The Eurasian Big Bang

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jul 24, 2015.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Let’s start with the geopolitical Big Bang you know nothing about, the one that occurred just two weeks ago. Here are its results: from now on, any possible future attack on Iran threatened by the Pentagon (in conjunction with NATO) would essentially be an assault on the planning of an interlocking set of organizations — the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union), the AIIB (the new Chinese-founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and the NDB (the BRICS’ New Development Bank) — whose acronyms you’re unlikely to recognize either. Still, they represent an emerging new order in Eurasia.

    Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad, and New Delhi have been actively establishing interlocking security guarantees. They have been simultaneously calling the Atlanticist bluff when it comes to the endless drumbeat of attention given to the flimsy meme of Iran’s “nuclear weapons program.” And a few days before the Vienna nuclear negotiations finally culminated in an agreement, all of this came together at a twin BRICS/SCO summit in Ufa, Russia — a place you’ve undoubtedly never heard of and a meeting that got next to no attention in the U.S. And yet sooner or later, these developments will ensure that the War Party in Washington and assorted neocons (as well as neoliberalcons) already breathing hard over the Iran deal will sweat bullets as their narratives about how the world works crumble.

    < snip >

    At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last month, Vladimir Putin told PBS’s Charlie Rose that Moscow and Beijing had always wanted a genuine partnership with the United States, but were spurned by Washington. Hats off, then, to the “leadership” of the Obama administration. Somehow, it has managed to bring together two former geopolitical rivals, while solidifying their pan-Eurasian grand strategy.

    Even the recent deal with Iran in Vienna is unlikely — especially given the war hawks in Congress — to truly end Washington’s 36-year-long Great Wall of Mistrust with Iran. Instead, the odds are that Iran, freed from sanctions, will indeed be absorbed into the Sino-Russian project to integrate Eurasia, which leads us to the spectacle of Washington’s warriors, unable to act effectively, yet screaming like banshees.

    Continue . . . https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/pepe-escobar/washington-wants-to-rule-the-globe/

    The BRICS countries just launched a rival to the IMF and the World Bank

    The bank's opening comes two weeks after a BRICS summit hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    A new bank dedicated to the emerging BRICS countries opened for business in China's commercial hub of Shanghai on Tuesday, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

    The so-called emerging BRICS countries are made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and their "New Development Bank" has been seen as a challenge to the Washington-based International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-...business-in-china-xinhua-2015-7#ixzz3gmv0CV00
     
    #1 poncho, Jul 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2015
  2. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    Lew Rockwell has been screaming like a banshee for years that the US was about to initiate war with Iran, even said the US would use nukes. Of course that never happened.

    Iran is indeed free to form alliances with whoever, and even more so after the sanctions are ended. So I'd think Lew would be happy with current events.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What seems to be happening in Eurasia for those more interested in studying geopolitics rather than personalities is for all the fear/hate mongering, demonizing, threats of violence and attempts to isolate and weaken Russia, China and Iran all the neocons have managed to do is unite them and make them stronger.

    There goes the neocon's dream of a "uniploar" world where the USA is the sole hegemon.

    In other words, the "New World Order" has a Eurasian competitor now.
     
    #3 poncho, Jul 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2015
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    For those who'd rather study personalities than geopolitics the first article was written by Pepe Escobar. Not Lew Rockwell.

    This article was written by F. William Engdahl

    NATO and the West Just Became Irrelevant

    The dual summits that took place in Russia’s Ufa beginning 9 July were anything but routine. In fact it may be seen by future historians as a signal event that marked the definitive decline of the global hegemony of European civilization including North America. This is no small event in human history. It’s the most significant shift in relative global economic relations since the Fourth Crusade in 1204 when the Republic of Venice emerged as a world power following their brutal, disgraceful capture and sacking of Constantinople, marking the demise of the Byzantine Empire.

    < snip >

    The NATO Washington response

    The response of Washington and NATO to all this is a bleak, pathetic contrast to put it mildly.

    The new Obama nominee to become US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, declared Russia to be America’s greatest threat in his Congressional testimony some days ago. Conveniently forgetting all about the “existential threat” from ISIS, an organization US and Israeli intelligence brought into being to spread their chaos, Dunford declared, “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.” The alarming thing is there was scarcely a peep of protest aside from blog remarks by retired Congressman Ron Paul and a few others. The tom-toms of bellicosity are pounding louder along the Potomac these days.

