One 77-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the neocon wars, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."
As those of you who support this website know, the deal we made is
that this is your site, and it will remain up as long as you support it.
Many of you have kept our bargain.
Today this website alone has hundreds of thousands of readers, and
millions more from the many websites in the US and abroad that republish
my columns. But only a relatively few readers financially support the
website. The reluctance of Americans to support those who give them
truth is one reason Americans have so little of it.
Columns on the website created at your request are translated into
many languages: Chinese, Russian, Iranian, German, French, Italian,
Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Romanian, and perhaps others of which I am
unaware. Japanese readers tell me that my columns are discussed in
Japan.
Three books have originated from columns I have posted on this
website. One is The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism And Economic
Dissolution Of The West. This book has been pubished in German, English,
Czech, Chinese, and Korean.
Another book is How America Was Lost. This book has been pubished in German, English, French, and is forthcoming in Russian.
My most recent book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order:
Washington’s Perilous War For Hegemony. This book has been pubished in
English and in German.
Recently, former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama used my
articles about the alleged ISIL Paris attack to raise questions in
Japan’s parliament about the official story of the attack.
Also recently, a prominent French commentator, Philippe Grasset,
wrote about my warning that Washington has the planet on the road to
destruction in nuclear war. Grasset agrees about the road that we are
on, but hopes that Washington will collapse from economic and political
dysfunction before Washington can initiate nuclear war.
We must all pray that the French writer’s hopes are on the mark and
that the evil in Washington collapses before it can destroy life on
earth.
In the meantime we must face reality, which can be discouraging.
Yesterday, December 15, US Secretary of State John Kerry met in Moscow
with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and Defense Minister,
Sergey Shoygu, followed by a meeting with President Putin. The day
before the meeting the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Washington of
failure to comply with the Russian-American agreement designed to avoid
conflict between Russia and NATO in Syria.
The combination of Russian diplomacy and the West’s presstitute media
makes it unlikely that we will learn what Lavrov, Shoygu, and Putin
told Kerry. It is likely that Kerry was presented with evidence that
Washington is the culprit that attacked a Syrian military base in the
area of Russian operations, and that the Russian government sees this as
a violation of the accepted rules of engagement, to which Washington
had agreed, and perhaps as an indication that the crazies in Washington
intend war against the Russian/Syrian coalition against ISIS.
In other words, Russia has Washington cold on Washington’s
involvement with, and support of, ISIS and Turkey’s act of war against
Russia.
We will not know if a confrontation occurred, but Kerry came out of
the Moscow meeting talking a different talk: “We see Syria fundamentally
very similarly, we want the same outcomes.” “The US stands ready to
work with Russia.” “Russia and the United States agree that you can’t
defeat Daesh (ISIL) without also deescalating the fight in Syria.” “Syrians will be making decisions on the future of Syria.” “We don’t
seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy.”
From the Russian side, things don’t sound as well. Today, according
to Reuters, Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova said
that serious differences remain between Russia and the US. Still, it
is not completely clear that the Russian government and media understand
that behind the evil of ISIL is the greater evil of Washington. How
many more times will Russia be burned as a result of trusting
Washington?
Hopefully, the meeting in Moscow helped Kerry understand that the
Obama regime’s neoconservative policies have created a momentum toward
war that needs to be broken. As the Syrian drama unfolds, the Russian
government will learn whether Kerry’s words are for real or just more of
Washington’s dissembling.
One point we’ve been particularly keen on driving home since the
beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin’s move to
step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin’s open
“invitation” to Washington with regard to joining forces in Russian airstrikes in Syria effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.
That is, it simply wasn’t possible for the US to explain why the
Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i)
the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than
ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don’t necessarily want
to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.
Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No
amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the
Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public
that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving
jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in
Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to
scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.
Well, it hasn’t worked.
With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the
kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to
answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington’s effort to oust Assad both “counterproductive” and “illegal.” In
the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming
the very same terrorists who The White House insists are “our sworn
enemy” and all but tells the American public that the government is
lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.” https://youtu.be/IHkher6ceaA
May 12, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - Last Saturday, to the Red Army and the erection of the Soviet
flag atop the Reichstag in Berlin. There were a few unusual aspects to this
parade, which I would like to point out, because they conflict with the
western official propaganda narrative. First, it wasn't just Russian troops
that marched in the parade: the troops of 10 other nations took part in it,
including the Chinese honor guard and a contingent of Grenadiers from India.
