Posts: 17,303
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
I see France's Hollande has also called for no more Russian sanctions.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Global Politics a war of meanings
by Nikolai Starikov
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/2015...nings.html
Source: http://nstarikov.ru/blog/49012
Translated by DzhMM, Mikhael, Gideon (thanks guys!!!!)
Quote:In the course of life today, we've grown accustomed to using terms whose meaning we might not fully understand. We throw them around casually, not realizing that they lose their meaning and sometimes even come around to stand for their exact opposite. This is precisely why the sense has arisen today in society that there is a need to determine in a clear and understandable manner exactly what is happening on the global chessboard in front of all of our eyes the Big Story, written online.
Even those people the very furthest from politics are feeling the need for understanding and explaining to themselves the reasons for the things they encounter even just moving through their own lives. Why have prices in stores started to go up? What's the reason for the fact that, quietly and nearly unnoticed, belief in a brighter tomorrow is slipping? When and why did talk about a possible war stop being speculative and distant? These and dozens of other questions have driven millions of yesterday-apolitical citizens to seek answers. They feel the need to find those answers and to construct a new worldview in which what-comes-tomorrow is not simply a lottery ticket, but a predictable and logical continuation of today. Predictable and, hopefully, not frightening.
This atmosphere, unfortunately, is a breeding grounds for attempts to brainwash our citizens and to stuff their heads with ideas which will be devastating to them personally. But this devastation will come hidden within banal attempts stubbornly do good. So let's try to dissect the methods and means of manipulating the people's conscience which we have already started to encounter. And, which will grow in direct proportion to the problems being encountered by our geopolitical opponents.
1. THE ROOTS AND SOURCE OF TODAY'S ECONOMIC AND GEOPOLITICAL CRISIS.
Today, the world is in a situation that can be characterized as a dead end that the liberal financial-oriented world economy drove itself into after remaining the dominant economic system following the collapse of the USSR. Not going into much more detail on that theme, since doing so would require a whole other in-depth discussion, I will simply point out that, as historical experience and logical consideration confirm, this economic system cannot work without theft. On its own, without infusions from outside, it is not able to sustain itself, therefore a long period in which no one goes to war and no one is robbed, for countries sitting at the top of the liberal "food chain", will always mean a crisis of the economic system itself. The need for war or theft is a matter of life and death for many (if not for all) countries of the West. The danger for the West today is that "potential victims" are nowhere to be found. In the world of today, the approximate parity of strength is like it was before two world wars, which itself increases many times over the risk of a new world conflict. A classical conflict, as during the previous two world wars, or as a hybrid, hidden beneath a large number of local conflicts (the main goal of which will be not to allow the nuclear weapons deterrent to be used!) together with informational and economic aggression.
What goals are the wars' organizers aiming for?
First and foremost is a breaking of established economic ties, a deepening everywhere of the economic slide, except for in agreed-upon "economic growth spots". In the First and Second World Wars this zone was the USA and once again they are trying to repeat this scenario. In addition, a goal of starting wars is the nullification or depreciation of "pre-war" debts and a restart of the world economy. An analysis of the upcoming conflict's probable zones of destruction and (or) thievery which will permit the world economy to be restarted while preserving the existing economic model and the currently-constituted "economic food chain" for the existing financial elites shows that the level of accumulated contradictions can only be resolved at the expense of Russia and her demolition. The situation in the disparate and ailing enclaves of Europe and Asia, surrounded by the raging chaos that will come from the destruction of our country, will allow the United States to retain for itself the role of regulator of the world's economy, island of stability, and the source point for new growth. Growth for itself, for Europe, and for Asia under the USAs security guarantees, paid for by the robbery of our country and our people.
How do the interests balance in the quadrilateral: USA, Europe, Russia, and China?
The USA and Russia in this are antagonists. Why? Because retaining the privileged role of the USA is only possible at the expense of Russia, and under the circumstances of a weakened China and Europe. That being the case, such aspirations make it very unlikely that there will be an "amicable" consensus between Russia and the USA without a change (or a solidifying via Russia's defeat) in the established order of things. That means that in the absence of a "Neo-Gorbachevism" we will inevitably be forced to stand against the States -- just to be able to survive and retain ourselves. This is unavoidable. Europe in this case is the sole ally of the United States. Today's "European submissiveness" to the will of the USA is the result of deeper causes, and unlikely solely due to "bought and blackmailed" leadership. Europe, lacking its own combat-capable armed forces and its own independent financial system capable of providing a sufficient level of financial sovereignty, is forced to follow in America's wake. Which, for better or worse, is providing her both the first and the second.
Is this situation final and irrevocable? It seems to me that it isn't. Europe will cry, but will eat the cactuses like the mice in the joke, for just as long as the USA is able to guarantee her safety and economic stability (though maybe in lesser amounts). The threat of losing all of this can flip Europe from the USA's side in search of new guarantors of its separate and privileged position. In the event of a "fall of Russia", Europe will become "frontline" territory at whose borders there will be aggressive instability. Europe will be most satisfied with Russia in a "USSR variant", where the state, in "Gorbachev's manner", withdraws and enthusiastically permits itself to be robbed like a masochist. But the variant where Russia resists, and from this the country springs up as, not a "zone of robbery", but a "zone exporting aggressive instability" (like today in the former Ukraine) will not please Europe. In sum, we will have a situation where Europe supported the USA in its attempted "blitzkrieg" against Russia as the better of its available courses. However, continuing Russian resistance changes the situation and in the future will inevitably lead to Europe, though with numerous reservations and attempts to negotiate preferential treatment, having to distance itself from the American policies directed towards the destruction of Russia. China in this quadrilateral (USA-Europe-Russia-China) is our natural and situational ally in its own opposition to the collective West. After all, today it is becoming a competitor to China in the economic as well as the political sphere. Any kind of strengthening of Russia will automatically result in a weakening of the West as a competitor to China. Therefore, so long as China can trust that it will no longer have to run up against Khrushchev-Gorbachev-Yeltsin-type "wiggly" unpredictable policies from Moscow, we can count on the economic and political support of China. Let's sum it up. We are dealing with opposition between the USA and Russia, in which Europe and China play the part of tactical (within certain bounds) allies of the battling sides as they pursue their own goals in the confrontation. Therefore, neither Europe nor China is interested unlike the USA in the total destruction of Russia. After all, in that event both Europe and China would be weakened and would stand alone against a strengthened USA, as well as surrounded territorially by Eurasian chaos.
The USA needs Russia to die quickly. Europe was ready for a blitzkrieg under the management of the USA, but Europe is not ready for a drawn-out, long, and "expensive" conflict. China is prepared for a "game of debts" and is prepared to weaken both the USA and Europe in economical and political support of Russia, but is not prepared in this conflict to "take the bit between their teeth", since it is still not ready to throw its entire weight into opposition, burdened as it is with its own problems and a worries due to the "Gorbachev effect".
Given the shortage of time, the only path to survival for the USA is to demolish Russia from within and have her collapse. Either that, or a radical change of power in Russia which would abruptly turn the country's ship of state around and permit the subsequent chaos and war. This would, in turn, give the States the necessary conditions for breaking the financial and economic channels of interaction in Eurasia and the weakening of both Europe and China, but at the "fault" of the new Russian government. We have a situation where the organization of an internal explosion in Russia displacing the legal government is for the USA a question of its own survival.
2. INFORMATION WARFARE IN RUSSIA A QUESTION OF SURVIVAL FOR THE USA.
In the beginning of the article I mentioned that the current situation is forcing Russian citizens to actively seek answers to many questions. This pursuit of information, this struggle between various points of view, opinions and ideas opens a "window of opportunity" for those attempting to influence foreign policies of the country by influencing internal political situation. Chaos and war are once again becoming the one and only weapon of choice for the dollar. Russia, despite being subject to Western economic and information aggression, still:
continues to strengthen its economy;
continues its shift towards East;
retains the role of an economic and political bridge between Europe and Asia;
preserves its leading military and political position on the continent;
possesses decisive energy, scientific and manufacturing potential;
continues to adapt to hostile economic and political relations with a certain part of the world;
Such Russia is not in the interests of the USA. Stronger Russia will play a stronger stabilizing role in the world. Not only it is not going to become the source of chaos and war in Eurasia, it also has a high potential to distance Europe from the "leading and directing" role of the USA, which is totally unacceptable for America. Hence the question what can US do in this situation?
First, US needs to instill chaos and war in the minds of Russian citizens, to have this chaos reach the "critical mass" needed to enable them to either influence the actions of the government on international stage or, which would be even "better", tear down the government altogether, similar to how it was done in February of 1917 or August of 1991. Today, citizens of Russia have many questions, which is a great opportunity to provide answers which will lead them to actions that would ultimately be in US interests.
And such "answers" have already been prepared by the all-knowing well-wishers…
3. CAUTION: MANIPULATION!
Let's reiterate that this is very important. In order to survive and preserve its leading role on international stage, US desperately needs to plunge Eurasia into chaos, to cut economic ties between Europe and APR (Asia-Pacific Region). The States need to turn the territory that lies between them (Russia, Central Asia, Middle East) into a zone with local armed conflicts, falling economies, deficient governments and general instability. Middle East is already very close to a state of total chaos, US-created ISIL is working to further complicate the situation in that region. Central Asia is a potentially very unstable region and it has been "farmed out" to the revived Taliban, but so far it has kept the appearance of stability. Russia is the only territory within this potential zone of instability that is capable of resistance. It is the only state that is ready to confront the Americans. Undermining Russia's political will for resistance, shifting its foreign policy is a vitally important task for America.
How can this be achieved given that the will of the President of Russia can be clearly defined as anti-American and the ability to realize this will is as strong as ever, thanks to the stability of the ruling establishment? The only way to achieve this is to drag the leadership of the country into a long and debilitating stand-off with its own people.
Liberal scenario (ineffective)
In the long term, the unity of Russian people and their leadership can be broken by providing liberal answers to questions that are important for the apolitical majority. To achieve this, long forgotten "weathered soldiers" of ideological battles, who were not part of the events of 2011-12, have been brought out of nonexistence (Stankevich, Nadezhin and others). They are working to convince the Russian society that today's Russia is "in over its head". In other words, Russia, by protecting its geopolitical interests and by breaking every imaginable international rule, is behaving in a way that is unacceptable for a "gas station" country. Therefore, not having the required economic potential and sufficient international weight, Russia is bound to end up in international economic and political isolation. This will impact the lives of average citizens by significantly lowering their standard of living, the government will lose control over the state affairs and, ultimately, the state itself will be torn apart. Of course the proposed remedy for all these ailments is this: "fold" to US, recognize the leading role of US in the world and generally follow in the footsteps of American policies. This means that Russia must give up its national geopolitical interests, return Crimea, take on the burden of supporting Ukraine and then, just like in the 90's, follow directions of Western advisors who will determine the path of political and economic development of the country.
