hell no, because they are the biggest winners.
So, the Germans are stunned about NATO? Are you kidding me?
Germany and NATO are branches of the US military industrial complex.
johngaltfla
Obama is a Neocon?
Who'dathunkit!??!!?
In reality, the world is sick of this bullshit. I'm sick of it. Rand Paul's approach is 1000%
correct; quit meddling!
Germany is correct to object to this because if we get involved in the Ukraine with Poland then
Russia will be outside of Berlin with several brigades of tanks in days. The US nor NATO are ready
for a major multi-front conflict unless they use nukes.
Which wouldn't be all that bad because some of the US cities we would lose are a major part of the
economic drag and societal/political problems we have at this time....
Never mind. Fire away boys.
krage_man
The instutute of US presidency is shockingly weak.
Basically, very little can Obama do if all career burocrats continue doing what they always doing.
Obama is not able to get control of the goverment staff which demonstrate how weak leader he is
and how unimportant any political office change is for foregn policy.
Dems or Reps - no matter who is there will always be criminal actions on the world scine.
sunaJ
Germany needs to wake up NOW to the fact that this country is commanded by psychopathic,
warmongering neocons, mitigated only by a willfully cluless and gutless president. NATO will prove
a deathtrap for Germany.
max2205
Don't expect a lot of help from the old axis countries, Germany Italy Japan......neutered
Questan1913
Good point...but let's elaborate further: The US wrote the constitutions of Japan and Germany
after the end of WWll. It also continues to occupy, militarily, both countries with approximately
50,000 military personnel in each and a huge naval presence in Japan.
Neither conquered country has been able to recover a shred of its former sovereignty for 70
years! They are vassal states subject to the most ruthless hegemonic power since the Roman empire.
ebworthen
If Germany were really concerned about NATO they'd kick the U.S. Armed Forces out.
This is political banter; the Germans need Russian NatGas and are playing both sides.
They have guilt over the death of 20+ million Russians in WWII, but Russia is en export market -
and they don't want their Eastern flank open.
Just like Greece; they feel bad about WWII, but they want a downtrodden island to vacation on too.
And Neocons? Both the Left and the Right are war happy pumpers of the M.I.C. here in the U.S.A.
nope-1004
Dude.... it's US hegemony at risk here. Pipelines and what not. Read up, pull your head out of
the sand, and watch US foreign policy implode on itself. After all, WTF is the US meddling in
Europe for anyway? Why are they there? What does the Ukraine have that the US or Russia needs?
It's all about energy and how it flows to customers. The US has the most to lose, which is why
they created the coup to overthrow the previously elected government in Ukraine.
They are, without question, the most hypocritical government to ever grace God's green earth. They
say one thing publicly and do the opposite in practice. And it appears they've got you sucked in
too.
malek
Two points:
1. The headline to me seems to indicate the path for the usual whitewash towards the "Democrats":
currently a few US Neocons came to head the "Democratic" party like wolves in sheep clothing, but
overall the leftists still hold the moral highground!
2. It is curious German magazine Der Spiegel doesn't mention it's own role in this, posting a
headline STOP PUTIN NOW on it's frontpage after MH-17 had been shot down.
JustObserving
The Nobel Prize Winner and the Neocons have always wanted to put Russia in its place and the
destabilization of Ukraine was the starting point. It was payback for Putin protecting Assad and
granting asylum to Snowden. USA wants Russia on its knees and complete full spectrum domination
with no one to question US hegemony and infinite spying. Unfortunately Putin stands in the way and
he must be demonized and destroyed.
Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine
On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.
She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
She absurdly called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free
and at peace.' "
Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia's heartland – with menacing US
bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.
Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs
"peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
"They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new
nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and
political reforms."
Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych's police showed remarkable restraint.
Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and
other violence.
Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy
whatever.
Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in
return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.
Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a
US-installed fascist dictatorship.
The basis of neocon philosophy is a LIE, that if you don't have a real enemy just make shit up.
How then can one "debate" a neocon with anything other than a baseball bat?
Their starting point is that neocons will lie if they have to and probably also just for the fun
of it.
Psychopaths.
JustObserving
The Nobel Prize Winner has bombed 7 Muslim countries, destabilized Ukraine, attempted a coup in
Venezuela, lied about sarin use in Syria to almost start a war, assassinated US citizens without a
trial, regularly drones women and children and wedding parties and yet is the most admired man in
the world in a Gallup poll in 2014. I would cry at humanity's stupidity, cruelty and corruption
but I prefer to laugh. You love your lying war criminals then you will get lot more war.
Nuland's career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely
died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill
Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that
Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the
interests of Russia's ally, Serbia.
markar
Angie needs to end her triangulating charade and choose sides. Keeping a foot in the Russian
door while appeasing her Neocon masters in the West won't work much longer. She knows Obama is a
spineless puppet who won't back her and Ukraine is a failed state run riot by neo Nazi thugs and
oligarchs.
What's it going to be Angie, an act of heroism or taking Germany down with the Western ship?
lesterbegood
Angie like Obama, Nuland, et al, is another political puppet/spokesperson for the power behind
the money.
Winston Churchill
Which means her puppet masters are changing horses mid race.
No honor amongst thieves and/or psychopaths.
HowdyDoody
I wonder what on earth the CIA/NSA has on her that keeps her putting the interests of the US
above her own country.
Wile-E-Coyote
Come on Germany tell the USA to fuck right off............................. won't happen.
css1971
35 US military bases in Germany say you are absolutely correct.
Son of Loki
Simply look at the quality of our State dept -- Nuland, etc -- The average IQ and emotional
intelligence there has to be at an all-time low.
Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thoroughly
versed in history, politics, economics and debate.
yogibear
"Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thorougly
versed in history, politics, economics and debate."
People are used to dumb and dumber DC. It matches the rest of the country.
Stumpy4516
The statespeople may have been more intelligent at one time but their actions (covert murders,
regime change, wars, etc.) have always been the same.
From comments: "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland,
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick,
Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their
crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the
Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.
Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir
the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales,
Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.
RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally
improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?
Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to
see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is
failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the
conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been
bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and
their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon
camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq;
they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.
RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do
you think she can she be challenged on these topics?
DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we
have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is
much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war.
So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any.
We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds
of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an
escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?
RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?
DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of
the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph
Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to
Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever
that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal
weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military
industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.
RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of
sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?
DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that
the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity.
I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of
unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.
Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He
served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) for 12 years.
Frank Wolstencroft
Victoria Nuland was appointed as an assistant US Secretary of State by none other than Killary
Klinton.
Armand Geddon
Tony Blair
May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us. Texas
, california & new mexico.more...
There no need. Obama and our corrupt Congress have already opened the border for the illegals
to just walk right in and take it!
"Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett,
as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes
against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal
Reserve, IMF, and ECB.
ifigeniaa
She is responsible for the thousands of death in eastern Ukraine.
Tony Blair
May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us.Texas ,
california & new mexico. These jews in the white house like victoria newlandberg, john kerrberg &
the rest of them look like ugly vultures sitting on the branches of a dead tree.
Brigitte Meier
Nulands lies are only a very complicated way of saying that the US policy in Ukraine failed. It
was based on the assumption that the Ukraine army would make short shrift with the rebels. When
that didn't work there really wasn't any plan B. That all what Nuland says is lies is already
confirmed with the false photos Kiev sent to the US Congress of Russian tanks - which turned out
to have been photographed in Georgia. "Who cares, its the only picture we've got of them Russian
tanks". Good enough to admit under cover that Kiev lost the war and with it the US lost its policy
goal. Russia isn't faltering despite the sanctions. Putin has a 86% positive rating. And Kiev is
bankrupt and really can't move anymore. Time for the US to think of getting Ukraine's riches and
split until more neo-Nazis can be trained in Poland to destabilize both the EU and Ukraine which
hopefully will then be enough to throw Russia into turmoil too.
Nuland was funny: the destruction caused by the rebels in Donbas - not the destruction caused by
the Ukraine army who attacked Donbas! The rebels destroyed the airport - but the Ukraine army did
most of the destruction to make the airport unusable for the rebels. Now they have to go fight for
Mariupol - I'm sure the Ukraine army wants to destroy the port there too so as not to leave it for
use by the rebels. And Nuland can then describe it all again in inversions. What she was really
saying is that the Ukraine army caused abhorrent devastation, specifically of residential areas -
in the winter - to prevent the population of Donbas from staying in the Donbas. Clearly, an action
of ethnic cleansing as the Israelis do in Palestine. it is also clear that the Congress understood
that and is dismayed. It destroys the image of the US as the great bringer of democracy and
freedom - especially with the bankruptcy, the cut in payments on all levels and hyperinflation of
272%. Genuine freedom to starve. And Kerry still wants to believe that the problem is just that
the US isn't spending enough on PR! Does he really think that the Russians will look at US PR
rather than at the reality in Donbas and Kiev? Why would any Russian still believe in the positive
intentions and influence of the US? At best, people will make fun of the US ingenuity to invent
PR.
The United States elite no longer bothers about limiting the conflict after color revolution and
avioding civil war. It puts its cards on the table without fear and doesn't give a damn about the
United Nations, international law or critics inside or outside the country, which it regards as
impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a leash, the
pathetic and supine Great Britain. (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html.)
Quote: "Let's be clear; "US interests" aren't the interests of the American people, either. They're
the interests of military careerists and contractors hoping to profit from yet another conflict. "
Comment by Victoria Nusland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs,
might be the first time a senior official has used the term publicly
piper909 -> Bud Peart 4 Mar 2015 22:08
Mineral resources, industrial development, lots of fertile cropland, and proximity to the Black
Sea and Near East are all reasons enough for the Ukraine to be a prize for any conqueror, from the
days when it was the breadbasket of the Athenian Empire to the Second World War when Hitler's lust
for it caused him to overreach his armies' capacities in 1941 and 1942 (and probably saved Moscow
and/or Leningrad from capture).
Now it's the Americans and NATO who want to control this territory, and complete the
encirclement of Russia.
piper909 4 Mar 2015 22:00
This woman is an utter fraud. She's been actively promoting an agenda to orchestrate and
control the entire Ukrainian revolution and aftermath. She is a paid tool of the not-so-secret US
neo-con policy of encircling Russia with NATO puppets and doing anything possible to weaken
Russia's ability to block American hegemonic interests or to court European allies. She has
absolutely no credibility in this matter as any kind of spokesperson except as a known agent of
the US state dept. and CIA if her tongue were any more forked it could be laid on the table next
to a knife and spoon.
Russia set troops, Russia sent troops... Where are then Russian POWs? Ukraine failed to produce
a single one for the entire year! All proofs of Russian involvement are coming from Facebook and
other similar sources.
US claimed that they have proofs, but would not show them because they are secret... How good
is that? But still repeating their mantras-good only for complete f..wits
Chirographer -> Bob Vavich 4 Mar 2015 21:51
What about the Israeli PM speaking against Obama's policy in the US Congress? Should he have
been arrested too?
annamarinja -> irgun777 4 Mar 2015 21:30
Would not it be better for humanity if Mrs. Nuland-Kagan were a bartender? Unfortunately for
many, she pretends to be a diplomat, a person of knowledge and wisdom, whereas she is just a
bad-mouth and a half-wit with poor manners and aggressive personality.
Aris Tsihlis -> greven 4 Mar 2015 21:19
Greven That's an extremely far stretch comparing Putin to Hitler! Me personally I haven't
forgotten how things played out it started with a coup d'état sponsored by the US government!
And
if I look at the map NATO is on Putin doorstep not the other way around! Stop trying to spin the
facts I heard the conversations the witch above was having on who they were going to place in
charge! Sell it to somebody else I ain't buying your narrative of the story!
BorninUkraine -> Metronome151 4 Mar 2015 21:18
Ukrainian joke.
Russians asks:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there is Russian army there.
- But you say there is Russian army in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really is Russian army.
BorninUkraine -> DoyleSaylor 4 Mar 2015 21:08
You are wrong, this was a success, although incomplete (NATO won't have a naval base in
Crimea). The US stirred up s..t in Ukraine to force Europe to act against its interests and join
the "sanctions". So, the US hit two birds, Russia and EU competitors, with one stone. If anyone
was and still is dumb, it's Europeans following US orders.
bagart -> Old_Donkey 4 Mar 2015 20:57
Angela Merkel and this joker Hollande brokered only increased bloodletting and for a year
opened Ukrainian border for Russia, like declaring inability of Ukraine to govern.
This was scam
not peace brokering. For what purpose border was left to be controlled by Russia, if Russia is
officially not engaged in conflict?
Aris Tsihlis -> bagart 4 Mar 2015 20:52
The Russians are not in the Ukraine! Russia volunteers probably but there are a lot of other
volunteers from other countries also! Serbs, Greeks of Ukrainian origin etc.etc.
And do me a favor
stop being a Neo-con apologist!
Bud Peart 4 Mar 2015 20:46
Yes Russia has sent troops and militias into Ukraine to support Eastern Ukrainians. I don't
think many realistically deny this. Does it constitute and invasion? Probably yes.
Does the Ukrainian government's 'anti terror' operation constitute ethnic cleansing and war
crimes? Probably yes.
Does Nuland's direct material support for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine
constitute a coup? Probably Yes.
Does the Ukrainian government use Neo Nazi militias including foreign fighters from Poland and
Croatia in its ethnic cleansing. Probably yes.
It would be nice if the 'liberal left' trendies at the Guardian could for once quit their pro
establishment dribble and start providing objective analysis. This crisis has the potential to
ignite a nuclear war and we need to start analyzing it without emoting Luke Harding style
hysteria.
Cynndara -> Aris Tsihlis 4 Mar 2015 20:36
Let's be clear; "US interests" aren't the interests of the American people, either. They're
the interests of military careerists and contractors hoping to profit from yet another conflict.
Playing nuclear chicken is in nobody's interests, and people like Nuland who think they can
continuously poke at Putin WITHOUT raising the possibility of nuclear war are arrogant idiots, the
kind who always think they're too smart to make a mistake until they do. And people die from it.
The NSA can add this comment to my copious file. Let me know when you're coming over, boys in
black, and I'll bake a Devil's Food cake.
British neocons start realizing the size of the damage Ukrainian coup d'état inflicted of GB & EU...
But they still follow the US like an obedient poodle... And it is funny that the color revolution staged by the West
in Ukraine they call "plans for closer relations with Ukraine"
The UK and the EU have been accused of a "catastrophic misreading" of the mood in the Kremlin in
the run-up to the crisis in Ukraine. The House of Lords EU committee claimed Europe "sleepwalked" into the crisis.
The EU had not realized the depth of Russian hostility to its plans for closer relations with Ukraine,
it said.
... ... ...
Sir Andrew Wood, former British ambassador to Russia, agreed with the report's assessment, calling
the situation a "dangerous moment" because Russia's frustrations could overspill into other areas,
with increasing pressure on Baltic states.
"Ukraine has not made prepayment for gas on time," Mr. Miller said at a news conference in Russia,
local news agencies reported. He added that the time needed for Kiev to make a payment "will result
in a total end to supplies of Russian gas to Ukraine in just two days, which poses serious risks
for gas transit to Europe."
However, Ukraine says it has already paid for all the gas it requested for this year, and for
an additional 287 million cubic meters not yet ordered. Kiev is now accusing Russia of violating
an
agreement reached in October, under which Ukraine paid $3.1 billion in past gas bills and Gazprom
resumed supplies on a prepaid basis. That agreement was expected to keep Ukraine fully supplied with
gas through the winter.
The dispute seems to hinge at least in part on the gas that Russia has delivered to the breakaway
regions in eastern Ukraine, which it says counts toward the total Kiev bought in advance. Earlier
this month, Gazprom said it would supply
natural gas directly to the regions, which are largely controlled by separatists, because it
said the Ukrainian government had shut off supplies. Gazprom said that it would charge Ukraine for
that gas, and that the amount of gas supplied to the east would be deducted from Ukraine's prepaid
allotment.
Kommersant, the Russian business newspaper, reported that Gazprom had slowed deliveries over pipelines
crossing Ukrainian-controlled parts of the border, while opening the spigots to two pipelines leading
directly to rebel-held territory.
The gas diversion highlights a broader Russian strategy in eastern Ukraine of assuring its political
and military control over the breakaway enclave while avoiding the economic burden of caring for
the population, estimated at about three million people. In the truce talks, President Vladimir V.
Putin held out for measures to ensure that the Ukrainian authorities would pay public-sector wages
and pensions and reopen banks.
Gazprom, Kommersant reported, rejected the Ukrainian government's argument that gas delivered
to rebel territory could not be counted against its prepaid volumes, at least because Naftogaz, the
state energy company, could not send meter readers to the two border crossing points, Prokhorov and
Platovo, to confirm deliveries.
As the gas Ukraine had already paid for flowed into their territories, separatist leaders went
on local television to thank Russia and Mr. Putin. "We thank the Russian Federation and Vladimir
Vladimirovich, as Russia is again extending its hand to help, giving warmth," said the leader of
the Luhansk People's Republic, Igor Plotnitsky. "Thank you, Russia."
Mindful of how Russia has used gas as a political weapon, Ukraine has taken strong steps in recent
months to reduce its dependence on it. Ukraine and Slovakia reached a deal for reverse piping of
gas already purchased in Europe, and a separate deal to buy gas from Norway.
And despite Mr. Miller's comments, there was no reason to believe that Europe would find itself
short of gas as a result of the dispute. Europe, too, has reduced its dependence on Russian gas by
engaging other suppliers, and in recent months has built up reserves in anticipation of potential
difficulties with Russia.
Russia, while controlling the supply, is in turn dependent on Ukraine to allow gas through its
pipelines to other customers in Europe. Painfully aware of that reliance, Russia has sought to cut
Ukraine out by building a new pipeline under the Black Sea and through Turkey.
The continuing gas dispute demonstrated the extent to which Ukraine would still be at Russia's
mercy even without the war against Russian-backed separatists. Fighting, however, has continued despite
the cease-fire brokered this month in Minsk, Belarus, and on Tuesday, the foreign ministers of Russia,
Ukraine, France and Germany met in Paris in a bid to get it back on track. It did not appear that
they had much success.
In a statement after the meeting, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said the four nations
remained committed to the Minsk accord and were demanding that all sides observe the truce without
exception.
Furthermore, according to RIA, on Tuesday, Ukrainian television channel Ukraina announced that with
the new exchange rate, the minimum wage in Ukraine stands at around $42.90 per month, which
according to the channel, is lower than in Ghana or Zambia.
There are currently
no plans to raise the minimum wage until December.
Behold hyperinflation:
"Food prices among producers rose 57.1 percent, with the price for grains and vegetables
rising 91 percent from January 2014 to January 2015, while the official inflation rate
over the period totaled 28.5 percent.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian consumers responded to economic difficulties by cutting their spending
in hryvnias by 22.6 percent, which amounts to an almost 40 percent decrease in real consumption."
Nothing to fear though: we are sure all that hard-earned US taxpayer-lent money will be safe and
sound.
Latina Lover
Exactly 1 year after the USSA sponsored Kiev Coup:
-tens of thousands killed in a civil war
-currency destroyed
-unemployment more than doubled
-millions of Ukie refugees in Russia
-central bank is bankrupt
-fascist oligarchs get even richer while the poorest earn less than most africans
-fracking and rampant GMO production, ruining the best farmland in europe.
Mission Accomplished!
Never One Roach
"The Ukraine is not Zimbabwe!"
My guess is the politburo in Kiev never miss a 7-course dinner ....
We Weimar'd some folks via color revolution instead of WWI. Mission Accomplished... "Russia will
cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in "three or four days," President Vladimir
Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas transit to Europe."
The Hryvnia weakened over the weekend to UAH 30 vs. the USD, prompting the Ukrainian
authorities to tighten FX controls and to intervene by a reported US$80mn today, and
causing a further weakening of the currency to UAH 40 on the black market as of this
morning. While pressures have subsided somewhat (with black-market, mid-market spot now
around UAH 33), in our view, the current FX controls are only likely to provide temporary
relief to the currency and, thus, introduce risks that the authorities could tighten FX
controls further
... ... ...
There are several causes for the weakening of the Hryvnia:
Net private capital outflows (excluding net IMF/official sector flows), which
stood at an estimated US$10bn in 2014. This number excludes US$3.7bn in repayments to the
IMF and about US$4.5bn in debt service on external sovereign bonds.
Current account and trade deficits, due to the collapse in exports and despite the
fact that domestic demand has weakened sharply.
Monetary financing of Ukraine's fiscal deficits.
While Ukraine's current account and trade balances should close as domestic demand
continues to contract and as the Hryvnia has weakened further, capital flight continues,
with bank FX deposit outflows of US$600-700mn/month in November-January. Moreover,
monetization of the deficit has accelerated as local banks are no longer able to absorb
domestic bond issuance. The share of domestic government bonds owned by the NBU has risen
to 71% in January, from 59% one year prior, with the share held by domestic banks falling
by the same amount (to 20%). Meanwhile, narrow money continues to grow at around 15-20%yoy,
at a time when domestic credit is now contracting by 10%yoy. While money supply growth in
the mid-single digits in a context of weak credit growth may have been offset for most of
2014 by large-scale FX interventions by the NBU, withdrawing liquidity, FX interventions
have slowed in H2-2014 and the NBU reportedly stopped intervening in February (although it
intervened once again by US$80mn today). This has caused assets on the NBU's balance sheet
to grow by about 60%yoy in recent months and by 8%mom in January (seasonally-adjusted).
In our view, with the economy and cash
demand weakening, domestic credit shrinking and an absence of liquidity withdrawal via
interventions, money supply growth at the current pace will ultimately prove inflationary
and will cause the Hryvnia to weaken further.
While monetary financing of the deficit may debase the value of the Hryvnia in
the medium term, it is the shortage of FX in the system that has caused the proximate
pressure on the currency, as NBU reserves declined to US$6.4bn in January (4 weeks of
imports) and are likely to decline to US$5-5.5bn in February (3 weeks of import cover).
These international reserves include about US$1bn in monetary gold, so the liquid
amount of reserves is likely to fall to US$4-4.5bn in February (2.5
weeks of imports).
… raising short-term risks, until IMF funds arrive …
In our view, while the current FX controls may provide some temporary relief, pressure
is likely to continue to build on the Hryvnia until expectations stabilize, confidence is
restored, and the country's FX reserves are replenished. Given the poor liquidity and
destabilization of expectations in the FX market, the ongoing conflict in Donbass that
undermines confidence, and the continued need to import natural gas and other essential
goods and make external debt payments, these factors are likely to continue to
exert pressure on the Hryvnia, at least until the IMF Board approves the
newly-agreed program and makes its first disbursement. However, this will likely
take at a minimum 2-3 weeks and there are risks of delays. First, the authorities
must fulfil their prior actions for the program, and notably the Rada must approve a new
budget law. This is scheduled to take place in a session on March 3, although PM
Yatseniuk is attempting to accelerate this process by holding an extraordinary Rada session
to approve the legislation. Even if the session is moved forward, in our view,
there is no guarantee that the law will be approved immediately and delays are possible.
Once prior actions are fulfilled, the IMF Board can meet, approve the new program, then
disburse funds shortly thereafter. Our base case is that this will take place in
mid-March (the current board review date is reportedly scheduled for March 11), although it
is possible that this could be delayed. With the current pace of reserve depletion
and pressure build-up on the Hryvnia, it is possible that the IMF funds may not arrive
quickly enough. This raises the short-term risk of a significant further increase
in pressure on the Hryvnia.
… and implying potential need for emergency policy action
Given the balance of payments and monetary pressures on the currency, the authorities
and international donors, in our view, have several policy options. First, the Ukrainian
authorities could tighten FX controls further. In the extreme, this could potentially
involve a bank deposit freeze, a ban on retail FX purchases and/or moratorium on external
payments and complete closure of the capital account. Second, international donors
(bilateral lenders and IFIs) could recognize the fragility of the current situation and the
fact that the IMF timeframe may prove to be too slow to stabilize the currency.
Thus, in our view, the international community could make available emergency funds in the
coming days or weeks, effectively bridging financing for Ukraine until the IMF disbursement
arrives. However, bureaucratic, legal and political hurdles may exist to any
large-scale emergency disbursement to Ukraine, either bilaterally or multilaterally. Thus,
there is no guarantee that such emergency funds could or would be made available.
This introduces further short-term policy uncertainties.
Finally, the recent and sharp weakening of the Hryvnia, as well as significant recent
shifts in money demand and supply, could
necessitate an overhaul of some of the IMF's program assumptions and targets. In our view,
this could require further technical work on the part of the IMF and could cause additional
delays to disbursement of IMF funds. As the monetary and financial dynamics
evolve rapidly, so may the IMF's working program assumptions and the parameters of the
program.
actionjacksonbrownie
The truly crazy part of all this, is that the average ukrop "patriot" STILL thinks the
u.s. is only there to help them, and russia is the root of all evil.
The farce is strong
in this one.
Icelandicsaga.....
Mexico wont fade away .. we will harmonize . integrate . and become a bad case of
Brazil disease .. top crust and the millions below.WE will blend into NORTH AMERIC the
meme . .keep saying that NORTH AMERICA . . we are no longer USA . we are NORTH AMERICA ..
say it over and over again .... we already got the cartels and corruption and 20 million
illegals.. why not the entire enchilada. so to speak. Canada wont be too happy about it ..
we already tried to scam their water resources to fix water shortages in the southeast ..
they refused. but hey . there is always tomorrow... .
ThroxxOfVron
"Moreover, monetization of the deficit has accelerated as local banks are no longer
able to absorb domestic bond issuance. The share of domestic government bonds owned by the
NBU has risen to 71% in January, from 59% one year prior, with the share held by domestic
banks falling by the same amount (to 20%). Meanwhile, narrow money continues to grow at
around 15-20%yoy, at a time when domestic credit is now contracting by 10%yoy. While money
supply growth in the mid-single digits in a context of weak credit growth may have been
offset for most of 2014 by large-scale FX interventions by the NBU, withdrawing liquidity,
FX interventions have slowed in H2-2014 and the NBU reportedly stopped intervening in
February (although it intervened once again by US$80mn today). This has caused assets on
the NBU's balance sheet to grow by about 60%yoy in recent months and by 8%mom in January
(seasonally-adjusted). "
They are printing with complete wreckless criminal abandon:
bonds and currency!
The level of monetization is way more than triple what The US Treasury and The FED have
admitted to colluding together to float the system with as a gross percentage of bonds and
currency en todo. ..& The FED had a huge stock of MBS to soak as well as the global
payments system to disburse the emission to
This is a massive torrent of raw unsterilized counterfeiting of preposterous proportion to
the existing stock.
Christine LaGarde presonally sent the Ukrainians letters telling them to flat out stop it
or the IMF wouldn't give 'em any more emergency loans.
"We Weimar'd some folks."
This is gonna be one for the history books easily rivaling the German and Hungarian
tsunamis of the last century.
There is no way in hell this can be reversed or mitigated at this point. Ukraine is doomed
to suffer the full destructive force of a currency collapse. The damage is by no means
completed...
IMHO, regretably, the Ukrainian citizenry would have been far better off being quietly
wholly subsumed by Russia than face this tragedy. Everyone is trying to 'save' Ukraine (
for their own greedy purposes ) and they are burning it to the ground 'saving' it.
Disgusted and anguished do not fully convey the feelings I am experiencing...
IF you do such things as pray, you should pray for these people; -they are going to go
straight through Hell.
Majestic12
"IMHO, regretably, the Ukrainian citizenry would have been far better off being quietly
wholly subsumed by Russia than face this tragedy. "
Russia does not want their Nazi, lazy asses. Who would. The East is the center of industry
and called "restive". Oh, and they all speak Russian?
Who knew. Hard-working, productive, hard playing people, and they're Russian?
ThroxxOfVron
Partition would have been a better answer than what is unfolding.
Who would actually want the 'Nazi, lazy'? Average Ukrainians, the EU, the British, the
Israelis, the USA?
Unless I am mistaken the general consensus is that true Nazi types are not really welcome
in most 'polite' company.
They would be a dangerous fringe element no matter the constitution of the nation unless
they were to seize power and use it to disenfranchise the remainder, and any
fringe/minority ideological element that seizes power and disemfranchises the remainder
majority is unpopular no matter the ideology. See: Neocon, Neolib, Zionism, Feudalism,
1%er, Junta, Annanuki, etc...
The fact is that Ukraine only has a tiny minority that espouse such ideological concepts,
and I suspect many of these only use the imagery as a front for more classic mobsterism
and warlordism. Espoused Nazis may be a dominant militant organization in some parts of
Ukraine; but, I am doubtful that Ukraine is generally predominantly dominated by Nazi
ideology...
Motasaurus
That's what the support of the neo-Nazis is all about. They are just replaying WWII,
only slight further to the West. After all the original German Nazis were funded,
finances, politically supported and built by the Western powers terrified of being
voraciously murdered in bolshevic revolutions.
Of course those "powers" were played for fools by those who fund them. I am fairly
convinced that the entire 20th Century was simply a socio-psychological experiment to
determine whether National Socialism or Communism was a better method for controlling the
masses.
Jack Burton
The end game will have winners. Expect the usual suspects to walk away with some nice
profits. And the Ukrainian farm lands, fracking potential and what little of industry
remains, will all be sold to western baks for pennies on the dollar. Again, you can be
certain the usual suspects, whose name can not be mentioned, will own Ukraine.
The people went to Maidan on the promise of a German lifestyle and EU passports which
entail freedom of movement within the EU. Thus the mass exodus of youth for Paris, London,
Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Madrid. In the flush of freedom, at least 2 million youth will
move within weeks. More will follow as they arrange transport. Anywhere in Germany or west
of Germany will be their target sites.
czarangelus
I am incredulous watching the human citizens of this world take careful, precise aim at
their own feet. After thousands of years of written history of the same things not
working!
NoDebt
We're not repeating the mistakes of the past because we're unmindful of history. We're
being LED through this circle of rise and fall by the elites. That have it all mapped out.
Not to the day, but they know damned well the waypoints to make the turns.
Let me ask you something. When was the last time you heard a politician or banker talk
about avoiding the mistakes of the past? Never. They only talk about what "needs" to be
done next. And they walk the world around in a big circle like at the pony rides.
Supernova Born
"Russia will cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in "three or four
days," President Vladimir Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas
transit to Europe."
-RT
DutchBoy2015
Putin should have done that LONG ago. Fuck the NeoNazis of Kiev
Buckaroo Banzai
The "NeoNazis of Kiev" will do just fine no matter what. It's the average Ukrainian
that's going to get fucked.
suteibu
Our US democratically elected government, making friends...er...slaves all over the
world.
It's like the War on Poverty gone international.
At some point in near future, Americans traveling abroad will be considered suspected
terrorists requiring a local to vouch for an entry visa.
Motasaurus
Every "war on" in post WW2 history seems to have only created more of the thing. War on
drugs? More drugs. War on poverty? More poverty. War on terror? More terror.
What we need is a good old fashioned, openly declared war, but this time put it on
something useful like, manufacturing and the middle class.
We've got to stop this bullsh*t coming out of the ministry of truth where everything that
is "being supported" gets destroyed and everything that has been declared war on thrives.
krage_man
The chance of getting the money is gettin slim with each second. The parlament is
refusing to vote for the strings attached to it so far. It has a reason. Like after it,
payments for basic services - heat, gas, electicity will exceed average monthly salary!
Another condition is restructuring of the debt ( that is where 15bn come from) , which
Putin refuses.
IMF may give the money under pressure from US/EU to preserve the gas flow but this will
never be paid back. I question if donors would agree to lose money this way at all...
Ukraine need about 150 billions to recover..
Now, Ukraine has a couple of billions left and this is it, huge debt on salary to
goverment workers, no tax collection 30% fall of industrial output, etc. .... the state is
failing.. we should expect emergency UN food shipment in a few months...
markar
The US/EU/IMF will be pouring billions down this rathole they call a country to the
tune of trillions to keep this turd on life support-- until the asset stripping is
completed. China, Russia & the BRICs better start demanding something besides worthless $s
for their goods soon.
vincenze
Every Ukrainian will tell you that it's Putin's fault.
DutchBoy2015
I am sure Yats the Rat already has a couple of billion squirreled away and a place to
bail out to...
DutchBoy2015
This is a pretty good video ''Crimea for Dummies''
From my extensive travels around eastern Europe i find it incomprehensible that the
false lure of western riches by association still holds any sway.
In fact i struggle to find ANY evidence that any one of these countries has developed its
infrastructure or raised its standard of living in the last 20/25 years.
Mini-cab drivers, hotel work and strip clubs remain the top 3 occupations for those who
happen to escape.
"... Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered credentialed journalists in good
standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.
..."
"An editorial
operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body
know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the
relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will
be undermined...
The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers
allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself
is in peril."
A 'principled resignation' is a phenomenon somewhat unfamiliar to US readers. Rarely does
a public figure or a politician resign because they is something they won't do to get along.
They resign because they get caught doing something that is so repugnant to public sentiment that they
are finished, at least for a while. We have a marvelous way of excusing and ignoring behavior
in the selected elite that would shame a garbageman into changing their name and moving.
And so a decline in journalistic standards is not as great of an issue in the States, because the
major media was captured by a handful of corporations in the 1990's, in part thanks to Bill Clinton's
change in ownership rules.
So one might ask, what standards? What were the standards that allowed the lies that have
led to war, that covered up mass spying and torture, and that allowed one of the greatest thefts of
the public trust in history to occur in the 'bank bailouts,' with a coordinated suppression of any
meaningful protest?
Their standards have long been so low that journalist may be more of a hollow title on a
business card than a calling to a profession with time-honored standards.
In the States, journalistic independence and integrity were some years ago led down a blind alley,
and quietly strangled.
The capture of key institutions of democracy are already well underway or in place. Where
this leads, one cannot say. But it does not bode well.
Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered 'credentialed journalists' in good
standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.
...With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic
in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously
apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed...
This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one
newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There
is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power,
big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to
tell their readers the truth.
It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy
executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream
media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly
grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent
exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the
Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence
was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury,
as director of communications in 10 Downing Street...
This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged.
HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely
well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is
"the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked
whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with
the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.
Here are some selections from financial television. I do not mean to pick on CNBC.
Bloomberg and Fox are certainly no better, and in many ways probably worse.
And the mainstream media now pretty much follows the same patterns on its high gloss coverage whether
it be on television or in print.
But if you watch the shows on Sunday morning where very serious people come to discuss important
public and foreign policy issues of war and peace, basic freedoms, the economy, what you find is a
pre-sorted selection of talking heads hurling the latest ying and yang of corporatist spin
at each other, with the occasional honest individual, never to be invited again, who is harangued by
the network 'journalist.'
'Color revolutions' were becoming popular, as one country after another was falling into chaos,
the kind that produces fire sales in productive assets and the elimination of inconvenient local rivals
to power.
I have noticed lately that the spinmeisters are now latching on to the term 'currency war,' but
are trying to deflect it merely to an intensification of the beggar thy neighbor strategy of devaluing
your currency to subsidize exports and penalize imports.
This has been going on for a long time, most notably by the Asian Tigers, led by Japan and then
perfected by China. But make no mistake, the real heart of this process is in an Anglo-American banking/industrial
cartel that intends to beggar everybody.
The multinational corporations went along with it. They were its great lobbyists, and their wealthy
scions the founders of think tanks to provide it a rationale and respectability.
Walmart wrote a chapter in the new gospel of greed as a means of undermining wages and the American
working class by insisting, as far back as the 1990's and the Clinton era, that suppliers start offshoring
to China. And servile politicians opened the doors wide, and turned a blind eye to abuses that are
still coming home to roost.
Part of the arrangement was a quid pro quo. The multinationals, who successfully staged a financial
coup d'état in the States and Western Europe, were to extend the reach of their strong dollar policy
and europression via foreign direct investments in resources rich overseas nations and foreign markets
in order to consolidate their power into the non-democratic world.
But China and Russia balked at their end of the presumed bargain. They realized that opening their
own doors to dollar exploitation, and allowing the economic hitmen to come in and pick up assets on
the cheap, would lead to eventual political unrest, encirclement, and their own loss of power.
'Color revolutions' were becoming popular, as one country after another was falling into chaos,
the kind that produces fire sales in productive assets and the elimination of inconvenient local rivals
to power. And in Europe, the powers that be created a Eurozone structure that any decent economist
would know was unsustainable, and destined to create an unstable situation of few winners and many
big losers.
And so a consortium of nations began to resist. Some called them the BRICS. They became alarmed,
and then convinced, that allowing a single nation or group of multinationals to control the world's
reserve currency was like a Ponzi scheme that could only continue on until its acquired the whip hand
of power everywhere.
They started to speak up in international monetary organizations, long dominated by the Anglo-American
banking and industrial cartels. They demanded the establishment of a new monetary standard for international
trade that was broadly based, to replace the failed Bretton Woods Agreement that had continuing on
as the ad hoc dollar hegemony known as Bretton Woods II after Nixon arbitrarily broke the formal agreement
with the closing of the gold window in 1971.
And so we see a new phenomenon today, in which the long term selling of gold to control its price,
resulting in the post-Bretton Woods bear market that lasted over twenty years, has given way to net
gold buying by the world's central banks, and in increasing size. And the creation of a paper gold
market in parallel, through which the West seeks to control the price and supply of gold, to maintain
their financial operation while they more aggressively pursue nation recycling and repurposing, draconian
trade deals that supplant domestic governance, and when that fails, through internal insurgencies and
at times, overt military action.
Simultaneously, there are a proliferation of bilateral trade deals in which currency arrangements
are being made between countries, and even among small regional groups of nations, to conduct their
business outside of the US Dollar system. They are even building up their own financial networks and
infrastructure in response to increasingly aggressive use of sanctions and other forms of economic
pressure.
The US and UK, like China and Russia, are not immune to concerns about domestic unrest. A strong
dollar policy and the support for a policy of offshoring to increase corporate profits are wreaking
havoc on one of the world's greatest popular economic achievements: the US middle class.
Increasingly concerned, the governments are cracking down on any sparks of domestic dissent, targeting
leaders, vilifying and suppressing minorities, and increasing the surveillance of its own people. They
are weaponizing the domestic police forces, and establishing the 'legal means' by which control can
be maintained in the face of increasing misery and discontent at home.
It is not a pretty picture. It is an old story of greed and deceit, of empire and world conquest, of
the desolating sacrilege of betraying those who have fought for freedom and civil rights to cash in
for their own selfish gains.
Will this end in a new gold standard, as this article A New Gold Standard in the Making, which is
the source of these graphs suggests? I surely do not know, and still do not think so.
If you have been following the thought process here, going back before even the establishment of
this blog to 2000, I have felt that the most likely course will be the establishment of a new unit
of international currency, similar to but not the same as the SDR, with a far broader composition of
currencies and commodities included, so that no single group would be able to control it for their
own purposes.
Stagflation is no natural phenomenon. It is the act of man in a policy intervention or policy error
par excellence. Until OPEC was able to trigger a stagflation through their use of an oil embargo and
price cartel in the 1970's in the favorable conditions created by economic rot introduced by years
of discretionary, aggressive war in Southeast Asia and the ensuing debts, most economists thought it
to be impossible, and certainly not a 'natural' outcome.
I think that domestic reform will be coming, and this is necessary because no new monetary standard
is going to repair a system that has failed from within due to corruption and systemic injustice.
Old systems, even when they finally turn to visible abuse as they decline, can fail for a very long
time, seemingly unbeatable, until they finally collapse from within. This is how it was for the fall
of the old Soviet Union, and this is how it may be for the Anglo-American cartel and their attendant
nations like Germany and Japan.
It is still possible that Russia and China could make a deal with the Anglo-Americans and establish
a tri-partite world government, with their own spheres of control and interest. As you may recall this
was the way George Orwell saw it in 1984. I have been watching for that possible development based
on my own research on the growth of international capital markets and flows since 1990 at least. People
bring this up and so I wish to address it now, once and for all. I am aware of the possible deeper
significance of these developments from an eschatological perspective. But recall that even the great
apostle, who was 'lifted up to the third heaven,' was mistaken in his estimation of it, thinking it
a phenomenon of his own time. It is a mistake of vanity to go too far in such arcane and difficult
subjects, in pursuit of sick thrills that only serve to distract us from our call to the work of the
day, and the practical task of finding sanctity and salvation in the world.
How we will react to this individually is critical for our own long term survival as spiritual beings
regardless, since we all face our own ends individually. Of this we can be sure. We are told that most
will give in, despairing at the increase in wickedness, and seek for power and riches of their own
beyond all reason and grace. And it requires no end time to see this happening through all ages.
Change is coming. It may be a new arrangement that brings with it the blessing of reform, transparency
and justice through peaceful evolution. It may be delayed and more difficult. What cannot be sustained
will not continue.
This will end. But perhaps not very well. To a great extent that is up to us, unless we stand by
and do nothing. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." But
what shall I to do? Begin with yourself, despising only the fear and the evil in you. Do as you have
been instructed by the two great commandments, which have been implanted as a seed in your heart.
Quote: " This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia
trying to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication
of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western
news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is
regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such a
thing. But it makes good propaganda.
Since the Soviet collapse - as Moscow had feared - [the NATO] alliance has spread eastward, expanding
along a line from Estonia in the north to Romania and Bulgaria in the south. The Kremlin claims it
had Western assurances that would not happen. Now, Moscow's only buffers to a complete NATO encirclement
on its western border are Finland, Belarus and Ukraine. The Kremlin would not have to be paranoid to
look at that map with concern. -
Stars and Stripes (US Armed Forces newspaper), February 13, 2015.
The Minsk Agreement of February 12,
2015, was arranged by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine and contained important
provisions concerning future treatment of citizens in the Russian-speaking, Russia-cultured eastern
districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Ukraine where there has been vicious fighting between separatist
forces and government troops supported by militias.
Most Western media did not report that the accord was signed by the leaders of the provinces
(oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk as well as representatives of Russia and Ukraine, but the former two
matter greatly in implementation of its provisions.
To the disappointment of much of the West, and especially the United States, it appears that the
great majority of the inhabitants of these regions are to be granted much of what they have been seeking
(with robust support by Russia), which includes the right to speak and receive education in their birth-language;
restitution of pension payments and other central revenue moneys that were stopped by the Kiev government;
constitutional reform of Ukraine including "approval of permanent legislation on the special status
of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk"; and free local elections in the oblasts.
The way to peace will not be easy but the substance of the accord will go far to convincing
the people of the eastern oblasts that they will not in future be treated as second-class citizens.
They will be permitted an appropriate degree of decision-making in their regions, and if there is goodwill
on the part of the Kiev government there is reason to believe that fair governance could apply. A major
problem, however, is the attitude of the United States and Britain concerning Russia and Ukraine.
Neither the US nor the UK was privy to discussions between participants in the Minsk talks
except through technical intercept by their intelligence agencies and more intimate but necessarily
partial description by Kiev's President Petro Poroshenko, whose subordinates reported through US and
British conduits.
London and Washington were excluded from negotiations because neither wishes a solution that could
be agreeable to Russia and the Russian-cultured regions of east Ukraine.
Both are uncompromisingly intent on humiliating Moscow, and although Britain is verging on irrelevance
in world affairs except as a decayed and limited associate of the US in whatever martial venture may
be embarked upon by Washington, the US Congress and White House are for once in agreement and are
determined to destroy Russia's economy and topple its president and are being provocatively challenging
in pursuit of that aim.
There hasn't been such deliberate squaring-up politically and militarily since the height of the
last Cold War. President Barack Obama's speeches about Russia and President Vladimir Putin have
been bellicose, abusive and personally insolent to the point of immature mindlessness. He does
not realize that his contempt and threats will not be forgiven by the Russian people who, it is only
too often overlooked, are proud of being Russian and understandably resent being insulted.
Obama claimed last year that the US "is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world",
which was regarded with mild derision by many nations; but now Russians are realizing what he meant
by his chest-pounding, because America has fostered the Ukraine mess in attempting to justify its stance
of uncompromising aggression against them.
But Ukraine has nothing to do with the United States. It is on the border of Russia, not the US.
It is not a member of NATO. It is not a member of the European Union. It has no defense or political
treaty of any sort with the US. It is 5,000 miles - 8,000 kilometers - from Washington to Kiev and
it is doubtful if more than a handful of members of Congress could find Ukraine on a map.
In March 2014, the province of Crimea declared itself to be separate from Ukraine. There was a referendum
on sovereignty by its 2.4 million inhabitants. The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe
was asked to
monitor and report on the referendum, but
refused to do so. Both referendum and declaration were strongly
condemned by the United States.
Some 60% of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated,
and they voted to rejoin Russia from which they had been separated by the
diktat of Soviet chairman Nikita Khrushchev - a Ukrainian. It would be strange if they did not
wish to accede to a country that welcomes their kinship and is economically benevolent concerning their
future.
Russia's support for the people of eastern Ukraine - and there is indubitably a great deal of assistance,
both political and military, similar to that of the US-NATO alliance for the people of the breakaway
Kosovo region of Serbia in 2008 - is based on the fact that the great majority of people there are
Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and discriminated against by the Ukrainian government, just
as Kosovans were persecuted by Serbs.
So it is not surprising that the majority of inhabitants of the eastern areas of the Donetsk and
Luhansk oblasts want to "dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another" and be granted a large degree of autonomy
- or even join Russia. The US refuses to admit that they might have even the slightest justification
for their case.
There has been a US-led media campaign attempting to persuade the public, in the words of John Herbst,
former US ambassador to Ukraine, that President Putin's "provocations against the Baltic states, against
Kazakhstan, indicate his goals are greater than Ukraine.
If we don't stop Mr Putin in Ukraine we may be dealing with him in Estonia."
This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia trying
to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication
of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western
news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is
regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such
a thing.
But it makes good propaganda.
In similar vein, President Putin's statement to Ukraine's President Poroshenko that "If I wanted,
in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw
and Bucharest" was reported by Britain's
Daily Telegraph as "President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and
the Baltic states" - which was malicious misrepresentation of what he said.
Putin was making the point that Russia's armed forces could easily have taken successful military
action against neighboring countries had they been ordered to do so - but he has no intention of doing
anything so rash and stupid. What he and the Russian people want is justice and political choice
for the ethnically Russian people in eastern Ukraine, as well as increasing bilaterally lucrative trade
arrangements with adjoining countries. It would be insane for Moscow to hazard commercial links with
any of its neighbors. Washington, on the other hand, is trying to break them.
Following the Minsk agreement, Canada, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, (together
with France and Germany, the Group of Seven) mildly welcomed it - for of course they had no public
alternative - but took the opportunity, according to the
White
House, to "again condemn Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea which is in violation of international
law".
It appears that the US-stimulated nations of the G-7 demand that Crimea, with its 60% ethnic Russian
population, should be in some fashion taken over by the Kiev government against the will of the majority
of the people of that longtime Russian region.
This would satisfy the aim of the US-NATO alliance, which wished and still wishes Ukraine to become
a member of that organization, joining those already positioned on Russia's border. For US-NATO, the
problem, now, is that the massive seaport at Sevastopol is independent of Kiev and will therefore be
denied to US-NATO as a base from which to dominate the Black Sea.
The US-led anti-Russia alliance continues to extend its influence along Russia's borders, and
it is obvious that no matter what happens in Ukraine's eastern oblasts there will be continuing confrontation
with Russia, led by Washington.
Mikhail Gorbachev - the man whose empathy with president Ronald Reagan so helped to end the
first Cold War - observed about the stance of US-NATO that "I cannot be sure that the [new] Cold War
will not bring about a 'hot' one. I'm afraid they might take the risk."
Given the intemperate and increasingly confrontational posture of the US and some of its NATO
alliance supporters, the risk seems high. They are hazarding the lives of us all.
Brian Cloughley is a former soldier who writes on military and political affairs, mainly
concerning the sub-continent. The fourth edition of his book
A History of the Pakistan Armywas published last year.
Attempt to grab Ukrainian resources was so blatant that it reminds behaviour of Germany and the
USA before WWI.
Today is the first anniversary of the deal made between Yanukovich and the "opposition" and guaranteed
by foreign ministers Radosław Sikorski of Poland, Laurent Fabius of France and Frank-Walter Steinmeier
of Germany. As we all know, the deal resulted in a withdrawal of the security forces from the
Kiev city center immediately followed by an armed insurrection which overthrew the government.
Predictably, Poland, France and Germany did not object. I won't recount all of the events which
happened since this infamous day, but I think that it is important to look at what has changed in
a year. I think that it also makes sense to compare what I had predicted might happen with
what actually happened simply to see if a person if a person with no access to any classified data
and who is using only "open sources" for his analysis could have predicted what happened or if this
was all a huge and totally unpredictable surprise.
They have no vision, no ideology, no identifiable future goal. All
they can offer is a message which, in essence, says "we have no other choice than sell out to
the rich Russians rather than to the poor European" or "all we can get from the EU is words, the
Russians are offering money". True. But still extremely uninspiring, to say the least.
The future of Yanukovich
I am beginning to fear that this will all explode into a real and very dangerous crisis for Russia.
First, I am assuming that the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will eventually
prevail, and that Yanukovich will either fully complete his apparent "zag" and reverse his decision,
or lose power. One way or another the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists
will, I think, prevail. There will be more joyful demonstrations, fireworks and celebrations
in Kiev, along with lots of self-righteous back-slapping and high-fiving in Brussels, and then
the gates of Hell will truly open for the Ukraine. The real risks for Russia
Being drawn into the inevitable chaos and violence with will flare up all over the Ukraine
(including the Crimean Peninsula), stopping or, at least, safely managing a likely flow of refugees
seeking physical and economic safety in Russia and protecting the Russian economy from the consequences
of the collapse of Ukrainian economy. Russia will have to do all that while keeping its
hands off the developing crisis inside the Ukraine as it is absolutely certain that the Eurobureaucrats
and the Ukrainian nationalists will blame Russia for it all. The best thing Russia could
do in such a situation would be to leave the Ukrainians to their private slugfest and wait for
one side or the other to prevail before trying to very carefully send out a few low-key political
"feelers" to see if there is somebody across the border who has finally come to his/her senses
and is capable and ready to seriously begin to rebuilt the Ukraine and its inevitable partnership
with Russia and the rest of the Eurasian Union. As long as that does not happen Russia should
stay out, as much as is possible. Sarajevo on the Dniepr
Right now, all the signs are that the Ukraine is going down the "Bosnian road" and that things
are going to get really ugly.
It is hard to tell, but my sense is that when the local authorities in the southeastern Ukraine
threaten not to accept any regime change in Kiev they probably do really mean it. This very
much reminds me of the repeated warnings of the Bosnian-Serbs that they would not accept to live
in an Islamic state run by an rabid fanatic like Itzebegovich. At the time, and just like
today, nobody took these warnings seriously and we all know how that ended. The big difference
between Bosnia and the Ukraine is first and foremost one of dimensions: Bosnia has an area of
19,741 square miles and a population of 3,791,622 while the Ukraine has an area
of 233,090 square miles and a population of 44,854,065. That is a huge difference
which make a direct foreign intervention a much more complicated endeavor.
And Russia in all that?
I can only repeat that Russia should stay out of whatever
happens in the Ukraine. The Russian government should prepare for an influx of refugees
and the Russian military should be placed on high alert to avoid any provocations or cross-border
violence. A special goal for Russia should be to use all the means possible to avoid any
violence on the Crimean Peninsula because of the presence of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol
which can find itself in the position of the 14th Army in Transdniestria when it simply had not
other choice than to get involved due to the high number of officers with relatives living in
the republic. If, God forbid, the nationalist try to militarily take over the Crimean Peninsula
or Sevastopol I don't see how the Black Sea Fleet could stay uninvolved - that is simply impossible
and this is why that situation needs to be avoided at all costs.
