US/NATO War on Russia

[David Guyatt]

I am more and more finding these twisted, back-to-front propaganda lies offensive.

It's hardly a surprise that it's The Independent peddling such blatant horse-shit.

For example, there's this:

Putin's absence he delivered a speech at Auschwitz at a similar event a decade ago highlights the damage his Ukraine policies have done to Russia's relations with Europe and presages what is likely to be a series of diplomatic snubs and boycotts in the months ahead as Europe commemorates the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

A paragraph that stands the truth on its head in such an appalling self-righteous way that I feel the need to vomit.

Putin avoids Auschwitz anniversary event amid tension with Poland

Absence at event to mark 70th anniversary of Nazi death camp's liberation highlights damage of Russia's relations with west

• Share
  
• Tweet this
  
• Email
  

• Ian Traynor, Europe editor
  
  
• The Guardian, Tuesday 13 January 2015 10.56 GMT
  

Russia's relations with the west have fallen to their lowest point since the cold war as a result of the Ukrainian crisis. Photograph: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP

Russian president Vladimir Putin is to stay away from a major event at Auschwitz in two weeks, marking 70 years since inmates of the Nazi death camp were liberated by the Red Army.
Putin's absence he delivered a speech at Auschwitz at a similar event a decade ago highlights the damage his Ukraine policies have done to Russia's relations with Europe and presages what is likely to be a series of diplomatic snubs and boycotts in the months ahead as Europe commemorates the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Hitler's Germany.
A Kremlin spokesman confirmed that Putin would not attend the Auschwitz ceremonies, saying that the Polish government had not invited the Russian leader while also admitting it was not up to Warsaw to issue invitations. The commemoration is organised by the international committee administering the site near Krakow in southern Poland. The committee includes Russian representatives. The Polish foreign ministry also confirmed it had not invited Putin, but it added that Moscow was welcome to send whomever it wished.
But a Putin trip to Poland would have been intensely awkward for Warsaw, which has been leading a hawkish line on Russia in the EU over the conflict in Ukraine.
The diplomatic tiff over Auschwitz is almost certain to generate further friction as Europe gears up to mark the end of the second world war 70 years ago in May. The Russians set great store by their role in vanquishing the Nazis in what they dub the great patriotic war. Victory Day on 9 May is a national holiday celebrated with pomp and circumstance on the capital's Red Square.
Already two of the Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania fearful and intensely critical of Russian actions in Ukraine have said they will stay away from the 9 May events in Moscow. The third Baltic state, Latvia which has just inherited the rotating EU presidency is trying to fashion a common European position on the Moscow ceremonies. But it is inconceivable that the German leadership would snub the Russians on such a sensitive issue.
Edgars Rinkēvičs, the Latvian foreign minister, said he would raise the topic at a meeting of EU foreign ministers next week. "Will we achieve a consensus? I don't know," he said. He suggested that all three Baltic states and Poland would boycott Moscow in May.
Auschwitz was the epicentre of the German genocide of European Jews, with about 1.5 million murdered in its gas chambers.
The resurgent nationalism of Russia under Putin and his territorial designs on Ukraine, however, have re-ignited hostility and fear across eastern Europe and sparked panic in western Europe and Nato.
While the Russians celebrate 9 May as their finest hour, the Baltic states struggle to share the sentiment as Russia's victory coincided with their forcible incorporation into Stalin's Soviet Union, while the Poles and the rest of eastern Europe were hauled into the Soviet bloc for the following 40 years.
The row over Auschwitz coincides with the collapse of diplomatic efforts in Berlin to convene Ukraine peace talks in Kazakhstan and an upsurge of pro-Russia separatist attacks in eastern Ukraine.
The foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France failed to make any progress on a Ukraine settlement that would have paved the way for a summit of the national leaders in Astana.
Paradoxically, the second world war also figured in the putative peace talks, which were to be held under the so-called "Normandy format" referring to the meeting of the four leaders last summer when they marked the anniversary of the D-Day landings in northern France.

[Magda Hassan]

I am more and more finding these twisted, back-to-front propaganda lies offensive.

It's hardly a surprise that it's The Independent peddling such blatant horse-shit.

