Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

[Polish_Silver]

Proof of declining US influence?

10 Russian soldiers caught invading Ukraine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ers-in-ukraine

"Since the cold war ended, the US has become isolationist, and the result is Russian and Chinese expansionism, and much worse international outcomes," at least according to some.


I disagree with this idea on several levels. The US still has a huge military budget, and scores of over seas military bases, hardly characteristic of isolationism. If the US military were just defending US borders, the bases would be along the coasts and land borders, not looking like this.

How much influence did the US have when fully half of europe, including all of the Ukraine was controlled by the USSR?

China was able to expand during the cold war, by conquering Tibet.

"Influence" is very relative. I'd say the balance of influence between USA and USSR was much more even than between the USA and Russia.

For people who want a more interventionist foreign policy, I'd like them to state what the goals and methods of this policy are. I think many of the soldiers are under the naive impression that the military's purpose is defending the United States , rather than "projecting power" or "international influence". I don't see how either Russian attacks on Ukraine or Isis is a threat to the United States. I dislike both Isis and Putin, but there are scores of other leaders and events I dislike that almost no one thinks justify military intervention. I don't think influence based on military force is an appropriate policy for a peace loving democracy.

[touchring]

Re: Proof of declining US influence?

I don't see how either Russian attacks on Ukraine or Isis is a threat to the United States.

Probably a threat to the business interest of American oligarchs in these countries. If you think about it, the average American citizens are getting the shortest end of America's foreign policy.

Americans pay high taxes, pay an arm and a leg for healthcare, cannot travel to many places without the risk of abduction. Americans soldiers have to risk their lives in combat and even those that are not hurt may suffer from PTSD.

In comparison, American allies from countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Japan, Israel and many others don't need to deploy troops in America's wars, their citizens enjoy relatively cheaper healthcare and safety because of American protection. They only need to provide financial and "moral" support.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Proof of declining US influence?

Probably a threat to the business interest of American oligarchs in these countries. If you think about it, the average American citizens are getting the shortest end of America's foreign policy.

Americans pay high taxes, pay an arm and a leg for healthcare, cannot travel to many places without the risk of abduction. Americans soldiers have to risk their lives in combat and even those that are not hurt may suffer from PTSD.

In comparison, American allies from countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Japan, Israel and many others don't need to deploy troops in America's wars, their citizens enjoy relatively cheaper healthcare and safety because of American protection. They only need to provide financial and "moral" support.

I have thought about it, and I could not have said it better myself.

[flintlock]

Re: Ukraine's economic Quagmire

Radicals on the left and right will defend every move of their wing. They will never criticize anything their "side" does. Of course this makes them easy to identify.
.

Isn't that the truth!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Ukraine's economic Quagmire

Here's a copy of a US Army SOCOM white paper on counter-unconventional warfare, hot off the press, published just a few weeks ago after our conversation:

https://info.publicintelligence.net/...nalWarfare.pdf

Fresh enough to include some detail from the evolving crisis in Ukraine.

A useful primer for those who are interested in a bit of detail, might be a bit of a cure for insomnia for others.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Proof of declining US influence?

Probably a threat to the business interest of American oligarchs in these countries. If you think about it, the average American citizens are getting the shortest end of America's foreign policy.

Americans pay high taxes, pay an arm and a leg for healthcare, cannot travel to many places without the risk of abduction. Americans soldiers have to risk their lives in combat and even those that are not hurt may suffer from PTSD.

In comparison, American allies from countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Japan, Israel and many others don't need to deploy troops in America's wars, their citizens enjoy relatively cheaper healthcare and safety because of American protection. They only need to provide financial and "moral" support.

Would you also agree that Ukraine represents a threat to Russian oligarchs as well? And perhaps oligarchs outside of the US/Russia?

Or is it only US oligarchs to blame?

Genuine question.

Both Saudi and Turkish military will be deeply involved in the Syria/ISIS crisis.

Turkey's military is in a strange spot. The Battle of Kobani between Kurd and ISIS fighters left Turkey in a spot that could draw parallels between the siege of Warsaw as the Soviet Army sat and watched the German Army hammer Polish defenders.

Saudi's monarchy/military(and Qatar's) are deeply involved in financial and direct military support for various elements fighting in that 12 sided conflict.

Qatar provided modern Chinese MANPADs have just shot down an Iraqi gunship.

Qatar has also reportedly sent a good few military personnel somewhat discretely into recent conflicts.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Ukraine's economic Quagmire

Didn't the US try to do any of this in Iraq?

Yup….some of it…..Us doctrine runs a bit differently.

While the US conducted a textbook unconventional warfare operation in Afghanistan(initially, late 2001 and into 2002), it soon mutated into a "everyone needs to own a piece of the victory" operation that resulted in a truly massive overt conventional operation with an even more massive logistical tail that left the US beholden to Pakistan while attempting to build a nation that Pakistan was/is more than capable of easily disrupting as it's far easier and cheaper to break something than make something.

Iraq was a conventional combined arms military operation that incorporated slices of special operations forces and psychological operations as part of the effort(and the SOF component was critical in direct action operations to disrupt insurgent group middle management to devastating effect to quell the various uprisings post 2003 and leading up to the US withdraw).

But "direct action" kinetic operations to "kill or capture" as just one aspect of special operations and distinct from the more esoteric unconventional warfare and strategic influence operations.

An example of the US bumbling and inability to truly integrate unconventional warfare and strategic influence operations into war fighting doctrine as displayed by the embarrassing opening/closure of the Office of Strategic Influence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_...egic_Influence

Russian military doctrine has long held a strong central focus on maskirovka(deception) as well as a willingness to incorporate unconventional operations into core of their operational planning.

To the layman the differences between US and Russian doctrine may seem paper thin, in execution there are substantial differences.

You could argue that such a capability is not compatible with the values of a country you wish to live in, but Russian realpolitik and experience would indicate otherwise in terms of being able to defend against it.

This may sound over simplistic, but I see the US having played a game of checkers in Afghanistan/Iraq, I see the Russians as playing a game of chess in Ukraine.

What the Russians have done is a bit of a game changer.

Despite what Gwynedd1 would like to believe I am not a rabid advocate of US policy and unquestioning supporter of it.

I am calling what I see(and a bit of what I know from professional experience) as I see it.

[aaron]

Re: Proof of declining US influence?

In the midst of revolutions, Arab springs, civil wars, terrorism, religious strife, bombs, etc, there is one truth.

The oil is still flowing.

[touchring]

Re: Proof of declining US influence?

In the midst of revolutions, Arab springs, civil wars, terrorism, religious strife, bombs, etc, there is one truth.

The oil is still flowing.

You left out Ebola. It has the potential to be the Ka.

[don]

Ukraine Gas Deal

The gas deal between Ukraine and Russia became possible because Europe realized that it wouldn’t get the gas if it didn’t get behind Ukraine. Wall Street analyst Michael Hudson.

RT: How important is this gas deal for Ukraine and for Europe?

Michael Hudson: It’s apparently most important for Europe because it was Europe that gave in on the deal. The problem was never about the price of the Russian gas. The problem was whether Ukraine was doing to keep up trying just to run up a larger and larger gas bill every month and every year and finally default. In the US Treasury, strategists have already discussed in public how Ukraine can simply avoid paying Russia the money that it owed by going to court and stalling it. So Russia understandably said, “We need credit in advance.” Mr. Oettinger of the European Commission said “Wait a minute, Russia, why don’t you just lend them the money. They will repay you.” And Mr. Putin at the Valdai Club speech in Sochi last week made it very clear. Look, [Russia] has already lent them 11 billion dollars, much more than anyone else has lent to Ukraine. Ukraine is bankrupt, it’s torn itself apart. Why didn’t perhaps a European Bank underwrite the loan? Finally, Mr. Oettinger gave in. Europe said “OK, the IMF is going to lend Ukraine the money to pay Russia for the gas for the balance of the year.” So that Ukraine would end up owing the IMF money and the European Commission money, not Russia. So Russia will not be exposed to having to lend any more money to a dead-beat economy.

RT: You think that it was the EU who gave in on that deal and not Ukraine or Russia. Why?

MH: Ukraine has passed. Ukraine said “We are broken, we don’t have any money, we have spent all our money on war. Our export industry is collapsing. If we need gas, we’ll simply steal the gas that Russia is sending to Europe. We are not going to starve – we’ll just take your gas.” And Putin said, “Well, if they try to steal gas like they did a few years ago, we’ll just turn off the gas and Europe won’t get gas”. So Europe realized that it wouldn’t get the gas if it didn’t step behind Ukraine and all of a sudden Europe is having to pay for Ukraine’s war against Russia. Europe is having to pay for the whole mess in Ukraine so that it can get gas, and this is not how they expected it to turn out.

RT: Do you think this deal will improve relations between Europe and Russia?

MH: Europe is very uncomfortable with being pressured by the US that essentially said “Let’s you and Russia fight.” Europe is already suffering. Germany has always been turning towards Russia, all the way. 50 years ago, I remember Konrad Adenauer in Germany always spoke very pro-Western and pro-American, but always turned economically towards Russia. So of course Europe, and Germany especially, has wanted to maintain its ties with Russia. The problem is the US [wants] to start a new Cold War. It created a lot of resentment in Europe, and Europe is finally capitulating. This means that the US pressure to set Europe against Russia has failed.

RT: Could we expect now easing of sanctions on Russia?

MH: No, Europe is still being pressured, the sanctions are pressured by NATO, and NATO is pressing for a military confrontation with Russia. The sanctions are going to continue unless Russia gives back Crimea, which of course it won’t. The sanctions are hurting Europe, they are turning out to be a great benefit for Russia because finally Russia is realizing: “We can’t depend on other countries to supply our basic imports, we have to rebuild our industry.” And the sanctions are enabling Russia to give subsidies to its industry and agriculture that it couldn’t otherwise do. So Russia loves the sanctions, Europe is suffering and the Americans are finding that the Europeans are suddenly more angry at it than they are at Russia.

[vt]

Re: Finally proof that Russia is invading Ukraine!

Notes on Russia

By Ian Bremmer
Nov. 17, 2014
the russians are taking every opportunity to escalate an already plenty hostile relationship with the united states and some selected allies. the g20 summit was particularly negative on that front, with russian president putin bringing along some warships to australia, while canadian prime minister stephen harper led a rope line of western leaders calling putin a scoundrel and a liar. putin left early, claiming a need to catch up on sleep and some other business to attend to.
like in ukraine.

i had a chance to talk with some senior russians last week, including two advisors to the kremlin. they explained that putin expected his offer of a ceasefire in southeast ukraine would be sufficient to get the americans to tolerate a status quo, while bringing the europeans to the table with some sanctions reductions. that didn’t happen: instead a coordinated harder line policy stayed in place, while the americans and germans looked set to put more sanctions in place unless the russians actively backed down. despite mounting economic pressure on the europeans, the frozen conflict/long game the kremlin was playing didn’t look like it was going to succeed.
and so the kremlin moved backed to escalation, dramatically expanding their direct military presence in the region – confirmed by nato and the typically-conservative osce, denied by the russian government – and announcing plans to build up troops in crimea. they’re preparing both sides to consolidate their territory, initially through taking the port city of mariupol...potentially then a land-bridge between eastern ukraine and crimea and beyond (odessa being the most obvious place). the most likely path is the kremlin now looking for provocations to “go further” – they’ve already expressed a level of outrage around the ukrainian government severing economic ties to the separatist region – then the fiction of ceasefire is erased and the russians/separatists take more territory. ultimately, whatever the formalized “governance” structure, the kremlin is moving towards making crimea and southeast ukraine a singl e place.

there’s very little the ukrainians can do. the ukrainian military will remain badly outgunned, and the local populations in the region remain fairly anti-kiev, even if they’re skittish about the notion of russian takeover. we’ll see a pickup in international calls to provide arms for the ukrainian military, but they’ll be rejected, most particularly by the united states. at best we’ll see a step up in intelligence and training support, to little consequence.

putin’s military efforts are also stepping up outside ukraine: the “unknown” but clearly russian submarine off sweden, a russian nuclear armed exercise during an intelligence meeting in denmark; bomber patrols in the gulf of mexico. they’re all bluster, but a clear message to america and its allies...and pose a far higher potential for accidents – one scandanavian airlines flight recently made an emergency alteration to its flight path when a russian military jet suddenly appeared in front of it.

the likelihood of moscow backing down in this environment is near zero. the sanctions aren’t having a meaningful impact on the russian economy (yet) and the popularity of the kremlin isn’t taking a hit. the speech from former soviet general secretary mikhail gorbachev – no fan of putin, but clearly pointing the finger at the west for russia’s troubles – makes that clear. and it’s getting harder for the americans to find an out. german chancellor angela merkel continues to be the best opportunity for compromise, but her relationship with putin is now only barely functional (the kremlin advisors i spoke with said this was the single biggest misstep from putin to date – they believed his bilateral conversations with her were too aggressive and led merkel to feel misled; neither believed the relationship could be salvaged near-term). and so russians are now presuming the sanctions environment will be there for the long haul, and are thinking about the longer term economic implications.

i’d now say that’s meaningful before we get to russia’s 2018 elections: further sanctions causing steep recession leading to unrest in the regions, which begins to metastasize to the cities. that would spook russian elites, some of whom could split from the kremlin. the key early warning indicator would be meaningful defections of any insiders to the west. but critically, we’re at least a year or two away from that. by which time ukraine has been economically devastated, while the strategic shift of russia-china is thoroughly entrenched.

Putin’s World: Why Russia’s Showdown with the West Will Worsen

By Vitaliy Katsenelson
Institutional Investor, Nov. 17, 2014
My father, Naum Katsenelson, painted this watercolor, “Dolls Become Humans,” two years after we came to the United States in 1993. This is the only “thematic” picture my father ever painted.


If you look at the picture carefully you’ll see the silhouette of Lenin in the clouds (representing the past). On the far left there is a Stalin doll and a line of people going to prison. Across from Stalin on the right there is a doll of Brezhnev (you’ll recognize him by his large, distinct eyebrows). On the building on the right there is an image of Gorbachev. Look carefully at the faces in the foreground (representing the present and the future): as they get closer to you they become more humanized – transforming from dolls into humans.

The man in front of the woman draped in the American flag is my father; the boy with the Star of David on his chest is me.
This was an aspirational picture. In 1993 the Soviet Union fell apart. Russia’s future looked bright – although it was in chaos, it was a democracy. The dolls here are an analogy for robots, suggesting uniformity of thought. As I was composing this I called my father and asked him if he’d paint the same picture today. He said, “No. Today’s picture would look very different.”

I spent three months aggravating over the following article. It was one of the most emotionally taxing things I ever wrote. A few days ago my wife looked at me and said, “When are you going to be done with it; this article is bringing you down.” She was right.

I grew up hating America. I lived in the Soviet Union and was a child of the cold war. That hate went away in 1989, though, when the Berlin Wall fell and the cold war ended. By the time I left Russia in 1991, the year the Soviet Union collapsed, America was a country that Russians looked up to and wanted to emulate.

Twenty-three years later, a new version of cold war is back, though we Americans haven't realized it yet. But I am getting ahead of myself.
After Russia invaded Crimea and staged its referendum, I thought Vladimir Putin's foreign excursions were over. Taking back Crimea violated plenty of international laws, but let's be honest. Though major powers like the U.S. and Russia write the international laws, they are not really expected to abide by those laws if they find them not to be in their best interests. Those laws are for everyone else. I am not condoning such behavior, but I can clearly see how Russians could justify taking Crimea back – after all, it used to belong to Russia.

I was perplexed by how the Russian people could possibly support and not be outraged by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But I live in Denver, and I read mostly U.S. and European newspapers. I wanted to see what was going on in Russia and Ukraine from the Russian perspective, so I went on a seven-day news diet: I watched only Russian TV – Channel One Russia, the state-owned broadcaster, which I hadn't seen in more than 20 years – and read Pravda, the Russian newspaper whose name means "Truth." Here is what I learned:
If Russia did not reclaim Crimea, once the new, illegitimate government came to power in Ukraine, the Russian navy would have been kicked out and the U.S. navy would have started using Crimean ports as navy bases. There are no Russian troops in Ukraine, nor were there ever any there. If any Russian soldiers were found there (and there were), those soldiers were on leave. They went to Ukraine to support their Russian brothers and sisters who are being abused by Ukrainian nationalists. (They may have borrowed a tank or two, or a highly specialized Russian-made missile system that is capable of shooting down planes, but for some reason those details are not mentioned much in the Russian media.) On November 12, NATO reported that Russian tanks had entered Ukraine. The Russian government vehemently denied it, blaming NATO for being anti-Russian.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was not downed by Russia or separatists. It was shot down by an air-to-air missile fired by Ukraine or a NATO plane engaged in military exercises in Ukraine at the time. The U.S. has the satellite imagery but is afraid of the truth and chooses not to share it with the world.

Ukraine was destabilized by the U.S., which spent $5 billion on this project. As proof, TV news showed a video of Senator John McCain giving a speech to antigovernment protesters in Kiev's Maidan Square. It was followed by a video of Vice President Joe Biden visiting Ukraine during the tumult. I wasn't sure what his role was, but it was implied that he had something to do with the unrest.

Speaking of Joe Biden, I learned that his son just joined the board of Ukraine's largest natural gas company, which will benefit significantly from a destabilized Ukraine.
Ukraine is a zoo of a country, deeply corrupt and overrun by Russian-haters and neo-Nazis (Banderovtsi – Ukrainian nationalists who were responsible for killing Russians and Jews during World War II).

Candidates for the recent parliamentary election in Ukraine included Darth Vader (not kidding), as well as a gay ex-prostitute who claims to be a working man's man but lives in a multimillion-dollar mansion.

I have to confess, it is hard not to develop a lot of self-doubt about your previously held views when you watch Russian TV for a week. But then you have to remind yourself that Putin's Russia doesn't have a free press. The free press that briefly existed after the Soviet Union collapsed is gone – Putin killed it. The government controls most TV channels, radio and newspapers. What Russians see on TV, read in print and listen to on the radio is direct propaganda from the Kremlin.

Before I go further, let's visit the definition of propaganda with the help of the Oxford English Dictionary: "The systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view."

I always thought of the Internet as an unstoppable democratic force that would always let the truth slip out through the cracks in even the most determined wall of propaganda. I was wrong. After watching Russian TV, you would not want to read the Western press, because you'd be convinced it was lying. More important, Russian TV is so potent that you would not even want to watch anything else, because you would be convinced that you were in possession of indisputable facts.

Russian's propaganda works by forcing your right brain (the emotional one) to overpower your left brain (the logical one), while clogging all your logical filters. Here is an example: Russian TV shows footage of schools in eastern Ukraine bombed by the Ukrainian army. Anyone's heart would bleed, seeing these gruesome images. It is impossible not to feel hatred toward people who would perpetrate such an atrocity on their own population. It was explained to viewers that the Ukrainian army continued its offensive despite a cease-fire agreement.

Of course if you watched Ukrainian TV, you would have seen similar images of death and despair on the other side. In fact, if you read Ukrainian newspapers, you will learn that the Ukrainian army is fighting a well-armed army, not rebels with Molotovs and handguns, but an organized force fully armed by the Russian army.
What viewers were not shown was that the cease-fire had been broken before the fighting resumed. The fact that Putin helped to instigate this war was never mentioned. Facts are not something Russian TV is concerned about. As emotional images and a lot of disinformation pump up your right brain, it overpowers the left, which capitulates and stops questioning the information presented.

What I also learned is that you don't have to lie to lie. Let me give you an example. I could not figure out how the Russian media came up with the $5 billion that "America spent destabilizing Ukraine." But then I found a video of a U.S. undersecretary of State giving an 8.5-minute speech; at the 7.5-minute mark, she said, "Since Ukrainian independence in 1991 … [the U.S. has] invested more than $5 billion to help Ukraine." The $5 billion figure was correct. However, it was not given to Ukraine in three months to destabilize a democratically elected, corrupt pro-Russian government but over the course of 23 years. Yes, you don't have to lie to lie; you just have to omit important facts – something Russian TV is very good at.

Another example of a right-brain attack on the left brain is "the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine." Most lies are built around kernels of truth, and this one is no different. Ukraine was home to the Banderovtsi, Ukrainian nationalists who were responsible for killing tens of thousands of Jews and Russians during World War II.


Putin justified the invasion of Crimea by claiming that he was protecting the Russian population from neo-Nazis. Russian TV creates the impression that the whole of Ukraine is overrun by Nazis. As my father puts it, "Ukrainians who lived side by side with Russians did not just become Nazis overnight."
Though there may be some neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the current government is liberal and pro-Western. Svoboda – the party whose members are known for their neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic rhetoric – did not get even 5 percent of the votes in the October election, the minimum needed to gain a significant presence in parliament. Meanwhile the TV goes on showing images of Nazis killing Russians and Jews during World War II and drawing parallels between Nazi Germany and Ukraine today.

What also makes things more difficult in Russia is that, unlike Americans, who by default don't trust their politicians – yes, even their presidents – Russians still have the czarist mentality that idolizes its leaders. Stalin was able to cultivate this to an enormous degree – most Russians thought of him as a father figure. My father was 20 when Stalin died in 1953, and he told me that he, like everyone around him, cried.

I keep thinking about what Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Putin we scorn today was not always like this; he did a lot of good things during his first term. The two that stand out the most are getting rid of the organized crime that was killing Russia and instituting a pro-business flat tax system. The amount of power Russians give their presidents, however, will, with time, change the blood flow to anyone's head. Come to think of it, even Mother Teresa would not have stood a chance in Russia.

A few weeks ago Putin turned 62, and thousands of people took to the streets to celebrate his birthday. (Most Americans, including this one, don't even know the month of Barack Obama's birthday.)

In my misspent youth, I took a marketing class at the University of Colorado. I remember very little from that class except this: For your message to be remembered, a consumer has to hear it at least six times. Putin's propaganda folks must have taken the same class, because Russian citizens get to hear how great their president is at least six times a day.

We Americans look at Putin and see an evil KGB guy who roams around the country without a shirt on. Russians are shown a very different picture. They see a hard-working president who cares deeply about them. Every news program dedicates at least one fifth of its airtime to showcasing Putin's greatness, not in your face but in subtle ways. A typical clip would have him meeting with a cabinet minister. The minister would give his report, and Putin, looking very serious indeed, would lecture the minister on what needed to be done. Putin is always candid, direct and tough with his ministers.

I've listened to a few of Putin's speeches, and I have to admit that his oratory skills are excellent, of a J.F.K. or Reagan caliber. He doesn't give a speech; he talks. His language is accessible and full of zingers. He is very calm and logical.

Russians look at the Putin presidency and ask themselves a very pragmatic question: Am I better off now, with him, than I was before he came into power? For most the answer is yes. What most Russians don't see is that oil prices over the past 14 years went from $14 to more than $100 a barrel. They are completely responsible for the revival of Russia's one-trick petrochemical economy. In other words, they should consider why their economy has done better the past decade, and why it may not do as well going forward. Unless Putin was the one who jump-started China's insatiable demand for oil and other commodities that drove prices higher, he has had very little to do with Russia's recent "prosperity."

I place prosperity in quotes because if you take oil and gas riches away from Russia (lower prices can do that with ease), it is in a worse place today than it was 14 years ago. High oil prices have ruined Russia. They have driven its currency up, making its other products less competitive in international markets. Also, capital gravitates toward higher returns; thus oil has sucked capital from other industries, hollowing out the economy. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia had a chance to broaden its economy; it had one of the most educated workforces in the world. Sadly, it squandered that opportunity. Name one noncommodity product that is exported from Russia. There aren't many; I can think only of vodka and military equipment.

But most Russians don't look at things that way. For most of them, their lives are better now: No more lines for toilet paper, and the stores are full of food. Their personal liberties (such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press) have been taken away from them, but many have so much trust in their president that they don't mind, whereas others are simply complacent.

Today we see three factors that influence oil prices and are working against Russia: Supply is going up with U.S. shale drilling; demand growth will likely decline if the Chinese economy continues to cool; and the dollar is getting stronger, not because the U.S. doing great but just because the rest of the world is doing worse. If oil prices continue to decline, this will expose the true state of the Russian economy.

When I visited Russia in 2008, I sensed an anti-American sentiment. NATO – which in Russia is perceived as a predominantly American entity – had expanded too close to Russian borders. Georgia tried to join NATO, but Russia put a quick end to that. Russians felt they extended a friendly hand to the U.S. after 9/11, but in response America was arraying missiles around its borders. (The U.S. says they are defensive, not offensive; Russians don't see the distinction. They are probably right.)

The true colors of this new cold war came to light recently. In August 2008, according to Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury secretary at the time, "top level" Russian officials approached the Chinese during the Olympics in Beijing and proposed "that together they might sell big chunks of their GSE (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) holdings to force the U.S. to use its emergency authorities to prop up these companies."

This incident took place just weeks before the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The U.S. economy was inches from revisiting the Stone Age. The proposed Russian-Chinese maneuver could have made such an outcome more likely. The Federal Reserve would have had to step in and buy Fannie's and Freddie's debt, and the dollar would have taken a dive, worsening the plunge in the U.S. economy. Our friend Putin wanted to bring the U.S. economy down without firing a single shot, just as he annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Today anti-American sentiment is much greater in Russia. European sanctions are seen as entirely unjustified. Here is why: Crimea had a "democratic referendum," and the Ukrainian conflict is believed to be not of Russia's doing but rather an American attempt to destabilize Russia and bring Ukraine into NATO. In his annual speech at the Valdai conference last month, Putin said America had pushed an unwilling Europe into imposing sanctions on Russia. America is perceived as an imperialistic bully that, because of its economic and military power, puts its own self-interest above everyone else's, and international law.

Putin uses anti-Americanism as a shiny object to detract attention from the weak Russian economy and other internal problems. In the short run, sanctions provide a convenient excuse for the weakening Russian economy and declining ruble. They have boosted Putin's popularity (at least so far). As the Russian economy gets worse, anti-American sentiment will only rise.

This new version of the cold war has little in common with the one I grew up in. There are no ideological differences, and there is no arms race (at least not yet, and let's be honest: Today neither country can afford one, especially Russia). At the core of it, we don't like what Russia is doing to its neighbors, and Russia doesn't like what we do to the rest of the (non-EU) world.

The criticisms of U.S. foreign policy voiced by Putin in his latest Valdai speech are shared by many Americans: The U.S. is culpable in the unresolved, open-ended Afghanistan adventure; the Iraq War; the almost-bombing of Syria, which may have destabilized the region further; and the creation of the Islamic State, which is in large part a by-product of all of the above. Yet Putin's abominable Ukrainian excursion and the thousands of lives lost were never mentioned.

But there is also something less tangible that is influencing Russia's behavior: a bruised ego. During the good old Soviet Union days, Russia was a superpower. It mattered. When it spoke, the world listened. The Russian people had a great sense of pride in their Rodina (Mother Russia). Today, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons, we'd pay much less attention to it than we do. Pick a developing country without oil whose president you can name. (Okay, we Americans can't name the president of almost any other country, but you get the point.)

Anti-Americanism and Putin's popularity will both rise as the Russian economy weakens. For instance, Putin took his own people hostage when he imposed sanctions on imports of European food. The impact on Europe will not be significant (the Russian economy is not very large in comparison to the European Union), but Russia is very dependent on these imports. In the U.S. consumers spend about 13 percent of their earnings on food, but in Russia that number is almost three times larger. Therefore, food inflation hurts Russians much more. Yet as food inflation spiked, so did Putin's popularity and anti-Americanism. Even declining oil prices will be explained as a anti-Russian manipulation by the U.S.
Unfortunately, the only thing Russia has going for it today is its nuclear weapons. Russia has started to remind us of its military recently. According to NATO, the alliance "has conducted over 100 intercepts of Russian aircraft in 2014 to date, which is about three times more than were conducted in 2013."

Every article needs a conclusion, but this one doesn't have one. I am not sure what this new cold war means for the world. Will Russia start invading other neighboring countries? Will it test NATO resolve by invading Baltic countries that are part of NATO? I don't know. Economic instability will eventually lead to political crises. We have plenty of economic instability going on around the world.

I'll leave you with this thought: On March 7, 1936, the German army violated the Treaty of Versailles and entered into the Rhineland. Here is what Hitler later said:
"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."

Those two days determined what Germany would do next – build out its army and start World War II.

Comparing Putin with Hitler, as one of my Russian friends put it, is "absolutely abominable" because it diminishes Hitler's atrocities and overstates by a mile what Putin has accomplished to date. Yet it feels as if we are at a Putin-of-1936 moment. Will he turn into a Putin of 1939 and invade other countries? I don't know. But the events of the past nine months have shown Putin's willingness to defy international law and seize the advantage on the ground, betting – correctly so far – that the West won't call his bluff.

As Garry Kasparov put it, while the West is playing chess, responding tactically to each turn of events, Putin is playing high-stakes poker. We ignore Putin at our own peril.

Vitaliy Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo. To receive Vitaliy’s future articles by email or read his articles, click here.

[don]

Strip Mining in Full Swing

Enter the Carpetbaggers: Ukraine's New Finance Minister a US Citizen, New Economy Minister from Lithuania

Carpetbaggers Take Over Ukraine

Now that Ukraine's gold has been sold off, the only thing left to complete the plundering is to send in the carpetbaggers. That process is now underway. Ukraine's just-named "Finance Minister" is a US citizen, and Ukraine's new "Economy Minister" is from Lithuania.

To get around legal issues associated with having foreigners in top level government positions, Ukraine made the appointees Ukrainian citizens.

Reuters explains Foreign Technocrats Given Ukrainian Citizenship Before Cabinet Vote.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Tuesday granted citizenship to three foreign technocrats nominated for cabinet positions in a new government hoping to tackle severe economic and defense threats.

Parliament is expected to vote on nominees for cabinet positions on Tuesday with Kiev under pressure to form a new government quickly.