This has, of course, not been reported in the western Ziomedia, but the eastern Ukraine is
now also bubbling with political actions. To make a long story short, the folks in the southeastern
Ukraine have no desire whatsoever to let folks like Iatseniuk, Klichko or Tiagnibok rule over
them. In fact, several local assembles - including the Parliament of Crimea - have adopted
resolution calling on the President to restore law and order and warning that they would never
accept a "regime change" in Kiev.
Something absolutely huge has just happened in Russia: the Russian Council of the Federation,
the equivalent of the US Senate, has just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution allowing Putin
to use Russian armed forces in the Ukraine, something the Duma had requested earlier. Before
the vote took place, Russian senators said that Obama had threatened Russia, insulted the Russian
people and that they demanded that Putin recall the Russian ambassador to the USA. I have
never seen such a level of outrage and even rage in Russia as right now.
I hope and pray that Obama, and his advisers, stop and think carefully about their next step because
make no mistake about thatRUSSIA IS READY FOR WAR.
April 23rd, 2014: The US plan for the Ukraine - a hypothesis
The US will try to force Russia to intervene in the Donbass
The eastern Ukraine is lost no matter what. So the junta in Kiev have to pick on of the following
options:
a) Let the eastern Ukraine leave by means of referendum and do nothing about it.
b) Let the eastern Ukraine leave but only after some violence.
c) Let the eastern Ukraine leave following a Russian military intervention.
Clearly, option 'a' is by far the worst. Option 'b' is so-so, but option 'c' is very
nice. Think of it: this option will make it look like Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine
and that the people there had no say about it. It will also make the rest of the Ukraine
rally around the flag. The economic disaster will be blamed on Russia and the Presidential
election of May 25th can be canceled due to the Russian "threat". Not only that, but a war
- no matter how silly - is the *perfect* pretext to introduce martial law which can be used to
crack down on the Right Sector or anybody expressing views the junta does not like. That
is an old trick - trigger a war and people will rally around the regime in power. Create
a panic, and people will forget the real issues.
As for the USA - it also knows that the Eastern Ukraine is gone. With Crimea and Eastern
Ukraine gone - the Ukraine has exactly *zero* value to the Empire, to why not simply use it as
a way to create a new Cold War, something which would be much more sexy that the Global War on
Terror or the really old War on Drugs. After all, if Russia is forced to intervene militarily
NATO will have to send reinforcements to "protect" countries like Poland or Latvia just in case
Putin decides to invade all of the EU.
Bottom line - the freaks in power in Kiev and the USA *know* that the eastern Ukraine is lost
for them, and the purpose of the imminent attack is not to "win" against the Russian-speaking
rebels or, even less so, to "win" against the Russian military, it is to trigger enough violence
to force Russia to intervene. In other words, since the East is lost anyways, it is much
better to lose it to the "invading Russian hordes" than to lose it to the local civilian population.
So the purpose of the next attack will not be to win, but to lose. That the Ukrainian
military can still do.
Two things can happen to foil this plan:
1) The Ukrainian military might refuse to obey such clearly criminal orders (and becoming a
target of the Russian military might help some officers make the correct "purely moral" choice).
2) The local resistance might be strong enough to draw out such an operation and have to come
to a grinding halt.
Ideally, a combination of both.
So let's summarize the above:
Yanukovich will be overthrown. Check
The Donbass will rise up. Check
The Ukraine will be partitioned. Check
A civil war will break out. Check
The US will try to pull Russia in. Check
Russia will protect Crimea. Check
Russia will say out of the Donbass. Check
Russia will have to deal with refugees. Check
The US/NATO will not intervene like in Bosnia. Check
The Ukrainian economy will collapse. Check
There is one point which I did really get wrong: the people of Novorussia. I saw them as very
passive, interested only in getting paid (in Hrivnas or Rubles - doesn't matter) and with very little
Russian national identity. Here I got it very wrong, but in my defense I would say that the
Russian identity of people of the Donbass was awaken by the huge military assault of Ukrainian military
and by the clearly russophobic and neo-Nazi rethoric and policies of the junta. But setting
aside the motivations of the Novorussians, I did predict that the Donbass would rise up, and it did.
In fact, it looks to me like my predictions resulted in a score of 10 out of 10.
My point is not
to congratulate myself (I sincerely wish my pessimistic predictions would have turned out wrong),
but to demonstrate that anybody armed with a) basic knowledge of Russia and the Ukraine b) access
to open sources information c) basic common sense could have made all of these predictions.
The worst which can happen is that a lot of Novorussian defenders get killed, that the towns
of Slaviansk, Kramatorsk, Krasnyi Liman and others will get basically flattened and most of their
inhabitants killed, that the road between Donetsk and Lugansk gets cut-off by the Ukies and that
Ukie forces enter deep inside these two cities.
I have to be honest here, there is a pretty good chance that all of the above will happen in the
next 24 hours.
If that happens, I would like to remind you all that entering into a city is one thing, taking
control of it is quite another. Think Beirut, think Grozny, think Baghdad, think Fallujah,
think Gaza, think Bint Jbeil. Even if Poroshenko announces that Donetsk and Lugansk have
"fallen", this will be only a empty statement on par with Dubya's "mission accomplished".
What will *really* happen is that the type of warfare taking place will change. Not only
will it change, but the new (urban) type of warfare will almost completely negate the current
huge advantage in aviation, artillery and armor of the Ukie side. So if these cities
"fall" - please do not despair.
I hope that Novorussians will be able to resist the Ukie attack, but I also know that by all accounts
the kind of firepower the junta is using now is truly huge - we are dealing with a merciless and
massive attack with everything the junta could muster and we have to accept that the Novorussian
Defense Forces might have to retreat deeper into the cities or even go underground. While
heroic for sure, it is not smart to stay in the open when your enemy is using Smerch and Uragan
MRLS against you or even the building you are in. During the first Chechen war the Chechen
retreated deeply inside Grozny and did not even bother defending the outskirts, in part because
the city center buildings were far stronger than the flimsy houses in the suburbs. I never
studied the layout of the cities of Lugansk and Donetsk, but if they are typical of the way the
Soviets liked to build, then retreating into the city center and giving up the suburbs would probably
make sense.
The first defensive option is to let the Ukies enter the suburbs and then cut them off, envelop
(surround) them, and then attack them. If that works, great! But if the Ukies clear
the way with massive sustained strikes and flatten their way in, then it will become necessarily
to switch to "plan B" and retreat deeper into the cities. If the Ukie advance is multi-pronged
and too fast, or if the city center defenses were not adequately prepared (for whatever reason),
then plan "C" is to go more or less underground and switch to an active mobile defense centered
on short but intense ambushes followed by immediate retreats.
What really happened took my by complete surprise: initially the Ukrainian forces did move in, but
soon they were bogged down and then gradually surrounded by the Novorussians. In fact, both
during the junta's summer offensive and during it's winter offensive the Novorussians succeeded
in crushing the Ukrainian forces even in open terrain: steppes, hills, fields and forests.
The other amazing thing which happened is that for the first time in the past 200 years there
were more combatants killed on the Ukrainian side than civilians. The
German intelligences
sources estimate the number of victims of this war at about 50'000. That figure sure makes
sense to me. That kind of outcome and these kinds of figures can only be explained by a huge,
truly immense, difference in combat capabilities between the junta forces and the Novorussians.
Unimpressed as I was by the Novorussian behavior in February-March I failed to imagine that this
rather passive and peaceful folk would turn into formidable combatants who would so radically defeat
a vastly superior force (at least on paper), not once, but twice. Even as late as October 24th, in
a post entitled "What
could the next Junta offensive against Novorussia look like?" I again failed to predict the almost
immediate defeat of the junta's winter offensive. I wrote:
What the Ukies are preparing is rather obvious. They will pick several key axes of attack along
which they will unleash a massive artillery attack. This fire preparation will serve to prepare
for a push by Ukrainian armored units (this time around we can expect the Ukrainian infantry to
properly defend their tanks and not the other way around). The Ukrainians will not push deep into
Donetsk or Lugansk, but rather they will try to, again, cut-off and surround Donetsk in a pincer
attack and then negotiate some kind of quasi-surrender by the Novorussians. At most, they will
try to enter a few important suburbs. I don't expect much action around Luganks - Donetsk is far
more exposed. Now, if I am correct and this is what happens, then please understand and
remember this: the correct Novorussian response to this plan is to begin by retreating. It makes
no sense whatsoever for the Novorussians to sit and fight from positions which are densely covered
by Ukrainian artillery strikes. During the first Ukrainian attack I was dismayed to see how many
people clearly did not understand the importance retreats in warfare. The "hurray-patriots" in
particular were adamant that the initial Novorussian retreat was a clear sign that, as always,
"Putin had betrayed Novorussia" (when the NAF went on a long and brilliant counter-offensive,
these "hurray-patriots" fell silent for a while until the moment when Moscow stopped the NAF from
seizing Mariupol, at which point they resumed chanting their mantra). The fact is that retreating
against a superior forces is the logical thing to do, especially if you have had the time to prepare
for a two, possibly, three echelon defense. While I do not know that for a fact, this is what
I expect the Novorussians have been doing during all the length of the ceasefire: preparing a
well-concealed and layered defense. My hope and expectation is that once the JRF attacks
the NAF will, again, carefully retreat, pull the JFR in, and then being to gradually degrade the
attacking force. I particular hope that the Russians have finally send some much needed guided
anti-tank weapons through the voentorg.
I was completely wrong. Not only did the Novorussians stop the junta offensive more or less
along the line of contact, but they went on the counter-offensive where they seized the heavily fortified
Donetsk airport and then the entire Debaltsevo cauldron. To say that I am extremely impressed
is an understatement.
Military analyst always tend to be very cautious and assume the worst-case,
and this is how it should be when lives are at stake, but I cannot explain away my complete failure
to predict the Novorussian successes by some professional inclination. What happened is that
I got the Novorussian mentality completely wrong by assuming that their initial passivity was a predictor
of their ability to fight. A fundamentally flawed and mistaken assumption.
Still, I mostly got it right and so could have done all the advisors, analysts, area specialists,
etc. working for the governments involved in that crisis and I bet you they did. But either
the politicians did not want to listen, or they wanted precisely that outcome.
The shameful and utterly disgusting fact is that everything that took place was completely predictable.
In fact, Putin, Lavrov and many more Russians officials *did* try to tell everybody that the Ukrainian
people were cheerfully waltzing straight into a precipice, but nobody was willing to listen.
Instead, western politicians blamed the Russians for everything, which is just about the most intellectually
dishonest and hypocritical thing they could have done.
The next Ukie president?
In one year an entire country was destroyed, tens of thousands of people were murdered and millions
are now left with nothing not even hope: the Ukraine is a failed state, having now gone through Dmitri
Orlov's "five stages of
collapse". Kiev is in the hands of a regime of incompetent Nazi freaks and the only alternative
to them looks even worse.
Make no mistake, if the Donbass is now probably safe from any future
junta attacks, the risks for the rest of the rump-Ukraine are still huge and an even bigger bloodbath
could happen next.
What is evident is that Poroshenko is a "goner": this sad buffoon promised peace to the Ukrainian
people and instead he gave them a year long bloodbath culminating in a strategic defeat which cost
the Ukrainians about half of their more or less combat capable forces. The only thing which
keeps Poroshenko in power now is the political support of the USA and the political recognition by
the EU and Russia. But the rest of the freaks in power don't care one bit about the EU or Russia
and I predict that they will try to eject him at the first possibility. When I look at list
of freaks likely to succeed Poroshenko I get a knot in my stomach: if Poroshenko was a political
prostitute and a spineless, incompetent imbecile, he was at least not clinically insane. Most
of his likely successors are. As for Iats or Turchinov, I personally think that they are demoniacally
possessed which is arguably even worse than being clinically insane.
In conclusion I will just say that if I believe that all the horrors of the past year were fully
avoidable, I also believe that the horrors of the next, upcoming, year are not: the Ukraine has plunged
over the cliff and is now heading for the very same future as Libya (another western "success story").
I hope that I am wrong and that I am missing something crucial, but I personally do not see any way
to stop the implosion of the rump-Ukraine and my advise to anybody still living there would be to
get out while you can.
In them meantime in Moscow there was a "anti-Maidan" demonstration planned for 10'000 people.
35'000-50'000 showed up to say "we will not forget, we will not forgive" and "no Maidan in Russia".
This anti-Maidan movement which was just formed very recently has a very bright political future
because after watching the horrors right across their border and accepting close to a million refugees
from the Ukraine, the vast majority of Russians want nothing to do with a Maidan-like event in Russia.
Combine that with the still 80%+ popularity of Putin in spite of western sanctions, and you will
see that Russia is safe from the kind of events which happened in Kiev a year ago.
The virus which killed the Ukraine will act as a vaccine for Russia.
Having a Russian wife and family in Russia indeed allows me see this crisis from two positions.
I know first hand what's happening there, my government is a shameful lapdog of US hegemony. What
you have posted is 99% fact, I'll let the 1% go because nothing is 100%.
Paul Meyer
MOST USEFUL INFORMATION, so the deal brokered by Germany, France and Poland did NOT MEET
the U.S. requirements! THAT"S Why it had to be done via coup de' etat!
obyvatel
Stop blaming the "Western World". The countries of the West have long ceased fuctioning as
democracies. Western politics is run by media mind-control, plutocratic government, and money
monopoly.
Medicine, science, education, agriculture, and trade have all been turned into the servants
of plutocracy. Truth is, we live under dictatorship. The spirit and much of the personnel of the
dictatorship has been provided by the Jewish cult.
BigSmartArmed
That is absolutely true, with one small clarification - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA,
all have laws that allow ownership of weapons. Even though anti-gun legislation is repeatedly
pushed through legal systems, and people just surrender their rights, tens of million of people
are still armed and have a choice of NOT to accepting totalitarianism, to reject consumerism and
plutocracy.
All people have to do is say no, and stand firm. That's all it is. When the jackboots come,
then it'll be a choice of submission to slavery, or fighting for freedom.
That's the choice East Ukrainians have made, and they didn't have weapons to begin with, they
just stood firm against literal Nazis, that were trained, armed and paid for by the same bastards
that are busy disarming the Western population to completely push it into total compliance.
Ukraine is a perfect example for what is planned for the West; surrender to the NWO and complete
compliance with dictatorship, or fight against it.
Well done Martin, thanks for posting this. This is another nail in the HELL coffins of the US
Government, poroSHITko, yats, and the others. This video should be remembered with the US PNAC:
Project for the New American Century; the original wolfowitz doctrine;
Nuland [wife of Robert Kagan - co-founder of PNAC] and Republican Senator John McCain participated
in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed
after Yanukovych's toppling that it was "a day for the history books." As a leaked telephone recording
revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk
to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.'
Serbia later became another victim of "color revolution"... This was period of triumphal march of
neoliberalism over the worlds, which left a lot of devastation behind... The only countervailing force
for the US imperialism, USSR disintegrated in 1991 and victory of neoliberalism was complete at this
point.
2,000 civilians died during 78 days of devastating NATO airstrikes on Yugoslavia in 1999, when
citizens of a European country became accustomed to war-heads flying over their heads, hiding in
bomb shelters and praying for their loved ones to stay alive.
US President Bill Clinton calls the bombing "humanitarian intervention" adding "It
is also important to America's national interest".
Color revolution is a military operation in which protesters are just a tip of the iceberg. the
key players are Embassy staff, three letter agencies, NGOs, bought and foreign owned neoliberal press,
some orligrached (who might be pressed into submission with the threat of confiscating their assets),
compradors and bought players within the government. It was by bought players within the government
initial crashes with police were organized. One of the key instruments are huge cash flows in diplomatic
mail that feed the protest ("bombing country with dollars"). In a sense in any neoliberal
republic color revolution is designed to be a sucess, the fact which EuroMaidan proved quite convincingly.
Ukraine actually was a very easy target. Yanukovich was essentially neutralized and paralyzed
by threats from Biden. Security services were infiltrated and partially work for Americans. Several
bought members of the government (Lyovochkon?) did their dirty job in organizing the necessity clashes
with policy to feed the protest.
Former Prime Minister Azarov explained his version of events on the Maidan. The script writers
of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov told the NTV about how coup d'état of February of
the last year was organized. According to him, the script of the coup d'état was written at the U.S.
Embassy.
"The main puppeteers were not on the Maidan," Azarov said. The protests started because of the
decision of Ukrainian authorities to suspend the signing of the Association agreement with the EU.
"There was, of course, the enormous pressure from the leaders of the European Union, from several
European countries. The meaning of this pressure was the fact that we must put aside all doubts and
to sign this agreement," said the former Prime Minister. "They just needed an excuse, a reason to
overthrow our government. Because we were frankly told: "If you do not you sign this agreement, it
will sign another government, another President,"
In this regard, according to Azarov, they needed a provocation to start protest and such a provocation
became the use of force on Independence square in Kiev, where supporters of European integration
were staying for several nights. "The action was slow. The organizers understood that without
the sacred victims they will be unable to ignite the crowd. Suddenly around 3 am several TV crews
arrive, set lights, camera. What to shoot? This ordinary situation, when people spend the night at
the square?" - said Azarov.
Me and the whole Ukrainian people were cynically played. According to Azarov at this moment "prepared
by gunmen in masks" arrived to the square. They started beating on duty policemen with metal sticks.
When police called reinforcements instigators quickly disappeared. And when riot police began detention,
"they detain generally innocent people who spend night at the square as a part of peaceful protest."
Speaking about the negotiations Yanukovich with the opposition, Azarov noted that the current
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk "every day spend most of his time in the American Embassy and following
their instructions to the letter."
In the end, an agreement was signed between the President and opposition leaders on the peaceful
resolution of the conflict, the guarantor which were several European countries, but no one except
the Yanukovich, fulfilled their obligations. "I still do not understand, how foreign Ministers of
Poland, Germany, France, which signed an agreement on February 21 feel themselves. In the history
of diplomacy this agreement will be included as an example of the utmost degree of cynicism and deceit,"
said Azarov.
Tarik Cyril Amar is an assistant professor of history at Columbia University, specializing
in the contemporary history of Ukraine and Russia, also associate of Columbia University's Harriman
Institute. He recieved his BA from Oxford University, MSc from London School of Economics, PhD from
Princeton University. Tarik is the former Academic Director of the Center for Urban History of East
Central Europe in Lviv. He lived in Ukraine for five years and is currently preparing his book on
the twentieth-century history of the city of Lviv for publication.
SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini
Peries, coming to you from Baltimore. I'm in conversation with Tarik Cyril Amar. He is an assistant
professor of history at Columbia University and an associate professor of Columbia University's Harriman
Institute. Tarik's coming book is Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists,
Nazis, and Nationalists.
Thank you so much for joining us today, Tarik.
TARIK CYRIL AMAR, ASSIST. PROF. HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIV.: Thank you.
PERIES: So, Tarik, in our earlier segment we discussed whether the peace agreement negotiated in
Minsk is going to take hold and the difficulties that it may be having at the moment. And in this
segment I'd like to take up the humanitarian situation, the humanitarian crisis that this conflict
has generated. Now, one thing that I want to begin with is that just before Angela Merkel arrived
in Washington last week--this was prior to the Minsk agreement--to discuss the situation in Ukraine,
the German intelligence services leaked some information in relation to the death tolls. Now, there's
a discrepancy between the official statistics being released by the United Nations being at somewhere
around 5,500 and what the German intelligence leaked last week, saying that it might be up to 50,000.
So what are the real numbers here and the number of people that have died from this conflict so far?
AMAR: I would not be in a position to guess, but I have to say that it seems very plausible to me,
and it also seems plausible to a number of experts I sometimes talk to and whom I've asked about
this. What seems plausible to me is that the United Nations figure is an underestimate, and probably
a severe underestimate. Whether the German intelligence figure is close to the truth I couldn't tell,
but it is simply not very believable that this conflict has been going on for quite a long time by
now, and it has gone through several rounds of escalation. And at the same time we still have a very
low number of casualties, and also a very low, a very slow increase of casualties. Of course, one
could only be happy if the casualty numbers were as low. I mean, one person is actually already too
many. But I think, unfortunately, it is safer to assume that the casualty number is significantly
higher than what we get from the UN, and also what we get from the government in Kiev.
PERIES: Tarik, what's the interest of underestimating the number of people killed?
AMAR: Well, I mean, here I could only speculate. I mean, one reason that Kiev might have to be coy
about this is not to let the population know how incredibly costly and devastating this war already
is. You have to keep in mind that Kiev is officially not calling this a war, and it's also not calling
this a civil war. Kiev is officially calling this a type of police operation, something they call
antiterrorist operation, or the commonly used acronym in Ukrainian, /ate.ˈoa/, also ATO. So Kiev
has an interest, as has happens in war, of pretending that this is less horrible than it actually
is. That's one part of the story. The other one is Kiev has also been using fairly indiscriminate
fighting methods, especially around cities in the East, around Donetsk and Luhansk, when the troops
were still close to it. They're not now. And Kiev may very well also have an interest in not stressing
the fact that more civilians may have died from its own shelling than it would like to admit.
PERIES: Now, speaking of civilians, their conditions are getting dire and the numbers are growing
bigger in terms of the number of people displaced from this war. It said 1.5 million or so. What
are the conditions for them that you're hearing? And last reports I saw, there was no water, there
was no basic food supplies, and to--also clothing to survive in this wintry conditions there. Do
you have any information about that?
AMAR: Yes, there are reports. And there also humanitarian organizations that are working in the war
zone and beyond the war zone. And they deal with those civilians who remain in place and suffer where
they are, and they also deal with the many civilians who now have been displaced. I have seen different
figures for the number of displaced people, around a million at least everybody seems to agree on
at this point, around a million. I have seen 920,000. I've seen it a little higher. But this is by
any means already a very severe humanitarian crisis. The fate of those who remain in place, as you
have described, is very much shaped by the breakdown of infrastructure, and it's also shaped by the
fact that Kiev has quite deliberately cut these regions off from certain types of supply, from pensions,
payments, from certain types of wages, of course. It has partly cut off the use of banks and so on
and so on. So there is actually a siege practice that Kiev is applying to these territories, arguing
that if they are under rebel control, the central government has no further business actually maintaining
them. Now, this may to an extent be understandable, but what it is of course doing--and we hear this
more and more--it is severely alienating the local population in the East. So Kiev is applying policies,
I think, that are now polarizing people who were actually at the beginning of this conflict probably
quite neutral. And they are getting reports that being shelled by Kiev, being put into very severe
humanitarian distress by the Kiev government, plus, of course, the influence of Russian TV, which
is being watched there, is leading to the fact that the population is actually getting even more
antagonistic towards the central government. So that's quite a counterproductive outcome. The other
thing talking about the displaced persons, they will get very different reports, you have to see
that displacement operates in different directions and different distances. Some people are displaced,
but they don't go very far. They just go to the place that is close but no longer, for instance,
under rebel control, but under central government control. Some people go quite far, for instance,
to Western Ukraine. They entirely leave the East or to Central Ukraine. And, of course, there are
those who get displaced into Russia, too. And we know that the efforts to address the needs of these
displaced people--they of course lose their livelihood, they lose their jobs. They are often traumatized
psychologically. But we also know that these efforts are--they are certainly not insignificant, but
as you might imagine under the circumstances, they're also very incomplete and imperfect, and there
are even tensions, unfortunately, among displaced or refugees who end up in different parts of Ukraine
and the local populations there. So the whole issue of the displaced populations, the displaced persons,
is another major stress on the Ukrainian government.
PERIES: And also on the Russian side, some
of these displaced people have actually fled to camps in Russia as well?
AMAR: We know that some people have fled to Russia, but the issue is not playing a large role.
You have to consider that in Russia the media are very much controlled by the state, and in a very
heavy-handed way. So you would not see that the Russian government would be put under public scrutiny
or pressure because of the fate of displaced persons. That's not happening.
PERIES: Right. Tarik, I want to thank you so much for joining us and describing to us what's happening
in Ukraine. And I hope to come back to you very soon for another update.
AMAR: Thank you very much.
PERIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
AMAR: Thank you. Bye-bye.<
Clearly the Ukropy are overjoyed with their success in their struggle for "freedom and democracy"
That should have been above: "was reported last week to have increased ninefold in 2014″.
Clearly
the Ukropy are so overjoyed with their success in their struggle for "freedom and democracy" and
for their right to chose their own destiny without any interference whatsoever from the evil Moskali,
which success has resulted in their being allowed to become an "associate member of the EU" and
therefore, they believe, eventually full members of that wondrous organization, that they have
been on a chocolate eating binge since last spring, the collapse of the Ukrainian economy, the
soaring of inflation, the slump in the value of their real earnings, the military reversals in
the East and the loss of the Crimea notwithstanding.
I should not be surprised to learn that a lot of it is also being purchased, as a sign of patriotism,
by the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada and the USA.
Nearly every time we visit our Ukrainian friends, Roshen chocolates are handed 'round. They're
quite good, too.
Probably a lot of it is brought in – in that particular instance – by their parents, who alternate
six-month visits; now her parents, then his parents.
cartman, February 18, 2015 at 11:18 pm
You should remind them that it was founded by Russians, who were dispossessed by the Bolsheviks.
It was later bought by Porko with money he made by selling teenage prostitutes.
"If Kiev violates the agreement, Russia may refuse to recognize Ukraine's territorial integrity"-Vyacheslav
Nikonov
If Kiev violates Minsk-2, Russia will consider itself freed from the obligation
to recognize Ukraine's territorial integrity. During a plenary meeting of the State Duma on February
17, the United Russia Party deputy Vyacheslav Nikonov noted that the Minsk-2 agreement is a chance
for peace in Ukraine, and a chance for Ukraine to exist as a state.
"If they don't want to take advantage of it, it will be only their fault. If the agreement
is violated, Russia can also consider itself free from its provisions, which include the recognition
of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, so I would not advise Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk,
Turchinov, and company to take this matter lightly."
In the course of life today, we've grown accustomed to using terms whose meaning we might not
fully understand. We throw them around casually, not realizing that they lose their meaning and
sometimes even come around to stand for their exact opposite. This is precisely why the sense
has arisen today in society that there is a need to determine in a clear and understandable manner
exactly what is happening on the global chessboard in front of all of our eyes – the Big Story,
written online.
I like how Starikov refers to the ISIS terrorists as US assets. I assume the Russian leadership
has long known that "al qaida" never stopped being a ZPC/NWO owned and run tool. One sees more
and more exposure of this in Russian media and by Russian government associated people.
While I agree with much of what Starikov has written, I noticed several inconsistencies in
the piece. the main one being this.
Starikov describes the western economic system's parasitism and its constant need for victims.
He portrays the "Great Game" as being driven by this extra-national alliance of a predatory, monopolistic
capitalist quest to control the world, essentially. But then proceeds to reduce this to country
vs country, forgetting what he just wrote about the extra-national aspect of the forces aligned
against Russia.
The western oligarchy aligned against Russia (Eurasia, really) are not national, but extra-national.
They use nations the same way they use their subsidiaries. This is why I use terms like ZPC/NWO
(zionist power configuration/new world order). They operate out of European countries and the
USA without regard to national interests for the most part. This is why leaders of these countries
(essentially ZPC/NWO hirelings) most often act against the real interests of their own countries.
There is one exception, that of Israel. The ZPC part of the oligarchy. While these oligarchs
feel no loyalty to the countries they live in (those outside Israel), like the majority of the
NWO oligarchs, they are loyal to the zionist ideology and Israel does garner their loyalty. This
is what made them so powerful inside the oligarch structure of the west. Their solidarity with
each other and their ideals is stronger than that of the rest due to that extra level of fanaticism.
That brings me to the second aspect of Starikov's analysis that I think is off. He doesn't
mention the ZPC side of the oligarchy at all, but reduces the aggressor to just the USA. But if
one looks at the people who betray Russia for the west (5th element), they are mostly equally
or more connected to Israel as they are the USA. When they are busted, they as often flee to Israel
as to the USA or Europe. The ZPC oligarchy is as strong in Europe and the Anglo ex-colonies as
it is in the USA. That is they have complete veto power in the policy decision making process.
The same is true in the Ukraine, where the leadership is practically a who's who of the
local assets of the Jewish mafia. This was also true of the Georgian regime of tie eater, which
had as strong direct ties to Israel, as it had to the USA.
Is Poroshenko allowed to ask for EU peacekeepers or an EU-led peacekeeping mission from the UN?
The EU is hardly an impartial third party. The rebels would have to accept a UN peacekeeping mission
as well. Plus Poroshenko can't expect to use UN peacekeepers as a replacement army which I think
is why he wants a UN peacekeeping mission led by the EU (hint: Poland, Lithuania).
"… UN Peacekeeping
is guided by three basic principles:
1/ Consent of the parties;
2/ Impartiality;
3/ Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate …"
Conflict in Ukraine Increasing US Resolve to Arm Kiev- Former US Ambassador
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The fighting that continues to take place in Ukraine's eastern provinces
is increasing US Congress' resolve to provide lethal defensive military aid to Ukraine, former
US ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst told Sputnik on Thursday.
"There's no question that the ongoing offensive in the east [of Ukraine] by the Russians is
increasing support in Congress to make this happen and happen quickly," Herbst said.
Herbst coauthored a report in early February calling for the US to authorize $3 billion for
training, equipment, and lethal defensive military aid to Ukraine over the course of three years.
The funding request was introduced as legislation by the US House of Representatives on February
10.
"We've briefed many people about our report, including on Capitol Hill," Herbst said.
Asked whether members of Congress were concerned about the consequences of US arms provisions,
Herbst said the arguments against arming Ukraine are not that strong, and "the Congress, I would
say, agrees with that."
The report, coauthored with former NATO commanders and US President Barack Obama administration
officials, calls on the United States to provide Ukraine with anti-armor missiles, counterbattery
radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and any necessary training. The
report's authors also call on other NATO allies to provide Ukraine with military equipment.
If Greece gives in, Germany will have won,
but its bully status will come to bite it in the face. European nations don't accept bullying,
and certainly not from Germany. It'll be a Pyrrhic victory: the beginning of the end. If Greece
however stands firm in its demands, it's also curtains for the EU. If Greece leaves, it won't
leave alone. Only the third option, Germany caving to Greek demands, can save the EU. But Merkel
and Schäuble have prepped their people to such an extent with the wasteful lazy Greeks narrative
that they would have a hard time explaining why they want to give in. The EU may thus fall victim
to its own propaganda
It's Official: Global Economy Back In Contraction For First Time Since 2012 According To
Goldman
After spending the past year deteriorating with each passing month, as global acceleration
dipped decidedly in the negative camp, the only thing that kept the Goldman Global Leading Indicator
"swirlogram" somewhat buoyant was that "Growth" measured in absolute terms had remained slightly
positive. Not any more: according to Goldman's latest global economic read, the world is now officially
in contraction, following a sharp plunge in both acceleration and growth in February.
Stunning Images Of The "Siberian Express" FreezeNado
More than 100 million Americans are set to be impacted by the arctic blast known as
the "Siberian Express" as record (low) temperatures are being broken across the eastern third
of the nation. NBC News reports, Chicago is experiencing its coldest February since 1875
with roads in an "ice skating rink-like condition." From ice geysers to snow-golf and frozen falls,
we can only imagine the breath-taking impact this 'polar-vortex'-esque weather will have on US
GDP…
Ukraine Fighting Shifts To Mariupol Whose Capture Would Grant Russian Land Corridor To Crimea
Yesterday, when we reported that the last Ukraine outpost in the rebel-controlled eastern territory,
the town of Debaltseve, has fallen into separatist hands, we concluded that "perhaps the only
question is whether fighting continues around Mariupol which would enable Russia to have a land
corridor all the way to Crimea." Moments ago we got the answer when Reuters reported that "pro-Russian
separatists have launched mortar attacks on government-held positions near the coastal town of
Mariupol in southeast Ukraine and are building up their forces there, local military reached by
telephone said on Thursday."
-
Btw, Gorlovka and Donetsk are being bombarded as we speak. Not a peep from the usual suspects.
Like the last ceasefire, Ukraine can do whatever it wants and the US and the EU will not blame
it for violating the ceasefire. The US and the EU expect Russia and the rebels to surrender to
their power grab in Ukraine. Failure to surrender brings sanctions and threats to Russia.
It's easy to determine where this is heading. Just look where the blame is placed and who is
spared from any culpability. Lack of impartiality means there's no compromise from the other side.
Just read the statements coming from US officials. They never talk about what Ukraine does,
only about what "Russian-backed" separatists do.
I think Gary (see comments below) forget about one interesting side effect "reaction of Ukrainian
to the attempt to depose Kiev junta by military force". Now after
Odessa Massacre of May
2, 2014, crimes committed by Right Sector, and territorial battalions of neo-Nazis (such as
Azov) indiscriminate shelling of Donbass by Ukrainian army, killing woman and children this reaction
on South East will be completely different. People saw the real danger with their own eyes. Russia now
have at least 2.5 million people who are ready to die fighting with her. And neutrality of approval
of majority of the rest of South East. That's a big, big difference with the situation in February 2014,
when Russia occupying Ukraine would look ore like aggressor then liberator.
Also the fact that the US weapons and foreign fighters were captured in Debaltsevo put the USA in
vulnerable position now, as blood of woman and children of Donbass cry for revenge.
Quote: In the Russian view, US overt recognition and support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, its support
of an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, and its defense of it later, is not only an insult but also a betrayal.
It was seen not only as an act of breaking all norms and laws and in posing a direct danger for Russia
and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but also as a betrayal of the worse kind in which the other side has
shown clearly that it holds nothing sacred.
When I first heard of Poroshenko's latest idea about sending peacekeepers to the Ukraine, I had
figured that he was talking about UN peacekeepers, the only ones with any possible legality for such
an operation. Turns out I had "misunderestimated" Poroshenko. His idea is even crazier: he wants
*EU* "peacekeepers"! This is what the official website of the President of the Ukraine says:
Ukraine considers the EU mission in the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy
the best option of peacekeeping operation in Donbas, as stated by President Petro Poroshenko at
the meeting with Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes
Hahn in Kyiv.
The Head of State has outlined clear position: "Russia, as country-aggressor, cannot and will
not take part in the peacekeeping operation". "Ukraine will not agree to a peacekeeping format,
which threatens to legalize thousands of Russian militaries – we already have enough such "peacekeepers","
Petro Poroshenko noted.
The President has informed on the decision of the National Security and Defense Council to
appeal to the UN Security Council with a request for an international peacekeeping mission to
ensure the preservation of peace in Donbas and control the Ukrainian-Russian border in Donetsk
and Luhansk regions. "The format of the European Union Police Mission is preferable," the President
added.
Am I the only one who is detecting a distinctly American "handwriting" behind this latest idea?
Look again: the idea is this - first go to the UN and when the Russians and Chinese veto it, then
turn to the EU and use EU states to make a "coalition of the willing". Why? Let me spell out the
rationale here:
The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger
a continental war. Now that this has clearly failed, they want the Europeans to enter the Donbass
with exactly the same goal. Once the EU peacekeepers are deployed, all it would take is a bloody
false flag (an artillery strike, or a bomb) killing enough EU peacekeepers to raise the immediate
need to protect them. Except that the EU does not have any "EU armed forces" so can you guess who
would be sent it? Exactly - NATO.
Will the Europeans fall for that? I doubt it. Even the Eurocretins seemed to have lost their
taste for crazy US Neocon schemes. Besides, Russia is not Serbia and there is no way the EU
will bypass the UNSC for a military operation, not without triggering a huge political crisis inside
Europe. To me this latest plans smacks of something McCain and Saakashvili could have cooked up and
not something coming out of this White House. God knows I have no sympathy for the Obama Administration
or for the Eurocretins in Brussels, but this latest stunt is dumb even by their standards.
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt. (The flag
on high! The ranks tightly closed! The SA march with quiet, steady step. Horst Wessel Lied - Nazi
anthem)
Looks like the Nazi death squads are on the march again, this time they are looking at Kiev. Thirteen
death-squad (aka "volunteer battalion") leaders have now declared that they are forming their own
military command under the command of the notorious Semen Semenchenko. Officially, they are not in
any way opposed to the current regime, so said Semenchenko, but in reality their rank and file members
are pretty clear about what they want to do: organize a third Maidan and toss out Poroshenko.
What makes these 21st century version of the SA so dangerous for Poroshenko it that he, unlike Hitler,
does not have a 21st century version of the SS to eliminate them all overnight.
In fact, according to many reports the entire southern part of the rump-Ukraine is now "Kolomoiski-land"
fully under the control of the oligarch who finances these death-squads. Add to this the fact that
most of the Rada is composed of the very same battalion commanders and assorted Nazi freaks, and
you will why Poroshenko is now very much in danger.
The next leaders of Banderastan?
Poroshenko can try to present the Debaltsevo disaster as a huge victory, but apparently everybody
in the Ukraine knows the truth and that, in turn, designates Poroshenko as the ideal scape-goat and
culprit for what happened. The sad reality is that there is simply nobody in the Ukraine capable
of disarming these so-called "volunteer battalions". There are now thousands of uniformed Nazi freaks
roaming around with guns who can now impose their law of the jungle on everybody. It sure looks like
the future of Banderastan will be something like a mix of Somalia and Mad Max - a failed state, a
comprehensively destroyed economy, a collapsed social order and the law of armed gangs of thugs.
In a couple of days it will be one year since the US-backed Nazis took power in Kiev and when
I think of what they have "achieved" in such a short period of time I wonder if the idiots who were
jumping on the Maidan and screaming "he who does not jump is a Moskal" and "glory to the Ukraine!
to the heroes glory!" had any idea that their actions would completely destroy the country which
they wanted to bring into the EU.
pug
Interesting and extensive interview with Ukrainian Azov Battalion POW, with English subtitles.
NAF is treating its prisoners humanely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOv_KSWRRc
Kat Kan
"[none]...had any idea that their actions would completely destroy the country which they wanted
to bring into the EU..,".
And now never will.
Yanukovich should have laid it out in detail what the real costs would be.
Any decent government should be straight with its people about what they're doing. Every minister
should be able to do a one hour Q&Am dont expect them to go 4 hours like Putin. In "democracy"
they talk, debate, avoid or answer questions, to sell themselves as the best candidate. Then their
press secretaries do everything to keep them from giving a straight answer. What they should do
is give account of themselves afterwards, twice a year.
There may be a small number of potentially acceptable people in the Rada. Everyone else would
have to be from the people who know things, not those who just want stuff.
Russia, old or new, would have to have a hand in a change, it won't happen just by itself.
andrei put:
EU peacekeepers are not a new idea.
EU have been present in ukraine since 2005 as the EUBAM european bored Assistance Mission and
have bee in Palestine as
"EUPOL COPPS - POLICE AND RULE OF LAW MISSION FOR THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES"
This is a document you can get from European union External Action site and is part of Common
Security and Defence Policy
nothing new here.
Penelope:
What a Machiavelian mind you have, Saker! Sucker the EU in for peacekeeping in order to attack
them w a falseflag. You're probably right.
What's more, Porky wants the EU to monitor the Rus-Donbas border to prevent supplies reaching
Donbas, while US supplies to Kiev wd be completely unmonitored since they don't occur at the ceasefire
line.
The Kiev kleptocrats recently sold off the last of the grain reserves. Agricultural inputs
for Spring planting are not available yet-- fuel, lubricants. I suppose Monsanto will be supplying
GMO seed & will be allowed to buy up the land of all the bankrupt farmers.
Usual Ukrainian crops are wheat, barley, vegetables, sugar beets, sunflower seeds. Monsanto
makes GMO seed for sugar beets and for wheat and a few vegetables.
One hates to see the chaos of fullscale rebellion, especially because CIA, Mossad, etc might
use it to destroy the infrastructure. But the only other possibility for escape from Ukraine's
dismal future wd be a benevolent countercoup.
Anonymous
Let's hope they get at each others throats BEFORE they send in the UN or EU peacekeepers. And
I do believe that the US is stupid enough to play this game after all they pulled the coup didn't
they. American's act with impunity because the their is no price for failure born by those who
promote the failed polices in fact many of them get promotions just to cover up the failure. Something
like Pornoshenko is trying to do now only thing is he is not John MCCain sitting in the US Senate
he is in Kiev....and puppets don't matter to anyone.
RR
Penelope
Martijn, interesting about Eurocorps. I understood that the Maastricht Treaty that created
EU provided for an independent military force, but tha the US had such a prolonged hissy-fit that
EU gave up & put it under NATO command.
It is not obvious from the Wikipedia entry that Eurocorp is under NATO command but it does
say "From 1 July 2006, to 10 January 2007, the headquarters of the corps was the land component
stand by element of the NATO Response Force 7." It then has its "headquarters" at other NATO Response
Forces. So I doubt that it is independent of NATO.
Saker said, "The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass
to trigger a continental war."
This assertion keeps being made with no logical argument to back
it up. Saker is always challenging us to back up our assertions. I return the favor.
This assumes NATO would enter Ukraine to fight against Russian troops, therefore fulfilling
US plans to engage Europeans against Russia in Europe. Right? Who else would be engaged in a continental
war against Russia?
Let me grant the Saker, Starikov, Putin the benefit of the doubt. They have far more inside
info, experience, and insight than any of us mere mortals. Seriously, I mean it.
Russia succeeded in its mission to help defend Donbass without sending its own military. Mission
accomplished, for now. I'll grant them that.
Novorossia can have national pride that it defended itself without big brother stepping in.
That is probably worth a lot.
So this is a moot point for now, until next time NATO/Kiev attack Novorossia. So the question
must be asked. What should they do next time?
Consider the cost of all the dead civilians. Was it necessary to allow this?
Strelkov says no. I agree with him.
Here is why.
Every bit of Western media and every public figure in every Western country says Russia invaded.
So what difference would it have made if Russia actually did? None.
If Russia invaded why is there even debate about sending weapons, and/or NATO troops to Ukraine?
According to argument above, Russian invasion would immediately trigger "continental war". It
didn't, therefore proving the above statement is wrong. The public believes Russia invaded.
Every single person I have talked to says they did. So as far as the west is concerned Russia
did invade.
The statement above is premised that NATO or someone would have invaded Ukraine to defend against
Russian "aggression", therefore triggering a continental war. There is NO WAY US/NATO would engage
with Russia. The US is a bully, and bullies only attack the weak. Russia is not weak.
Would Europe go along with an invasion of Ukraine even if US wanted to? I doubt it. Ukraine
is far more important to Russia than to Europe, and you can see Europe backtracking now that the
blitzkrieg wasn't a cakewalk.
Estimates were that Russia could have rolled back the Kiev attack on Donbass in anywhere from
48hrs to one week. What would US/NATO do in that time? I doubt they could make a decision that
fast.
In the psychological warfare game, I think the US scored one point, maybe losing others. Using
its standard reverse projection (McMurtry-blame others for what you are doing), the US put Russia
on the defensive and influenced it NOT to invade, so as not to be thought an "aggressor". So they
fell for this psy-op to prevent them from invading as a defensive anti-genocide force.
Starikov claims that the advocates of Russian invasion in Russia were pointed to by US as evidence
of "Russian Aggression". This assertion is totally wrong. US doesn't need any evidence. STarikov
needs to read McMurtry.
Russia could have gone to the security council and called for UN troops to protect Donbass
from ethnic cleansing. This would have been vetoed by US. Russia could then claim R2P and sent
troops to protect civilians in Donbass, and clear out the NAZIs.
I will concede to opponents of this position that Russia succeeded without invading Ukraine.
But was it necessary to allow ethnic cleansing to take place? I don't think so.
If anyone can refute what I'm saying, please do. I could be wrong.
Luca K said...
Banderastan?
More like Neoconistan, no?
This whole thing in the Ukraine has the the neocons's fingerprints all over it.
Does Mr.Saker know that Neoconservatism is a Jewish political and intectual movement?
Main themes; Israel and whats good for the jews..
The "nazis" in the Ukraine are paid by a Jewish/israeli oligarch... right. And the nationalists
want to actually join the most anti-nationalist organization in the world, the freakish EU.
American Kulak said...
@ Alien Tech 20 February, 2015 04:31
On the whole NATO troops thing and the NAF saying they overheard English, Polish and Flemish
(? Belgian language) on the UAF radio sets: I think after 'outta my face' guy got caught on camera
in Mariupol OPSEC was tightened up. I also do not believe the Poles are present in the numbers
they were used in the late spring and summer phases of the 'ATO' when we know they were deployed
around Slavyansk and some may have died on board the IL-76 full of elite paratroopers that was
to land in Donetsk but got shot down due to the UAF's poor intel about NAF MANPAD capabilities.
Jim Willie told the Ontario resident Paul Sandhu on his Wake Up and Live radio show this week
that the NATO mercs were evacuated as part of the quid pro quo between Merkel, Hollande and Putin.
Although VVP is a good poker player the unconcealed glee on Putin's face to me suggests a man
who had Poroshenko and his sponsors by the gonads and knew it. Foreign mercs after all the howling
about '#RussiaInvadedUkraine' getting exposed in a big way would not be a game changer but it
would make US/UK media take the bleating about #RussiaInvadedUkraine slightly less seriously.
I am still waiting for the Polish version of Glenn Greenwald to publish about the 'vacationers'
especially from the country's elite GROM special forces sniper unit and among Poland's Su-25 pilots
who didn't come back. But that's far off. I doubt the Lithuanians would've provided enough numbers
to make much of a difference except for the very early, limited number battles around Slavyansk
and Kramatorsk where Strelkov's group was outnumbered 20 to 1. It is far safer for the foreigners
to have units with which they can blend in but we also know from UAF defectors/deserters to the
NAF that the American mercs were kept segregated from the Ukrainians at their base and did as
little speaking as possible, probably to train the men against a sudden native English speaker
outburst like 'outta my face' guy who 90% was from the northeastern U.S. Regrettably some even
on the pro-NAF side on Twitter seem confused or to conflate outta my face guy with the Brit Azov
Battalion Nazi volunteer Chris "Swampy" Garrett but Swampy has a beard in the footage where he's
looking for munitions in Mariupol whereas outta my face guy was clean shaven. That's an American
merc and I would place his place of being raised as between Philadelphia and Buffalo, NY.
Alien Tech said...
Gary said...
"The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger
a continental war."
Well that is the first goal. Get Russia to accept the tar baby after which Europe will split.
Russia being the biggest European market means a lot more American goods. No more Russian gas
means a lot bigger market for US gas. US would also be able to point out what Russia did to other
countries and get them to turn against Russia.
Until now there is no evidence that Russia invaded. They all come down to Russia invaded Crimea..
Which is why people believe Russia invaded Ukraine. Earlier it was mentioned that thousands of
Russians were in the NAF forces, I am thinking the actual number of people who took time off from
the RF forces are very few. Remember, anyone with soviet passport can get a Russian passport,
does not mean they are Russian, Only in technicality they are Russian so we can say everyone fighting
in Ukraine are Russian, either they hold a Russian passport or speak Russian or have relatives
in Russia. But it wont hold up in court that they acted on behalf of the Russian government which
is a huge stumbling block, Propaganda does not affect court proceedings. Just like the mayor of
London cant be considered an American even though he was born in the US and hold a US passport.
Many of the things you mentioned works because like 911 where the US forced everyone to accept
their version of things, without showing any proof. They mostly force the justice department to
reject anyone questioning the governments version but that only works in the US for now. The EU
is neck deep in this fiasco considering it was merkels plan for a greater German empire. The world
has their own legal system, but they need proof.. US has no proof so only thing they can do is
use force against those with them to go along. The world is not just the US/EU.. I am sure even
the Chinese would be careful since they also have a restless population that ants their own country,
siding with another country that foments such things would make them nervous. India another such
country, When Russians tell Indian leaders they are not doing it, its taken as money in the gold
vault. There has to be honesty and trust.. If Russia is doing a Pakistan, no one will trust them.
Also remember, in time the truth will come out. We know not to take anything the US says at
face value. Now we dont even take what the EU says at face value, in fact we believe they are
lying about everything and without proof nothing they say matter. More and more people will now
not take it for granted when Europeans come bearing gifts.. Most will wonder what poison is
in the cookies..
In less than 10 years, an entire race of people have turned in lying deceitful cretins and
the people living there let it happen without a fight. Even their allies are very nervous because
they don't know where they stand. Nice reassuring words are meaningless.
When Iran says, invading Syria is an act that would be the same as invading Iran. Anyone doubt
that? I highly doubt the convictions of EU/nato....
Alien Tech said...
Gary said... and here is a far better answer... The underlying tactics of each side.. And why
one side does something and the other does things differently. Even if both wants the same outcome.
While US support for the coup in Kiev could be analyzed from the perspective of traditional
imperialism with the US seeking to impose its will and ensure that its will overrides others,
even that of regional powers, the way it has managed to convince many in the West of the righteousness
of its cause and in its support of the Kiev post-coup government, was due to an appeal to the
Western sense of justice and law with Russia being presented as an aggressor and violator. Furthermore,
Russia was presented as practicing the "laws of the jungle" as Angela Merkel put it, and therefore
as a barbarian.
If one wishes to understand the crisis and its nature, it is necessary to analyze the respective
mentalities of each side.
The rule of law is held sacred as it is the mechanism by which the market operates, even when
the law serves to strengthen the control of corporations over the lives of ordinary people. Within
this framework, the creation of an independent, rational actor, who must live for his or her own
sake and seek to express his worth via his external accomplishments, is the hallmark of the Western
civilization. and yet does not have the support of a larger community to a degree more common
in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The individual in the West is judged solely on his accomplishments and not on his internal
value as a human being. For this reason, he is constantly insecure and seeks to prove himself.
The easiest way one can feel secure about himself, therefore, is by seeing how he is better than
others, and ways in which he is superior. Therefore, by pointing at how he is better than others,
more moral than them, more professional and so on, he feels better about himself and is secure.
Western history, especially of the UK, US, Germany, it is replete with aggressive expansion,
imperialism, bloodshed, colonialism, exploitation and slavery. wars conducted by the US and UK
have continued and intensified in recent decades. The Western mentality, still holds that the
West is better than all other 'oppressive' countries, despite the fact that the latter did not
engage in bombing campaigns of 'backward' countries.
Therefore, it is all too convenient for it to point a finger at Russia for violating international
law By blaming Russia, the West feels better about itself.
Although strong ties in the community have weakened in Russia in the past two decades, the
individual is still not viewed wholly as an atom who lives for his own fulfillment, but as one
who belongs to a community and a nation, and must live for a moral purpose.
Russians tend to be very critical of themselves in how well they live up to certain standards
and are not too comfortable with themselves in the way Westerners tend to be.
In Russia, despite the image of immense corruption that is common in how Westerners view
it, friendship usually comes before career. People will go out of their way to help a friend
in most cases, even at their expense of their professional development, in the Russian mentality,
basic decency is to be generally respected and people are not to be humiliated or mocked without
mercy unless in exceptional cases as a response to an aggressive action.
What is true for the individual is also true for the society at large.
Alien Tech said...
Gary said... and here is a far better answer... The underlying tactics of each side.. And why
one side does something and the other does things differently. Even if both wants the same outcome.