Today, the level of "immunity" of Russian society against this liberal scenario is quite high. The nineties and the "liberal shift" attempt in 2011-12 served well to create a stable "anti-liberal" sentiment within Russian society. That's why realization of this scenario is not possible in the short term, but our Anglo-Saxon enemies always plan well ahead. This liberal point of view will be kept alive and will be cultivated among a certain type of urban intellectuals who are traditionally aligned with Western values. And, in case society becomes fed up with patriotism, these intellectuals will be the ones to present Russian society with a point of view that will be in line with Western interests.
Patriotic scenario (main)
The States don't really care what particular scenario will sink the territory of Eurasia (Russia Customs Union) into chaos or what will cut the strong economic ties along the EU-Russia-Customs Union-China line. Whether Russia follows the liberal scenario described above, dissolves the way USSR did or willingly plunges into chaos and localized armed conflicts makes no difference to US. If Russia starts throwing its weight around and using force to assert its own views and interpretations of international rules of co-existence, the US will just as well reach its intended goals. The important expression here is "using force". That will result in chaos and war in Eurasia, which is all US needs.
Russian society has overcome the virus of liberalism and is not ready to become infected with it again, and that is exactly why instead of the "liberal scenario of voluntary dissolution" they are being offered the "patriotic scenario" that instills in their minds an arrogant faith in success. In practice, this translates into certain public figures, who are consistently viewed as being patriotic, persistently offering… scenarios which require use of force in future developments in Eurasia. They are also interpreting past events using assumptions that every event was dealt with from the position of force, position of power. These interpretations are exactly what US needs. As a matter of fact, these interpretations, and the part of Russian society that is behind them, are so closely aligned with US interests that Western political and public figures have been focusing solely on this particular part of Russian society, using them in propaganda and diplomatic efforts directed against the current leadership of the President in the Russian Federation. It is possible to assert that a certain part of those who consider themselves to be patriots of Russia willingly or unwillingly are working in the interests of Western aggressors. Interpreting the events of 2014 as "Russia using force to apply pressure on Ukraine", calling for a wider and more profound use of force in Ukraine in the future and accusing Russian leadership of not providing sufficient military and technical support for Donbass militia, they are allowing Western diplomats to interpret all their statements as "proof of Russian aggression". And a very valuable proof at that, because, according to Western views and practice of legal precedents, a witness account of Russian use of force in Ukraine, coming from those who took part in the events (Strelkov-Girkin), is an indisputable and necessary proof that the USA and the collective West are acting appropriately against "aggressor Russia". This is a case of remedy being more dangerous than the ailment. This "proof of Russian aggression" is allowing Washington to justify sanctions and cutting relations with Moscow. The logic of confrontation with Russia includes mechanisms designed to rupture Eurasian economic ties, which will inevitably lead to chaos across the entire Eurasian continent. And that is exactly what the US is trying to achieve.
Russian "patriots", who are, in reality, defending US interests (regardless of what they themselves think), in fact… are probing the Russian society to figure out just how possible it is to organize mass protests in the country. With today's strong leadership that is stirring Russia towards absolute sovereignty, this task seems nearly impossible. But if their point of view starts affecting the mindset of the majority of Russian citizens, an attempt to use "street democracy" to push Russia towards "use of force" scenario in Ukraine can be made. And that will be a 100% American victory over Europe and China. Therefore, we can safely conclude that "street democracy" using popular "patriotic" slogans instead of the unpopular liberal ones is the most desired development within Russia for the USA. So desirable that the States will nurture and support (financially, using media and PR) those "patriotic" Russian figures who, willingly or unwillingly, are acting in line with American interests. Impartial analysis of information and media shows that this is exactly how events are unfolding in Russia.
How can this be fought and how can the ill-fated path of 1914-style "destructive patriotism" be averted? The victory over the minds and hearts of Russian citizens can only be achieved by spreading the truth and disclosing the methods of manipulation used by Russian "patriots" who are currently helping our eternal enemies in their information war against Russia.
Some Examples of Manipulation.
The mass manipulation of consciousness, in the first-order is the implicit substitution of desires from genuine goals to manufactured goals. Any conscious exposure' of this process, even though it identifies these first-order manufactured goals, is itself manufactured (second order') on the very basis of this exposure'. The methodolical manufacture of this second order phenomenon logically enables a pure inversion of genuine desires and thus by direct implication, reality.
For example, those ultra-patriotic' chaps working, doubtlessly part-time, for the U.S. State Department will state that We should militarily intervene in the Ukraine. Working on an emotional level (the most commonly applied method of softening up' for manipulation) they will tell us of the unspeakable ordeals endured by the people of the Donbass. It is surely the healthy reaction of any human being to wish to give assistance and support. An example would be the incursion of Russian troops into the Ukraine with the aim of averting a humanitarian catastrophe and putting a halt to the genocide of the Russian population. Moreover, we can confirm that this incursion cannot be dangerous for Russia insofar as Russia is already under the most onerous sanction regime imaginable which the Russian people bear unjustly. Simultaneously the public is calmed' by the belief that NATO will under no circumstances allow itself to be drawn into armed conflict with Russia, in possession of nuclear weapons which can be used as a trump card' in any negotiations. Strelkov-Girkin has developed the knack of projecting a statesmanly wisdom. He endlessly affirms that those speaking of peace are in denial about the ongoing war scares Russians with the spectre of NATO forces. These self-same NATO forces, in turn, simply swallow any half-baked statements and perceive any movement of Russian forces as having the goal of overthrowing the regime in Kiev. Why? Because it allegedly can't directly oppose Russia because of her well supplied army and her nuclear forces.
So how do we apply, to the current situation, the concept of the implicit substitution of desires to manufactured goals? Well the point is that instead of the actual escalating Hybrid war, being fought with the aim of exhausting the enemy, using the full spectrum of potential threats with the exception of Nuclear weapons, we see that the public is presented with the traditional threat of a second world war confrontation (replete with Nazis and Swastikas).
Such wars can be characterized by opponents openly trying to destroy each other mainly by military confrontation. In such conflicts, the aim is simply to destroy or take control of the opposition center of political decision making by military means. This was sufficient as it destroyed the brain' of the enemy. In modern hybrid war the political decisions will be taken in the Western Centers remote from the military conflict (Brussels, Washington). The military conflicts will be delegated to peripheral centers (the Kievan Junta'; the Donbass Novorossiya'; ISIS (Islamic State) active in the North Caucasus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, perpetrating terrorist activities in the Volga region; the Taliban active in Central Asia, the Urals and the far east of Russia). Correspondingly, economic aggression will be applied from the financial bloc controlled by the West. Engaging militarily in the Donbass, Russia in the short term will be on the receiving end of a series of strikes in the above regions and in its urban centers. Countering these blows (dependent on the scale of the territory destabilized) will demand the dramatic strengthening of the Russian military including the special services and the transformation of the economy as well as everyday life onto a war footing, which of course is neglected in the patriotic narrative projected by the manipulators'. Such surprises' for the Russian society, who are simply geared up for a "small victorious war in the Donbas" under the current patriotic narrative will incline public opinion towards direction the liberal activists, those supporters of the "peaceful dissolution" of Russia. Such appeals will sound repeatedly to "rest under the wing" under the American world order and the popularity of such ideas will dramatically grow. In summary, we witness the re-emergence of the provocateurs of the sort we had in 1914, these Hurray Patriots' who paved the way for the provocateurs of February 1917.
These same liberal capitalists are ready for the widest possible cooperation with the West on its terms in the ordering of Russian life. However, even if against the odds, Russia will pull off another "Russian miracle" and be able resolve, through military means, the numerous military conflicts both along its borders and within its territory, even this great victory will not destroy the Western center of decision-making. Washington and Brussels will remain out of reach of the Russian army, as they are not directly participating in any of these conflicts.
While Russia will face outside the military and terrorist aggression forming an existential threat to the state, Europe without an efficient army, dogged by controversy and lack of a single center of decision-making will be in no better straites. Europe will be forced, against the background of a Russia "which is on fire," to simply forget about their own geopolitical interests and stand in line with the Americans. At the same time, Europeans will be forced to acquiesce to a significant decline in their living standards, and be subordinated to all the other American adventures. As a direct consequence, economic cooperation through Europe - Russia Trans-Siberian will decline to an absolute minimum, if it survives at all.
China, similarly faced with instability in its own underbelly in Central Asia and facing growing aggression from NATO allies in Taiwan and Japan, will be forced to limit its military, political and economic support to Russia, awaiting the outcome of the confrontation and eventually breaking its ties with the United States. As a result, we see the realization of the US plan: economic cooperation between Europe - Russia - TC - China, minimized or neutralized, and the existence between China and Europe of zone of global instability and local wars. Russia will have to exert all its strength to survive, which will eliminate its opportunities for political maneuver and peace-building and economic development.
4. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Firstly, we need to look objectively, without emotions at the root cause of the issue. Collectively, the West enslaved by its ineffective liberal, finance oriented economic model, will inevitably be forced to engage in local or planetary plunder to fulfil its own dynamic requirements for existence. A suitable metaphor would be a car running out of fuel with the engine running. Any delay will dramatically increase the chances of the engine seizing up' which will render further motion impossible. The driver of the car facing such threats is prone to panic and make mistaken decisions when trying to refuel. Assuming that one is not inclined to help the driver the natural course of action would be to let the driver make all these mistakes and for the engine to be allowed to seize up.
Russia's actions in the contemporary situation should be based on several principles:
- First, we must understand that every day we delay the onset of full scale hybrid war strengthens us and weaken our enemies. Each day of delay allows us to establish economic ties to the Eurasian space, making Russia less vulnerable. Each day of delay - it is an additional burden on the "western car" and its fuel consumption.
Today, the West and the United States are incurring significant costs maintaining its hybrid "War Infrastructure" (the junta in Kiev, Islamic State, the Taliban, 5th Columns inside China and Russia), but it is still investing without accruing dividends. Each day of delay signifies a new weapon for the Russian army, new production in Russia and an increase in readiness for difficult times.
- Secondly, using the tactics of "viscous defense" when every new step on the occupied territory carries obvious loss for the occupier, Russia increases the chance of a split in the "Euro-Atlantic Coalition" The weak point of the West is that it is not monolithic. I.e. the "slaves" are always ready to betray the "masters" if the cost / risk associated with coalition leads to an unjustified increase in the level of risk. Today, the West is stuck in Ukraine. "Blitzkrieg" failed. The original plan to separate the Ukraine from Russia, reorientation its markets to Europe, while maintaining the previous level of Russian economic support for Ukraine, is now firmly in the past. For the US the Ukraine forms and outstanding catalyst for Eurasian Chaos. However for Europe, Ukraine is a "White Elephant" with severe and infectious behavioral issues which has kindly donated by the Americans to them. For the sake of countering "Russian Aggression" Europe is ready to consolidate and bear hardships, but to preserver Poroshenko and Co., still less, for the sake of geopolitical dispute between Russia and the United States, the willingness to bear hardships becomes a lot less.
- Thirdly, we must remember that the advantage in war is to those who choose their time and terrain. This is critical. Start a war when we see the result will not be to win these peripheral conflicts i.e. the Kievan Junta', the Islamic state or the Taliban, but rather to achieve victory over the "center of real political decision making" in Washington. A war should be fought for this goal and none other.