Dignitaries from these nations were present in the stands, and the Chinese
President Xi Jinping and his wife were seated next to President Vladimir
Putin, who, in his speech at the start of the parade, warned against
attempts to create a unipolar world—sharp words aimed squarely at the United
States and its western allies. Second, a look at the military hardware that
rolled through Red Square or flew over it would indicate that, short of an
outright nuclear mutual self-annihilation, there isn't much that the US
military could throw at Russia that Russia couldn't neutralize.
It would appear that American attempts to isolate Russia have resulted in
the exact opposite: if 10 nations, among them the world's largest economy,
comprising some 3 billion people, are willing to set aside their differences
and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Russians to counter American
attempts at global dominance, then clearly the American plan isn't going to
work at all. Western media focused on the fact that western leaders declined
to attend the celebration, either in a fit of pique or because so ordered by
the Obama administration, but this only highlights their combined
irrelevance, be it in defeating Hitler, or in commemorating his defeat 70
years later. Nevertheless, in his speech Putin specifically thanked the
French, the British and the Americans for their contribution to the war
effort. I am sorry that he left out the Belgians, who had been so helpful at
Dunkirk.
One small detail about the parade is nevertheless stunning: Defense Minister
Sergei Shoigu, a Tuvan Buddhist and one of the most respected Russian
leaders, who presided over the Emergencies Ministry prior to becoming the
Defense Minister, did something none of his predecessors ever did: at the
beginning of the ceremony, he made the sign of the cross, in the Russian
Orthodox manner. This simple gesture transformed the parade from a display
of military pomp to a sacred ritual. Then followed the slow march with two
flags side by side: the Russian flag, and the Soviet flag that flew on top
of the Reichstag in Berlin on Victory Day 70 years ago. The march was
accompanied by a popular World War II song? Its title? “The Sacred War.” The
message is clear: the Russian military, and the Russian people, have put
themselves in God's hands, to do God's work, to once again sacrifice
themselves to save the world from the ravages of an evil empire.
If you try to dismiss any of this as Russian state propaganda, then here is
something else you should be aware of. Did you hear of the spontaneously
organized procession in which, after the official parade, half a million
people marched through Moscow with portraits of their relatives who died in
World War II? The event was called “The Eternal Regiment” (Бессмертный полк). Western press
either panned it or billed it as an attempt by Putin to whip up anti-western
sentiment. Now that sort of “press coverage,” my fellow space travelers, is
pure propaganda! No, it was an enthusiastic, spontaneous outpouring of
genuine public sentiment. If you think about it just a tiny bit, nothing on
this scale could be contrived artificially, and the thought that millions of
people would prostitute their dead for propaganda purposes is, frankly, both
cynical and insulting.
Instead of collapsing quietly, the US has
decided to pick a fight with Russia. It appears to have already lost the
fight, but a question remains: How many more countries will the US manage to
destroy before the reality of its inevitable defeat and disintegration
finally catches up with it?
As Putin said last summer when speaking at the Seliger youth forum, “I get
the feeling that no matter what the Americans touch, they end up with Libya
or Iraq.” Indeed, the Americans have been on a tear, destroying one country
after another. Iraq has been dismembered, Libya is a no-go zone, Syria is a
humanitarian disaster, Egypt is a military dictatorship executing a program
of mass imprisonment. The latest fiasco is Yemen, where the pro-American
government was recently overthrown, and the American nationals who found
themselves trapped there had to wait for the Russians and the Chinese to
extract them and send them home. But it was the previous American foreign
policy fiasco, in the Ukraine, which prompted the Russians, along with the
Chinese, to signal that the US has taken a step too far, and that all
further steps will result in automatic escalation.
The Russian plan, along with China, India, and much of the rest of the
world, is to prepare for war with the US, but to do everything possible to
avoid it. Time is on their side, because with each passing day they become
stronger while America grows weaker. But while this process runs its course,
America might “touch” a few more countries, turning them into a Libya or an
Iraq. Is Greece next on the list? What about throwing under the bus the
Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), which are now NATO members
(i.e., sacrificial lambs)? Estonia is a short drive from Russia's
second-largest city, St. Petersburg, it has a large Russian population, it
has a majority-Russian capital city, and it has a rabidly anti-Russian
government. Of those four facts, just one is incongruous. Is it being set up
to self-destruct? Some Central Asian republics, in Russia's ticklish
underbelly, might be ripe for being “touched” too.