For example, there's this:

Putin's absence he delivered a speech at Auschwitz at a similar event a decade ago highlights the damage his Ukraine policies have done to Russia's relations with Europe and presages what is likely to be a series of diplomatic snubs and boycotts in the months ahead as Europe commemorates the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

A paragraph that stands the truth on its head in such an appalling self-righteous way that I feel the need to vomit.

Yep. Coverage quite bizarre some times.

Did you hear the one about Ukrainian puppet Yats promising Germany that he would fight to stop the Russians from invading Germany like they did last time? German foreign Minister strangely quiet on the offer. As is the MSM....

[David Guyatt]

I am more and more finding these twisted, back-to-front propaganda lies offensive.

It's hardly a surprise that it's The Independent peddling such blatant horse-shit.

For example, there's this:

Putin's absence he delivered a speech at Auschwitz at a similar event a decade ago highlights the damage his Ukraine policies have done to Russia's relations with Europe and presages what is likely to be a series of diplomatic snubs and boycotts in the months ahead as Europe commemorates the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

A paragraph that stands the truth on its head in such an appalling self-righteous way that I feel the need to vomit.

Yep. Coverage quite bizarre some times.

Did you hear the one about Ukrainian puppet Yats promising Germany that he would fight to stop the Russians from invading Germany like they did last time? German foreign Minister strangely quiet on the offer. As is the MSM....

Yup, saw that. Truly a bizarre promise. But then the whole affair is such nonsense in terms of facts.

[Lauren Johnson]

Today, the Russians have announced they will not deliver gas through Ukraine, according to The Saker!

First, I was a little skeptical. Then more and more sources confirmed what seems to be a fact: Russia will completely stop the delivery of gaz through the Ukraine and all Russian gaz will now flow through Turkey (see Bloomberg and LifeNews). Not only that, but the Russians have told the Europeans that if they want Russian gaz, they will have to build their own pipeline to Turkey at pay for it all.

[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Putin and Miller[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Europeans appear to be shell-shocked. Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission's vice president for energy union, declared that this decision made "no economic sense". As if the nonstop economic and political warfare waged by the EU against Russia did make any sense!

I can image the faces of the Eurobureaucrats when Alexei Miller, the head of Gazprom, told them that "now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border" while the Russian Energy Minister Novak added that "the decision has been made, we are diversifying and eliminating the risks of unreliable countries that caused problems in past years, including for European consumers."

In other words, the EU just lost it all and so did the Ukraine. Keep in mind that the EU has no other options then to purchase the Russian gas from Turkey while Russia can simply do without gaz exports to Europe because China has already signed a contract covering the exact same amount of gaz and possibly much more.

Let's see now how the infinitely corrupt, arrogant, criminally irresponsible European elites will cope with an agriculture choking in useless surplus stocks, a society waging ideological war on 1.6 billion Muslims, and now with no energy.

The always irreplaceable Poles have come up with a brilliant strategy it appears: they will "not really" invite Putin to the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz even though Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet military. I am sure that Putin will be both impressed and heartbroken.

Nowadays every time I hear any news out of Europe, I always think that Victoria Nuland's famous "f**k the EU" and how Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, called his colleagues the "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies". I share exactly the same sentiments: let them "Charlies" now freeze in their own pathetic mediocrity.

Seen through Western eyes, Putin is playing hardball. Through the lens of a Dimitry Orlov essay, Peculiarities in the Russian National Character, this decision should be seen in a very different light.

Peculiarities of Russian National Character

[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Zimnik[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
← Ancient Slavic god Zimnik: a squat old man, long hair the color of snow, wears a white coat, always barefoot. Carries an iron staff, one swing with which instantly freezes everything solid. Can summon snowstorms, ice storms and blizzards. Goes around taking whatever he likes, especially children who misbehave.

Recent events, such as the overthrow of the government in Ukraine, the secession of Crimea and its decision to join the Russian Federation, the subsequent military campaign against civilians in Eastern Ukraine, western sanctions against Russia, and, most recently, the attack on the ruble, have caused a certain phase transition to occur within Russian society, which, I believe, is very poorly, if at all, understood in the west. This lack of understanding puts Europe at a significant disadvantage in being able to negotiate an end to this crisis.

Whereas prior to these events the Russians were rather content to consider themselves "just another European country," they have now remembered that they are a distinct civilization, with different civilizational roots (Byzantium rather than Rome)one that has been subject to concerted western efforts to destroy it once or twice a century, be it by Sweden, Poland, France, Germany, or some combination of the above. This has conditioned the Russian character in a specific set of ways which, if not adequately understood, is likely to lead to disaster for Europe and the world.

