Quote:The problems with the European Union's basic ideology of course involve Germany's position more specifically. To see it with the utmost clarity, we must recall the standard mantra of the proponents of Western liberalism, whether they are from the European Union, from the United States or homegrown: the West's main goal in relation to Russia is to explain that adopting basic liberal values ​inevitably leads to a flourishing economy and happiness all round. If we make any attempt to poke our noses into the real results, they explain that we ourselves are doing everything wrong; specifically, we have created corruption on a massive scale.

I will leave aside the fact that the Western consultants who drilled their liberal values into us were themselves a source of corruption. It's no secret that many of them lined their pockets during the privatization process, as individuals or corporations. It's no secret that such privatizations were an entirely criminal process that not only created a huge pool of corrupt officials, but also completely precluded the normal development of small and medium-sized businesses. When the privatization process was coming to an end, the liberal corruptionists morphed into corporate raiders, destroying any businesses that developed outside their control.

All you have to do is look at the wording of bankruptcy laws, court rulings and so on. This situation is the outcome of privatization, and as long as it is not condemned we will be quite naive to expect the country to experience constructive growth. People who have stolen millions if not billions will never allow a normal business environment because they cannot function in normal competitive conditions; most owe their existence to theft from the state's coffers or to government support.

But let's get back to the main topic. The people who now govern our country, our entire elite, which was formed from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, espouse the liberal ideology. They are sincerely willing to defend the "sacred right to private property" and take their orders from Washington. They just do not want to take risks or to share power in our country.

Washington often tolerates such situations. Latin American dictators and the Saudi monarchy cannot be called bastions of democracy and freedom. And the U.S. favorite Israel is no angel. But with Russia something went wrong. What happened here is complex and can be discussed at length. It is possible that a quarter century's worth of efforts to inculcate the people with liberal values ​​failed, and Washington decided that at the start of the global crisis the liberalization policy had to be stepped up. But the Russian elite resisted, fearing genuine popular unrest. Even so, the United States forged ahead.

Of course, this situation did not suit the European Union; it was to the liking of neither Brussels nor Berlin, which were doing a great deal of business with Moscow and were firmly convinced that sooner or later they would reap the rewards. And the Ukraine featured in their plans. But the general idea that the center of power for Eastern Europe should not be in Moscow but in Washington was not questioned. And herein lie the problems.

Moscow has repeatedly asked the same question: if your goal is to instill certain values in us, and if we are ready to accept them, why are you splitting the Ukraine off from Russia? Well, with Eastern Europe it worked, with help from Gorbachev. But those were fearful times what if suddenly true patriots came to power in the Russian Federation or somewhere else? But, now, what's the problem? Even in the United States, there are politicians who understand this: http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/1828187 [Russian only].

But today such a question does not count for the United States, which has a purely imperial policy and does not take part in such discussions [Jennifer] Psaki being a fine example. They have to lie about facts, so they lie; they have to respond with silence to a direct question, so they keep silent. And nothing can be done about it, because no one can punish the United States so far. In my opinion, however, such a position will backfire on them fairly soon. And the situation is raising questions in Berlin and Brussels.

They are set on turning Ukraine into their own (more precisely, American) sphere of influence. I'm not even going to discuss why; the fact is self-evident. They cannot allow themselves to ignore various unpleasant questions and facts, so they have to engage in discussion. The same question constantly arises, in different versions and interpretations: "Why don't you want Ukraine to move closer to the EU along with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan?" As soon as this issue comes up, the German/EU representatives panic.

Well, they can't really tell the truth: in supporting "freedom" and "democracy," we acknowledge that the United States may violate these values ​​whenever and wherever it wants. And the United States wants to tear the Ukraine away from Russia (because [Zbigniev] Brzezinski said so, and that's as good a reason as any), and we must help it, even though we understand that this threatens the much-mooted values. We accept that U.S. policy is based solely on its imperial interests, and that it spits on "freedom" and "democracy" (I will not discuss [Victoria] Nuland's infamous conversations, the interference in vote counting during the election in Ukraine and so on because they have already been cited many times). We acknowledge that we will never speak out against the U.S. position and we will not let anyone even think about doing so. As long as it suits us, of course.