On the basis of the above, we can see that every victory of Assad in Syria, and every victory of the militia of the Donbass and Lugansk Republics saves lives of Russian soldiers and Russian territory from ruin. We see a unique situation, the first time in Russian history, when the forces of aggression against Russia are based on the distant outskirts of our country. Russia is obliged, according to her own interests, to furnish every assistance and support, to weaken the Western Coalition, thus expanding the cracks of various interests in the allegedly monolithic Euro-American unity.
5. CONCERNING "PATRIOTIC" MANIPULATORS.
On January 28, 2015 in St. Petersburg, the Russian party "Great Society" organized a cultural gathering with the writer, essayist and translator Dmitry Y. Puchkov as keynote speaker. Dmitry Y. was predictably humble, consumed by his own thoughts and interests, which were genuinely, without excessive sophistication, quite profound. I was unfortunately unable to attend this meeting, as due to a business trip in Nizhny Novgorod.
However, when I watched recordings of the proceedings, I was immediately struck by the savage accuracy of the metaphor of the Russian intelligentsia, worshiping the West, with the liberal intelligencia playing the role of "Evil Shepherds", leading their flock of sheep to the slaughter. The allegory is devastatingly accurate. The West have maintained their dominance by the means of murder and robbery on a planetary scale. They "manufacture their image" in the eyes of future victims, using these "evil shepherds" from the intelligentsia. Without these "Evil Shepherds", any potential victim from the Soviet Union to Ukraine today, could be saved from plunder and mobilize their own self-preservation instinct. It is only the conscious and pro-active manipulation that these, "intellectuals" practice, performing the role of administrators of "spiritual chloroform", which has allowed public opinion to be so manipulated.
Events of the last year and especially the last few months have unfortunately led me to be convinced that that the existence of the "Evil Shepherds" may not only be among those enthralled by the west, but also among those administrating "patriotic" rhetoric to the public.
However, I am deeply convinced that our Russian society, representatives of all the peoples of our country have a sufficient high level of consciousness to counter this pseudo-patriotic manipulation which works for the benefit of the United States. After all, our people were able to emerge from the liberal manipulation of a few years earlier. The memory "of Greeks bearing gifts" battered us in the 90s, battered us until our pores wept sweat and blood. As for me, I will, to the best of my ability, resist these new attempts to deceive our society under the renewed and pseudo-patriotic slogans.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 474
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
On a day when the issues of Eurasia, Ukraine, the US/NATO war on Russia all come together and this article by Joaquin Flores deserves attention.
Quote:[URL="http://syncreticstudies.com/2015/02/19/the-beautiful-truth-about-minsk-ii-the-debaltsevo-debacle/"]The Beautiful Truth About Minsk II and The Debalstevo Debacle
[/URL]
On February 12th, on the day Minsk II was signed by the contact group as agreed to by the Normandy 4, we wrote:
"These are the relevant factors which produce the strong sense that these Normandy 4 meetings involve some very serious things and some complex levels that are beyond the scope of what is reported. Russia conducts itself in these meetings from a position of strength."Critical events since the February 12th ceasefire tell us what the real underlying factors beyond the scope of what was reported indeed were. With the Ukrainian Army having been encircled in the Debaltsevo region and without provisions, mass surrenders are already underway. There are already reports of thousands of UAF dead. Close fighting in the town itself have resulted in the UAF being pushed out, with the town now under Novorossiyan control. The UAF had nowhere to go, and were out of ammo.Attempts to push out anywhere resulted in more needless deaths for the disheartened and broken Ukrainian force whose numbers range between five and eight thousand. Putin has publicly urged Poroshenko to allow the UAF soldiers to surrender. Unsurprisingly, Poroshenko has declared victory.![[Image: donetsk-1_2884919b.jpg?w=357&h=223]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/donetsk-1_2884919b.jpg?w=357&h=223) The encirclement was complete in the week leading up to the Minsk II meeting. The political reality in which the EU gave its blessing to Novorossiya and Russia to finish of the encirclement was based in a few things, and US agreement on other points was based in other things. There are three sides at play here, even though it often appears as two. The Minsk II agreement enshrined the EU blessings. In return, the EU got something, but what exactly is the subject of some speculation.Debaltsevo is a critical area because it has rail through it which connects Lughansk to Donetsk republics. The September 5th Ceasefire was intended to have this in control of Novorossiya. The September 19th memorandum explicitly restates this, and the map of the de-militarized and pull-back lines clearly show that Debaltsevo was to be withdrawn from.Poroshenko stated that the Cauldron was actually a bridgehead. In fact, he is right, this was not a new development but an ongoing occupation of Debaltsevo which was in violation of the 9-19 memorandum.All together, this agreement is reflective of the general direction things have gone, and reflects Russian mastery of geopolitical strategy, meaningful diplomacy and "lawfare", hybrid warfare, and thorough planning all around.Why Debaltsevo was an apparent exception to the ceasefire, what the new ceasefire agreement actually compels, what was really said at Minsk, what to make of the UN Security Council resolution, and what this says about the present state of affairs are all serious questions that are raised from this. These are the pressing questions surrounding this that we will try to answer in brief.1.)The EU was forced to agree to a revised form of the September ceasefire, including the memorandum of the 19th of that month. US policy is failing, or rather succeeding in producing an unstable situation, precisely what most of European decision makers want to avoid. Even EU Atlanticists are not in it for the whole wild ride, and their Trans-Atlantic sensibilities are still based upon general notions of wealth creation and regional stability.Evidence of this was the impending doom of thousands of UAF fighters, leaked information indicated a number of these may be from NATO countries, and Merkel and Hollande were right in knowing that they had better get clarification on this matter directly from the Russian head of state.Indeed, this is why European leaders called the meeting, and rushed themselves to Minsk.Poroshenko does not answer to the EU, they are not his guarantor, and they are not capable of pressuring him too much. They can only pressure the US, and by only by extension Poroshenko, by not going along with US plans for Russia and Ukraine. EU has said no to Ukraine in NATO, and no to the EU Association Agreement after all. The EU says on these critical points, over and over, the same thing that Russia says.To understand the Minsk agreement is to understand the EU's relationship with the Kiev Junta. The EU knows that when it talks to Poroshenko, it is talking to a US sock puppet. The reason that Poroshenko was at the meeting, and not the US, was because the EU and Russia wanted to tell Poroshenko certain things in a security environment which only the nominally neutral Minsk could provide. No one really thinks that Belarus is neutral, but everyone can pretend that they do.
The EU generally is not happy with how the US has handled things, and yet it is sitting in two chairs on the question nevertheless. So this is about the US using its pull on the Atlanticist forces within the EU, and also within less formal NATO structures, to make a policy for Europe and on Europe outside of the scope of European agency.This prior agreement among other things specifically placed control of Debaltsevo in the hands of Novorossiya. Both the September and February agreements contain some apparent defects, which work out favorably again for the Russians. This is why we have heard rebel commanders and DPR leader Zakharchenko affirm both that the agreement is vague and contains contradictions, and also that Debaltsevo was not included in the ceasefire. Rather, he means the opposite on these points.First, the terms are vague and do not compel the rebels to end the rebellion (it places onus on Ukraine to do things first that it will never do, and is not compelled to do by the language). Second, abiding by the ceasefire, it entirely justifies the use of arms to resolve the UAF's violation of the agreement through its intrusion into the Debaltsevo area. At least on paper, it boils down to how one interprets specific language from the Minsk II agreement of February 12th. We will look at this in a moment.This map includes the September 19th line as a dotted black curving series of dots, which have Debaltsevo on the Novorossiyan side of the line. There are at least two ways to interpret the language of the latest agreement.![[Image: feb16done.jpg?w=404&h=321]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/feb16done.jpg?w=404&h=321) 2.) The agreement itself is vague in ways that help Novorossiya. This is mostly because the power to act on terms of an agreement in a manner which is beneficial is really a reflection of one's advantage on the ground. As with anything, the ability to favorably act in one's own interest is a practical question which is constrained by real existing forces and considerations. By and large, the memorandum in the abstract contains serious defects and cannot really be said to be an executable document by itself as it has many blank spots. It requires further agreements to fill in those blanks, both formal and tacit, between the two parties. These are not minor issues, but the core issues which strike at the heart of the civil war itself. These terms favor the party with the most agency. Each party has different kinds of agency and likely view that they will be able to, on the balance, make more out of this defective document than the other party.The agreement has 13 points, most of which use terms which at first glance seem to compel certain actions, but in fact rather are contingent upon events which either do not have a specific time table, attach a time table to events which do not have a time table or are not executable, or still require future agreement.What will figure prominently in the coming disagreements over implementation is the meaning of point 2 and point 4. The Minsk II agreement of February 12th refers back to the Minsk Memorandum of 19th September twice. These are in relation to the borders, one way or another, of Novorossiya.In point 2 we read:
- Pull-out of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distance with the aim of creation of a security zone on minimum 50 kilometres (31 mi) apart for artillery of 100mm calibre or more, and a security zone of 70 kilometres (43 mi) for MLRS and 140 kilometres (87 mi) for MLRS Tornado-S, Uragan, Smerch, and Tochka U tactical missile systems:
* for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;* for armed formations of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, from the contact line in accordance with the Minsk Memorandum as of 19 September 2014The pullout of the above-mentioned heavy weapons must start no later than the second day after the start of the ceasefire and finish within 14 days.This process will be assisted by OSCE with the support of the Trilateral Contact Group.This refers to artillery pull-out, but note that there are different lines to withdraw from for each of the two sides. This can be interpreted different ways: the word actual' means in reality', but which reality the past, present or the future; the line on the 12th, on the 15th, or 14 days after the 15th? Whatever the case what it does do inarguably is draw us back to the Minsk Memorandum of the 19th and reaffirms those lines. The line for Novorossiya in that 19 September agreement includes Debaltsevo within it.Other points, such as the disbanding of illegal groups and removal of foreign soldiers and mercenaries might at first glance apply to either side. With the Novorossiyan militias, as a legal party to the agreement the LPR and DPR cannot simultaneously be those illegal groups. The agreement does not say which party does the disarming (or what constitutes an illegal group), and in the context of limited federal autonomy or rather local self governance', we infer that both parties have this authority in the areas which they respectively control. Being able to disarm an illegal group implies the power to do it, i.e. having a legally armed group capable of the task. All of this has been pointed out previously when similar language appeared in the September agreement.It is not strange that western media, to the extent that any details of this are covered, refers to continued fighting at Debaltsevo as a violation of the February ceasefire.What we will see ultimately as a default reason for continued hostilities, that must work in conjunction with a favorable interpretation of the agreement, is the rationale of self defense. In reality a case of acceptable use of force during a ceasefire is in particular when a party defends itself from violations of the ceasefire. One element of one party, whether or not under orders, who violates the ceasefire does not deprive the other side of a means of response within the framework of a ceasefire. Thus it is possible for a party (being fired on) to simultaneously be adhering to a ceasefire and yet also be engaged in hostilities.The next reference to the September 19th Minsk Memorandum is in point 4:
- On the first day after the pullout a dialogue is to start on modalities of conducting local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts," and also about the future of these districts based on the above-mentioned law.
Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, indicating the territory which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts," based in the line set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of 19 September 2014.These two cited sections taken together mean that some things in point 2 are obligated to have taken place on or about March 1st, and point 4's Rada resolution' must be approved by Ukraine by mid March. But what is approved is a resolution that indicates' the territory, which is not the same thing as recognizing' that territory or vesting those local authorities with any specific rights and obligations.In the course of the execution of the September agreement, each side accused the other of having violated it. Over the course of time, with each side making it known to the other, it can reasonably be said that much of it was no longer in effect.With those changes having effectively taken place to the original agreement, references to the Minsk Memorandum of 19 September begin to take on elements of vestigial clauses or vestigial language if they lack meaning or if subsequent practices and events have diminished their effect.While point 2 seems to refer more strongly to the 19 September borders when it constrains the Novorossiyans, in point 4 in which the Ukrainian Rada indicates' their territory, the language is much softer and states that it be based in' that line. Other problems in point 4 which may make the entire agreement defective and void notwithstanding (this may relate to the details of the referenced Ukrainian law on local self-governance), we can see clearly that the Rada must indicate' which does not carry the force of determine', and certainly not recognize'. Furthermore it states that the boundaries are based in the line', not precisely the line determined then, but possible a new line which is based in the line' in some day determined by the same rationale, recognizing the same interests, or closely resembling so it would be argued the September 19th line in some credible way.It was required, therefore, to agree again on the terms, so that this reset' supersedes the previous deviations, which if unchallenged may actually establish a new tacit agreement. Even though the references to the September 19th line are not coupled with firm language which compels specific actions coupled with specified consequences for inaction and remedy process, they are still referenced too. This means that parties can justify their ceasefire' actions of this already confused document as being based on the agreement.Taken all together, we can see we have drawn several distinct interpretations. One seems to not, but rather to to be based in the actual line of contact' for the Ukraine side, which would be where the UAF positions are' (but vague about when' we look. The other one allows us to interpret the language as effectively returning the strategically Debaltsevo region to Novorossiya in accordance with the September 19th agreement.When we look at the following series of situation report maps, September, October, and November: we can see that soon after the September agreement characterized by a Novorossiyan Debaltsevo, the UAF took it in violation of that agreement.Those who have been keeping an eye on these developments during the ceasefire' months will already appreciate that the encirclement did not form out of a recent advance of the UAF. This was not a blunder that pushed forward too far as a result of poor communication or bad planning. This bridgehead' it maintained was extraordinarily well fortified. It had intended to be surrounded on three sides and function like a fortification that could tolerate a near-siege. Indeed it was thought even that this bridgehead could become the focus of Novorossiya efforts, wicking them away from elsewhere, and once drawn in and then ground down, the protrusion could push farther south-east. Their strategy has been to develop this cleavage further until they can split Donetsk off from Lugansk entirely.September![[Image: september-debaltsevo.jpg?w=429&h=349]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/september-debaltsevo.jpg?w=429&h=349) October![[Image: october-debaltsevo.jpg?w=428&h=362]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/october-debaltsevo.jpg?w=428&h=362) November![[Image: november-debaltsevo.jpg?w=416&h=345]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/november-debaltsevo.jpg?w=416&h=345) 3.) In standard form, the US misjudged the Russian willingness to enter into a ceasefire without pre-conditions as a weakness.They encouraged Poroshenko to attend at Europe's request for a number of reasons. One consideration was due to the matter of the fate of thousands of soldiers in the Debaltsevo protrusion, and how these facts revolved around any Russian advantage. The US is ultimately on track to destabilize the region, but only with a Russian over-commitment which places it on course for its own internal destabilization as well.A large number of those elites in Europe who are cautiously sitting in two chairs and trying to appease US policy, will only continue to entertain the US course so long as it does not result in further destabilization. In a mid-intensity conflict such as this where the information war is central, it is a poor move to be the party which turns down unconditional overtures for ceasefire talks.The US thought it was in a win-win' with this situation.If on the one hand Poroshenko could get the Russians, in light of the recent advances and the statements from Zakharchenko, to stop the push and return to the September lines, this would be good. If they gain more territory which is not strategically important, this is also fine. Over the course of the last few months, the US lost control of the narrative and accusations that Novorossiya had violated the ceasefire fell on deaf ears. Additionally, as with the MH17 downing, the US failed to get a false flag to result in real shift in the public discourse and the position of their European partners.The core of this also then for the Us is that this provided a new opportunity to bind Russia to terms, the vagueness of which allows the US to construe as an abrogation on the part of Russia in the media war and as a justification for increased sanctions.If it fails, and Poroshenko's army there is destroyed, then Poroshenko faces being removed from office in a Pravy Sektor type coup, and the US goes forward with the next part of its plan. The UAF had reason to believe, days before the talks, that a well executed push could keep the encirclement from finally closing, allowing necessary provisions and ammo inside. This only was need to work, or last, until after the agreement was made.The US deemed that if it was not a party to the talks, then there was nothing binding on them and in the US view. Conversely, Russia was a party to the talks, and could be held responsible as a guarantor of commitments stemming from these talks.The US knew that among the UAF soldiers were also mercenaries from NATO countries, and even NATO advisers. It is unclear to what extent the French and the Germans are capable of assessing things which might first arise as leaks or rumors. It is also unclear to what extent the US would inform civilian authorities like Merkel and Hollande of the extent of NATO involvement. We do know that German intelligence is in a process of creating an inner network independent of US intelligence networks. In other words, Germany is in the process of becoming a sovereign state.So there are various scenarios concerning the degree of European knowledge about the mercenaries and NATO soldiers in Debaltsevo. What we do know is that the Russians know about it, and these sorts of rare face to face meetings away from the US are places where the other players are free to share what they know and speak bluntly about what facts they have and what they are working with.4.)The US was fooled into thinking that it was fooling the public and the Russians. Hollande's public statements prior to the Minsk II talks were a critical part of the illusion performed on the US. Recall that before the Normandy 4 met, his statements were critical because they set a clear expectation that the agreement would entail different borders than the September ceasefire agreement, and more autonomy for Novorossiya within a federalized Ukraine (new constitution, etc.).In particular certain things were referred to here. Not only would the framework of the September ceasefire and memorandum be used for a new ceasefire, but also that both more territory and more autonomy than had previously been realized would be given to the Novorossiyan side. Recall that after the resumption of military operations of scale in December, it was the Novorossiyan forces that gained territory. This, then, would seem to refer to that territory.Hollande and Merkel communicate in wooden language, even with other heads of state. Nuance can only be inferred through context, and subordinates reassure their counterparts in the parallel structures of what the president or prime minister really meant to imply. The US was encouraged by Hollande's public statements prior to Minsk II because it held out the possibility of the Russians agreeing to concede ground to the Junta in Debaltsevo in exchange for more territory elsewhere, as well as reaffirming that Novorossiya is to remain inside of Ukraine.Thus we could read this as the EU willing to go in to negotiations and push to redraw the borders in a way which this time recognized the fact of Kiev control over Debaltsevo.Putting 3.) and 4.) together, what we can reasonably deduce is that Poroshenko was thinking that if the language of the ceasefire could be interpreted with a focus on the line of contact', that holding onto the bridgehead (or claiming it was so) would recognize the UAF's new territory, even though it went against the borders of September Minsk Memorandum. After all, the Novorossiyan forces elsewhere had picked up territory, and were intending to keep it.The US and Poroshenko were both encouraged by the signed document that came out of the contact group. As we can see, it recognizes the Ukrainian gains since September (the actual line of contact) but restricts the Novorossiyan side to the borders of September, thus negating their achievements in territorial terms.Nevertheless, at the end of the day we see now what Hollande's pre-meeting public comments were all about. In a rare example of transparency, he was saying exactly what he thought would be amenable to France.5.) What seems likely to have happened on February 12th, probably was a very big surprise though. A very likely scenario was that Putin informed Merkel and Hollande in front of Poroshenko that the ceasefire language would indeed go by line of contact. But that this all around means clearly all of Novorossiya's territorial gains including Debaltsevo which, before fourteen days, would be completely in Novorossiyan hands.This is where Putin was able to directly share Russian satellite and drone imagery establishing that the cauldron would not be a line of contact' either by the 15th or the 1st of March. At this time also, Putin clarified and confirmed fears that indeed foreign western backed mercenaries, some perhaps even still in NATO armies.Indeed, based on numerous confirmed reports and official statements from brigade commanders like Motorola who are known for unfiltered moments, is that indeed as much as a third of this encircled group, acting as a vanguard for the salient, were from NATO countries. They may have had some kind of ties, past or present, with NATO military structures. Past connections would be typical of mercenaries or special forces on temporary separation or retirement. Active duty personnel would be those that can be termed military advisers.The EU is really a Berlin-Paris axis, and Hollande and Merkel can only exist as representatives of an EU in its present incarnation, a mixture of Eurasianist and Atlanticist tendencies which are at odds with each other. What would be extraordinarily upsetting, and what would corrode the EU leadership's ability to maintain credibility with its own constituencies, would be the video footage of hundreds or thousands of dead and surrendering Polish, German, and American mercenaries encircled at Debaltsevo. This was a hand that Russian leadership played masterfully.Now we can see the rush on the part of the Ukrainians to keep a reality distinct from the language of the September ceasefire agreement. They wanted to prevent the Novorossiyans from creating new facts on the ground. The Kiev Junta never adhered to the borders designated by the September agreement, and maintained the Debaltsevo protrusion as a bridgehead. It was not a zone of operations until the matter of Donetsk the removal of the UAF and the PS militias from operating in the immediate area was complete.6.) Despite all the problems with this agreement, the UN Security Council unanimously voted to approve the agreement. That the US allowed Ukraine to sign on to this, and also approved it at the Security Council can mean several things. On the one hand, they see an opportunity now to blame Russia for being in violation of a Security Council resolution. But the language of this resolution is important, as we have learned from past wars starting with Iraq.While the US regularly violates international law and claims the status of exceptional nation', Russia's whole narrative has been one of adhering strictly to it and upholding the universality of its principles.The US likes that it can use its own media to attempt to blame Russia for what inevitably will be a violation of the ceasefire. For that, it is pleased that it can point to a Security Council resolution to that effect.But the resolution of the Security Council is also toothless. It does not require anything if it is not adhered to. It does not contain a mechanism for determining fault, nor does it create a process for remedy or correction.Because, however, this is now a subject which the Security Council has a made a resolution ending with the phrase is seized of the matter', it means that the General Assembly or any other body like the UNHRC cannot weigh in with any recommendations. This will be useful for Russia, especially for these other bodies which the US often has an undue degree of influence over.Finally, should the US begin again to go overboard, Russia will be in the position make public a range of other things which it knows and which the US would rather not be made public. Specifically relating to the conflict in Ukraine, Russia may surprises evidence of EU-NATO involvement in a manner in line with its agreement on that matter with the EU, and rather instead go public with US-NATO