Lest you think that Byzantium is some minor cultural influence on Russia, it is, in fact, rather key. Byzantine cultural influences, which came along with Orthodox Christianity, first through Crimea (the birthplace of Christianity in Russia), then through the Russian capital Kiev (the same Kiev that is now the capital of Ukraine), allowed Russia to leapfrog across a millennium or so of cultural development. Such influences include the opaque and ponderously bureaucratic nature of Russian governance, which the westerners, who love transparency (if only in others) find so unnerving, along with many other things. Russians sometimes like to call Moscow the Third Romethird after Rome itself and Constantinopleand this is not an entirely empty claim. But this is not to say that Russian civilization is derivative; yes, it has managed to absorb the entire classical heritage, viewed through a distinctly eastern lens, but its vast northern environment has transformed that heritage into something radically different.

Since this subject is of overwhelming complexity, I will focus on just four factors, which I find essential for understanding the transformation we are currently witnessing.

1. Taking offense

Western nations have emerged in an environment of limited resources and relentless population pressure, and this has to a large degree determined the way in which they respond when they are offended. For quite a long time, while centralized authority was weak, conflicts were settled through bloody conflict, and even a minor affront could cause former friends to become instant adversaries and draw their swords. This is because it was an environment in which standing your ground was key to survival.

In contrast, Russia emerged as a nation in an environment of almost infinite, although mostly quite diffuse, resources. It also drew from the bounty of the trade route that led from the Vikings to the Greeks, which was so active that Arab geographers believed that there was a salt-water strait linking the Black Sea with the Baltic, whereas the route consisted of rivers with a considerable amount of portage. In this environment, it was important to avoid conflict, and people who would draw their swords at a single misspoken word were unlikely to do well in it.

Thus, a very different conflict resolution strategy has emerged, which survives to this day. If you insult, aggrieve or otherwise harm a Russian, you are unlikely to get a fight (unless it happens to be a demonstrative beating held in a public setting, or a calculated settling of scores through violence). Instead, more likely than not, the Russian will simply tell you to go to hell, and then refuse to have anything further to do with you. If physical proximity makes this difficult, the Russian will consider relocating, moving in any direction that happens to be away from you. So common is this speech act in practice that it has been abbreviated to a monosyllabic utterance: "Пшёл!" ("Pshol!") and can be referred to simply as "послать" (literally, "to send"). In an environment where there is an almost infinite amount of free land to settle, such a strategy makes perfect sense. Russians live like settled people, but when they have to move, they move like nomads, whose main method of conflict resolution is voluntary relocation.

This response to grievance as something permanent is a major facet of the Russian culture, and westerners who do not understand it are unlikely to achieve an outcome they would like, or even understand. To a westerner, an insult can be resolved by saying something like "I am sorry!" To a Russian that's pretty much just noise, especially if it is being emitted by somebody who has already been told to go to hell. A verbal apology that is not backed up by something tangible is one of these rules of politeness, which to the Russians are something of a luxury. Until a couple of decades ago, the standard Russian apology was "извиняюсь" ("izviniáius'"), which can be translated literally as "I excuse myself." Russia is now a much more polite country, but the basic cultural pattern remains in place.

Although purely verbal apologies are worthless, restitution is not. Setting things right may involve parting with a prized possession, or making a significant new pledge, or announcing an important change of direction. The point is, these all involve taking pivotal actions, not just words, because beyond a certain point words can only make the situation worse, taking it from the "Go to hell" stage to the even less copacetic "Let me show you the way" stage.

2. Dealing with invaders

Russia has a long history of being invaded from every direction, but especially from the west, and Russian culture has evolved a certain mindset which is difficult for outsiders to comprehend. First of all, it is important to realize that when Russians fight off an invasion (and having the CIA and the US State Department run Ukraine with the help of Ukrainian Nazis qualifies as an invasion) they are not fighting for territory, at least not directly. Rather, they are fighting for Russia as a concept. And the concept states that Russia has been invaded numerous times, but never successfully. In the Russian mindset, invading Russia successfully involves killing just about every Russian, and, as they are fond of saying, "They can't kill us all." ("Нас всех не убьёшь.") Population can be restored over time (it was down 22 million at the end of World War II) but the concept, once lost, would be lost forever. It may sound nonsensical to a westerner to hear Russians call their country "a country of princes, poets and saints," but that's what it isit is a state of mind. Russia doesn't have a historyit is its history.