While US support for the coup in Kiev could be analyzed from the perspective of traditional
imperialism with the US seeking to impose its will and ensure that its will overrides others,
even that of regional powers, the way it has managed to convince many in the West of the righteousness
of its cause and in its support of the Kiev post-coup government, was due to an appeal to the
Western sense of justice and law with Russia being presented as an aggressor and violator. Furthermore,
Russia was presented as practicing the "laws of the jungle" as Angela Merkel put it, and therefore
as a barbarian.
If one wishes to understand the crisis and its nature, it is necessary to analyze the respective
mentalities of each side.
The rule of law is held sacred as it is the mechanism by which the market operates, even when
the law serves to strengthen the control of corporations over the lives of ordinary people. Within
this framework, the creation of an independent, rational actor, who must live for his or her own
sake and seek to express his worth via his external accomplishments, is the hallmark of the Western
civilization. and yet does not have the support of a larger community to a degree more common
in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The individual in the West is judged solely on his accomplishments and not on his internal
value as a human being. For this reason, he is constantly insecure and seeks to prove himself.
The easiest way one can feel secure about himself, therefore, is by seeing how he is better than
others, and ways in which he is superior. Therefore, by pointing at how he is better than others,
more moral than them, more professional and so on, he feels better about himself and is secure.
Wstern history, especially of the UK, US, Germany, it is replete with aggressive expansion,
imperialism, bloodshed, colonialism, exploitation and slavery. wars conducted by the US and UK
have continued and intensified in recent decades. The Western mentality, still holds that the
West is better than all other 'oppressive' countries, despite the fact that the latter did not
engage in bombing campaigns of 'backward' countries.
Therefore, it is all too convenient for it to point a finger at Russia for violating international
law By blaming Russia, the West feels better about itself.
Although strong ties in the community have weakened in Russia in the past two decades, the
individual is still not viewed wholly as an atom who lives for his own fulfillment, but as one
who belongs to a community and a nation, and must live for a moral purpose.
Russians tend to be very critical of themselves in how well they live up to certain standards
and are not too comfortable with themselves in the way Westerners tend to be.
In Russia, despite the image of immense corruption that is common in how Westerners view it,
friendship usually comes before career. People will go out of their way to help a friend in most
cases, even at their expense of their professional development, in the Russian mentality, basic
decency is to be generally respected and people are not to be humiliated or mocked without mercy
unless in exceptional cases as a response to an aggressive action.
What is true for the individual is also true for the society at large.
In the Russian view, US overt recognition and support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, its support
of an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, and its defense of it later, is not only an insult but also
a betrayal. It was seen not only as an act of breaking all norms and laws and in posing a direct
danger for Russia and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but also as a betrayal of the worse kind in
which the other side has shown clearly that it holds nothing sacred.
Perhaps Russia feared another Afghanistan quagmire, where US/NATO could launch a guerrilla
war against them and keep attacking them and costing them. That would be a logical fear to keep
out.
But if they moved in-moved out, turned over border defense to Donbass, that wouldn't happen.
McMurtry calls Ukraine, "the biggest ethnic cleansing operation of the millennium."
And that doesn't justify military intervention? If not what does? I keep going back to the
talk I heard from Romeo Dallaire, head of UN in Rwanda.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If Americans or US business interests in, I don't know, say
Panama, Grenada, or Cuba were threatened, would the US hesitate to invade to protect them? Oh
yeah I forgot, they DID invade those countries.
eimar clark
Very well said. I wonder if the obsession with 'proving oneself' as a superior individual (the
ubermensch who must make untermensch of others, since this valuation must be relative) has it's
roots in aristocratic primogeniture?
Once the heir was produced, the 'spare' - or more - had no entitlement. Many of then went abroad
to colonize other lands as a result. That insecurity led to am obsession with control - and the
political pathologies of, lets say, the apartheid state of South Africa. The absence of roots
or sense of belonging and the lack me connection to family may very well have generated a 'race'
of the 'rootless' - and so became ruthless.
The loss of Debaltsevo is an enormous and well-deserved embarrassment for Kiev. But my feeling
is that it's not quite the disaster the rebels are claiming. Here's my analysis, which I admit
is just a layman's read of the situation. I'm guesstimating 30% KIA/WIA/captured, with most of
the discrepancy being due to desertion, and a loss of 50-70% of their mechanized equipment and
heavy weaponry.
Meanwhile, it's the rebels and their families whose homes have been destroyed and who are surviving
on crumbs. It doesn't look like a great victory to me. Though it might be enough to force Kiev
to grant limited autonomy to the Donbas, as prescribed in Minsk 2.
Anyway, I am outsourcing further analysis to Moon. This is a very difficult story to follow,
especially for this non-Russian speaker.
Edifying video in which
one first sees Ukrainian soldiers alive, and then one sees them dead. Ukrainian soldiers make
football hooligans come across as opera goers.
Here's
a Polish map of what Europe will look like. According to this conception, a rump Banderastan
centered around Kiev will remain. But it remains to be seen whether any trace of Banderastan will
remain. By allowing themselves to be tricked by Obama and Victoria Nuland, thus showing their
true fascist nature, Ukrainians lost their right to having any kind of country, no matter how
tiny.
If I were Russia, and WW3 does indeed come (which it seems it will), I'd target Germany
first.
Yes, but you're not Russia. The Russians are inveterate Germanophiles. Even though I have said
that Merkel's conduct in this crisis has been more disgusting than Obama's, I still can't
hold anything against Germany.
Germany and Russia have deep cultural affinities, whereas the Anglosphere is alien to both
of them. This has been obscured by Germany's nature being temporarily effaced by its current American
occupation.
S-true | Feb 20, 2015 6:35:11 PM | 18
Here's a Polish map of what Europe will look like. According to this conception, a rump
Banderastan centered around Kiev will remain. But it remains to be seen whether any trace
of Banderastan will remain. By allowing themselves to be tricked by Obama and Victoria Nuland,
thus showing their true fascist nature, Ukrainians lost their right to having any kind of
country, no matter how tiny.
Screw that!
Kiev is "the mother of all Russian cities", and ending up in "Banderistan" ain't feasible. Many
mighty empires throughout history have fallen, and the Bandera/ISIS/Israel backers are no different...they'll
fall too.
Besides, anything that's coming from Poland or has an "Euro" prefix isn't something that should
be taken seriously. It's Monty Python stuff.
This whole Ukraine/Syria/Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia mess was a true eye-opener
for me!
Demian | Feb 20, 2015 7:11:41 PM | 23
@Lochearn #16:
I see some young guys laughing and joking
Yes, that is a large part of the problem. Ukrainians see exterminating Russians as fun and
a laughing matter. There are countless posts on social media in which Ukrainians laugh and express
glee about Ukrainians massacring innocent Russian civilians. That began with the Odessa Union
Building massacre, in which Ukrainians joked on social media about the Colorados getting barbecued.
This is what makes Ukrainians more ineffably evil than the original Nazis.
@chuckvw #20:
Look like the guys I served with many moons ago, trying to laugh off an effed up situation.
Pawns in a game over which they have no control.
This is not like US grunts killing Vietnamese. It is like boys from New Jersey thinking that
killing Bostonians is a fun joke. Would you have any sympathy with such people? Their being branewashed
by their educational system and mass media does not exculpate them. If they had any grain of basic
human decency, they would not think that killing their own people is a joke.
After months of denying having a hand in the Ukrainian coupe, US President Barack Obama admitted
playing power broker for the "transition." This probably falls short of America's actual involvement.
READ MORE: Obama openly admits 'brokering power transition' in Ukraine
Washington was investing heavily in Ukraine long before the Maidan protests started in Kiev in
2013. According to Victoria Nuland, the State Department's top diplomat for Europe, since 1991 America
has poured $5 billion of taxpayers' money into what she called assisting Ukrainians in building "democratic
skills and institutions."
Some of the money went into sponsoring various NGOs, political parties and media outlets. For
instance, Hromadske.tv, an internet-based television channel created in summer 2013, received a grant
of some $50,000 from the US embassy. The channel provided full-time coverage of the Maidan protests
and gave a platform to various opposition figures.
Such funding is a well-known tool of the American government. Washington describes it as promoting
a positive change and denies accusations that it gives money to get leverage to pursue its own goals
in targeted countries. But in Ukraine US officials played a far more prominent role than simply funding
local players.
Some like film director Oliver Stone even call it a US-staged coup, while former US Congressman
Ron Paul called for the US to stop meddling in Ukraine.
Nuland's cookies
A parade of Western officials descended on Kiev to support the protesters and discourage President
Viktor Yanukovich from taking tougher measures against them. One vocal star of the US political stage,
Senator John McCain, enjoyed an evening with opposition leaders and tweeted photos of the crowds
in the square. He went on to address the protesters the next day.
Nuland herself is probably most remembered now for handing out cookies to riot police officers
and demonstrators, while on a November 2013 Maidan tour accompanied by Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.
Read more: 'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat
on Ukraine
Behind the scene, the duo were engaged in power brokering. In January, it was Pyatt who made radical
protesters withdraw from the Ministry of Justice building, which they had previously seized by force.
Ukraine's Interior Ministry, then still loyal to Yanukovich, officially thanked the ambassador.
Later in February, a leaked phone conversation, notable for Nuland's unprintable expletive at
her frustration with the EU, revealed the pair discussing who should lead the new Ukrainian government
(Arseny Yatsenyuk, incidentally, the current PM) and who should not be in it (Vitaly Klitchko, currently
mayor of Kiev).
Rule by foreigners?
The US government's support for the post-coup government in Kiev never dwindled even as it went
on to encroach on media freedom and the free speech and launched a military crackdown on its dissenting
eastern regions. At times, critics say, it was difficult to distinguish the new Ukraine from an entity
directly ruled from Washington.
One ironic episode occurred in December, when the Ukrainian Security Service building flew a US
flag alongside a Ukrainian one over its entrance. Photos of the flags were quickly dismissed as a
propaganda fake by Ukrainian bloggers, but the SBU later confirmed that it ran up the stars and stripes
to honor visiting US Under Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, who is in charge of arms deals with the State
Department.
The debate over the flag was partially fuelled by rumors in Ukraine that the SBU allocated an
entire level in its HQ to US consultants, including active CIA agents.
The rumors may be insulting to Kiev's sovereignty, but there could be some substance behind it.
Ukraine didn't hesitate to appoint several foreigners as ministers, hastily giving them Ukrainian
citizenship necessary for the jobs. Among them is Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a former section
chief at the US embassy and chair of an investment fund, which distributed US Congress money provided
thorough the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Biden's chairmanship
A similar episode transpired in April, when US Vice-President Joe Biden arrived in Kiev on a state
visit. The top American official came just after then-acting President Aleksandr Turchinov had declared
the military campaign against the rebel forces in Donetsk and Lugansk regions was active. This later
escalated into a full-fledged civil war.
A humorous moment came in Biden's trip when he chaired a session with Ukrainian officials, taking
the seat normally reserved for the president of Ukraine. Ironically, Dozhd TV, a leading Russian
opposition TV channel, erroneously called Biden the acting president of Ukraine and misquoted him
as demanding that Russia "stopped meddling into US internal affairs."
Read more: White House: No ethical issues with Veep's son joining Ukraine gas giant
For Biden, Ukraine's economic future is a matter of concern not only due to his office but also
due to his family's ties with the Ukrainian energy sector. In May, Ukraine's largest private gas
company, Burisma Holdings, announced the appointment of VP Biden's son, Hunter, to its board of directors.
The White House insisted the appointment posed no conflict of interest for America's second-ranking
public official.
These and other examples of US "power brokering" raise some doubt about Washington's claimed distance
from the regime change in Ukraine. After all, the US has a long record of meddling in other countries'
affairs, ousting governments Washington didn't like and imposing those it did. Why would Ukraine
be any different, skeptics ask?
Amid heavy fighting, Ukrainian soldiers were ordered to retreat from the strategic town of Debaltseve,
where they had been surrounded by Russian-backed rebels.
Publish Date February 18, 2015.
By midday on Wednesday, limping and exhausted soldiers were showing up on the Ukrainian side of
the front lines in the conflict, describing a harrowing ordeal that began with a surprise 1 a.m.
order to retreat.
"Many trucks left, and only a few arrived," said one soldier, who offered only his rank (sergeant)
and his given name (Volodomyr) as he knelt on the sidewalk smoking. "A third of us made it, at most,"
the soldier said.
Others said that a majority, at least, of the soldiers who set off from the town in a column of
about 100 trucks had managed to escape the encirclement, many of them straggling out on foot after
their vehicles were blown up.
The order to retreat was kept secret until the last minute, and soldiers were told to prepare
in 10 minutes and pile into the beds of troop transport trucks, according to Albert Sardaryen, a
22-year-old medic who made the journey.
The trucks lined up on the edge of town, Mr. Sardaryen said, while tanks and tracked vehicles
formed lines on either side of the truck convoy to try to shield the soldiers. The column drove through
farm fields rather than use a main road that had been mined, and the trucks kept their headlights
off to make them harder to spot.
The column came under attack almost immediately, he said, and trucks started breaking down and
colliding in the dark. By dawn, the column was strung out on the plain and taking fire from all sides.
"They were shooting with tanks, rocket propelled grenades and sniper rifles," and firing at the
disintegrating column with rockets, he said. Dead and wounded soldiers were left on the snowy fields
because there were too many of them to carry once the trucks were hit.
"We stabilized them, applied tourniquets, gave them pain killers and tried to put them in a place
with better cover," Mr. Sardaryen said of the wounded. Later, a Ukrainian unit from outside the encirclement
drove in to try to retrieve the wounded, he said.
Mr. Sardaryen said he ran on foot for the final four miles or so. Many of the soldiers who made
it out also did so on foot, though some trucks made it all the way through, he said.
Oleksandr I. Bogunov, an army private, said the order came to carry only what would be useful
for the fight on the way out, and leave all other ammunition and weaponry behind.
Porco Rosso
1 hour ago Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power
and who are nowadays literally masters of life...
Mr. Poroshenko's order came after the separatists boasted of controlling the town on Tuesday,
and after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia suggested at a news conference in Hungary that Ukraine
should accept its defeat at Debaltseve by the separatist forces, whom he described as "underdogs."
Russia is widely believed to be actively supporting the separatists.
Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian national security and defense council, confirmed
the retreat from Debaltseve on at a briefing Wednesday afternoon in Kiev, the capital. He said the
pullout was nearly completed.
Porco Rosso, Chicago 1 hour ago
Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power
and who are nowadays literally masters of life and death in the rest of the Ukraine than of the
separatists in the east. Next thing to expect, will be upraise of the Ukrainians against the Right
Sector fascists that currently control army and police and the rest of Kiev Junta oligarchs that
have been hoping to rip off EU or US budgets by perpetuating this war that except DC neocons nobody
wants.
Maiklas, Lithuania 1 hour ago
How could the Minsk agreement have neglected to specify in detail what to do about the pocket
of Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve? Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko, and Putin need to meet again,
but this time with representatives also from the DPR and the Right Sector.
In any case, never forget that this started as an illegal coup of a democratic government,
facilitated by neocons McCain, Nuland, and Obama.
Wendell Murray, Kennett Square PA USA 1 hour ago
No surprise. The Ukrainian army conscripts have no desire on average to be killed or to kill
their fellow Ukrainians. The locals are fighting for their lives. Forget the nonsensical "Russian-backed
separatists" moniker applied to the locals in USA and western European mainstream media outlets.
They are local citizens fighting the fascist government in Kiev that overthrew - with prior
USA governmental connivance and immediate post-coup support - the elected government a year ago.
The propaganda on all this from the NYTimes and other theoretically neutral media outlets, not
to mention the onslaught of disgusting nonsense from the USA government and its factota in so-called
"think tanks is reprehensible.
Tony Borrelli, Suburban Philly 2 hours ago
It's rapidly becoming time for the USA (and the supportive US Media) to acknowledge that the
USA/UK/EU agenda was behind the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine,
that the new government is a right wing tainted oligarchy, and that the resolve of the Russians
is to NOT allow this faction to continue to surround them. In many ways the USA behaves like a
doctor who refuses to acknowledge that his treatment failed and the patient is dying. We have
had many adventures in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East where our tactics to create a
sphere of influence have succeeded. This, like Cuba, is not going to be one of them. The Soviet
Union is dead. The resolve of the Russian people who lost 20 million people defending the Motherland
is not. This is where the European populace is going to tell their governments "enough of tweaking
Russia's nose on behalf of the USA & UK".
mervyn, nyc 1 hour ago
You got be kidding me. This is the exact attitude to get us into the bind. The State Department
was using thugs from Kiev to overthrow the government, and pushed Rebels to the boarder until
last fall. The rebels then regrouped and came back with Russian armors. Live to fight another
day? There will be no other days. If Putin uses full force of Russian Army like in Georgia, he
can take Kiev in 2 weeks.
NYReader, NY 2 hours ago
How come every single place US and the allies get involved in becomes a terrible mess?
You name it: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, Yemen, etc. One failure and one miscalculation
after another. And please don't pass this off as George Bush, as Obama is now a war president
also.
The United States has refused to recognize Russia's traditional interests in Ukraine. Apparently
there is the Monroe Doctrine to protect our interests in the Western Hampshire, but Russia gets
the same old cold war policy of a "ring of steel". We have recruited Nato membership among the
former Eastern Block, tried to surround Russia with missiles, and shamelessly interfered with
Ukrainian domestic politics - all of them failures.
The mess that the neocons have created in Ukraine is splitting that country apart and may lead
to a global confrontation. President Obama should resist the call for arming the coup leaders
in Kiev and should join Germany and France for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine that will bring
peace to the country and to Europe. The warmongers should be told to calm down or volunteer to
go and fight as partisans. They should leave the rest of America alone.
Varenik, Boston 2 hours ago
Maybe it would not end up like this if Poroshenko had not thrown the neo-nazi brigades against
the mostly, ethnically, Russians protesting the coup in Kiev which in itself was an insult to
those who grew up with memories of what was done to them during WWII. The real memories, not the
hazy western interpretations where US had saved the day. The US media kept almost complete silence
about the bombardment of Donetsk with scores of civilians dying in process, same way nobody is
reminding Americans how this was US orchestrated and financed coup, and the same way everybody
is keeping mum on the huge neo-nazi undercurrent in Ukraine. One is left to wonder as to where
Kerry's idealism has gone...
Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 10 hours ago
There are enough sour grapes on this page to go around.
Maidan understood, before taking over, that the people of SE Ukraine were not on board. The
US, not understanding that some people do not necessarily view our "free enterprise/market system"
as the greatest thing since sliced bread, was convinced that the southeast would "reluctantly
go along"..
(That's just one more example how our 'experts' don't have the faintest clue.)
How Porochenko thought he could resolve things by simply bombing a sizable minority, to
come around, was ham-fisted, if not, outright criminal.
David, Chicago 11 hours ago
The Minsk agreement had the fatal flaw that its negotiation excluded one of the two sides in
Ukraine's civil war. By excluding the separatist rebels, the negotiators were able to gloss
over the key point of whether Debaltseve was located in rebel-controlled territory or government-controlled
territory. This may seem like a trivial point, but the accord called for both sides to withdraw
behind their front lines. How is this possible if one of the sides has forces implanted in a besieged
pocket deep within territory controlled by the other side? The separatist rebels reasonably
asserted that the Ukrainian troops garrisoned in Debaltseve should withdrawn to behind the front
line of territory controlled by the Ukrainian army.
The Ukrainian army, urged on by its Western allies, insisted on not giving up this strategically
important salient in the enemy's territory. Russia's much maligned president insisted on this
rather obvious sticking point, this anomaly that the accord didn't address, but in the end he
capitulated to the rest and allowed the point to remain unresolved.
Minsk was a textbook example of how not to negotiate a truce. It made no logical sense and
practically guaranteed continued fighting for control of Debaltseve. On the positive side, now
that Ukrainian troops have been defeated there, the other front lines between the two sides appear
to be recognized by both sides and therefore are relatively quiet.
So not all hope is lost for the truce.
Dan Elson, London 9 hours ago
I grew up in Europe during the coldest period of the "cold war" living in fear of Russian (or
Soviet) aggression which was very real at the time.
Reading the papers today though I am not entirely convinced that Putin is the new "Hitler"
and can only "be put in his place" through military force at any cost as many suggest. Russia
is a dwarf compared to America in terms of military power and presence abroad. Putin has also
previously showed his good will to collaborate not in the least by finally paying back to the
West Russia's entire war loans 2006.
In this conflict I can understand that Russia wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO in the same
way as America would not have wanted Canada to join the Warsaw Pact in the 80's but naturally
I don't sympathise with their methods for achieving this goal. It would be ill advised though
to believe that there is a military solution to the problem.
Thanks to Stalin's madness with famine and deportations Ukraine today is one of the most complex
places to be found. Politics span from extreme Fascism to old Communism with nearly 20% of the
population being Russian. Instead of trying to govern something like that they should just divide
the country peacefully like Czechoslovakia did without bringing NATO into the equation.
jdd, New York, NY 11 hours ago
There was no rebel offensive, they simply held their ground. At Minsk, Putin tried to warn
Poroshenko that his forces were surrounded and should surrender, but he wanted none of that. He
should have listened to that advice as now the survivors and the Nazi battalions ("Right Sector")
are talking coup.
S.D. Keith, Birmingham, AL 9 hours ago
And so Putin incrementally again decreases the footprint of Western hegemony. Make no mistake.
Ukraine is a proxy for the ages-old power struggle between Eastern and Western Europe. The West
seemed ascendant, until recently. Now Putin appears to have poked and prodded until he discovered
the West's latent weakness--after sixty years of relative peace, it can't stomach the idea of
another Continental bloodbath. Those that won't fight always lose to those that will.
The West, including of course Western Europe's overseer and protector, the US, has very few
options short of deploying ground forces to help Ukraine, and Putin knows it won't deploy ground
forces to help Ukraine. So the Russian Empire will reconstitute that portion of the Soviet Union
lost in the Cold War.
The only question is who's next?
Olga, Brooklyn 10 hours ago
There was indeed a violation of Minsk agreements in Debaltsevo: however it was from Ukranian
side, who for several days delayed the cease-fire and removal of the troops/heavy weaponry. Debaltsevo
is part of rebel-controlled zone according to Minsk agreement, and there is no way the 'rebels'
can cease fire while being under attach and while agreements are violated. The twisted interpretation
of the of the situation by Ukraine and the west is to be expected.
It is unfortunate that the real leader emerging in the ukraine is Zakharchenko, while Poroshenko,
Yatsenyuk, etc continue to play games and discredit themselves. Understandable, right now Urkaine
has a weaker hand, and bidding for time (and money) is useful for it -- but the continues propaganda
and falsification of events are becoming a constant there.
Nowhere in NYtimes does one read about misrepresentation of history, that is recently very
popular in the Ukraine; about severe restrictions on freedom of speech and information (as russian
news sources are banned, as russian journalists are not allowed in the Ukraine) -- if this were
happening in other 'good' european countries or, g. forbid, Russia, it would an outrage.
George, Germany 9 hours ago
Gotta love the Americans. Their answer to everything is more war, more weapons. You people
will not be satisfied until there are rivers of blood in Ukraine.
Putin will never back down. If he does he will be no longer Russian president. Get this in
your heads.
dogsecrets, GA 10 hours ago
Good just give the Russian what they want a land bridge to Crimea
This war did not have to happen the Stupid European and American thinking that Russian would
stand by while Ukraine join the EU, just look at how we acted when Cuba was getting close to Russia
and we still treat Cuba like crap 50 years later, Wake up Ukraine and Ukrainian people are not
worth fighting for.
R36, New York 6 hours ago
I do blame Obama because he has allowed the situation to get out of hand. He could have said,
"Just as we Americans were fighting for our freedom from the British, the rebels in east Ukraine
are fighting for their freedom from Poroshenko and his regime in Kiev. Just as France helped us
against the British, Russia is helping the rebels against Kiev.
"It is foolish to risk world war to prevent the people from the Donblass to have their freedom."
He could have said that and pressured Poroshenko to allow autonomy or federalization. Then
we could have had peace and the 8000 Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve would still be alive.
Before he went to Minsk, Poroshenko said explicitly that he was not interested in compromise
and he rejected federalization.
He has reaped what he sowed. And Ukraine has reaped what America sowed.
Phil, Brentwood 7 hours ago
Have ANY revolutions since the "Arab Spring" turned out well? Egypt is no better off, Syria
is a killing field and Libya is a catastrophe. Sadly, Ukraine is following this pattern. The overthrow
of their elected president has led to bloodshed and loss of control of the eastern portion of
their country. Lesson: before you jump in a dark hole, figure out what's at the bottom.
Under the circumstances, the escape of the Ukrainian troops from Debaltseve is the best outcome
possible. It is considerably better than having them surrender.
Yves here. Ukraine is going into an IMF program in even worse condition that Greece with its various
loans from the Troika in 2010, and we can see how well borrowing more when you were already overindebted
worked out for Greece. In addition, this interview with Michael Hudson makes clear that the loan
to Ukraine is wildly out of line with IMF rules, making it painfully obvious that this "rescue" is
all about propping up the government so it can continue to wage war rather than economic development.
SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Michael Hudson report on The Real News Network.
I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.
A ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine has been agreed to, following a marathon all-night, 17-hour negotiation
between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko. They were flanked
by other European leaders keeping vigil. Russia and Ukraine may have many differences, but what they
have in common is a looming economic crisis, with oil prices taking a dive on the Russian side and
a very expensive war they were not counting on on the Ukrainian side.
Joining us now to talk about all of this is Michael Hudson. He is a distinguished research professor
of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. His upcoming book is titled Killing the Host:
How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global Economy.
Michael, thank you, as always, for joining us.
MICHAEL HUDSON, ECONOMICS PROF., UNIV. OF MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY: Good to be here.
PERIES: So, Michael, in a recent interview published in The National Interest magazine, you said
that most media covers Russia as if it is the greatest threat to Ukraine. History suggests the IMF
may be far moredangerous. What did you mean by that?
HUDSON: First of all, the terms on which the IMF make loans require more austerity and a withdrawal
of all the public subsidies. The Ukrainian population already is economically devastated. The conditions
that the IMF's program is laying down for making loans to Ukraine is that it must repay the debts.
But it doesn't have the ability to pay. So there's only one way to do it, and that's the way that
the IMF has told Greece and other countries to do: It has to begin selling off whatever the nation
has left of its public domain; or, to have your leading oligarchs take on partnerships with American
or European investors, so that they can buy out into the monopolies in the Ukraine and indulge in
rent-extraction.
This is the IMF's one-two punch. Punch number one is: here's the loan -- to pay your
bondholders, so that you now owe us, the IMF, to whom you can't write down debts. The terms of this
loan is to believe our Guiding Fiction: that you can pay foreign debt by running a domestic budgetary
surplus, by cutting back public spending and causing an even deeper depression.
This idea that foreign debts can be paid by squeezing out domestic tax revenues was controverted
by Keynes in the 1920s in his discussion of German reparations. (I devote a chapter to reviewing
the controversy in my Trade, Development and Foreign Debt.) There is no excuse for making this error
-- except that the error is deliberate, and is intended to lead to failure, so that the IMF
can then say that to everyone's surprise and nobody's blame, their "stabilization program" destabilized
rather than stabilized the economy.
The penalty for following this junk economics must be paid by the victim, not by the victimizer.
This is part of the IMF's "blame the victim" strategy.
The IMF then throws its Number Two punch. It says, "Oh, you can't pay us? I'm sorry that our projections
were so wrong. But you've got to find some way to pay -- by forfeiting whatever assets
your economy may still have in domestic hands.
The IMF has been wrong on Ukraine year after year, almost as much as it's been wrong on Ireland
and on Greece. Its prescriptions are the same as those that devastated Third World economies from
the 1970s onward.
So now the problem becomes one of just what Ukraine is going to have to sell off to pay the foreign
debts -- run up increasingly for waging the war that's devastated its economy.
One asset that foreign investors want is Ukrainian farmland. Monsanto has been buying into Ukraine
-- or rather, leasing its land, because Ukraine has a law against alienating its farmland and
agricultural land to foreigners. And a matter of fact, its law is very much the same as what the
Financial Times reports Australia is wanting to do to block Chinese and American purchase of farmland.[1]
The IMF also insists that debtor countries dismantle public regulations againstforeign investment,
as well as consumer protection and environmental protection regulations. This means that what is
in store for Ukraine is a neoliberal policy that's guaranteed to actually make the situation even
worse.
In that sense, finance is war. Finance is the new kind of warfare, using finance and forced sell-offs
in a new kind of battlefield. This will not help Ukraine. It promises to lead to yet another crisis
down the road very, very quickly.
PERIES: Michael, let's unpack the debt in this crisis. The war has led Ukraine into a deeper crisis.
Talk about the devastation that has caused and what they have to manage in addition to what the IMF
is trying to impose on it.
HUDSON: When Kiev went to war against Eastern Ukraine, it fought primarily the coal mining region
and theexport region. Thirty-eight percent of Ukraine's exports are to Russia. Yet much of this export
capacity has been bombed out of existence. Also, the electric companies that fuel the electricity
to the coal mines been bombed out. So Ukraine can't even supply itself with coal.
What is so striking about all this is that just a few weeks ago, on January 28, Christine Lagarde,
the head of the IMF, said that the IMF does not make loans to countries that are engaged in war.
That would befunding one side or another. Yet Ukraine is involved in a civil war. The great question
is thus when the IMF will even begin to release the loan it has been discussing.
Also, the IMF articles of agreement say that it cannot make loans to an insolvent country. So
how on earth can it be part of a loan bailout for the Ukraine if, number one, it's at war (which
has to stop totally), and number two, it's insolvent?
The only solution is that Ukraine will scale back its debts to private investors. And that means
a lot of contrarian hedge funds investors. The Financial Times today has an article showing that
one American investor alone, Michael Hasenstab, has $7 billion of Ukraine debts and wants to speculate
in it, along with Templeton Global Bond Fund.[2] How is Ukraine going to treat the speculators? And
then, finally, how is the IMF going to treat the fact that Russia's sovereign fund lent 3 billion
euros to the Ukraine on harsh terms through the London agreement terms that can't be written down?
Is the IMF going to insist that Russia take the same haircut that it's imposing on the hedge funds?
All of this is going to be the kind of conflict that's going to take much more effort than even the
solutions that we've seen over the last few days have taken on the military battlefront.
PERIES: And so how could Ukraine imagine getting out of this crisis?
HUDSON: It probably imagines a dream world in which it'll get out of the crisis by the West giving
it $50 billion and saying, here's all the money you need, spend it as you want. That's the extent
of its imagination. It is fantasy, of course. It's living in a dream world -- except
that a few weeks ago, George Soros came out in The New York Review of Books and urged Congress and
"the West" to give Ukraine $50 billion and look at it as a down payment on military or with Russia.
Well, immediately Kiev said, yes, we will only spend them on defensive arms. We will defend Ukraine
all the way up toSiberia as we wipe out the Russians.
Bit today a Financial Times editorial said, yes, give Ukraine the $50 billion that George Soros
asked for.[3] We've got to enable it to have enough money to fight America's New Cold War against
Russia. But the continental Europeans are saying, "Wait a minute. At the end of this, there'll be
no more Ukrainians to fight. The war might even spread into Poland and into elsewhere, because if
the money that's given to Ukraine is really for what the Obama administration and Hillary and Soros
are all pressing for -- to go to war with Russia -- then Russia's going to
say, 'Okay, if we're being attacked by foreign troops, we're going to have to not only bomb the troops,
but the airports they are coming in through, and the railway stations they're coming in through.
We're going to extend our own defense towards Europe.'"
Apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. Choice
one: Europe, Germany and Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials and European
technology, we can be one of the most prosperous areas in the world. Or, Choice two: You can go to
war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice.
PERIES: Michael, complex and interesting times in Ukraine, as well as at the IMF. Thank you so
much for joining us.
HUDSON: It's good to be here, Sharmini.
PERIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Of course, it's hard to argue with his perspective: the war state impoverishes everyone except
the war profiteers, which now includes the western financial system in full flower.
Maybe my 401K has an emerging market fund so I can profit from Slavic misery?
That's about the extent of our democratic participation in this fiasco.
Disgusting.
participant-observer-observed, February 15, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Hudson's voice needs echoing, since the reality here is much worse than 401k investments gone
evil
As FL Rep A Grayson pointed out in January (Fake
Trade TPP), with 14 yeas of half-trillion trade deficits, USA has nothing left to export than
death and destruction, and since no one wants to buy it, it can only be peddled through force
or swindling.
That's one reason Hudson did not fail to mention Monsanto, which has found no one is interested
in their sterile seeds. This is like dumping nuclear wastes in developing countries.
James Levy, February 15, 2015 at 6:41 am
Every army needs motivated and competent trigger-pullers. What this and other policies of Washington,
Berlin, and Kiev are doing is making almost all potential Ukrainian trigger-pullers (except for
the fanatical right-wing nationalist kind) disgruntled, demoralized, or already in flight from
service. The more desperate measures the West and Kiev take to "win" this war the worse things
get and the less likely they are to come out with even a respectable draw. The Donbas rebels and
their Russian backers would be wise to just apply moderate pressure over time and let the Kiev
government implode.
Procopius., February 15, 2015 at 7:39 am
This is why I've thought there was a Great Divide within the IMF.
After reading Prof. Hudson's comments here I'm thinking there isn't really a divide - the
so-called research part of the IMF is actually a public relations exercise.
They come out and say, "Oh, our new research shows that we actually greatly underestimated
the multiplier effect of austerity. So sorry, we won't make that mistake again."
Then the knuckledraggers* who actually implement IMF policy go out and demand exactly the same
terms the next time. From what I've read the IMF research people are actually pretty good, and
lots of stenographers and right-leaning economists praise them to the skies as creating good policy,
but they don't actually affect policy at all.
*knuckledraggers - originally the operations division in the CIA, the guys who were actually
out there conducting coups and killing people, so called in contrast to the analysts. I don't
know what the operations people called the analysts, but I'll bet it's not fit for a family oriented
publication.
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 8:39 am
I hate that I'm always the one here at N.C. who has to have things "dumbed down" for me.
But I have learned that when Michael Hudson speaks -- I want to be in the front row and listening
intently to what he has to say -- because, where Professor Hudson leads, I ultimately always seem
to follow. So, may I stop and regurgitate what I think Professor Hudson is saying -- and then
let you smart people correct me and, hopefully (and helpfully) enable me to make sure that I have,
at least, a rudimentary grasp on that which he has said? (And to correct me and to further elaborate,
if anyone has the time or patience for it.)
Okay. So, if my pea-sized brain were asked to explain (in housewife-ese) what Professor Hudson
is saying, would I be on the right track in asking the following questions and making the following
assumptions?
1) Is Professor Hudson suggesting that Putin is suggesting one of two options -- that Russia,
Germany, and Europe will either be allowed to play nice together (in the sandbox that we call
the European Continent), making up a happy, well-balanced, partnership/playgroup, OR…… the U.S.
will help fund the defense of Ukraine so that Ukraine will go to war defending itself against
Russia (which Ukraine would, obviously and ultimately lose without U.S. boots on the ground)?
2) And is Professor Hudson suggesting that Putin is saying that if the latter scenario is chosen,
and that once a military operation involving the U.S. is underway, Russia would just go ahead
and undertake a more hostility-induced "insertion of itself" into said German/European sandbox?
3) Although not addressed directly in Professor's Hudson's commentary above, does Professor
Hudson think that this is Putin's Russia trying to re-assert Russia's domination over the European
continent or is this just Russia wanting to be taken as a serious and trustworthy playmate in
the EU sandbox? (Is Russia having a little temper tantrum that is worth giving in to, or is this
Russia being, ya know -- just a re-branded USSR?)
*******
Because the latter seems like a pretty significant threat, doesn't it?
And if (we think) that Putin's end-goal is "total bully-driven European sandbox domination,"
that sort of seems like not a very good situation for Europe or for the U.S. (I would think?)
And, furthermore, if "total bully-driven European sandbox domination," is what Putin has in
mind, I think I could see my way clear to allowing a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit
closer-in and a bit more "visible" to Putin at this point in time. (I mean -- we gotta park our
fleet of battleships somewhere, anyway.)
I don't want a war with Putin's Russia, but I think that I so much don't want a war that I
would tend to want for Putin to get the message that he'll be given very little latitude in his
behavior -- until we're absolutely certain that his intention is only to be allowed to make new
friends and to flourish in the EU sandbox; not total sandbox domination.
(And, btw, he can start by leaving his shirt on and leaving his tiger at home. I mean -- we
need to see that he is capable of confining himself to a few very basic social norms, right?)
:-)
Nevertheless, I'm still not sure that I have understood the true underlying issues as Professor
Hudson has tried to convey them -- and I have always looked to Professor Hudson as always being
an authoritative commentator on "underlying issues."
So -- I would greatly appreciate any feedback, insight or clarification that anyone has to
offer me. Thanks.
sleepy, February 15, 2015 at 9:01 am
Really? No need to dress up your Putin hate in rhetorical cuteness.
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 12:22 pm
@ Sleepy.
May I call you "Grumpy," instead? :-)
I'm sorry if I prompted you to distill down my words into some organic form of "Putin-hatred."
On the other hand, thank you for referring to my rhetoric as "cute." (I must admit -- I'm quite
flattered. Ya know -- I'm at that awkward age of 51 -- anything about me that may once have been
considered "cute" is now sagging or drooping or expanding or wrinkling. And any promise of being
"cute," as in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sense of the word, the "lovable Bubbe" sort of "cute"
-- is still quite a few years off.) So I sorta feel like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in the
1960s Rankin Bass classic of the same name when Clarice refers to Rudolf as "cute." Indeed --
all day long there's gonna be an extra little bounce in my step as I think to myself, "Sleepy"
at Naked Capitalism thinks my rhetoric is CUTE!!!
I did not mean for my questions and/or comments to come off as sounding as though I hated Mr.
Putin. Indeed, I have never met the man, and I do not know if I would like him or not. But my
bar for hatred is a very high bar -- like Adolf Hitler high. So I doubt very much that I would
hate Mr. Putin.
Perhaps, if I were a better writer, my view of Mr. Putin would have struck you as nothing more
than a healthy respect for a well-armed and powerful leader of a large country that is largely
run by a handful of powerful business oligarchs in whom I have no trust.
I made reference to the shirtless thing and the tiger thing (which, in retrospect, I probably
shouldn't have done) only because my brain often frames world issues in terms of how I, a former
preschool teacher, would deal with a playground of preschoolers.
Putin's behavior in seemingly insignificant forums (i.e. shirtless, tiger-hugging photo-ops)
is something that I refuse to disregard as "quirkiness." Indeed, I personally regard such behavior
as a "red flag" that this is a person who operates outside of social norms, and is, therefore
less predictable, and is therefore, more worthy of keeping a closer eye on.
That's all.
Furthermore, as a preschool teacher -- I would be keeping my eyes on my whole class. Putin?
I would probably recommend a one-on-one aide for his initial mainstreaming. (It would benefit
him in that it might help him to not fail, and it would benefit the other children who might be
harmed by any of the many ways in which he might fail.)
And, if Putin had been one of my preschoolers -- I most-certainly wouldn't have hated him;
I've never hated a preschooler. I've never even disliked a preschooler.
The IMF? I view them as administrators of the preschool who have never had any hands-on preschool
teaching experience, and therefore, usually walk a precarious tightrope of being either useless
or harmful. (Some of whom are UNintentionally clueless, some of whom are idiots, and some of whom
are decent -- yet exist in a bubble without realizing it. Which makes most of them ill-suited
for their jobs.)
I don't exactly parade around N.C. as some sort of policy wonk. I am authentically what I claim
to be. I'm literally just a housewife. And it just so happens that I used to teach preschool.
And I am the first to admit that my "C.V." does not measure up to the C.V. of practically any
of the other folks who occasionally comment here.
I cannot convey to you the extent to which I wish that I could bring to this forum the background
and experience of one who was expert in international diplomacy or geo-politics or even basic
economics and finance. But I realized a long time ago that Yves allows me to come to this forum
with the only experience and background that I have -- which is, admittedly, no more than and
no less than that of an average housewife. (And, truth be told -- I'm really not even any good
at being a housewife.)
So, I'm grateful to have a forum such as Naked Capitalism to read and to sometimes even feel
welcome enough to chime in, despite my lowly status. Indeed, I always look forward to having my
questions answered and I look forward to gleaning insightful feedback to my occasional comments.
But now I know I can come here for compliments on my rhetorical style, too!
Now. How about you go pour yourself a cup of coffee, "Sleepy," and we'll call you "Happy,"
instead of "Sleepy" or "Grumpy?"
(Did I mention that I used to teach preschool?)
Left in Wisconsin, February 15, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Complements on your sense of humor and good-natured-ness also.
Ned Ludd, February 15, 2015 at 2:59 pm
Examples of Pearl's sense of humor and good-natured-ness:
"Is Russia having a little temper tantrum that is worth giving in to, or is this Russia
being, ya know -- just a re-branded USSR?… Because the latter seems like a pretty significant
threat, doesn't it?"
"And, furthermore, if 'total bully-driven European sandbox domination,' is what Putin has
in mind, I think I could see my way clear to allowing a few of our militaristic capabilities
a bit closer-in and a bit more 'visible' to Putin at this point in time. (I mean -- we gotta
park our fleet of battleships somewhere, anyway.)"
A "fleet of battleships" is an instrument of war and death. Rhetorical cuteness should not
mask the implied threat of violence, when moving "a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit
closer-in and a bit more 'visible' to Putin".
From Raúl Ilargi Meijer:
[O]ur media told us Putin is the bogeyman. And 'we' never asked for any proof.
[…]
But here we are: no proof and layer upon layer of sanctions. And nary a voice is raised
in the west. If one is, it's to denounce the Russians as bloodthirsty barbarians. Even though
there is no proof they did anything other than protecting what they see as their own people.
Something we all would do too, no questions asked.
Ukraine defines 2014 as the year western propaganda came into its own. Not just fictional
stories about an economic recovery anymore, no, we had our politico-media establishment ram
an entire new cold war down our throats. And we swallowed it whole.
I guess it's not surprising the Obots will be out in support of the New Cold War --
if they even plan on keeping it only a Cold War.
No Drama Obama???? Puleeze.
Besides -- I like seeing Putin having to pander to Russian voters. (all the macho
leader stuff). Makes him seem like less of a "Mad Dictator".
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 6:16 pm
@Ned Ludd
Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps my original comment was not put in the context of Michael
Hudson's interview.
Or perhaps most everyone on this thread had a really crappy Valentine's Day yesterday and they're
taking out their frustrations on me today. I don't know.
But I know this.
I am the daughter of a Nazi Holocaust Camp Liberator. Here is a video clip of the day my father,
an 18 year old Private from Sioux City Iowa, along with allied forces, liberated the Nazi camp
at Ludwigslust.
I was born into, raised in, and am a product of a family that is as about as "war-avoidant"
as one could imagine. Nevertheless, I also understand and appreciate that there are times when
it's nice to have a military force so that you can do stuff like helping to stop the extermination
of entire race of humans.
I also appreciate that Russians were our allies in that effort, and I grieve for the (literally)
millions of Russians who died as a result of that war.
So please do not misunderstand or mis-characterize any of my statements as being that of some
sort of war monger.
Here is the part of Michael Hudson's interview to which I was referring and then asking for
clarification about:
"[Bit] today a Financial Times editorial said, yes, give Ukraine the $50 billion that
George Soros asked for.[3] We've got to enable it to have enough money to fight America's New
Cold War against Russia. But the continental Europeans are saying, "Wait a minute. At the end
of this, there'll be no more Ukrainians to fight. The war might even spread into Poland and
into elsewhere, because if the money that's given to Ukraine is really for what the Obama administration
and Hillary and Soros are all pressing for -- to go to war with Russia --
then Russia's going to say, 'Okay, if we're being attacked by foreign troops, we're going to
have to not only bomb the troops, but the airports they are coming in through, and the railway
stations they're coming in through. We're going to extend our own defense towards Europe.'"
Apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before
you. Choice one: Europe, Germany and Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw
materials and European technology, we can be one of the most prosperous areas in the world.
Or, Choice two: You can go to war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice."
So, my question/observation was just (if the question is should we arm Ukraine against the
Russians) is that, no we shouldn't -- because there would (in all likelihood) be a greater loss
of life if we did that. And, in alternate, I was asking -- couldn't we, instead, just park
a few of our ships over there and hope that everyone will play nice (as nice as possible under
the circumstances.)
I'm not saying that the parking of a few battleships over there is a good idea -- In fact,
I'll gladly concede that it's quite possibly an entirely sucky idea. I was simply trying to come
up with an alternative option to arming Ukraine with $50 billion of weaponry.
We have a bloated military industrial complex; I hate that we do, and I wish that it weren't
the case.
I was just wondering if -- being that we already have this bloated military industrial complex
-- couldn't we at least try to use it for something more innocuous -- like just some plumage-showing
as opposed to arming a country that would lead ultimately to lot of death and destruction -- when,
in the alternate, maybe just plumage-showing would do the trick.
So I know this thread has out-lived its time -- but I just couldn't leave it inferred and dangling
out there an insinuation that I am some sort of war-monger.
OIFVet, February 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
"Plumage-showing" should be reserved for mating rituals. In matters of war and peace, it leads
to escalations.
Perhaps you missed this past year's attempts by the US to goad Russia into a war,
and the Euro poodles willingness to submit to the US "leadership" even though that's ultimately
not in their own best interests. That's what Putin would have been referring to when it came to
the Euro's choices. This past week also saw the Euro's realization that the US is not interested
in de-escalaton, and that any further escalation is only going to hurt Europe more. That's why
Merkel and Hollande went to Moscow. They know that cornering Russia can only lead to Russia lashing
out, Russia will never back out as it is not their way, and besides they have no place left to
back out to, what with NATO's eastward march. . So please explain, if you can, how will "plumage
showing" lead to de-escalation and enhanced Euro poodle security?
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 7:07 pm
@Left in Wisconsin.
I like you.
You're my favorite.
:-)
juliania, February 15, 2015 at 1:50 pm
I believe sleepy's comment was justified. No need to pile on. You gave two alternative negative
assessments of Putin's motives.
How about this one? A ceasefire in Ukraine, commencing now on an important Russian feast day
and the 70th anniversary of the dreadful allied firebombing of Dresden, has components to it that
are hugely humanitarian and devoutly to be wished for. You seem to be ignoring that fact in your
rush to judgment.
I will leave it at that.
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 6:40 pm
@Juliania
Who gave two alternative negative assessments of Putin's motives?
I did?
(I can't tell for sure if your comment was directed at me or not.)
Just in case it was aimed at me, please let me draw attention to the fact that I was quoting
Michael Hudson when he said:
Apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before
you. Choice one: Europe, Germany and Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials
and European technology, we can be one of the most prosperous areas in the world. Or, Choice two:
You can go to war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice.
So those were NOT my assessments, and I don't even know that those were Michael Hudson's
assessments. In fact I was trying to gain clarity on that point.
And of course I want a ceasefire. I'm always in the "let's stop shooting at each other"
camp.
Hope that clears it up.
Geesh. Rough crowd today.
(You have a pretty name, btw. I was gonna name my son Juliana -- had he not been, you know
-- a son. I like Juliania even more.) :-)
OIFVet, February 15, 2015 at 2:29 pm
Whose "mainstream" are you referring to? American? If so, that's rather blatant exceptionalism
and "indispensable nation"-mongering. Which is the US political way of going shirtless on a horse
while pledging to spread "freedum and democracy" everywhere there's oil and/or other strategic
interests.
craazyboy, February 15, 2015 at 9:08 am
The Pentagon has already revealed the Weird and Shocking Truth -- Putin is one
of the Lizard People!
He has plans to subvert the IMF using alien mind control techniques and have the IMF loan Mexico
50 billion dollars so that Mexico may purchase arms (the defensive kind -- like the
US DEFENSE DEPT has!) and defend itself from US and NATO Adventurism. But Inquiring minds ask,
"Will It Stop There?! Will Mexico roll across our borders?". Of course they will. Central America
basically sucks, so no reason to go that direction.
Clearly, the West must act preemptively towards this real threat and defend whatever allies
we install -- anywhere in our free world!
NotTimothyGeithner, February 15, 2015 at 9:13 am
From Putin's perspective, NATO has been rapidly growing, the U.S. is a drunk child on the world
stage, Russian peace keepers have already been attacked by an adviser to Poroshenko*, has faced
economic sanctions (an act of war by most standards), sees old time Bandarists running Kiev, is
compared in public to ISIS and Ebola by the U.S. President, was accused of downing a civilian
airliner**, and even has American officials publishing fake evidence of Russian troops in the
Ukraine.
War has been declared, and if the 500 million people in the EU can't handle a population of
150 million recovering from the Yeltsin years and predatory Western finance (Putin kicked them
out; his real sin), it would probably be for the best if Russian troops returned to Berlin.
*Georgia hasn't come up in the propaganda for a reason.
**Obama and crew haven't brought it up, and the official dutch report mentions a plane crash.
Also, Putin likely means Western Europe can stop being a U.S. vassal or be frozen out of the
Shangai Cooperative which includes Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and non-EU members of
the USSR. The U.S. isn't going to fuel Europe any time soon, and most of Europe's governments
are weak with major employment problems.
As for Crimea, the old Ukraine ceased to exist after the coup, and every sane person in the
world recognized that Russian defense depends on Crimea. They will never risk losing it.
Santi, February 15, 2015 at 9:48 am
The next blog entry (Itargi's) is about being
trapped in narrative. After reading it you might feel less so…
Regarding narratives, I am very much remembered of
Cuban missile crisis
and subsequent naval blockade by the USA.
I guess US people should not feel strange if Putin warns aggressively when they get too close
to Russia. Negotiations between the IMF and Russia should ensue, I think Poroshenko, Merkel and
Hollande are not really useful in the talks. (Tongue in cheek)
OIFVet, February 15, 2015 at 2:16 pm
" I think I could see my way clear to allowing a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit
closer-in and a bit more "visible" to Putin at this point in time." So you would? I just want
to ask, who will pick up the tab and the responsibility for the consequences of your cock-swinging
contest with Putin? These policies do not do anything to undermine Putin but they do a lot to
destabilize US colonies, or as we colloquially refer to them, "allies". I wrote about the latest
such case
a few days ago.
Chaos only benefits American imperial elites, thus chaos is our main export these days. So
why in the world would you want to support such non-sense? I doubt that's where Michael Hudson
will ever take you but you can bet your bottom dollar that's where the warmongers in DC want to
take us.
participant-observer-observed, February 15, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Did you watch the video or just read the transcript? Because my viewing didn't lead me to hear
Michael's thesis to be about Putin and Russia at all.
Rather, Hudson is pointing out that once past military interventions, rape, pillage etc. of
the brutish, arm-to-arm combat sort, we will still have the spectacle to observe of the economic
rape & pillage to contend with. I.e., that the "solutions" on offer (Oligarchic tunnel vision
as usual), from all directions, are just more of the same problem-creating dynamic.
He is essentially elaborating on German Chancellor's point of there being no military solution,
and following it to the natural conclusion, which consequence remaining is absurdity showing economic
solutions on offer are just a slower and more painful death and suffering than the brutish variety.
(It is a logical argument form going back millennia "reduction to the absurd")
You point out an important issue: Hudson's message is quite subtle, and therefore may be hard
for many people to grasp (let alone try like yourself), which is actually quite sad, because somewhere
in Ukraine right now some babies are being born to parents who want their kid to live a life not
dictated by death and destruction, of the slower or coarser varieties!
