Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

[touchring]

Re: Strip Mining in Full Swing

The bankers don't need Russia's oil and gas as much anymore:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/23/news...oil/index.html

Russia's failure to diversify their economy, their ill timed adventures in the Ukraine, and inefficiencies of an oligarch based political system are leading them to ruin. A declining population isn't helping either.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/26/inve...ves/index.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia...100954184.html

The bankers aren't just greedy for money, they want power. But they miscalculated this time round, sending Russia into China's lap. The deeper trouble Russia gets into, the better for China because Putin will offer China what they want.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, Ferguson, and many more to come. The more you do, the more you lose.

Do nothing appears to be the better option.

[vt]

Re: Strip Mining in Full Swing

Fully agree on the bankers; they want power too and must not be permitted to obtain it.

The crony capitalists, leftists, banksters, corrupt politicians, all need to be stopped.

China has their own set of problems as a potential restive population may not react well to a possible downturn in china caused by a shadow banking crisis. Hopefully this will not happen, because it would be bad for the global economy.

[touchring]

Re: Strip Mining in Full Swing

Glad you see the point, when any group gets too much power, be it the bankers or corrupt politicians or even countries, chaos will break out and it's the man in the street (we) that will suffer.

Look at commodities. Certain sectors in China is already going through a downturn.

[don]

Whitney's Geo-political Take

Washington’s War on Russia

by MIKE WHITNEY

“In order to survive and preserve its leading role on the international stage, the US desperately needs to plunge Eurasia into chaos, (and) to cut economic ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific Region … Russia is the only (country) within this potential zone of instability that is capable of resistance. It is the only state that is ready to confront the Americans. Undermining Russia’s political will for resistance… is a vitally important task for America.”
-Nikolai Starikov, Western Financial System Is Driving It to War, Russia Insider

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

-The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992

The United States does not want a war with Russia, it simply feels that it has no choice. If the State Department hadn’t initiated a coup in Ukraine to topple the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, then the US could not have inserted itself between Russia and the EU, thus, disrupting vital trade routes which were strengthening nations on both continents. The economic integration of Asia and Europe–including plans for high-speed rail from China (“The New Silk Road”) to the EU–poses a clear and present danger for the US whose share of global GDP continues to shrink and whose significance in the world economy continues to decline. For the United States to ignore this new rival (EU-Russia) would be the equivalent of throwing in the towel and accepting a future in which the US would face a gradual but persistent erosion of its power and influence in world affairs. No one in Washington is prepared to let that happen, which is why the US launched its proxy-war in Ukraine.

The US wants to separate the continents, “prevent the emergence of a new rival”, install a tollbooth between Europe and Asia, and establish itself as the guarantor of regional security. To that end, the US is rebuilding the Iron Curtain along a thousand mile stretch from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Tanks, armored vehicles and artillery are being sent to the region to reinforce a buffer zone around Europe in order to isolate Russia and to create a staging ground for future US aggression.

Reports of heavy equipment and weapons deployment appear in the media on nearly a daily basis although the news is typically omitted in the US press. A quick review of some of the recent headlines will help readers to grasp the scale of the conflict that is cropping up below the radar:

“US, Bulgaria to hold Balkans military drills”, “NATO Begins Exercises In Black Sea”, “Army to send even more troops, tanks to Europe”, “Poland requests greater US military presence”, “U.S. Army sending armored convoy 1,100 miles through Europe”, “Over 120 US tanks, armored vehicles arrive in Latvia”, “US, Poland to Conduct Missile Exercise in March – Pentagon”

Get the picture? There’s a war going on, a war between the United States and Russia.

Notice how most of the headlines emphasize US involvement, not NATO. In other words, the provocations against Russia originate from Washington not Europe. This is an important point. The EU has supported US-led economic sanctions, but it’s not nearly as supportive of the military build up along the perimeter. That’s Washington’s idea and the cost is borne by the US alone. Naturally, moving tanks, armored vehicles and artillery around the world is an expensive project, but the US is more than willing to make the sacrifice if it helps to achieve its objectives.

And what are Washington’s objectives?