Because the Russians fight for the concept of Russia rather than for any given chunk of Russian territory, they are always rather willing to retreatat first. When Napoleon invaded Russia, fully planning to plunder his way across the countryside, he found the entire countryside torched by the retreating Russians. When he finally occupied Moscow, it too went up in flames. Napoleon camped out for a bit, but eventually, realizing that there was nothing more to be done (attack Siberia?) and that his army would starve and die of exposure if they remained, he beat a hasty and shameful retreat, eventually abandoning his men to their fate. As they retreated, another facet of Russian cultural heritage came to the fore: every peasant from every village that got torched as the Russians retreated was in the forefront as the Russians advanced, itching for a chance to take a pot shot at a French soldier.

Similarly, the German invasion during World War II was at first able to make rapid advances, taking a lot of territory, while the Russians equally swiftly retreated and evacuated their populations, relocating entire factories and other institutions to Siberia and resettling families in the interior of the country. Then the German advance stopped, reversed, and eventually turned into a rout. The standard pattern repeated itself, with the Russian army breaking the invader's will while most of the locals that found themselves under occupation withheld cooperation, organized as partisans and inflicted maximum possible damage on the retreating invader.

[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Murmansk, 68°58′45″, pop. 300,000
January 12: first sunrise in 40 days
Length of day: 38 minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Another Russian adaptation for dealing with invaders is to rely on the Russian climate to do the job. A standard way of ridding a Russian village house of vermin is simply to not heat it; a few days at 40 below or better and the cockroaches, bedbugs, lice, nits, weevils, mice, rats are all dead. It works with invaders too. Russia is the world's most northern country. Canada is far north, but most of its population is spread along its southern border, and it has no major cities above the Arctic Circle, while Russia has two. Life in Russia in some ways resembles life in outer space or on the open ocean: impossible without life support. The Russian winter is simply not survivable without cooperation from the locals, and so all they have to do to wipe out an invader is withhold cooperation. And if you think that an invader can secure cooperation by shooting a few locals to scare the rest, see above under "Taking offense."

3. Dealing with foreign powers

Russia owns almost the entire northern portion of the Eurasian continent, which comprises something like 1/6 of the Earth's dry surface. That, by Earth standards, is a lot of territory. This is not an aberration or an accident of history: throughout their history, the Russians were absolutely driven to provide for their collective security by gaining as much territory as possible. If you are wondering what motivated them to undertake such a quest, see "Dealing with invaders" above.

If you think that foreign powers repeatedly attempted to invade and conquer Russia in order to gain access to its vast natural resources, then you are wrong: the access was always there for the asking. The Russians are not exactly known for refusing to sell their natural resourceseven to their potential enemies. No, what Russia's enemies wanted was to be able to tap into Russia's resources free of charge. To them, Russia's existence was an inconvenience, which they attempted to eliminate through violence.

What they achieved instead was a higher price for themselves, once their invasion attempt failed. The calculus is simple: the foreigners want Russia's resources; to defend them, Russia needs a strong, centralized state with a big, powerful military; ergo, the foreigners should be made to pay, to support Russia's state and military. Consequently, most of the Russian state's financial needs are addressed through export tariffs, on oil and natural gas especially, rather than by taxing the Russian population. After all, the Russian population is taxed heavily enough by having to fight off periodic invasions; why tax them more? Thus, the Russian state is a customs state: it uses customs duties and tariffs to extract funds from the enemies who would destroy it and use these funds to defend itself. Since there is no replacement for Russia's natural resources, the more hostile the outside world acts toward Russia, the more it will end up paying for Russia's national defense.

Note that this policy is directed at foreign powers, not at foreign-born people. Over the centuries, Russia has absorbed numerous immigrants: from Germany during the 30 years' war; from France after the French revolution. More recent influxes have been from Vietnam, Korea, China and Central Asia. Last year Russia absorbed more immigrants than any other country except for the United States, which is dealing with an influx from countries on its southern border, whose populations its policies have done much to impoverish. Moreover, the Russians are absorbing this major influx, which includes close to a million from war-torn Ukraine, without much complaint. Russia is a nation of immigrants to a greater extent than most others, and is more of a melting pot than the United States.