Doug Terpstra, February 15, 2015 at 3:56 pm
False humility and self-deprecation hardly mask your russophobia. And to your purported honest
inquiry with a clever twist of Hudson's arguments: yep, you've got it exactly bass-ackwards (but
points scored for creativity in regurgitating all the standard agit-prop behind a mask of feigned
curiosity).
One more time, the Ukrainian coup was US sponsored; the evidence, including recordings, is
beyond dispute; all of the evidence of Russian aggression (including the now disappeared flight
MH17) that you blithely presume has been demonstrably, repeatedly discredited; there is no evidence
of Russian aggression, not in Crimea (peacefully re-admitted) nor anywhere else in Europe. And
Hudson's representation of Putin's choice was not an ultimatum for one of two forms of domination
as you disingenuisly paraphrased it, but one of mutually beneficial peace or war at only at their
unilateral insistence.
If your inqiry is genuinely honest, start your preschool education at another of today's posts
by Ilargi, and if you want to get to the beginning, visit his site.
Vatch. February 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm
One more time, the Ukrainian uprising was not U.S. sponsored. The Ukrainian people were sick
and tired of a succession of corrupt governments, and they wanted a change. Coups d'état are not
characterized by massive crowds numbering in tens or hundreds of thousands. Coups d'état are carried
out by small groups, often with the assistance of a country's military. What the U.S. sponsored
were some of (or many of) the members of the post-uprising temporary government. This is what
was recorded by eavesdropping.
The seizure of Crimea was mostly peaceful, but it was a military event, nonetheless. In February,
2014, Russian soldiers stationed in Crimean bases illegally left those bases and seized Ukrainian
government installations. Of course, the Russians have plausible deniability, because the Russian
soldiers were not wearing any insignia that might identify them as Russians; hence their nickname
"the Little Green Men". The referendum in March, 2014, was a farce worthy of North Korea: more
than 96% in favor of unification with Russia. An honest election would probably still have approved
the referendum, but 96%? Give me a break!
Is Russia still paying for the use of the naval base in Crimea? They're obligated to do so
under an international treaty
with Ukraine, but of course Russia unilaterally abrogated that treaty:
The Agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, widely referred
to as the Kharkiv Pact (Ukrainian: Харківський пакт)[1][2] or Kharkiv Accords (Russian: Харьковские
соглашения),[3][4][5] was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on
naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042, with an additional five year
renewal option in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian
natural gas.[6] The agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of
the two countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was a continuation
of a treaty signed in 1997 between the two nations. Shortly after the (disputed) March 2014
accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation,[7] Russia unilateral [sic] terminated the treaty
on 31 March 2014.
OIFVet. February 15, 2015 at 4:59 pm
"Coups d'état are not characterized by massive crowds numbering in tens or hundreds of thousands."
They were used as a cover. It's called "legitimizing the junta", giving it the appearance of "popular"
support. Yes, the people were sick and tired of corruption. What they got was another set of corrupt
flunkies, this time loyal to the US, who hijacked the Maidan. Your recurring desperate attempts
to legitimize the junta by invoking the Maidan only delegitimizes the latter.
"What the U.S. sponsored were some of (or many of) the members of the post-uprising temporary
government." LOL, funny how the US sponsorees and US citizens ended up taking the reigns, and
not temporarily either. They must be exceedingly honest and democratic lovers of freedum.
"Is Russia still paying for the use of the naval base in Crimea?" Inanity, thy name is Vatch.
I will play though, so tell me how much is the US paying Cuba for Guantanamo?
Vatch. February 15, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Crowds in coups d'état might be used as cover while the overthrow is occurring, or after it
has already happened. They do not occur months before the overthrow, which is exactly what happened
in Ukraine starting in November, 2013.
I have no argument with you about the people who have joined the government since the uprising.
Obviously the U.S. retains a huge influence.
I think the U.S. does pay a trivial amount to Cuba for the Guantanamo naval Base under the
terms of the treaty. This amount should be renegotiated. Even better, the U.S. should shut it
down.
OIFVet. February 15, 2015 at 5:21 pm
"They do not occur months before the overthrow…" I know your reading comprehension couldn't
possibly be this bad, even if you are a Chicago public school product. The US saw a great opportunity
to throw a little coup d'etat and claim that it was the will of the crowds. Hence, my use of the
term 'cover'. It really is not that hard to comprehend for anyone with an ounce of objectivity.
And since you brought up the Nuland recording, is she some clairvoyant latter day Nostradamus
that she foresaw that Yats will be the PM several weeks prior to the coup?
"I think the U.S. does pay a trivial amount to Cuba for the Guantanamo naval Base under the
terms of the treaty." No, it doesn't. Cuba, unlike Ukraine, has a modicum of self-respect and
refuses to accept the generous lease payment of $4,000. Also, since when is Russia supposed to
pay a lease for anything located on its sovereign territory?
Ned Ludd. February 15, 2015 at 6:10 pm
They do not occur months before the overthrow, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine
starting in November, 2013.
Earlier this year, we broke the story about USAID co-investing with Omidyar Network in Ukraine
NGOs that organized and led the Maidan revolution in Kiev, resulting in the overthrow of President
Viktor Yanukovych. […]
The truth is, USAID's role in a covert ops and subversion should be common knowledge-it's
not like the record is that hard to find. Either USAID has developed those Men In Black memory-zappers,
or else-maybe we don't want to remember. […]
After populist left-wing candidate Jean-Bertrand Aristide won the first democratic elections
in Haiti in 1990, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy began pouring funds into opposition
groups opposed to Aristide. Noam Chomsky writes:
"Aid for 'democracy promotion' sharply increased, directed to antigovernment, probusiness
groups, mainly through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), also the National
Endowment for Democracy and AIFLD (the AFL-CIO affiliate with a notorious antilabor record
throughout the Third World). One of the closest observers of Haiti, Amy Wilentz, wrote that
USAID's huge 'Democracy Enhancement' project was 'specifically designed to fund those sectors
of the Haitian political spectrum where opposition to the Aristide government could be encouraged.'"
A few months later, in 1991, Aristide was overthrown in a coup.
Doug Terpstra. February 15, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Not one but TWO Gallup polls tend to support the legitimacy of the election results in Crimea
and there is little evidence of fraud or coercion… at the level suggested by your cogent "gimme
a break" innuendo that Crimea is equivalent to North Korea.. This is further corroborated by the
manifest peacefulness of the process itself and the year since - little or no unnrest or discontent.
This was the overwhelming will of a people in the aftermath of an illegitimate coup, who had for
generations prior always been Russian.
And yes, one more time, what don't you get about "f**k the EU" and "our man Yats", and. "five
billion dollars" and the neo-Nazis militantscCain and Pyatt pal around with.
Steve H.. February 15, 2015 at 9:17 am
Russia has far too much investment in corrupt European politicians to want a war with Europe
(see Gerhard Schröder). The taking of Crimea at U.S. expense (see Nuland) was a strategic opportunity
that would have been foolish to disregard. Russia is placing itself in the middleman position
for the transport of commodities, the link between Asia and Europe, and has made the point in
the past (during the Georgia uprising) that the infrastructure for European needs is tremendously
vulnerable.
Russia without Putin would likely still pursue these goals. The steppes are like the huge big
brother at their back, such that there is no existential threat to the existence of Russia. He
is making the point that Europe has far more to lose, if necessary Russia can cut them off and
turn to Asia.
I am only a few paragraphs into your link, but it is providing the background and texture for
which I wanted and needed to overlay the information in the Michael Hudson interview.
(I didn't want you to have wait an hour or two for me to thank you -- so I'm going to get back
to reading that which you sent. Thanks again, so much.)
Pearl. February 15, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Wow. That website to which you linked is amazingly thought-provoking. (Dare I say….addictive!)
:-0 I'm hooked. The comments are really interesting, as well.
It's fascinating to me that we have these two great powers, Russia and the United States; one
currently being led by a President who has been been nicknamed "No Drama Obama," and the other
country being led by a seemingly 180-degree opposite personality -- an "all drama," or if you
will, a "Tooten' Putin."
Indeed, this in itself would tend to set the stage for some very interesting and very complex
geo-politics.
Have you read much about the (subset?) of Nash Equilibrium/Game Theory that is referred to
as "Drama Theory?" I wonder how "Drama Theory" would fit into this conflict. It's older work,
but interesting:
http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/092.html
("Don't Get Even, Get Mad: When it looks like you just can't win, what's the most rational thing
to do? Try going completely crazy," suggests Robert Matthews.)
Anyway, thanks again for the link.
OIFVet. February 15, 2015 at 2:06 pm
"Russia has far too much investment in corrupt European politicians…" Not nearly as much
as the US. See all "liberul" Euro politicians both in the East and in the West, eagerly selling
their countries' interests for a few silver dollars.
lolcar. February 15, 2015 at 9:18 am
Russia's military budget is exceeded by France and the UK alone, let alone the EU as a whole,
let alone the entire NATO alliance. Not sure how you get to Russia being in any position to "bully"
Europe. Parking a fleet of battleships in Russia's backyard or, more useful in this day and age,
a fleet of ballistic missiles on Russia's border would of course in no way be "bullying" because
we in the West are such special snowflakes who only engage in violence reluctantly and for the
highest of moral purposes.
NotTimothyGeithner. February 15, 2015 at 10:07 am
How much goes to the military and how much goes to hookers and blow is a huge deal. The U.S.
has captive markets and can force F-35 contracts. The Russian planes need to work to be sold,
and they don't have oceans protecting them.
NATO trained and equipped soldiers haven't been fairing too well without overwhelming air
power. See Iraq and Georgia. In the case of Georgia, the ex-President currently hiding out
from trial in the now NATO ally here in the U.S. started the hostilities.
lolcar. February 15, 2015 at 11:17 am
Actually meant as a reply to Pearl's interpretation of
"Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. Choice one: Europe, Germany and
Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials and European technology, we
can be one of the most prosperous areas in the world. Or, Choice two: You can go to war with us
and you can be wiped out"
as some kind of Russian threat of complete domination of Europe. But of course, you're right
-- the actual fighting power per dollar spent may well be a lot lower in the NATO alliance.
bob. February 15, 2015 at 2:23 pm
"Georgia, the ex-President currently hiding out from trial in the now NATO ally here in the
U.S. started the hostilities."
"Not sure how you get to Russia being in any position to "bully" Europe."
I'm not sure that they are -- I guess I just assumed it was possible because of Russia's nuclear
capability and because of Russia's sheer size? I dunno.
But I really was just trying to have clarified if that is how the two choices given by Putin
(per Michael Hudson) were intended to be taken. I really wasn't sure -- and that's why I was asking.
Btw, and thank you for bringing to my attention, the following information -- which I did not
know:
"Russia's military budget is exceeded by France and the UK alone, let alone the EU as a
whole, let alone the entire NATO alliance."
I really didn't realize that.
And, btw, I agree that the U.S. is not a special snowflake that does not ever provoke war.
Ironically (predictably) the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld misguided invasion of Iraq just made the United
States more "hated," less respected, and less trusted. So in a way, it just seems like we have
to be more "on guard" now because we're more hated/disrespected/distrusted (understandably) than
we were before we (ever-so-thoughtfully) invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and
helped to further destabilize an entire region of the world. It was the gift that keeps on giving,
no?
Anyway, I appreciate your insight. It's difficult to keep up with geo-politics, and I was actually
caught fairly off guard as to the Ukraine situation when it all exploded, and I'm trying to catch
up in getting a grasp on it.
(Although, now I'm thinking of giving up on ever being able to grasp it, as my brain seems
ready to explode just in scratching the surface here!) :-)
The EU is waging war on Russia for parts of eastern Europe that historically were Russian and
have Russians living in them. And who cares about bits of the Ukraine, when the EU will starve
to death the Ukrainians with the help of the IMF just as they did in Greece.
At least with Russia, Ukraine people would eat.
As Gandhi observed, People's Politics Are Their Daily Bread.
The UK has no EU debt, but starves its poor to such an extent that after the general election
in May that the poor will not bother to come out and vote and leave a hung parliament of twiddledee
and twiddledum parties, the UN will return to continue its investigation into early deaths and
suicides caused by UK's welfare reform.
There is a way to get rid of the big neo-liberal parties altogether in this UK general election.
I belong to no political member. I am a voter suffering our political class stuck 1000 years
into the past, educated in an ancient feudal mindset of past aristocracy in public schools (elite
private schools) and Oxford and Cambridge universities.
MartyH. February 15, 2015 at 11:00 am
Michael Hudson graced us at the last NY NC Meet-Up. He's as blunt and brilliant in person.
While I am sure his analysis on this is as accurate as is usual for him, I just wonder how the
IMF expects to plunder what has already been strip-mined by the oligarchs and the other vultures
for the past decade or more. I guess their specialty is extracting blood from stones.
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:42 am
I think the objective is political control. It has worked quite well for decades. An impoverished
country that is forced to privatize its most valuable resources is being reduced to a political
non-entity. It's the sovereignty question all over again.
cassandra. February 15, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Au contraire, in some ways, a broken country is ideal for extraction. Privatised assets can
be had on the cheap, and with declining living standards, labor costs plunge as well. True, birth
rates fall and suicides rise, but managed correctly, the resulting social malaise ensures political
docility, and drives those with the intelligence and energy to resist, to emigrate instead. What's
not to like? And in Ukraine, there's even more to like. We have farmland (coveted by
Cargill et al.), well-known iron ore and coal deposits, and less-frequently discussed strategic
metals (guess who's been the worldwide exporter of titanium sponge?). One report on such connections
can be found at
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/16/corporate-interests-behind-ukraine-putsch/, but a targeted
internet search uncovers a lot more roaches hiding under these stones. Imposing such an austerity
package is, after all, what the IMF is for.
cassandra. February 15, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Au contraire, in some ways, a broken country is ideal for extraction. Privatised assets can
be had on the cheap, and with declining living standards, labor costs plunge as well. True, birth
rates fall and suicides rise, but managed correctly, the resulting social malaise ensures political
docility, and drives those with the intelligence and energy to resist, to emigrate instead. What's
not to like? And, in Ukraine specifically, there's even more to like: farmland (coveted
by Cargill et al.), well-known iron ore and coal deposits, and less-frequently discussed strategic
metals (guess who's been the worldwide exporter of titanium sponge?). Previously-resisted fracking
becomes possible; check out Burisma Holdings, where Joe Biden's son Hunter plays footsie with
Igor Kolomoisky. An excellent report can be found at
Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch . IMF job creation in action.
bob. February 15, 2015 at 5:24 pm
That's also probably what pissed Putin off the most, re cargill. They were probably buying
food from Ukraine with Roubles, not anymore? I haven't been able to find any numbers that I trust
on either russian imports of food, or Ukrainian exports. Even less on the denomination of the
trades.
It's been some time since I looked. Maybe worth another look now.
Food can really screw with the balance of payments. In this case, russia may now have to cough
up dollars for food it might have been buying with roubles. Effectively, a double hit.
Big deal.
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:31 am
Back when Rummy was dismissing the EU as "Old Europe" and pushing all of eastern Europe to
join NATO -- that was 2001 -- we were overwhelmed with news from Afghanistan
and Iraq. Now that Middle East oil has been secured everything is fine. Oh wait. I must have missed
something. As Bremmer cryptically informed us, Ukraine is part of the larger plan. Rummy wanted
to call it a crusade -- since those guys fought each other for centuries. But it was
tactless so he settled on "Odyssey Dawn." How poetic. Good thing he didn't call it the Siege of
Troy. Because the Achilles heel of NATO is -- ta da! -- oil. It is all
about oil and NATO doesn't have any. We shouldn't be distracted with idiotic news reports about
ISIL. That is until ISIL decides to take the Caspian. Then we will start to see what is really
going on. In the meantime we will worm and weasel our way into a position in Ukraine to attack
from the north. Maybe.
NotTimothyGeithner. February 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm
The goal was never to attack Ukraine or Russia. The goal was to isolate Russia from both China
and the EU and the International arms/tech market.
The U.S. shale and natural gas industry wants to export to Europe, but they aren't close to
ready. If Russia develops, they will export, and between Russia and green energy, there goes that
plan.
As far as arms, would a country rather have a pos F-22/35 or a much cheaper S-400. F-35s aren't
needed to put down local thugs. They are a tool of shock and awe. Countries not interested in
invasion don't need them when cheaper alternatives to air defense exist. The U.S. controls it's
hemisphere. We don't invest in air defense, just supremacy. It's a market we just don't compete
in.
Jack. February 15, 2015 at 7:02 pm
The F-22 isn't a POS. It does exactly what it was designed to do. The problem is that what
it was designed to do is largely superfluous, and it's too expensive. We aren't exporting it anyway,
and since its chief selling point, the stealth, is almost certainly utterly worthless, potential
buyers would be better off buying any of a number of other planes even if we were exporting it.
Of course the constant slashing of military budgets as part of austerity means that most of Europe
can't even afford their own natively developed alternative, the Eurofighter Typhoon. You're correct
though that cheap and effective AA systems mean any air war isn't likely to last long. And Russia
would be playing defensive in any conflict. They'd just sit back and snipe the skies clear.
skippy. February 15, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Starwars all over again…
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:52 am
Hudson's new book sounds great. "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage
Destroyed the Global Economy." Excerpts please, lots of them.
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:57 am
I hope there is a long chapter in it about the mind-boggling expenses of today's modern military.
Chief Bromden. February 15, 2015 at 12:55 pm
"Shock Doctrine" is alive and well… and I thought for sure Ukraine was another U.S. humanitarian
exercise.
"By encouraging reforms such as the deregulation of seed and fertiliser markets, the country's
agricultural sector is being forced open to foreign corporations such as Dupont and Monsanto.
The Bank's activities and its loan and reform programmes in Ukraine seem to be working toward
the expansion of large industrial holdings in Ukrainian agriculture owned by foreign entities."
Time limitations may have precluded Michael Hudson from mentioning Ukraine's devaluation of
the hyrvnia. WSJ, Aug. 2014:
'[In late April] the IMF said Ukraine might need to inject the equivalent of 5% of the
country's gross domestic product, roughly $6 billion, into its banks to stabilize the financial
sector if the exchange rate rose above 12.5 hryvnia to the dollar.'
'Ukraine's foreign-debt costs ballooned after the central bank let the hryvnia depreciate
by 31 percent on Feb. 5 to bring the exchange rate closer to black-market levels [of around
24 hryvnia per dollar], a move backed by the IMF.'
Classically, IMF programs urged devaluation to boost export competitiveness. Last April the
IMF said a hryvnia exchange rate below 12.5 would weaken the banks; now it's about 26.3 hryvnia
per dollar.
Ukraine FinMin Natalie Jaresko seems to be 'letting the hryvnia slide' to get in the IMF's
good graces for the next tranche, even as the prospects for defaulting on foreign currency debt
rise. This suggests a modified version of Michael Hudson's IMF modus operandi:
'Don't pay your bondholders, so that you're now in selective default to them and owing
us, the IMF, to whom you can't write down debts. '
gordon. February 15, 2015 at 7:53 pm
There is a very simple solution to the problems of the Ukraine, one that should be familiar
to any European statesperson: partition.
I'm thinking a 3-way division between Russia, Germany and the US (which would act as the representative
of Monsanto, Cargill and the other agribusiness giants). I'm sure the OSCE could form the basis
for a Partition Commission which could meet (maybe in Vienna, for historical reasons) to supervise
the negotiations over boundaries and set up an agreed framework for investment in the ex-Ukrainian
territories and the marketing of their products. A continuing Commission of the Partitioning Powers
might be required to oversee and if necessary adjust the operation of such arrangements. Obviously,
no Ukrainian representatives would be required for this work. I think the partition should be
complete, ie. there should be no remaining independent "Ukrainian" territory, because this would
only be a platform for tiresome and destabilising Ukrainian irredentism.
Such a solution along good old 18th Century lines would leave only the problem of outstanding
Ukrainian debts. Perhaps the best solution here would be the formation of an international Sinking
Fund to which workers in ex-Ukrainian territories would be required to contribute a proportion
of their earnings. Setting up such a Fund could be another part of the work of the continuing
Commission.
I'm sure there's much more to be said about partition arrangements once people get their heads
around the basic idea and realise that moving Back To The Future in this way offers the best hope
for a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian problem. After all, the problem is not new; it is a problem
that has confronted European powers many times in the past and has often been solved in this way.
Ask any Pole.
Ron Paul: "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine
is get the foreigners out." Quote from comments: "That is where anyone who does not believe
that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become."
As
Ron Paul recently exclaimed, the war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support
of many unsuspecting American citizens. So we thought the followingg 90 seconds of 'pure Paul' would
provide a refreshingly different perspective as he explains, "I'm not pro-Russia,
I'm not pro-Putin, I'm pro-facts."
"The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get
the foreigners out."
Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that
require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams.
Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted
by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.
...
The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism,
whether it's in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in
opposition.
ekm1
Where are the facts Mr Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is making up stuff in order to sell products to disciples.
Coup in Ukraine was staged by Putin via Yanukovych. Yanuk did not camapaign on joing
eurasian union.
Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.
What happened was the counter coup, which yes, was urged by USA and nato
cigarEngineer
EKM1, how is the air conditioning at US Misinformation Warfare Headquarters? Do you get paid
weekly or bi-weekly? Then again, at $15/hr, who cares, right...
Ignatius
Lying for a living. Don't he know that politics pays better? Maybe he's just packin'
his resume.
Winston Churchill
EKM just graduated to my do not bother to read comment list.
Maybe PPT really stands for Piss Poor Trolls.
Calmyourself
British Battalion 77 peter puffers have arrived.. EKM, which barracks you out of? I am sure
you will tell us next multiculturism is strengthing Britain..
Jack Burton
Winston, I don't know if you have noticed, but over the last few months the State Department
Internet posters have moved away from ZH. Perhaps they consider us a lost cause. But some months
back they were still very active here, posting sometimes dozens of State Department talking points,
but winning no converts. As of late, they have withdrawn to troll more mainstream blogs and News
Paper comments sections.
The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self
like never before as one channel propaganda. Never before has media told so many demonstrable
lies in so short a time. The transparent lies have begun to catch many people's attention. The
script they read from is not at all clever or well thought out. The script is terribly transparent,
and so easily proved to be lies.
So, will this new war propaganda win? So far I say it's 75 yes, 25% no. So many Americans just
lap up the lies without trying to get the real story. Fools have been
TungstenBars
"The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing
it'self like never before as one channel propaganda."
I agree 100% with this; more and more people are seeing the US state sponsored propaganda
for what it is.
In regards to "So, will this new war propaganda win?":
I stated here before that the secondary objective of modern state sponsored propaganda
in the west is to gain popular support, but the main objective is to send out the "offical accepted
version of world events", meaning that it does not matter if 99% of Americans do not believe it.
So long as America does not erupt in a civil war, what the state sponsored media says stands
and nothing else matters and will be ignored. Anyone asking questions or causing trouble will
be pointed to or judged based on that propaganda as if it was truth. Pretty much 1984.
angel_of_joy
He's from Toronto... the navel of the Universe (in their own opinion). Their view of the world
is somewhat distorted, and "potted"...
TungstenBars
The state-sponsored anti-russian propaganda in Canada is in overdrive. Harper has gone full
retard and traitor to appease to certain foreign interests.
Most people don't believe the nonsense whatsoever. EKM, I don't get why he is so special as
to actually believe it. He speaks for no-one.
Jack Burton
Canada just happened to be where the allies shipped the Ukrainian Nazis and SS veterans after
World War II. The allies knew their strong anti communist and anti Russia bent, so figured to
save as many as possible to form the useful agents they and their families now are. Harper is
feeding those Western Ukrainian trolls and they in turn help ramp up public opinion into fever
pitch.
I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them
that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people
asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!
Why does the west feed this war fever, and why the coup in the first place? War allows the
public to be stripped of tax revenues, it allows national security to trump privacy and freedom,
and it allows politicians to claim a patriotic mandate to rule us. Plus corporate profits and
stocks are off the charts money makers.
Spitzer
This is true. They are scattered all over alberta and Sk. I met one recently that was bragging
about cross burnings in Provost. Provost is a nazi ukranian KKK town
Latina Lover
Quoting Jack Burton:
"I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell
them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and
then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!"
I couldn't have said better myself. As a former grunt who saw some action when I was young
and very stupid, any idiot advocating violence against others should put their money where their
mouth is and lead by example.
Instead we have this hypocrite drone army, spewing endless BS to induce others to die for their
shabby causes, cowards hiding behind keyboards. To hell with all of them!
This is from Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung a NOG from Germany. So this mght be propaganda or not.
In fact there never were real elections Ukraine ever. Lawful was not one government there.
giovanni_f
Konrad-Adenauer-Siftung is anything but an unbiased organisation. Actually it is a transatlantic
networking group in the business to spread neocon messages in Germany. The page you refer to does
not contain ANY actual, proven issue but just the general out-of-the-air claim that the elections
didn't meet demoratic standards.
Try harder, Neocon troll.
El Vaquero
Are you claiming that Ron Paul was wrong when he said that we had a recording of the assistant
US secretary of state and the US ambassador to Ukraine discussing who is going to take power in
Ukraine BEFORE the coup in Ukraine?
Nuland did the right thing. It prepared the counter coup against Putin's coup
El Vaquero
Yes, Nuland took part in starting a civil war that has killed innocent people. That is
obviously the right thing. Civil war is good for the people, or didn't people realize that?
JESUS! FUCK!
EU-Ukraine-Russia trade deals are NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS!
BlindMonkey
so the Nazi Ukies could have gone about their protests by peaceful means but Nazis gonna Nazi
and tortured, burned, raped and stole their merry way across the countryside. Even the Ukies have
had enough of their shit and have tried to pull them back at various times just to see the Nazis
flex and storm the buildings of their own gov.
As I write this I am wondering what ahit are you trying to pull? You don't seem to be a satire
artist like MDB. Paid troll? Maybe. I don't see how anyone can objectively read the news and come
to the same conclusions as you.
El Vaquero
That is some seriously fucked up reasoning. The US did the right thing by kicking off something
that was inevetable and accomplished nothing except putting the US and Russia closer to war, which,
BTW would go nuclear. You call that the right thing?
You're fucking nuts. This should be none of the US's fucking business. I'm sick of sending
our soldiers over to die for somebody else's cause. Why don't you Eastern Europeans solve your
own fucking problems?
ekm1
USA is now the business of world police. Becoming a soldier is the safest way of employment.
World security is USA's export now. There is no other way, for now.
Soldiers know very well they will end up in interventions, but they like the money and the
thrill of it.
Nobody forces young people to enroll. The money and the thrill entice them to
El Vaquero
So you want the USA to solve your problems? Being globo-cop is proving to be an unethical gig
for the US, and should stop.
And have you ever heard a US soldier talk about how they were defending the US in our interventionist
wars? I have. They actually believe it. Young people don't know what they are signing up for,
and often they fail to realize what they have done after they are finished.
So, again, why can't you Eastern Euroopeans solve your own fucking problems? You know that
the US is not going to be able to backstop you forever. What then?
ekm1
Yes. I've spoken with many. Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it
El Vaquero
Gee, that must explain the excessively high suicide rate amongst US vets.
ThroxxOfVron
"Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it "
I believe it. Oh, the gory glory. Oh, the rush of being tough and exerting power.
...& dumb women love a douche with a paycheck in a tidy uniform.
angel_of_joy
That love generally stops suddenly when they come to suffer the consequences of their choice
(i.e. the possibility of getting maimed or dying in combat).
The military is a wonderful (state supported and encouraged) vehicle for crass freeloading,
until a war happens. Then, a soldier's personal ROI becomes dramatically (even terminally, for
many) NEGATIVE !
The_Prisoner
Course they do. They're sociopaths like you to whom only personal gain, even at the cost
of murdering others whom just want to live their lives is justified.
g speed
A lot of these kids just do what their parents want them to do---very sad---kids come home
with no legs and look at dad and ask why?
green888
Dispute resolution ? Kill someone is your only way- look at your films, entertainment; there
is a bad guy and then the "good guy" kills him. It has all become part of your psyche, as ultimately
any of your disputes has to be resolved in this way; but the resentment you leave behind has a
price.
If you complain about others, you should go home and conduct a self examination.
RichardParker
EKM1:
You want to know what your masters think of the military?
POS Kissinger actually told the truth for once when he explained how ""Military men are
just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."
JustUsChickensHere
Somebody seems to have hacked the ekm1 account. He was always sort of necon, but never this
blatantly wacko before.
El Vaquero
He's Eastern European. I suspect that some deep cultural hatred of the Russians going back
a century or 5 has something to do with it. I want nothing to do with that tribal mentality bullshit
when it comes to a potential US-Russia confrontation because I don't want to see mushroom clouds
over Kirtland AFB with my own eyes. Call me crazy for that.
TheFourthStooge-ing
He's Albanian, which makes him half Latvian, half Polack, and half Bulgoslovenakian.
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
WTF you fascist, the world does not want or need American storm troopers telling them how to
run their lives for the benefit of America. History is a story of lesser powers uniting to oppose
tyranny and eventually winning, this will be no different. Get the fuck back in your cave deep
in exceptionalist Anglo-American fantasy land and leave the rest of the world the fuck alone.
reload
@EKM
'world security'
Right: let's have a little stock take shall we of those recent lucky nations receiving the
security export.
Iraq
Libya
Egypt
Yemen
Ukraine
Somalia
Notice the trend? All places of great insecurity due to US led attempts to insert or maintain
puppet client governments whose purpose is to loot their host countries.
You used to make sense on some issues, even when you were needlessly cryptic you were thought
provoking. Hell, you even called for oil to trade with a $40 handle even though your reasoning
was off, it Has happened.
You have lost the plot tonight.
Libertarian777
because... Putin wants to rule a basket case? that's why he started a civil war?
I haven't heard any logical arguments for why Putin would want to take over the Ukraine. Next
I'll hear he wants to take over Greece. For what purpose? Cos he wants their monuments? Or does
he like their national debt and 30 hour workweek?
The Russians are saying they are intervening to protect Russian people. The West claims Russia
is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union.
On the other hand the west is trying to expand NATO up to Russia's border (think of it as a
'western union').
So even if Putin wants to recreate the USSR, why is it 'bad' when he wants to do it, but 'OK'
when the west wants to do it? What is the distinction? Let me guess... human rights? Well the
USA with a population of 330 million has MORE people incarcerated than CHINA with 1.2 BILLION
people. (4x). Where's the 'human rights'?
How many countries has Russia invaded. I'll even give you Crimea, so Crimea and Georgia.. that's
2.
How many countries has the USA invaded... Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia,
Ethiopia.
I can't follow the logic.
LocalBoy
NATO / IMF controlling Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, is instant suicide for Russia.
Their choice was give in or fight. War became inevitable when NATO expanded toward Russia
-
It is well known that Russia will not give up Sevastopol, will not give up Ukraine to a foreign
military alliance.
lasvegaspersona
'Nuland did the right thing'...sure...unless you believe in that whole 'democracy' thingy.
An elected government was overthrown in violent protests that it appears the US organized
and aided.
This was done because NATO was displeased that the Ukes were not willing to move closer
to the EU.
NATO has shamelessly disregarded the agreements made way back when Gorby was in charge. They
have place missiles in Poland fer-cryin-out loud.
I think if I were Putin (and Russia) I'd be worried.
ah, nuland, mccrazy, kristol, et al , are "just soft" war criminals.
ebworthen
Oh ekm 1, puhleease! Yanukovych was elected by the people of Ukraine.
How is an elected leader ousted by pro a EU Maidan which is supported by: the EU, NATO, our
State Department, and meddling U.S. Senators - a coup by Putin?
What is it you are smoking to make you believe such a thing?
El Vaquero
Observable facts do not matter to the narrative. Most will not look at them anyway. Putin
could be the most evil sonofabitch the world has ever seen, and that still would not justify our
destabilizing Ukraine.
Element
You realize Ukraine was totally broke well before any of this? Deeply in debt, big bills to
pay, pooched economy? That sound stable to you?
The reason Yanukovych was trying to obtain an association with the EU at all was because
Ukraine was so broke and desperate for a new sugar daddy.
And Yanukovych definitely would have gone that way too, if the IMF had not tried to fuck
Ukraine so badly that Yanukovych was forced to walk away as it was national financial suicide
to accept the terms Legarde wanted to inflict.
The real source of the instability was Ukraine's own mess.
What came next was just the rush to get the best bits of the carcass.
So who was doing, or rather had already done, the destabilizing of the country?
El Vaquero
Yes, Ukraine was a corrupt broke mess. Why the fuck were our politicians over there? Why were
they acting as though they knew that "Yats" was going to be the new PM? Why the fuck was John
Brennan over there? What fucking business is it of ours?
Miffed Microbio...
The time will end for us as Global Cop as it always has in history. This is assured. However,
only after millions have died during the posturing. And those who have played this role have
never risen to that status again.
This country will pay, including the innocents who were against the whole thing in the first
place. We just get to watch while others distract themselves with amusements and trinkets.
It is not our business now nor ever was. Why Ron Paul wasnt elected just blows my mind. That
was our last hope for redemption.
Miffed
chinoslims
It's not global cop. It's global robbery.
El Vaquero
Haven't you been paying attention to policing in the US lately? Civil asset forefitures plus
shooting people because they dared to turn their back on the police while holding a plastic spoon
means that cops and robbers are often one in the same.
TheFourthStooge-ing
The term you're looking for is protection racket.
Element
Nicely said, I see you have no trouble coming to terms with it, must be trauma ward experience
kicking in.
Miffed Microbiologist
I accept the reality of it but this is no means a personal relief of my own responcibilities
as a participant nor is it an escape into futility of action. Yes, if omnipotent, I would end
this fast but since I am woefully lacking in such power I must content myself to personal and
local rebellion. I hope others will join me at some point but it is always unwise to count on
others.
Americans have become slothful and content in their status in the world. It is ending now but
few truly perceive it being subtle at this stage. When one is unconcerned about the atrocities
this country is perpetuating on its own citizens or those in other nations, be it overt attacks
or political maneuvering, then ones humanity is lost. I am not sure if it can be truly recovered.
We brand our leaders as psychopathic but we should examine our own hearts as well.
Yes, the inward trauma ward is not very pleasant. ;-)
Miffed
Element
You don't really need a lesson on how geopolitics is played do you? I'll give you credit and
presume you don't. But you better start to get real about this ElV, it isn't going to go away
via wishes and idealism.
It is real, and it is ugly, and it is about survival, or else not, and you do have to accept
that it's happening and face it as it is, not how you would wish it to be.
And that's all the slack I'm ever cut you on this topic.
El Vaquero
Serious question: Do you support a war with Russia? Because that is a very real danger
with the kind of geopolitics being played today.
Element
Of course not.
That said, it appears one key Russian does support war with NATO, given actions speak louder
than words. It won't take long to find out if Putin is effectively suicidal. I think he's certainly
become erratic over the past year, and made unexpectedly bad choices and extraordinary mistakes.
I've been amazed by how badly he's done. So if this goes pear-shaped his recent judgement and
decision-making under pressure doesn't inspire confidence.
There's a moderate to reasonably good chance we're stuffed.
The_Prisoner
That's very magnanimous of you.
You must have patience with us peons. Not all of us went to Duntroon and had the honor of serving
the Empire.
Thanks again, milord.
Calmyourself
Yanukovych pivoted to Russia for a saving loan and then what happened when he did not take
money from EU bankers to prolong their party, that's right Nuland showed up to kick his ass out..
Get with the everlasting gobstopper of debt program or get "destabilized"
Volkodav
Yanuk was only thief, not open murderer... He also Ukrainian, not outsider alien passport gang
Hefar lesser heavy handed than the "Red" mafia now in Kiev..who prove themselves killers.
schadenfreude
With all the propaganda dished out to the people it's difficult to know who staged what.
But at least there are some facts, where eyerybody can draw conclusions.
French, German and Polish foreign ministers negotiated a deal with Yanukovich to have elections
in September 2014. In the evening after this deal people on Maidan Sq. got shot. This caused
the putsch against the government.
So the trigger was the shooting on Maidan Sq. which was never really investigated.
All actions afterwards was reaction and counter-reaction by the involved parties.
Nulands phone call is fact as well. This is an evidence of US involvement. Whether they
initiated the shootings or Yanukovichs people for me is not proven, but likely. Why should
Yanukovich do this, a couple of hours after he signed a deal with EU?
Chupacabra-322
Let's also not forget Criminal Psychopath / Sociopath Nuland's 5 Billion Dollar Fascist
investment
Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian
independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic
institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is
necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion
dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. " Nuland said the United States will
continue to "promote Ukraine to the future it deserves."
HowdyDoody
Not to mention the repeated strange coincidence that the Nazi violence ramps up after visits
from major US/CIA gov actors.
geno-econ
Nuland has admitted publicaly that State Dept has spent $ 5 Billion influencing Kiev regime
change over last several years. Granted much of this was in form of encouraging ex-patriots
here in States, propaganda directed towards Ukrainian citizens and aide money. Only people in
government know how much was allocated for actual arms but everyone knows the activities of Neocons
in Washington.
The point is the US encourages regime change and recently has had a dismal record of failure
and huge wasteful spending.
Just look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Georgia, Yeman and now Ukraine. Ron Paul
is correct.
nailgunnin4you
Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.
I think coup d'état is a little strong here, which American talking head has you recycling
this verbal diarrhoea? Only a war-mongering murrican would say establishing a better trade
deal for your country is a coup d'état.
Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.
So, in your bubble, a country's leader can only establish trade deals/policies/legislature
et cetera that he campaigned on, and anything else he did not take to a previous election is a
coup d'état even if it is a simple trade deal benefitting the people?
If the NWO is successful in killing Ukranian's it won't be long before they start killing Americans.
Globalists are traitors against all nations.
Element
Great sentiments and rhetoric, not much else, as what he's calling for is the end of US involvement
in NATO. OK, what then?
US forces have to leave Europe ... completely, the lot. But Europe is most definitely not going
to butt-out of the changing of borders in Ukraine using Russian force and support.
He seems to want to ignore that Russia is in fact attacking Ukraine, has stolen its navy, has
taken Crimea, and has tried to carve off more and more of Eastern Ukraine, even in the past couple
of days.
"I'm pro-facts."
OK, but are you also prepared to accept the implications and imperatives that those facts,
Ron?
SMC
OK, what then?
PEACE
Element
Peace since WWII involved the "balance of terror" of MAD. It is a BALANCE of forces and strategy
and position.
Change the balance radically and the strategic game changes radically, i.e. not-peace. And
it happens in multiple locations.
rejected
Fact: Crimea was 'gifted' to Ukraine in the 1950's by crazy Khrushchev without a plebiscite.
Fact: Crimea voted for reunification when given the chance.
Fact: Ukraine only owned the Sevastopol Navel base by the graciousness of Russia.Russia
even paid for a lease.
Fact: The Ukrainian Navy was allowed to exit Sevastopol after the reunification vote.
Why would Russia want their junk?
Fact: Sevastopol would never have been given up by Russia regardless of the reunification
vote just as the USSA refuses to leave Guantanamo.
Fact: Russia has given Ukraine control of all the borders including the break away provinces
with the new Minsk agreement.
Fact: You are full of shit.
Element
Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.
Fact: Crimea being Ukrainian territory is recognized by the overwhelming majority of
countries on Earth.
Deal with it.
angel_of_joy
UN does not recognize the Kosovo entity, but it still exists. UN din't sanction the
entire war against Serbia, but it still took place.
Reality is different than UN's view of the world, and the realities on the ground in Ukraine
are changing as we speak. Deal with it !
rejected
Fact: The UN is not a sovereign state.
Fact: The UN is funded mainly by the U.S
Fact: The UN has no authority to recognize any state.
Fact: The UN 'supposedly' supports self determination by it's very charter.
Chancellor Merkel: (a few days ago)
"One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning.
We stand up for the same principles of inviolability of territorial integrity.
For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this
principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful
order of Europe that we've been able to achieve. This is not just any old point,
it's an essential, a crucial point, and we have to stand by it. And
Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects: in Crimea,
and also in Donetsk and Luhansk.
So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but
we also stand up for the interests of the European peaceful order. And this is what the
French President and I have been trying to do over the past few days. We're going to
continue those efforts.
And I'm very grateful that throughout the Ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very
close contact with the United States of America and Europe on sanctions, on diplomatic initiatives.
And this is going to be continued. And I think that's, indeed, one of the
most important messages we can send to Russia, and need to send to
Russia.
We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks.
These days we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement.
I've always said I don't see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put
all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. ..."
i.e. Europe doesn't want the US to leave, and Washington does not want the US to leave either.
SO THE USA IS NOT LEAVING EUROPE
Get it?
Both consider this to be in their vital interests.
So these also are the facts of the situation, and you can try to ignore these facts, because
you do not like them, you do not like the ugliness of geopolitics, but that changes nothing about
geopolitics.
All I'm doing here is pointing that out.
So cry a river of tears if you think it changes anything, or that if merely I changed
my mind, it would make you less pissy and aggrieved.
But those facts of this situation, will remain.
That's where Ron Paul, and people like you, have your heads rammed firmly up your butts, screaming
to mother to make it all go away.
And I understand (perfectly) why you would want the world to be different than it is, but it
simply isn't going to be.
Now seriously, grow up and try to cope with that, rhetorical fantasies don't help.
"Both consider this to be in their vital interests."
Good sir, who's interests? Certainly you do not refer to the average American.
From this heart, how does the extreme waste of manpower and money and MIC profit pumping
for moar bankster profits become a "vital interest" to we, the average Americans? How is that
"in their vital interest" to the rest of the world? All the warmongering for profits, world domination,
and population elimination is NOT interesting, or in the better "interests" of America and the
world's people at all.
How can you justify the out right blatant murder of innocents, women, and children for the
moneygod? Whose really vitally interested in that? Constant never ending warmongering in foreign
lands is NOT the choice of real truth following Americans at all, nor in their best interests.
It is ONLY for evil zionist/luciferian/sataninc interests and NO covering up that FACT will change
this truth.
Darn, never thought about disagree with you before, for your truth really lit the Way for many
here once ago.
From this perspective, if they were to go after the evil bankster empire of chaotic dust in
Europe, THAT would be of "vital interest" to the freedom loving American people. In fact, the
world would rejoice if ALL these evil things were rounded up and placed on an island in the middle
of the ocean to do what they will. Good riddance say we all! War is of NO vital interest to anyone.
It just does not work.
Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours. He will play his long game and
he will prevail.
It could mean the end of your beloved NATO, which will have no viable purpose if it cannot
dragoon Ukraine into its ranks so as to encircle and ultimately destroy Russia.
It could also mean the end of the the EU, but that appears to be coming apart at the seams
anyway.
You say Europe is dead keen on having the US remain in Europe. That's true of the elite --
largely because Paris and Berlin are terrified of the vacuum that would be created by US withdrawal.
Paris knows Germany would have the whip hand; Germany is afraid of being alone at the top.
Nevertheless, our murderous and immoral Ukraine policy is earning us lots of new enemies
among European populations. We are playing with fire. Not sure if we don't know that, or just
don't care.
Element
Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours.
I am not taking a side.
I am totally non-partisan.
I am pointing out what is going to happen.
Not what people want to happen.
I am pointing it out to >>95% partisans. You are one of them.
Partisans usually do not like how things will develop to be stated plainly, as it often goes
against the way they want things to develop.
So partisans then shoot the messenger, rather than take the warning, on its face value.
Miffed Microbiologist
Element, I happen to agree with you though it does bother me personally. Sometimes hard facts
are unpleasant to truly face and hopes of alternative choices are seductive though not likely
relevant in these games of power.
My only grief is this is being played with a participant that is rotting from within. Given
up its manufacturing base. Economically in the crapper and showering many with money just
to live day to day. An aging sick population. We see this farce play out everyday. We are being
drained dry internally and will soon be unable to fill this role losing our strong foundation.
And when it ends, another will assume the role as it always has been throughout history. Can you
blame us for wanting an end to this?
As a small player in this, one who will be likely swept away when the power shifts, I can only
watch it unfold. And this gives me no pleasure to admit such a thing.
Miffed
YHC-FTSE
Mrs.M, if you examine his post it's quite easy to see that he is suffering from a condition
called, "Fatalism".
"Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine stressing the subjugation of all events or actions to
fate. Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas: The view that we are powerless
to do anything other than what we actually do."
His argument that the convolutions of geopolitics are a natural result of survival and
therefore beyond the scope of our control or wishful thinking is both wrong and indifferent to
the real crimes being committed in our name.
We know who is involved in supporting the neo-nazis and zionists in Ukraine: Victoria Nuland
of the US State Dept.
We know thousands of innocent people have died as a result. We know wholesale looting is
taking place by the Israeli oligarchs.
We know, from their own words, from the mouth of the current Ukrainian Prime Minister that
those who oppose the coup are being threatened with being burnt alive - in fact many Russian
language speaking Ukrainians in Odessa and Mariupol have actually been murdered in this way.
What else could they do but fight against the nutjobs in Kiev and ask for help from Russia?
Be burnt alive or become refugees?
Yet to brush all this aside with glib remarks about geopolitics and national survival with
quite insane philosophies on death lacking in any depth of analysis or empathy for the victims
of these horrendous crimes is, I think, quite revolting. Yes, control of our fate is an illusion,
but we are also the cumulative sum of all of our decisions.
So, Mrs.M, you keep your compassion alive. Your empathy and reason do you credit in a world
full of cold sociopaths. Without such sweet and bitter experiences to guide our moral values
in life, life would be very dull and useless indeed.
YHC-FTSE
"I am not taking a side.
I am totally non-partisan."
For a guy who believes he is non-partisan you sure do have a LOT to say about it for one
side.
"I am pointing out what is going to happen."
For a guy who thinks he is a realist or pragmatist, you sure are delusional about being able
to tell what is going to happen. Newsflash: NOBODY knows the future. Not even you.
What's wrong with you? There's nothing coherent in your "message" at all - perhaps that's why
you're getting junked.
angel_of_joy
Americans shouldn't leave, but stay there and keep paying for (and subsidizing with manpower
and equipment) the European "security".
That would be a sure way toward self-destruction of contemporary US, which is already practically
bankrupt (and not only from a moral point of view...).
LocalBoy
Ukraine's government was functioning under a Constitution. Within the Constitution was
allowances for Crimea to remain autonomous. The Ukrainian Constitution was trashed when the overthrow
occurred allowing Crimea to vote for independence.
How can you argue rule of law when the existing government is outside the rule of law while
Crimea is within the law ?
Good point about stealing your Navy - and the fact is there is very little that CAN be done
about it. Russia took it and nothing will change that. Destroying Russia to give Crimea back to
an illegitimate government will not fly - its all about price discovery. What price CAN be forced
on Russia........so far very little.
What price has the US already paid
Red Lenin
Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.
Fact: Yugoslavia was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It no longer exists.
Volkodav
UN is worthless except for fill pockets with US taxpayer $.
same as your opinion:
Crimea seceded
Crimea is peaceful
Crimea is free
The_Prisoner
Now you're fronting. Next thing you'll say Israel is legitimate
Urban Roman
"... and has tried to carve off more and more .."
Really? The Russian Army has been fighting a random bunch of warmed-over nazi skinheads
for almost a whole year, and can't manage to take a couple of oblasts west of the Don?
Whatchoo smokin' over dere? Login or register to post comments
angel_of_joy
There was no Ukraine prior to 1991. Contemporary Ukraine is an artificially induced state,
created in a moment of maximum weakness of the Russian state. As a result, it has no future, and
no amount of US propping will change the facts on the ground. Crimea is populated by Russians
in vast majority, who decided they don't want to be rulled by Kiev after the US led coup. More
so, the Ukrainian "fleet" was built during USSR so it represents a Russian asset too. Your narrative
is as dumb as this entire war... which will end badly for US.
Volkodav
Ukraine has never been a sovereign nation.
Victory_Garden
Darn Element, what happened to you?
In the past, you were so spot on about all the fuckyoushima tragedy and offered much light
for many who listened intently to your truth. We are grateful for all that light.
Now, it seems as if you have been co-opted, or banned and someone else is using your handle
to put out the same trash the organized criminal lame stream media propagandists are putting out
for public consumption. It's ONLY regurgitation of the filthiest yukkity-muck ever.
We all miss the truth bearing Element and wonder, are you really another dis-informationist?
It would be a shame and big loss to find this out, as your great intelligence is needed to combat
the evil that has run rampant over the planet for centuries. Is it money or love you quest after,
dear One?
Ask, would you rather have a Ron Paul for president, or the evil illegal usurping alien bushonian
bankster puppet we have now? Truly, the puppet soterobama is absolutely the most vile evil and
destructive worst president America has ever had.. History will reflect this fact. We may not
see another righteous president ever again in America's coming to an end history. Sad to ponder
that, eh!
WE WANT GOD BACK IN AMERICA NOW!
(Side-swiping truth, God is Love. Period!)
new game
hmmm, then silence...
schadenfreude
You are correct. All germans I spoke to said, that they should leave Russia with Crimea and
the Donbass region.
You are incorrect, that Ukraine is Russia. It is not. After WWII Stalin made the deal that
he could enlarge Russia to the West. So he deported the polish to what was once Germany. This
artificial enlargement divides Ukraine and is a rated break point that runs through the country.
So both sides have a legitimate claim.
Victory_Garden
The latest rant on the GW story.
Ron Paul WAS America's last chance to remain free from the horridness of the banksteronian
evil that runs rampant over the land like diarrhea running out of a goose's arse.
HowdyDoody
NATO was created to force the USSR to target two widely separated entities (Europe and continental
US) before the time of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This was to keep the USSR focused
on Europe. In any envisioned war, Europe and USSR would be destroyed or severely weakened, strengthening
the US position.
steelhead23
There is but one thing in all of this that is perfectly clear to me. The situation is quite
confusing, lying is rampant, and unnecessarily provoking the Russian Bear is about the most dangerous
thing anyone could do.
My preference for U.S. policy is neither isolationism nor militarism. It's diplomacy.
Further, the U.S. should abandon its use of economic sanctions against the Bear for his annexation
of Crimea because Putin would never leave Crimea, meaning this economic cattle prod will continue
to annoy the Bear.
Instead, the U.S. and NATO should be willing to trade some form of recognition of Russian presence
in Crimea for ending the war in eastern Ukraine. I would also hope that Kiev and Washington would
be willing to see an autonomous region, perhaps more aligned with Moscow than Kiev and agreement
not to place NATO troops or materiel in Ukraine.
But of course, none of this is likely - everyone is lying and the trust needed for real diplomacy
is nil.
Herdee
I guess that the CIA Director,Stephen Harper, Victoria Wench Nuland were only in Ukraine
for a nice vacation?
It shows anyone with a grade 2 education how the world still works.
Bunga Bunga
We couped some folks.
655321
RP gives me the impression he a form of controlled opposition, almost like a pressure release
valve, giving people false hope and at same giving people false conclusions on key issues such
as 9/11.
Savyindallas
You can't take on too many issues. Paul knows 911 was an inside job. His supporters know. Someday
he will go public. I don't agree with the way he handles this, just as I don't like the politics
of rand paul on many issues. TPTB would have loved RP to come out as a Truther - they would have
detroyed him and his credibility as the sheeple just have no idea what is really going on.
Watched it. The nazi's are taking over west ukraine. Porkoshenko better watch his back.
HowdyDoody
Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far right Pravy Sektor group (financed by Kolomoisky) has
brought together the remnants of the Nazi volunteer battalions as one entity, under his control.
He has also stated that they (again) will not comply with the ceasefire. These will be the shock
troops in the next stage of this saga.
If the US were isolationist, a lot of Dead Ukrainians would likely be alive right now.
