Starikov: Banksters Began the Dismantling of the Global Financial System

[Paul Rigby]

TRUMP AND PUTIN WILL DIVIDE THE WORLD AT A NEW YALTA

Mihail Hazin: If Clinton wins, the financing of Eastern European states will be totally cut off.

https://southfront.org/trump-and-putin-w...new-yalta/

Appeared at Epicenter, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront

Mihail Hazin is a popular Russian economist, statistician, consultant and a publicist. He is the founder of the site Worldcrisis.ru where he publishes analysis and observations on the future of the global and Russian economy. In 2003, as a co-author he wrote the book: The decline of the empire of the dollar and the end of Pax Americana'. He is leading the programme Economy' of radio Moscow Speaks'. In an interview for the site "Anti-fascist", Veshin shares his view on development and the economy after the presidential elections in the USA in November.

Many experts believe that the coming elections in the United States will radically change the geopolitical map of the world. Who should win this election?

I think that Donald Trump will win. God forbid the winning of Hillary Clinton. She is capable of making Europe the same as what she created in the Arabic East as secretary of state. The point is that since 2011, there is a serious division among the global elites. Officially, it started with the Straus-Khan case, who at that time, was the head of the IMF.

Actually, the reason is in the transnational banks, which controlled the world's financial system, which crashed with the impossibility of maintaining the existing model that previously worked like clockwork, suppressing sharp conflicts and providing a lion's share to everyone close to the elite.

And why did it happen? What are the reasons?

Purely economic. The system of the transnational bank was founded in 1944. Until then, in the USA there was a ban on banks to have foreign branches. Since 1944, they were allowed to have structures in foreign countries and the reason was very simple in the frame of the Bretton-Wood agreements, the territories where the dollar was a major currency had to be extended.

As a result, the dollar's emissions expanded and the banks acquired a new function: to distribute the printed dollars. Until the beginning of the 70s, the banks existed on the back of the extension of the territory of the dollar. But the expansion became exhausted. The popular inflation crisis of the 70s of the 20th century began, and it was contained by the Reagaonomy' founded on the stimulation of a private search for the dollar's emissions.

Financial bubbles emerged and they started to burst; for the first time in 1987 and after that in the 90s. The exit from the second crisis can be found in the "inheritance" of the collapsed Soviet Union. But the crisis returned in 2000 and then in 2007-2008. And the acting market model exhausted the limits for an extension. There was only one lever left printing money. This continued until 2014 when the problems rose up to full height.

In 2012, Obama won the presidential elections for the second time. In the beginning of 2013, he kicked out from his administration all the representatives of the international financial elite (Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase) and during 2014, he stopped the emission of dollar. This means that maintaining the worlds' economy with emissions of dollars will not be possible any more. And a serious world crisis will start. The banks which were used to constant financial injections of free dollars will have to gradually bankrupt. Respectively, they start searching for an exit from the situation.

To liquidate their debts (and those of their beneficiaries) and to save themselves, first of all, they need force majeure conditions, the ideal of which is a war. Second, the banks need money or liquidity. They temporarily resolved this problem on account of deposits: they pumped out of Russia 200 billion and ordered Nabibulina to undergo deflation, and from China about 1 000 billion dollars.

Their next move was the unveiling of the British offshore' by the Panama Scandal' this makes up for another 2-3 trillion. I believe that this is the main reason for Brexit to happen. But all these measures remain temporary. The banks need a restoration of the emissions and for that reason they desparately need one of their own in the White House. This person would be Hillary Clinton.

And why should this person not be Donald Trump? He is more likely to win the elections.

Hillary Clinton represents the financial elite. Trump is from the other camp. He will try to save the American economy even if it includes the destruction of the world's financial system based on the dollar. There are certain forces from the CIA behind Hillary, but the American bureaucracy as a whole, rather supports Trump. Otherwise, he would not have managed to get through as a candidate.

In 2014, the Republicans unexpectedly achieved a landslide victory in the interim elections. This was an indication that the two described scenarios: we save the banks and we save the economy of the USA are in motion; basically, the people began to realise bits and pieces, but not the whole picture. I believe that considering the accumulated experience during 2014, the winning leans on Trump.

But if Clinton wins, the global economy awaits a high inflation "a la 70s" and a considerable decline of the standard of living of the population. In this situation, the financial support for Eastern European countries will stop completely, which rely on donations. The Baltic states, Greece and Ukraine will find themselves at the edge of financial collapse. In the Baltic states, for example, the donations from the European Union comprise a quarter of the income in their budget. In principle, the countries from Eastern Europe could manufacture some products, but the focus remains in the fact that the income from this manufacturing will not stay with them. They will have to work for their survival.