Ukraine has been offered billions of dollars in aid by international lenders if it implements a program of economic reform and Poroshenko said the administration would benefit from international specialist input.

Meet Your New Carpetbagger Technocrats

• [*=left]Natalie Jaresko, a U.S. citizen and chief executive of private equity group Horizon Capital, will take over as "Finance Minister". She has worked in Ukraine for more than 20 years after holding various economic positions in the U.S. State Department.
  [*=left]Aivaras Abromavicius, a Lithuanian citizen and a partner in investment firm East Capital, will take over as "Economy Minister".
  [*=left]Aleksander Kvitashvili, a Georgian citizen who has served as health minister and labor minister in Tbilisi will take over as "Health Minister"

Jacob Dreizin Comments

Reader Jacob Dreizin a US citizen who speaks Russian and reads Ukrainian offered these select comments.

Ukraine has a new finance minister, Natalie Jaresko. She is a former U.S. State Department official. After leaving State Department, she ran a Ukraine-based private equity firm. Her company site (Horizon Capital) is down now. I guess everyone was trying to look at her bio. She was only granted Ukrainian citizenship today, so she could legally hold the position.

The post of "Economy Minister" was just given to an asset management firm partner from Lithuania, and the "Health Minister" is from Georgia. The choice of nationality is not surprising. It's an attempt to give the EU direct access to Ukrainian economic policy, specifically "reforms" or lack thereof, as well as to poke a stick in Putin's eye.

These moves show that Ukraine is willing to be turned into a Western colony in exchange for whatever financial scraps can be tossed its way. While it's true that Ukraine is in desperate need of a total overhaul, any country that turns its economy over to foreigners wholesale is going to be pillaged wholesale. Greece is a perfect example.

Finally, I should also mention that a number of Ukrainian power plants are down to their last few days of coal. And the winter is just starting.

Jacob

With Ukraine's gold long gone (see With Its Gold "Vaporized", A Furious Ukraine Turns On Its Central Bankers), the carpetbaggers will soon take control of anything worthwhile that is left remaining.


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...F5e5mZ2IkeG.99

[touchring]

Re: Strip Mining in Full Swing

http://www.firstrebuttal.com/2014/12...-losing-badly/

A repeat of WWII, but instead of Nazi Germany and the Axis countries, we have the bankers, Neo-Nazis and NATO going after Russia's oil and gas? To add to the irony, China is now in the same position as the USA was 70 years ago.

Reuters Objectively See’s Russia’s Options as Losing or… Losing Badly

December 24, 2014


“I’ve long thought that he has pursued a pre-World War Two course which could only end badly – a course in which his power is maximized by crushing internal opponents, expanding empire and using the military to frighten neighboring countries into submission.”, writes John Lloyd of Reuters. I read this excerpt from his recent article and thought finally someone in mainstream media is honestly discussing the foreign policy of America, just to eventually find out he is actually talking about Putin. However, Lloyd does go on to imply American foreign policy can be described much the same way.


Unfortunately the rest of the article is basically ‘informing’ the reader that Putin has two options; 1. he can lose or 2. he can lose badly. John Lloyd’s coverage must be a bit disappointing to all those readers that purchased Lloyd’s 2004 book “What the Media are Doing to our Politics”. It is clear that John Lloyd is nothing more than yet another mainstream media muppet of the neocon storyline. The more they say it apparently the more true they believe it becomes. In any case, I suppose I could overlook the obvious hypocrisy if it were well thought out. However, Lloyd seems to miss the one most likely option, the China factor.


“Russia has the capability and the wisdom to overcome the existing hardship in the economic situation,” Foreign Minister Wang Yi told journalists, China Daily reported Monday. “If the Russian side needs it, we will provide necessary assistance within our capacity.” In a recent piece I published, I discuss the clear motivation of the Western Alliance to crush Russia is an attempt to contain the obvious new world dominating force, China. You see China has just surpassed the US as the world’s top economy. Its military is by far the largest military in the world though probably not the most sophisticated, yet. But there is no rational mind that argues China will not be the world’s single superpower in a mere 20 years if not sooner. The Western Alliance (which is the collective of Western leaders that have long controlled global policies), however, is not so rational. The central banking cartel along with the Western Alliance are not going down without a fight.


The problem is that by way of pure demographics the Western Alliance concedes a majority of the world’s assets will be owned by the East within the next few years and with majority of wealth typically comes control. James Wolfensohn, ex president of the World Bank, lays out the global power shift very clearly in his address at Stanford University. But so how does the Western Alliance hold onto global control whilst no longer holding the majority of the world’s assets? Well that is the challenge James presents to students in his address. In reality the Western Alliance is not calmly passing the challenge onto these future leaders but is very much initiating the battle to end all battles. You see it is natural for the Alpha dog to eventually pass on the crown. It happens in all top-of-the-food-chain species, lions, wolves, bears, etc. The dominating male will eventually be challenged by a more impressive up and comer. And while that alpha dog can hold onto his top rank for a few years past his prime by putting on a show of strength eventually it comes down to his last fight.