With that said, there are plenty of intrigues to go around even the US were somehow frozen.
There are many powerful entities who have their fingers in the Ukraine. Not the least of them
are the Ukrainians themselves, both Eastern and Western variety.
Neither the West's position, that everyone should account all Ukrainians both East and West
to be homogenous, nor the East's position, that the East Ukraine is Russia, and the West Ukraine
is an illegitimate province of Poland or LIthuania and therefore unworthy of self rule, is workable.
Both of those positions lead to dead ends. The Ukrainians are Ukrainians because they are the
descendants of those who followed the Kiev 'Rus' (Russians). The Russians are those who followed
the Prince of Moscow. All of Russia and part of Ukraine was conquered by the Mongols. The part
not conquered are the West Ukrainians. The part conquered are the East Ukrainians...plus many
soviet era Russian imports.
Russia's stake is control of the Black Sea Basin...which will cement Russia as mandatory near
monopoly energy supplier to Europe. Europe's stake is to have access to non-Russian energy. The
US's and NATO's stake is to prevent the re-arming of Europe by ensuring they have no REASON to
re-arm.
Pick your outcome:
If Russia gets both Crimea and East Ukrainian land routes to Ukraine, then they decisively
control energy to Europe. Europe's choices are then to EITHER a) Trust the US to ensure their
economies and access to energy b) Ensure European access to energy themselves - militarily c)
Become Russian colonies.
Russia's choices are: a) Commit Russia to militarily conquering Ukraine and then use the economic
benefit of that position to arm themselves for the inevitable world war that will result b) Resign
itself to open competition for energy by surrendering either East Ukraine or Crimea.
The US's choices are: a) Incrementally increase pressure on Russia via economic and/or military
means until they allow Europe to have access to non-Russian energy b) Ignore Ukraine with the
cost of later involvement in a world war in europe c) Ignore Ukraine and then withdraw from the
transatlantic alliance.
The fact is that the US is over-extended and should not have given Putin a reason for overt
involvement. The fact is that Europe is un-prepared to militarily deter Russia from turning them
into energy-plantation slaves. The fact is that EUrope is too proud and powerful for Russia as
currently composed to force into energy submission simultaneously detering Europe from contesting
the matter militarily.
In the next 20 years there will be a major war in Europe, on the scale of WWII. Russia will
be facing all of Western Europe.
Russia propaganda seems confused about the organization of Power in the West, presenting it
as a US-led top-down organization. In fact it is led by powerful European interests who act through
governments. This is all highly observable. What did you think the eminence of the CFR was all
about? What did you think Bilderberg was for??? When the European governments were decimated after
WWII those interests acted through the US government.
Europe is no longer decimated, and the shift of power from US to European entities has been
historic and EASILY observable. What do you think the Eurozone and EU are all about??
There's a lot of high-time preference going on - on every side of this, as each side too heavily
weights the desirability of the fruit they see before them, and overly discounts the later costs
of that fruit - both Europe and Russia wanting the Ukrainian fruit for the energy power it gives
them, and the US in underestimating the costs of their chosen course to placate Europe via meddling
in Ukraine.
This is not going to end well for anyone in Europe no matter how it plays out. The stakes are
too big for too many big powers.
The US would be better off isolationist, and preparing to re-open ellis island. A lot of war
refugees will need a home soon.
China need only wait to inherit Eurasia from those who plan to foolishly decimate themselves.
Rusputin
So that would be a US/NATO/EU coup on a US/NATO/EU coup?
Isn't one coup normally enough for a few years? The first one lasted 12 months and obviously
the backstops weren't placed carefully enough, me thinks the bribery money is running out (has
run out)!
Catullus
Here's Ron Paul in 2002 asking why the US was meddling with Ukrainian elections...
It is never a good sign when differences in interpretation as to what an agreement means arise
before the ink is even dry. The cease-fire accord reached in Minsk between the Ukrainian government,
the eastern separatists and Russia, under the aegis of the good offices of Chancellor Angela Merkel
of Germany and President Francois Hollande of France, could stop the fighting and lay the basis for
a political settlement-but it requires that all parties be prepared to implement its provisions.
With two previous cease-fires failing amidst mutual recriminations about violations, the newest agreement
contains similar problems that could torpedo its implementation.
First and foremost, the cease-fire calls for an exclusion zone where heavy weapons are to be withdrawn.
As we've seen in the past, it can be quite easy to cheat-to hide weaponry and not to give up optimal
firing positions. The first challenge will be what happens to the cease-fire when we see that not
all heavy weapons have been removed; will one violation cause the collapse of the cease-fire, or
will the emphasis be on a "ninety percent" solution-that is, if most weapons are pulled back, will
that be considered sufficient?
The fate of the Ukrainian government pocket at the key railway junction of Debaltseve is also
unclear. Will the town remain in Ukrainian hands, even if forces and equipment are withdrawn-as the
government prefers? Or will the government surrender control, as the separatists prefer? Given that
the cease-fire will not begin until Sunday, the race is on to see who can determine the status of
Debaltseve.
Beyond the immediate cease-fire, there are contentious political questions. The agreement commits
Ukraine to pass legislation that effectively gives the two separatist regions special status, including
the ability to organize their own police forces and to be able to trade directly with Russia. Ukrainian
president Petro Poroshenko will face a tremendous challenge getting the Rada to pass the necessary
laws-and the risk here is that Ukrainian lawmakers, in an effort to save face, will insert provisions
in the draft legislation that will be unacceptable to the separatists. Poroshenko has already stressed
that the deal does not commit Ukraine to accept federalization or decentralization. But separatist
leaders have argued that the agreement is the last chance for Ukraine to consider major constitutional
changes.
In turn, the separatists are committed, under the terms of the agreement, to rehold elections
according to Ukrainian law so that the Donetsk and Lugansk authorities can be properly constituted.
What is not clear is how people displaced from the region will be able to vote. Kyiv will insist
that internally displaced refugees living in other parts of Ukraine should be able to cast ballots.
The separatists, in turn, are not going to want any sort of process that challenges their position.
If elections are held that the Poroshenko administration declines to certify as valid, what then?
Finally, the agreement sets up a process by which the central government would regain control
over the border with Russia. However, this will not occur if the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk
has not been set up. Again, we have a challenge. If the Ukrainian legislation falls short of what
the separatists-and Moscow-have envisioned, then the border question will be stalemated.
Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and equipping
Ukrainian government forces. The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while
the cease-fire may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish the momentum, particularly on Capitol
Hill, for shipping arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian precedent,
where a long-term program to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed
the Serbian separatist entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that
Ukraine is not committed to a settlement, but will use the time to strengthen its forces and go back
on the offensive later this year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less than thorough
in their own observation of the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the
accord will cause Washington to put its plans on hold.
And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin put enormous pressure
on the separatists to accept the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once the cease-fire takes
hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that is not forthcoming, what will be his
continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands for the "neutralization"
of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions veto power over Ukraine's
foreign policy.
The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement
breaks down-and it has many vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all
sides have the political will to make it work.
Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The
National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press,
2013). The views expressed here are his own.
...Going down that road would
be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will
not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially
dangerous because Russia has thousands of
nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.
...the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking
away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study
concede this, noting that "even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian Army will not
be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military." In short, the United States cannot
win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia's defeat on the battlefield.
... ... ...
This coercive strategy is
also unlikely to work, no matter how much punishment the West inflicts. What advocates of arming
Ukraine fail to understand is that Russian leaders believe their country's core strategic interests
are at stake in Ukraine; they are unlikely to give ground, even if it means absorbing huge costs.
Great powers react harshly
when distant rivals project military power into their neighborhood, much less attempt to make a country
on their border an ally. This is why the United States has the Monroe Doctrine, and today
no American leader would ever tolerate Canada or Mexico joining a military alliance headed by
another great power.
... ... ...
Upping
the ante in Ukraine also risks unwanted escalation. Not only would the fighting in eastern Ukraine
be sure to intensify, but it could also spread to other areas. The consequences for Ukraine,
which already faces profound economic and social problems, would be disastrous.
... ... ...
Our understanding of
the mechanisms of escalation in crises and war is limited at best, although we know the risks are
considerable. Pushing a nuclear-armed Russia into a corner would be playing with fire.
Advocates
of arming Ukraine recognize the escalation problem, which is why they stress giving Kiev "defensive,"
not "offensive," weapons. Unfortunately, there is no useful distinction between these categories:
All weapons can be used for attacking and defending. The West can be sure, though, that Moscow will
not see those American weapons as "defensive," given that Washington is determined to reverse the
status quo in eastern Ukraine.
...Germany's chancellor,
Angela Merkel, seems to recognize that fact, as she has said Germany will not ship arms to Kiev.
Her problem, however, is that she does not know how to bring the crisis to an end.
She and other European
leaders still labor under the delusion that Ukraine can be pulled out of Russia's orbit and incorporated
into the West, and that Russian leaders must accept that outcome. They will not.
To save Ukraine and eventually
restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer
state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria during the Cold War. Toward that
end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize
that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies
should also work with Mr. Putin to rescue Ukraine's economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone's
interest.
It is essential that
Russia help end the fighting in eastern Ukraine and that Kiev regain control over that region. Still,
the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk should be given substantial autonomy, and protection for Russian
language rights should be a top priority.
Crimea, a casualty of the
West's attempt to march NATO and the European Union up to Russia's doorstep, is surely lost for good.
It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is done - to Ukraine and to relations
between Russia and the West.
John J. Mearsheimer,
a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of "The Tragedy of Great
Power Politics."
People don't realize but since its independence, RUssia has really supported Ukraine. Cheap
gas, buying the products of their heavy industry, contracts with such industry, allowing Ukrainian
to freely cross the border and work in Russia, and taking their pay home to Ukraine. The oligarchs
made tons of money buying up the various industries when Ukraine got its independence. All Ukrainian
presidents ended up as millionaires while in office. Well the bubble burst - courtesy of the US.
Now we find a broken-down country that cannot afford to pay pensions or salaries, tax oligarchs,
in short it can't even run its own government. Two Rada members just the other day had a fist
fight in the hall over some bill.
Does any country really want to invest in Ukraine - it is more of a banana republic than a
European country. Money to Ukraine will just go into pockets of ministers and other civil servants
has it has done for decades.
Instead of trying to end a war which is costing it several million dollars which it doesn't
have, the country keeps on fighting and postponing needed reforms.
Poroshenko will hire Mikheil Saakashvili as an advisor.
http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/interviews/1467-i-will-be-back
Ukraine will have to lay off miners, close obsolete factories, cut pensions and benefits -
What IMF always requires when it steps in to help. How will people react then?
koyaanisqatsi, Upstate NY 48 minutes ago
So most of Ukraine's economic problem arise from their coup. I'm not surprised. Ukraine should
have accepted Russia's pre-coup offer of assistance. Oh, wait...they did accept it. Then came
the US-sponsored coup. Have the people of western Ukraine never heard "be careful of what you
ask for....?" Now, the IMF and EU will demand "austerity" measures from the people of Ukraine,
just as they have from Greece who: has 25% unemployment, a 22% fall in GDP since 2009, and a 35%
increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. I'm sure it'll turn out OK.
Wolff, Arizona
The $30B debt Ukraine owed to Russia for oil sold to Europe has now climbed to $40B. The Ukraine
oil moguls did the same thing Wall Street has done in America - take the profits (average $10B
apiece for baksheesh for Russian oil flowing through Ukraine) and leave the debts to the Ukrainian
People.
Even the IMF cannot collect funds from US, Germany, England and France to pay off these Ukrainian
debts. Could it be that the Western Banking Establishment is finally at its limits to motivate
the US military to support Capitalist thugs in those nations that are its "Allies" by waging war
against those trying to collect debts from them?
Is America becoming a Criminal Nation?
FS, NY
It is not just Ukraine but many other countries which joined NATO are basket case and will
require continuous help. The Cold War ended but our paranoia did not. We have these basket case
countries join NATO or military alliances to encircle Russia and China. Such alliances and policies
may embolden our "allies" to create unwanted conflicts that may become burden for us. Counting
on American help, Mr. Modi and Mr. Abe are already issuing bellicose statements. During Cold War
Soviet Union built alliances with many basket countries that require continuous support and it
bankrupted Soviet Union. Are we not making the same mistake by continuing our unilateral Cold
War policy? May be Ukraine crisis is awakening call to reevaluate our unilateral cold war policy!
The alternative media is saying that the US is the provocateur here. Don't know who to believe,
but I sure DO NOT trust the US government to tell the plain truth anymore because we don't really
know who the US government is working for anymore, but we do know that more and more, they are
not working for the average citizens of the US, instead favoring the plutocrats. The basic policy
of the US government seems to be: We're lying to protect you from the horrible truth.
CAF, Seattle 1 hour ago
In a shocking miscalculation, American political elites realy did thing Russia would stand
by and do nothing as the US backed a coup on Russia's border, attempting to take core trade, geographic,
military, and economic interests from Russia, and setting up an existential military threat to
Russia 300 miles from Moscow. This involved overthrowing a duly elected government, but the US
never shies from that.
Unsurprisingly, the competent and intelligent, if autocratic Russian political elites responded
forcefully, defending the lands and peoples closest to the Russian border, along with Russian
security and all those interests.
Appallingly, the American temper tantrum included accusing Russia of "aggression", laughably,
in defending its people, security, and near interests, from American imperialists on the other
side of the planet.
Attempting to take Ukraine through soft force was a stupid idea, and revealing in that American
arrogance and overconfidence were exposed.
ReaderNYC, NYC 1 hour ago
The mess that the neocons have created in Ukraine is splitting that country apart and may lead
to a global confrontation. President Obama should resist the call for arming the coup leaders
in Kiev and should join Germany and France for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine that will bring
peace to the country and to Europe.
The warmongers should be told to calm down or volunteer to go and fight as partisans. They
should leave the rest of America alone.
The International Monetary Fund has announced a massive bailout totalling $40 billion for Ukraine.
Kyiv will get the money over a period of four years in exchange for carrying out broad economic reforms.
The funds are urgently needed to stave off a financial collapse. The IMF will provide $17.5 billion.
Quote: Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in
Washington – are still recycling their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow
is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it goes on.
Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator
John McCain have played a key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point
in international racketeering…
War by media and the triumph of propaganda by John Pilger
Why has so much journalism
succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so
often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive
their readers?
Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high
claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so
much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?
These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear
war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China.
This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted
the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.
The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda
is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It
rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our
sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.
The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology
by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés
and false assumptions.
This power to create a new "reality" has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a
book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There
is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the
individual."
I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to
guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling
and political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection could change the world.
Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of "me-ism" had all but overwhelmed
our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender
and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message.
The Minsk talks are about to enter their tenth hour, with the delegations of Germany, France,
Russia, and Ukraine still trying to reach a final compromise and come up with a joint resolution.
Journalists have been covering the event for almost 12 hours now.
They rely on the arduous task of watching FOX (and it is incredibly arduous) or repeating whatever
dribble comes out of the BBC
Ian56789
Nato's action plan in Ukraine is right out of Dr Strangelove by John Pilger
(Extract)
The genius of Stanley Kubrick's film is that it accurately represents the cold war's lunacy
and dangers. Most of the characters are based on real people and real maniacs. There is no equivalent
to Strangelove today because popular culture is directed almost entirely at our interior lives,
as if identity is the moral zeitgeist and true satire is redundant, yet the dangers are the same.
The nuclear clock has remained at five minutes to midnight; the same false flags are hoisted above
the same targets by the same "invisible government", as Edward Bernays, the inventor of public
relations, described modern propaganda.
In 1964, the year Dr Strangelove was made, "the missile gap" was the false flag. To build more
and bigger nuclear weapons and pursue an undeclared policy of domination, President John F Kennedy
approved the CIA's propaganda that the Soviet Union was well ahead of the US in the production
of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This filled front pages as the "Russian threat". In fact,
the Americans were so far ahead in production of the missiles, the Russians never approached them.
The cold war was based largely on this lie.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear
warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato enlargement project. Reneging on a US promise to the
Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand "one inch to the east",
Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato's military build-up
is the most extensive since the second world war.
In February, the US mounted one of its proxy "colour" coups against the elected government
of Ukraine; the shock troops were fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly
antisemitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No western European
leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians
died in the invasion of their country by Hitler's Nazis, who were supported by the infamous Ukrainian
Insurgent Army (the UPA) which was responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The Organisation
of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which the UPA was the military wing, inspires today's Svoboda party.
Since Washington's putsch in Kiev – and Moscow's inevitable response in Russian Crimea to protect
its Black Sea fleet – the provocation and isolation of Russia have been inverted in the news to
the "Russian threat". This is fossilised propaganda. The US air force general who runs Nato forces
in Europe – General Philip Breedlove, no less – claimed more than two weeks ago to have pictures
showing 40,000 Russian troops "massing" on the border with Ukraine. So did Colin Powell claim
to have pictures proving there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is certain is that
Barack Obama's rapacious, reckless coup in Ukraine has ignited a civil war and Vladimir Putin
is being lured into a trap.
Following a 13-year rampage that began in stricken Afghanistan well after Osama bin Laden had
fled, then destroyed Iraq beneath a false flag, invented a "nuclear rogue" in Iran, dispatched
Libya to a Hobbesian anarchy and backed jihadists in Syria, the US finally has a new cold war
to supplement its worldwide campaign of murder and terror by drone.
Lets be clear. Kiev must answer for their crimes when this is settled:
On June 2nd 2014 a Ukraine jet fighter attacked the central administrative building in Lugansk
city killing seven civilians. It was a gross act of state terrorism It was not a military target.
Immediately the US and the Ukraine UN Representative lied, saying it was a misfiring rebel
anti-aircraft manpad device that struck the buildings air con.
Yet, when the osce investigation pronounced it had been a jet fighter attack, Kiev and Washington
still denied it.
They have still not answered to this war crime - the first terrorist act of this crisis incidentally.
Lets not forget WHO is responsible for the appalling, criminal deaths in the cities of Donetsk
and Lugansk and who started the "terror".
Hermius
GreatMountainEagle
'The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking
world who has not changed from the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has
been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.'
This has to be the funniest thing ever posted on here (and saddest for those trapped in the
PutinSSR)
Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle
Why do you get off on being a Goldman Sachs / Neocon troll?
Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle
Putin currently has an 86% approval rating in Russia. Primarily this is because they were ruled
by Goldman Sachs and the US under Yeltsin in the 1990's. Yeltsin caused the collapse of the Russian
economy and a 40% drop in people's living standards. Russia was a total mess by the late 1990's.
Putin enjoys a very high approval rating because they do NOT want to be ruled by Goldman
Sachs again and they see Putin as the only guy that can stop it from happening.
Americans and Europeans haven't done so well living under Goldman Sachs rule for the last circa
15 years either. People's real standards of living in the developed countries has declined significantly.
richiep40
Forgetting all the name calling, who started it etc. what I don't get is how anyone can think
this will work.
The only premise where this will be possible is if the West will reign in Kiev's wish to
obliterate the East of Ukraine and Russia can persuade the rebels that this is true.
Without at least some assurances from the West about the safety of the East, the rebels will
fight on, even if Putin removed his support (which he won't do if he thinks there will be a bloodbath,
it would be political suicide for him).
You can't ask Russia to get out of the situation if they think the Lunatics in charge of Kiev
will do what they want to do.
NormVan
The US always attacking Putin. Russia has a functioning, united government of which Putin is
one part. When the US decides to attack, the first thing they create is an evil dictator. They
can bring freedom to the masses. US freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.
Obama having a hissy fit with Putin is childish. Obama got a start working for Henry Kissinger
and rumored to work for the CIA.
If he wants to do something useful he could send Mrs Nuland back to Kiev with some of her delicious
cookies
Goodthanx -> NormVan
To gain a nomination of Presidency, you are prescreened by the Cia. Meaning, are you willing
to be a lacky for the Cia, and the Military industrialists?
No president has a long future without the support of both. JFK case in point.
Nickel07
Once the peace agreement is signed...what are you lot on the dark side going to do just come
here and try to push back the tide of the investigations that will surely follow? What are you
going to do try to scream Putin is a Nazi like kindergarten kids?
I think you are about to lose big time and not just in Ukraine, but also by losing the little
credibility you still have with some countries as demonstrated by the approach taken by Hollande
and Merkel.
And, to compound it all:
"the reality of "American leadership" at times entails "twisting the arms" of states which
"don't do what we need them to do," and that the US relied on its military strength and other
leverage to achieve its goals."
Translation : We coerce some folk.
Mulefish
Why tell us what Poro thinks, Guardian; he always lies, wasting our time and Guardian outdated
reporters ink.
Why tell us what Obama thinks, mass murderer. evil, inadequate, coward, fool, and the cause
of all this. He is out of his depth; this is not any of his business; he should butt out He will
have to.
Merkel is just finding her voice and her brains and cutting loose the Yankee Nazi twits.
The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking
world who has not changed from the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has
been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.
Ian56789
NATO's Nazis: Ethnic Cleansing Their Opposition in East Ukraine
November 17, 2014
Nearly one year on from the US-backed faux 'colour revolution' in Maidan Square, the Ukraine
has been violently ripped into pieces by the new CIA-backed government in Kiev.
What began with pro-EU colour mobs and far right-wing neo-Nazi gangs in Kiev, has escalated
to ethnic cleansing in the eastern half of the country. The horrors are unspeakable, as detailed
in the report below (with video). NATO, led by the US and Britain, are actively backing Kiev's
military brutal campaign of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing against Russian-speaking
people in the east of that country.
Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in
Washington – are still recycling their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine",
"Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it goes on.
Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator
John McCain have played a key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low
point in international racketeering…
The sniper fire came from the upper floors and roofs of buildings controlled by the protestors
(Other pictures show the Berkut Police firing - but they are firing downwards in front of the
protestors to try and stop their advance NOT firing at them.)
'No evidence of Berkut police behind mass killing in Kiev' – probe head
There is no forensic evidence linking the victims of mass killings in Kiev on February 20 with
officers from the Berkut police unit, the head of the parliamentary commission investigating the
murders told journalists.
"This will be yet another case, like the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which
is still being investigated today," Gennady Moskal reported.
The MP made the statements at a media conference on Tuesday gathered to announce preliminary
results of his commission's probe. He assured that despite the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's
office having arrested 12 Berkut officers on allegations of committing the mass killings, forensic
evidence suggests their innocence.
He said the bullets that killed people in Kiev on the bloodies day of confrontation between
protesters seeking to oust President Viktor Yanukovich and riot police didn't match any of the
firearms issued to Berkut's special unit, which, unlike the majority of riot police, was allowed
to carry lethal weapons.
The man in charge of those controlling the buildings from which the snipers fired was Andrey
Parubiy who after the Coup was appointed head of the National Security and Defence Council of
Ukraine.
They had reporters on the ground when this was happening. They showed us the remarkable restraint
shown by the Berkut in the face of being in the face of being viciously assailed by infused, probably
drug fuelled, certainly Yankee pie and five billion fuelled, Nazi thugs, and the illogical directions
from which the sniper bullets came. (~This type of third party sniping is typical Yank false flag
trickery. They probably provided the snipers too.)
They also broadcast the transcript of the Ashton phone call and her goofy, coward, reaction,
not taken up, indeed studiously ignored, by the Western so-called press.
In like vein, Putin offered up his radar records for the downing of MH17, including records
of the presence of Ukrainian fighter planes present at the time, an offer not matched by the Kiev
Junta or the mouthy U.S. deep in the throes of lying about the incident , all the same, with typical
foul mouthedness.
So easy to fool the common denizens of the West, especially the "exceptional" Yankees and their
British government ass lickers.
richiep40 -> Ian56789
Thanks for all the info, I wouldn't say I knew all about all the research, but I definitely
got the drift.
I was really just commenting that the BBC Newsnight report was the first time that any of the
British Media have come even slightly off message.
For instance there were some reports from Donetsk on the horrible conditions there and the
civilian casualties on BBC Radio this morning, but not once did they mention these were all in
the City Centre held by the rebels and the only conceivable people launching the attacks were
the Ukrainian forces.
Now to anyone who takes an interest it is obvious, but for the casual listener who doesn't
have an interest, I doubt it.
coober
Every government can use the full employment equation:
Full Employment (FE) = Pension (P) X 1.2 X Money Velocity (MV) X 0.001
That equation is for all Nations and States.
A Ukraine Government can immediately tax Murdoch-type tax evaders, etc at 0.001% of money velocity
and pay a new 20% State Pension.
There is absolutely no valid excuse for unemployment in Ukraine. The State Pension can be adjusted
lower and the tax rate can be adjusted higher. The pension is to spread the money around to create
more small businesses and more jobs. The tiny rate of tax is for High Frequency Traders, Gamblers,
Murdoch-types etc. Everyday people will not notice it.
When Governments and people learn how good this modern tax is, we will be able to use it to
replace Income Tax etc. War is obsolete.
centerline coober
One small hitch. It is the Murdoch type that make the taxes. They put people in power who
will tax the poor so the government can subside the Murdochs.
Murdoch moved his Australian accounting office offshore a few years ago so the Australian
tax office paid Murdoch three quarters of a billion dollars.
Bud Peart
"Obama rounded unusually personally on Putin. "He has a foot very much in the Soviet past.
That's how he came of age. He ran the KGB,"
He ran the FSB, is he stupid or was this a planned lie to ratchet up cold war hysteria?
Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay
too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different
means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader,
thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only
if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.
Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However,
we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made,
including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe.
They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain
harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore,
I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state
and the Government.
... ... ...
Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be
the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional
confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular
saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible
attitude to our job, we will succeed.
Another terrible and extremely brutal created by West civil war in the name of neo-colonial domination
of the territory, resources and markets is in full swing. And that's after Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afganistan,
Libya... Already probably over 50K of dead and several times more wounded. More then a million of refuges
(mostly in Russia)...
Sending arms to Ukraine will not scare Vladimir
Putin, warns Angela Merkel while Francois Hollande warns it could lead to war
It was a day of bluster and speeches but also paralysis over how to bring the bloodshed in eastern
Ukraine to an end.
On one side, hawks in Washington favour supplying "advanced weapons" to Ukraine's government in Kiev.
On the other, cautious European leaders warned it is easier to provoke Vladimir Putin than to scare
him.
"I am firmly convinced this conflict cannot be solved with military means," said Angela Merkel,
the German chancellor at the Munich Security Conference.
Mrs Merkel, who is the only major Western leader to have a working relationship with Mr Putin, said
a flow of American arms to Ukraine would not intimidate the Russian leader.
"I cannot imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President
Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily," she said. "I have to put it that
bluntly."
She added that force had not proved to be the solution in the past when dealing with Russia. "I
grew up in East Germany, I have seen the Wall," she said. "The Americans did not intervene in the
Wall, but in the end we won."
More than 5,300 people have died in the conflict so far, many in devastating artillery barrages,
and Kiev warned yesterday that rebel troops were massing for a fresh offensive.
An increasing number of US politicians and senior officials have suggested countering the rebel
troops by supplying "defensive weapons" such as Javelin anti-tank missiles, small arms and ammunition
to allow Ukraine to strike back at the tanks, artillery and troops that Russia appears to be sending
to the east of the country.
General Philip Breedlove, Nato's top military commander, insisted on Saturday that the option
should remain on the table. "I don't think we should preclude out of hand the possibility of the
military option," he said, adding: "There is no conversation about boots on the ground."
President Barack Obama has remained silent so far, but Ashton Carter, his nominee for defence
secretary, told a Senate committee last week that he is "very much inclined" to provide arms to Petro
Poroshenko's government.
A day after five hours of talks in Moscow between Mrs Merkel, François Hollande and Mr Putin yielded
no public agreement beyond a commitment to a further phone call, all the major players in the crisis
met at the Munich Security Conference, electrifying what is usually a dry affair.
There was no mistaking where the sympathies of the audience, made up of international leaders
including 20 heads of state, lay. When Mrs Merkel mentioned in her speech that she was glad to see
Petro Poroshenko present, the Ukrainian President stood up and took a bow, to rapturous applause.
Brandishing the passports of several Russian soldiers allegedly seized on Ukrainian territory, he
said they were the "best evidence for the aggression and for the presence of Russian troops".
Mr Hollande has said he is against arming Ukraine and Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, said
the UK also supports a diplomatic solution while he denounced Mr Putin's "bully-boy" tactics.
"At the moment we do not feel that the supply of arms would be a helpful contribution," said Mr
Hammond. "And so long as there is something approximating a military stalemate, the focus must be
on finding a political solution to resolve it."
He also rejected accusations that the UK had become a "diplomatic irrelevance", saying: "We will
decide, together, what is the best way to go forward. The United States and the United Kingdom will
be at that table with France and Germany."
But Malcolm Rifkind, the former Defence and Foreign Secretary, was one of several delegates who
pressed Mrs Merkel on how Mr Putin could be tackled without bolstering Ukraine's army. "Frederick
the Great said that diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments," the Tory MP pointed
out.
Joe Biden, the US vice president, appeared to leave a route open for weapons supplies to Kiev,
saying: "We do not believe in a military solution to the conflict, but we do not believe that Putin
has the right to do whatever he wants." He added: "Too many times, President Putin has promised peace
and delivered tanks."
On Sunday, Mrs Merkel, Mr Hollande, Mr Putin and Mr Poroshenko will resume the debate and are
expected to thrash out a blueprint on a conference call. But it remains unclear what incentive, or
threat, Moscow requires in order to scale back its support for the thousands of heavily armed militiamen
in east Ukraine.
On Saturday Mr Putin insisted that his country was innocent, saying during a visit to Sochi on
the Black Sea: "We are not going to wage war on anyone, we plan to cooperate with everybody."
"There clearly is an attempt to restrain our development with different means," he told trade
union activists. "There is an attempt to perturb the existing world order... with one incontestable
leader who wants to remain as such thinking he is allowed everything while others are only allowed
what he allows and only in his interests. This world order will never suit Russia."
In Munich, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, took the West to task for allegedly escalating
the conflict but expressed hope the renewed peace talks would bear fruit. "We believe there is every
possibility that we will reach a result and agree the recommendations that will allow the sides to
really untie this knot of a conflict," he said.
Representatives of the rebels, Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe signed a peace deal in Minsk, Belarus, in September. That deal agreed a ceasefire, a withdrawal
of artillery, prisoner exchanges and other concessions but was never implemented in full. Despite
some lulls, fighting and shelling continued and last month the rebels announced they were abandoning
talks over a ceasefire and going on the offensive.
French and German officials have said the current peace talks are seeking a way to implement the
original Minsk agreement, possibly conceding more land to the rebels to reflect their recent advances.
But Mr Poroshenko said any new deal should not expand the territory given over to rebel control,
and its signatories could not pick and choose which points to fulfil.
"The Minsk protocol is not a buffet in the Bayerischer Hof hotel," he said, referring to the location
of the Munich conference.
It is pretty obvious that significant forces in Washington push for a big war in Europe,
cold
at least but hot if possible. European countries, aside from some small U.S. puppets, are well
aware that they would be hit hard in such a war, and do not want it.
The U.S. wants to deliver additional weapons to Ukraine and to thereby goad Russia into such
a wider war. The
arguments made that such weapon delivers would somehow restrict Russia
are
just
stupid and only hide the real plans: Escalation until Europe is (again) up in flames.
There is
full steam lobbying by the U.S. to widen the conflict in Ukraine which it
instigated in the first place:
As President Barack Obama's pick to run the Pentagon said Wednesday he's inclined to support lethal
weapons transfers, Ukraine's president said he was confident the U.S. would do so. Meanwhile,
outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry were flying to discuss
Ukraine and other issues with allies in Europe. Vice President Joe Biden is due to follow them
Thursday.
France, the U.K., Germany and other Europeans have
spoken out against any such weapon
deliveries and the escalation they bring.
Kerry has flown to Kiev today to push for the Ukraine puppets into escalation. Merkel
and Hollande will also
fly
to Kiev and will hopefully try to convince Poroshenko to deescalate and to make peace with the federalists
in east-Ukraine. I have my doubts about their independence though and it may be that their appearance
is is just part of the show. Why else did they agree to NATO's increase in capacities and infrastructure
in east Europe?
The solution for the Ukraine is simple. Federalization, official acceptance of the Russian language
which is spoken in the East and democratic elections of local governors. These have been the demands
in the east and these have been solutions even U.S. foreign policy luminaries
urged to accept a year ago.
The Ukraine is bankrupt. This morning its currency
lost 30% in just a few hours. Instead of further instigating a civil war and pushing for its
escalation it is urgently time to discuss how that problem can be solved. The solution can not be
waging war and permanent subsidization of Europe's
most corrupt country.
Federalization and constitutional reform (i.e. Point 3 Decentralization of power ...) are a major
point agreed upon by both sides in the Minsk
protocol about a ceasefire in east-Ukraine. But despite insisting on other points of the agreement
himself Poroshenko still rejects those most important agreed upon conditions.
Should the U.S. win in its drive to escalate the situation by delivering more weapons to Kiev
Russia will not cave in. History suggest that a Ukraine under NATO at its border is a deadly danger.
Russia must and will take countermeasures. The U.S. will then cite those countermeasures as signs
of "further aggression" and as justification for another round of escalation. A few more rounds of
such and Europe will be up in flames.
That would be good for the U.S. economy but terrible for the Ukraine and Europe.
Actually, I am not sure Kerry is in Kyiv to make a gift of weapons. Here is the
official statement
And obviously, we'll be talking about the dire security situation in the east of Ukraine and
the grave acceleration of the fighting over the Minsk lines by the separatists enabled by Russian
weapons, Russian expertise, Russian command and control. He will be endeavoring to support
efforts by the Ukrainians to get to a ceasefire, to get back to serious negotiations in the
Trilateral Contact Group where the Minsk signatories – Russia, Ukraine, and the separatists
– sit. And he will be offering U.S. support to any diplomatic framework that can be successful
in this context.
I guess, Ukraine and the West desperately need a ceasefire now. To throw weapons on it won't
help. The IMF has linked further loans to peace and territorial integrity.
Willy2 | Feb 5, 2015 8:47:15 AM | 5
Is more chaos not just what the US Empire wants ? "Divide & Conquer", right ? And that
chaos would/is bound to spill over into Russia.
"Mission Accomplished", right ?
somebody | Feb 5, 2015 9:16:27 AM | 7
Re: Petrodollar System | Feb 5, 2015 8:39:39 AM | 3
If Russia decides that is is attacked by NATO and not just threatened by a NATO proxy force
within Ukraine and decides to counterattack, then what? Where to end? So much for the feasibility
of NATO weapons in Ukraine - some are supposed to be there already.
The vast majority of Ukrainians expect federalization as the end result. They are not stupid.
They know this is all about the Petrodollar.
Not really. It is about Russian influence in South East Europe via gas pipelines. A Russia
friendly government in Kiew and federalization would be not an issue apart from Western Ukraine
that does have close connections with the EU.
Hopefully the brinksmanship going on now is really just a way of bettering the NATO negotiating
position about who, with federalization, will really control which province. I have a hope the
negotiations are down to one particular province now; the sticking point far from the current
front. I can see that being worked out. Maybe UN forces can patrol the area of the sticking point.
I doubt that very much as no one wants to
cede the pipeline routes. Nor is it really open to negotiation as Ukrainian infrastructure
and flow of goods are hard to reverse.
From a quick posting troll - inaugural member of the 77th battalion? - said:
"the only country involved in a war in a Europe is RussiaAmerica. It's supplying arms,
men, logistics. It lies about it, because it can. It's not a democracy, it neveronce was
and it {will} never will be {again}. It can do what it likes, it controls the media, the
industry (as crappy as it is). It silences any opposition, either through outright murder,
by imprisonment or by whatever means necessary. {through horizontal censorship and military/intelligence
agency sponsored social media trolling} "
It could not be any more obvious that Kerry is in Kiev to keep the bloody war going. His first
words are to back up Ukrainian propaganda and blame the entire conflict on Russia and then
set impossible
conditions:
pulling back heavy weapons beyond the range of civilian populations, removing foreign troops
and heavy equipment from Ukraine, and closing the Russia-Ukraine border.
The only way the conflict gets solved is to deal respectfully with the legitimate grievances
of Eastern Ukraine, and that is exactly what Kerry didn't say a word about. The ridiculous appointment
by corrupt Kiev of oligarchs as governors in the regions is the biggest offense, and democratic
federalization has always been the reasonable solution. Poroshenko is STILL not talking to the
East and still calling them terrorists. This is the guy Kerry is hugging and reassuring with these
wonderful words: "LET'S HAVE A WAR!"
Kerry can't be that stupid. He must know that even if Kiev gets more 'defensive' weapons one
month later and they'll be asking for planes and cruise missiles.
farflungstar | Feb 5, 2015 10:44:28 AM | 13
USSA plans to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, makes it seem like it's all Russia's
fault. I hope Russia wastes no expense in reminding the average Ukrainian who the real monstrous
a$$hole is here, pulling conflicts out of thin air and playing everyone like pawns.
I have a sneaking suspicion the Ukraine will ultimately look back with grim nostalgia at
the peace they had before the Maidan.
Alberto | Feb 5, 2015 10:52:27 AM | 14
The main objective of the Ukraine putsch appears to be the perpetuation of NATO by manufacturing
a war with Russia? Do not ever forget that the Czar of WHITE RUSSIA backed the colonists in the
Revolutionary War against England. The same actors of 250 years ago are still the propelling force
behind all present weapons manufacture/sales, genocide, violence and civil wars.
Btw the previous Ukr. currency failed in 1996. It was called the Kupon! (Inflation, mis-management.)
The PTB in the Kiev-coup Gvmt will not hear of federalization. I even doubt anybody could coerce
them into agreeing with that. No matter how dominant or powerful one considers the US, the EU,
the CIA or whomever. The Donbass is now (and was previous) a cancer to extirpate.
In fact besides cutting off all usual country ties (pensions, teachers salaries, state services,
police, taxation..), Kiev has cut off the banks and financial services.
Also, set up checkpoint so that nobody can leave. (A request with a pile of paper has to be
made, then, zilch, turned back at the border. Yes a border.) Kiev has also cancelled public bus/train
transport, trains no longer run. into the Donbass. Poroshenko when he stated "their children
will starve in the cellars while ours go to school" was not kidding. So the Donbass, for ex.,
can no longer import meds. Besides its hospitals being shelled to bits…
Palestine, anyone?
From the other side, Donesk + Lugansk Rs will not turn back, the killing has been too atrocious.
Putin and the W may still be mouthing about a 'unitary Ukraine', that ship has sailed. Federalization
can take place in certain conditions, not these. I reckon the parties who propose it know that
very well.
NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 5, 2015 11:03:19 AM | 16
@6 This is why I don't think the Russians have been more active. A collapse in Kiev will leave
an angry and bitter populace behind which will have a hard time moving East.
I suspect a sense of national betrayal to develop in greater Kiev against the West. They
will say, "the jews betrayed us," because that is traditional and create terrorist operations
against nominally anti-Russian countries such as Poland who won't be interested in helping Kiev
when the going gets tough.
radiator | Feb 5, 2015 11:57:20 AM | 18
I actually believe that the tide is turning against nato. Open supply of arms would, imho,
make the population in western ukraine go and throw poroshenko from the rooftop - people are not
so stupid that they wouldn't notice that the us uses them as cannon fodder to fight its wars,
like they do everywhere else on the globe. it's just my opinion but i believe that among what
used to be the soviet countries, there's still somewhat more sensitivity and insight for the evil
ways of the us empire.
So to me, this merkel-hollande-kerry visits look more like a panicked effort to either gain
time or push for a ceasefire and maybe even federalization before the Ukrainian nazi militias
are obsolete and the country takes a reconquista coup from their own population.
Should there come an anti-maidan with support of the sensible parts of the ukrainian army,
the whole country might be back under russian influence for some time. The western politicians
are trying to avoid that if possible.
The way the russians have played this game thus for I am firmly convinced that they'll know
how to play this, now advantage, for the best.
@Noirette#15 - You are right about Kiev's attitude to federalism. Is there a disconnect here?
Having watched Willy Wonka's press conference with Kerry, Porky was reminded that Donbass should
have a special status. But I noticed in his earlier
interview with Germany's Welt newspaper, the idea of federalism was rejected by Poroshenko
as a solution to separatist demands. Has he now been publicly put in his place by Kerry, or are
the aims of Kiev disconnected from Washington? Does Porky fear being turned into bacon if he caves
in to the will of the East; to being dragged through the streets by the same fun loving criminals
used to bring down his predecessor?
Just who really can control the spirits unleashed?
The American Jewish Committee concluded a
solidarity mission to Ukraine on Thursday, expressing its support for the former Soviet republic
in its conflict with Russia.
"First and foremost, we visited Kiev to express our ongoing solidarity with, and support
for, the Ukrainian quest to chart its own destiny," AJC Executive Director David Harris said
in a statement.
"We applaud the current government's determination in the face of overwhelming adversity.
With so much at stake for Ukraine and regional and global security, it is critical that Western
governments respond with appropriate support for the country. This is nothing less than a defining
era."
The delegation met with senior officials -including security officials and Prime Minister
Arseniy Yatsenyuk- as well as Jewish leaders, the American organization said in a statement.
Among the topics discussed were "financial, military, and other forms of international support
needed by Ukraine" and the well-being of Ukrainian Jewry, the AJC stated.
Don't know about you, but I find this support for the Kiev government (which obviously has some
radical right-wing elements) by a Jewish Association truly remarkable, if not stunning. UNLESS they're doing it guided by "some higher interest"...
radiator | Feb 5, 2015 1:15:12 PM | 27
Re: #23
well imho having a nato controlled portion of ukraine nearby would be a danger and defeat for
russia.
it's already bad enough to have poland and the baltics under nato control... i guess they'd
make other concessions, have some persona non grata in the ukrainian government or whatever, as
long as they can make sure that ukraine stays militarily neutral.
the best outcome for russia would surely be a somewhat federalized but in any case unified
ukraine that's not a member or associate of nato. soon they'll have the means to accomplish exactly
this (would be my guess).
Fernando | Feb 5, 2015 2:01:27 PM | 31
The plan is for war in Ukraine, Moldova and inside Russia if possible. The USA doesn't really
want war in UK, Germany or France. It's to be a limited war, a fast food war but in ebbs and flows
that helps the economy grow stupid doncha know?
VietnamVet | Feb 5, 2015 2:40:02 PM | 32
The Clash of Civilizations never went away; it was tamped down for a while by realists who
avoided a nuclear war between the West and the East. This century ideologues and true believers
seized power in the West. Today it is everybody for themselves.
Aggregating wealth, flushing sovereign government down the toilet, regime change and chaos
are the goals of the Western Rulers. It all has come together in the Ukraine. The realist position
is a neutral federated Ukraine.
Instead a civil war was started and prodded along until mankind is just one mistake away from
Armageddon.
Laguerre | Feb 5, 2015 3:29:50 PM | 37
I don't know much about Ukraine, in comparison to others here, but I would have thought
it obvious that if Merkel, Hollande and Kerry are in Kiev, it is because the Kiev regime is on
the point of collapse, as already appreciated by b and others.
The collapse is military, not financial, even if Ukraine is also bankrupt. Otherwise immediate
presence would not be necessary. Many countries fight wars while being bankrupt.
The US talks of offering defensive arms. That seems inappropriate, a proposal more adapted
to Syria. Ukraine has plenty of arms, indeed manufactures them. The problem is human, not
weapon-related. Conscript Ukrainians are fleeing in large numbers. No-one wants to fight for Kiev.
I doubt that Russia is intervening actively, in the sense of a desire to integrate Novorussiya
into Russia. I recall the discussions last autumn, where the lack of interest for Putin was emphasised.
Nevertheless Russia is obligated to help its relatives, and equally, if they don't do it, it would
be a shame. I don't see any way that Russia has passed beyond what is necessary to help their
relatives.
One could compare to the Kurds, where it was thought OK for the Peshmerga to depart from
Erbil to help their relatives far away in Kobani.
Ulster | Feb 5, 2015 3:37:03 PM | 38
@25 No doubt that Kulikov knows what he's saying about the war in "highly populated areas"
as he was commanding Russian forces in Chechnya. He chose tactics that was indeed much more effective
compared to the one Ukrainians now use in Donbass - Russians in Chechnya just bombed everything
from artillery and air until it was burned to the ground (but a high number of civilian casualties
was never a significant problem for Russian army).
But I would be still skeptical as it comes to Ukrainian army "being close to defeat". Everyone
in Russia - and on MoA - was repeating this mantra over and over again since April last year.
Ukraine was "close to defeat" in April, in August, in November and so on. But since then the Russia
backed separatist made literally no progress, neither military, nor political.
NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 5, 2015 3:41:24 PM | 39
@37 Kerry and the gang might not be offering new arms as much as trying to find an explanation
for existing arms especially if the current Ukrainian cauldron surrenders.
Anonymous | Feb 5, 2015 3:58:00 PM | 40
Just read that Ukraine nazis will start murdering soldiers that refuse to wage war in the
east.
ruralito | Feb 5, 2015 4:27:40 PM | 41
@ Ulcers "But since then the Russia backed separatist made literally no progress, neither military,
nor political."
So, Kiev doesn't need military supplies from the west?
Justin O | Feb 5, 2015 4:29:33 PM | 42
The crisis in Ukraine has nothing to do with "freedom and democracy" (or free-dumb and demo-crazy
as I like to call it). The root cause of the crisis is the overwhelming desire on the part of
the US to prevent a Eurasian integration project dominated by the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet
space. It is the US/EU who have interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and are destabilising
Ukraine not Russia.
The criminal nature of the Ukrainian government is well known and understood by US and EU policy
makers but their crimes are being downplayed or totally ignored.
Any decent human being with a conscience would understand that it is the US-led "democratic"
project that is responsible for the bloodshed in Ukraine.
You must be Ukrainian. I don't think even Poles or Latvians would harp on the Chechen wars
while the UAF are intensively bombarding populated areas of Donbass. In any case, there is absolutely
no comparison between what the junta is doing and what Russia did in Chechnya. Russia was brutal
with Chechnya yes, but there was no other way of putting down the foreign jihadists. Those were
brutal wars, but every action Russia took had a military purpose. In contrast, Kiev's murder of
civilians and destruction of infrastructure, kindergartens, schools, and hospitals has absolutely
no military purpose. It is genocide, plain and simple. The objective was to eliminate Ukrainians
who identify as Russian from Ukraine, because only Ukrainians who identify as Russian resist fascism
and hence the junta. But now Kiev knows that it has lost the Donbass. The bombing is now done
out of nothing but spite: if Ukrainians can't have Donbass, they will leave Novorossiyans with
a wasteland.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo-a young
dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in
Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment,
the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization
but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage.
In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair
a la Sharon Stone. …
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist
party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that
he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP,
the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything
dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that
there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit
of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.
The people now running the Ukraine are more psychotic than the original Nazis ever were. America's
Great Generation who fought against the Nazis must be turning in their graves.
I'll disagree about the Kiev government being crazier than the nazis.
German nationalism makes sense, because Germany is a great nation. Ukrainian nationalism makes
no sense at all, because not only is Ukraine not a great nation - it's not even a nation.
It is an artificial construct clumped together from parts of other countries. The reason
that the Banderites are so dead set against federalization is that they realize this, and they
want to solve the problem by forcibly Ukrainizing all Ukrainian citizens who are not ethnically
and/or culturally Ukrainian.
I'm positive Hillary and Obama would be devastated if they met victims of their crimes.
I seriously doubt that. They know the consequences of their actions. They just place no value
on human life. They are both psychopaths. Hillary with her joke "We came, we saw, he died"; Obama
with his pride about his personally going over the White House kill list.
@Scott #52:
This might be a pivotal weekend boys and girls.
Yes, that's what Russian bloggers are saying. A Russian general said on Russian TV that
NAF should advance to the administrative borders of DPR and LPR.
Israel likes to talk about
"facts on the ground". It doesn't seem to have sunk into the Obama regime yet that the facts on
the ground in Donbass are not in its favor. Obama and Kerry continue their bluster.
The Empire's fall back plan, in case it could not hold on to the Ukraine, is perpetual chaos
in the area between NATO and Russia. But I think that if Russia was able to pacify Chechnya, it
will be able to eventually pacify Ukraine. Of course, that will largely depend on the Ukrainians
coming to their senses. That process will begin by their suffering a decisive military defeat
won by non-fascist Ukrainians. Hopefully that will teach them that being a fascist is a losing
proposition.
Our current crop of fascists have a lot of catching up to do before any comparison can be made
to their old allies. Nowhere near as brutal, crazy, or thankfully as capable.
I obviously agree with you about the "capable" part.
But I really don't see how you can make your other two claims.
How can one be more brutal than burning people alive as the Ukrainian nationalists did with
the Odessa Khatyn?
In Khatyn, Ukrainian nationalist Nazi collaborators forced people into a building and then set
it on fire.
That is exactly what Ukrainian nationalists did in May of last year
in Odeassa. Right Sector is composed of exactly the same people as the Ukrainian nationalists
who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
I hope you don't mean to suggest that Ukrainian Nazi collaborators were less brutal and crazy
than the Nazis themselves. Thus, your claim that today's Ukrainian nationalists are [nowhere near
as brutal, crazy" as the Nazis is not only false: it is incoherent.
Kiev bloggers joke: "A shell hit the hospital Donetsk. Get well, shell." I think this goes
completely beyond the limit.
It's hard to imagine that even Nazi newspapers joked this
way during World War II. (they strongly denied these facts, as they had some understanding
that it (the shelling of hospitals) is "shameful" and "wrong" even for their audience).
…
The main thing is not the producer, the main thing – the audience. All they have so – under
the laughter, jokes and "culture of laughter carnival" overthrown the legitimate authority,
and burned a hundred "Vatnikov" in Odessa, unleashed carnage in the East. And so far it's funny.
So yes, Ukrainian nationalists are more depraved than the original Nazis were. It is hard for
Westerners to accept that, because it is a central dogma of the new Western religion that the
Nazis were a unique, absolute evil, to which no other genocidal regimes can be compared, no matter
how brutal they are and how depraved and nihilistic their members are.
Ukraine SITREP: *Extremely* dangerous situation in Debaltsevo The Novorussian and the junta
have agreed to a cease-fire to allow the civilian population to leave Debaltsevo. In theory,
each civilian will get to chose whether he/she wants to be evacuated to Novorussia or to the
Nazi-occupied Ukraine. The convoy of refugees will be escorted by senior OSCE officials. Both
sides to the conflict have pledged not to open fire during the time needed for this operation.
Now consider this:
1) The only thing protecting the junta forces are, precisely, these civilians. If these
civilians leave, then Debaltsevo will turn into Saur Mogila. Until now, the Novorussians have
advanced rather slowly precisely because they could not use the full power of their artillery
to soften up the well dug-in junta forces. But thanks to the Voentorg, the Novorussians now
have plenty of firepower now and if they decide to really open up upon the junta forces the
latter will suffer the same devastating consequences as their (now dead) colleagues in Saur
Mogila. Everybody understands that.
2) Tonight the junta has used white phosphorus again, and in the recent days they have used
both ballistic missiles and cluster munitions. Why this sudden concern with the Debaltsevo
civilians (whom the Nazis consider as "bugs" anyway)? Does anybody really believe that the
Nazi freaks in Kiev care for Novorussian civilians?!
3) Kerry, Hollande and Merkel were in Kiev today. The latter two will be in Moscow tomorrow.
