The Geopolitical Dimensions of the Coup in Ukraine

“When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world,” wrote former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his recently published memoirs. Gates was referring to the then-Secretary of Defense, and later US Vice President, Dick Cheney.

The statement sheds light on the geopolitical dimensions of the recent putsch in Ukraine. What is at stake is not so much domestic issues—and not at all the fight against corruption and democracy—but rather an international struggle for power and influence that stretches back a quarter of a century.

The Financial Times places the recent events in Ukraine in the same light. In an editorial on February 23, it wrote: “For a quarter of a century this huge territory perched precariously between the EU and Russia has been the object of a geopolitical contest between the Kremlin and the west.” In 2008, a clumsy attempt by President George W. Bush failed to draw the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, “But the Maidan revolution now offers a second chance for all parties to reconsider the status of Ukraine on the fault line of Europe.”

< snip >

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the capitalist market created conditions for the social wealth created by generations of workers to be plundered by a handful of oligarchs and international finance. The social gains made in the field of education, health care, culture and infrastructure were smashed and left to decline.

This was not enough, however, for the US and the major European powers. They were intent on ensuring that Russia could never again threaten their global hegemony, as is made clear in the above cited statement of Dick Cheney.

By 2009 the US-dominated NATO military alliance had absorbed into its ranks almost all of the East European countries that had once belonged to the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. But attempts to incorporate former Soviet republics into NATO failed—with the exception of the three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—due to resistance from Moscow. Ukraine, with its 46 million inhabitants and its strategic location situated between Russia, Europe, the Black Sea and the Caucasus, invariably was at the centre of these attempts.

As far back as 1997, former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that without Ukraine, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild its influence on the territory of the former Soviet Union was doomed to fail. The core thesis of his book The Grand Chessboard is that America’s capacity to exercise global primacy depends on whether America can prevent the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic power on the Eurasian landmass.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitical-dimensions-of-the-coup-in-ukraine-a-struggle-for-power-and-influence/5371219

 

This would make more sense to you if you read The Grand Chess Board Rev.

An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people. (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

What we're seeing happen now was planned long ago. I understand this isn't what Fox News and CNN are telling you but then they aren't there to connect all the dots and help you make sense of what's actually going on, they're just there to help you form an opinion based on the most recent corporate propaganda.

None of them are going to suggest you read The Grand Chess Board or look back in history. Did you catch this . . . The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

And it seems we have been following this "comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy" through several American administrations now including Obama's.

But what are the obvious in your face facts of recent history compared to the latest corporate propaganda?

 

Ukraine Imposes Capital Controls, Limits Foreign Currency Withdrawals

Yesterday we reported that as part of the Ukrainian central bank's plan to bailout the nation's largely insolvent private banks, it would provide any needed funding but only "if they will remain under open control of the National Bank of Ukraine." And since the new CB head Stepan Kubiv's allegiance to Europe were already well-known, this was merely a quick and efficient way of providing Europe with all the banking details including asset holdings of the local population. Today, the annexation of the country's banking system by a "benevolent" Europe is complete.

< snip >

To summarize: first banks abdicate their control to a pro-European central bank, and now the citizens face their first (of many) capital controls which incidentally will simply aggravate the fund outflow situation even more, leading to an even faster drop in foreign reserves.

Finally comes the inflation. Wait until the people start rioting - think Egypt - when the economy collapses and a loaf of bread costs its wheelbarrow equight equivalent in Hryvnias. Just how fast will the countercoup in Ukraine take place then? Recall, in Egypt it was just over a year and a half...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-28/ukraine-imposes-capital-controls-limits-foreign-currency-withdrawals

Remember the first thing the "rebels" did in Libya, even before taking the capitol?

Why, they created a central bank and oil company of course!

The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. What a skilled bunch of rebels - they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever. If only the rest of us were so versatile! But isn't forming a central bank something that could be done after the civil war is over? According to Bloomberg, the Transitional National Council has "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."

Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/11/03/958264/wow-that-was-fast-libya...

http://www.dailypaul.com/160647/new-central-bank-of-libya

And here's the search I used to find this little bit of history.

https://www.google.com/#q=libyan+rebels+create+central+bank+oil+company

 

Ukraine: A Deep State Analysis

Some preliminary thoughts on a complex situation.

It doesn't take any special insight into the situation in Ukraine to conclude that no one narrative illuminates all the dynamics. Various contesting Grand Narratives have emerged in the media--neofascist coup, rampant corruption, east versus west, to name a few--but these only describe a few of the regional fault lines and complexities.

At my request, correspondent A.C. offered a preliminary Deep State analysis of the situation. A.C.'s perspective is informed by decades of experience in Eastern Europe, Russia and the Baltic region.

I recently discussed the Deep State in The Dollar and the Deep State, and offered this definition by Mike Lofgren:

The term “Deep State” was coined in Turkey and is said to be a system composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and organized crime.

The Deep State is a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the nation without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.

I describe the U.S. Deep State as the National Security State which enables a vast Imperial structure that incorporates hard and soft power--military, diplomatic, intelligence, finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education--in a system of global domination and influence.