There is no question that the Americans will continue to try to create
mischief around the world, “touching” vulnerable, exploitable countries, for
as long as they can. But there is another question that deserves to be
asked: Do the Americans “touch” themselves? Because if they do, then the
next candidate for extreme makeover into a bombed-out wasteland might be the
United States itself. Let's consider this option.
As the events in Ferguson, and more recently in Baltimore, have indicated,
the tensions between African-Americans and the police have escalated to a
point where explosions become likely. The American “war on drugs” has been
essentially a war on young black (and Latino) men; about a third of young
blacks are behind bars. They also run a high risk of being shot by the
police. To be fair, the police also run a high risk of getting shot by young
black males, causing them to be jumpy and to overreact. Given the gradually
collapsing economy—close to 100 million working-age Americans are unemployed
(“outside the labor force,” if you wish to split hairs)—it would seem that
for an ever-increasing chunk of the population cooperating with the
authorities is no longer a useful strategy: you get locked up or killed
anyway, but you get none of the temporary benefits that come from ignoring
the law.
There is an interesting asymmetry in the American media's ability to block
out information about civil unrest and insurgency: if it is happening
overseas, then news of it can be carefully calibrated or suppressed
outright. (Did American television tell you about the recent resumption of
shelling of civilian districts by the Ukrainian military? Of course not!)
This is possible because Americans are notoriously narcissistic and largely
indifferent to the rest of the world, of which most of them know little, and
what they think they know is often wrong. But if the unrest is within the US
itself, then the various media outlets find themselves competing against
each other in who can sensationalize it better, in order to get more
viewership, and more advertising revenue. The mainstream media in the US is
tightly controlled by a handful of large conglomerates, making it one big
monopoly on information, but at the level of selling advertising market
principles still prevail.
Thus there is the potential for a positive feedback loop: more civil unrest
generates more sensationalized news coverage, which in turn amplifies the
civil unrest, which further sensationalizes the news coverage. And there is
a second positive feedback loop as well: the more civil unrest there is, the
more the police overreact in trying to control the situation, thereby
generating more rage, amplifying the civil unrest. These two positive
feedback loops can continue to run out of control for a while, but the end
result, in all such recent incidents, is the same: the introduction of
National Guard troops and the imposition of curfew and martial law.
The swift introduction of the military might seem a bit odd, considering
that most police departments, even small-town ones, have been heavily
militarized in recent years, and even the security people at some school
districts now have military vehicles and machine guns. But the progression
is a natural one. On the one hand, when people who habitually resort to
brute force find that it isn't working, they naturally assume that this is
because they aren't using enough of it. On the other hand, if the criminal
justice system is already a travesty and a shambles, then why not just cut
through the red tape and impose martial law?
There is an awful lot of weapons of all sorts in the US already, and more
will come in all the time as the US is forced to close overseas military
bases due to lack of funds. And they will probably get used, for the same
reason and in the same fashion that red bricks came to be used in Boston.
You see, plenty of red bricks kept coming into Boston aboard British ships,
where they were used as ballast for the return trip. This created the
impetus to do something with them. But putting up brick buildings is a
difficult, demanding process, especially if laborers are always drunk. And
so the solution was to use the bricks to pave sidewalks—something one can do
on one's hands and knees. Similarly with the military hardware sloshing back
into the US from abroad. It will be used, because it's there; and it will be
used in the stupidest way possible: shooting at one's own people.
But bad things happen to militaries when they are ordered to shoot at their
own people. It is one thing to shoot at “towel-heads” in a far-away land; it
is quite another to be ordered shoot at somebody who could be your own
brother down the street from where you grew up. Such orders result in
fragging (shooting your own officers), in refusal to follow orders, and in
attempts to stand up for the other side.
And that's where things get interesting. Because, you see, if you shoot at,
imprison, and otherwise abuse a defenseless civilian population long enough,
what you get in response is an armed insurgency. The place insurgencies are
easiest to organize is in prison. For instance, ISIS, or the Islamic
Caliphate, was masterminded by people who had previously worked for Saddam
Hussein, while they were imprisoned by the Americans. They took this
opportunity to work out an efficient organizational structure and, upon
release, found each other and got down to work. Having a third of young
American blacks locked up gives them all the opportunity they need to
organize an effective insurgency.