involvement. In such a scenario, the year old mantra of a Russian Invasion' will be flipped in the EU media into a US invasion. Besides Ukraine, the European public is the only non-Russian public of course that matters because of its parliamentary system and plural-civil-democratic institutions. When Americans are totally opposed to a critical feature of US policy, it has no affect on US policy, only visible is a change in the branding and packaging.7.) Putin likely told Merkel and Hollande outright in front of Poroshenko that Poroshenko needs Russia and the EU. Poroshenko might be okay with being the last Ukrainian head of state in terms of legacy alone. His thinking has nothing to do with any fealty to a Ukrainian "ideal", let alone the people. Rather there are certain real benefits, mostly economic, to being in the position he is in. If the Ukrainian state fails in the way the US seems bent on doing, then there will be no more IMF payments and no more skimming off the top. War is also profitable for him, but not in his case if he's not the head of state. Poroshenko can also be held responsible for the war crimes and crimes against humanity, but this is only a card that makes sense to play as a threat.Behind the closed doors at Minsk, Putin tried to disabuse Poroshenko of his thinking that the US would be able to pressure the EU into saying Russia had violated the ceasefire by putting the final squeeze on the Cauldron at Debaltsevo. Putin has to remind Poroshenko of the obvious, but state it plainly and not through filters and monitored channels.He had to say to Poroshenko something like this in front of Hollande and Merkel: "The US is setting you up to fail. Everything they have you do only destabilizes things further. You've only made enemies on all sides. This is fine for a politician, but not good if you are on the run. You can't carry all that cash; those bank accounts, they will seize them once they are through with you."So long as he is in power, and holds the rest of Ukraine together in a way workable for the EU and Russia, then he will not be toppled and will not be held responsible.Poroshenko has already tried to lay responsibility for the crimes in Novorossiya on Yatsenyuk and Turchinov. Novorossiya parliament leader, Tsarev, has made similar statements which hold out the possibility of a later truth and reconciliation' in which Poroshenko can avoid certain thing which may be coming his way.There are a lot of different ways that one could play out, including those who want to hold him responsible also for betraying the Ukrainian military effort. Really, the possibilities are quite numerous. His safest bet is to remain the head of state. This means that there has to be a state for him to remain the head of. The US seems more inclined to use its extraordinary influence over the Pravy Sektor umbrella militias as well as Svoboda even Yatsenyuk to some extent to usher in the final stage of a failed state.What is holding the US back among other things is the inability to get the EU to commit, through NATO or otherwise, to militarily support some or other future possible faction within the Ukrainian failed state which will be also against Russia.There are certain definite pressures acting upon Poroshenko which explain his general behavior from the start as well as his public denial of the Debaltsevo Cauldron reality at Minsk. For one his denial of the Cauldron would have been true if those in the US who assured him it would be were right. Poroshenko has gone through a long process of being assured by his US handlers of things which consistently have turned out to be grossly in error.8.) Putin proved to Merkel and Hollande that the real negative influence on Poroshenko is the US, and in the course of the meeting it was proved that Poroshenko has no agency. He probably was unable to speak at the secured meeting beyond general phrases and public relation type statements, which revealed that he is unable to make policy for Ukraine.Russia wants Poroshenko to keep Ukraine together, and the US wants to increase the mayhem and create upon the collective and historical consciousness a new galvanizing and polarizing event, in order to shape future discourse and resuscitate blood feuds. That would take the form of an ongoing conflict and a black hole' which sucks in the efforts and resources of the region, leading up to a destabilization of Russia itself.This is what the US has done in Syria and Iraq, and yet have not been able to destabilize Iran. In a more perfect world for the US, what is happening in Ukraine today would have been in the aftermath of a removed Assad, and a ruined Iran. At some point the decision was made to go ahead with the Ukraine plan as Ukraine was looking at increased integration into the Eurasian economic union.What to expect: Poroshenko is already trying to spin this major defeat as either a victory, a moral victory, or an orderly movement which relates somehow to the ceasefire. Western media, especially in the US and UK, which has an increasingly smaller audience in the world and in the west, will push the line that the Novorossiyan side is violating the ceasefire.Ukraine violated the ceasefire unilaterally last time, which is how the occupation of the Debaltsevo area came under Ukraine control after the September agreement which placed it in Novorossiyan hands. That is the critical fact to remember when looking at how these brokered agreements are later trounced on.We know that the Novorossiyan's had a justification for maintaining the cauldron at Debaltsevo given that history, and the legal meanings and implications we discussed in the above.The US is going to latch onto the Security Council resolution, and we should expect Psaki to latch onto this in her press briefings, and will state without evidence that Russia is violating numerous provisions of the cease. This Security Council business is a big deal for the US, and they may try to hype some distorted meme about this and milk it much as they can. If they don't attempt to do things in the Ukrainian theatre which cross Russia's implied red line, they will probably return to Syria and create the pretext for a more robust presence and more attacks in Syrian infrastructure, attacks which so far the international community has tolerated to some degree.Russia does not want things to escalate, that is not in their interest. If forced, they will respond adequately and their moves will be decisive and unannounced, and will create new facts on the ground which will polarize the European discourse. Russia will be able to go public with its video footage of the US mercenaries at Debaltsevo and the Donetsk Airport. These are the kinds of things which are proven effective in moving the European discourse in a desired direction.Now Poroshenko is going to have to figure out how he can effectively spin this catastrophe. The Russians were looking for ways to minimize the impact, perhaps even help him stage a faked victory elsewhere which he could point to, and draw the attention of the Ukrainian media. But Poroshenko followed his US advisers and made the UAF stuck in the cauldron take thousands of casualties.It is not something supporters of Russia and Novorossiya will advertise or even be aware of, but Russia now will help Poroshenko do some damage control. As was the pattern last summer, we should expect the Novorossiyans to talk about some set-back, even if it is not really true.It is most likely that in the aftermath of Minsk II and the way that Novorossiya went ahead and handled the cauldron anyhow, that the US is only barely now starting to realize that they've been left with an unplayable hand.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Two really excellent essays with lots of analysis and insight. It makes our Anglo-American media look like a Mickey Mouse comic in comparison.
More please.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 474
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
David Guyatt Wrote:Two really excellent essays with lots of analysis and insight. It makes our Anglo-American media look like a Mickey Mouse comic in comparison.
More please.
OK here ya' go. From Vineyard of the Saker: (EDIT: I see the images did not display. Better go to the actual link for viewing.
Quote:by "Observer"
translated by "lmimkac" (thanks a lot!!)
Seven countries in five years and the US dollar is raising from the dead. Ukraine fulfilled its purpose, ISIL conquering Iraq and Syria, just conquering strategic Koban. Turkey does possum, Kurdistan rejoices. Asad has yet to fall, then comes the Iran and the "New Middle East" will be finished and dollar saved. Or - weaned Russia, China and dependent dollar still petrodollar. So simple!
But first about how the stones fit into a mosaic.
The December's 2014 hit of all pro-Western news media was a celebration of the weak ruble. Low oil prices with the US sanctions enjoying a robust support of Europe took a penalty and Russia is getting where they want her to be - on her knees. I am just wondering about how the situation would have developed, if Yanukovych had signed the association agreement with the EU. Apparently the US would "only" have built up NATO bases on Ukrainian-Russian border and the next process of targeted weakening of Russian Federation would continue in a "moderate" way by classical color revolutions to remove Putin (this effort is still ongoing and weakened ruble also fulfills this purpose). But Yanukovych did not sign it and action "Ukraine" was performed in a very bloody way. Today, no one in the US or EU cares about that Ukraine is not far from bankruptcy, they are even not interested in having Ukraine join NATO and that is because it was really never about Ukraine. Ukraine is to only fulfill one purpose: to separate Russia from Europe, to prevent Russia from trading with European countries, but above all - to get rid of Europe's energy dependence on Russia. And as we will see later on, that was the most important purpose. And because this should have been achieved at any cost (and how else than through the oil and gas taps on the Ukrainian territory), Ukraine would have paid the price to its strategic location by hook or crook. I say "paid the price" because by joining the EU, no country helped itself and Ukraine especially would not (just remember the text of the Association Agreement not to mention the fact that it would become a territory where all European gypsies would be moved to).
But action Majdan eventually served more than if Yanukovych signed the agreement. Majdan has become a trump-card in the hands of the US and EU and the rest has been arranged by the corporate media. And the world has fancied that Russia is evil and Putin is Hitler and therefore it is necessary to defend him and hurriedly flee from him. There was a reason for the anti-Russian sanctions (secured even by the downed Boeing). One year from Majdan and we are where we are - Russia is almost separated from Europe, sells oil for little and its currency is falling. Thanks to this, the US dollar is just getting a few drops of living water and, seeing how the plans are being met, also optimism into the veins. However, it is not time to celebrate yet, more is coming down the road. We have to have a look at other news that would seem to be saying something completely different, but it is not - it still only and only about the dying US dollar.
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ODEsaygawK0%2FVOYSe7LS9gI%2FAAAAAAAAG4Q%2FHphGPOpsAeI%2Fs1600%2Findex0.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
Seven countries in five years
And it is all about US dollar for many years. Years ago a plan to maintain its hegemony was laid down and it is about to be finished. Ukraine is part of the finale, like ISIL, Kurdistan, Turkey, currently city of Kobani. Before it was a number of other countries and it is revealed only in hindsight what their place in the mosaic is. Even the September 11 could be seen through completely different optics and I am now convinced that this also was a flint stone but necessary - an event to get a public approval to start. And this plan from its very beginning has a clear goal, see this quotation from one speech:
"In 1991 I had a meeting with Paul Wolfowitz (former president of the World Bank and at that time the second deputy of US Department of Defense, which was a very high position) and I told him that he must surely be satisfied with Operation Desert Storm (Kuwait). And he answered: Well, yeah, but not quite, because the truth is that we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and we failed. But there is one thing we have learned - we found out that we can use our military in the Middle East, and the Soviets will not stop us. We now have about five to ten years, to clean up the area from the old Soviet influence before an appearance of a new big superpower that we will be able to challenge us. Subvert the entire Middle East, destabilize it and repaint the map - that was the planned strategy! Ten days after September 11, I was walking in the Pentagon (where else was I supposed to be at that time?) when I was called by the commander of the US coastal waters asking me to come to his office. He told me there that he wanted to let me know that we were going to attack Iraq. Why? I asked him, does it have any connection with the terrorist attacks? Unfortunately, it's even worse. I have just got this Memorandum from the Ministry of Defence. It says that we have to attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years. Let's start with Iraq, then we move to Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran . Is this an official battle plan? - I asked him. Yes, sir! "
This is a quote from interviews in 1991 and the end of September 2001, as described by the US General Wesley Clark in his speech in October 2007. The full speech is known as a video under the unofficial title "Seven countries in five years' [ here ]
Let me once again repeat the words of former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz: "But there is one thing we have learned - we found out that we can use our military in the Middle East, and the Soviets will not stop us. We now have about five to ten years, to clean up the area from the old Soviet influence before an appearance of a new big superpower that we will be able to challenge us." . And I stress that these words are from 1991! It is not a subject of this article, but do not you feel that the USA really needed September 11? Already in October, after the attack on the WTC Afghanistan was attacked (and the US is trying to take control of it until present days. It is called an underbelly of Russia i.e. a very sensitive place for Russia) and then everything continued the way we all know.