In Germany, the Munich Security Conference is meeting. NATO is still claiming that "hundreds
and hundreds" of Russian Federation soldiers are operating in Novorussia. While some US officials
speak of sending "lethal aid" to the junta, others seem to oppose it.
Yes, everyone expects the junta to pull a false flag soon (as the Saker says in the part you
didn't quote), but the junta has pulled at least three false flags already (MH17, the shelling
of a bus, the shelling of a residential area in Mariopul), but none of those did the junta much
good. (The downing of MH17 did enable the US to get the EU to impose more sanctions on Russia,
though.)
I think that a sufficient amount of Westerners have realized by now that the junta is brutally
killing its own people, whereas the NAF are just trying to defend their people. The illusion
that this is not the case is maintained by politicians and the corporate media never speaking
the truth about this. But because many Westerners are coming to understand the true nature of
the Kiev regime (Europeans anyway, if not Anglos), I think that further false flags are going
to have limited effectiveness.
No. They won't pull back and apologize. They'll do what cowards usually do...
-keep bullying their Kiev junta
-keep lying about Kiev's massacres
-keep smearing Putin and blaming him for Kiev's crimes
-keep reinforcing the meme that Putin is so evil that Russia should be Iraqified to save it from
Putin
-keep blaming anyone and everyone but themselves for their angst
-gnash their gums while they dream up more veils and excuses for their depravity.
US arming Ukraine is very likely. When you see a policy discussion report in The New York Times,
experience shows the policy is already being conducted covertly and this is just a way to bringing
into public view a program that's already been initiated (NATO shell rounds are already detected
in Gorlovka, Ukraine). Nobody in Washington imagines with the best of support Kiev forces will
be able to win this militarily.
Arming of Ukraine is primarily directed against Europeans. Since there is more and more
dissension in European ranks from the US' confrontational policy the only way to scare the
EU wimps back into a more confrontational position is to turn up the heat and the chaos. (Chief
of US Army in the Europe is already awarding medals to crippled Ukrainian soldiers).
This is a clear parallel to the Balkan conflicts. There the United States also needed to
demonstrate leadership by escalating conflict and dragging reluctant Europeans with them (bombing
Serbs in 1995 and 1999, facilitate an inflow of Islamists to bolster the Bosnian Muslims in
Bosnia and Albanian separatists in Serbia, and finally creating a NATO client state in Kosovo)
Perhaps there's more to Hollande/Merkel's presence in Kiev than the good cop bad cop routine.
They're on to Moscow tomorrow.
Demain 67 and rufus 74. There is little doubt that the neoNazi thugs running amok in Ukraine
are barely distinguishable from the real thing in Germany 90-to 70 years ago. What does distinguish
them is that the German Nazis had total control over the levers of state after 1938; their descendants
in Ukraine have not yet achieved total control. Neither the EU nations nor the US is quite ready
to support them in their desire to ethnic cleanse Donbas of its Russian population. That is the
current political reality. I seriously doubt that Poroshenko shares the Nazi dream of purging
'slavs' from Ukraine. Unfortunatley his ability to negotiate with the Donbas people is seriously
circumscribed by the neo-Nazi militias that now make up a big part of his armed forces.
Interesting times to be sure. The US is pushing war in Ukraine but it will come down, it seems
to me, how far Obama is willing to accept an alliance with the Nazis. At some point he will have
to decide and that time will come when it is no longer possible to hide the fact that war in Ukraine
is being pushed by the Nazi forces.
No concentration camps, no death camps. No "Night of the Long Knives" yet, the regime is not
far along of its trajectory of decay and destruction. They have the capacity to get that crazy,
granted. But if maybe in possession of means, not yet the opportunity.
The junta would do all those things if they could. The reason they don't is (1) as you said at
#59, they are not as capable as the Nazis; (2) unlike the Nazis, the Ukraine is not a sovereign
nation, but a colony of the US, and USG realizes that the junta setting up concentration and death
camps would be bad for PR; (3) the Nazis did not have to worry about the Internet. The bottom
line is that the worst thing the Nazis did was to commit genocide, and that is exactly what the
Ukrainians are doing now, which means that the Ukrainians are not the least bit better than the
Nazis. The western Ukrainians are just picking up where their Banderite grandfathers left off.
Trying to find ways in which the junta is not as bad as the Nazis is a pointless intellectual
exercise which just serves to obscure the true nature of Ukrainian nationalism and the junta,
IMO.
As for the tempo of the advance: I think that Novorossiya and Russia should set the goal of
the DPR and LPR comprising all of the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of the former
Ukraine. How that goal is to be achieved (by a military advance; if so, how quick should it be?;
through negotiation; by waiting for the Ukrainian state to collapse) is a separate matter.
There are at least four players here: (1) Russia; (2) USG; (3) the people's republics; (4)
the junta. I think it's safe to say that Russia has a significantly better understanding of USG's
strategy and overriding goals than USG has of Russia's strategy and overriding goals.
The junta is USG's puppet, but the puppet is so crazy that USG's control over it is limited.
Russia keeps Novorossiya on a leash, but the leash is not very short. Also, no one knows what
the Kremlin's strategy is, whereas everyone who reads this blog knows what USG's strategy is.
Finally, USG has not the least bit of concern about Ukrainians, whereas Moscow is deeply concerned
about the welfare of Novorossiyans, although it places its geopolitical interests over humanitarian
concerns.
As you may have noticed, I do not consider Germany or France to be players here. They could
have been, but they left the game when they did not resist pressure from USG for them to act against
their own self interest.
"The solution for the Ukraine is simple. Federalization, official acceptance of the Russian
language which is spoken in the East and democratic elections of local governors."
Really? After all the atrocities and mass murders committed by the Ukrainian government
and Ukrainian nazis, the solution is ... so simple. The author is either extremely naive
or extremely underinformed. Both the leaders of Novorussia and ordinary people have repeatedly
said that they don't ever want to be part of the illegal neo-nazi government in Kiev. Perhaps
"federalization" was still possible before the Odessa massacre. No more.
Representative of Defense Ministry of Donetsk Republic Eduard Basurin says: "The Ukrainian
side accepted our offer that we open a passage for the locals to leave Debal`tsevo tomorrow."
From his words, the locals will be provided busses: "Right now, Donetsk Republic prepares busses
and autos to transportat Debal`tsevo locals through a humanitarian corridor to Gorlovka (Donetsk
Republic) or Artemovsk (Ukraine)."
Combatant Prokhorov informed about situation and clashes on February 5:
"Afternoon (February 4) the Ukrainians tried to seize hamlet Shirokovo (near Mariupol`). The
attack was repelled. Battalion "Azov" reported 2 "200th" (killed) and 1 "300th" (wounded) – understated
five times.
(February 5) under Mariupol` (information is traditionally scarce from there) border troops
were struck in Sartana(?) and positions of the Ukrainian forces in Priovrazh`ye(?). And just one
hour ago a Ukrainian patrol was liquidated near Shirokovo. So far, 2 fallen and 2 wounded were
reported (understated by multiple times).
Under Debal`tsevo (Chernukhino) a company of 25th battalion "Kiyevskaya Rus`" was surrounded.
From 80 men about 40 are alive.
The Ukrainian tried to slip in enforcement disguised under a mission of "Red Cross". Combatants
were indignant, the Ukrainians turned back. The Ukrainians attempted to pass on their own – 4
"KRAZs" (lorry trucks) and 2 tanks. Only 1 tank with wounded returned, everything else was burned."
I agree with Demian that the Ukrainian Nazis are if anything more depraved than their erstwhile
Hitlerian mentors; the only thing holding them back from exceeding the horrors of the Third Reich
is lack of capability, which as ToivoS points out would change if they had more time to consolidate
their power and were free from US control. Months ago I posted a link to
The Nazis Even Hitler Was Afraid Of, which I humbly resubmit toward this estimation.
The choreography at work in the Times report is remarkable even for a paper accustomed
to doing what it is told. Michael Gordon, a long-serving defense and security correspondent
noted for his obedience, reported the deliberations in Washington (without naming a single
source) the same day the Brookings report appeared (and in the same story).
First, anyone who continues to mistake a clerk such as Gordon for a journalist must by now
be judged irredeemably naive. This is a case study of how the Times functions and the place
it occupies in public space. Were Pravda to work similar angles in the old Soviet days, the
Times' Moscow bureau would be all over it for its servitude.
Second and more important, the careful coordination of the disclosures spoon-fed Gordon
suggests very strongly that a) public opinion is now being prepared for a new military intervention
and b) planning for this intervention is in all likelihood already in motion.
The former IHT foreign correspondent goes on to PLEAD with his fellow Americans to wake the
f@ck up, like our brothers and sisters in Greece and Spain are doing spectacularly. Don't see
it, though. Instead, at an Iraq 2 moment like this, 'The Sniper' is kicking ass and killing Ayrabs
at the box office.
There is little doubt that the neoNazi thugs running amok in Ukraine are barely distinguishable
from the real thing in Germany 90- to 70 years ago. What does distinguish them is that the
German Nazis had total control over the levers of state after 1938; their descendants in Ukraine
have not yet achieved total control.
Absolutely. Huge powerful country, huge State machine, and, I wanted to add, the support of
the population (with exceptions too small to matter.)
Ukraine's neo-Nazis are a loose network of interconnected people and organisations, some of
them quite informal, with some of course sitting in the Gvmt. And the population is not pro (for
the largest part.)
They subsist and are effective precisely because of this structure, also because the landscape
around them is so confused and volatile, violence on a personal or quasi-personal level has a
high premium. Which also has the effect of making them appear more depraved.
I seriously doubt that Poroshenko shares the Nazi dream of purging 'slavs' from Ukraine.
I agree (although my post could be read as implying the opposite.) But Yats does adhere. Hah
as I now see you said above at 94.
One of the commenters, named "DarkPull", nailed his
landing on this piece of crap:
I refrained from commenting under the first part, because I thought that we were only half
eay through the story. I hoped that the first part, clearly biased and one-sided, would be complemented
by the other side of the story. Alas, it seems that the two sides are the German narrative and
the Ukrainian one. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.
I am amazed that what purports to be a comprehensive coverage of the Ukraine story fails to
as much as mention Putin's Valdai speech, which was one of the kost important political manifestos
of the last decade. Notably, the session during which Putin spoke was titled "The World
Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules?"
As to what found its way into the text: the notion that Poroshenko had leverage over Putin
during Minsk negotiations because of his alleged posession of Russian dog tags, the very idea
is borderline crazy. Putin did not budge after sanctions, plumetting oil, M17 media campaign,
or nothing else really. But he did budge because of - boo hoo - dog tags? It just does not sound
very plausible. Especially since there was no public disclosure after the Minsk accord collapsed.
Also, the suggestion that the Russians are the only ones to blame for the Minsk failure, because
they failed to protect the Ukrainian border from themselves and continued supporting the rebels
gives up any pretense of balanced reporting. There is no mention of the Russian request that the
OSCE deploy observers patrolling the border, and why that it has never really happened. There
is not a sentence about the regrouping and counter-offensive of the Ukrainian army.
The authors point out that "Dozens of civilians have been killed by heavy shelling since mid-January
in east Ukraine." But what about all the civilians killed or displaced before January, due to
Ukrainian shelling of Donbas? Never happened?
The entire piece reads like a retelling of a phone conversation overheard by someone who stood
beside one of the interlocutors and now reports utterances of that person only, guessing what
was going on and what was said on the other side. It is no wonder that the FT is so confused about
Russia's objectives and motives.
Snippet: "It was the first time in history that over 120 people, including 26 law enforcement officers
were shot in cold blood on Maidan. Yanukovych lost heart in these circumstances. And those who
devised the coup had their hands untied. Groups were put together to catch him and put the Libyan
scenario into practice. He was supposed to die the way Gaddafi did. I had resigned, why was my
car fired at with an assault rifle? Whom did I threaten? I wasn't in the car, my wife was in it.
It's a miracle that she survived this. Who has been called to answer for this? Why not a single
investigation has been conducted?" he said.
Russia Insider has published my latest piece on the course of the Ukrainian war. It is a more
refined and thought through version of the piece I previously wrote on this Page.
1. My key point is that it is not minor tactical movements that are determining the course of
this war. It is the level of casualties the Ukrainian military is suffering. They were hammered in
the summer and they are being hammered again now.
In my pieces for Russia Insider I quoted the number of Ukrainian military deaths on the basis
of official Ukrainian documents obtained by a hacking group as 1,100 for a two week period that covered
the battle for Donetsk airport. The NAF today puts the total number of Ukrainian military deaths
presumably since the resumption of the fighting at 1,500. Colonel Cassad yesterday was saying that
the number could be over 1,800.
The figures of 1,500 and 1,800 cover a longer period than the 1,100 in the hacked Ukrainian documents.
The fact that they are all of the same order of magnitude however suggests that all these figures
are reliable. If so then that that shows that my guess that the Ukrainian army is suffering deaths
at a rate of several hundred a week is probably correct.
2. Of course the NAF is also currently suffering a high rate of losses. However it is clear that
these are at a substantially lesser level than the Ukrainian. As I said in the Russia Insider piece
an NAF spokesman put the loss ratio at 4 to 1. Colonel Cassad put the total number of NAF deaths
at 600 for the same period as that of his 1,800 estimate for Ukrainian deaths. That is a 3 to 1 ratio.
I suspect that the number of NAF deaths over the last 3 weeks is higher than usual because the
NAF has been on the attack for most of this period. When that stage ends after the Debaltsevo pocket
is fully encircled I would guess the number will fall. By contrast as the pocket collapses the rate
of deaths of Ukrainians will rise especially if the pattern of unsuccessful counterattacks the Ukrainians
have a habit of launching is followed.
3. As I said in the article for Russia Insider the Ukrainian military simply cannot go on taking
losses at a rate of several hundred a week. In the slugfest we are seeing it is only a matter of
time before it breaks. This is especially so since I strongly suspect that I have greatly overestimated
the total number of Ukrainian troops in the Donbass in my Russia Insider piece. I put the number
in the same range of 60,000 or so thousand that was the case in the summer. I suspect the real total
is substantially less, thus the attempted mobilisations about which in the Russia Insider piece I
have much to say.
4. On the political front, the DPR/LPR are taking a very hardline in the negotiations. Specifically:
(1) they are now formally challenging Kuchma's plenipotentiary rights i.e. his right to sign agreements
that formally and legally bind the junta. They are insisting that he formally be given such rights.
As I have argued before there was no doubt that Kuchma was acting on behalf of the junta when
he signed the Minsk Protocol and it is fatuous to deny the fact. However the junta has repeatedly
resisted pressure to formalise Kuchma's position since if they formally admit he is their representative
then they formally admit they are negotiating with the NAF, which is something for political and
ideological reasons they emphatically do not want to do.
(2) the NAF has said that they would agree to a new ceasefire on the basis of the actual combat
line and not the line agreed in the Minsk Memorandum. This is a way of rejecting calls for a ceasefire
because they know perfectly well that the junta will not agree to this. Importantly the NAF rejected
a call for a temporary 7 day ceasefire in Debaltsevo today. I think this is the first time the NAF
has rejected a ceasefire when it has been offered.
This is a fundamental shift from the position last spring and summer. At that time it was the
NAF (and the Russians) who were repeatedly calling for a ceasefire and the junta that was ignoring
such calls even as it purported to agree to them. Now the situation is reversed. There is no better
indicator that the initiative has now passed to the NAF than that.
(3) The Russians are backing the NAF line. It has been completely overlooked but yesterday 2nd
February 2015 Interfax carried this brief but momentous report at 20:03 hours Moscow time:
"Kremlin source: East Ukraine militias' hardline 'absolutely justifiable'"
As I have said previously, the Russians have abandoned hope of Western pressure to force the junta
to negotiate. This provides further confirmation. The NAF has the green light from Moscow to see
its offensive through.
(4) To understand why the Russians have given up hope of a negotiated solution consider Poroshenko's
latest statement today. Even as the situation collapses around him he is continuing to reject calls
for federalisation and is continuing to say that the Ukraine will remain a unitary state. As I have
said previously, the ideological and political nature of the junta makes no other response possible
and anyone who thinks the junta will voluntary agree a compromise is fooling himself.
5. I am not going to say anything about what looks like a gathering political crisis in Kiev because
there are others who understand it better than me.
---------------- Saker commentary: here is what I wrote in the comments section of Russia Insider under Alexander's
analysis.
Since Alexander has been so kind as to mention me I just want to say that I indeed *fully*
agree with his analysis, especially when he predicts further disaster for the Ukrainian military.
He is also correct when he says that the number of killed Ukrainians is a humanitarian catastrophe:
we might well see something quite amazing happening - a war where there are more military casualties
then civilian ones. Furthermore, I also fully agree that the decision to stop the massacre depends
not on Kiev, but on Washington. This war will last as long as the US wants to keep this bleeding
wound open and no amount of western "aid" (lethal or otherwise) will turn the tide in this war. The
only question is how many Ukrainians will have to die for this abomination to finally stop. Even
the "solution" to this war is obvious and understood by everybody: a nominally unitary Ukraine with
full cultural, economic and political autonomy for *all* its regions, not only the Donbass and a
full recognition of the Novorussian authorities as a equal partner for negotiations. All this nonsense
about "9000 Russian troops" "invading" the Ukraine and Russia as the "aggressor country" (as the
Rada says) or the nonsense about the LNR and DNR being "terrorist organizations" (official Kiev position)
only delays the inevitable and will generate more useless deaths. Finally, I also agree that the
US/NATO cannot and therefore will not send forces to crush the Novorussians. What US/NATO can, and
will, do is provide some financial and some military aid, and lots of hot air and big empty statements
and promises. That will not be enough. Alexander's analysis is flawless.
Cheers,
The Saker
American political and economic language has the notion of "player". It is beyond morality (as
well as U.S. foreign policy in General). The player in the financial market or political player in
the middle East, etc. Well, if you play chess or a shoot-and-kill videogame game of some kind, the
murder of a pawn, knight, or military unit is not subject to moral evaluation. That's what game requires.
Recognition made by Obama that the USA has prepared a coup in Ukraine, is the recognition of a
smug "player". Which slightly opened the card for psychological pressure signaling something to
rebels or political opponents, or voters within the US.
Classic moral definitions have been substituted by the USA neoliberal elite with the concepts,
which they call "legitimacy". On this planet they now reserved for themselves that right to define
what is "legitimate" and what is not.
The problem is that directly or indirectly Americans kill not pawns and not units in videogame.
But human beings. After ww2 toll of Americans victims is already on millions. Collapse of indigenous
cultures, of the states, of established international contacts and relations, etc.. And they propose
nothing in return for destroyed lives, cultures and states other then neoliberal order. Which is
not a worthy replacement. Or offer of Washington consensus which was applied to several states-victims
and destroyed all of them. All those IMF reforms does not work, because they were designed not to
work and benefit countries in question but the USA and international corporations. Now those "gamers"
face certain difficulties. Because the whole world is not the USA. Which remembers who caused suffering
to many millions of people.
But I digress. We are discussion Obama admission of the organization of year another coup d'état
in another banana revolution (in this case - European county called Ukraine) and he provided some
interesting details. Now about details.
For example, I am sure that the group thugs in masks on the Maidan which brutally attacked f law-enforcement
officers, which threw burning petrol at police and hit police with chains were iether of non-Ukrainian
origin or specially brainwashed and trained by West units. Where they were trained? Who are these
people? Who financed and built-up racist, anti-Russian hysteria in the media and on the Internet,
in social networks? Who on the American side was negotiating with Putin and Yanukovich, how they
cheated and they had expected? Give us names !
Well, since Obama opened the card, then I wonder - what's next? And it would be nice to know the
details of this dirty operation not after 50 years, but now. Were those methods, using which the
USA essentially started civil war in Ukraine, legitimate? Are similar dirty method of overthrowing
legitimate government now OK to everybody?
Looks like EuroMaidan color revolution turns in full scale Libyan style crisis with West holding
the bad -- it now need to support impoverished Poroshenko regime with dollars instead of getting those
dollars from Ukraine as the winners of EuroMaidan coup. Russia also overestimated their capabilities
and now is paying a huge price for confronting world neoliberal order with the headquarters in Washington.
The establishment of fire control of highway M-103 still does not mean that formed right encirclement
of Ukrainian troupes in Debaltsevo. But even what already happened, has caused a diplomatic consequences.
The capture of Uglegorsk put rebels at the distance of artillery fire to key supply lines of Ukrainian
troops, which not only caused a serious operational crisis of the Ukrainian army, which Ukrainian
commanders try to solve by local counterattacks which do not change for grave situation of semi-encircled
troops.
In addition, the we see "spontaneous" of activity of the OSCE and the UN directed on halting advancement
of the rebels and encirclement of Debaltsevo which would happen with the capture of the only
road that currently exists for evacuation of civilian and retreat of the Ukrainian army for this
this semi-encirclement.
In this regard, we see how the fights for the little-known towns and height are directly affecting
Great states politics, when dangerous narrowing of the neck Develasco encirclement, forced such officials
as Kerry, Merkel and Hollande to leave their warm places and fly to cold Kiev and Moscow in the depth
of the winter.
In east Ukraine, renewed fighting has cost the lives of dozens of soldiers and civilians and killed
a five-months old truce. The United States is considering supplying arms to the Ukraine regular army
in order to push back the separatist rebels which, according to NATO, are supported by Russia.
Both the Russian economy and western firms are smarting from the fall out of economic sanctions
imposed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis, which started with the absorption of the Crimea region,
and the Russian counter sanctions. In Russia some goods are getting scarce while in Europe firms
from European fruit and vegetable exporters, French ski resorts to automobile firms and ship yards
are suffering from the sanctions.
In Ukraine, the economy is in shatters and the central bank raise the interest rates and eased
its management of the hryvnia currency that is being hit by a "panic mood"
Quote: "There is a civil war in the east of the Ukraine and it is up to the international community
to try and defuse the situation instead of fanning the flames of hate and war."
In other countries and conflicts, the United Nations sent blue helmet soldiers into the disputed
zones with a mission of restoring and maintaining the peace.
The same should be applied to Ukraine – an international operation of peacekeeping troops should
be deployed to silence the guns, protect the civilians and create conditions for negotiations between
the fighting parties.
... ... ...
There is a civil war in the east of the Ukraine and it is up to the international community
to try and defuse the situation instead of fanning the flames of hate and war.
Revolution in Kiev was led by Biden and the U.S. Embassy
The former Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Azarov in his book "Ukraine at the crossroads" said
The USA was behind the coup d'état in the country. They simultaneously controlled both President
Viktor Yanukovich and his enemies in the winter of 2013-2014.
"Ten days with 1 on 10 December was the most severe in the first phase of the revolution. The
conspirators thought that if they put a little more effort they will be able to capture all government
agencies. Yanukovich, paralyzed by numerous calls from Western leaders, did not give any decisive
orders about restoration of law and order. He went to China on a state visit. During this period,
the conspirators captured the building of the Kyiv city administration, the House of trade unions,
building on the European square, completely surrounded by buildings of the Government and the Verchonaya
Rada", - he recollect the events in the book.
Azarov says that the Ukrainian authorities had information about the upcoming provocations against
representatives of AntiMaidan:
"It was necessary to separate these two meetings, to put between them a police cordon. Ukrainian
law enforcement did exactly that during the night from 9 to 10 December. It should be noted that
this was the first and last active operation by law enforcement officers, " adds the author of the
book. The chain of command : "American Embassy - Biden - President Yanukovich" work perfectly reliably
After threats by Biden Yanukovich gave the command to stop the operation. It became clear that
the United States control the EuroMaidan protest. Deputy Secretary Nuland flew in Kiev, while the
militants started building barricades around the perimeter, and to arm themselves without any
look back on law enforcement".
Former Prime Minister of Ukraine writes that citizens of country were surprised by the inaction
of the authorities. But during this time he was unable event to contact President Viktor Yanukovich.
"He was fully immersed in the negotiation process with Western leaders, which, in my opinion,
was a cover for the accumulation of forces by militants, demoralization of the law enforcement and
the implementation of a coup. When I analyze available to me facts now, I can clearly see that the
coordination of the actions of the opposition and the rebels was completely controlled by the group
of senior officials of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.
It was to them opposition leaders drive each like as if this was their job place, and it is from
them opposition leaders went to talks with Yanukovich. After which they got full information about
the content of these negotiations," said Mykola Azarov.
Anonimous:
What Azarov announced, was clear as a day to any sober person a year ago. Any police officer
knew by heart how to act during the riots on the square or in any other place. And if such an
officer was given the command of the Ukrainian security forces and acted according to the existing
instruction, all the heroism of Maidan protesters would have been ended after 15 minutes.
What we now see is the fact the betrayal in the Ukrainian elite including some persons at the
top of the government.
Ukrainians, as always, where thrown under the bus..
Just two weeks ago some idiot published
this
on "War Is Boring":
After six years of massive expenditures and lurid propaganda, on Jan. 9 Tehran shut down its troubled
space program. The unceremonious cancellation occurred without notice in the Iranian press.
Authorities are spreading the space agency's manpower and assets across four ministries including
the telecoms ministry and the ministry of defense.
That story was likely planted to instigate some riffs within Iranian politics. That did not work
well. Here is notice in the Iranian press:
Tehran, Feb 2, IRNA - Manager of Electronic Industries Space Projects Mehdi Sarvi on Monday declared
that Fajr satellite has established its contact with ground station, hours after it was launched
and put into the orbit.
...
During the ceremony, Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said the project
was accomplished only thanks to the sincere endeavors of the Iranian scientists.
Developed by indigenous technology and know-how, he noted, the satellite which is called 'Fajr'
indicated the high capabilities of Iran's satellite-carriers.
...
The minister referred to the chance to develop and design a new generation of satellite-carriers
and also enter the world market of space services, using domestic potential and planning complicated
space missions as some of the achievements of the project.
Congrats to Iran for this successful launch.
The above just demonstrates again that one can not trust any "news" on countries not liked by
Washington. Consider this headline by NBC:
Ex-Los Alamos Scientist Gets 5 Years in Venezuelan Nuclear Bomb Plot. A headline fitting the
story would be something like "Crazy old scientist falls for FBI sting". The story has nothing to
do with Venezuela and the whole "nuclear bomb" stuff was just phantasies an FBI agent used to entrap
some poor old person. But Venezuela is on Washington's shit list and the CIA is
currently busy
instigating another coup against the elected Venezuelan government.
The CIA and the State Department are also involved in instigating the
current demonstrations in Hungary. Another attack on an elected government that does not walk
the line the U.S. administration orders it to walk. Next in line is likely the new government of
Greece.
But instigating color revolutions, protests and coups is often not enough to destroy a government
that the U.S. dislikes. In a
recent interview Alastair Crooke points to the newest weapon in Washington's regime change arsenal
- financial warfare:
The International Order depends more on control by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve than on
the UN as before.
It started principally with Iran and it has been developed subsequently. In a book, "Treasury's
War," the tool of exclusion from the dollar-denominated global financial system is described as
a "neutron bomb." When a country is to be isolated, a "scarlet letter" is issued by the US Treasury
that asserts that such-and-such bank is somehow suspected of being linked to a terrorist movement
-- or of being involved in money laundering. The author of "Treasury's War" [Juan Zarate], who
was the chief architect of modern financial warfare and a former senior Treasury and White House
official, says this scarlet letter constitutes a more potent bomb than any military weapon.
This system of reliance on dollar hegemony no longer requires American dependency on the UN
and hands control to the US Treasury overseen by Steve Cohen -- a reflection of the fact that
the military tools have become less available to the US administration, for domestic political
reasons.
Crooke believes that the drop in the Russian ruble a few weeks ago was engineered by the U.S.
Treasury. He is not completely right though about David S. Cohen, the U.S.Treasury man who has implemented
the financial warfare instruments against Iran and Russia. That man is no longer with the U.S.
Treasury but is the
new number
2 in the CIA. That tells you all you need to know about the intensity with which the U.S. plans
to use these new weapons.
Any country that does not do do what Washington wants is now threatened with financial ruin. China
and Russia are preparing defenses against such a threat but smaller countries have little chances
to escape such attacks.
The media though will not delve into that. Should some country's economy drown (see Venezuela)
because of U.S. financial marked manipulations all blame will be put on the foreign government and
its "irresponsible economic policies" and the media will again call for and support "regime change".
The CIA and the State Department are also involved in instigating the current demonstrations
in Hungary. Another attack on an elected government that does not walk the line the U.S. administration
orders it to walk. Next in line is likely the new government of Greece.'
Govts that dont want to be unceremoniously removed need to close the local US embassy. Bolivia
did ad sleep better at night now.
@b: "The CIA and the State Department are also involved in instigating the current demonstrations
in Hungary."
The man behind it is Andre Goodfriend, who was a good friend to ISIS when he was US ambassador
to Syria from 2009 to 2012 (key dates those). He then was sent to Budapest to stir up some more
shit (three Maidan style demos in three months) with cash allegedly from the "Norwegian Fund."
Of the November demonstration Vladislav Gulevich wrote:
Goodfriend managed to rile the Hungarian government to the extent that he was demoted to senior
advisor and is now Chief of Mission pending the arrival of the new ambassador, Colleen Bell, a
soap opera producer. John McCain was furious:
"We're about to vote on a totally unqualified individual to be ambassador to a nation which
is very important to our national security interest," McCain said on the Senate floor. "Her qualifications
are as a producer of the television soap opera 'The Bold and The Beautiful,' contributed 800,000
[dollars] to Obama in the last election and bundled more than $2.1 million for President Obama's
re-election effort." McCain had in December called Hungary's PM Viktor Orban a "neo-fascist dictator."
somebody | Feb 2, 2015 4:59:13 PM | 13
That pretty much sums up Germany.
Merkel in Hungary talking democracy is crazy. It sure smells color revolution. She needs it
now as Orban will hate her.
She has been harping on about Russia's influence in South East Europe for the last few weeks.
It sounds like refighting WW1 all over again.
Willy2 | Feb 2, 2015 5:20:59 PM | 15
Several related thoughts/facts:
- Venezuela has implemented a disastrous financial policy from the day Hugo Chavez took office.
And now with oil at ~ $ 50 "the chickens are coming home to roost". In that regard the "Evil Empire"
doesn't have to do anything. Just wait & see how Venezuela blows itself up.
- Remember the coup in april 2002 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt
http://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-coup-and-countercoup-revolution/18618
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
- Chavez wanted to improve relations with the US in 2009 (after G.W.Bush was gone) but it seems
that was rebuffed by the US.
For those who "dislike" the US Empire, I can say that the Empire is on the precipice of a financial
collapse as well. From 1981 onwards the US federal debt has increased from ~ $ 1 trillion to over
~ $ 18 trillion now in 2014/2015. The interest payments remained "manageable" because US interest
rates went down from over 15% in 1981 to ~ 1.7% in very late 2014. But when I look at the charts
then I think US interest rates will/could rise/explode higher in the near future and that WILL
kill the US housing market & the US economy.
In that regard, I am surprised to see that the US Empire continues to "double down".
Matt | Feb 2, 2015 5:28:52 PM | 16
"In that regard, I am surprised to see that the US Empire continues to "double down""
The entire course of U.S. history has been one double-down piled upon another.
Gareth | Feb 2, 2015 6:12:13 PM | 18
The US should think twice about weaponizing the financial system when Wall Street is sitting
on top of a smoldering volcano of derivatives, just waiting for the next unexpected crisis to
trigger an eruption. Who is to say that others can't play the financial warfare game?
guest77 | Feb 2, 2015 8:41:40 PM | 22
@Willy2 - More and more you're just pushing out US government claptrap.
"Venezuela has implemented a disastrous financial policy from the day Hugo Chavez took office.
And now with oil at ~ $ 50 "'the chickens are coming home to roost'. In that regard the "Evil
Empire" doesn't have to do anything. Just wait & see how Venezuela blows itself up."
Sorry, but Venezuelan revolution has not survived two decades in the crosshairs of the United
States by following "disastrous policies".
Yes, the Venezuelan economy has ups and down - but it always has, and in this regard, the Chavista
era is one of remarkably (relative) low inflation and economic growth. Not to mention the major
facts that will help the country survive and thrive in the future - the massive reduction of poverty
and the spreading of education to all sectors of the society. Not to mention the $250 billion
that China has committed to invest in Latin America will certainly help shore up the weak sectors.
Venezuela has not only avoided becoming a neo-liberal dumping ground through this "disastrous
policy", it has lead the entirety of South America and the Caribbean into a remarkable era of
independence from the United States. Those like Willy here who want to join in the constant put
downs of Venezuela and lay out the next predictions of its downfall (we've heard them since day
one) ought to consider that that flock of chickens they keep waiting to scratch their way to Venezuela
- might be bound for their country instead.
guest77 | Feb 2, 2015 8:58:51 PM | 23
Thanks for that NBC piece b. I hadn't heard that. Reminds one, of course, of the case of Wen
Ho Lee, another nuclear scientist the US government tried to railroad using the basest racism
(but eventually had to pay $1.6 million to him). Looks like this time they "got their (80 year
old) man". Similar to how they convince mentally defective teenagers (is there any other kind)
to blow up Christmas celebrations and then declare they've "saved America" from another Terror
plot.
The FBI, it seems, picks on the very young and the very old and the slow - in this regard they
are hardly better than people running email scams out of Nigeria.
That NBC News picks up on this and puffs up its headlines with the only part of the story which
is a fiction in its entirety: that the Venezuelan government had anything at all to do with this
- is a perfect of how manipulative the US media.
The US media, like the US economy and our pop culture and, well, like every other aspect of
US society, has been converted away from our benign national traditions, into dangerous weapons
with one purpose - to be yielded by the US elite in their quest for power.
No doubt that b is right, the US uses its tightly controlled economy in the same way it might
use its military - as a weapon. And that is one of the reasons that it prefers to maintain an
economy which is by far the most imbalanced and unequal in the world - for the control it gives
them in wielding it as such.
Though they are struggling to come to grips with how to manage
the effects of such aggressive US actions, the rest of the world is not simply accepting this
status quo. China's pumping $250 Billion into Latin America, as well as China's pledges to shore
up the Russian economy - should this be required - is evidence that they are not resigned to the
whims of the United States.
In Xinhua today, one can read The full text of joint communique of Russian, Indian, Chinese
foreign ministers' meeting that was held today, and it has some very telling passages. The
main take away is this: the US is fooling itself if it believes for a second - as you'll often
hear in its media - that it can turn any of the BRICS against each other. The US is clearly the
isolated nation - its tactics are a danger to everyone across the globe.
The Ministers noted the significant and rapid changes underway in the world and underlined
that the international community should remain committed to democratization of international
relations and multi-polarity. They expressed their support to the idea of adopting a UN
General Assembly resolution on the inadmissibility of intervention and interference in the
internal affairs of states. They opposed forced regime change in any country from the outside,
or imposition of unilateral sanctions based on domestic laws.
The Ministers recognized that
the year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the victory
in the Second World War, and paid tribute to all those who fought against Fascism and for freedom.
Acknowledging India's important role in driving global economic growth, and supporting the
openness of APEC, China and Russia would welcome India's participation in APEC...China and
India shared the plans of Russia's Chairmanship in the SCO... China and Russia welcomed India's
application for full membership of SCO and supported India to join the SCO after completing
all necessary negotiations and legal processes.
The Ministers affirmed the need for all countries to join efforts in combating terrorism
under the auspices of the United Nations...They underlined the need to bring to justice perpetrators,
organizers, financiers and sponsors of terrorist acts. Highly alarmed by the new trends in
international terrorist acts...
They expressed support for the efforts of the Syrian Government to combat terrorism....
The Ministers stressed that an independent, objective, fair and transparent international
investigation should be carried out for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17....
called for immediate reform of the international financial system ...[they] reject protectionism
as well as all forms of unilateral measures of economic pressure taken without relevant decisions
of the UN Security Council...
The EU "Drang nach Osten" was inevitable
as Germany needs new markets, new economic "liberstratum". Which the USA want to isolate, weaken,
and, if possible, to dismember Russia. This is a marriage of convenience brought to the life EuroMaidan.
Ukrainian nationalists were on short leash and can't be counted as independent force before they got
to power. They did the EU and the USA bidding. So nothing new here. Ukraine is just a pawn in
a complex geopolitical game. And it was sacrificed in the strategic gambit of isolating Russia.
The EU has a remorseless urge to draw the cradle of Russian identity into its own empire, writes
Christopher Booker.
Quite one of the oddest and most frightening stories of the year has been the ludicrous and persistent
misrepresentation in the West of the reason for the tragic shambles unfolding over Russia and Ukraine.
This has been presented as wholly the fault of the Russian "dictator" Vladimir Putin, compared
by Hillary Clinton and the Prince of Wales to Hitler, for his "annexing" of Crimea and for fomenting
the armed uprising in eastern Ukraine. Almost entirely blotted out has been the key part played in
triggering this crisis by the remorseless urge of the EU to draw the cradle of Russian identity into
its own empire.
It was entirely predictable that Russia and the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine would respond
as they have done. So, too, was the wish of the vast majority of Crimeans, 82 per cent of them Russian
speakers, to rejoin the country of which they were part for most of two centuries – let alone Russia's
reaction to the prospect of seeing their warm-water ports taken over by Nato.
The real significance of this unholy mess is that it marks the moment when the remorseless
expansionism of the EU, founded to eradicate nationalism, finally ran into that implacable sense
of national identity personified, for all his failings, by President Putin.
He and his people may now be paying a terrible price. But there was no way that poking the Russian
bear like this, with such silly boasts as David Cameron's declaration that he wished to see "Europe
stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals", would not arouse just such a reaction. As I wrote
last March, the EU's reckless bid to absorb Ukraine will eventually be seen as as much an act
of fateful self-delusion as its equally reckless launch of the euro.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Huaimek
Through ignorance and lack of research the west has made a terrible mistake in its misjudgement
of Ukraine and its misjudgement of Putin and Russian reaction to the EU trying to draw Ukraine
to the west , with a view to joining the EU and NATO .
Peace is achievable , but Crimea will have to be left out of any negotiations . Joining the
EU is not something Ukraine is ready to do in the foreseeable future , so should be set aside
for the time being . Plans to join NATO should be dropped . The problem of the eastern region
as I see it , is that it is the principal industrial region , that maybe earns the GDP for Ukraine
. As I have read , the industries of eastern Ukraine are closely intertwined with Russia , manufacturing
expressly for a Russian market and not so easily adaptable to European or world wide markets .
I believe I'm correct , that the eastern region was part of Russia till the fall of the USSR .
The west's stance against Russia is not doing anybody any good , least of all Ukraine , that is
effectively bankrupt and nobody want to put a hand in their pocket to help .
Poroshenko needs to be told to withdraw all troops to base , that will end the fighting .
All sanctions against Russia should be lifted in conjunction with Russian sanctions against the
west . Ukraine needs to return to being an independent country , it wasn't ruled by Russia , but
its own government ruled along similar lines . A degree of autonomy needs to be given to the East
in return for being part of Ukraine and contributing to rebuilding the economy .
concernedyorkie
The real significance of this unholy mess is that it marks the moment when the remorseless
expansionism of the EU, founded to eradicate nationalism, finally ran into that implacable sense
of national identity personified, for all his failings, by President Putin. - One may not like
the present regime governing Russia but for the EU, in the form of Ashton et al, to attempt
annexing the area without some form of reaction from the Kremlin indicates how naive the EU's
foreign policy commissioner's assessment at the time really were !!
Vivienne Perkins
How pleasant to read the truth for a change, or at least most of it. The other part is the
fact that Washington's State Dept/CIA/Blackwater operatives organized and carried out the Feb.
22 coup that deposed a legitimate government and put into power the US/EU puppets, Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
(who promptly attacked the eastern provinces, who had already voted for independence). Another
left out piece is the role of neo-Nazis in the Y/P puppet government and the role of US corporations
that are even now stripping western Ukraine of its resources while the US Congress votes overwhelmingly
for a new Cold War against Russia and is anxious to provoke WWIII.
The US and its ally Saudi Arabia have also engineered the drop in oil prices as a way to ruin
the Russian economy. All these neo-Con moves are right out of Z. Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"
where he describes eliminating Russia on the US military's drive through the Eurasian landmass
to its ultimate goal, controlling the energy resources of the Caspian and "containing" China.
The mass media, which of course is corporately controlled, continues to spew lies, misinformation
and propaganda.
Richard de Lacy
Well said, Mr Booker. Looking forward to reading all the semi-literate whining from the pro-EU,
pro-Nato trolls. Merry Christmas and New Year to you and all your readers, including the anti-Russian
keyboard warriors (libtards are far too spoilt and miserable for merriment, I know, but there's
no harm in wishing the idiots would cheer up a bit).
RT: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said Obama's words are a clear confirmation
of America's involvement in the Ukrainian shift of power. Do you think Washington is responsible
for the violence that followed?
William Engdahl: There is no question about it that they are responsible. I think president
Obama sadly regrets his wording on the interview last night because he de facto admitted as [Foreign]
Minister Lavrov also indicated that the US created a de facto coup d'état, brought neo-Nazis
in the power, brought oligarchs in the power to replace oligarchs that were democratically elected
at least.
They have fed the violence with Blackwater mercenaries with other soldiers that they have
been training in various NATO countries and with hundreds of CIA on the ground, special forces on
the ground. And this has been documented; people have been captured in the East Ukraine in recent
days with the thick London accent. I've seen YouTube videos myself.
... ... ...
Ironically the very economic financial warfare that Washington has launched through the US Treasury
in recent months, the sanctions so-called, is an active war, have produced the opposite effect. It's
brought Russia closer to China, it's brought China closer to Russia, it's brought an integration
among the BRICS countries: Brazil, South Africa, Russia, China and India, it's brought India and
Russia closer together. [It is] so far from isolating Russia.
Stuart Cleary
The 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine (US Defense Planning) laid it out: "U.S. must show leadership necessary
to establish & protect a new order... convincing (countries) they need not aspire to a greater
role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their *legitimate interests*. -we must account
sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging
our leadership or overturn established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism
for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."!!!
Iraq was a threat to the Petro-Dollar & Israel. Gaddafi was a threat to the Financial domination
of Africa by the US & EU; Syria & Iran are a threat to the financial domination of the Mid East
by the US, EU, Saudi & Israel...
Russia is considered a "Threat" to this "Order" on several fronts: Putin was Not a US Puppet
like Yeltsin, he cleaned out the corporate oligarchs who had ransacked & profited from the pillaging
of Russia. Putin's Political Prowess increased with the creation & success of BRICS; Russia/Putin
used this political power in Syria, Iran, India, Pakistan, Latin America & throughout Central
Asia. The US considered (in 92) that Russia was the only country capable of destroying the US
(Nuclear Arsenal). "BRICS has engineered the first credible Threat to US/EU/UK Global Financial
Domination" which is at the Heart of hostilities towards Russia.
Robert Undisclosed
This guy is an award winning journalist ? Never heard of him. However, he sounds more like
Putin's mouthpiece. According to this clown the Russian economy is doing great. Yeah. and how's
the ruble doing ? LOL, LOL.
Timo Sjöberg
You don't know so much about economy? currency variations has nothing to do with the general
economy. In a government you can rise or lower your own currency in order to help import or export
markets in the country. The reasons behind the rubles fall, is down to that on the international
market, it's considered to have a small investment and speculation value for brokers and financial
investors. But since Russia already have a plan to deal with that - spelled BRIC, it doesn't matter.
China needs Russia to continue to grow and to stablize their own economy.
Hence the exchange of chinese yuan and russian rubles. US is in way over their heads, with
a large debt and now losing out on big countries such as russia and china, who are selling their
reservs of dollars and US state bonds. That will hurt the US economy much more than any sanction
against Russia. US is holding the wrong end of the stick here...
There is a possibility that US President Barack Obama wasn't informed about the plan to overthrow
the Yanukovych government in Ukraine, according to former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul
Craig Roberts.
WASHINGTON, February 2 (Sputnik) - US President Barack Obama might not have been informed by his
foreign policy officials about a plot to overthrow the Yanukovych government in Ukraine, but he is
definitely behind the approval of the post-February 2014 coup decisions, former Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts told Sputnik.
"It is possible that Obama was told that Yanukovych was corrupt and a Russian stooge and that
the Ukrainian people rose up against him and drove him out of office," Roberts said, adding that
such an explanation more or less coincides with the Western media reports. "So, Obama could have
been caught off guard by events, but the neoconservatives in control of Obama's government's foreign
policy were not caught off guard."
Roberts noted that neoconservatives occupying powerful positions in the executive branch of the
US government can impose their agenda regardless of the views of the president.
''While Russia was preoccupied with the Olympics, the neoconservatives launched their coup in
Ukraine," he asserted. "I do not know whether Obama knew about the coup. I do know that it was not
necessary for him to know about it, because the neoconservatives control the information flow."
In a recent interview with CNN, Obama claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin made his decisions
on Crimea after being caught off-guard by mass anti-government protests on Kiev's Independence Square,
as well as by then-President Viktor Yanukovich fleeing, after the West "had brokered a deal to transition
power in Ukraine."
"What is the meaning of Obama's CNN interview? Obama cannot help but know of the US government's
involvement once the coup occurred," Roberts stressed, reminding the intercepted telephone call
in which Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev discussed who
they intend to install as the new Ukrainian government. "Certainly Obama knows it, because once
the coup occurs, post-coup decisions have to be made that cannot be made without the president."
The former US official said that the information that reached Obama was that by overthrowing the
Yanukovych regime, the Ukrainian people created an unstable situation that the Russians are exploiting,
and in order to stop an alleged Russian takeover of Ukraine, his government had to take action.
"This kind of approach to Obama guarantees his approval. Otherwise, the neoconservative beat
the drums against him," he explained.
Roberts thinks that the point of the neoconservatives' coup in Ukraine was "to take Russia
down a peg or two."
"Under Putin's leadership, Russia had reappeared as a constraint on the unipower's power," Roberts
said. Putin found diplomatic solutions that blocked Washington's planned invasion of Syria and Washington's
planned bombing of Iran. In the neoconservative ideology, no country is permitted to rise to the
capability of blocking Washington's will."
The former US official claimed that the neoconservatives' plan was to take control over Ukraine
evicting Russia from its major naval base in Crimea, thus cutting it from the Mediterranean and its
naval base in Tartus, Syria.
Mass protests erupted in Ukraine after Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with
the European Union. Weeks of violent protests resulted in his ouster and the installation of a pro-Western
government backed by Brussels and Washington.
US President Barack Obama revealed the United States' involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from
its outset and admitted that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
MOSCOW, February 2 (Sputnik) - US President Barack Obama's recent interview with CNN's Fareed
Zakiria reveals the United States' involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that
the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups, experts told Sputnik.
On Sunday, in his interview with CNN, Obama admitted that the United States "had brokered a deal
to transition power in Ukraine."
"Obama's statement is reiterating something that the world public opinion already knew - the US
was involved in the coup of [ex-Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych from the start. History shows
us that the US has overthrown numerous governments in Latin America, Asia and Africa and replaced
them with leaders that ruled with a fascist ideology that proved useful for Washington's geopolitical
interests," independent researcher and writer Timothy Alexander Guzman told Sputnik.
Yanukovych's decision to not sign an association agreement with the European Union in late 2013
triggered a mass wave of protests across Ukraine, culminating in the February 2014 coup. Following
the transition of power, Kiev forces launched military operation against those who refused to recognize
the legitimacy of the new government.
Guzman claimed that during the Ukrainian conflict, Washington and its NATO allies worked directly
with right-wing Ukrainian Fascist groups, including the neo-Nazi inspired Right Sector militia.
International law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law Francis Boyle shares
a similar opinion, also arguing also that Obama's approach to Ukraine is no different to the neoconservative
approach of former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, or political scientist Samuel
Huntington's "clash of civilizations" philosophy.
"I think he [Obama] has made it very clear that he is going to continue to take a Brzezinski hard-lined
approach toward Ukraine and Russia and that there are not going to be any compromises at all, and
effectively he expects President Putin to throw in a towel, capitulate, whatever, it does not appear
to me there is any ground for negotiations in light of what President Obama at least said publicly,"
he said in an email to Sputnik.
Boyle also stated that the United States may already be sending covert offensive military equipment
to Ukraine, despite Washington's claims that it provides Kiev only with non-lethal aid.
The expert also claimed that Obama's ignorance of the Minsk agreements and of Russian President
Vladimir Putin's proposals to negotiate the conflict peacefully, indicates that Washington is going
to continue with its aggressive policy in Ukraine.
"How can Russia tolerate this gang of Nazis in Kyiv [Kiev] setting up shop right there on the
borders of Russia, and being armed, equipped and supplied by NATO? Of course, Russia cannot tolerate
that,"
Boyle concluded, adding that the Unites States itself would not tolerate such threats close
to its borders.
"The very fact that Obama feels he needs to comment on [the] US direct role in the regime change
[in Ukraine] and on Putin's response over Crimea in this manner, rather than calling Putin a Hitler
with well thought out expansionist designs, as has become the norm in the US, speaks for itself:
perhaps, the White House is finally coming to the view that it needs to come to its senses and negotiate
with Moscow," Vlad Sobell, a professor at New York University's Prague campus stated.
On Sunday, US President Barack Obama, in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, explained that
the United States "brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." The US President said that Russian
President Vladimir Putin made his decision to legally annex Crimea "not because of some grand strategy,
but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan."
In late 2013 a decision by Ukraine then-President Viktor Yanukovych to avoid signing an association
agreement with the European Union triggered mass protests across Ukraine, dubbed Maidan, culminating
in the February coup. Following the coup and a rise in aggressive nationalism in the country, Crimea
seceded by referendum from Ukraine and rejoined Russia in March 2014.
Pepe Escobar, a correspondent for Asia Times, Hong Kong, who has closely followed developments
in Ukraine, told Sputnik of his belief that every independent observer, including himself, "had known
from the beginning those $5 billion, [US Assistant Secretary of State] Victoria Nuland's number,
over the years unleashed to boost 'freedom' in Ukraine one day would come to fruition."
"And Putin was not 'caught off-balance'," Escobar added. "Russian intelligence knew in a few hours
that Maidan would be replicated in Crimea, so the Kremlin acted swiftly," he stated.
Professor Sobell claims that "Mr President [Obama] should be aware that Yanukovych fled [Ukraine]
because he had solid reasons to fear for his life. The hallowed Maidan was not a peaceful democratic
regime change, as it was presented in Western media, but a violent putch complete with murderous
acts by hired assassins."
Sobell states that unnamed EU officials affirm that on February 20 snipers shot both demonstrators
and police dead, in order to provoke chaos. These crimes, he continued, are not being investigated
by Kiev's "democratic - Western values" regime or its Western sponsors, as "today it is ok to install
a Nazi-driven regime by these means and then demand that Western tax- payers support it."
According to Escobar, the way the Ukrainian coup will be perceived "all across the Global South
is […] another US regime change operation, using local patsies."
Commenting on the recent increase in hostilities between Kiev and independence supporters in the
southeast of Ukraine, Sobell said the situation has changed in favor of the Donbas militia.
"Washington knows it and knows that they must either compromise, start genuine negotiations with
Moscow and separatists, or escalate support for the Nazi regime by supplying it with arms. This would
lead to major escalation of the conflict – at this point we cannot rule out that Obama will opt of
this," Sobell insisted.
Russia's relations with the West deteriorated sharply in 2014, following Crimea's reunification
with Russia and the start of the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. The United States and its
allies accused Moscow of interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs and imposed several rounds of
economic sanctions, targeting Russia's energy, banking and military sectors, as well as several high-ranking
individuals.