To be effective, an insurgency needs lots of weapons. Here, again, there is
a procedure for acquiring military technology that has become almost
routine. What weapons are being used by ISIS? Why, of course, American ones,
which the Americans provided to the regime in Baghdad, and which ISIS took
as trophies when the Iraqi army refused to fight and ran away. And what
weapons are being used by the Houthi rebels in Yemen? Why, of course, the
American ones, which the Americans provided to the now overthrown
pro-American regime there. And what are some of the weapons being used by
the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad? Why, of course, American ones, sold to
them by the Ukrainian government, which got them from the Americans. There
is a pattern here: it seems that whenever Americans arm, train and equip an
army, that army stands a really big chance of simply melting away, with the
weapons falling into the hands of those who want to use them against
American interests. It is hard to see why this same pattern wouldn't hold
once the US places much of itself under military occupation.
And that's where things get really interesting: a well-armed, well-organized
insurgency composed of thoroughly radicalized, outraged people who have
absolutely nothing to lose and are fighting for their home turf and their
families squaring off against a demoralized, defeated US military that has
just failed spectacularly in every country it “touched.”
They say that “You can't fight city hall.” But what if you have a tank
battalion that can control four intersections all around city hall, turrets
pointed in all directions, firing at anything that moves? And what if you
have enough infantry to go around and ring the doorbells of all the key city
hall bureaucrats? Wouldn't that change one's odds of victory in fighting
city hall?
The US might get to “touch” a few more countries before this scenario
unfolds, but it seems likely that (excepting the possibility of all-out war)
eventually America will “touch” itself, and then all those countries whose
troops marched through Red Square last Saturday won't have America to kick
around any more.
Dmitry Orlov is a
Russian-American engineer and a writer on subjects related to "potential
economic, ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States,"
something he has called “permanent crisis”.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com
Whatever Russia does, doubt does not even enter the equation. The answer is sanctions. So here we go again. The US Treasury-EU latest sanction package targets Russian banking, the energy industry and the defense industry. The sanctions are mean. The sanctions are nasty. And there’s no euphemism to describe them; they amount to a declaration of economic war. Sberbank, Russia’s largest won’t be able to access Western capital for long-term funding, including every kind of borrowing over 30 days. And the current 90-day lending bans affecting six other large Russian banks – a previous sanctions package - will also be reduced to 30 days. On the energy front, what the US-EU want is to shut down new Russian exploration projects in Siberia and the Arctic, barring Western Big Oil from selling equipment and technology to offshore, deepwater or shale gas projects. This means Exxon and Shell, for instance, are frozen in their operations with five top Russian oil/gas/pipeline companies: Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz, and Rosneft. No one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the usual, unknown “senior US officials” – who are now spinning the latest sanction package is to force Moscow to “respect international law and state sovereignty.” A cursory examination of the historical record allows this paragraph to be accompanied by roaring laughter. And then there’s the US Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, who insists the package will further “isolate” Russia from the global financial system.
The package was also described by Western corporate media as capable of “unnerving already jittery financial markets.” Well, they were not exactly “unnerved.” In Russia, the stocks of companies on the sanctions list went up. In the US, energy stocks went down. Short translation; the “unnerved” markets interpreted the latest package as yet another own goal by Washington and Brussels.