After Kuwait (An attempt to overthrow S. Hussein in 1991 and confirm that the US can rely on Gorbachev and the Soviets really left USA free hand in this this field) came Afghanistan (October 2001). Next: Iraq (2003 and the overthrow of Hussein), Syria (2011 and a civil war)) Lebanon (strategic territory for Israel and Syria, and the eternal struggle in 2006 Cedar Revolution). Further on, the US got engaged in Africa: Sudan (1996 attacks due to bin Laden's stay in this area, in 2003 uprising). Under the title "Arab Spring" more African countries are hauled into the play: Libya (2011 overthrow of Gaddafi), Egypt (2011 overthrow of Mubarak). Also, do not miss Algiers (1991 overthrow of the President and still under military rule and martial law) and Morocco (since 1999 ruled by a king Mohamed IV., Who has good relations with the US, so we do not hear much about Morocco). Ethiopia is also a friend of the US (in 1991 turned away from the Soviets and became a security guard American interests through wars with neighboring Eritrea). Next Somalia is also in the US viewfinder (entry of the US Army in 2007) and on the opposite side is even Pakistan, a neighbor of Afghanistan and especially Russia (Al-Kájida assassination of Buth in 2007).
I for a long time did not understand the context of the US engagement in these countries. I had the classic explanation that comes to energy sources in oil-rich countries, but seeing Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and others my understanding was elusive. But it only needed to take a good look at a map:
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-yFYD-yX7iOg%2FVOYShe1xxCI%2FAAAAAAAAG4s%2Fz4Q36KizFtA%2Fs1600%2Findex1.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
The European Union and the Arab Spring have the same purpose - to expand the US influence to the East
Put aside oil and we can see another US strategic interest in the mentioned countries. And that is the borders that have come under control of the US to exactly according to their plan close the grip on Russia from all sides. So what is happening in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall through the EU, in Africa and the Middle East takes place as the Arab Spring. And when, after a few years since the launch of the plan we have a look at the map, from Northern Europe to Southern Africa, almost all countries including the important seas are under the US control.
The south of Europe could be seen in a completely different light and it is clear why Spain and Greece was never allowed to fall, but instead became the most dependent vassals. Also North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt) as well as the East (Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia - and I can not stop from remarking that it is no coincidence that Sudan was the second African country, where Ebola appeared and that a conference for the unification of Africa in the fight against Ebola took place in befriended Ethiopia. For primitive peoples it just a simple means of obedience and looking out to the Americans as the gods because they "accidentally" have a cure).
When we examine the Mediterranean coast then all around almost (!) all countries are under the US (EU) control and there is no trace of any Soviet or Russian interests. However. up to two (and now actually three) countries. And these are Lebanon, Syria and now even Turkey. Apart from an indication that there are significant oil and gas reserves in the waters around Greece and Cyprus, the Black Sea is considered a strategic transit and military area where the US plans are only being dented by Lebanon and Syria; but more on that later.
When we go further on to East Africa, we see that the US has control of the whole Red Sea, because the other side is controlled by Saudi Arabia and Israel. And by controlling the Red Sea they also control the Arabian Sea and the Suez Canal!
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-QIMk3GAxnLU%2FVOYSeaBR8eI%2FAAAAAAAAG4M%2FzHcCIYNPx_w%2Fs1600%2Findex2.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
The "New Middle East" and "Seven countries in five years' project goes according to the plan, and before there is a grand finale, which will be Iraq, Syria and then Iran, they are trying to to disable Russia by bringing NATO bases close to its borders (hence the involvement of Ukraine, Afghanistan and Pakistan) as well as working to make Russia not economically grow but by far the best option would be to get it economically collapse. And all that is to at any price prevent Russia from rising up to be a competing superpower. And that is the reason for low oil prices in collaboration with the Saudis...
The next map clearly shows why Ukraine is so important and why Putin has gone too far by letting Crimea join Russia. The plan was to have Ukraine and with it another sea, this time Black Sea full of NATO bases and to become part of the US-EU border with Russia. Ukraine should have been "completed" before Turkey becomes the next; Turkey is planned to have a role of alias Ukraine and the main role next to Syria and Iraq. When you walk through the map from the north to the south through the lens of the EU member states and the optics of the Arab Spring, you can see that the plan has progressed a lot since its launch. All of Europe including the countries of the former Soviet Union is united in the EU and now militarily and economically under the influence of the United States, from Norway down to Georgia and Azerbaijan - Ukraine and Crimea, and the whole Black Sea is still being worked on. The entire North and West Africa is under the US control, but the only obstacle in controlling the whole Mediterranean Sea and the whole Middle East, is now Syria and Iraq. And currently Turkey is a country of a paramount strategic importance! Turkey is a neighbor of Syria, Iraq and Iran and has good relations with Russia. And it is so close from there to Crimea, just across the Black Sea. Moreover to Russian Crimea not NATO Crimea. And that is what Putin has committed the most for what he cannot be forgiven (he betrayed the NWO). The Black Sea then has become far greater obstacle than it was expected to be in relation to the role of Turkey.
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-E3hH600GJiI%2FVOYSg8ydtgI%2FAAAAAAAAG4c%2FR_m06aHPVV4%2Fs1600%2Findex3.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
Turkey is namely a fundamental point through which Europe is planned to become energy independent of Russia or respectively to put aside Russian energy resources from the European reach. It is thus killing two birds with one stone, because both are desirable.
Putin canceled South Stream, petrodollar is on the rise
I started the article with the hit of the December 2014 news that the ruble was weakened. But the bigger hit should be a different December report such as a statement that Putin was to cancel the completion of the South Stream project. In other words Russia would not deliver gas to Europe via the south route (via the Black Sea) (the northern route, Nord Stream through which the Russian gas is delivered to Germany, is up and running). South Stream was expected to cross the Black Sea to Bulgaria, via Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and Austria in northeastern Italy with branches to Croatia, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey. Its construction was decided in 2010 and should have been completed the year after. After the Russia-Crimea reunification the US-EU decided to push Putin via South Stream. How much from the Crimea-Russia reunification did the EU scream that South Stream is legally wrong. How much did the EU threaten Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria that the construction must be suspended! Hungary was the most criticized for waiting with the work suspension to the last minute, while Bulgaria announced the end already in June - "The Bulgarian government at the request of Brussels suspended work on the South Stream" until the final cancellation of the project by Putin himself. And now on to the three-hour conference Putin says that the Russian crisis would last more than two years and that then the world would again need Russia's energy resources. Putin realized that it was whatsoever not about the pipeline or gas transport through Ukrainian territory, but from the beginning it is just and just about shutdown of Russian oil and gas from European markets. Therefore, not only weakened ruble, but especially the withdrawal of Russia from additional gas supplies to Europe is the living water for the US dollar! What the US needs is Europe's energy dependency on other than Russian resources and Russia deprived of energy markets and thus economically depressed.
The South Stream, and I can add is as a complete mockery of the current EU position headed by A.Merkel. It was her who mostly called for the end of the completion of South Stream, she ordered its termination and when Putin declared that the project would not continue (some servers describe this as the pride and pique, others as punishment for Europe, which has no other source, and by 2015 would have not), it was again Merkel, who mandated Bulgaria to require completion! Otherwise she threatened Russia with courts and penalties for failure to comply with agreements not only to Bulgaria but to the whole EU! So, after Russia is economically weakened by the economic sanctions and low oil prices, it is threatened with more penalties for failure to comply with contracts!
Dollar is getting living water and is rising from the dead. Who would think that the reason is the American shales (that Europe counts on), they are mistaken. The cancellation of the South Stream is moving closer to a plan which is currently being executed by ISIL and to the task actually Turkey is supposed to fulfill. The next map shows an area that is being controlled by ISIL. This area spreads through Iraq and Syria (again two birds with one stone?), But in addition, note city of Kobani on the border with Turkey.
Have a look at this Syrian city and Turkey from other key points:
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-EiShd0wX11k%2FVOYShct9L8I%2FAAAAAAAAG4g%2FMnJ1tu5s16I%2Fs1600%2Findex4.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
Ukrainian Majdan and ISIL perform the same task - oil and gas
In 2013, Ukraine had to sign an association agreement with the EU, Yanukovych was pressured from all sides and it was believed that by the end of the year it would have been done. Now it is time to focus on the final point of the plan, which is Syria and Iraq. And Turkey. The Islamic State has existed since 1999, but in 2013 it was radicalized. And by some "accident" after May 2013 the US Senator McCain pays a visit to the future ISIL leaders and during friendly meetings he even got photographed with them. Once again see on the previous map the marked area where the ISIL is most radical: Syria and Iraq (in Iraq, especially those areas where oil is extracted) and the border with Turkey city of Kobani. Throughout 2014, the main events covered by the mainstream media was ISIL - their expansion and conquest of oil terminals. And because Yanukovych did not sign, we also start hearing about Majdan in Ukraine throughout the year. But the situation is such that in the meantime, "Ukraine" task got complicated by not having the Association Agreement signed up (it is currently being finalized at any cost, even at the cost of bringing Nazis to power). The task "Syria, Iraq, Turkey," that was too started in accordance with the plan is running independently of the "unfinished" Ukraine plan. And that is despite the fact that year 2014 brought a complication, which was not foreseen and that is the loss of Crimea. However, Ukraine and equally ISIL are about the borders, about the sphere of influence under the US control, about putting Russia on a side-track and taking control of all Eastern energy resources.
A project about how to get oil and gas to Europe while having Russia completely excluded is already in existence since 2002 and is the Nabucco pipeline.
Caspian carbon to Europe passes through Turkey, Middle East carbon carbon goes to Europe via Turkey. Turkey starring and a big Majdan on the horizon
I have long believed that the aim of Europe's energy independence from Russia promoted by the US and its European slaves is Europe's dependence on the US shales. This certainly will happen because there will be no other alternative to Europe other than to buy expensive American energy - especially when Putin resigned from the South Stream and Nabucco ended in a fiasco. But no American shale have to supply energy to Europe, Europe is to be dependent on Caspian and the Middle East oil in particular. And one fact is that the energy from both the US shale or from the Middle East will be paid for by the US dollar.
Therefore already in 2002 the project Nabucco was founded. It's still an unbuilt pipeline, which should reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil and it was to bring Caspian gas from Azerbaijan to Europe. Russia sends 120 billion cubic meters of gas per year to Europe and that just across Ukraine, while the capacity of Nabucco was planned to be at 31 billion cubic meters at most. However, if there was also a branch to Iran added, the capacity would be fully covered by its resources only. Since Iranian resources are out of the sight of Europe and the Caspian supplies would be insufficient, Europe in its own interest kept delaying the construction of Nabucco against the US will. However, the biggest problem for Nabucco was Turkey that asked for up to 15 percent of the gas pumped away for their needs. After years of negotiations with the EU Turkey finally gave up this requirement. (Note: Do you also see that when it comes to joining the EU these similarities between Turkey and Ukraine cases are purely coincidental?)