"Sunday Night with Vladimir Solovyev" on Russia 1
Translated by Kristina Rus
Kuchma is first of all the Godfather of the oligarchic model which brought Ukraine to this crisis.
This is why he is sent to Minsk, although he doesn't have any power.
There are two factors to this crisis. There is the intra-political factor. The power was seized
by raiders just as they raided their factories in the 90's, built their empires, like Kolomoisky
with his Privat Group. Now they can apply these methods at the framework of the entire country.
The task is to bankrupt the assets, so that people wouldn't even as for salaries. Same model worked
with companies in Russia. This is the intra-Ukrainian factor. The raiders are using those methods
which they had perfected in the 90's.
And then there is the outside factor.
The ultimate goal is the free trade zone between the EU and the USA. Ukraine is the working material,
is the motor oil, which has to be utilized, then burned down and disposed of.
Therefore there is a congruence of two interests - of the American party which is playing for
the free trade zone, and a break up of the relationship between Russia and EU, and - the raiders
who are on the inside and are given carte blanche for any actions.
And for peace talks you need the correct number of entities.
There are not just two quasi-state formations in Ukraine. Ukraine is not Ukraine anymore.
There is a separate "Euromaidan Republic" with the capital in Kiev. There is a "Union of Donbass
Republics" - LPR and DPR.
And, as we coined the name - "Neo-Khazaria" with the capital in Dnepropetrovsk. Because Mr. Kolomoisky
controls Dnepropetrovsk region and Odessa region.
This is hypothetical, of course.
But de facto these are the three entitiess which act rather autonomously. Nuland comes for talks
with Kolomoisky in Odessa, and there are no representatives from Kiev. Accordingly he is not represented
at the peace talks with DPR and LPR.
So the quantity of acting entities should be taken into account.
And the fourth entity (of interest) is Crimea.
Why is the Ukrainian elite so outraged by Crimea?
Because Ukrainian elites plundered Crimea for the last 20 years. Beginning with each deputy and
ending with each minister, each one of them has their own summer house, a boat and a factory in Crimea.
And now they lost all of it. And this is why Crimea is a subject of interest.
Kiev's political will to fight to reclaim or secure through a peace deal the industry-rich territories
of Donetsk and Luhansk from pro-Russian rebels may be strong. But it is limited by money, competence,
and popular support.
... ... ...
Valentina Kuznetsova, 75, is one of those pensioners. A recent arrival from Luhansk, she lives
in Kiev with her husband, daughter and granddaughter - none of whom can find work. Like many others
displaced by the conflict, she is ready to end the war and focus on problems closer to home.
"Give the territory away," Kuznetsova said. "Why are we doing this? Why do we need to kill each
other?"
But the troop buildup suggests that Kiev has no intention of backing down, which poses another problem:
ensuring that the military can train tens of thousands of fresh recruits to wage a guerilla-style
war against an enemy thought to be backed by one of the largest military complexes in the world.
... ... ...
If someone closes our mines, we will be dying of hunger," Yakubuk said. "But it is better to die
from hunger than from an enemy."
"I'm not sure about that," interjected his mining colleague, Maryan Dubetskiy, 34, a electrical
welder. "At war, men die. But at home, it's women and children who suffer."
SirGalahad
""Give the territory away," Kuznetsova said. "Why are we doing this? Why do we need to kill
each other?" "
Exactly. If the separatists want their own country, let them have it. If the Scots had voted
YES, would Camoron have started shelling Glasgow?
Doesn't the West believe in democracy any more?
Can anyone think of a single reason why these cities are being shelled?
Why are western governments supporting this war-crime?
Ukraine EuroMaidan was organized and financed by the West using standard "color revolution" script.
So EuroMaidan and subsequent civil war is definitely more about Western neocolonialism that Ukranian
nationalism or Russian encirclement by NATO concerns. Quote: "The current Ukrainian crisis turned
into a problem heavily influenced if not dominantly masterminded from abroad.[1] Due to this,
an initially domestic problem has been gradually transformed into a fight about the dominance in
Europe (and the world) and into a conflict between the West and a more and more self-assured Russia.
The Ukrainians have been trapped in a situation where they are only instrumental and in many
respects passive objects. Are they aware of it? At least its politicians and intellectual elites? I
am not sure about it.
When I was asked by David Ungar-Klein to speak here today on Ukraine, I hesitated. My knowledge
of Ukraine is rather limited and I don t pretend to be an expert on this sorely tried country. I
am not someone who follows the day by day developments there. I also know that my views on that topic
are against the mainstream and that they would not be much welcome. I know as well that there are
real experts on Ukraine here in this audience (not only foreign observers but insiders), President
Yushchenko being one of them.
In spite of all that, I accepted the invitation to address this gathering because with the passing
of time I have become more and more convinced that the so called Ukrainian crisis is only mistakenly
considered to be an Ukrainian crisis or Ukrainian-Russian conflict. It is not so. Ukraine is
-- to my great regret -- only a place where the much more general crisis manifests itself most
visibly. I have in mind an evident crisis of the West, which we experience but are not ready
to admit. We try to hide it. One of its manifestations is an intensive and widespread dissemination
of Western values all over the world which creates new seeds of tension. Ukraine is one of them.
Let me develop this point. On the one hand, the current crisis in Ukraine is undoubtedly originally
home-made. It is basically the consequence of the evident failure of this country to
make a successful transition from communism to the system of freedom, pluralistic parliamentary democracy
and market economy, from passive role in Soviet imperium to its own statehood and sovereignty. Ukraine
probably failed in this respect more than almost any other Central and East European country. It
can't be denied. To be fair, however, it would be worth seriously discussing whether this was --
considering the circumstances -- inevitable, or at least excusable, or not. The indisputable fact
is that the country was artificially created, was and is deeply divided, and used to have and had
even before November 2013 very weak internal coherence. This was an evident obstacle in the difficult
transformation process.
On the other hand, the current Ukrainian crisis turned into a problem heavily influenced if
not dominantly masterminded from abroad.[1] Due to this, an initially domestic problem has been
gradually transformed into a fight about the dominance in Europe (and the world) and into a conflict
between the West and a more and more self-assured Russia. The Ukrainians have been trapped in
a situation where they are only instrumental and in many respects passive objects. Are they
aware of it? At least its politicians and intellectual elites? I am not sure about it.
I was -- while attending various EU and NATO summits -- always nervous when the debate about Ukrainian
EU or NATO membership started. I had the unpleasant feeling that to force Ukraine into making a premature
decision whether the country belongs to the West or to the East is a certain and guaranteed way how
to destroy it. I formulated it year ago, in February 2014, quite resolutely: "Giving Ukraine a choice
between the East and the West means destroying it" It leads the country into an insolvable conflict
that cannot have but a tragic ending."[2] This is exactly what we see developing in front of our
eyes right now.
The current geopolitical game started with "colored" revolutions in the post-Soviet Union
as well as some Arab countries, with attempts to export democracy and Western concept of human rights
into unprepared and geographically remote territories and different cultural and civilizational areas.
I must admit that I saw the birth of today s problem already in the -- for me unclear and unpersuasive
-- "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine ten years ago. As I see it, it was only partly a genuine domestic
political uprising. It was more importantly an externally organized export of democracy in an attempt
to increase the geopolitical position of one country or another or hide some daunting domestic problems,
if not a gradual loss of its own identity.
Ukraine has been lowered to the role of an instrument in this much bigger game. The question is
how to get out of it. The developments in the last 15 months have proved that a continuation of this
dangerous game only increases the costs of the crisis, deepens the division of the country and leads
to a further destabilization. If we look at the developments in Ukraine with open and not a priori
distorted eyes, we have to come to the conclusion that Ukraine was trapped in the historical shift
of geopolitical positions, and that Russia -- on the contrary -- due to it, found its new identity,
or at least strengthened its old one. This changing geopolitical setting is the product of the West's
loss of identity, of its cultural and civilizational demise, and its economic stagnation.
To my great disappointment, the dominant political forces in Ukraine keep relying on some
future external intervention and are not searching for an internal political solution. They
haven't come up with any compromise proposal they could offer to the people of the Eastern part of
their country to win their confidence. They rely on repression and on unrealistic expectations
of Western economic and military aid. It will not come.
There is no other way out of the current stalemate than negotiations and a compromise.
It must be done soon. Preserving the current state of affairs can be neither in the interest of Ukraine,
nor in the interest of the West or Russia. In the long run, all of us will be losing.
The recent developments in Ukraine also contribute to the destruction of the existing system
of international relations which means that we are losing some proven, however shabby procedures
to tackle other threatening issues -- the Middle East problem or terrorist s attacks in Europe.
Let me summarize my today s message. Instead of discussing Ukraine or Russia, we should discuss
Europe and the West. Thank you for your attention.
[2] "Václav Klaus Institute's public statement on the situation in the Ukraine", February 25,
2014, www.klaus.cz/clanky/3528. More
in the publication of the Václav Klaus Institute (in Czech language) "ZámÄ?rnÄ? plochá diskuse
o ukrajinske krizi", No. 12/2014. The English shorter version is V. Klaus, J. Weigl: "Let's start
a real Ukrainian debate", April 22, 2014,
www.klaus.cz/clanky/3553.
Václav Klaus, Presentation at the panel "Europe, the Ukraine and Russia", Vienna Com.Sult Congress,
House of Industry, Vienna, January 20, 2015.
On a quick read I'd say that's a masterful mix of honesty and realism. He also skates over
very real grievances that come with the civil war in the pursuit of making constructive comments.
I think he's spot on.
Yes, that is a very good piece. The author is aware his views are not mainstream, but he defends
them well and they are lent the persuasive weight of unfolding events.
Cutting-edge research from British universities has confirmed a belief long held by conspiracy
theorists, realists and hawkish neoconservatives alike: oil drives foreign intervention and war.
Foreign governments are 100 times more likely to intervene in civil wars if the troubled state
is home to hydrocarbon reserves, according to a new report by academics from the universities of
Warwick, Portsmouth and Essex.
Following systemic analysis, the academics found that economic incentives are major drivers of
foreign intervention.
One of the report's authors, Dr. Petros Sekeris of the University of Portsmouth, told the Independent
he and his colleagues had uncovered "clear evidence that countries with potential for oil production
are more likely to be targeted by foreign intervention if civil wars erupt."
"Military intervention is expensive and risky. No country joins another country's civil war without
balancing the cost against their own strategic interests," he added.
The report, published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, examined 69 civil wars between 1945
and 1999. It said civil wars amount to 90 percent of all militarized conflicts since the close of
World War II, and almost 67 percent of these have been characterized by foreign intervention.
The research frames oil as a dominant motivating factor in conflicts, and argues hydrocarbons
heavily influenced the West's military intervention in Libya. It also suggests oil plays a noteworthy
factor in the US-lead war against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Dr. Vincenzo Bove, of the University of Warwick, said IS militants received little attention from
Western media outlets until they began to encroach upon the oil-rich Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
"But once ISIS got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US
sent drones to strike ISIS targets," Bove told the Independent.
After carefully modeling the decision-making processes of a series of third-party interventions
throughout history, the researchers reached a number of conclusions.
Factors which played a part in influencing a foreign government's decision to intervene included
the military might and strength of insurgents on the ground, and the extent to which they sought
to control valuable resources such as oil.
The report found that foreign governments' decision to intervene was largely dominated by their
desire to control oil supplies in conflict-ridden states, while historical, geographic and cultural/ethnic
ties were far less important.
The researchers noted that America maintains a military presence in Gulf states that produce oil,
and has a long history of backing despotic regimes despite the US administration's supposed agenda
of democratization.
But they argued a recent rise in US oil production indicates the state will intervene less in
the near future.
Additionally, they suggest the world can expect a cycle of low intervention in years to come because
plunging oil prices make it a less valuable resource to protect.
The report's authors also said China may assume a leading role in foreign intervention in future
years.
Britain has a long history of foreign intervention. If viewed through a lens of economic incentives,
a stark pattern begins to emerge, according to the report's authors.
Britain intervened in Nigeria's civil war between 1967 and 1970. Because the British government
was heavily dependent on oil located in the eastern Nigeria, stability in the region was critical.
Likewise, Britain invaded oil-rich Iraq in 2003. Political analysts across the globe maintain
the US-UK invasion was in part motivated by a desire to control the region's oil reserves.
Finally, in 2011 Britain partook in a Western coalition that intervened in Muammar Gaddafi's Libya
in 2011 – another state noted for its plentiful hydrocarbon reserves.
By contrast, Britain failed to intervene in Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war (1991-2002), which
ravaged the nation and left over 50,000 dead.
The British government also failed to intervene in war-torn Syria, after President Bashar Assad
was alleged to have launched a chemical attack against his people in 2013. Much like Sierra Leone,
Syria is not a big oil producer.
Experts suggest the most significant motivations for wars are generally the least discussed, while
peripheral or false motivations are often circulated with gusto.
Traditionally, war and foreign intervention are thought to be driven by a complex cocktail of
factors. Such factors are widely accepted to be propelled by governments' pursuits of strategic interests,
which generally benefit elite members of their societies.
The desire to control valuable resources, the desire to dominate key geographic territories, the
strengthening of a lucrative military industrial complex, the desire to intimidate enemy states and
the extension of financial deregulation across the globe are often cited as key factors.
EMMANUEL TODD GERMANY'S FASTHOLDON THE EUROPEAN An interview CONTINENT by Olivier Berruyer
OB: The integration of the Ukrainian population by the German system would represent a qualitative
jump in this dynamic unbalance. Granted, it is a numerous population, but it is poor and produces
little…
ET: Yes, but annexing the geographically contiguous and politically controllable poor,
in a globalized world craving low-cost labor forces, can be an advantage. Our world is now post-democratic
and un-egalitarian; it therefore fosters virtual expansion in zones of very low salary rates.
And Ukraine's advantage for the new German empire is precisely that it doesn't exist. It is double,
even triple. It is a disintegrating system. In reality, Ukraine has never existed as a correctly
functioning national entity. It's a false state, and it is bankrupt. The fundamental proof of Ukrainian
incapacity of statehood, and this has not been stressed, is the role played by the leaders of the
Western Ukrainians, at the periphery of the country. One sometimes gets indignant over this, and
starts counting their deputies, their ministers, but the Western Ukrainians, altogether, do not represent
much. However, what is striking, is the inaction of the central Ukrainians, that is, those who speak
Ukrainian, who do not like the Russians that much, who belong originally to the Orthodox religion
but who are not tempted by the far-right. The rise in power of Western Ukraine shows at what
point Central Ukraine, which is the majority, is atomized, incapable of organizing itself, in a state
of pre-statehood.
The confrontation playing itself out between the Ukrainian far-right and the pro-Russians in Eastern
Ukraine makes evident the historical inexistence of the country. The Western Ukrainians want to adhere
to Europe. This is perfectly normal as far as they are concerned: why would extreme-right movements
which have a tradition of collaborating with Nazi Germany refuse to join a Europe under German control?
All this said, this exceptional Ukrainian catch has not yet been bagged by Germany. The game,
or rather the war, is only beginning.
As for the Central Ukrainians, I think that the question has been taken care of. The system will
continue disintegrating: the GDP will contract, the situation will get worse, and I think that this
is the real reason why the Russians are so prudent, are so little inclined to go to war and, contrarily
to what is being asserted, do not want to annex bits and pieces of Ukraine. Russia is not afraid
of Western sanctions. But it does not want to become hated in Central Ukraine. In its central mass,
Ukraine is mistrustful of Russia at the present stage, but one must recognize to the Russians a great
historical capacity to play with space and time. After two years of being handled by German Europe,
what will the people of Kiev think? Maybe they will want to return to Moscow. A disintegrating system
does not adhere, it continues disintegrating.
OB: Let's return to the global might of the American system, which is so far away from Ukraine,
and therefore has very little capacity to benefit from its integration-disintegration through the
" Western system."
ET: The American system, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the control by the United
States of the two great industrial regions of Eurasia, Japan and Germany. But this can function only
under the condition of the hypothesis where America itself is clearly superior in terms of industrial
weight (see table on the right )
As early as 1928, the American industrial production represented 45% of the total world industrial
output. After the war, in 1945, America still represented 45%. Now America is down to 17.5 %: the
Brzezinski system of a control of Eurasia cannot hold in regard of the present numbers. As I observed
in After the Empire, its economic exchanges with Ukraine are insignificant. In Eastern Europe, NATO
is in fact securing a German space. One should re-actualize, for the sake of Washington, the French
expression "to wage war for the King of Prussia".
OB: In such a context, what future can there be for German-American relations?
ET: If you live in the enchanted world of the presently dominant ideology of the newspaper
Le Monde, of François Hollande, which is also the ideology of naive anti-imperialists, the Western
block, a union of America and Europe, with its ward Japan, must and can contain Russia. In the hypothesis
that presuppose a good strategic understanding and a strong collaboration between partners, the West
could defeat the Russian economy. Maybe… But then there is China, India, Brazil, the world is big…
But if we move into the world of strategic realism, which sees the reality of the relationships
of power without a reference to real or mythic values, we see that there exist presently two great
developed industrial worlds, America on the one side and this new German empire on the other. Russia
is a secondary question. We must therefore foresee a completely different future for the twenty years
to come than the East-West conflict: the rise in power of the German system suggests that the United
States and Germany are moving in the direction of conflict. This is an intrinsic logic founded upon
relations of force and domination. In my view it is unrealistic to foresee a peaceful co-existence
for the future.
Yet at this stage, we may reintroduce the notion of value. But precisely in order to stress that,
for an anthropologist, in his own way a realist, or for a historian of the long term, the United
States and Germany do not share the same values. Confronted with the economic stress of the Great
Depression, America, the country of liberal democracy, produced Roosevelt, whereas Germany, a country
of an authoritarian and non-egalitarian culture, produced Hitler.
Granted that the belief of Americans in equality is very relative. The United States are the leading
country in the rise of economic inequalities – even when putting aside segregation towards the Blacks,
a problem which is far from having been solved, as can be seen from the riots in Ferguson. But it
is also, at the present stage, a leading country
But it is also, at the present stage, a leading country in its attempt to create a unified world,
with populations of very diverse origins. In this sense, the election of Obama remains strongly symbolic,
despite the evident wear and tear shown by the President during his second term.
If one takes only into account the corpus of citizens of Germany, we can say that the rise of
inequalities remains very reasonable, much lower to what we can observe in the Anglo-American world.
But if one observes the German system in its European globality, integrating the low salaries of
Eastern Europe and the compressions of salaries in the South, one can identify a system of a much
stronger un-egalitarian domination in a state of gestation. The equality in this case is left as
a concern for only the dominant, German citizens.
At this stage, I will take up this concept of political science of the Belgian anthropologist
Pierre van den Berghe : the Herrenvolk democracy, that, is the democracy of the master people.
Now don't jump to the ceiling! These words are not going to bring down the world – I have recently
expressed myself in these terms in an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit.
At the beginning, Pierre van den Berghe was applying this concept of an ethnic democracy to
apartheid South Africa, where there existed a corpus of equal citizens which was functioning perfectly
well according to the liberal and democratic rules, but whose liberty and democracy could only hold
because there existed these dominated groups. It was the same for America at the time of segregation:
the internal equality of the white group was assured by its domination over the Indians, the Blacks…
One could in the same way characterize Israel as being a Herrenvolk democracy. What cohesion and
liberty there is in the Israeli democracy is bolstered by the existence of an enemy mass of Arabs.
If I had to describe present day Europe, if I had to comment the economic map at the political
level, I would say that Europe, or the German Empire, is beginning to take the general shape
of a Herrenvolk democracy with, at its heart, a German democracy reserved for the dominating people
and, around it, a whole hierarchy of populations more or less dominated, whose votes no longer have
any importance. It is easier to understand, in such a model, why, when one elects a President in
France, nothing happens. Because he no longer has any power: particularly not on the monetary system.
So one finds oneself in a democracy in which the liberties of the press, of opinion, and others,
are perfectly respected; where there is no problem but where, fundamentally, the stability of the
system rests on the subconscious solidarity inside the dominating group. In the Europe taking shape,
one can see the Germans as the Whites in segregation America.
Presently, political inequality is evidently stronger in the German system than in the American
system. The Greeks and others cannot vote in the elections to the Bundestag, whereas the Blacks and
the Latinos can vote in presidential and congressional elections. The European Parliament is baloney,
the American Congress is not.
OB: After such an indictment, do you think that we should be more vigilant to-wards Germany?
ET: It's true that I am pessimistic. The probability that Germany will turn out right is
getting lower every day. It is quite small already. The authoritarian German culture generates a
systemic mental instability of the leaders when they are in a situation of domination – something
that has not happened since the war. Their frequent historical incapacity – in a situation of dominance
– of imagining a peaceful and reasonable future for everybody re-emerges today in the form of an
export mania.
To this is now added, for these leaders, the interaction with Polish absurdity and Ukrainian violence.
Sadly, the fate of Germany doesn't appear to me as a total unknown.
In what way will the Germans turn wrong? The median age or the absence of a military apparatus
may put a brake to the process, but one notices every week a radicalization in the German posture.
Contempt for the English, for the Americans, shameless visit of Merkel to Kiev. The relationship
to the French, the voluntary servitude of whom is essential for the control of Europe, will be revelatory.
But we know already. With the affair of the sales of the Mistral to Russia: the German leaders
are now asking the French to liquidate whatever military industry they have left. The German culture
is un-egalitarian: it makes difficult the acceptance of a world of equals. When they are feeling
that they are the strongest, the Germans will take very badly the refusal of the weaker to obey,
a refusal which they perceive as unnatural, unreasonable.
In France, it would rather be the contrary. Disobedience is a positive value. One lives with it,
it's part of the French charm because in France, too, there exists a mysterious potential for order
and efficiency.
The relationship of America to discipline and inequality is complex in another way, and would
deserve many pages of analysis. Let's be brief and jump to the conclusion: a disciplined inferior-superior
rapport of the German type will not pass easily. Anglo-Saxon culture is not egalitarian but it is
truly liberal. Equal, unequal, it's the same thing in the end. The reasonable difference made within
families between brothers leads to the notion of a reasonable difference among individuals, among
peoples. This is actually the reason for the success of the American model: the Anglo-American culture
is capable of managing reasonably international differences.
In the end, we cannot but observe that both blocks – the American and the German – are antagonist
by nature. They combine all the elements which generate conflict: rupture in the brute economic balance,
difference in values. The faster Russia will be out of the game, either broken or marginalized, the
faster these differences will come to express themselves.
For me, the real historical question at present, the one nobody is asking, is the following: will
the Americans accept to see this new reality of a Germany which is threatening them, and if yes,
when?
OB: When you are prophesizing a conflict between the American nation and the new German empire,
are you sure of yourself?
ET: Of course not. I am only broadening the prospective field. I am describing one possible
future among other possible futures. Another would be a solidifying of the group Russia-China-India
in a continental block opposing the Western Euro-American block. But this Eurasian block can only
function with the addition of Japan, who alone is capable of bringing it up to the Western technological
level. But what will Japan do? For the time being, it is more loyal towards the United States than
is Germany. But it might get tired of the old Western conflicts.
The present shock is paralyzing its rapprochement with Russia, which should be completely logical
for it from the energetic and military point of view, an important element in the new political course
engaged by the Japanese Prime Minister Abe. This is another risk for the United States, deriving
from the new aggressive German course.
OB: Several futures are possible, but not an infinity; 4 or 5, maybe…
ET: I have gone back to reading science fiction in order to deep-cleanse my brain and open
my mind. I much recommend an exercise of the same type to the people who are our leaders and who,
without knowing where they are going, are pressing ahead with such a firm step.
Like in any neo-colonial war the main casualties suffer civil population. this is not yet the scale
of Iraq war were almost a million perished, but it can became very similar. the only difference is that
Iraq was war for oil, while Ukraine is fight for geopolitical space for EWU and first of all Germany,
as well as for implementation of encircling of Russia plan by the USA. Starting from the February coup
this is yet another color revolution initiated by West, which turn in civil war. Poor Ukraine. It has
wrong space on the map with Russia on one side and NATO on the other.
The shattered remains of a tank bearing a tattered Ukrainian flag sat beside the main highway
to Mariupol on Monday afternoon, a remnant of what pro-Russian rebel forces said was a failed attempt
by Ukrainian forces to push into rebel-held territory a few days after a shelling attack left 30
dead in that port city.
With a cease-fire in shreds, pro-Russian separatist forces mounting regular new attacks and the
Ukrainian military struggling to rebound from losses at the Donetsk airport last week, eastern Ukraine
is seeing by far the heaviest fighting since August. Thunderous artillery blasts could be heard from
several directions Monday in the largely isolated city of Donetsk.
The Ukrainian government declared a state of emergency in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the
areas controlled by the rebels, and put the entire country on high alert. In Brussels, at the request
of the Ukrainian government, the ambassadors from 28 NATO nations were set to meet on Monday to discuss
the situation, the first such gathering since August.
Separatist leaders have said they had no choice last week but to end the shaky cease-fire,
which had been in effect since September, and begin offensives to push back Ukrainian forces attacking
rebel-held cities.
Ukrainian military officials said the rebel attacks followed a prolonged buildup of heavy weaponry
and troops from Russia, something the Kremlin vociferously denies. However, Russia's president, Vladimir
V. Putin, had some harsh words for the Ukrainian military, which he derided as a tool of the West.
On a visit to St. Petersburg, Russia, he said that men were fleeing to Russia rather than become
"cannon fodder" in Ukraine's military. "In essence, this is not an army," he said. "This is a
foreign legion - in this particular case NATO's foreign legion, which of course does not pursue the
objective of serving Ukraine's national interests."
Ukrainian officials said that seven of their soldiers had been killed and at least two dozen were
wounded in Monday's fighting. There were reports of some deaths and many casualties in rebel-held
regions, but officials there offered no estimates. In all, United Nations human rights officials
have said, more than 5,000 people have been killed since fighting started in eastern Ukraine early
last year.
The key problem is that Ukraine became a satellite of EU, which does not want to pay any money and
all it wants is a market for EU goods and cheap work force. The USA are destroying the country while
pursuing their imperial ambitions. Nobody is interested in real independence or economic revival of
Ukraine. In both cases the county is viewed as neo-colony, not as an independent state. And compradors
that are now running the country are completely subservient to the West.
Commentary By Halyna Mokrushyna, published on Counterpunch Jan. 23, 2015
What is truth? Can it be absolute? There is a saying in Ukrainian which says: "Everybody has her/his
own truth".
Ukrainians have their own truth – they are fighting a war against imperialist Russia, against
"Rascists"(a play on words – Russia plus fascists). A patriotic drive sweeps across the country:
people collect money to buy equipment and uniform for their sons, husbands, brothers who are going
to the east to fight in war. Ordinary Ukrainians, whose earnings have been cut in half by inflation
and a nearly fifty per cent depreciation of the national currency, are sending text messages to urge
donations to support the Ukrainian army.
The high command of the Ukrainian army sends the sons of the Ukrainian nation to the meat grinder
in Donbas [the region of southeast Ukraine where the war is raging] unprepared, underequipped and
ignorant about the current situation on the battlefield. Those who present themselves to the recruitment
centers are told they must buy their own ammunition.
Agents of the Russian secret police, the FSB, are said to be blending into the crowds of relatives
and friends of new recruits, giving out free alcohol in the conscription lineups, trying to make
the new recruits drunk and unfit for military service. Agents of the FSB are everywhere, even in
the National Bank of Ukraine. According to the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Valentyn
Nalyvaichenko, around 200 FSB agents are working on destabilizing the foreign exchange market of
Ukraine, sending the national Ukrainian currency, the hryvnia, into a tailspin.
Insurgents in Donbas have also their own truth. They are fighting against a fascist junta in Kyiv.
They are repeating over and over again to Ukrainians: do not send your sons to our territory. They
will be killed. And they were killed, including in the surrealistic, Armageddon-style futuristic
decors of the Donetsk airport. When I watch videos of interviews of these Ukrainian soldiers captured
by Donbas insurgency, I feel such a deep sorrow. As Bezler, one of the leaders of the insurgency,
said, these simple guys–kolkhozniki (peasants) and workers–are taken from their ploughs and their
machine tools and driven like cattle to fight against "Russian terrorists".
In the spring of last year, Ukrainian soldiers and Donbas rebels were sitting at the same table–eating
the same food, drinking the same vodka and singing the same songs. These are the words of one of
the officers of the Ukrainian army, who was born in Donetsk. He pronounced them during Skype talks
with a leader of the insurgency, Alexei Mozghovoi, that were broadcast on the Internet. These local
talks were initiated by the Ukrainian side in the hope of finding a peaceful solution to this absurd,
fratricide war. There are other signs of Ukrainians reaching out to rebellious Donbas.
This war is absurd. When one watches videos of the ruins in Donetsk and interviews with local
people, they are all saying: "We do not want this war. Stop it!"
The Ukrainian President recently stated that he will restore the 'Ukrainianness' in the Donbas
region of eastern Ukraine. What 'Ukrainianness' does he mean? A European one, to which western Ukraine
believes to have belonged all throughout its history? Judging by his speeches, this is what Poroshenko
means.
In the law on special status of certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, adopted by the
Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) on September 16, are spelled out answers to the demands of Donbas. Self
government: people elect officials on all levels of municipal and regional administration, and local
officials "participate in the appointment of prosecutor general and judges". Regional economic autonomy
and the right to conduct "a trans-border" cooperation with "certain" regions and cities in Russia.
The right to use Russian and other minority languages in public and private life. Ukrainian state
support of socio-economic development of the region. Finally, the law also stated somewhat vaguely
that the state guarantees that persons who "participated in the event [rebellion] on the territory
of Donetsk and Luhansk regions" will not be prosecuted.
This law is imperfect, imprecise and far from complete. "Certain districts", temporary status
for three years… But the principles stated in this law is what Ukraine needs if it wants to survive.
I received a letter from my close friend in Kyiv. She says that now Ukrainians care much less
about material aspects of life. Fundamental values, such as human life, love, and support came to
the forefront. They watch on TV burials of Ukrainian soldiers, young and old, without tears. They
have become used to the bad news and inured to it.
This civil war is tragic and absurd. The Euromaidan movement in western Ukraine and the "Russian
spring" response to it in eastern Ukraine, then the Donetsk rebellion, were said to be about the
same thing: government free of corruption, a socially-oriented state and a life with dignity. Insurgents
in Donetsk have stated on many occasions that they do not want to fight against fellow Ukrainians.
They are defending their land from people who intervened from the west. They did not start this war.
Kyiv started it, masquerading it as an "anti-terrorist" operation. Kyiv must stop it before Donbas
is lost to Ukraine forever. All the tools are there. The only thing lacking is an independent political
will of the Ukrainian leadership.
What we see, instead, is an increasing militarization of Ukrainian official political discourse
and the government budget. Millions more are needed to buy weaponry, while Ukraine is on the brink
of economic default. The Ukrainian police now has the right to apply without warning physical force
and firearms to those who are deemed "terrorists" or "separatists" by the law. The Ukrainian government
is waging a real war under the disguise of an "anti-terrorist operation". The Ukrainian army is continuing
its indiscriminate shellings of cities and towns in Donbas. New deaths of civilians, new destroyed
houses: Horlivla, Stakhanov, Slavianosebsk. If this is a war with Russia, why not declare it officially?
A "bloody pastor", Turcnynov, the secretary of the Council of National Security and Defense of
Ukraine, came to Donetsk to take personal command of Ukrainian warrior "cyborgs" heroically defending
a Donetsk airport reduced by Ukraine to rubble and in the hands of insurgency. I doubt Mr. Turchynov
will be at the front line, or will lead the charge taking Ukrainian soldiers to victory.
Donetsk insurgents have declared themselves to be grandsons of Soviet soldiers who fought and
won the Second World War. That is, they will fight to the finish to repel any presence of fascism
from their homeland. The Ukrainian leadership should heed these words.
France reports about the prevention of another terrorist attack, and it is possible that he also
has Islamic footprint. Those developments French authorities are trying to explain within the topic
of freedom of speech and insult religious feelings, but we must not forget that France has made a
tremendous contribution to the strengthening of radical Islamists. Primarily by its participation
in the Syrian war.
An interesting coincidence: the day before the tragedy with the execution of cartoonists French
President Francois Hollande, speaking on radio France Inter, expressed regret that the French did
not invaded Syria in 2013, when " the chemical weapons there were used," In the same program, answering
the question whether France will cooperate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the fight against
ISIL, Hollande said that it is better to avoid such relationships.
"The presidents Sarkozy and Hollande literally forced the French diplomatic corps and
intelligence to falsify data, which served as a justification for the overthrow of Assad"
However, not all will find such a coincidence revealing. Because of the abundance of people willing
to take responsibility for the terrorist act, the world community still has doubts about the chief
culprit. The ownership of extremists now is loudly disputed al-Qaeda and separated from it the Islamic
state of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). We still do not know about the results of the investigation
yet, and any of them can be the perpetrator, but we should think about how the powerful organization
which was able to capture half of Iraq and a third of Syria emerged and why there is a French footprint
in this whole story.
The reason of the active participation of France in the current events related to repartitioning
of the Middle East is clear - with the collapse of the world colonial system collapsed so-called
"Sykes - Picot" framework, which in the beginning of XX century defined spheres of influence of Western
powers in the region. In recent years, Paris put tremendous efforts in restoring its presence on
the African continent: it was due the initiative of France that Libya was practically wiped off the
face of the earth. As a result of direct French military intervention occurred coups and began a
bloody war in Côte D'ivoire and Mali. No less aggressive French government behaves in the Syria and
Lebanon, which its traditionally considered its own colonies. Volume were written about the role
the United States and other Western powers in creation and nurturing long-term growth of terrorist
organizations like al-Qaida, but it is difficult not to note the special role of France in those
events, especially its role in the incitement of the current civil conflict in Syria. The tragedy
that spawned ISIL in the form in which we now know it.
With the coming to power of the younger Assad France tried to restore its influence in the country,
proposing to the Syrian government reform package. A key innovation was the re-equipment of the Syrian
army, reducing its number, rejection of military-technical cooperation with Russia and China and
the shift towards France of all programs of the acquisition of military equipment. The French plan
had been developed with the involvement of closely associated with the Saudi elite and personally
Jacques Chirac Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, It was rejected by Assad, A move that predetermined
the further anti-Syrian strategy of the French authorities. Another worry for French was the desire
of Damascus toward the establishment of closer economic relations with Turkey, In general, the death
sentence to the government of Bashar al-Assad was signed much earlier than the beginning of the so-called
"Arab spring".
Analyst STRATFOR Scott Stewart called France "the most consistent supporter of tough measures
against Syria from all European countries".
Over the centuries the methods, in fact, has not changed - still the same game on the contradictions
of ethnic and religious minorities. Hoping to regain lost positions in independent and secular Syrian
Republic Paris creates simulacra - prototypes neo-colonial administration, privacy for this runaway
Syrian officials and saturating money and weapons dummy patterns émigré opposition. It is no coincidence
that in Paris found refuge the richest man in Syria, the oligarch and former Vice President Abdel
Halim Khaddam, cherishing the dream of return to spit on the grave of Bashar al-Assad" (back in 2006,
he announced the creation of "the Syrian government in exile").
It was in Paris with the help of French secret service defected the son of a former defense Minister,
commander of the elite 10th brigade of the Republican guard General Manaf Tlass, publicly, through
the media, thanking the government of France for the organization of his escape. Paris is now the
center of attraction Syrian losers - including the new political alignment of clowns calling themselves
the National coalition of Syrian revolutionary and opposition forces (NCSROF). It is not surprising
that France became the first state to officially recognize this "government in exile" and organized
a public fundraising for the organization in the "liberated from Assad" (read: occupied by insurgents)
areas. And again, it was France at the beginning of the Syrian revolt initiated the creation of the
so-called "group of friends of Syria", and de facto anti-Syrian coalition consisting of 11 countries
(UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Italy, Germany, France, Egypt, USA and UK), which today
plays first fiddle in the conflict. For any couple of years by the efforts of this coalition was
established mobilization structure which was capable to destabilize the situation in Syria and ultimately
maintain a full-fledged civil war.
France is also the initiator and the lobbyist of all anti-Syrian resolutions in the UN security
Council. Several attempts to legitimize intervention in Syria through the security Council faced
a Russian veto, which, however, did not prevent the Western powers (especially the US and the same
France) to provide both overt and covert support to Syrian anti-government groups. After France took
on the post of the Chairman, the Paris several times brokered the sending of the UN observer mission
in Syria. In addition, in June 2012, Hollande said about the need for tougher sanctions against the
Syrian authorities including the use of military force, and the head of the French Foreign Affairs
Minister Laurent Fabius called on to create over the Republic no-fly zone based on Libyan model,
calling the Syrian government "clique killers" and accusing Russia (followed by U.S. Secretary of
state Hillary Clinton) in supplying Damascus weapons.
The basis for military intervention by the French President tried to make a massacre in al-Houla,
blaming the Syrian army, but then that failed it has found a new, long-running fake pretext for intervention
based on supposed use by Damascus of chemical weapons. Swinging this agenda and using support of
London, Paris began to push the subject of the abolition of the European embargo on arms supplies
to Syrian rebels. Under France pressure at the end of February 2013, the EU Council soften the embargo,
allowing to put in SAR "non-lethal goods", including armored vehicles, body armor, communications
equipment and night vision devices. A little later, without waiting for a harmonized EU decision
to lift the restrictions, Paris announced the readiness of their own, regardless of the position
of other EU member States to arm Syrian insurgents by restoring the balance of forces in the conflict
between the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the opposition. "It is our duty to help the coalition and
the Free Syrian army in all possible ways," said Hollande.
Messages Syrian rebels on regular destruction of government aircraft testify about the possession
of modern air defenses (formally, they are not offensive but defensive weapons and are not covered
by sanctions ), and military experts clarify: we are talking about the French Mistral MANPADS. Delivery
militants communications, protected from interception, the French authorities have acknowledged before,
from the very beginning of the crisis. Here it is worth remembering that in the case of Libya Paris
have violated the UN security Council resolution banning supply of weapons. And in the recently published
book, the ideologist of the French neo-colonialism Bernard Henri levy directly says that the first
list of required weapons, the defector - General Abdul Fatah Younis handed personally to President
Sarkozy on the first day of their meeting at the Elysee Palace.
In may 2014 Laurent Fabius said in Washington on 14 cases of alleged use of chemical weapons in
Syria since October 2013 (including chemical attack in Eastern Guta and the village of Kafr Zeta
in the province of Hama), attributing them all, without exception, the Syrian army. But at the same
time expressed regret that the United States is not launched in August 2013 rocket attacks on government
facilities, because it would change many things." In parallel, France tried to push through the UN
security Council a draft resolution transmitting the case about the situation with the civil war
in Syria to the international criminal court "to deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity".
And as you can guess the accused party is only the government.
After a chemical attack near Damascus, which looked like a rough, but very timely provocation,
France was the only European state, which unconditionally supported of the USA and have expressed
a willingness to undertake military intervention without a UN mandate, even after a supposed ally,
the UK said "no" to this initiative in the Parliament.
In an exclusive interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, August 20, 2014 French President
for the first time recognized directly in supplying terrorists with weapons:
"Who told you that we are not supplying weapons to the rebels, that is, the democratic opposition?
The international community bears a great responsibility for what is happening in Syria. If two
years ago steps were taken to organize the transfer of power, we wouldn't have gotten ISIL. If
a year ago the world powers react to the use of Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, we would not
need to make a terrible choice between a dictator and a terrorist. The rebels deserve our active
support."
According to available all of the same Le Monde, the supply of arms was carried out secretly and
included machine guns of 12.7 mm caliber, grenade launchers, armor, night vision goggles and communications.
Formally, the assistance was directed rebel detachments which were members of the "free Syrian army",
however, soon after the start of delivery, according to the French side, the fighters of the Islamic
front looted armories of FSA on the Syrian-Turkish border. However, this has not affected the readiness
of Paris to arm Syrian anti-government forces and forth. "We must not weaken the support that we
had these rebels is the only one who shares democratic sentiments," said the President in August
2014.
In published recently, but has already become a sensation book journalists Georges Malbrunot and
Christian Secno "Road to Damascus: the black dossier Franco-Syrian relations" describes how the presidents
Sarkozy and Hollande literally forced the French diplomatic corps and intelligence to falsify data,
which served as a justification for the overthrow of Assad. In particular, information about the
use of government forces of Syria's chemical weapons was falsified. On the direct orders of Hollande's
special adviser of the Ministry of defense Jean-Yves Le Drian was "editing" database of the main
intelligence Directorate and the General staff of France about the chemical attack in the area of
Guta. This sarin attack gave rise to large-scale propaganda campaign in the press that accompanied
the efforts of the French authorities to lobby through the UN authorization for use of military force.
One of the heroes of the book, former French Ambassador to Syria Eric Chevallier warned the Elysee
Palace about what is the consequence of the underestimation of the strength of positions of the Syrian
government in their own country: "the Assad Regime will not fall, its position is strong, people
will not turn away from him." But then foreign Minister Alain Juppe directly said to the French Ambassador
in Damascus: "We don't care about your information it uninteresting. Bashar Assad must go, and he
will go".
It is extremely significant that the efforts made by France to overthrow the legitimate government
in Syria are far greater than the measures taken by the West against the spread on the Middle East
militants of the Islamic state, whose crimes against humanity, unlike the mythical crimes of the
Syrian President, today the world is watching live. Apparently, because the enemy of my enemy may
not be exactly friend, but certainly is a valuable ally.
While we share the grief with French society, I am reminded about the words of the Minister of
internal Affairs of France Manuel Valls that hundreds of Islamists with French passports today fighting
in Mali, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. It is naive to assume that, in gross violation of international
law in favor of the right forces, initiating several coups at the same time, cherishing and nurturing
terrorist ulcers around the world, it is possible to insure its own citizens from tragic incidents
like the recent terrorist attack in the staff of the satirical magazine.
The trouble is not only that captured now by ISIL Syrian (and Iraq) territories have a highest
concentration of animal cruelty on Earth (which includes is the reported execution of 13 teenagers
for watching football game). The trouble is that this hotbed of Islamic extremism is spreading and
has already reached other continents. ISIL very professional campaigning on the Internet and attracts
new movement supporters as well as promote radicalization peaceful followers of Islam.
ISIL now is a training camp for European Muslims, from which they are returning to the EU as "dogs
of war". ISIL is a continuous source of violence. ISIL is now a real force, the brand name. and it's
by-and-large due to French efforts.
The movement would not be what it now is without weapons and logistical support from its allies,
including France, and the Libyan opposition. They allow it which became a real force, which the West
(and especially France) carefully nurtured.
In other words ISIL is the Golem that has returned to hunt its Creator, who naively decided, that
it can be controlled.
If one were to ask the remaining residents of Donetsk, even those who have been loyal to the Kiev
government, whether they supported this new rebel advance, they would say yes, Mr. Menendez said
- and not necessarily for political reasons.
"They just want to push the front lines out of the city," he said, "to stop the shelling on them."
German expert Michael Lüders speaks of 500 Blackwater US mercenaries active in E. Ukraine and
that Kiev is determined to fulfill a military solution to the separatist problem there:
Ukraine-Krise ARD erwähnen Blackwater-Söldner
[The Ukraine Csisis: ARD speaks of Blackwater mercenaries.]
He says that the Yukies haven't made this decision by themselves as they are essentially insolvent
and have, therefore, no money in order to engage in a lengthy war in the east. Because of this,
and also because the EU does not want to see an escalation of hostilities, the Kiev regime has
turned to Washington, whence 500 Blackwater mercenaries have come to the Ukrainian regime's aide.
This is dangerous, he says, because this could lead to escalation that might get out of control
if either side decides that it has to pull out all the stops in order to win.
The presenter then says that this must indicate that there is no longer a dialogue between
the EU and Washington.
Lüders replies that he has reached the conclusion that the Europeans have finally realized
that the US interests in the Ukraine are not the same as theirs, and in particular the heightening
of tensions with Russia that will result in serious economic consequences. He talks of the reduction
of trade between Germany and Russia by 50% over the past 6 months, which has caused financial
losses of tens of billions of Euros, whereas the USA has comparatively very little trade with
Russia. So, he says, the EU is suffering far more than the US and it is the EU that is providing
financial help to the Ukraine, which is a bottomless pit and, furthermore, it is spending money
on waging war in the east.
He just goes on to say that the Ukraine will not negotiate and accuses Russia of being the
aggressor etc, etc. He then says that it all boils down to the EU telling the US that it will
not tolerate the unleashing of a war in Central Europe – a war distant from the American homeland
– and that a middle ground should be found – not that he's saying that Russia is beyond criticism
– and that a diplomatic solution be found. He talks about the dangers of such people as Yatsenyuk,
who, as regards his recent speech in Berlin is trying to rewrite history. He reckons that there
should no more discussions with people such as "Yats" and corporation with others in the Ukraine
should be sought.
Today the Ukrainian government finally admitted, three days after it happened, that it has lost its
foothold at the Donetsk airport. Its position at the airport covered the artillery position the Ukrainian
army has to the north-west of Donetsk. Those artillery units were
shelling the federalist held city and the federalists attacked the airport to push them further
away.
According to statistics provided to VICE News by the morgue, 157 casualties have been recorded
in Donetsk since the beginning of January, with 119 of these occurring in the last two weeks.
It took quite a while but the federalist finally managed to capture the whole airport. Several
counterattacks by the Ukrainian army were repelled and the counterattacking forces were destroyed.
Parts of the airport had been held for months by the "volunteer" right sector radicals that are
now the "National Guard" of Ukraine. Their number three on the election list was captured by the
federalists and their leader Dmytro Yarosh was wounded when he visited their airport position.
There is also some indecisive fighting further south near Mariupol and fighting in the north east
near Lukhansk with the federalist making some slight advance. Still the
general map has not changed much over the last months.
The Ukrainian army continues to mobilize and, with the help of some NATO members, is building
up more forces. I doubt that whatever they come up with will have the
motivation,
training, equipment or leaders needed to be successful on the battlefield.
Grandma's won't do. The soldiers on the other side have proven to be better in all aspects. Despite
repeated claims form the Ukrainian government that 1,000, 2,000 or 9,000 Russian regular soldiers
and hundreds of Russian tanks are fighting with the federalists none have been documented.
The Ukrainian army can not win a war against the federalist backed by Russia. The Ukrainian government
is broke and will not get bailed
out. Why is it still trying to wage war? My impression is that the U.S. is still
pushing the Ukrainian government to continue its useless efforts to make any Europe-led ceasefire
agreement with Russia null an void and to thereby keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Cold
War 2.0 with proxy fighting in Ukraine is the U.S. plan to keep Russia from challenging its me-and-only-me-first
global position.
The whole conflict seem to be based on more long-term
plans:
American soldiers will deploy to Ukraine this spring to begin training four companies of the Ukrainian
National Guard, the head of US Army Europe Lt. Gen Ben Hodges said during his first visit to Kiev
on Wednesday.
The number of troops heading to the Yavoriv Training Area near the city of L'viv - which is
about 40 miles from the Polish border - is still being determined, however.
Hmm. The Ukrainian National Guard mainly consists of the fascist units responsible for the Maidan
fighting that led to the coup against the Ukrainian government. Lviv is the west Ukrainian capitol
of the Ukrainian fascists. Why would the U.S. military train those units near Lviv when the regular
Ukrainian army is also obviously in urgent need of training? Why train them in spring when the conflict,
with some good will from both sides, could be over in a month or two?
Experience tells that whenever the U.S. announces official training will start then and there
that unofficial training is already ongoing. I have zero doubt that some U.S. special forces, probably
under the guise of "contractors", are already training semi-irregular Ukrainian units. As conventional
warfare is unlike to help the Ukrainian government's cause those units may prepare for other means.
There are indeed signs that partisan warfare against the federalists is already happening. Today
some mortars fired at civilian areas in Donetsk hit a bus and killed at least 13 people. Unlike regular
artillery mortars are rather short ranged weapons. Those who fired them likely did so from inside
the generally federalist held, but only lightly controlled areas. Also Alec Luhn, reporting for the
Guardian from Donetsk, tweeted
today:
Partisan war? Dnipro-1 battalion says pro-Ukraine partisans in Luhansk region blew up a train
carrying coal to Russia
http://nr2.com.ua/News/...
If what I suspect is happening, that Ukrainian government semi-regular units are waging a guerrilla
campaign in federalist held regions, then the obvious response by the federalists will be the dispatch
of similar units to Ukrainian government held areas. That means war in Kiev and beyond.
In the early 1990's I remember thinking that a new northern hemisphere of peace and prosperity
was coming into being with the collapse of the USSR. Was I mistaken. I didn't anticipate what
I now can clearly see: that the US Deep State will not allow peaceful development of the non-Western
world unless it is in control and writes the rules in its favor.
The West is a leech on the rest of world. It creates chaos where it cannot exert its control.
It has violated every decent principal inherited from its ancestors and is not worthy of that
inheritance. Its people live in a temple of cognitive dissonance sustained by the evil within
its Deep State.
Will the West will be able to change direction to avoid leading the world into a catastrophe?
The time is coming when the coalescing East will be able to draw a line that the West should not
cross. That will be the moment of truth. Will the 'exceptional and indispensable' US wake up and
back off or plunge ahead like another people that thought they were 'uber alles'?
Oui | Jan 22, 2015 1:24:14 PM | 4
The Brzezinski doctine, Afghanistan or Georgia all over again. Unfortunately, NATO got Europe
involved on the wrong side of the economic war. In the short term, Obama and his Wall Street minions
want the TTIP pushed through the EU before 2016. The US corporate lobby already succeeded in gaining
a GMO foothold in Europe.
Mike Maloney | Jan 22, 2015 1:53:09 PM | 7
It will be interesting to see if NATO eventually joins the U.S. training mission in Lviv, ground
zero for Right Sector. Maybe then German prosecutors can investigate Brussels as they are the
hapless Pegida leader Lutz Bachmann for posting a picture of himself on his Facebook page impersonating
Hitler.
"German law forbids the display of Nazi symbols and punishes incitement and hate speech."
Ukraine is in default, as is Greece (defaulted 2x, saved by bailouts, coming up for a
third round, maybe some of the foreign banks were paid off so now a GREXIT can be contemplated.)
Neither the US or the EU want to pay for Ukr., the IMF actually shouldn't even consider
it, against their rules. They all know that what they give / lend vanishes down a black
hole, stolen on reception, is not ever accounted for, and they can fire bankers etc., such
as Gontareva Head Bankster since a few months, to no avail, nothing will change.
The second problem is what is shunted if it goes anywhere, is to Russia, for energy debts,
and continuing energy delivery. Because if ppl freeze they will not only go out on the streets
with shouted slogans and banners, but they will shoot to kill or use whatever is to hand,
and sacrifice the front lines.
This whole story has to be top in the annals of giant rip-offs, it is incredible.
I can relate. I remember having similar feelings - but now I realize I was wrong about everything
else too. The Soviet Union was an Important check against capitalist imperialist ambitions. Nothing
stands in their way now except their tripping over their own bottomless immorality and the gravity
of sober real world conditions, which will pull downs their hot air and helium inflated balloons,
but will take everyone and everything else down with them
Martin Finnucane | Jan 22, 2015 2:43:40 PM | 12
Perhaps the (para)military training of Right Sector/National Guard "soldiers" is really an
example of the usual US-style "democracy building." RS is not only a movement but is actually
a formal political party. As a political party it commands only a small percentage of the popular
vote, even with Russophones and other "undesirables" excluded from the polls.