As a result, Berlin/Brussels is in an extremely weak position. They impose servitude on the Ukraine with an agreement that is utterly destroying its economy, they support the coup d'état, they allow a pro-American group in the Ukraine to crudely and cynically rig the election. And after all that, their talk of "freedom" and "democracy" appears highly questionable, not only to Moscow but also to other cities and countries. What can they do in such a situation?

Keep talking about "freedom" and "democracy"? To people who can see how they are dragging Ukraine into "freedom," organizing death squads, shelling residential neighborhoods with large-caliber weapons and categorically forbidding their fellow citizens from holding alternative points of view (if you are so inclined, you can read about how the Right Sector battalions behave in the Donbass and the territories they occupy)? I won't say anything at all about the economy.

Tell the truth? But then there is a danger that the power of the anti-elite opposition, which (except in Hungary and Greece) is just starting to make its presence felt in the EU, will increase dramatically. Should the current elite lose control over budgets and currencies, they may lose power forever. And that prospect is extremely unappealing to them.

Come up with some kind of outlandish story? For example, if neo-Nazis come to power in Germany, they will get along swimmingly with Ukraine's Right Sector. But they too will not necessarily put up with the current, pro-American elite, which will not be needed.

In general, Merkel & Co. have serious problems. If the economy were still strong, it would be possible, as always, to paper over the cracks and absurdities of the official version with infusions of money. But what can be done in today's situation? There is no good answer. Merkel continues her efforts to stop what is clearly a war and to persuade the U.S. to calm down, even if only for a while. But it's all in vain because the United States has in fact lost the war, and its imperial arrogance will not allow it to stop, especially with an election at hand. Talk of "freedom" and "democracy" is becoming more irritating, even within the EU. Nor can Merkel pressure the United States for money. I won't even talk about Brussels.

In general, there is only one thing we can say: if the ideological basis of the European Union, a complex government entity, is built on such a sinister contradiction, as it plainly is, then its days are numbered. And nothing can be done about that.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Must watch!!

A Halford MacIndor stew, anyone? Season with just a little Conjuring Hitler? (No explicit mention of CH, but it's there.)

Summary video:



His entire speech:

Quote:"US anger at Britain joining Chinese-led investment bank AIIB" are the headlines of a Guardian report of 13 March 2015. "Cabinet split over Asian bank' after UK's shock support" are the headlines of a Melbourne Age report of the same date.

They highlight a British resolve in the face of a world undergoing rapid transformation, especially in financial power and in respect of Chinese influence. They also reflect the disarray of an Australian government preoccupied with personal ambitions amongst its leaders and led astray by the mono-cultural character of its foreign affairs minister and establishment. Of course, the British decision on the AIIB would have been driven by the City of London, which is much more knowing and experienced in these matters than is likely to be the case with an Australian government.

Nevertheless, this is perilous for Australia at a time when previously dominant English speaking maritime powers are in danger of being marginalized by the multi-cultural transformation of more than 4 billion people likely to make up a dynamic, emerging Eurasia, (or Eurasafrican), continental trade zone networked by very fast train and other technologically advanced overland connections.

Few Australian s are informed with the knowledge to make these type of assessments. Political leaders allow the mainstream media, controlled from far across the oceans and from another hemisphere, to censor from the news all meaningful reference to these matters.

China's Silk Road initiatives designed to transform Eurasia and perhaps Africa, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping and its epochal financial initiatives and the imminent expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are developments that are rarely, if ever, allowed to trouble the Australian consciousness. Yet, they are in the process of rendering the authority of United Nations Organizations, long structured to favour the interests of major English speaking nations, anachronistic.