In 2009, when the transport arrangements among Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria were agreed, the signing of an agreement on the construction of the Nabucco pipeline took place. Turkish Prime Minister called it a historic moment and the EU expected that the first gas independent of Russia, comes to Europe as early as 2014. And this despite the fact that - as was said then - "there are still a few issues, one of which the most pressing is the one from which sites the gas would be pumped for Nabucco . " It was counted from the beginning on the Azerbaijani sources, then on the fact that there are another large oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea so the production volume would gradually increase. In the summer of 2013, however, came the shocking news: The fiasco for the EU and USA, the Nabucco project ends, Europe would remain dependent on Russian gas.
Instead of the Nabucco pipeline Azerbaijan chose to transport gas to Europe TANAP-TAP pipeline, which would lead to the Turkish border via Greece and Albania and to Italy. The main reason behind was lower capital cost and higher gas prices in the South. The EU and USA were especially shocked and Putin rejoiced. The construction of the South Stream pipeline, although already decided in 2007 and sealed in 2010 - regardless of Nabucco - was in my opinion approved only because the Caspian resources do not have enough capacity needed for Europe and only for so long until Nabucco is connected to other sources of oil (Iraq, Iran, Egypt). Only then the dependence on Russia would fully be achieved. Furthermore, the South Stream praised the fact that the Russian Gazprom would only have a 50% stake and the remaining 50% would be split among the German, Italian and Austrian corporations. And, of course, the South Stream was approved under the influence of high expectations from Nabucco project. And suddenly it was all over.
Under the US influence even after the Nabucco cancellation the EU has not given up on finding ways to expel Russian gas from Europe. Again, after long negotiations with Turkey in the end a month before Putin announced the cancellation of South Stream, Turkish President Erdogan signed final documents needed for construction of TANAP-TAP pipeline. It was agreed in late October 2014 that the construction of TANAP-TAP can begin. The first Caspian gas to be transported this way to Turkey would be in 2018 and from Turkey to Europe in 2019. TANAP-TAP pipeline has been projected to bypass Russia and is essentially similar to Nabucco.
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8ymXOwQ42dQ%2FVOYShnzm3LI%2FAAAAAAAAG4k%2F1CLCbWLC2IE%2Fs1600%2Findex5.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
When we summarize projects Nabucco, South Stream and TANAP-TAP the EU still has problems to meet the US wishes to get rid of Europe's energy dependence on Russia. In addition, whether it is Nabucco or TANAP-TAP, Europe always needs Turkey. Turkey is aware of it and dictates the terms, while the EU plays chess with Turkey (this explains not only why Turkey is still not a member of the EU, but it also explains the recent attempts of a color revolution in Turkey). Oil and gas deliveries from Saudi Arabia to Europe, it needs to get in the first place through Syria. Syria is guarded by the Russian interests from one side and it also makes sure the energy flow was not over the Mediterranean sea and on the other side it makes sure it even does not go over Turkey. Syria alongside with Lebanon represents the only setback on the Mediterranean coast and the only country Russia has not left with the post-Soviet anti-Zionist influence. The same problem is Iraq, an ally of Syria (extra full of oil) and also Iran (the largest anti US dollar country full of oil that, however, wants to manage it on their own, not just to feed the petrodollar).
Now we know why suddenly there is such a radical leg of the IS. Why this radical leg is conquering Syria and Iraq, why it is conquering just oil terminals and why exactly rushing to town so insignificant as the Syrian city of Kobani on the border with Turkey. And why Turkey (the second largest army in NATO) suddenly becomes a dead beetle when it comes to fighting ISIL. And why it suddenly becomes an ally, not only of Russia but also ISIL. Turkey has finally understood what was known a long ago - it was to be thrown overboard. And that there is such Majdan ready for Turkey that the Ukrainian one was really just a slight "virus disease". I want to add that country carrying oil and gas have the same luck as those that have oil and gas - from both the profit is benefited and taken by the USA.
All roads lead to city of Kobani and Ceyhan. NATO Alliance on side of Kurdistan
"Battle of Kobani may rewrite the history of the Middle East," a headline of one blog says; in which the author among other things writes: Kobani - a city that a few weeks ago was practically not known apart from the Kurds or the inhabitants of Syria. Now that name inflicts media in all corners of our planet, starting with CNN and Chinese CCTV ending. But why are the allies spending so much effort that costs daily Washington and other countries millions of dollars, while the result is not sure at all?
The answers are few. Kobani, a rural town in which 45 thousand people lived before the outbreak of fighting, is defacto the last bastion of the Kurds, and if the Islamic state conquered it, that would have opened the way to the occupation of the territory along the 1200 km long Turkish-Syrian border . Fatal consequences would then be mainly for the Kurds that the Jihadists kill on sight and cut off their heads.
Victory would also strengthen the position of the Islamic State that sends more and more fighters to city of Kobani. The whole world would have shown that it can not stop raids that involve even the most advanced US fighters . Finally, the IS would gain control of the areas that would be used to send much greater amount of smuggled oil and collect millions more dollars.
Turkish hypocrisy - thousands of Kurdish refugees alongside with Turkish soldiers are every day watching the fight in Kobani. The guns of their tanks are pointing to IS positions, but they do not open fire on them. Ankara, in the past, one of the key NATO allies, is refusing to help the Kurds and attack the Jihadists.
Turkish tenacity in which they refuse to retreat raises further speculation. Why did the IS dismiss dozens of detainees Turks, while the Americans, British and Iraqi journalists are being beheaded and videos of their executions sent out to the whole world? Why did they even dismiss relatives of Caliph of the IS held in Turkish prisons or hospitals?And why did 180 Islamic radicals find themselves free, some of whom holding British, Swiss and Macedonian passports and everyone immediately engaged in combat in Iraq and Syria?
Ankara practically did not respond to calls from Syrian Kurds for help. Even the United States failed to persuade Ankara to at least give its air bases to strike against IS. To this day they have start from Bahrain, Qatar and other countries in the Arabian Peninsula.
The massacre of Kurds, who are connected to the Kurdistan Workers Party PKK, in Turkey banned and called a terrorist group, plays Turks into cards. Therefore, Turkey has criticized the US supply of arms and ammunition to the Kurds in Kobani. Conversely Ankara lets the leading members of the so-called Syrian opposition, whether they represent a Front al-Nusrat - al-Qaeda in Syria or even Islamic State, drink in coffee shops in Istanbul.
"Turkey as NATO and IS ally is a shame of the alliance. The Turkish government has repeatedly indicated publicly that they would not cooperate with NATO in case of possible military action against ISIS until the Jihadists would not start conquering their own borders. And if someone else has the feeling that perhaps the IS would invade Turkey, they will surely be disappointed. Turkey, on the contrary subtly reinforces alliance with ISIS and did not allow NATO forces mobile base on its territory. And if it's not far enough to the media and intelligence agencies to start examining whether Turkey was committing war crimes, it is at least to to wonder what Turkey can do against NATO itself.
Turkey has for weeks been releasing prisoners - orthodox Muslims or even directly IS members in exchange for Turkish men captured by IS. Among other things they freed a Muslim who murdered in Northern Europe and was caught in Turkey. Turkey that is trying to cover for a genocide from the beginning of the last century perhaps subtly expresses his gratitude.
ISIS with Turkey agreed upon building an embassy in Turkey. So by doing so Turkey has recognized IS as an official and full-fledged nation. With its own actions that are effectively going against NATO Turkey goes even further. Turkey and IS on its borders do not let the Kurds enter city of Kobani. Turks alongside the Islamists do not let the Kurds neither with water nor food across the border to city of Kobani. An adequate reaction would be to exclude Turkey from the alliance and suspend all negotiations on joining the club with the EU. There would come even greater influence of Islam in Europe with it.
It's a mess, and who in fact could understand it? Nevertheless, it is quite simple - the US decided to sacrifice a good chunk of Turkey's territory in favor of a new Kurdistan. Turkey borders as they are, would not be valid anymore and the Kurds living here in Syria, here in Iraq and Iran, and also in a great part of Turkey, should have their new great and officially recognized state at the expense of reduction of Syria and especially Turkey and division of Iraq. The emergence of Kurdistan is a goal. Kurdistan, which would be thankful for the expansion of their country so that it would not oppose to oil and gas transits in any direction as it has been done by Turkey, and would become subservient to the US. Turkey, as well as Ukraine pays for its strategic position and as well as Ukraine faces a choice to either sacrifice a piece of their land for the establishment of Kurdistan or prefer to ally with ISIL. Which evil is easier to cope with for Turkey to make a stand against after having the USA forcing it (like Ukraine) to the necessity to choose from?
It is, from early beginning, perhaps obvious to IS leaders that they are supposed to meet the US interests and once a complete breakdown in all the three mentioned countries is achieved, NATO would stop from pretending that it has no power to defeat them and that all the promises (including the Islamization of Europe) are just a grass field. Indeed, even now we can hear from all sides that "the greatest danger for the world is an Islamic state". And maybe the IS is following this game to get something for themselves. And the IS might know that it is just a matter of time until NATO in alliance with Kurdistan attacks the same Islamists, with whom they are pretending an inability to militarily cope with (which is especially an obvious fact).
What was a friendly meeting with Senator McCain future leaders ISIL in May 2013, when today, all NATO alliance have not a bigger problem than ISIL defeat?
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-E8dp3RWWnro%2FVOYSifnXvyI%2FAAAAAAAAG44%2FwxLTANUljHE%2Fs1600%2Findex6.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
And is not there something strange in the fact that NATO, daring to engage Russia, is losing with some ISIL and to help against IS mobilizes and supports the Kurds? It reminds me very much of the support of the fascists in Ukraine. Turkey so far, as well as Ukraine had quite normal life - whether it was any pipeline in question, Turkey has always had links to the Russian source so to Iranian. The focal point of supply to Turkey is town Ceyhan, a city with finished transit routes from the Middle East. City of Ceyhan is located on the Mediterranean Sea, and it is a short walk to the Syrian Allepa. So having dominated Ceyhan it would be enough to remove Assad from power and oil from Qatar and Saudi-Arabia can freely travel to Europe. Ceyhan lies on the same border line as the Syrian city of Kobani. This begs a question: Is an attack on Syrian Kobani way to get to Turkish Ceyhan and thereby control the border with Syria and Turkey to break the two obstacles in the way of the Middle East energy to Europe? Because why to wait for TANAP-TAP pipeline when you can cancel Turkey and Syria in its present form and establish Kurdistan on the part of their territories and the Middle East carbon path to Europe would almost be complete. And why do not send Qatar, Saudi-Arabian and Israeli carbon to Europe just by getting rid off Assad, take advantage of Ceyhan city and the route to Europe would almost be finished. What it is really all about is Kobani and Ceyhan and the Syrian-Turkish border.