Yet its energy, youth, international support, and proclivity to violence allows it to punch
well above its weight. Perhaps the Kiev junta's US/NATO sponsors want to keep it that way, in
part by giving some RS cadres the skills necessary (in intelligence, sabotage, assassination,
etc.) to act as enforcers amongst the regime itself.
I sense that Poroshenko is frightened of some of his own people and is acutely aware of what
after all really got him where he is. I also sense that his US/NATO handlers are leery of him,
since some form of rapprochement with Russia would be in his (and the Ukraine's) best interests
right now.
Thus the RS/NG has a useful role of holding Poroshenko's feet to the fire, the welfare of the
nation be damned. I wouldn't trade places with Poroshenko for anything.
Lone Wolf | Jan 22, 2015 3:37:40 PM | 14
@b
It took quite a while but the federalist finally managed to capture the whole airport. Several
counterattacks by the Ukrainian army were repelled and the counterattacking forces were destroyed.
FYI, the "cyborgs", as these neo-Nazi rag-tag "army" got to be known, are being "repaired"
by doctors in Donetsk.
The "cyborgs" on repair got luckier than some of their captured partners in crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6TbpeZkwtI
The US/Eurostan, ehem, "strategy" for Ukraine 2015 will be to train the useless Ukrainian army
to NATO standards, with the old purpose of making Ukraine NATO's front-line state to the east
of Eurostan, keeping the fighting going against DPR and LPR, justifying it all on the "Russian
invasion/aggression."
In purely military terms, Ukraine has been defeated, the initiative is back with the federalists,
and no NATO training can offset the current balance. Ukraine's rag-tag army has been routed again
and again, their "efficiency" good to kill civilians, bomb hospital, kindergartens, public transportation,
and so on.
The Kiev puppeteers, Yats et al, are only the face of the masquerade, while the CIA/MI5 et
al run the show behind the curtains. As long as the Russians stay away from full intervention,
bankrupt Ukraine will have to, eventually, bargain for a political/diplomatic settlement.
An ex-Senior MIT (Turkish intelligence) official, working on Syria during early stages of the
armed uprising and handed over Hussain Harmoush who was believed to be mastermind behind bloody
massacre in Jisr ash-Shougur in 2011 to Syrian authorities breaks the silence and exposes their
role in the war.
* I didn't gave Harmoush to Syrian government for money, I did it for may conscience, we knew
that he killed 138 people in Jisr ash-Shougur but MIT attached importance to him, this was disturbing
me.
• Thousands of people from different countries were coming to Turkey with no legal papers, and
Turkish officials helped them to cross the border.
• Turkish port of Iskenderun was used as an hub to arm the jihadists. Ships unload the weapons
to Iskenderun port where they were load to lorries and sent to border.
• Leading Syrian oppositions figures continued their anti-Alawite rhetoric in Hatay. They told
Syrian refugees that be careful about Alawite doctors and nurses etc.
• I am ready to expose the role of Turkish government in any international court. I am ready to
give testimony as a witness. "
jfl | Jan 22, 2015 5:31:18 PM | 19
b:
'federalists' ... what a difference that word makes! Thanks. Might be too late though, or very,
very hard to revive.
I wish the distinction between West Ukrainian conscripts and US/DE funded, trained, and armed
NAZIs were more starkly delineated by the federalists.
@2
Please repeat that statement in any and all forums you may visit. Americans must become conscious
of how much 'ou' county is hated and despised by ordinary people throughout the world ... but
especially by those in its 'allied' countries in the West. Ukraine is Yet Another Answer to the
question, "Why do they hate us?"
@3
There's nothing 'hilarious' in any of this, that I can see. You ought to sign your name to
your posts. It helps inhibit such remarks.
@5
They're being trained in Lviv, Lvov because that's where the NAZIs are?
@10
You are so right. You'd think the Germans of all people would have discovered how much this
costs and who ...
@11
I can't relate.
@17
And he or his homeboy 'reminded' us all that it was the Ukrainians (must have been an OUN unit?)
that liberated Auschwitz
@10
... but I guess the cost is part of the equation. They're going for broke - with all of the
riches of a devastated Russia as the payoff, aren't they? The payback will still be orders of
magnitude greater, in their overheated brains and stone cold hearts.
jfl | Jan 22, 2015 5:35:25 PM | 20
jfl | Jan 22, 2015 5:35:25 PM | 20
@10
... but I guess the cost is part of the equation. They're going for broke - with all of the riches
of a devastated Russia as the payoff, aren't they? The payback will still be orders of magnitude
greater, in their overheated brains and stone cold hearts.
597 Ukrainian soldiers died at the airport so far - and those are just the bodies found so
far near the airport and Peski, 44 POWs, 49 tanks destroyed, 49 BMP's and BTR's - just destroyed
by DPR, wounded evacuated - over 1,500 (Ukrainians).
Large quantities of American weapons, a lot of religious literature in European languages.
Found bodies in NATO uniform of contractors from foreign private military companies.
Today there were 19 violations of ceasefire - 13 dead (on a Donetsk trolley). No dead among
the militia.
Andoheb | Jan 22, 2015 5:44:41 PM | 22
Ukraine has apparently defaulted on several billions owed to China.
KMF | Jan 22, 2015 7:24:22 PM | 26
Hard Pounding in Donbass: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/hard-pounding-in-donbass/
james | Jan 22, 2015 7:38:18 PM | 27
b - thanks. the ukees kept using the airport to lob bombs on the people of donetsk. now they
have to use longer range equipment and as you suggest near the end of your post, a guerilla. type
campaign which leads you to believe this will go to kiev...you might be right. the support from
the west will continue as the prime objective of isolating russia requires no stop to the war.
the support for right sektor turned national gaurd from nato countries is interesting juxapositioned
next to the commemerations set for poland.. how do these people sleep properly at night? i guess
lying to themselves is the main requirement.. more security knowing others are lying the same
bs way..
martin @12. thanks for your comments. porky if he had a brain, would quit.. i guess he feels
he has a better chance at protecting his money as leader.. hard to know what lies he tells himself
to keep on going, or to keep up with appearances..
Lone Wolf | Jan 22, 2015 8:30:15 PM | 28
@lysias@25
Washington Post: Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a wily king who embraced limited reform, dies.
Good riddance, problem is he left his evil children with billions of $$ spreading the Wahhabi
trash all over the world. So, he "embraced limited reform" according to the WAPO? That mouthpiece
of the Washington establishment has no shame. On another note, Abdullah is leaving SA in a very
fragile position vis-a-vis his US masters and protectors, who are now looking so strongly in the
direction of their arch-enemies, Iran, the Saudis are playing with the idea of Russia as a strategic
ally.
A very special place in hell is waiting for Abdullah, a main financier of Wahhabi terror on
the planet.
jfl at 19 --
That Lvov has a good ideological profile for recruiting helps. But perhaps an added consideration
is, a base further to the east might be threatened or even lost by an advance.
rufus magister | Jan 22, 2015 9:23:49 PM | 31
I think Anon. at 3 is indulging in a little gallows humor. I personally thought that the ChocoKing's
statement, where he stated 9K Russian regulars were in the Ukr., but under cloaks of invisibility,
added a certain air of levity to the proceedings.
Arius & 1968ES330, at 2 & 9, 11
I was quite active in the left in the 80-s & 90-s. There was a naive belief prior to the collapse
of the Soviets that once the demon of its existence was exorcised from the body politic of socialism,
people would see the shiny happy sincerity and cleverness of the Left and begin the march towards
"true socialism" (variously defined).
So when the Union collapsed, I immediately braced myself for a rough ride. It was the counter-revolution
that Trotsky predicted, as the oligarchs used physical and economic violence to expropriate the
collective property of the Soviet people.
The ideological and organizational weakness of the left is such that at present it is capable
of little; the Great Recession should have been a field day for any 3rd. rate socialist party.
Instead, the far right has largely seized the field (hopeful exception of Greece, ongoing success
of Venezuala excepted)
You're right in noting that despite the manifest deficiencies of the Soviets, they were counterweight
and could be counted on to aid many progressive struggles (e.g., ANC and later via Cuba Angola
& Mozambique vs. So. Afr.).
"What's different now is the US has descended essentially, into fascism and wages its dirty
wars in the open. Also this is the heartland of Europe. That Reagan and the war criminals of former
years were never punished is what led us into this. " Well said. What we used to quietly tolerate
in our more disreputable clients (like in El Salvador) we now boast of as signs of our "realism,"
"toughness," and "determination."
But not the first time in Europe, see our friends in Croatia.
And if I might say, Barflies, so far a very interesting and productive thread, (e.g., 14, 18
Mina & LW) I hope that I have kept up.
Maidan in Ukraine started a year ago. Now it is time to look back and see how it started and what
it led to. Pravda.Ru interviewed the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Doctor
of Economic Sciences, Natalia Vitrenko, about the events which marked the beginning of the civil
war, the social and economic disaster and the collapse of Ukraine.
"One year after Maidan, what, in your opinion, were the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, who
toppled Yanukovych? What are the results of the Ukrainian revolution? Has anything been done?"
"The fact is that the people were called to come to Maidan. Large protests started on November
23, 2013, when people demanded Yanukovych should sign the association agreement with the EU. Before
November 2013, the Party of Regions together with Communists and the Litvin Bloc had the majority
in the parliament. For 2.5 years, those parties were maintaining public psychosis in the country
about the need to join the European integration. They were the prime initiators of the European
integration. On 1 July 2010, they adopted the law about the foundations of domestic and foreign policy.
Article 11 of the law said that Ukraine would be integrated into European space, that the goal
of Ukraine was to become a EU member.
"The administration of President Yanukovych, above all, the head of administration, Sergei Levochkin,
was monitoring the situation on television. They did not allow hosts on the country's most popular
talk shows who would advocate for a different course for Ukraine - the course for integration with
Russia. The research on Ukraine's integration into the Customs Union showed excellent prospects for
Ukraine. I myself was making those calculations - two respectable economic institutions were working
on that - the Russian and the Ukrainian academies of sciences engaged. The calculations convincingly
showed all benefits from the integration of Ukraine in the East.
"As for calculations of benefits from Ukraine's integration into the European Union, no one has
seen them. Without any arguments, they would be broadcasting psychosis from morning till night
on all radio and TV channels. And, of course, the orange associations - the Tymoshenko bloc
and Our Ukraine - would only nod to the majority of deputies. They had been doing this since 2010.
"Russia was watching all that favorably. United Russia had cross-party co-operation agreements
with the Party of Regions, the Communist Party. Russia was showing absolutely no impact outhouse
political forces. We were fighting against the policy of European integration, but all were pulling
Ukraine into Europe. Our party and several others would be subjected to obstruction, because we were
defending and defend a completely different vector of integration.
Suddenly, on November 21, Azarov's government decided to suspend the signing of the association
agreement. I knew that the decision was taken after the government and the president were introduced
to calculations of the economic disaster in Ukraine, about the inevitability of default, in case
Ukraine had signed the agreement on association. Ukraine has nothing to enter the free trade
zone with the EU. Ukrainian products are uncompetitive on the European market. When the government
made that decision on November 21, it produced a shock in the camp. Two days later, opponents came
to their senses and called people to gather on Maidan.
"Kiev residents came, students came, people from Western Ukraine were brought too, who understand
nothing, but can frantically yell that all they need is Europe. Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, Tyagnibok and
Poroshenko started flaming Maidan up. They showered people with promises that Ukraine would receive
unprecedented benefits from the association with Europe, that Ukraine would be a civilized European
country, where all rights and freedoms would be ensured and guaranteed. That means a sharp rise in
wages, pensions and social benefits in accordance with all European standards.
"The people, of course, succumbed to that pressure. Imagine that they have been listening to all
that propaganda for 2.5 years, and then Maidan confirmed all that too. Therefore, most people in
Ukraine believeв that Ukraine must sign this agreement. They assumed that Yanukovych would be their
prime enemy, if he refused to sign the agreement.
On November 29, when it became clear that Yanukovych did not sign it, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok and
Klitschko were ready to dissolve Maidan because they were confused. They thought think that their
pressure would be decisive. Nevertheless, Yanukovych did not sign the papers. After they returned
from Brussels, they gathered on Maidan and announced that everyone should go home for the time being.
They started to remove the stage and the sound equipment, when the second scenario started working.
Later it became known that this scenario had been prepared in advance by the presidential administration.
The scenario was about the use of Berkut fighters to put up a New Year tree, but they use well-prepared
militants to attack Berkut fighters. As a result, the protesters clashed with Berkut. At night, all
national TV channels of Ukraine were filming all that on the square. They were filming the episodes
that would be very good for the USA, as the entire scenario had been agreed with Washington and Brussels.
At first, all instructions were coming from the US Embassy in Ukraine.
"They were filming how Berkut fighters were beating students, children, but they did not show
how the protesters were throwing rocks at Berkut soldiers, how they would set soldiers ablaze. On
the basis of this footage that produced a bombshell effect, people started coming to Maidan. On December
1, a massacre occurred on Bankovaya Street. There were militants wielding chains, bats, Molotov cocktails
and boulders. Militants started taking administrative buildings in Kiev. Nineteen administrative
buildings were seized, the center of Kiev was seized too.
The capital was paralyzed. But Yanukovych was instructed not to touch the peaceful protesters,
as they said. The West wanted to see the resistance growing. It was growing in waves, because Maidan
did not have the support of the majority of the people. On January 19, militants attacked the Berkut
fighters, who were defending the government quarter. Car tires were burning in the street, on European
Square and Kreshchatik Street.
Maidan was ideologized, it was a Russophobian, Nazi Maidan that was rigidly following the direction
against Russia. For Ukrainians, Russia is the enemy, "Glory to the nation, death to the enemy" -
that was the directive. This hatred was infecting more and more people.
Anti-Maidan could not oppose anything. As a result, on February 18, the Verkhovna Rada was attacked.
On February 20, they were already armed. Maidan activists obtained weapons after they captured military
and police arms caches.
"On February 21, Yanukovych signed an agreement with Maidan leaders. Three Foreign Ministers of
European countries: Germany, France and Poland acted as guarantors of the agreement. I listened to
the press conference of the German Minister for Foreign Affairs with his Russian counterpart Lavrov.
He looked disgraceful. When he was asked why he did not observe the execution of that agreement,
he suddenly said that it was because Yanukovych had fled the country. What did Yanukovych have to
do with it? To hell with him, I am sorry about the country and the people.
"The agreement stipulated for the disarmament of all illegal armed groups and the creation of
the government of national consent. Nothing was done. As a result of the armed neo-Nazi putsch, the
new government was formed. MPs were mocked and humiliated, and the Parliament was eventually reformatted
and start serving the neo-Nazi coup. In violation of the Ukrainian constitution, Yanukovych was suspended
from power, and the parliament speaker was given an opportunity to become acting president.
"That is, they started doing what they wanted, and the US and EU were condoning that. They wanted
that in Ukraine, they did it and got it. The only thing that they did not anticipate was the protest
in the Crimea and in the Donbas. The Crimea saw the essence of this revolution, heard those slogans
- "Muscovites on knives!" and realized that Ukraine would be for Ukrainians. Of course, they all
went to the referendum and voted to pull out from that Ukraine. And then the Donbass rebelled against
Kiev too. The people of Donbass identify themselves as members of the Russian world. They also understood
that as long as Ukraine was going to be for Ukrainians, then they would be killed. They understood
that Ukraine would be built into NATO.
If Ukraine was going to become Europe's servant, it would break economic and industrial ties with
Russia, and the Donbass would be left with nothing, because the Donbass was tied to Russia up whole.
Donbass realized that it was doomed either way. That is why the uprising began in the region.
Ukraine faced a civil war. According to experts' estimates, over 40 thousand people have been killed,
including the rebels, the Ukrainian military and civilians. Two million refugees. Hundreds of thousands
of wounded, shell-shocked ... Many return from the zone of the so-called anti-terrorist operation
to Ukraine as mentally ill individuals. Children are deeply traumatized. The gene pool of the nation
was generally undermined. This is what Maidan has done to Ukraine.
"Where are their successes? They signed the association agreement, and it was ratified in September.
Where is the money that Europe promised? 30-40 billion euros. Ukraine begged to receive $6 billion
from the IMF and the World Bank, another 900 million euros came from Europe and that was it. Our
people die. In hospitals, there are no medications, patients do not receive any food. Last week in
Kiev, they stopped giving bread to patients. That's what the United States and Europe have done.
And, of course, they have put Ukraine in a position when the authorities are only interested in war.
We are all sitting on a powder keg; every day we wait what provocation Ukraine would arrange to draw
Russia into the war to start Third World War. The are the results of Maidan.
"According to President Poroshenko, the planned reforms, not less than 60, will embrace all areas
of life, from public utilities to courts. Are there any reforms being conducted now?"
"They launched lustration. I do not know in which way it can relate to European values, when they
fire people from jobs - specialists, professionals - they throw people in garbage cans. This is something
barbarous, shameful, ape-like behaviour. They unfold reforms and say that they will reduce the amount
of taxes. How are they going to do that? Whose shoulders will carry the burden of these taxes? We
can not expect anything good from this government, no reforms whatsoever, because it is oligarchs
that rule Euromaidan. They fund volunteer battalions and the new parliament.
They do not worry about the fate of the people. They will enhance exploitation and amass their
fortunes. This is the essence of their reforms. They say that they will start an education reform,
but at the same time they zombify children with ideas of neo-Nazism. They plant seeds of hatred to
other nations, civilizations, primarily Russia. They hammer into children's heads the idea that Ukrainians
originate from a super-ancient civilization. These reforms are a disaster for Ukraine.
"They allow to use the Russian language on the level of private, personal communication; they
root it out from Ukraine. They will undoubtedly continue to struggle with dissent. Already today,
the parties and movements that protect other ideology can not hold their own peaceful public actions.
We could not take part in the elections, because we were openly threatened with violence, beatings
and death. Ukraine is taking the shape of a Nazi state with totalitarian dictatorship - an ardent
enemy of Russia and a very comfortable obedient puppet of the United States."
"Why is there no progress in investigating high-profile cases?"
"Because for the current authorities, the truthful results on the investigation of the Boeing
tragedy, shootings on Maidan and other cases would mean the end. After all, no matter how they try
to hide it, all paths in those cases lead to him. Irrefutable facts show that Porubiy was commanding
the snipers on Maidan. More than 80 people were killed at once at his command. When the people saw
the dead bodies, it produced an immediate effect, and they went on a desperate attack on the government.
That's why they needed the snipers and deaths on Maidan. The downing of the Boeing was needed to
shift the blame on Russia and the militia of the Donbass. But they failed."
"A year ago, on Kiev Maidan, people were protesting and even dying for Europe. A few months after
winning the "revolution of dignity," Ukraine has not gotten any closer to Europe. On the contrary,
Ukraine has slipped down to the level of Africa," this is what TV presenter of a Lviv channel, Ostap
Drozdov said. The average pension in Ukraine after the "revolution of dignity" makes up 50 euros.
This is the level of Africa. Do you agree with this opinion?"
"I agree that after Maidan, Ukraine has gone decades and even centuries back. We now have the
power of barbarians, who do not recognize the rule of law, who trample on the Constitution, violate
laws, refuse to fulfill international obligations. Poroshenko's decree from 4 November is a bright
example of that. One should introduce international sanctions against Poroshenko's Ukraine. Otherwise,
it is impossible to bring to reason the man, whose power destroys all norms of law. But Europe is
silent, the international community is silent under the thumb of the US - they are fine and satisfied
with it. They are satisfied with the jungle in the middle of Europe, on the territory of Ukraine."
Previously, back in September, I discussed the Minsk Protocol in detail here, where I said
"…..the Protocol is in my opinion a total red herring. The Protocol is not a contract or treaty.
There is no court or tribunal that will arbitrate on the meaning of its words. All the sides will
construe it as they wish. The junta will not of course construe it as I have done and nor will its
western backers even though my interpretation is undoubtedly the correct one. The junta will continue
to call the NAF (the "Novorossian Armed Forces" - AM) "terrorists" and will continue to deny they
are the representatives of the Donbas whether they win the election or not. Certainly the junta will
not recognise an election the NAF wins or any declaration of independence the NAF makes. For what
it's worth in my opinion there is little chance of the terms of such an election being agreed upon
or such an election taking place whilst the Donbas remains part of the Ukraine".
Every word in this paragraph has come true. The Ukrainian government still refuses to recognise
the Donbass leaders Zakharchenko and Plotnisky as the representatives of the people of the Donbass
even though their signatures are on the Minsk Protocol, which the Ukrainian government negotiated
with them and itself signed. Elections in the Donbass did take place in November but as I predicted
the Ukrainian government did not agree their terms. The Ukrainian government still calls Zakharchenko
and Plotnitsky and the other Donbass leaders "terrorists".
The reason I was able to make that prediction in September with such confidence and why that prediction
has in every respect come true, is because the nature of the Ukrainian government allowed for no
other.
The basic truth about the crisis in Ukraine and why there is a war there - the one that many people
especially in the West refuse to acknowledge - is that the faction that seized power in Ukraine through
the February 2014 coup is structurally incapable of negotiation or compromise with those it considers
its opponents.
I discussed the nature of this faction when I discussed the results of the elections in Ukraine
last November. Briefly, the whole purpose of the February coup was so that the faction in Ukraine
that holds power now could achieve the unrestricted dominance of Ukrainian society which is its only
way of making true its vision of a unitary, monolingual, monocultural Ukraine that is forever distanced
from Russia.
Given the diversity of Ukrainian society, it cannot compromise with its opponents since were it
to do so that would jeopardise the entire project that is the reason for its existence and the justification
for its hold on power. That is why it acted in February to eliminate from Ukrainian political life
the faction that had held power in Ukraine before and why it remains committed to eliminating its
opponents in the Donbass now.
It is also incidentally the reason for the repeated attacks on the Lenin statues discussed by
Paul Robinson here. Given the regime's overriding, aggressive drive to reshape Ukraine in its own
image, it cannot tolerate the existence of these statues precisely because so many Ukrainians adhere
to them and by doing so hold fast to a different vision of Ukraine from the one the regime has. The
very reason why Robinson says it is a mistake to attack these statues is therefore for the regime
a compelling reason to destroy them. The statues have to be eliminated from Ukraine just as opponents
who think of Ukraine differently must be.
It is this drive - not Russia's actions - which is why Ukraine is in a state of perpetual war
and crisis and why atrocities like the 2nd May 2014 Odessa fire can happen without being properly
investigated or the perpetrators brought to account.
Though the Maidan regime is deeply divided and factionalised, its drive to remake Ukraine and
to eliminate all opponents of its vision, is the common denominator of all its factions. As factional
differences intensify as the economic situation deteriorates, fulfilment of the drive through war
increasingly becomes the way the regime retains coherence, making a renewal of the war inevitable.
What this means in practice is that negotiations between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass
as a route to peace in Ukraine are all but impossible. As Yanukovych repeatedly discovered during
the Maidan crisis (see our discussion of his ouster here), any attempt to achieve a compromise is
bound in the end to fail since the Maidan movement which holds power in Ukraine now is structurally
unable to compromise.
Ukraine Goes to War – and Always Will as Long as Maidan Holds Power
as Alexander Mercouris writes for Russia Insider
Here some excerpts:
"The basic truth about the crisis in Ukraine and why there is a war there – the one that many
people especially in the West refuse to acknowledge – is that the faction that seized power
in Ukraine through the February 2014 coup is structurally incapable of negotiation or compromise
with those it considers its opponents.
"… the whole purpose of the February coup was so that the faction in Ukraine that holds power
now could achieve the unrestricted dominance of Ukrainian society which is its only way of making
true its vision of a unitary, monolingual, monocultural Ukraine that is forever distanced from
Russia.
"Given the diversity of Ukrainian society, it cannot compromise with its opponents since were
it to do so that would jeopardize the entire project that is the reason for its existence and
the justification for its hold on power. That is why it acted in February to eliminate from Ukrainian
political life the faction that had held power in Ukraine before and why it remains committed
to eliminating its opponents in the Donbass now.
"… Though the Maidan regime is deeply divided and factionalised, its drive to remake Ukraine
and to eliminate all opponents of its vision, is the common denominator of all its factions.
As factional differences intensify as the economic situation deteriorates, fulfillment of
the drive through war increasingly becomes the way the regime retains coherence, making a renewal
of the war inevitable.
"What this means in practice is that negotiations between the Ukrainian government and
the Donbass as a route to peace in Ukraine are all but impossible. … any attempt to achieve a
compromise is bound in the end to fail since the Maidan movement which holds power in Ukraine
now is structurally unable to compromise."
Economic cooperation between Brussels And Kiev is reminiscent of neo-colonialism: Ukraine necessary
for the European Union, the 1st and foremost, as a source of raw materials And markets, And not an
equal partner, said the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev D. A..
" From the standpoint of economic cooperation between the EU to Ukraine more like neo-colonialism.
Under the guise of " European fair " competition was dented unilateral advantages for European And
closely related to Ukrainian organizations. Ukraine necessary for the European Union, most importantly,
as a source of part of the raw materials. And, no doubt, as a market for European organizations,
" wrote Medvedev published in " Nezavisimaya Gazeta ".
If we talk about the structure of foreign trade of Ukraine, the majority of imports accounts for
goods of final consumption And exports are dominated by commodities, the Prime Minister said. Reviews
Medvedev, a significant part of Ukrainian plants in your own market will not withstand competition
With European goods, which will swing with the introduction of the free trade regime, as under the
terms of the agreement, Ukraine is almost completely cancel import duties.
" And what will happen With the Ukrainian manufacturers - Nobody, it seems, was not calculated.
Nobody can say what the prospects are for its part, appears instead to Ukrainian enterprises in the
highly competitive European market, " he says. The amount of preferences that will give Ukraine the
Europeans, was estimated at 400 million euros per year, But it is unlikely that it could compensate
for even a few % of future losses, sure Medvedev.
If we talk about the agrarian sector of Ukraine, which accounts for 17% of GDP And 27% of national
exports, the Outlook is not too rosy. Ukrainian farmers are initially in a losing situation, And
among them because of the subsidies, which are allocated to European farmers. In addition, the Ukrainian
agricultural exports to the EU will be quoted, And other supplies to duty, which increases them,
says Russian Prime Minister.
Individual effort And cost will require a transition to European thestandard And norms, which
in a few years will be required to work the industry And agriculture of Ukraine." may be to estimate
the costs of these transformations, called Yanukovych government - from 160 to five hundred billion
euros over ten years - And overpriced. But anyway, this is caused by very large allocations. Wait
compensate for these costs from the EU - it would be naive, " said the Medvedev.
"...According to Alexander Yakimenko, the former head of Ukraine's Security Service operative,
"All the orders were given either by the US embassy or by Jan Tombinski, a Polish representative who
worked in the EU mission in Kiev. Poland played an invaluable role in the coup. It has always dreamt
of restoring its former power and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". "
"...In October Petro Poroshenko met Eva Kovacs, the Poland's new Prime Minister, to discuss 'strategic
partnership". The next day Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Shetina compared the relationship of Warsaw
and Kiev with the relations between European countries and their colonies in Africa. He elaborated on
his statement on November 6, "Talking about Ukraine without Poland - the same as that discussing the
case of Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco without Italy, France and Spain". It sounded defiantly
enough to evoke concern in Kiev but Ukraine's officials had no guts to send a note to Warsaw. The Ukrainian
media raised ballyhoo about it but emphasized that not all Polish outlets shared the opinion of Polish
Foreign Minister. "
Speaking in parliament recently Leszek Miller, former Poland's Prime Minister and head of Democratic
Left Alliance, said about the Russia-Ukraine relations "Poland has become rather a problem than a
solution". The remark did not go unnoticed and he came under harsh criticism from media.
Some voiced concern over the possibility that such statements could provoke "radical changes"
and prompt Europe to look at the east "through the eyes of Orban, Berlusconi and Miller". Nevertheless
nobody denied the fact that the Poland's stance on Ukraine is one of factors to spur the conflict.
It's obvious.
Since the very first days of Maidan protests Poland has applied a lot of effort to turn Ukraine
into a European problem. And it has closely cooperated with the United States.
According to Alexander Yakimenko, the former head of Ukraine's Security Service operative,
"All the orders were given either by the US embassy or by Jan Tombinski, a Polish representative
who worked in the EU mission in Kiev. Poland played an invaluable role in the coup. It has always
dreamt of restoring its former power and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth".
In September 2012 Kiev welcomed the appointment of Jan Tombinski as head of the Delegation of
the European Union to Ukraine. According to Polish media, as soon as Mr. Tombinski took office, the
EU office turned into the headquarters of the extremists who overthrew the legal authorities and
actually sparked a civil war in the country.
As soon as Ukraine was set on fire some compatriots of Tombinski joined his efforts, like, for
instance, Andrzej Derlatka, former chief of the Polish Intelligence Agency, who has been responsible
for interaction with the US Central Intelligence Agency. He had to resign as a result of scandal
related to CIA's secret prisons operating on Polish soil. Derlatka held talks with President Poroshenko
about the activities of Polish secret services in Ukraine including the protection of top NATO officials
(the US delegated this responsibility to Poland). Jeffrey Egan и Raymond Mark Davidson, former and
current heads of CIA station in Kiev, acted as intermediaries at the talks. Since the very start
Polish and American secret services preferred to cooperate with retired veterans instead of officers
on active service, many of whom had dubious reputations or intelligence identities revealed. Here
is a good example. Jerzy Dziewulski, the security advisor to former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski,
worked as a security guard to protect Ukrainian former acting President Turchinov, whom he accompanied
during the trips to the Donbass after the civil war started.
According to Polish experts, the Ukraine's high standing officials befriended Polish politicians
a long time ago. For example, Ukraine's tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, ex-Minister of Ecology, and former
President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski are on the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings (the
company has a lot of interest in a potential shale gas exploration in the east of Ukraine).
In October Petro Poroshenko met Eva Kovacs, the Poland's new Prime Minister, to discuss 'strategic
partnership". The next day Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Shetina compared the relationship of
Warsaw and Kiev with the relations between European countries and their colonies in Africa.
He elaborated on his statement on November 6, "Talking about Ukraine without Poland - the same
as that discussing the case of Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco without Italy, France and Spain".
It sounded defiantly enough to evoke concern in Kiev but Ukraine's officials had no guts to send
a note to Warsaw. The Ukrainian media raised ballyhoo about it but emphasized that not all Polish
outlets shared the opinion of Polish Foreign Minister.
Popular Rzeczpospolita published the article titled Ukraine as Polish Colony. Schetyna's Words
Arouse Indignation. It cited the opinion of Ukrainian expert, "If the Polish foreign minister said
this, it should be his last thing he says in this capacity", said Vasyl Filipchuk, former Ukrainian
diplomat and currently Chairman of the ICPS (International Centre for Policy Studies) Board. But
nobody paid attention to his words.
Meanwhile Ukraine's officials are going through training in Poland to enhance their professional
skills for doing a better job while serving in the "colonial administration", as Grzegorz Shetina
would call it. According to Jakub Korejba, a Polish researcher, the National School of Public Administration
in Warsaw is responsible for the process. It was created with the help of French specialists patterned
after the National School of Administration (The École nationale d'administration –ENA) in Paris.
Jacek Czaputowicz, the former director the school, has been a militant of the Solidarity radical
wing and Director at the Department of Foreign Policy Strategy and Planning at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Jan Pastwa, the School's current director, has served as Polish Ambassador to the Czech
Republic. The both men are ardent supporters of the concept aimed at containment of Russia in Europe.
Pastwa is a member of radical extremist group ZHR (the Scouting Association of the Republic, Polish:
Związek Harcerstwa Rzeczypospolitej -ZHR) which proclaims the return of Western Belarus and Ukraine
to Poland as its foreign policy goals.
Leszek Miller is right. Poland has become part of big problem.
What does a pipeline in Afghanistan have to do with the crisis in Ukraine?
Everything. It reveals the commercial interests that drive US policy. Just as the War in Afghanistan
was largely fought to facilitate the transfer of natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea,
so too, Washington engineered the bloody coup in Kiev to cut off energy supplies from Russia to Europe
to facilitate the US pivot to Asia.
This is why policymakers in Washington are reasonably satisfied with the outcome of the war in
Afghanistan despite the fact that none of the stated goals were achieved. Afghanistan is not a functioning
democracy with a strong central government, drug trafficking has not been eradicated, women haven't
been liberated, and the infrastructure and school systems are worse than they were before the war.
By every objective standard the war was a failure. But, of course, the stated goals were just public
relations blather anyway. They don't mean anything. What matters is gas, namely the vast untapped
reserves in Turkmenistan that could be extracted by privately-owned US corporations who would use
their authority to control the growth of US competitors or would-be rivals like China. That's what
the war was all about. The gas is going to be transported via a pipeline from Turkmenistan, across
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the Arabian sea, eschewing Russian and Iranian territory. The
completion of the so called TAPI pipeline will undermine the development of an Iranian pipeline,
thus sabotaging the efforts of a US adversary.
The TAPI pipeline illustrates how Washington is aggressively securing the assets it needs to maintain
its dominance for the foreseeable future. Now, check this out from The Express Tribune, July 5:
"Officials of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan are set to meet in Ashgabat next
week to push ahead with a planned transnational gas pipeline connecting the four countries and
reach a settlement on the award of the multi-billion-dollar project to US companies.
"The US is pushing the four countries to grant the lucrative pipeline contract to its energy
giants. Two US firms – Chevron and ExxonMobil – are in the race to become consortium leaders,
win the project and finance the laying of the pipeline," a senior government official said while
talking to The Express Tribune.
Washington has been lobbying for the gas supply project, called Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and India (Tapi) pipeline, terming it an ideal scheme to tackle energy shortages in Pakistan.
On the other side, it pressed Islamabad to shelve the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline because of a
nuclear standoff with Tehran…
According to officials, Petroleum and Natural Resources Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi will
lead a delegation at the meeting of the TAPI pipeline steering committee on July 8 in Ashgabat.
…At present, bid documents are being prepared in consultation with the Asian Development Bank,
which is playing the role of transaction adviser. The documents will be given to the two companies
only for taking part in the tender.
Chevron is lobbying in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to clinch a deal, backed by the US State
Department. However, other companies could also become part of the consortium that will be led
either by Chevron or ExxonMobil." (TAPI
pipeline: Officials to finalise contract award in Ashgabat next week, The Express Tribune)
So the pipeline plan is finally moving forward and, as the article notes, "The documents will
be given to the two companies only for taking part in the tender."
Nice, eh? So the State Department applies a little muscle and "Voila", Chevron and Exxon clinch
the deal. How's that for a free market?
And who do you think is going to protect that 1,000 mile stretch of pipeline through hostile Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan?
Why US troops, of course, which is why US military bases are conveniently located up an down the
pipeline route. Coincidence?
Not on your life. Operation "Enduring Freedom" is a bigger hoax than the threadbare war on terror.
So let's not kid ourselves. The war had nothing to do with liberating women or bringing democracy
to the unwashed masses. It was all about power politics and geostrategic maneuvering; stealing resources,
trouncing potential rivals, and beefing up profits for the voracious oil giants. Who doesn't know
that already? Here's more background from the Wall Street Journal:
"Earlier this month, President Obama sent a letter to (Turkmenistan) President Berdimuhamedow
emphasizing a common interest in helping develop Afghanistan and expressing Mr. Obama's support
for TAPI and his desire for a major U.S. firm to construct it.
…Progress on TAPI will also jump-start many of the other trans-Afghan transport projects-including
roads and railroads-that are at the heart of America's "New Silk Road Strategy" for the Afghan
economy.
The White House should understand that if TAPI isn't built, neither U.S. nor U.N. sanctions
will prevent Pakistan from building a pipeline from Iran." (The
Pipeline That Could Keep the Peace in Afghanistan, Wall Street Journal)
Can you see what's going on? Afghanistan, which is central to Washington's pivot strategy, is
going to be used for military bases, resource extraction and transportation. That's it. There's not
going to be any reconstruction or nation building. The US doesn't do that anymore. This is the stripped-down,
no-frills, 21st century imperialism. "No nation for you, buddy. Just give us your gas and off we'll
go." That's how the system works now. It's alot like Iraq –the biggest hellhole on earth–where "oil
production has surged to its highest level in over 30 years". (according to the Wall Street Journal)
And who's raking in the profits on that oil windfall?
Why the oil giants, of course. (ExxonMobil, BP and Shell) Maybe that's why you never read about
what a terrible mistake the war was. Because for the people who count, it really wasn't a mistake
at all. In fact, it all worked out pretty well.
Of course, the US will support the appearance of democracy in Kabul, but the government won't
have any real power beyond the capital. It never did anyway. (Locals jokingly called Karzai the "mayor
of Kabul") As for the rest of the country; it will be ruled by warlords as it has been since the
invasion in 2001. (Remember the Northern Alliance? Hate to break the news, but they're all bloodthirsty,
misogynist warlords who were reinstated by Rumsfeld and Co.)
This is the new anarchic "Mad Max" template Washington is applying wherever it intervenes. The
intention is to dissolve the nation-state in order to remove any obstacle to resource extraction,
which is why failed states are popping up wherever the US sticks its big nose. It's all by design.
Chaos is the objective. Simply put: It's easier to steal whatever one wants when there's no center
of power to resist.
This is why political leaders in Europe are so worried, because they don't like the idea of sharing
a border with Somalia, which is exactly what Ukraine is going to look like when the US is done with
it.
In Ukraine, the US is using a divide and conquer strategy to pit the EU against trading partner
Moscow. The State Department and CIA helped to topple Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych
and install a US stooge in Kiev who was ordered to cut off the flow of Russian gas to the EU and
lure Putin into a protracted guerilla war in Ukraine. The bigwigs in Washington figured that, with
some provocation, Putin would react the same way he did when Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2006.
But, so far, Putin has resisted the temptation to get involved which is why new puppet president
Petro Poroshenko has gone all "Jackie Chan" and stepped up the provocations by pummeling east Ukraine
mercilessly. It's just a way of goading Putin into sending in the tanks.
But here's the odd part: Washington doesn't have a back-up plan. It's obvious by the way Poroshenko
keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That demonstrates that
there's no Plan B. Either Poroshenko lures Putin across the border and into the conflict, or the
neocon plan falls apart, which it will if they can't demonize Putin as a "dangerous aggressor" who
can't be trusted as a business partner.
So all Putin has to do is sit-tight and he wins, mainly because the EU needs Moscow's gas. If
energy supplies are terminated or drastically reduced, prices will rise, the EU will slide back into
recession, and Washington will take the blame. So Washington has a very small window to draw Putin
into the fray, which is why we should expect another false flag incident on a much larger scale than
the fire in Odessa. Washington is going to have to do something really big and make it look like
it was Moscow's doing. Otherwise, their pivot plan is going to hit a brick wall. Here's a tidbit
readers might have missed in the Sofia News Agency's novinite site:
"Ukraine's Parliament adopted .. a bill under which up to 49% of the country's gas pipeline
network could be sold to foreign investors. This could pave the way for US or EU companies, which
have eyed Ukrainian gas transportation system over the last months.
…Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was earlier quoted as saying that the bill would allow Kiev
to "attract European and American partners to the exploitation and modernization of Ukraine's
gas transportation," in a situation on Ukraine's energy market he described as "super-critical".
Critics of the bill have repeatedly pointed the West has long been interest in Ukraine's pipelines,
with some seeing in the Ukrainian revolution a means to get access to the system. (Ukraine
allowed to sell up to 49% of gas pipeline system, novinite.com)
Boy, you got to hand it to the Obama throng. They really know how to pick their coup-leaders,
don't they? These puppets have only been in office for a couple months and they're already giving
away the farm.
And, such a deal! US corporations will be able to buy up nearly half of a pipeline that moves
60 percent of the gas that flows from Russia to Europe. That's what you call a tollbooth, my friend;
and US companies will be in just the right spot to gouge Moscow for every drop of natural gas that
transits those pipelines. And gouge they will too, you can bet on it.
Is that why the State Department cooked up this loony putsch, so their fatcat, freeloading friends
could rake in more dough?
This also explains why the Obama crowd is trying to torpedo Russia's other big pipeline project
called Southstream. Southstream is a good deal for Europe and Russia. On the one hand, it would greatly
enhance the EU's energy security, and on the other, it will provide needed revenues for Russia so
they can continue to modernize, upgrade their dilapidated infrastructure, and improve standards of
living. But "the proposed pipeline (which) would snake about 2,400 kilometers, or roughly 1,500 miles,
from southern Russia via the Black Sea to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and ultimately Austria. (and)
could handle about 60 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, enough to allow Russian exports
to Europe to largely bypass Ukraine" (New York Times) The proposed pipeline further undermines Washington's
pivot strategy, so Obama, the State Department and powerful US senators (Ron Johnson, John McCain,
and Chris Murphy) are doing everything in their power to torpedo the project.
"What gives Vladimir Putin his power and control is his oil and gas reserves and West and Eastern
Europe's dependence on them," Senator Johnson said in an interview. "We need to break up his stranglehold
on energy supplies. We need to bust up that monopoly." (New York Times)
What a bunch of baloney. Putin doesn't have a monopoly on gas. Russia only provides 30 percent
of the gas the EU uses every year. And Putin isn't blackmailing anyone either. Countries in the EU
can either buy Russian gas or not buy it. It's up to them. No one has a gun to their heads. And Gazprom's
prices are competitive too, sometimes well-below market rates which has been the case for Ukraine
for years, until crackpot politicians started sticking their thumb in Putin's eye at every opportunity;
until they decided that that they didn't have to pay their bills anymore because, well, because Washington
told them not to pay their bills. That's why.
Ukraine is in the mess it's in today for one reason, because they decided to follow Washington's
advice and shoot themselves in both feet. Their leaders thought that was a good idea. So now the
country is broken, penniless and riven by social unrest. Regrettably, there's no cure for stupidity.
The neocon geniuses apparently believe that if they sabotage Southstream and nail down 49 percent
ownership of Ukraine's pipeline infrastructure, then the vast majority of Russian gas will have to
flow through Ukrainian pipelines. They think that this will give them greater control over Moscow.
But there's a glitch to this plan which analyst Jeffrey Mankoff pointed out in an article titled
"Can Ukraine Use Its Gas Pipelines to Threaten Russia?". Here's what he said:
"The biggest problem with this approach is a cut in gas supplies creates real risks for the
European economy… In fact, Kyiv's efforts to siphon off Russian gas destined to Europe to offset
the impact of a Russian cutoff in January 2009 provide a window onto why manipulating gas supplies
is a risky strategy for Ukraine. Moscow responded to the siphoning by halting all gas sales through
Ukraine for a couple of weeks, leaving much of eastern and southern Europe literally out in the
cold. European leaders reacted angrily, blaming both Moscow and Kyiv for the disruption and demanding
that they sort out their problems. While the EU response would likely be somewhat more sympathetic
to Ukraine today, Kyiv's very vulnerability and need for outside financial support makes incurring
European anger by manipulating gas supplies very risky." (Can
Ukraine Use Its Gas Pipelines to Threaten Russia, two paragraphs)
The funny thing about gas is that, when you stop paying the bills, they turn the heat off. Is
that hard to understand?
So, yes, the State Department crystal-gazers and their corporate-racketeer friends might think
they have Putin by the shorthairs by buying up Ukraine's pipelines, but the guy who owns the gas
(Gazprom) is still in the drivers seat. And he's going to do what's in the best interests of himself
and his shareholders. Someone should explain to John Kerry that that's just how capitalism works.
Washington's policy in Ukraine is such a mess, it really makes one wonder about the competence
of the people who come up with these wacko ideas. Did the brainiacs who concocted this plan really
think they'd be able to set up camp between two major trading partners, turn off the gas, reduce
a vital transit country into an Iraq-type basketcase, and start calling the shots for everyone in
the region?
It's crazy.
Europe and Russia are a perfect fit. Europe needs gas to heat its homes and run its machinery.
Russia has gas to sell and needs the money to strengthen its economy. It's a win-win situation. What
Europe and Russia don't need is the United States. In fact, the US is the problem. As long as US
meddling persists, there's going to be social unrest, division, and war. It's that simple. So the
goal should be to undermine Washington's ability to conduct these destabilizing operations and force
US policymakers to mind their own freaking business. That means there should be a concerted effort
to abandon the dollar, ditch US Treasuries, jettison the petrodollar system, and force the US to
become a responsible citizen that complies with International law.
It won't happen overnight, but it will happen, mainly because everyone is sick and tired of all
the troublemaking.
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling
before the U.S. Literally. In June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the
saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling Ukrainian high-rank military
official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and
everything American because of the exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian
political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern, attractive, refined and European.
For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other countries
to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former
citizenships. The reason given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in
a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his
citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian
Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister
for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets. They are just the beginning. They
gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated
Russian - former foreigners do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at
the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save a Ukraine economy that is disappearing
before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius,
knows that the country is in fact bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed
to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared. In other words, the new Ukrainian
budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young
dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine,
coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady
put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a
knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often
happens in Ukraine, for some there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region,
oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily
reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists
in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president
and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties
and even dubious mental state-former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during
street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the
walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord
Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade
in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check
his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding
him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use
this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties,
became notorious last December after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city
of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our eastern borders our brothers are coming
out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza. This
is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei
Levus proposed Russia withdraw all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e.
Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk
said to the journalists that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the
second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against Russia. In the
scandalous video, which
has been viewed 2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen
leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have
been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny. We will help
our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost
to the cash-starved country-after the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia
for incitement of terrorism.
Rada deputy Anton Gerashchenko, who also serves as an advisor to Interior Minister
Arsen Avakov, called US president Barack Obama a 'political midget' or 'dwarf,' a 'shot-down
pilot' and says that Obama is in 'ostrich position.'
While it may be tempting to dismiss these words as the ravings of former warlords who have been
traumatized by war, worrisome shifts of the political mindset have been appearing in the mainstream
of the Ukrainian political establishment.
Anton Geraschenko is the poster boy of the next generation of Ukrainian politicians. He holds
an important position as the advisor to the minister for internal affairs, executing the role of
the Ministry's spokesman. This 36-year-old, well-educated member of the Parliament is a familiar
face on TV, and a darling of the nation's political talk shows. He is well-spoken and gives elaborate
interviews on every political subject to all major Ukrainian newspapers.
Last Friday, while on his trip to the U.S., Mr. Gerashchenko published two controversial posts
on his Facebook page, which could be considered very revealing from the perspective of the changing
mood in the Ukrainian political class toward the United States.
In the first, Mr. Gerashchenko praised a George Soros
article in which the 84-year-old financier is "flying high" like an eagle "over the pettiness
of Obama and other political dwarfs." Mr. Gerashchenko blamed Mr. Obama and other "political dwarfs"
for not realizing that "Putin's actions towards Ukraine are the tectonic shifts in the world history,
much bigger in scale than those that were the results of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001
in New York and Washington." According to Mr. Gerashchenko, George Soros lost all hope that "Barack
Obama will give a chance to the people of the United States to give large-scale economical assistance
to the people of Ukraine, not the miserable hand-outs that have been ten times less than the help
that was given to Iraq or Afghanistan." Mr. Gerashchenko vented his frustration at Mr. Obama for
not giving Ukraine money on the scale of the Marshall Plan or the aid packages that were given to
rebuild Japan after WWII or South Korea after the Korean War.
Prominent Ukrainian lawmaker Anton Gerashchenko's Facebook posts have created a stir, downplaying
Sept. 11 and lobbing insults at President Obama.
According to his post, Mr. Gerashchenko believes that the United States has the obligation to
give to the Ukraine enough money so the people of "occupied Crimea and Donbass in a maximum of three
or five years would dig tunnels and destroy walls and barbed-wire fences, bursting into the territory
of prosperous Free Ukraine … looking for jobs, social assistance, high quality of living – as a counterweight
to the Mordor which the Russian Federation will definitely have become" ('total catastrophe') under
the leadership of "Putler." ("Putler" being 'Putin' and 'Hitler' combined into one word-a popular
new term among Ukraine's new political class.)
The Facebook post by the young Ukrainian politician created an uproar in both Ukraine and Russia-but
Western media preferred to look the other way.
Inspired by his sudden notoriety, Mr. Gerashchenko posted one more rant on the same subject later
on the same day in which he elaborated his ideas even farther.
"Yes, Obama is a political dwarf because it looks like he does not grasp the full scale the consequences
of Putin's capture of Crimea. Because last spring and in the beginning of last summer Obama took
the 'ostrich's position' and preferred not to see the Putin's aggression on the continental part
of the Ukraine. In the U.S.A., Barack Obama for his indecisive actions and lost positions in foreign
politics is called 'lame duck' which is analogous to our expression 'shot-down pilot'. And this name
is well deserved. Barack Obama will never be put in the same row with such great U.S. Presidents
as Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. And even with Bill Clinton …"
In his second post Mr. Gerashchenko went on to say that he was expressing not only his own feelings
but the attitude of a significant part of the Ukrainian population, "which considers Obama's actions
unworthy of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, the one that made Ukraine give up
its nuclear status … Instead of decisive actions, from March on we have seen nothing but declarations
that the White House is 'very concerned,' expresses its concerns' and also 'deeply worried' by the
situation in our country."
By Mr. Gerashchenko's light, President Putin's entire operation in Crimea and Donbass was possible
only because Mr. Putin knew that Mr. Obama would never risk any strong moves to stop him. According
to this star of Ukrainian politics, America gave "only" $1 billion to Ukraine but Mr. Gerashchenko
and the like view this as a pittance. Instead, they want a big slice of the hundreds of billions
that the U.S. has spent on war from 2001-2014 in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
These revealing and troubling posts were deleted within hours on the same day they appeared. Deleted
or not, Mr. Gerashchenko, as well as some significant number of Ukrainian politicians, rant at Mr.
Obama for not doing what George Soros wants him to do - immediately spend $50 billion of U.S. and
E.U. taxpayers' money on building an immediate paradise in Ukraine. George Soros' motives could
be pragmatic, of course. Some evil tongues have been saying that the financier's arguments for the
bailout of a falling Ukrainian economy by the U.S. and European taxpayers have roots not in his love
for freedom around the world. They say that he has a lot of the Ukrainian government's bonds in his
portfolio and in the case of Ukraine's national default he will lose billions.
Ironically, the biggest winner of a significant and prompt infusion of Western money into Ukraine
would be the hated "Putler." Just last week, Russia, strapped for cash itself as the
ruble plummets,
started to spread rumors that it is considering demanding early repayment of its $3 billion 2014
loan to Ukraine because the conditions of the loan demand such a step in the event that the national
debt of Ukraine exceeds 60 percent of its GDP. By now the national debt of Ukraine is around
70 percent of its GDP and the prognosis is that by the end of this year it will be around 90 percent
of its GDP. If any significant amount of money is given to Ukraine, Russia will immediately start
sucking out a big part of it as Ukrainian gas and other energy bills will finally be paid on time
… to Russia.
Mr. Gerashchenko's scandalous FB posts are gone, but the questions raised by them still remain.
Will the Ukrainian political class turn away from the U.S. and the West if the generosity of the
U.S. taxpayers does not match the nebulous expectations of the reformers in the Ukrainian government?
Are the Ukrainians ready to rely mostly on themselves on the long and painful journey of building
their own independent nation? Amid all the reform talk and the importing of attractive foreign "advisors,"
one cannot but wonder if it's nothing more than camouflage for the same old Ukrainian game-to convince
the world to give, as Mr. Gerashchenko's first Facebook post put it, just one more "large-scale economical
assistance."
Patrick Armstrong says: May 27, 2021 at 5:13 pm
© Gazprom / Nord Stream 2 45 Follow RT on 
Originally from: 