These developments have already greatly reduced the authority of the United States and give no evidence of being reversible. Moreover, with Russia driven into an ever closer alliance with China and Germany being nudged out of NATO and into Eurasia by American ineptness and over-reach in Ukraine, serious doubts have been raised about any superiority that might be claimed by American defence technology. Given its dependence on corporations with a single minded preoccupation with profit, it has become implausible to assume America retains any critical areas of practical, strategic advantage.

Of course, Australians also hear little about the diverse areas of technological superiority achieved by the Russians and Chinese independently with their elite education standards. Yet, the miseries and cost of the F 35 fighter project have become a symbol of the perils of dependence on the reputed superiority of American military technology. There is much implicit evidence that this is recognised by responsible leaders in the Pentagon, even as it remains politically impossible to address such realities publicly.

Australian mainstream media coverage of ISIS and Ukraine also highlights the manner in which both the Australian people and government are deliberately misled about other critical issues. Only the recently introduced monthly, Australian National Review, escapes the misleading but politically correct propaganda that distorts the complexities of Western interests in these areas of conflict.

It is contrary to the views held by most Australians, when this and much other international alternative media suggests ISIS is a creation of American, Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests that now has Americans fighting Americans (and Australians). Equally, Australians are uninformed about suggestions that the present Kiev power holders are the product of an illegal coup against a democratically elected government and are the perpetrators of the MH17 shoot down, with its consequent Australian deaths.

The challenges and difficulties of leadership and government in English speaking nations accustomed to the privileges and influence associated with power should not be belittled at this time. The rise of China and the spreading bankruptcy and financial problems of the West, together with the emerging transformation of Eurasia outlined above, signifies a type of End of Empire experience for the English speaking world. Perversely, China has much more recorded experience and understanding of the predicaments of End of Empire moments than the English speaking peoples.

At such times, long disguised and neglected weaknesses amongst the privileged become all too evident and it becomes increasingly difficult to manage and reconcile contending factions. This seems evident in both Canberra and Washington. Against this back ground it might be argued that both Prime Minister Abbott and President Obama have done somewhat better with the big issues than it is at all popular to recognize. Abbott displayed some deft but unremarked finesse at the G20 meeting in Brisbane at the end of 2014 and Obama has not relented in an ongoing struggle to rein in a war faction that presents him with a series of counter-productive, unwanted and entangling fait accompli.

A fundamental problem also rests in the mono-cultural character of English language leaders. Perhaps no one illustrates this better than the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop. An extremely attractive and youthful woman for her age, she is clearly dedicated, hard-working, well studied and focused. Unfortunately, however, she seems to exist and operate in a culturally one dimensional world at a time when Australia confronts a diversity of cultural challenges, whether from China, Indonesia, India or more distant parts of the world. For a government that committed initially to prioritising its relations with Indonesia, its performance has been characterized by muddle, irrelevance, insensitivity and domestic preoccupations.

Public reports all indicate that Foreign Minister Bishop has lobbied to delay Australia becoming a foundational member of the AIIB, on grounds advanced by the US that it does not match the governance standards of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Yet anyone literate in the experiences and sentiments of nations outside the privileged circle of those close to English speaking centres of power knows that these organizations are widely judged to have been regularly abused to favour the interests of wealthy English speaking peoples. There is nothing exceptional or remarkable in this as all powers are disposed to take advantage of such situations, especially when under pressure. The problem becomes serious and acute, however, when a country in the geo-commercial situation of Australia wittingly, or unwittingly, choses to favour an American past over its inevitable Asian future.

In the Australian Embassy in Beijing in 1976, while Chairman Mao was still alive, I argued on the basis of unique cultural qualities the unpopular and seemingly inconceivable case for a future Chinese economic miracle. According to the 2007 DFAT R G Neale lecture this helped shape Australia's response to economic opportunities in China. It is most difficult, however, not to be dismayed by subsequent developments. Yes, reporting at that time helped Australian economic growth over the following four decades. Nevertheless, that economic growth has been accompanied by an almost total failure of Australian (and other Western) politicians, diplomats and academics to look seriously into the cultural qualities that are making China, and Asia more broadly, the major agent for dynamic transformation of the global economy.