Splitting up Eurasia As for Russia’s “isolation”, companies are barred from, in Washington-Wall Street newspeak, “important dollar-denominated funding sources.” Or, euphemistically, “Western capital.” This means the US dollar and the euro. Anyone following superimposed moves towards a multipolar world knows Russia does not need more US dollars and euro. Moscow might use both to cross-purchase goods and services in the US and the EU. Yet these goods and services may be bought elsewhere around the world. For that, you don’t need “Western capital” – as Moscow is fast advancing the use of national currencies with other trade partners. The Atlanticist gang assumes Moscow needs goods and services from the US and the EU much more than the other way around. That’s a fallacy. Russia can sell its abundant energy resources in any currency apart from US dollars and euro. Russia can buy all the clothing it needs from Asia and South America. On the electronics and high-tech front, most of it is made in China anyway. Crucially, on the energy front, it would be no less than thrilling to watch the EU – which still does not even have a common energy policy - trying to come up with alternative suppliers. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Qatar, for a number of complex reasons – ranging from insufficient gas to be committed, to an absence of pipelines – are out of the picture. The Obama administration, for its part, simply won’t allow the EU to start importing energy from Iran like, virtually, tomorrow. Even with a now quite wobbly nuclear deal reached before the end of 2014 - presumably opening the way to an end to sanctions. The “irrational” markets see what’s really goin’ on; they are not “irrational” but moved by profit derived from realpolitik. And all this while Moscow has not even counterpunched. And that could be quite lethal – targeting EU exporters to Russia and even energy supplies from Russia. Then the EU will retaliate. And Russia will counter-counterpunch. That’s exactly what Washington wants: a trade/economic war ravaging and splitting up Eurasia.
About that $20 trillion…
On the political front, Ukraine and EU had initially agreed to “postpone the EU Association Agreement until the end of 2016.” You can’t make this stuff up; that’s exactly what Yanukovich did last November, as he knew Kiev could not allow itself to lose most of its certified trading with Russia in favor of a vague “free trade” with the EU. This agreement to “postpone” the agreement was in fact overseen by astonishing mediocrity and outgoing European Commission (EC) President Jose Manuel Barroso.
But then the European Parliament, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, hurried up to ratify Ukraine’s Association Agreement as President Petro Poroshenko simultaneously submitted it to the Ukrainian Parliament. This does not mean the agreement goes immediately into effect. Economic “integration” with the EU – a euphemism for a one-way invasion of Ukraine by EU products - will start only in January 2016. And there’s no way a crisis-hit EU will incorporate Ukraine anytime soon – or ever.
On Thursday, Poroshenko meets his master, US President Barack Obama, and addresses a joint session of the US Congress. Expect “evil empire” rhetoric to reach interstellar levels.
But it’s on Saturday in Berlin that the real thing starts unfolding; energy negotiations between Russia, the EU and Ukraine. Needless to say, Moscow holds all the key cards.
Washington’s humongous debt is reaching almost $20 trillion – and counting. With a monster crisis approaching like a tsunami from hell, no wonder Washington had to resort to the perfect diversionary tactic; the return of the “evil empire.” It’s the Marvel Comics school of politics all over again.
Russia has a huge surplus of foreign capital - and is able to weather the storm. Germany – the EU’s top economy – on the other hand, is already suffering. Growth is already at a negative 0.2%. This is the way the hysterical sanction wind is blowing – further derailing EU economies. And no one is betting the EU will have the balls to stand up to Washington. Not in vassal-infested Brussels.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
John Kerry: War and Sanctions for Russia over Ukraine (image by YouTube)
Let's cut to the chase -- short and sweet.
1. The Obama administration's "strategic" gambit to subcontract the
State Department's "Khaganate of Nulands" to extricate Ukraine from the
Russian sphere of influence -- and ultimately annex it to NATO -- by
instrumentalizing a coalition of willing neo-nazis and fascists with a
central bank veneer (prime minister "Yats"), is in utter shambles.
2. Moscow's counterpunch was to prevent in Crimea -- as intercepted by
Russian intelligence -- a planned replay of the putsch in Kiev. The
referendum in Crimea -- 85% of turnout, roughly 93% voting for
re-joining Russia, according to exit polls -- is a done deal, as much as
the oh-so-democratic European Union (EU) keeps threatening to punish
people in Crimea for exercising their basic democratic rights. (By the
way, when the US got Kosovo to secede from Serbia, Serbians were offered
no referendum).
3. The main rationale for the whole US "strategic" advance -- to
have their proxies, the regime changers in Kiev, cancel the agreement
for the Russian naval base in Sevastopol -- is up in smoke. Moscow
remains present in the Black Sea, and with full access to the Eastern
Mediterranean.
And the rest is blah blah blah.
All aboard the Finland station
The US State Department
has practically agreed to a federal, and in fact, Finlandized Ukraine[1]
which, by the way, is the solution being proposed by Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov right from the start, as this Russian white paper attests.