4. Thanks, but we have our own

One more interesting Russian cultural trait is that Russians have always felt compelled to excel in all categories, from ballet and figure-skating to hockey and football to space flight and microchip manufacturing. You may think of champagne as a trademark French product, but last I checked "Советское шампанское" ("Soviet champagne") was still selling briskly around New Year's Eve, and not only in Russia but in Russian shops in the US because, you see, the French stuff may be nice, but it just doesn't taste sufficiently Russian. For just about every thing you can imagine there is a Russian version of it, which the Russians often feel is better, and sometimes can claim they invented in the first place (the radio, for instance, was invented by Popov, not by Marconi). There are exceptions (tropical fruit is one example) and they are allowed provided they come from a "brotherly nation" such as Cuba. That was the pattern during the Soviet times, and it appears to be coming back to some extent now.

During the late Brezhnev/Andropov/Gorbachev "stagnation" period Russian innovation indeed stagnated, along with everything else, and Russia lost ground against the west technologically (but not culturally). After the Soviet collapse Russians became eager for western imports, and this was quite normal considering that Russia wasn't producing much of anything at the time. Then, during the 1990s, there came the era of western compradors, who dumped imported products on Russia with the long-term goal of completely wiping out domestic industry and making Russia into a pure raw materials supplier, at which point it would be defenseless against an embargo and easily forced to surrender its sovereignty. This would be an invasion by non-military means, against which Russia would find itself defenseless.

This process ran quite far before it hit a couple of major snags. First, Russian manufacturing and non-hydrocarbon exports rebounded, doubling several times in the course of a decade. The surge included grain exports, weapons, and high-tech. Second, Russia found lots of better, cheaper, friendlier trading partners around the world. Still, Russia's trade with the west, and with the EU specifically, is by no means insignificant. Third, the Russian defense industry has been able to maintain its standards, and its independence from imports. (This can hardly be said about the defense firms in the west, which depend on Russian titanium exports.)

And now there has come the perfect storm for the compradors: the ruble has partially devalued in response to lower oil prices, pricing out imports and helping domestic producers; sanctions have undermined Russia's confidence in the reliability of the west as suppliers; and the conflict over Crimea has boosted the Russians' confidence in their own abilities. The Russian government is seizing this opportunity to champion companies that can quickly effect import replacement for imports from the west. Russia's central bank has been charged with financing them at interest rates that make import replacement even more attractive.

Some people have been drawing comparisons between the period we are in now and the last time oil prices droppedall the way to $10/barrelin some measure precipitating the Soviet collapse. But this analogy is false. At the time, the Soviet Union was economically stagnant and dependent on western credit to secure grain imports, without which it wouldn't have been able to raise enough livestock to feed its population. It was led by the feckless and malleable Gorbachevan appeaser, a capitulator, and a world-class windbag whose wife loved to go shopping in London. The Russian people despised him and referred to him as "Mishka the Marked," thanks to his birthmark. And now Russia is resurgent, is one of the world's largest grain exporters, and is being led by the defiant and implacable President Putin who enjoys an approval rating of over 80%. In comparing pre-collapse USSR to Russia today, commentators and analysts showcase their ignorance.

Conclusions

This part almost writes itself. It's a recipe for disaster, so I'll write it out as a recipe.

1. Take a nation of people who respond to offense by damning you to hell, and refusing to having anything more to do with you, rather than fighting. Make sure that this is a nation whose natural resources are essential for keeping your lights on and your houses heated, for making your passenger airliners and your jet fighters, and for a great many other things. Keep in mind, a quarter of the light bulbs in the US light up thanks to Russian nuclear fuel, whereas a cut-off of Russian gas to Europe would be a cataclysm of the first order.

2. Make them feel that they are being invaded by installing a government that is hostile to them in a territory that they consider part of their historical homeland. The only truly non-Russian part of the Ukraine is Galicia, which parted company many centuries ago and which, most Russians will tell you, "You can take to hell with you." If you like your neo-Nazis, you can keep your neo-Nazis. Also keep in mind how the Russians deal with invaders: they freeze them out.