    The war rage in Washington goes deeper than just one general. The Pentagon just released its Military Strategy of the United States, 2015. There the focus has clearly shifted away from “non-state actors” such as ISIS as being the greatest threat to the US and refocuses on “state actors” that are “challenging international norms.” The Pentagon strategy document goes on to name Russia, China, Iran, North Korea as the greatest threats. What they do not admit is the “threat” is to the continued sole Superpower hegemony of a United States that insists its will is the only valid one as self-appointed guardian of “democracy” and “human rights,” their New World Order as George Bush senior termed it in 1991.

    On the economic front, what is emerging across the vast expanse of Eurasia is the greatest infrastructure investment in real physical infrastructure, which in turn will create new markets where today the remote regions of Siberia or Mongolia remain virtually untouched. By contrast, Obama’s Washington, a once-hegemon that has lost its soul, can only offer the US-dominated secret free trade pact, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for Asian states absent China, as a way to contain china economically, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that offers the same geopolitical dead end for the economies of the EU. Both trade proposals are a desperate attempt by Washington strategists and their corporate backers in agribusiness such as Monsanto or the pharmaceutical industry to dominate world trade and finance.

    Just as an individual can lose themselves through a trauma, so it’s possible for entire nations, even nations as large and apparently mighty as the United States of America, to lose its soul. Once a nation loses its soul, it loses its ability to do good, to be good. That tragically describes America today. The process has been a slow-motion rot from within, much as the Roman Empire in the Third and Fourth centuries AD. The rot has proceeded over decades.

    Continue . . . http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/22/nato-and-the-west-just-became-irrelevant/
     
    #4 poncho, Jul 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2015
  5. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    The Russians and Chinese have always wanted to recover their lost influence in the world. It's why Putin is so popular in Russia. Now they will have it, in alliance with China, and their proxy Iran. We'll see what they do with it.

    The US is practically absent from the Middle East and Central Asia now, with the Afghanistan pullout. The door is wide open for Russia and China to begin filling that vacuum, and away we go!.

    It would be wise for the US and Canada to begin exploiting ALL our energy resources. We're probably going to need them.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    And we're helping them achieve it.

    Could be the Russian people are no more willing to live under Washington's rule than he is.

    I think they'll show the world Washington and it's controlling oligarchs aren't the all powerful hegemon they think they are.

    Absent? Sure if you don't count all the military bases including NATO and the radical Islamic and ultra nationalist proxy regime change armies we continue to fund and arm in the mid east and north Africa. Where do you think "ISIS" came from? We created it by funding and arming Jihadists to do the regime change fighting for us in Libya and Syria.

    And we through our own arrogance and hubris opened that door and pushed them through it.

    It would be wise for the USA and Canada to wake up realize we don't own the world and have no right to control everyone else's resources.
     
    #6 poncho, Jul 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2015
  7. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    And replacing it with the Russian oligarchy.

    Yes I know, Russia has been badly mistreated by the US. After the USSR broke apart we provided them with $50 billion in aid, and offered them a seat in the G7, making it now the G8.

    The Russians not long ago ruled most of central Asia, and conscripted Muslims in those countries to serve in the Soviet military. Maybe once again? We have never even come close to such an empire in the region.

    So yes, go on about how every bad thing in the world is ultimately the fault of the US. Enjoy yourself.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128


    Your argument here begins with an incomplete history and ends with a strawman.

    Most enlightening.
     
  9. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    You are correct, it was incomplete. I didn't mention that the Soviets ruled not only central Asia, but the entirety of eastern Europe. US influence in those regions pales by comparison. Now Russia and China are jockeying for position and influence there, but that is apparently ok.

    I could point out that though the Kremlin complained bitterly about NATO missile defenses in E. Europe, they of course have their own missile defense systems, on several levels. And not only that, NATO offered to share the technology with Russia. Putin still vetoed it.

    Most of these accusations of American perfidy in the mid-east originated from Iranian, and other Muslim CT types to begin with.

    Also it is worth mentioning that the vote in Crimea for the Russian annex of that region did not include an option of remaining a part of Ukraine.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    How did you arrive at that conclusion? Evidence please.

    Another strawman already? Where and when have I ever said or inferred that I believe it's "ok"?

    Did the Russians have their military bases and missile defense systems positioned very near or on our borders? Have the Russians or the Chinese overthrown the governments of either Mexico or Canada to bring them into their sphere of influence and park military bases and missile defense systems inside either country?

    Okay, did he say why he vetoed it?

    I read about two paragraphs from this article. I don't have time to point out how much of it's message is pure propaganda right now but I will get back to it and show you why it is point by point later.

    So the logic here is that if one were included the 90 some percent that voted to rejoin the Russian Federation would have voted differently?

    Question, have you actually seen the ballot for the referendum or are you going by what the "western media" is telling you?

    The website of the Supreme Council of Crimea appeared a sample ballot paper for a referendum March 16, 2014. The document is in three languages ​​- Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar. Crimeans offered to answer two questions: 1) Are you for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia on the rights of the Russian Federation? 2) Are you for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?

    http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/verhovnyy-sovet-kryma-obnarodovala-obrazec-byulletenya-dlya-referenduma-140654_.html To use Google translate, right click on the page, left click on "translate to english" in the dropdown menu.

    Five Myths about the Crimean Referendum

    http://darussophile.com/2014/03/five-myths-about-the-crimean-referendum/

    No these links are not from your usual trusted "western media" sources so I imagine you'll probably reject them. But there it is. The ballot form and the other side of the story. Every story has at least two sides. Choosing which one is accurate and factual should be judged by the known facts and evidence instead of just excepting the one that relies on the use of words like "kook, crazy, nutjob, conspiracy theorist, wacko, looney bird" or some other derogatory term aimed at those who may have doubts or question the official narrative.

    Whenever I see an article using these words and especially one that uses many of these words and terms in one article as this one does red flags go up. They aren't trying to inform you they are trying to convince you.

    That's not how journalism is suppose to work. But then I guess that all depends on whether the reader is looking to be informed or convinced.

    If the reader is looking to be informed it's not journalism, if the reader is looking to be convinced then I guess to that reader it would be considered journalism.

    And yes Lewis I do understand that you're under no obligation to answer any of my questions. It would be nice if you attempted to but . . .
     
    #10 poncho, Jul 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2015
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Privatization and the Looting of Russia

    An Interview with Paul Klebnikov

    Paul Klebnikov is author of Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia. He is a senior editor at Forbes magazine and has reported from Russia since 1989. A fluent Russian speaker, he has won four press awards for his writing on Russian business. He holds a Ph.D. in Russian history from the London School of Economics.

    http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02jan-feb/jan-feb02interviewklebniko.html

    Filling in the historical account . . .
     
  12. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    "THE IMPACT OF RUSSO-SOVIET CULTURE IN CENTRAL ASIA
    The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a truly multinational state, having inherited the legacy of the tsarist conquests of Eurasian territory that began in the early sixteenth century and continued up to the end of the nineteenth century. The final acquisition to the Russian Empire was the territory then known asTurkestan (meaning "Land of the Turks"). This area is now called Soviet Central Asia
    ."

    And etc. It is well known that the Russians ruled central Asia until the breakup of the USSR.
    LINK

    As for Eastern Europe, this graphic shows the extent of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. This is also well-known history. I'm surprised you would even debate it.

    [​IMG]


    The point being that Russia has a long history of empire. And yet the US is always portrayed as the evil hegemon...by some at least.

    That's fine, as it frees me from having to read anti-US propaganda that gets posted on this forum.

    LINK
    "Option one was to reunify with Russia. Option two was to declare de facto independence from the rest of Ukraine. Option three – to remain as part of Ukraine as before – did not have a box."

    [​IMG]

    Regardless of all that, as your OP shows things will be changing a great deal in the near future, for Eurasia, and Middle East. And as I replied, the US needs to be prepared and exploit all our resources. That was my point, and is the takeaway. Debating all sorts of fine points is not in my future.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Then we agree that this is history right?

    Now show us a graphic of US/Nato bases in the same geographical area. The US is an evil hegemon. A good hegemon wouldn't have to make up lies to start wars so the banks and corporations can move in and divide up the assets and resources.

    Case in point Iraq.

    On September 20, 2003 Paul Bremer, the head of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), 2 announced a new policy toward foreign investment in Iraq. The policy, outlined in Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 39, 3 provides a radical new framework for foreign investment that is unprecedented in the region. There was widespread international reaction to Order 39, and to two of its provisions in particular. First, Order 39 opens the door for foreign firms to potentially dominate sectors of the Iraqi economy by permitting 100% foreign ownership. 4 Second, it allows foreigners to lease Iraqi land for as long as forty years. 5

    These sweeping provisions create long-range effects for the budding Iraqi democracy. By implementing comprehensive foreign investment provisions, the new Iraqi government's power over foreign investment policy, a cornerstone of their new economy, may be severely curtailed. This note argues that the curtailment of this fundamental aspect of the new government will result in a semi-sovereign Iraq, unable to achieve true autonomy. Order 39 is indicative of many of the legal questions that the current occupation in Iraq is creating, and highlights the lack of resources in the international law field with which to formulate answers. 6 Currently, the United States-led occupation is creating a state that is more characteristic of a colony than a democratic republic, setting a dangerous precedent for the international community. 7

    https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=19+Conn.+J.+Int%27l+L.+445&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=ac1e05cca16c544056e1b68fcb19664d

    The USA is an empire. Any person willing to put his "patriotism" aside and study the old empires would come to this conclusion.

    There are several pertinent examples illustrating how imperialism is still alive and well, and only cleverly disguised with updated nomenclatures. What we know today as "free trade" actually derives its origins from economic concessions the British frequently extorted from nations under its "gunboat diplomacy" strategy - that is, anchoring gunboats off the coast of a foreign capital, and threatening bombardment and military conquest if certain demands were not met.

    < snip >

    A more contemporary example would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation of the broken state. The Economist enumerates the neo-colonial "economic liberalization" of Iraq in a piece titled "Let's all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist's dream:"

    1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
    2. Full repatriation of profits.
    3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
    4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
    5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
    6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/02/empires-double-edged-sword-global.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcT9ODEzfa8


    In this context "anti - US" means looking beyond the headlines and government lies and focusing in on the real reasons the US intervenes in other nations affairs. So in effect you are saying that are are free to believe authors who's articles only demonize people who question or have doubts as kooks, crazies, anti - US, and conspiracy theorists" instead of investigating all the facts and evidence.

    Like I said they aren't trying to inform you they are trying to convince you that having doubts or questioning the "consensus" is evil and if you have doubts or questions it's their job to make you look like a fruitcake. These are not journalists this is not journalism. It's brainwashing.



    Which happened first? The Washington backed violent coup or the Crimean referendum? I'm pretty sure the last thing you want to discuss is the first thing to happen. You have to put second things first in order for your narrative to stay afloat.


    No of course not because the fine points destroys the official narrative.
     
    #13 poncho, Jul 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2015
  14. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    Yes it is history. But Russia did not give up it's empire in Central Asia, or Eastern Europe because it was the right thing to do, or because they saw the light. They lost empire because the USSR crumbled. They had to give it all up.

    And now they are looking to regain Central Asia in partnership with China, as your OP and other sources show.

    In Europe:

    [​IMG]

    And of course every one of those European host nations is a member of NATO, all are either founders of NATO, or have asked to become member states.


    Yes, Iraq. The China National Petroleum Corporation is the biggest foreign investor in the Iraqi oil industry. Not the US. Gosh that changes everything.
    LINK

    In the case of the link that I posted, an educated Arab-Islamic commentator was speaking of his own people's love of conspiracy theories that would explain their own problems in the context of US or Israeli plots. There have been others.

    Washington based "violent coup" in Crimea consisted mostly of rock-throwing university students, not much different from Occupy Wall Street types in the US. If I'm not mistaken, you would approve of that movement?

    And Russia's subsequent referendum was a foregone conclusion, considering the choices offered.
     
    #14 Lewis, Jul 30, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2015
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    And you know this because it's a proven fact? You can show me where Russia has been attempting to regain Central Asia before the Washington backed coup in Ukraine. Right?

    You can document this "expansion".

    And by proven fact I don't mean some expert or journalist's opinion I mean documented evidence.

    Why was NATO formed? What was it's purpose?

    But enlarging NATO entails substantial risks that have been all but glossed over by proponents. A fresh phase of expansion, especially one including Georgia, would undoubtedly be perceived by Russia as an escalating policy of strategic encirclement—or worse. Russian officials have consistently voiced this perception of American and European policy, most recently when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov characterized Western strategic behavior as “spreading…geopolitical influence to the East, which has become, in essence, ‘a new edition’ of the line for containing Russia.”

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bad-move-further-nato-expansion-10350

    Russia perceives NATO expansion as a threat to it's national security. Russia has been saying this for some time. So naturally NATO keeps expanding eastward while demonizing Russia.

    If there was a group out there demonizing you everyday and moving their bases and weapons closer and closer to your doorstep would you perceive it as a threat?

    No it doesn't.

    You can't help but use those words can you?

    Look at the history of US regime changes and covert actions against sovereign nations. Conspiracy theories? Conspiracy fact. The U.S. has a long history of conspiring against other nations.

    You are partially correct. It started out as a protest against a corrupt government which was quickly co opted by violent ultra nationalist factions who murdered protesters by burning them alive. They also brutalized people who were in the government and media.

    Do you approve of these methods?

    It was a Ukrainian referendum. Not a Russian referendum.

    You should read "The Grand Chessboard". Instead of being influenced by people that wrap themselves in the flag and pretend Russia has no reason to worry about being encircled by NATO bases and missile batteries you should read what America's geopolitical "strategists" have written in their own books.

    Here's some quotes from the book . . . http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

    Compare what's written in this book to what we have seen happening. All the moves Zbigniew Brzezinski has recommended the US take in Eurasia has been systematically carried out.

    I would call this a plan for global hegemony. Because I have read what the "planners" have been saying.

    You would probably call it a "conspiracy theory". Because you read what the demonizers, fear mongers, war mongers and the people (mass media) who make a living calling anyone who has doubts, concerns or questions "crazy, looney, kooky conspiracy theorists".

    You speak their language very well.
     
    #15 poncho, Jul 31, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2015
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    July 31, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Times are tough for America's "color revolution" industry. Perfected in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, and honed during the so-called "Arab Spring," the process of backing subversion in a targeted country and overthrowing a sitting government under the cover of staged mass protests appears to be finally at the end of running its course.

    That is because the United States can no longer hide the fact that it is behind these protests and often, even hide their role in the armed elements that are brought in covertly to give targeted governments their final push out the door. Nations have learned to identify, expose, and resist this tactic, and like Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime's tactic of Blitzkrieg or "lighting war," once appropriate countermeasures are found, the effectiveness of lighting fast, overwhelming force be it military or political, is rendered impotent.

    Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/07/russia-shoots-down-us-stealth-coup.html

    Joseph Nye famously defined ‘soft power’ as the ability of a country to persuade others and/or manipulate events without force or coercion in order to achieve politically desirable outcomes. And one of the main tools of modern soft power is civil society and the NGOs that dominate it. With financial backing from some of the most powerful individuals and institutions in the world, these NGOs use the cover of “democracy promotion” and human rights to further the agenda of their patrons. And China has been particularly victimized by precisely this sort of strategy.

    Human Rights Watch, and the NGO complex at large, has condemned China’s Overseas NGO Management Law because they quite rightly believe that it will severely hamper their efforts to act independently of Beijing. However, contrary to the irreproachable expression of innocence that such organizations masquerade behind, the reality is that they act as a de facto arm of western intelligence agencies and governments, and they have played a central role in the destabilization of China in recent years.

    Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/07/chinas-ngo-law-countering-western-soft.html

    July 15, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Some may find it curious, browsing the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website, reviewing the unending lists of faux-NGOs special interests in the West have propped up across the planet to project influence and political meddling into every corner of the planet under the pretense of supporting "freedom and democracy," to discover this meddling extends to nearly all nations except a select few.

    One of these blind spots includes Saudi Arabia. In fact, under the category "Middle East and North Africa" (MENA), Saudi Arabia isn't even listed. NED-funded NGOs attempt to leverage every noble cause conceived by human empathy, from representative governance, to the rights of women and children, from behind which to hide their true agenda of political meddling, undermining local institutions, and the overwriting of a nation's sociocultural landscape. Yet, it would seem, even this farce has its limits, which begin at the borders of favored client-states including Saudi Arabia.

    It would seem, were NED a genuine sponsor of such causes, Saudi Arabia would have attracted special attention. It is literally a nation where women do not exist as human beings legally or socially, unable to even drive, and were Saudi Arabia to have anything resembling actual elections, unable to vote as well. The lack of any semblance of representative governance is another aspect one might expect the National Endowment for Democracy to find issue with. Yet it doesn't.

    This transparent, obvious hypocrisy exposes the entirety of NED's work for what it is - meddling behind an elaborate facade of defending freedom, democracy, and human rights.

    Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/07/us-ned-ignores-saudi-barbarism.html


    Paul Craig Roberts talks about the current stand off between the United States and Russia in the Ukraine. Is it too late to avoid war?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn4rpB7apS0

    The EU association agreement with Ukraine is widely resisted by many EU member states with deep economic problems of their own. The two EU figures most pushing it—Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski—are both well known in the EU as close to Washington.

    The US is strongly pushing the Ukraine EU integration just as it had been behind the 2004 failed “Orange Revolution” to split Ukraine from Russia in a bid to isolate and weaken Russia. (see the Grand Chessboard) Now Ukrainians have found evidence of direct involvement of the Belgrade US-financed training group, CANVAS behind the carefully-orchestrated Kiev protests.

    Continue . . . http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-protests-carefully-orchestrated-the-role-of-canvas-us-financed-color-revolution-training-group/5369906

    To "offset, co opt and/or control". So it's not about democracy, it's not about helping oppressed people, it's all about buying off, controlling and/or installing pliable (easily bent, flexible) Eurasian elites (politicians) in Eurasia in order to control Eurasia in order to weaken Russia. This has been the plan all along. Do you think the Russians have read the Grand Chessboard?

    You want to know what's really going on in Eurasia? Read the Grand Chessboard. Or if you don't want to know what's really going on keep reading what the fear mongers, war mongers and demonizers are saying. I'm sure they're all to happy to tell you just what your itching ears want to hear.

    Like this . . .

    The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.”

    If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty.

    Continue . . . http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-russia-shut-down-national-endowment-for-democracy-ned-fronts/5466119
     
    #16 poncho, Jul 31, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2015
  17. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. This explains his drive to reestablish a Eurasian Union of former Soviet states.

    We see Russia attempting to reintegrate Central Asia by means of the Eurasian Economic Community, Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. Putin is actively pushing Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and other former Sovet provinces, into becoming members.

    There are currently 6000 Russian troops stationed in Tajikistan and plans to add another 3,000.

    “The US military vacated Manas base on 3 June, but many Kyrgyz seem beginning to have second thought whether the decision to evict the US from Manas was a correct one. They fear that hosting of multiple bases was a better policy after seeing the recent fate of Ukraine. Kyrgyzstan’s situation also resembles Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russian live in Kyrgyzstan and they harbor pro-Russian sentiments. The Kyrgyz now fear possibility of Ukraine story repeating in their country, for Russia would take the slightest opportunity to intervene in Kyrgyzstan to protect the ethnic Russians. Already, Kyrgyzstan is complaining that the US is reducing its military cooperation after the eviction of the air base in June 2014”

    "Putin’s actions in Crimea have also sent alarm bells throughout Central Asia. The scenario here is quite similar to those in Central Europe. Russian military presence in Central Asia is large enough and it will not be difficult for them to intervene in any ethnic crisis. Of course, such a situation remains only an academic question. For years, Putin has been trying to build a common economic space under Moscow’s orbit. Kazakhstan is a part of Customs Union (CU) and negotiation is going on to bring in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan eventually to join the CU. However, the issue here is more complex. Already, some Kazakh activists have started to launch an anti-Eurasian Forum with an aim to get out of the the CU."

    LINK

    Whatever. Neither Georgia or Ukraine are members of NATO. And yet Putin has felt “encircled” by these sovereign nations and has taken away parts of them as he saw fit.

    And as the well known quote goes, “— how one encircles a massive nation (Russia) sprawling thousands of miles across 11 time zones is an excellent question”.

    I do not approve.

    Also do not approve of Russian Cossacks beating pro-Ukrainian protesters at rallies in Kiev during the unrest. They used whips to lash the demonstrators.
    LINK

    I believe that you said in an earlier thread that George Soros was a backer of unrest in Kiev prior to the Russian takeover. Soros was also a financial supporter of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. And yet one is legitimate , but not the other?

    Demonstrators will often get out of hand and commit atrocities. Note how Russian nationalists attack foreigners and other “undesirables”. Maybe Putin should have his troops patrol St Petersberg.
    LINK


    "Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he ordered officials to start work on taking control of Crimea weeks before a referendum which, the Kremlin has asserted until now, prompted the region's annexation from Ukraine.

    "This was on the night of Feb. 22 through to Feb. 23. We finished around 7 in the morning. And, while saying goodbye, I told all the colleagues: 'We have to start the work on Crimea's return into Russia'."

    "This account, broadcast on Sunday, appeared to be at odds with previous assertions from Russian officials that the annexation decision was taken only after the referendum on March 16, when Crimeans voted to become part of the Russian Federation.

    "In the months since, Putin has adjusted his account of what happened. He initially denied Russian troops were providing security for the referendum, but later acknowledged special forces had been deployed."
    LINK

    Putin was going to have Crimea one way or another.
     
    #17 Lewis, Aug 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2015
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    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

    According to his resume Brzezinski, holding a 1953 Ph.D. from Harvard, lists the following achievements:

    Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University

    National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

    Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission

    International advisor of several major US/Global corporations

    Associate of Henry Kissinger

    Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy

    Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

    Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations

    1988 - Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

    Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group - a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.
     
    #18 poncho, Aug 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2015
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Zbigniew Brzezinski: The man behind Obama’s foreign policy

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-the-man-behind-obamas-foreign-policy/21369/

    Nuland’s Mastery of Ukraine Propaganda

    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.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/11/nulands-mastery-of-ukraine-propaganda/

    Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

    Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions"

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm

    The Rush to a New Cold War

    The U.S. government and news media have jumped back into Cold War attitudes since early 2014 when a U.S.-backed coup overthrew Ukraine’s elected president and prompted countermoves by Russia, setting the stage for a potential nuclear showdown, as journalist Robert Parry discussed with Dennis J. Bernstein.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/19/the-rush-to-a-new-cold-war/

    A Family Business of Perpetual War

    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. There’s a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Neocons: The ‘Anti-Realists’

    America’s neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media, endanger the planet by concocting strategies inside their heads that ignore real-world consequences. Thus, their “regime changes” have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe, as Robert Parry explains.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/17/neocons-the-anti-realists/

    NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine

    The New York Times keeps insisting that last year’s Ukrainian coup wasn’t a coup and anyone who thinks so lives inside “the Russian propaganda bubble.” But a slanted Times “investigation” shows that the newspaper remains lost inside the U.S. government’s “propaganda bubble,” writes Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

    Ukraine’s Made-in-USA Finance Minister

    A top problem of Ukraine has been corruption and cronyism, so it may raise eyebrows that new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, an ex-U.S. diplomat and newly minted Ukrainian citizen, was involved in insider dealings while managing a $150 million U.S. AID-backed investment fund, writes Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

    The Neocons — Masters of Chaos

    America’s neoconservatives, by stirring up trouble in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, are creating risks for the world’s economy that are surfacing now in the turbulent stock markets, threatening another global recession, writes Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/17/the-neocons-masters-of-chaos/

    High Cost of Bad Journalism on Ukraine

    By driving a wedge between President Obama and President Putin over Ukraine, America’s neocons and the mainstream media can hope for more “shock and awe” in the Mideast, but the U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill, including $1 trillion more on nuclear weapons, writes Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/22/high-cost-of-bad-journalism-on-ukraine/

    Perfecting ‘Regime Change’ in Ukraine

    The Obama administration has refined the practice of “regime change,” moving away from old-fashioned tanks in the street or overt invasions by U.S. troops, opting instead for “democracy promotion” that relies on “information warfare” to unseat elected governments disfavored by Washington, says Ted Snider.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/12/perfecting-regime-change-in-ukraine/

    The Whys Behind the Ukraine Crisis

    Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what’s the real motive for taking this extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar’s dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism, asks Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/03/the-whys-behind-the-ukraine-crisis/

    The Hushed-Up Hitler Factor in Ukraine

    Behind the Ukraine crisis is a revision of World War II history that seeks to honor eastern European collaborators with Hitler and the Holocaust by repackaging these rightists as anti-Soviet heroes, a reality shielded from the U.S. public, as Dovid Katz explains.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/16/the-hushed-up-hitler-factor-in-ukraine/

    The Human Price of Neocon Havoc

    Neocons are the “masters of chaos” as they destabilize disfavored governments around the world. But real people pay the price as we’ve seen with Israel’s slaughter of four boys on a Gaza beach and an apparent shoot-down of a Malaysian airliner over war-torn Ukraine, writes Robert Parry.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/17/the-human-price-of-neocon-havoc/


    "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)

    Epic fail. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2245441&postcount=1

    "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)

    Epic fail. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2245441&postcount=1

    Brzezinski's well laid plan for America to be the king of Eurasia backfired and brought about the very thing it wanted to avoid.

    Smart, real smart.
     
    #19 poncho, Aug 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2015
  20. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The Anti-Crimean Pogrom that Sparked Crimea’s Breakaway

    Here is a description of the “Korsun Pogrom” or “Korsun Massacre”: the 20 February 2014 event that sparked Crimea’s breakaway from Ukraine:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/the-anti-crimean-pogrom-that-sparked-crimeas-breakaway.html

    Obama then imposed economic sanctions against Russia, for “Russia’s aggression.”

    Obama’s only statement of what “Russia’s aggression” consisted of, that has been even as lengthy as moderately brief — since he has never presented it at any more length — was his interview with Fareed Zacaria of CNN on 1 February 2015, which happened to be a statement given just three days short of the first anniversary of his agent’s, Victoria Nuland’s, having selected, on 4 February 2014, whom the next leader of Ukraine would be; it would be Arseniy Yatsenyuk (she called him “Yats”), as soon as the democratically elected and sitting Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, would become overthrown, which happened 18 days later, on 22 February 2014. (It was nothing like Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Revolution”. This wasn’t democratic; it was a coup.) Obama seized Ukraine, and blamed Putin for “aggression” against Crimea — a “conquest of land.”

    Obama said there, in this CNN interview, that the reason for the sanctions against Russia was that, (see link above)


    Who Violated Ukraine’s Sovereignty?

    The West has accused Russia of violating a 1994 pledge to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for its surrender of Soviet-era nuclear weapons. But the West’s political and economic interference might also represent a violation, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/28/who-violated-ukraines-sovereignty/

    When Is a Putsch a Putsch?

    Secretary of State John Kerry accuses Russia of a “contrived crisis” in Ukraine as the U.S.-backed coup regime in Kiev sends troops to crush resistance in the ethnic-Russian east. But the most “contrived” element of this crisis may be the false U.S. narrative, writes Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    The mainstream U.S. news media, which hailed the Feb. 22 neo-Nazi-spearheaded coup overthrowing the democratically elected president of Ukraine as an expression of “democracy,” is now decrying public uprisings in eastern Ukraine as a Russian-instigated “putsch.”

    It apparently has reached the point where the MSM is so tangled up in its propagandistic narrative that it can’t give American readers anything close to an objective reading of what is actually going on in Ukraine or many other places, for that matter.

    The way the MSM now summarizes the Feb. 22 coup is simply to say that President Viktor Yanukovych fled after weeks of protests by Ukrainians who favored “good government” and opposed “corruption,” as the Washington Post wrote on Tuesday.

    Airbrushed out of the picture is the fact that the uprising had financial support and political encouragement from U.S. officials, including neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and the neocon-controlled, U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

    Also, disappearing from the frame was the inconvenient truth that neo-Nazi militants organized themselves from the start as paramilitary units with the intent of staging a violent putsch against Yanukovych’s elected government.

    The MSM’s simplistic narrative turned this complex Ukrainian reality into a morality play of good guys vs. bad guys, the noble protesters against the nasty Yanukovych backed by the even nastier Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    For instance, https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/08/when-is-a-putsch-a-putsch/

    What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis

    Though I’m told the Ukraine crisis caught Obama and Putin by surprise, the neocon determination to drive a wedge between the two leaders has been apparent for months, especially after Putin brokered a deal to head off U.S. military strikes against Syria last summer and helped get Iran to negotiate concessions on its nuclear program, both moves upsetting the neocons who had favored heightened confrontations.

    Putin also is reported to have verbally dressed down Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan over what Putin considered their provocative actions regarding the Syrian civil war. So, by disrupting neocon plans and offending Netanyahu and Bandar, the Russian president found himself squarely in the crosshairs of some very powerful people.

    If not for Putin, the neocons – along with Israel and Saudi Arabia – had hoped that Obama would launch military strikes on Syria and Iran that could open the door to more “regime change” across the Middle East, a dream at the center of neocon geopolitical strategy since the 1990s. This neocon strategy took shape after the display of U.S. high-tech warfare against Iraq in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union later that year. U.S. neocons began believing in a new paradigm of a uni-polar world where U.S. edicts were law. (See the Grand Chessbaord)

    < snip >

    But what we’re not told by the Times is that Lviv is a neo-Nazi stronghold where 15,000 members of the far-right Svoboda party held a torchlight parade in honor of World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and where Svoboda has been mounting a campaign to have the local airport named in honor of Bandera, whose fascist paramilitary force took part in the exterminations of Jews and Poles.

    However, since it’s been the consistent MSM practice to white-out the role of the neo-Nazi brown shirts – all the better to protect the pleasant narrative of a Kiev Spring – the Times ignores the Bandera angle and the significance of the Lviv reference.

    Instead, we’re simply told: “organizers in Lviv said they alone were sending 600 people a day to Kiev. That enabled exhausted defenders [of the Maidan protests] to eat and sleep while new arrivals built barricades and then, early on Feb. 20, thrust toward the Berkut [police] positions.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/

    Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch

    Behind the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the democratically elected president of Ukraine are the economic interests of giant corporations – from Cargill to Chevron – which see the country as a potential “gold mine” of profits from agricultural and energy exploitation, reports JP Sottile.

    < snip >

    Nuland’s Role

    That puts Kramer and, by one degree of separation, Big Ag fixer Morgan Williams in the company of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who, as coincidence would have it, is married to Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland, the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

    Interestingly enough, Ms. Nuland spoke to the U.S.-Ukrainian Foundation last Dec. 13, extolling the virtues of the Euromaidan movement as the embodiment of “the principles and values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies.”

    Nuland also told the group that the United States had invested more than $5 billion in support of Ukraine’s “European aspirations,” meaning pulling Ukraine away from Russia. She made her remarks on a dais featuring a backdrop emblazoned with a Chevron logo.

    Also, her colleague and phone call buddy U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt helped Chevron cook up their 50-year shale gas deal right in Russia’s kitchen.

    Although Chevron sponsored that event, it is not listed as a supporter of the Foundation. But the Foundation does list the Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil and Raytheon as major sponsors. And, to close the circle of influence, the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council is also listed as a supporter.

    Which brings the story back to Big Ag’s fixer — Morgan Williams.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/16/corporate-interests-behind-ukraine-putsch/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3uipTO-4A


    cor·po·rat·ism ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm/

    noun

    the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
     
    #20 poncho, Aug 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2015

Share This Page

Loading...