US Secretary of State John Kerry -- as when Moscow saved the "red line"
Obama administration from bombing Syria -- will go on overdrive to
steal all the credit from the Russians. US corporate media will duly buy
it, but not independents such as Moon of Alabama.[2]
This -- sensible -- road map implies, among other crucial points;
strong autonomous regions; Russian reinstated as an official language,
alongside Ukrainian; and most of all political/military neutrality, that
is, Finlandization. To get there will be the mission of a support group
-- once again, proposed by Moscow from the start -- with the US, EU and
Russia as members.
All that finally sanctified by a UN Security Council resolution (true,
it could go spectacularly wrong, and most of all sabotaged by the
"West.") And all that, as well, without Moscow having to officially
recognize the regime changers in Kiev. In a nutshell; Moscow called
Washington's bluff -- and won.
So after all that barrage of ominous threats including everyone from
Obama, Kerry and assorted neo-con bomb-firsters down to minions such as
Cameron, Hague and Fabius, the meat of the matter is that the Obama
administration concluded it would not risk a nuclear war with Russia for
the Khaganate of Nulands -- especially after Moscow made it known,
discreetly, it would create the conditions for eastern and southern
Ukraine to also secede.
Sweden, for instance, proposed an arms embargo on sales to Moscow.
Paris took a quick glance at its industrial-military complex interests
and immediately said no. Only the brain dead entertain the notion Paris
and Berlin are willing to jeopardize their trade relations with Russia.
As well as the notion that Beijing would ever join sanctions against
fellow Group of 20, BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization member
Russia just because what they perceive as an increasingly irrational --
and dangerous -- Washington said so.
And yet, Western hysteria of course will persist unabated. In the US,
where it matters, the meme of the subsequent days will be, inevitably,
who lost Syria and who lost Ukraine.
Here's the record. Dubya launched two wars. He (miserably) lost both.
Obama attempted to launch two wars (Syria and Ukraine). He -- lucky for
him -- lost both even at the "attempt" stage. Assorted neo-cons and the
whole exceptionalist brigade are predictably livid. Expect the
editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to go ballistic. And expect US
ambassador to the UN Samantha "R2P" Power to wish she were Sinead
O'Connor singing Nothing Compares to You.
It's a gas, gas, gas, not!
The Kiev regime-changers are
already announcing their intentions, as in Right Sector capo and
confirmed neo-nazi Dmytro Yarosh saying, "... Russia makes money sending
its oil through our pipelines to the West. We will destroy these
pipelines and deprive our enemy of its source of income."
That's a brilliant strategy straight from the Khaganate of Nulands
playbook. So homes and the whole industrial base in Ukraine should be
out of (cheap, discounted) gas, not to mention great swathes of Germany,
so the neo-nazis can claim "victory." With friends like these...
Gazprom's executives are not exactly raising an eyebrow. Russia is
already shipping roughly half of its gas to Europe, bypassing Ukraine,
and after South Stream is completed in 2015, that percentage will
increase (EU "sanctions" against South Stream are just empty rhetoric.)
The regime changers will be trying to wreak havoc in other fronts as
well. The new Ukrainian parliament has voted to assemble a 60,000-strong
National Guard crammed with "activists." Guess who will be in charge;
the new security chief, Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the
neo-nazi Social-National Party. And his deputy happens to be none other
than Yarosh, the leader of the paramilitary Right Sector. Feel free to
add your own custom-made Hitlerian metaphors -- even as the risk
persists of Ukraine breaking apart. Which is not necessarily a bad deal.
Let the "democratic" EU pay Ukraine's gas bills.
Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent
for Asia Times. His regular column, "The Roving Eye," is widely read. He
is an analyst for the online news channel Real News, the roving
correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and
TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows
ranging from the US to East Asia. He argues that the world has become
fragmented into "stans" -- we are now living an intestinal war, an
undeclared global civil war. He has published three books on
geopolitics, including the spectacularly-titled "Globalistan: How the
Globalised World Is Dissolving Into Liquid War".
His latest book is "Obama Does Globalistan."
US Abandoned International Law, Follows The Law Of The Jungle
Willy Wimmer
Willy Wimmer was state secretary at the German Defense Ministry and
vice president of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE). This is what this well-informed member of the European
Establishment told RT: http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-west-international-law-966/ The translation is not very good, but the message comes through.
Western powers are following an agenda to partition the map of the
European region under which a portion of the Black Sea territory will be
under US domination, former vice president of the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly, Willy Wimmer, told RT.
The veteran German politician, who served as a Defense Ministry state
secretary, reminded that no Western government is talking about the
extreme right element of the government in Kiev.
RT: More than a decade ago, you told your country’s leadership of a
disturbing connection between NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia and plans for
the alliance’s expansion. We have some extracts from the letter you
wrote to then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder after a conference organized
by the US State Department. You raised concerns over some of the
conclusions reached, such as: “It would be good, during NATO’s current
enlargement, to restore the territorial situation in the area between
the Baltic Sea and Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) such as existed during
the Roman Empire…” Do you think these plans still exist? And, if so,
could the Ukrainian crisis be playing a role?
Willy Wimmer: I think what I thought of Gerhard Schröder is similar
to Angela Merkel in May 2000 – is exactly what is going on in these
days. During the conference in Bratislava which was high ranking with
state presidents, prime ministers, defense, and foreign ministers, and
organized by the top leadership of the US State Department, they made a
proposal to draw a line between Riga on the Baltic Sea, Odessa on the
Black Sea, and Diyarbakir. All the territories west of this line should
be under US domination, and the territories east of this line – they
might be the Russian Federation or somebody else. That was the proposal –
and when we see developments since then, I think it’s like a schedule
which had been presented to the conference participants; everything
happens exactly as it was on the timetable in Bratislava.
RT: Let’s take a look at another passage from your letter: “In all
processes, peoples’ rights to self-determination should be favored over
all other provisions or rules of international law.” That seemed to be
agreed upon by high-profile Western diplomats taking part in that
conference – why such staunch opposition to Crimea holding a similar
referendum on its status now?
WW: Because they didn’t make it. What we saw since the middle of the
‘90s – I think caused all these problems we have here today. Until the
mid-90s, all major powers agreed in international law, and in
cooperation. But in the middle of the 90s, the US changed habits,
changed attitudes. They no longer pursed international law, they
proposed the law of the jungle. At the beginning was the war against
Yugoslavia, and since then, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, everything
is going because of these developments, and they no longer stick to
international law and to cooperation. They make use of military might
and this creates the trouble and the fear we have in Europe.
RT: Some argue that a referendum cannot be considered legitimate if it’s
not recognized by the interim authorities in Kiev. Let me ask you this –
is the current government in Ukraine legitimate?
WW: I think it was a putsch, a coup d’état, what happened in Kiev.
And what we heard in the news before – OSCE and other international
bodies are doing what they can to create a legal framework for a
government which is not legal at all.
The problem with this government is that they are not only not legal,
they are working together with people who will be forbidden sooner or
later by the Supreme Court here in Germany: right wing people, Nazis,
fascists. It is interesting and outstanding that no western government
is talking about these people who already created – once last century –
disaster, terror, and wars in Europe, and now these people come back…
RT: Why is the legality then not being questioned and indeed the nationalist, the extremist element within the Kiev government?
WW: Because these new Nazis are our ‘good Nazis’ now and this is disastrous for all of Europe.
RT: Are they a real threat? Because some people are exaggerating this
nationalist element within the Kiev government. Russia is really
concerned and indeed those people in Crimea and the east of the country.
Do they have fears that are justified?
WW: It’s not only the people in Ukraine or Crimea or in Russia; the
fear is in Dusseldorf, Cologne, Paris,and London as well. We did not
create this modern Europe to have these people back again.
RT: So what do you think the next step should be in this stalemate?
The West is calling on Russia to revoke its support for the referendum
in Crimea – do you believe that’s what Moscow should do?
WW: I live here in Germany and next Thursday, the federal Chancellor
Dr. Merkel will give a speech to the Bundestag about Ukraine and I
expect – I’m not referring to Crimea or to Moscow or to Kiev, I expect
here in Berlin – that she will address this Nazi question, that she will
address the massacre on Maidan Square. If this happened in China, there
would be an uproar in Western countries. Everybody is quiet here. Why
doesn’t the Council of Europe take into consideration to make an inquiry
as well as the OSCE? I expect Merkel to address these issues. And we
had a major party conference of our Bavarian brothers some days ago and
the main speaker addressed the audience with an appeal not to forget the
friendship with the Russian people.