One key feature of the Deep State everywhere is that it makes decisions behind closed doors and the surface government simply ratifies and implements the decisions. I have covered various aspects of geopolitics and the Deep State for years, for example:

The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil (October 19, 2010)

The Banality of Evil and Imperial Over-Reach (December 14, 2010)

Speaking of Iraq--let's start with the obvious Deep State agenda in Ukraine: energy. Nations with a strategic "vital interest" in the region's energy mix include Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Germany (and the rest of the Europen Union, which currently depends on natural gas piped through Ukraine from Russia), Romania and (of course) the United States, which maintains a strategic interest in every square meter of the planet (including the seas and ice caps).

It's not much of a stretch to say that Russia's fiscal health and geopolitical influence are based on hydrocarbons--specifically gas and oil delivered to other nations for cash and/or political favors.

The maturation of fracking technologies have led to the exploration of western Ukraine, Poland and Romania by super-major oil companies such as Chevron: Where We Operate - Chevron

Read More At : http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/Ukraine2-14.html


The Geopolitical History of Ukraine

The USSR no longer existed, and the oil and gas reserves of Russia would now be available to Corporate America – to say nothing of that vulnerable ‘breadbasket’ – Ukraine!

In 1994, the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC), was formed, under Zbigniew Brzezinski with such prestigiously notorious members as Henry Kissinger, General Gavin (ex-head of NATO), Frank Carlucci, George Soros et al. It would thenceforth hold meetings alternately in the US and Ukraine.

On the Ukrainian side, membership included President Leonid Kravchuk (see above), and his advisor, professor Bohdan Hawrylyshyn (whose nephew, Olech Hawrylyshyn, was on the Soros Foundation payroll while deputy minister of finance!).

Bohdan not only chaired the AUAC’s Ukrainian side – but also the influential International Center for Policy studies (ICPS). On May 2nd and 3rd of 1997, this ICPS organised a meeting of 15 top Ukrainian officials to discuss economic policy, among whom was one Victor Yuschenko, chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine. He was to serve as Prime Minister from 1999 until his removal two years later – only to become a central figure in the 2004 election debacle (see below).

In the meantime, Kravchuk had been replaced as president in the 1994 election by Leonid Kuchma, who during his candidature had visited Soros in the US. Moreover, the Soros foundation would supply $363,100 to support the independent television stations’ coverage of this election – all of it used within 3 months!. Kuchma would later send 1650 Ukrainian troops as allies to the Americans after the latter’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. The above can only be described as a web of intrigue.

It was now self-evident that the AUAC would do all in their power to ensure the election of Yuschenko in 2004. A brief look at the glaring similarities between the events in Belgrade in 2000, in Tblisi, Georgia in 2003, and those in the recent election in Kiev is all that is needed to confirm this:

Read More At: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitical-history-of-ukraine/5371491

 

Gazprom says disruptions of gas supplies to Europe possible

Russia's gas giant says simmering political tensions in Ukraine, that are aggravated by inadequate economic conditions, may cause disruptions of gas supplies to Europe.

MOSCOW, March 03. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia’s gas giant Gazprom said on Monday it did not rule out possible disruptions of gas supplies to Europe over Ukraine’s political situation.

“Simmering political tensions in Ukraine, that are aggravated by inadequate economic conditions, may cause disruptions of gas supplies to Europe,” the monopoly said in its materials, adding that it would do its utmost to reduce export risks. “We will further invest into other export-oriented projects such as South Stream and will enhance our LNG (liquefied natural gas) production and export capacity. We also increase our access to underground gas storage facilities in Europe.”

Andrei Kruglov, Gazprom’s chief financial officer, said at the moment Russia had been supplying gas to Ukraine according to schedule, although the latter failed to fulfil its debt obligations.

http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/721798

Gazprom’s announcement follows vehement threats made by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to “isolate Russia economically,” crash the rouble and impose other crippling sanctions.

Behind the alarming military maneuvers that have raised tensions since the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government, a more complex deep state agenda is being played out in the context of energy.

The recent improvement in fracking technologies has opened up eastern Europe to major oil companies such as Chevron, who have been very active in western Ukraine, Poland and Romania over the last two years, signing agreements to commence drilling operations in these countries “The development of gas fields in these regions poses a direct competitive threat to the near-monopoly currently held by the Russian national oil company, Gazprom,” writes Charles Hugh Smith. “This sets up a scramble for energy, where western Ukraine, Poland, Romania and the EU have powerful financial incentives to develop energy sources outside of Russian control, while Russia has an incentive to secure energy resources and assets in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.”

Gazprom (ie Moscow) fears that US-based multinational gas and oil firms will displace their monopoly by drilling new wells and selling to Germany and other Gazprom customers at cheaper prices.

“The extent to which US-based multinational oil and gas firms are directly displacing Russian enterprises in supplying the EU is remarkable. Chevron and Exxon are very prominent in the emerging offshore and shale plays,” writes Smith’s source.

“I think the imminent threat of Ukrainian shale gas development is a factor in forcing Putin’s hand over the EU trade deal. Putin’s regional Great Power ambitions are backed entirely by strong arm hydrocarbon diplomacy. Putin’s domestic political position equally rests on stable and elevated hydrocarbon prices to fund the state budget.”

While there are undoubtedly a number of different military objectives being pursued on both sides of the conflict, an important facet that has been largely ignored is the west’s bid to eviscerate Russia’s ability to set natural gas prices and in turn reduce NATO’s dependence on Gazprom in pursuit of the wider agenda to geopolitically isolate Moscow.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/trade-war-gazprom-threatens-to-disrupt-gas-supplies-to-europe.html

 

The Backstory to the Russia-Ukraine Confrontation:

The American press portrays Putin as being the bad guy and the aggressor in the Ukraine crisis.

Putin is certainly no saint. A former KGB agent, Putin's net worth is estimated at some $40 billion dollars ... as he has squeezed money out of the Russian economy by treating the country as his own personal fiefdom. And all sides appear to have dirt on their hands in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

But we can only see the bigger picture if we take a step back and gain a little understanding of the history underlying the current tensions.

Indeed, the fact that the U.S. has allegedly paid billions of dollars to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine - and even purportedly picked the Ukrainian president - has to be seen in context.

Veteran New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer notes at the Boston Globe:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. [Background here, here and here.] It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.”
Stephen Cohen - professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia - explained this weekend on CNN:

We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin, it's right on Russia's borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine. It's a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin - why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-03/backstory-russia-ukraine-confrontation-us-and-nato-encirclement-russia

Oligarchs Triumphant

Ukraine, Omidyar and the Neo-Liberal Agenda

The Western intervention in Ukraine has now led the region to the brink of war. Political opposition to government of President Viktor Yanukovych — a corrupt and thuggish regime, but as with so many corrupt and thuggish regimes one sees these days, a democratically elected one — was funded in substantial part by organizations of or affiliated with the U.S. government, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (a longtime vehicle for Washington-friendly coups), and USAID. It also received substantial financial backing from Western oligarchs, such as billionaire Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay and sole bankroller of the new venue for “adversarial” journalism, First Look, as Pandodaily reports.

Yanukovych sparked massive protests late last year when he turned down a financial deal from the European Union and chose a $15 billion aid package from Russia instead. The EU deal would have put cash-strapped Ukraine in a financial straitjacket, much like Greece, without actually promising any path for eventually joining the EU. There was one other stipulation in the EU’s proffered agreement that was almost never reported: it would have also forbidden Ukraine to “accept further assistance from the Russians,” as Patrick Smith notes in an important piece in Salon.com. It was a ruthless take-it-or-leave-it deal, and would have left Ukraine without any leverage, unable to parlay its unique position between East and West to its own advantage in the future, or conduct its foreign and economic policies as it saw fit. Yanukovych took the Russian deal, which would have given Ukraine cash in hand immediately and did not come with the same draconian restrictions.

Read More At: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/04/ukraine-omidyar-and-the-neo-liberal-agenda/

 

Ukraine: Georgian Background to the Western “Invasion” Hysteria

Recalling similar fabrications regarding Georgia’s aggression versus Russia and examining existing Russo-Ukrainian strategic relations before Western-backed mobs overthrew the government in Kiev, we can see there is no “invasion” at all.

March 6, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci/New Eastern Outlook) - Invasion (noun) – the act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

The BBC reported in its June 2013 article titled, “Five years on, Georgia makes up with Russia,” that (emphasis added): On 8 August, Georgia will mark the fifth anniversary of the outbreak of the war. It lasted only five days but it was disastrous for Georgia. The war began with an operation by Georgia, which hoped to seize territory that had been outside its control since the early 1990s. Initially successful, it did not take Russia’s army long to retake the area and push deeper into Georgian territory, stopping just short of the capital, Tbilisi.

In hindsight, it was easy for the BBC and other news outlets to admit Georgia provoked the conflict that at the time, was framed as the “Russian invasion of Georgia.” In Contrast, hysterical articles from 2008, like the Daily Mail’s “Georgia ‘overrun’ by Russian troops as full-scale ground invasion begins,” featured outlandish war propaganda aimed at demonizing Russia and absolving both the West and their client regime led then by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, of a conflict of their own design.

Russia at the time, was not “invading” Georgia – but rather pushing back US-trained, armed, and backed Georgian forces from their own armed invasion into South Ossetia. It was an engineered provocation designed to test Russian resolve and chip away at Russia’s territorial integrity as well as its influence along its immediate peripheries.

With tensions building in Ukraine, after Western-backed Neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and other assorted bigots, hooligans, and militants overran the elected government in Kiev, the “Russian invasion of Georgia” narrative has been reanimated, admissions of its inaccuracy quickly forgotten, and is being used as an analogy to peddle the newly christened “Russian invasion of Ukraine” narrative.

However, once again, Russia is not “invading” anything. Long before the West began sowing political chaos in Kiev, Russian troops had long been permanently stationed within the country. Ukraine, and in particular, eastern Ukraine including the Crimea peninsula, share a common heritage, history, linguistics, socioeconomic interests, and defense agreements both past and present.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/