3. Impose economic and financial sanctions on Russia. Watch in dismay as your exporters start losing money when in instant retaliation Russia blocks your agricultural exports. Keep in mind that this is a country that, thanks to surviving a long string of invasion attempts, traditionally relies on potentially hostile foreign states to finance its defense against them. If they fail to do so, then it will resort to other ways of deterring them, such as freezing them out. "No gas for NATO members" seems like a catchy slogan. Hope and pray that it doesn't catch on in Moscow.

4. Mount an attack on their national currency, causing it to lose part of its value on par with a lower price of oil. Watch in dismay as Russian officials laugh all the way to the central bank because the lower ruble has caused state revenues to remain unchanged in spite of lower oil prices, erasing a potential budget deficit. Watch in dismay as your exporters go bankrupt because their exports are priced out of the Russian market. Keep in mind, Russia has no national debt to speak of, runs a negligible budget deficit, has plentiful foreign currency reserves and ample gold reserves. Also keep in mind that your banks have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to Russian businesses (which you have just deprived of access to your banking system by imposing sanctions). Hope and pray that Russia doesn't put a freeze on debt repayments to western banks until the sanctions are lifted, since that would blow up your banks.

5. Watch in dismay as Russia signs major natural gas export deals with everyone except you. Is there going to be enough gas left for you when they are done? Well, it appears that this no longer a concern for the Russians, because you have offended them, and, being who they are, they told you to go to hell (don't forget to take Galicia with you) and will now deal with other, friendlier countries.

6. Continue to watch in dismay as Russia actively looks for ways to sever most of the trade links with you, finding suppliers in other parts of the world or organizing production for import replacement.

But now comes a surprisean underreported one, to say the least. Russia has just offered the EU a deal. If the EU refuses to join the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the US (which, by the way, would hurt it economically) then it can join the Customs Union with Russia. Why freeze yourselves out when we can all freeze out Washington instead? This is the restitution Russia would accept for the EU's offensive behavior with regard to the Ukraine and the sanctions. Coming from a customs state, it is a most generous offer. A lot went into making it: the recognition that the EU poses no military threat to Russia and not much of an economic one either; the fact that the European countries are all very cute and tiny and lovable, and make tasty cheeses and sausages; the understanding that their current crop of national politicians is feckless and beholden to Washington, and that they need a big push in order to understand where their nations' true interests lie... Will the EU accept this offer, or will they accept Galicia as a new member and "freeze out"?

In the light of Orlov's essay and the decision by Russia regarding gas, the Russian Federation is just saying to the EU, "Go to hell." This is not a country that is planning to invade to restore the former Soviet Union. This a country that is saying, "Fuck you. We'll just without you." On the other hand, I see the US/NATO hegemon doing everything it can to make sure that Russia simply cannot do that.

[Lauren Johnson]

More from [URL="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-14/russia-cuts-ukraine-gas-supply-6-european-countries"]ZeroHedge
[/URL]

Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian state energy giant Gazprom to cut supplies to and through Ukraine amid accusations, according to The Daily Mail, that its neighbor has been siphoning off and stealing Russian gas. Due to these "transit risks for European consumers in the territory of Ukraine," Gazprom cut gas exports to Europe by 60%, plunging the continent into an energy crisis "within hours." Perhaps explaining the explosion higher in NatGas prices (and oil) today, gas companies in Ukraine confirmed that Russia had cut off supply; and six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas. The EU raged that the sudden cut-off to some of its member countries was "completely unacceptable," but Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller later added that Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey; and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak stated unequivocally, "the decision has been made."
As Bloomberg reports,

Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey, a surprise move that the European Union's energy chief said would hurt its reputation as a supplier.

The decision makes no economic sense, Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission's vice president for energy union, told reporters today after talks with Russian government officials and the head of gas exporter, OAO Gazprom, in Moscow.

Gazprom, the world's biggest natural gas supplier, plans to send 63 billion cubic meters through a proposed link under the Black Sea to Turkey, fully replacing shipments via Ukraine, Chief Executive Officer Alexey Miller said during the discussions. About 40 percent of Russia's gas exports to Europe and Turkey travel through Ukraine's Soviet-era network.

...

Sefcovic said he was "very surprised" by Miller's comment, adding that relying on a Turkish route, without Ukraine, won't fit with the EU's gas system.

Gazprom plans to deliver the fuel to Turkey's border with Greece and "it's up to the EU to decide what to do" with it further, according to Sefcovic.