Here is also a video where you can again see the map of ISIL operations around Kobani and you can hear Pentagon stating that American air strikes can not save Kobani from its takeover of the government of ISIL, although there are unspeakable crimes against humanity waiting for the people in this country, until ISIL wins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...wQ6VkgmW-A
Syria, Iran and Turkey know about the plan since 2006
Now I have to return to the very beginning and recall a video, in which Wesley Clark, in 2007, delivered his speech "Seven countries within five years." Here is a link [here ], and this time I suggest time at around 5:55, where W. Clark says, "And that's why we collapsing in Iraq. Because Syria and Iran are aware of this plan "
I do not know what motives led W. Clark, the former Pentagon's slave, to his speech. There might really be a change in his heart and he really meant it. But his speech raises doubts about the fact that it was delivered a year after maps from 2006 to redraw the borders of the Middle East leaked to the public. These maps also reached Turkey leaving it in a deep shock.
Here are the maps plotting the borders of the Middle East Before and After:
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-w3vB5bNICG8%2FVOYSi0OpFII%2FAAAAAAAAG48%2FrSW63EA4PbI%2Fs1600%2Findex7.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-r_9M985gbFY%2FVOYSjSL10XI%2FAAAAAAAAG5A%2FoI1PP9RTKFc%2Fs1600%2Findex8.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
See that Kurdistan that has taken a part of Turkey, Syria and Iraq? And who entire NATO is helping fight ISIS?
The US dollar is rejoicing prematurely
If Syria, Iran and Turkey know the plan from 2006, s Russia certainly knows about it. And quite possibly ISIL leaders also know about it. So we created a classic situation where two are fighting and the third can laugh. The US want to defeat Russia and want to remove her from the position of a global player. And how else then through the energy resources. To do this, the US needs to not only push Russia out of energy markets, but also own a maximum of world energy resources. Why, it's simple; whoever wants to buy oil and gas, they must first buy the US dollar. Because there is no other way of self-preservation of the USA that it is being threaten by a total bankruptcy. For its plans to work the US need to dominate the whole of Europe economically, so that Europe could only trade with the US (it is almost done) and energetically so it wholly depends on the resources under the US control - whether it's American-Canadian shale, or Caspian or Middle Eastern source. The ideal would be if China has also become dependent on energy for dollars.
Thus weakened ruble and Putin's resignation from South Stream is flowing blood into the veins of the petrodollar, but it has not won yet. Majdan in Ukraine finished by connecting Crimea to Russia - a biggest upset of the plan. A Majdan in Turkey is currently evolving in such a direction that a country with the second largest army in NATO is not only helpful to ISIL, but wants to recognize the state that already controls most of the Middle Easte energy resources and get it on its side. At the same time Turkey is increasingly leading friendlier negotiations with Russia and the media commented that Erdogan meeting with Putin is an event comparable only with Crimea-Russia reunification. Well why not? Turkey is in the same situation as Ukraine and the color of the Black Sea got a completely different shade after Putin was received with royal honors in Turkey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R-L7HMBOHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP8T9LbT...kh0R10LhLw
Unfortunately what that means for the world is anything other than that the US will resort to harsher means than the nazification of Ukraine, Kurdistan or muslimification of Europe or the Middle East to achieve their goals. And Putin will resist. And it looks like Turkey will defend itself too. The war to save the petrodollar is already on the way and USA are playing vabanque with the world. And stupid Europe is helping the very third time in its history.
Let's follow the developments surrounding Kobani and Ceyhan and watch not only Russian, but also Turkey's attitude. If the country with the second strongest army in NATO decided instead to ally with artificially created enemy of the US and even link up with Russia, there is truly a global Majdan ahead. But what else could be expected from a desperado before bankruptcy the USA is. One American editor in his article, among others, writes: "If the US knew another way to keep global power than war, would long ago have used it. But because of having Russia weakened and China controlled so it develops just as much as it is allowed, no other option exists than the full control over the world's energy resources and having the NATO bases closest to the Russian and Chinese border. As a result the world stands before the great world war to maintain the petrodollar's hegemony. Do you need oil or gas, buy a dollar otherwise forget it. And this is true and especially for Europe, which is fully subdued into the USA services.
The whole situation is very reminiscent of the world after the crash on the NY Stock Exchange in 1929 and subsequent WW II. Even then, the US joined with anyone - Stalin and Hitler promoting genocide from both sides and would eventually join the winner. And today - Christians, Muslims, Jews fight again, the USA needs it!
And finally have a look at the last map [ here ], and notice the position of Israel. It is done in the USA, Europe and Africa and what remains is to control just a little bit of the world on that map. All the "conspiracy" talking about Greater Israel and the Anglo-American-Zionist connection might not seem to be a conspiracy whatsoever.
The purpose of the article is not the view of the Islamists, Kurds and others. The purpose is to illustrate how one country makes what they want of the whole world. And it uses the very same script all the time: "Make the problem and then solve the problem?" or "Use a kick out when used up" until in the finals we are all victims. The main purpose of this article is to show how all the world events are just pebbles in the mosaic of one global power. May God save the world.
Using resources [ here ] and [ here ]
December 29, 2014 - Addition of two very related information:
1) After the collapse of South Stream on December 8 Turkey and Russia agreed to build a pipeline between the two countries, Gazprom already setting up companies for its construction. Meanwhile nameless pipeline is already partially done. Freshly-based company Gazprom Russkaia just lay pipelines along the bottom of the Black Sea and stretch it to Turkey to Greek border. (Black Sea, it again takes on new importance because this probably would not be liked)
2) The title "The fighting in Iraq to help the independence of Kurdistan and the foreign oil companies" - Kurdistan in the last three years (!) has concluded a number of contracts with foreign oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Total and Chevron oil, and despite the fact that Baghdad is fundamentally against. Kurdistan has managed to prepare large quantities of oil for export using trucks and tankers despite the statement of Baghdad that these are illegal activities. The pipeline for export is now complete and millions of barrels over it were sent to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan , still not for sale. Tankers, containing 2 million barrels of Kurdish oil, waiting for buyers who are afraid to buy because Baghdad wants to sue anyone who buys this oil. The Kurds have an estimated 45 billion oil and planning to export 400,000 barrels per day " [source] . A richest deposits are around the city of Kirkuk, which is to become part of Kurdistan
- Observer -
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Thanks Lauren.
Of course it's about the dollar. What gets me though, is that the US allowed the banking cartel to rob the US and the rest of the world blind and bring the dollar to its knees leading to the giant crash of 2008. For me this was the elites robbing the US of its wealth - and the rest of the world too. I always figured this was because they saw the inevitable changes coming as the world slowly realigned itself.
If not what was the greatest theft in history all about?
Greed certainly. But anyone with an ounce of common sense could see what happened was inevitable because that level of gearing/leverage was impossible to sustain, and was going to end incredibly badly (as it did). I very clearly saw what was happening as far back as 20 years ago, so bank chairman, fed governors and all the others must've seen it too. And let it happen?
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 474
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
David Guyatt Wrote:Thanks Lauren.
Of course it's about the dollar. What gets me though, is that the US allowed the banking cartel to rob the US and the rest of the world blind and bring the dollar to its knees leading to the giant crash of 2008. For me this was the elites robbing the US of its wealth - and the rest of the world too. I always figured this was because they saw the inevitable changes coming as the world slowly realigned itself.
If not what was the greatest theft in history all about?
Greed certainly. But anyone with an ounce of common sense could see what happened was inevitable because that level of gearing/leverage was impossible to sustain, and was going to end incredibly badly (as it did). I very clearly saw what was happening as far back as 20 years ago, so bank chairman, fed governors and all the others must've seen it too. And let it happen?
What's it all about? Here's my guess:
Quote:"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
-- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Lauren Johnson Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Thanks Lauren.
Of course it's about the dollar. What gets me though, is that the US allowed the banking cartel to rob the US and the rest of the world blind and bring the dollar to its knees leading to the giant crash of 2008. For me this was the elites robbing the US of its wealth - and the rest of the world too. I always figured this was because they saw the inevitable changes coming as the world slowly realigned itself.
If not what was the greatest theft in history all about?
Greed certainly. But anyone with an ounce of common sense could see what happened was inevitable because that level of gearing/leverage was impossible to sustain, and was going to end incredibly badly (as it did). I very clearly saw what was happening as far back as 20 years ago, so bank chairman, fed governors and all the others must've seen it too. And let it happen?
What's it all about? Here's my guess:
Quote:"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
-- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20
I know that quote so well. :  :
My concern with it, in this case, is that it must've been a tremendous gamble were that the case, because they virtually collapsed their banking system - their pride and joy - to achieve their aims, and thus rendered themselves far weaker in the process.
Clearly, the world is now changing very rapidly and new banking/economic systems are developing that are outside their control and jurisdiction.
My own thoughts were that perhaps the elite saw the writing on the wall and decided to plunder everything while they could. This always happens when a regime comes to an end. I would also factor into this somewhat weak theory that this might account for the Bush family buying that damn great ranch down in latin America where there is no extradition agreements in place.
But in the short term they, to their amazement, still see the possibility of keeping most of the plates spinning on poles and while they can keep this magic going they will. It means more profit, with a chance of further sunshine, so why not.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 474
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
Quote:Clearly, the world is now changing very rapidly and new banking/economic systems are developing that are outside their control and jurisdiction.
The Quigley quote summarizes the long term, back channel CFR end game. I interpret what you are saying, David, is that this project is coming to and end and was being seriously challenged back in 2008 such that "they" decided on the "nuclear option" of grabbing all they could get.
Would you mind saying more about these "new banking/economic systems" back seven or eight years ago that would cause them to panic? I don't see them myself? Now? Eurasia.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but tell me more about the Bush's Latin American ranch? on another thread, or PM?
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
|
![[Image: donetsk-1_2884919b.jpg?w=357&h=223]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/donetsk-1_2884919b.jpg)
![[Image: feb16done.jpg?w=404&h=321]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/feb16done.jpg)
![[Image: september-debaltsevo.jpg?w=429&h=349]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/september-debaltsevo.jpg)
![[Image: october-debaltsevo.jpg?w=428&h=362]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/october-debaltsevo.jpg)
![[Image: november-debaltsevo.jpg?w=416&h=345]](https://syncreticstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/november-debaltsevo.jpg)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ODEsaygawK0/VOYSe7LS9gI/AAAAAAAAG4Q/HphGPOpsAeI/s1600/index0.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFYD-yX7iOg/VOYShe1xxCI/AAAAAAAAG4s/z4Q36KizFtA/s1600/index1.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QIMk3GAxnLU/VOYSeaBR8eI/AAAAAAAAG4M/zHcCIYNPx_w/s1600/index2.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E3hH600GJiI/VOYSg8ydtgI/AAAAAAAAG4c/R_m06aHPVV4/s1600/index3.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EiShd0wX11k/VOYShct9L8I/AAAAAAAAG4g/MnJ1tu5s16I/s1600/index4.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8ymXOwQ42dQ/VOYShnzm3LI/AAAAAAAAG4k/1CLCbWLC2IE/s1600/index5.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E8dp3RWWnro/VOYSifnXvyI/AAAAAAAAG44/wxLTANUljHE/s1600/index6.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w3vB5bNICG8/VOYSi0OpFII/AAAAAAAAG48/rSW63EA4PbI/s1600/index7.png)
![[Image: proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com...=image%2F*]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r_9M985gbFY/VOYSjSL10XI/AAAAAAAAG5A/oI1PP9RTKFc/s1600/index8.png)