I see that as where America and the Western Alliance stands today. You see we’ve been barking very loud and putting on an impressive show of strength by taking on very weak challengers since the beginning of the new millennium, however, the real challenger is China. And we’ve all known that for some time. As Wolfensohn discusses it is becoming a now or never reality for the Western Alliance. Either they find a way to contain the impressive beast or they give up their Alpha status. And so here they are in the fight for global control. In that earlier piece I wrote I describe how the Western Alliance is targeting energy, as it is China’s achilles heel. China’s energy source for the future is Russia. Given its economic, military and energy prowess, a Sino-Soviet Alliance will trump the Western Alliance. The objective then is to destroy the Soviet variable before the Sino-Soviet Alliance is fortified. Control China’s energy and you can contain China.


Clearly Russia’s future has very little to do with the Western world and so they have no motive to start wars with the West. There is nothing to gain by doing so. However, they have every motive to defend themselves against Western aggression. And so if you see Russian aggression with the West it can only be defensive in nature. Nations (other than North Korea) do not act in a way that is to the detriment of its political class. Because warring with the West presents no possible upside but significant downside for Russia and her leaders, they will actually be willing to do everything in their power to prevent such a scenario.


However, as we discussed above, the Western Alliance has only one option to secure its global control and that is to contain China and the only way to contain China is via Russian energy. Thus, the Western Alliance has every reason to war with Russia. Behaviour (for rational minds) is always logical and so we can use logic to come to the truth about behaviour by looking at the logical results of actions. If an action seems to be detrimental to a particular subject nation’s political class, then the action would be illogical and thus will not be taken. If an action is the only course of survival for a nation, or more pertinently its political class, then you can be damn certain that action will be taken. Looking at the Russian conflict then from a logical context, it really becomes not up for debate that the Western Alliance must be the aggressor.


But so ok, we are doing what we need to in order to secure our dominance and perhaps there are working class folks that may agree with such a policy. Sounds simple enough according to John Lloyd. As he lays out, the two options for Putin and Russia are to either lose or lose badly. But when John pulls his head out his ass or decides to speak with some integrity rather than selling himself out as a politician’s town crier he will admit that things won’t be so simple. China’s future growth is dependent on Russian energy, and so on Russia itself. As such, China will never allow the Western Alliance to crush Russia as China understands the end objective is not a containment of Russia but China itself. I made the point in the previous article that China will not only step in economically, which we’ve already seen by example with the signed energy deals and now explicitly stating they will back the Russian economy but, if comes to it, China will be prepared to step in militarily, they have no choice.


That is a very scary WWIII proposition and one might wonder why in the hell are we headed in that direction? It is obviously not something citizens of any involved countries would want. Again the reason goes back to that very natural process of Alpha selection. It requires a final fight of the Alpha dog, the one in which he loses his reign of power to a new more impressive Alpha dog. Sometimes this is done without violence when the Alpha simply knows he is no longer top dog and he moves on. Often times it ends is horrible violence.


Unfortunately with quarreling societies the political class does not fight its own battles. They send their soldiers out to kill and be killed on their behalf. You can be certain if the killing and being killed was to be done by those cowards making the decision to war with Russia and ultimately China, that the passing of the torch would be a very quiet and uneventful one. But unfortunately the massacre will be of the working class while the political class remains warm and well fed in their thrones and castles.


In the end, who is making global policy decisions affects no one but the political class. It is their world of power and luxury from ill gotten gains that is on the line. The rest of us go about our day to day business with no consciousness of what takes place at that level of control. Ultimately perhaps a change in power would lead to an improving quality of life for the masses rather than just for the .1% at the top and that would be a very good change.


We the people can allow our political class to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of our brave young men and women but there is no alternative outcome to China becoming the global superpower. That is certain. And look, we would all rather be in control than not in control but China’s certainty of power comes from the size of its bourgeoning population not from some sinister plot to take over the world despite what Western media would have you believe. And so we shouldn’t fear a power shift.


As Russia seems to be doing, we should find ways to optimize the way in which we can progress from the change. I remember reading a book as un undergrad called “Who Stole My Cheese”. The book was a brilliant highly acclaimed few words of wisdom on why and how change can be a good thing. But the successful transition during periods of change is a function of our own perspectives. If we continue to drink the poison from our political class poured from the cups of mainstream media our future is grim. However, if we the people, take the powers invested in us by way of the Constitution, we can take the inevitable coming power shift and apply our new role in a way that creates incredibly positive outcomes.


I find it so disturbingly illogical that we Americans are willing to die so that our political class can enjoy ill gotten riches and power yet we cower when it comes to defending our great nation against the political class, something our founding fathers pleaded for us to do. The truth, which the political class legislates so hard for us to overlook, is that they are powerless without us. It is us that fight their fights, fund their wars and enforce their laws that enslave us yet we bow down and call them Mr. President and Madame Secretary. And so I ask each and everyone of you, when will we wake up and recognize that we are the power and the wealth and that the political class has only managed, through deception, to harness our strengths and pass them off as their own? For until that day of awakening, we will continue to live as an oppressed people ruled by others for others.

[touchring]

Re: Strip Mining in Full Swing

Duplicate.

[vt]

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