Which, as The Daily Mail reports, has led to a major (and imminent) problem for Europe...

Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 60 per cent today, plunging the continent into an energy crisis 'within hours' as a dispute with Ukraine escalated.

This morning, gas companies in Ukraine said that Russia had completely cut off their supply.

Six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas shipped via Ukraine today, in a sharp escalation of a struggle over energy that threatens Europe as winter sets in.

Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments from Russia through Ukraine.

* * *
As Bloomberg goes on to note, Gazprom has reduced deliveries via Ukraine after price and debt disputes with the neighboring country that twice in the past decade disrupted supplies to the EU during freezing weather.

"Transit risks for European consumers on the territory of Ukraine remain," Miller said in an e-mailed statement. "There are no other options" except for the planned Turkish Stream link, he said.

"We have informed our European partners, and now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border," Miller said.

Russia won't hurt its image with a shift to Turkey because it has always been a reliable gas supplier and never violated its obligations, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters today in Moscow after meeting Sefcovic.

"The decision has been made," Novak said. "We are diversifying and eliminating the risks of unreliable countries that caused problems in past years, including for European consumers."

* * *
That helps to explain today's epic meltup in NatGas futures...

* * *

"They [the Russians] have reduced deliveries to 92million cubic metres per 24 hours compared to the promised 221million cubic metres without explanation," said Valentin Zemlyansky of the Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz.

"We do not understand how we will deliver gas to Europe. This means that in a few hours problems with supplies to Europe will begin."

* * *
Check to you Europe (i.e. Washington)... Because it's getting might cold in Europe...


(and bear in mind the consequences of cold, pissed off Europeans in the past).

[Magda Hassan]

Oh god how I love this!

Just briliant.

I especially love this:

Coming from a customs state, it is a most generous offer. A lot went into making it: the recognition that the EU poses no military threat to Russia and not much of an economic one either; the fact that the European countries are all very cute and tiny and lovable, and make tasty cheeses and sausages; the understanding that their current crop of national politicians is feckless and beholden to Washington, and that they need a big push in order to understand where their nations' true interests lie... Will the EU accept this offer, or will they accept Galicia as a new member and "freeze out"?

Take that Poroshenko and Nuland.

[David Guyatt]

Today, the Russians have announced they will not deliver gas through Ukraine, according to The Saker!

First, I was a little skeptical. Then more and more sources confirmed what seems to be a fact: Russia will completely stop the delivery of gaz through the Ukraine and all Russian gaz will now flow through Turkey (see Bloomberg and LifeNews). Not only that, but the Russians have told the Europeans that if they want Russian gaz, they will have to build their own pipeline to Turkey at pay for it all.

[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Putin and Miller[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Europeans appear to be shell-shocked. Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission's vice president for energy union, declared that this decision made "no economic sense". As if the nonstop economic and political warfare waged by the EU against Russia did make any sense!

I can image the faces of the Eurobureaucrats when Alexei Miller, the head of Gazprom, told them that "now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border" while the Russian Energy Minister Novak added that "the decision has been made, we are diversifying and eliminating the risks of unreliable countries that caused problems in past years, including for European consumers."

In other words, the EU just lost it all and so did the Ukraine. Keep in mind that the EU has no other options then to purchase the Russian gas from Turkey while Russia can simply do without gaz exports to Europe because China has already signed a contract covering the exact same amount of gaz and possibly much more.

Let's see now how the infinitely corrupt, arrogant, criminally irresponsible European elites will cope with an agriculture choking in useless surplus stocks, a society waging ideological war on 1.6 billion Muslims, and now with no energy.

The always irreplaceable Poles have come up with a brilliant strategy it appears: they will "not really" invite Putin to the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz even though Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet military. I am sure that Putin will be both impressed and heartbroken.

Nowadays every time I hear any news out of Europe, I always think that Victoria Nuland's famous "f**k the EU" and how Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, called his colleagues the "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies". I share exactly the same sentiments: let them "Charlies" now freeze in their own pathetic mediocrity.

I don't see how anyone can be surprised at this decision, after the Russia-China energy deal was announced. You slap someone in the face repeatedly and they react.

And as for the comments of Maros Sefcovic about there being "no economic sense" in Russia's decision - only the mafia say "it's only business" - meaning it's not personal. Whoever believes business isn't personal needs their heads examining.