When explored with any seriousness and an open spirit, it is apparent that Chinese, and most Asian, culture shares little of the fundamental qualities that characterize the English speaking world. Western habits of abstract, rational, theoretical and belief based thought are easily mastered and used to advantage by those well educated in the Chinese tradition. They are, nevertheless, marginal to the central strengths of that tradition.

This is something that seems totally beyond the comprehension, even the imagination, of mono-cultural English speakers like Australia's Foreign Minister. Otherwise, she could not so earnestly argue a case that is implausible and disadvantageous in a rapidly evolving global environment largely masterminded and shaped by superior Chinese strategic wit.

The significance of the following concluding words from the Age article also seems to escape the comprehension of the Foreign Minister.

China has charted a course to become an alternative banker to the world, seen as a direct challenge to the incumbent roles of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Last July, it partnered with Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa to form a BRICS Development Bank, with $50 billion in capital, with the five members also announcing plans to pool $100 billion of foreign-exchange reserves for any of them to tap in the event of a crisis.

In October, China led the creation of the $100 billion Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), seen to rival the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, and a month later announced a $40 billion Silk Road Fund, to fund infrastructure projects in the region.

Humming and hawing about phoney governance issues will only work to marginalize Australia on the fringes of critical emerging regional and global financial institutions. The only reward will be temporary favour with one of the less competent factions struggling to shape the future of a United States, mired in its own tangle of political and financial misjudgements. Sadly, it might even be said tragically, unlike 75 years ago, Australia cannot realistically expect the United States to exercise real influence in its region in future.

One might conclude by noting that it has been reported that the new government in Egypt has, despite all its troubles, begun negotiating with China over the construction of a $US10 billion very fast train rail over the 900 kilometres connecting Alexandria and Aswan. This is the type of project long ruled out of consideration by the "governance" of the World Bank and IMF but now transforming Eurasia and possibly linking it overland with Africa.

Australia, even together with the United States, is in no position to slow such projects. It needs, rather, to be tuned into the political and financial institutions doing their planning and have the boffins in the foreign and economic departments catch up with the City of London in evaluating the implications for Australian industries of a global order undergoing fundamental transformation.

Paul Rigby Wrote:Australian Foreign Policy Incompetence

Reginald Little (nsnbc)

http://nsnbc.me/2015/03/15/australian-foreign-policy-incompetence/

Quote:"US anger at Britain joining Chinese-led investment bank AIIB" are the headlines of a Guardian report of 13 March 2015. "Cabinet split over Asian bank' after UK's shock support" are the headlines of a Melbourne Age report of the same date.

They highlight a British resolve in the face of a world undergoing rapid transformation, especially in financial power and in respect of Chinese influence. They also reflect the disarray of an Australian government preoccupied with personal ambitions amongst its leaders and led astray by the mono-cultural character of its foreign affairs minister and establishment. Of course, the British decision on the AIIB would have been driven by the City of London, which is much more knowing and experienced in these matters than is likely to be the case with an Australian government.

Nevertheless, this is perilous for Australia at a time when previously dominant English speaking maritime powers are in danger of being marginalized by the multi-cultural transformation of more than 4 billion people likely to make up a dynamic, emerging Eurasia, (or Eurasafrican), continental trade zone networked by very fast train and other technologically advanced overland connections.

David Guyatt Wrote:I agree, he was surprisingly good. Not, to my mind, always accurate though. For any doubters he makes it clear beyond all doubt that the US exports war and conflict and is the fundamental cause of the war in Ukraine -- all to keep the upper hand economically speaking.

It was a pity no one asked him about Russia and BRICS because it seems to me this is the question around which the future revolves. And whether Germany might, one day, join with them, which for me makes sound sense -- combining Germany and Russia and the markets in China, India etc.

Hence I do think the last question about what will Germany do, was and is the key one.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Must watch!!

A Halford MacIndor stew, anyone? Season with just a little Conjuring Hitler? (No explicit mention of CH, but it's there.)

Summary video:



His entire speech: