PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

[Chris Coles]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

I am one more rung up the ladder of intrigue. I believe that finance is at war with the rest of the world, and the US is just the muscle.

I reached my own conclusion when the US announced that they were "developing a weapon delivery system to deliver a weapon to anywhere on the planet within 2 hours". That would be like my shouting out in the middle of my village high street; I am developing a system to potentially smash a brick through every window in the village. What does anyone think about such claims? I can only tell you all from my own viewpoint; that whoever authorised that announcement; that they were hell bent upon delivering tension to every other nation. Period.

As for the US abandoning the rule of the law; as a British inventor, I discovered that the US does not abide with International Patent Co-operation Treaties, having been delivered PCT patents, I discovered they are worthless in the US. It is nearly a decade since I wrote Chapter 12 The Responsibilities of Government, in The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective, where I lay out, in great detail, what I believe is wrong with the way the law within the US operates today.

At the end of the day, the problem goes right back to the Department of Justice which must now be seen as acting entirely beyond the law, Ultra Vires. Everything stems from the application of the rule of the law; once any nation abandons the rule of the law for whatever purpose; they become illegitimate; they have no standing. When the law becomes moot; everyone follows the lead into more and more lawlessness, which is what we have all been observing here on iTulip for at least the last decade. So I do not agree with your analysis; as I see it, this all stems from the utterly immoral, lawless attitudes, of the United States Department of Justice.

Today; the United States is a lawless nation and has been for several decades.

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

The price of empire. Twain, et al, saw the US jump into the imperial game, with the Spanish/American war, the beginning of the end of the Republic.

[Woodsman]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

I reached my own conclusion when the US announced that they were "developing a weapon delivery system to deliver a weapon to anywhere on the planet within 2 hours". That would be like my shouting out in the middle of my village high street; I am developing a system to potentially smash a brick through every window in the village. What does anyone think about such claims? I can only tell you all from my own viewpoint; that whoever authorised that announcement; that they were hell bent upon delivering tension to every other nation. Period.

As for the US abandoning the rule of the law; as a British inventor, I discovered that the US does not abide with International Patent Co-operation Treaties, having been delivered PCT patents, I discovered they are worthless in the US. It is nearly a decade since I wrote Chapter 12 The Responsibilities of Government, in The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective, where I lay out, in great detail, what I believe is wrong with the way the law within the US operates today.

At the end of the day, the problem goes right back to the Department of Justice which must now be seen as acting entirely beyond the law, Ultra Vires. Everything stems from the application of the rule of the law; once any nation abandons the rule of the law for whatever purpose; they become illegitimate; they have no standing. When the law becomes moot; everyone follows the lead into more and more lawlessness, which is what we have all been observing here on iTulip for at least the last decade. So I do not agree with your analysis; as I see it, this all stems from the utterly immoral, lawless attitudes, of the United States Department of Justice.

Today; the United States is a lawless nation and has been for several decades.

And few give a damn, certainly no one with the ability to do anything about it. It's the way things are and no single one of us no matter our wealth or authority can do a thing to stop it. And no institution seems up to the task, least of all the ones charged with looking after such things.

I mean, just look at this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...d-constitution

Whatever activity may or may not have taken place, clearly something has somebody worried enough to take such risks. And why would the socialist President of the United States and the freedom loving GOP majority be in such a warm embrace now:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/1...ite-house.html

Who can know what happens behind the walls, but taken at face value we have here a constitutional crisis every bit as awful as these we've witnessed in the past, but the media makes more of Chris Christy's bridge fiasco. How come?

Personally, I have zero confidence that DiFi will do anything to rock the boat. As soon as the right mea culpas are offered and a few disposable flunkies are sacrificed, this too shall pass. Can any Senator or their staff take the risk, knowing that one's communications, associations and transactions are monitored? And what of seperation of powers? If the Senator was more concerned about the rule of law she would resign her committee assignment as clearly there is no way for her to do the job of oversight when agencies behave in such a manner. But to expect statesmanship in the "pass the bill to know what's in it" Congress is just dumb.

Surely 99% of Americans care more about keeping a roof over their heads and paying medical bills or even the latest episode of Game of Thrones than the mismanagement of their nation's affairs. And why shouldn't they, since their voice and interests have been long ignored in the halls of power. But even in this esteemed and erudite forum, we've talked more about television dramas and the threat of creeping Bolshevism of late.

Rule of law was replaced with lawlessness in the 40s as part of the war effort. It was an expedient then and now it's how we do business when business requires it. Blaming the DOJ is a bit like the tail wagging the dog, I think, but these are mere details and not worth quibbling about.

There is hope, only not for us.

[LazyBoy]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Why do people listen to this quack? There are much better people that warrant your attention than this deranged old man.

Why did you need to tell us of your dislike for PCR 8 times in this thread?

[vt]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Russia massing military forces on Ukraine border

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/wo...aine.html?_r=0

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Kharkov changed hands three times in the Great Patriotic War. Think Russia will rollover on giving it to the Ukrainian oligarchs?

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Ukraine's Oligarchs Will Play a Decisive Role

In protecting their own interests, these business magnates will do much to determine how the political crisis evolves and how it ends.
MAR 12, 2014 | 08:42 GMT

Stratfor

And while diplomacy is failing all around, and a trade and all too real war are potentially on the horizon, the real issue was and continues to the money. Which is why it was surprising to learn that earlier today the a Ukrainian oligarch, Dmytro Firtash, was arrested in Vienna this week at the request of U.S. authorities, the Austrian government sources said on Thursday.

Reuters reports that Firtash, 48, is one of Ukraine's richest men, an oligarch whose close links to Russia and involvement in the gas, chemicals, media and banking sectors gave him substantial influence, notably during the administration of recently ousted, Moscow-backed President Viktor Yanukovich.

The Federal Criminal Office, had identified the man taken into custody only as Dmitry F. and said he had been under investigation by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2006.
As a reminder, Stratfor's take on the richest Ukrainians was that they would play a "decisive role" in the conflict:

With presidential elections set for May 25 and parliamentary elections likely to be held later in the year, Ukraine's current administration will need the continued support of the oligarchs. More immediately, with Crimea on the verge of leaving Ukraine, the new government's urgent challenge is to keep mainland Ukraine together. Eastern Ukraine is crucial to this -- the region is a stronghold for pro-Russia sentiment and the main site of opposition, after Crimea, to the Western-backed and Western-leaning government.

The oligarchs are key to keeping control over eastern Ukraine, not only because Ukraine's industrial production is concentrated in the east -- thus anchoring a shaky economy -- but also because many of the oligarchs have a stronger and more manageable relationship with Russia than the current government, which Moscow sees as illegitimate. Many of these business leaders hail from the industrial east. They have business ties to Russia and decades of experience dealing with Russian authorities -- experience that figures such as Klitschko and Yatsenyuk lack.

So far, the new government has been able to maintain the support of the country's most important oligarchs. In general, the oligarchs want Ukraine to stay united. They do not support partition or federalization, because this would compromise their business interests across the country. But this support is not guaranteed over the long term. There have been recent complaints about the new government, for example over the arrest of former Kharkiv Gov. Mikhail Dobkin. Akhmetov came out in Dobkin's defense, saying the government should not be going after internal rivals right now, but rather focusing on concerns over Russia. This can be seen as a warning to the new administration: The oligarchs' loyalty to the current regime is conditional and should not be taken for granted.

Ultimately, the biggest threat to the oligarchs is not the current government, over which they have substantial leverage, but Russia. The oligarchs stand to lose a great deal if Russia intervenes in eastern Ukraine. If Russia takes over eastern territories, it could threaten the oligarchs' very control over their assets. Therefore they have an interest in bridging the gap between Russia and Kiev, but it is Moscow they fear more. The oligarchs have substantial power to shape the Ukrainian government's decision-making as it moves forward. Their business interests and the territorial integrity of the country are at stake.

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

China Warns West Not To Enforce Sanctions Against Russia

"Sanctions could lead to retaliatory action, and that would trigger a spiral with unforeseeable consequences," warns China's envoy to Germany adding that "we don't see any point in sanctions." On the heels of Merkel's warning that Russia risked "massive" political and economic damage if it did not change course, Reuters reports ambassador Shi Mingde urged patience saying "the door is still open" for diplomacy (though we suspect it is not) ahead of this weekend's referendum. Russia's Deputy Economy Minister Alexei Likhachev responded by promising "symmetrical" sanctions by Moscow. So now we have China joining the fray more aggressively.

Via Reuters,

China's top envoy to Germany has warned the West against punishing Russia with sanctions for its intervention in Ukraine, saying such measures could lead to a dangerous chain reaction that would be difficult to control. In an interview with Reuters days before the European Union is threatening to impose its first sanctions on Russia since the Cold War, ambassador Shi Mingde issued the strongest warning against such measures by any top Chinese official to date.

"We don't see any point in sanctions," Shi said. "Sanctions could lead to retaliatory action, and that would trigger a spiral with unforeseeable consequences. We don't want this."
...

Using her [Merkel's] toughest rhetoric since the crisis began, she warned in a speech in parliament on Thursday that Russia risked "massive" political and economic damage if it did not change course in the coming days.

Russia's Deputy Economy Minister Alexei Likhachev responded by promising "symmetrical" sanctions by Moscow. But Shi urged patience, saying the door for talks should remain open even after a referendum on Sunday in which Ukraine's southern region of Crimea could vote to secede and join Russia. Merkel and other western leaders have denounced the referendum as illegal and demanded that it be canceled.

"We still see a chance to avoid an escalation. The door to talks is still open. We should use this possibility, also after the referendum," Shi said.

After the Referendum, when Russia is already in control. More importantly, China joins the fray with threats over West's sanctions.

[BadJuju]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Why did you need to tell us of your dislike for PCR 8 times in this thread?

No one will say why they listen to him. He's a fringe lunatic. The guy actually believes in the 9/11 conspiracies. Come on!

[Woodsman]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

No one will say why they listen to him. He's a fringe lunatic. The guy actually believes in the 9/11 conspiracies. Come on!

Respectfully, BJ, it's not your call to decide for us who is worthy of posting and reading.

You've made it perfectly clear as to your opinion on Roberts. Everyone who has logged in for the past week or two has had the opportunity to see your pithy aphorisms on why you despise Roberts. We know with absolute metaphysical certainty where you stand on this.

Might I make a suggestion? Rather than continue attempting to convince all of us to avoid posting and reading Roberts, why not take the initiative and avoid posts of that nature yourself? That way you can avoid offense and irritation and we can make up our own minds about who and what to read.

Deal?

[vt]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

While I don't always agree with Woodsman, I respect his opinion and read what he says.

If a poster persists in a manner others don't like, I believe there is an ignore button. One might heed the advice of other posters about annoying posts.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

"Of the many problems that poses, none is more serious than the fact that Omidyar now has the only two people with exclusive access to the complete Snowden NSA cache, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. Somehow, the same billionaire who co-financed the “coup” in Ukraine with USAID, also has exclusive access to the NSA secrets—and very few in the independent media dare voice a skeptical word about it."

Interesting read over at the exiled.

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-o...ocuments-show/

A link to Greenwald's retort appears at the bottom of the article.

[lektrode]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

And few give a damn, certainly no one with the ability to do anything about it. It's the way things are and no single one of us no matter our wealth or authority can do a thing to stop it. And no institution seems up to the task, least of all the ones charged with looking after such things.

.....
Rule of law was replaced with lawlessness in the 40s as part of the war effort. It was an expedient then and now it's how we do business when business requires it. Blaming the DOJ is a bit like the tail wagging the dog, I think, but these are mere details and not worth quibbling about.

There is hope, only not for us.

methinks this just another example of DISTRACTION...
'blaming the DOJ' for listening in on DiFi (why for she worried? would be my 1st question) is much mo better than having to explain why they arent being more aggressive on certain 'other issues' ?

[Slimprofits]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

methinks this just another example of DISTRACTION... 'blaming the DOJ' for listening in on DiFi (why for she worried? would be my 1st question) is much mo better than having to explain why they arent being more aggressive on certain 'other issues' ?

You put that in a way as if to suggest that multiple people are constantly asking the questions such that they are unavoidable. Explain it to whom? Other than the Moyers crew and the people at ProPublica, there is one journalist that I know of that asks questions about the financial crisis - William Cohan of Bloomberg. No, I don't think anyone in the White House, the DoJ, the Treasury, the Fed or the Congress loses any sleep worrying about being taken to task for either the lack of prosecutions or (just as importantly) the fact that some entities are still so large that their risk taking could once again blow up the system. Not only that, the banksters themselves are in full denial mode. How many times have we heard them whine about being persecuted and comparing their situation to Kristelnacht? They have no shame! They're proud of doing "God's work." They still want everyone else to think the entire so-called Main Street recovery depends on their ability to scheme and defraud and socialize their eventual losses.

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

The New Russia

An Interview With Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,” by Paul Klebnikov, in the May 9, 1994, issue of Forbes magazine

With Russia in chaos, it does sound a bit far-fetched to see her as an aggressor.

Russia today is terribly sick. Her people are sick to the point of total exhaustion. But even so, have a conscience and don’t demand that–just to please America–Russia throw away the last vestiges of her concern for her security and her unprecedented collapse. After all, this concern in no way threatens the United States.

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski disagrees. He argues that the U.S. must defend the independence of Ukraine.

In 1919, when he imposed his regime on Ukraine, Lenin gave her several Russian provinces to assuage her feelings. These provinces have never historically belonged to Ukraine. I am talking about the eastern and southern territories of today’s Ukraine.

Then, in 1954, Khrushchev, with the arbitrary capriciousness of a satrap, made a “gift” of the Crimea to Ukraine. But even he did not manage to make Ukraine a “gift” of Sevastopol, which remained a separate city under the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R. central government. This was accomplished by the American State Department, first verbally through Ambassador Popadiuk in Kiev and later in a more official manner.

Why does the State Department decide who should get Sevastopol? If one recalls the tactless declaration of President Bush about supporting Ukrainian sovereignty even before the referendum on that matter, one must conclude that all this stems from a common aim: to use all means possible, no matter what the consequences, to weaken Russia.

Why does independence for Ukraine weaken Russia?

As a result of the sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled Slavic peoples, the borders have torn apart millions of ties of family and friendship. Is this acceptable? The recent elections in Ukraine, for instance, clearly show the [Russian] sympathies of the Crimean and Donets populations. And a democracy must respect this.

I myself am nearly half Ukrainian. I grew up with the sounds of Ukrainian speech. I love her culture and genuinely wish all kinds of success for Ukraine–but only within her real ethnic boundaries, without grabbing Russian provinces.