[Lauren Johnson]

IP is a sitting Deputy in the Russian Duma. And he is speaking at CSIS in Washington, D.C. on how to violently overthrow the current Russian government! He sees himself as forming a kind of government in exile. The only thing lacking in this article is his actual PP slide show is here.

The following post is from Vladimir Suchan:

Liberal opposition figure and Russian Duma deputy Ilya Ponomarev spoke today in the US on the invitation of CSIS, a Washington-funded think tank. Ponomarev actually presented a PowerPoint presentation on how to overthrow (possibly violently) the Russian government! And judging from his PowerPoint, he and his sponsors believe they can do it in six simple steps.




Ilya Ponomarev was a key speaker an event organized by the CSIS (Center for Strategic & International Studies), which is a prominent US govt funded think-tank in Washington DC made of "who's who among the neocons, former politicians, and foreign policy heavyweights including everyone from Brzezinski and Kissinger, to Sam Nunn and Richard Armitage, to William Cohen and Brent Scrowcroft," as Sleboda put it.



Ponomarev is the sitting Russian State Duma Deputy and something, which, in Russia, goes under the name of a "liberal opposition figure."
Here is a collection of Rothrock's revealing livetweets:https://storify.com/MarkSleboda1/kevin-rothrock#publicize
Kevin Rothrock's Twitter page https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock
and the link to the CSIS event site
http://csis.org/event/russias-opposition-time-war-and-crisis



So let's look at Ponomarev's how-to-do list or how-to-overthrow-with-violence-and-US-funds-my-government points:

1. The very first point dispels any illusions that the regime changers and conspirators, including Ponomarev, would rely on spontaneity and any genuine people's will. The violent overthrow must be organized. The violence must be organized. No naivety here. Did the CIA help him make the Power Point?

2. The second point basically tells right into your face that a lie about some great shiny future is a must (as was the case at the Maidan--Yatsenyuk's five-fold increase of incomes and a chance to migrate immediately to Western Europe without visas). Message: First we lie, then we take from the people their government, and then ... well, we will screw you, suckers!

3. For overthrowing the Russian government, some PR phony face or persona is needed. Someone likable. A likeable puppet. In Ukraine, Poroshenko, even whose name evokes one domestic animal, had to suffice. History teaches that the US choice is in this regard limited to a likeable moron or a likeable crook, which the clear preference for the latter.

4. Ponomarev's fourth point (is he still a Russian deputy?) basically that any such a "revolution" or regime change requires money. There is nothing new here. But the confession is notable and worth putting on record. Ponomarev then must have also been asking for money.

5. The fifth point confirms that, for the makers of these faux revolutions, the key agent is and remains the comprador elite, that is to say, not the people. Alternatively put, a division in the elite and hiring the corruptible, corrupted, and prostituting wing is a must. This is also what took place in the 1980s and 1990s during the collapse of communism--the elite's spine, character, and sell price collapsed first.

6. The last point is the one, which, in practice or, to be more precise, during the implementation phase, comes first, although otherwise it is, indeed, the last one. Ponomarev's "trigger event" is also known as a false flag attack or provocation or a staged provocation.

So here you have it. After Ponomarev had the guts to stand by such an illuminating PowerPoint presentation on how to overthrow violently one's own government in the interest of a foreign power, he should also be invited in the most cordial way among some of the real Russians, for example, to a meeting with actual Russian patriots at some factory in Rostov or in Samara. If Ponomarev manages to explain himself, he would deserve do on superman's tights.

Is Ponomarev's PowerPoint briefing a sign that the West is so confident that 1) it has already bought, hired and secured a good part of Russia's political and economic oligarchic elite and 2) that the regime change, that is, its "trigger event" alias "a false flag" provocation is just around the corner?

Is or was Ponomarev's and other plotter's immunity part of the Minsk Deal and its "blanket immunity" promise?

@KevinRothrock tweeted the session. He reported that in the Q&A, the tone at CSIS was a kind of surprise that there had not already been a revolution or coup given the sanctions and the attack on the ruble.

[Magda Hassan]

Wont be a people's revolution. Only a Washington coup for the US to steal the rest they can't get their hands on. Putin has a surprising amount of support.

[David Guyatt]

I'm astonished that they've be so openly blunt about the regime change Washington wants.