Although there are some unique products: the Hungarians wine, Ukraine- agricultural land, when they are brought to the situation where they have to sell their land, it will be purchased by transnational companies and after that, the Ukrainians will have to work as slaves for their survival. This is the major scheme led by Hillary Clinton.

In any case, why do you think that Trump will win the presidential elections?

The American voters, of course, do not see the two scenarios in their pure form. But they can feel that "saving the banks" relates to the Democrats and "saving the American economy" is connected with the Republicans. Ordinary Americans will never vote for the bankers. So it is logical for the Republicans to win. Of course, in the primaries, the picture was not black and white. For the bankers from the Republicans were Bush and Rubio, while for the isolationists was Sanders from the Democrats. But today everything is clear. The battle is on between the two biggest elite groups for the most important resource control over the printing machine and the Federal Reserve.

But how will the people of the USA understand that Trump will better protect their interests?

We will help them the honest people from all over the world. Trump has realised that the bad leadership of Obama and Clinton led the world to a dangerous border and made this thought key in his campaign. He sent a clear signal to the financists: "Guys, you had the opportunity to rule because you gave the world an opportunity for economic growth. But you capabilities are exhausted. Get out of here." And the financists say: "We shall never give you the power to rule." This is the whole collision. The group which is not capable of providing economic growth in the world wants to continue ruling.

If Trump wins, will he change his attitude to Russia?

Trump suggests quitting the financing of losing projects, including political ones. He could go to a regional level for a partial exchange of the dollar with local currencies, and the world can collapse to a few regional currency zones. By the way, this is not a new idea and it was described in detail in the little book The decline of the dollar and the end of pax-Americana' some 15 years ago.

This is the logic of Trump: there must be order in the world. If Hillary needs chaos in the frame of which she will give money printed by the FRT "for the correct behavior", then Trump sees a different picture. There will be several regional leaders with whom he negotiates and together they will determine the regional currency zones. Afterwards, each leader will take responsibility for the order in his zone. A prototype of the ruble zone, for example, is the Customs Union or now, the Eurasia Economic Union. Trump and Putin will decide where the border between Berlin and Moscow will be.

Are you hinting that there will be a map on the negotiating table again like in the negotiations in Yalta between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt?

I am not hinting, that's how it will be. They will spread a big map and draw a red line from top to bottom. The countries from Eastern Europe, Greece, Turkey, Middle Asia, Japan, Korea and Vietnam could enter the Eurasia zone. In it, Russia will be the key player as Japan, Korea and Turkey are export countries and they will need markets. They will not have markets other than those in Central Eurasia. The European Union will be closed for all parasites.

But such a scenario does not suit Great Britain.

And who will ask Great Britain after Brexit? And why, after all, was Brexit possible? The main source of income for London is the financial centre. After the British realised that the transnational banks in the offshore zones would be unveiled, it became clear that London will not be a financial centre any more. They realised that the only way to survive in the given financial situation, is by giving themselves a zone. This must be a piece that no one needs. Everything that is worth something is lost already. And which piece of the world isn't needed by anyone? This is the Arab, Islamic world.

This is the reason why London, for now, is pushing away from the Arab zone those countries which could be its potential competitors. That's why the English are now pushing Turkey into the Eurasian part.

So according to you, the future president of the USA and the current president of Russia, Putin, will repeat the Yalta of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt?

There is no other way; unless a thermo-nuclear war in case Clinton wins. But rather, matters will take a different scenario. Of course, it won't be so simplified. A new economic model will be created, which will be similar to the model of industrialisation of the 30s in contrast to the emission ruble resources. In this zone, the number of people will be about 500 million. This is enough to make the zone self-sufficient production for broad consumption in Turkey, electronics in Japan and Korea, airplanes and helicopters in Russia. An international division of labour.

In other words, today with the war in Syria, Russia is securing the right to participate in the making of the new geopolitical map of the world.

Absolutely correct. The main confirmation of our influence in the world is the radical change in the politics of Erdogan. He started negotiations for acceptance in the Russian sphere of influence. In practice, the USA lost in Syria. Turkey is already closing the border with Syria and has stopped the supply of weapons. If the Turks go to the end, then Aleppo will be back in Assad's control. Erdogan is not a trustworthy ally, but he is not a fool either. For the duration of his career, he made alliances with only one goal: to provide external markets for Turkey. He works only for the Turkish interest. Of course, he realized that he won't be allowed in the EU. His Ottoman Empire was blocked. What's left for him? A Eurasian union led by Russia.

When the financists realised that Erdogan has made a strategic decision, an attempt for a coup was made. And it almost succeeded. But those behind the curtains, did not account for the fact that most of the population and the army of Turkey support Erdogan. For them, their future is with him. No one wants to return to the 70s of the 20th century when the industry of Bulgaria was greater than the one of Turkey.