Interestingly, even political analysts on the far right seem to agree about that point. For example, check out this quote from STRATFOR CEO George Friedman who summed it up in a recent presentation he delivered at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs. He said:

“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)

Bingo. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or (alleged) Russian aggression. That’s all propaganda. It’s about power. It’s about imperial expansion. It’s about spheres of influence. It’s about staving off irreversible economic decline. It’s all part of the smash-mouth, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners geopolitical world in which we live, not the fake Disneyworld created by the western media. The US State Department and CIA toppled the elected-government in Ukraine and ordered the new junta regime to launch a desperate war of annihilation against its own people in the East, because, well, because they felt they had no other option. Had Putin’s ambitious plan to create a free trade zone between Lisbon to Vladivostok gone forward, then where would that leave the United States? Out in the cold, that’s where. The US would become an isolated island of dwindling significance whose massive account deficits and ballooning national debt would pave the way for years of brutal restructuring, declining standards of living, runaway inflation and burgeoning social unrest. Does anyone really believe that Washington would let that to happen when it has a “brand-spanking” trillion dollar war machine at its disposal?

Heck, no. Besides, Washington believes it has a historic right to rule the world, which is what one would expect when the sense of entitlement and hubris reach their terminal phase. Now check out this clip from an article by economist Jack Rasmus at CounterPunch:

“Behind the sanctions is the USA objective of driving Russia out of the European economy. Europe was becoming too integrated and dependent on Russia. Not only its gas and raw materials, but trade relations and money capital flows were deepening on many fronts between Russia and Europe in general prior to the Ukraine crisis that has provided the cover for the introduction of the sanctions. Russia’s growing economic integration with Europe threatened the long term economic interests of US capitalists. Strategically, the US precipitated coup in the Ukraine can be viewed, therefore as a means by which to provoke Russian military intervention, i.e. a necessary event in order to deepen and expand economic sanctions that would ultimately sever the growing economic ties between Europe and Russia long term. That severance in turn would not only ensure US economic interests remain dominant in Europe, but would also open up new opportunities for profit making for US interests in Europe and Ukraine as well…

When the rules of the competition game between capitalists break down altogether, the result is war—i.e. the ultimate form of inter-capitalist competition.” (The Global Currency Wars, Jack Rasmus, CounterPunch)

See? Analysts on the right and left agree. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or Russian aggression. It’s plain-old cutthroat geopolitics, where the last man left standing, wins.

The United States cannot allow Russia reap the benefits of its own vast resources. Oh, no. It has to be chastised, it has to be bullied, it has to be sanctioned, isolated, threatened and intimidated. That’s how the system really works. The free market stuff is just horsecrap for the sheeple.

Russia is going to have to deal with chaotic, fratricidal wars on its borders and color-coded regime change turbulence in its capital. It will have to withstand reprisals from its trading partners, attacks on its currency and plots to eviscerate its (oil) revenues. The US will do everything in its power to poison the well, to demonize Putin, to turn Brussels against Moscow, and to sabotage the Russian economy.

Divide and conquer, that’s the ticket. Keep them at each others throats at all times. Sunni vs Shia, one ethnic Ukrainian vs the other, Russians vs Europeans. That’s Washington’s plan, and it’s a plan that never fails.

US powerbrokers are convinced that America’s economic slide can only be arrested by staking a claim in Central Asia, dismembering Russia, encircling China, and quashing all plans for an economically-integrated EU-Asia. Washington is determined to prevail in this existential conflict, to assert its hegemonic control over the two continents, and to preserve its position as the world’s only superpower.

Only Russia can stop the United States and we believe it will.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

I think I must go with this theory. The US has set itself up as an agent of security for Western Europe, the Anglo-sphere and the Pacific rim. Fear is essential to that operation of the empire. When it comes to the third world, finance is the main tool that make for easy regime change in Africa, South America et al. We occasionally fire a few rounds . That is what makes Ukraine so special. Rarely does the US use both of its principle arms in the same region in this manner with this level of enemy. Russia is America's Carthage. Its not the first time. The true emperor of the Hapsburg empire was the Russian empire in its latter years, taking over for the Ottomans of course. I should say what I mean by that is the Hapsburg empire was a state held together largely as a reactionary fear to its powerful neighbors.

[touchring]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

I think I must go with this theory. The US has set itself up as an agent of security for Western Europe, the Anglo-sphere and the Pacific rim. Fear is essential to that operation of the empire. When it comes to the third world, finance is the main tool that make for easy regime change in Africa, South America et al. We occasionally fire a few rounds . That is what makes Ukraine so special. Rarely does the US use both of its principle arms in the same region in this manner with this level of enemy. Russia is America's Carthage. Its not the first time. The true emperor of the Hapsburg empire was the Russian empire in its latter years, taking over for the Ottomans of course. I should say what I mean by that is the Hapsburg empire was a state held together largely as a reactionary fear to its powerful neighbors.

If his goal is to become an agent of security for Western Europe, then he has failed totally as he has alienated the European Allies, including the Ally with "Special Relations".

I've already said right from the beginning that Ukraine is a big mistake and will cost the US tens of trillion in damages from goodwill, lost of business, driving the Russians to China, and now even the British and Europeans also are also looking at this option.

And not to mention the Islamic fanatics that have risen in strength as the focus moved to Ukraine. No one has forgotten who created the fanatics that threaten to spread to Europe.

[don]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

Historical hegemon nightmares:

an independent great power (Russia)

an alliance of two great powers (Russia & Germany)

an end-around a hegemon's trump card (naval dominance) by a rival economic alliance (China's land-bound silk road)

It's not easy being a hegemon.

It's not cheap being a hegemon.

The finally nightmare often realized is bankruptcy.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

If his goal is to become an agent of security for Western Europe, then he has failed totally as he has alienated the European Allies, including the Ally with "Special Relations".

I've already said right from the beginning that Ukraine is a big mistake and will cost the US tens of trillion in damages from goodwill, lost of business, driving the Russians to China, and now even the British and Europeans also are also looking at this option.

And not to mention the Islamic fanatics that have risen in strength as the focus moved to Ukraine. No one has forgotten who created the fanatics that threaten to spread to Europe.

It is a mistake from the standpoint of those that were deluded that it was in the best interest of the US. However I believe their are many special interests behind it that benefit. Its pretty much how the US has always worked. A relative small collusion of businessmen have often made US policy. I think that is how we ended up with Hawaii for example. The sugar growers were going to get hammered by the sugar tariff unless they joined the Union. So they led a revolt. And United Fruit Company was much like East Indies essentiall directing policy. A big loss in the aggregate for a slim private profit is the essence of vice and we have plenty of that.

[touchring]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

It is a mistake from the standpoint of those that were deluded that it was in the best interest of the US. However I believe their are many special interests behind it that benefit. Its pretty much how the US has always worked. A relative small collusion of businessmen have often made US policy. I think that is how we ended up with Hawaii for example. The sugar growers were going to get hammered by the sugar tariff unless they joined the Union. So they led a revolt. And United Fruit Company was much like East Indies essentiall directing policy. A big loss in the aggregate for a slim private profit is the essence of vice and we have plenty of that.

Save for a couple democratic utopias in Northern Europe, the world is controlled by oligarchs and elites and dictators that control the government by controlling the political parties (if there are elections) or political party (if there are no elections, such as the case for China). This is perfectly normal today.

What is not normal is when these oligarchs become so powerful, they are more powerful than the government, they can commit murder and run private armies. This transforms the oligarchs into warlords. We all know a country run by warlords will eventually fall into a state many times worst than dictatorship and communism.

[don]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

Naomi Wolf took the time to study the way open societies were crushed from within by authoritarian elements. She claims there is a ‘blueprint’ followed by all rulers composed of ten steps.These include:

• Invoking an external and internal threat
• Establish secret prisons
• Develop a paramilitary force
• Surveil ordinary citizens
• Infiltrate citizen groups
• Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
• Target key individuals
• Restrict the press
• Cast criticism as ‘espionage’ and dissent as ‘treason’
• Subvert the rule of law

In her 2007 book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Naomi Wolf not only described this formula for fascism, she outlined how these repressive measures are in evidence in modern day America.

Similar measures were taken in Mussolini’s Italy, Stalinist Russia, East Germany in the fifties, 1960s Czechoslovakia, the Chilean coup of 1973 and other examples through history.

[vt]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

Perfectly describes Putin's Russia too.

Obama is certainly going much further than the recipe Bush and Clinton started.

[touchring]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

Perfectly describes Putin's Russia too.

Obama is certainly going much further than the recipe Bush and Clinton started.

Putin is just another oligarch fighting for a piece of Ukraine with other Ukrainian oligarchs backed by America. What happens to Russia or Putin is not important in the greater scheme of things. It's not even important if Putin loses or is ousted - it doesn't change the real balance of power, which if you know by now is not having the most powerful military force, but rather the one with the greatest financial power.

[don]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

Professor Stephen Cohen is one of the most respected authorities on Russia among American and Western scholars. He is an American scholar of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. His academic work concentrates on modern Russian history and Russia's relationship with the United States.
The key points of Cohen's extraordinary speech:

• The possibility of premeditated war with Russia is real; this was never a possibility during Soviet times.
• This problem did not begin in November 2013 or in 2008, this problem began in 1990's when the Clinton administration adopted a "winner-takes-all" policy towards post-Soviet Russia.
• Next to NATO expansion, the US adopted a form of a negotiation policy called "selective cooperation" - Russia gives, the US takes.
• There is not a single example of any major concession or reciprocal agreement that the US offered Russia in return for what it has received since the 90s.
• This policy has been pursued by every president and every US Congress, from President Clinton to President Obama.
• The US is entitled to a global sphere of influence, but Russia is not entitled to any sphere of influence at all, not even in Georgia or Ukraine.
• For 20 years Russia was excluded from the European security system. NATO expansion was a pivot of this security system and it was directed against Russia.
• Putin started as a pro-Western leader, he wanted partnership with the US, provided helping hand after 9/11 and saved many American lives in Afghanistan.
• In return he got more NATO expansion and unilateral abolition of the existing missile treaty on which all Russian security was based.
• Putin is not an autocrat, he's maybe very authoritarian as an ultimate decider, but he is answerable to other power groups.
• Putin is not anti-Western, or as Khodorkovsky said, he is more European than 99 percent of Russians. He has become less pro-Western and particularly less pro-American.
• Since November 2013, Putin has became not aggressive but reactive. For this he has been criticized in circles in Moscow as an appeaser (that is, soft, not tough enough).
• We (opposing academics) don't have effective political support in the administration, the Congress, political parties, think tanks or on university campuses. This is unprecedented situation in American politics. There's no discourse, no debate and this is failure of American democracy.
• There is ongoing extraordinary irrational and nonfactual demonisation of Putin. No Soviet leader was so personally vilified as Putin is now.
• The solution is federation to unite Ukraine without Crimea, which is not coming back, free trade with both the West and Russia and no NATO membership for Ukraine.
• This guarantees must be in writing, not oral premises like they gave to Gorbachev, and must be ratified by the UN.
• The Kiev regime is not a democratic one, but an ultra-nationalistic one. Poroshenko is a diminishing president.
• Unless the Kiev regime changes its approach to Russia or unless the West stops supporting Kiev unconditionally, we are drifting towards war with Russia.

[Woodsman]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

Professor Stephen Cohen is one of the most respected authorities on Russia among American and Western scholars. He is an American scholar of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. His academic work concentrates on modern Russian history and Russia's relationship with the United States.
The key points of Cohen's extraordinary speech:

• The possibility of premeditated war with Russia is real; this was never a possibility during Soviet times.
• This problem did not begin in November 2013 or in 2008, this problem began in 1990's when the Clinton administration adopted a "winner-takes-all" policy towards post-Soviet Russia.
• Next to NATO expansion, the US adopted a form of a negotiation policy called "selective cooperation" - Russia gives, the US takes.
• There is not a single example of any major concession or reciprocal agreement that the US offered Russia in return for what it has received since the 90s.
• This policy has been pursued by every president and every US Congress, from President Clinton to President Obama.
• The US is entitled to a global sphere of influence, but Russia is not entitled to any sphere of influence at all, not even in Georgia or Ukraine.
• For 20 years Russia was excluded from the European security system. NATO expansion was a pivot of this security system and it was directed against Russia.
• Putin started as a pro-Western leader, he wanted partnership with the US, provided helping hand after 9/11 and saved many American lives in Afghanistan.
• In return he got more NATO expansion and unilateral abolition of the existing missile treaty on which all Russian security was based.
• Putin is not an autocrat, he's maybe very authoritarian as an ultimate decider, but he is answerable to other power groups.
• Putin is not anti-Western, or as Khodorkovsky said, he is more European than 99 percent of Russians. He has become less pro-Western and particularly less pro-American.
• Since November 2013, Putin has became not aggressive but reactive. For this he has been criticized in circles in Moscow as an appeaser (that is, soft, not tough enough).
• We (opposing academics) don't have effective political support in the administration, the Congress, political parties, think tanks or on university campuses. This is unprecedented situation in American politics. There's no discourse, no debate and this is failure of American democracy.
• There is ongoing extraordinary irrational and nonfactual demonisation of Putin. No Soviet leader was so personally vilified as Putin is now.
• The solution is federation to unite Ukraine without Crimea, which is not coming back, free trade with both the West and Russia and no NATO membership for Ukraine.
• This guarantees must be in writing, not oral premises like they gave to Gorbachev, and must be ratified by the UN.
• The Kiev regime is not a democratic one, but an ultra-nationalistic one. Poroshenko is a diminishing president.
• Unless the Kiev regime changes its approach to Russia or unless the West stops supporting Kiev unconditionally, we are drifting towards war with Russia.

This far too rational to ever become policy. Besides, do you know of anything else that provides the benefits of war when it comes to dealing with overcapacity, debt saturation, surplus population and an excess of democracy?

[don]

Re: Whitney's Geo-political Take

overcapacity, debt saturation, surplus population and an excess of democracy

I get the first three, not sure where the excess of democracy comes in.

And no, academics only get to formulate policy when it coincides with real power interests.