Eurasia: A Geo-political re-alignment

[Magda Hassan]

Can't offer a translation as yet, sadly, but intrigued to see Daniele Ganser among the guests on this lengthy radio discussion-reaction:

[video]https://youtu.be/uUht1s6m-7Q[/video]

KenFM am Telefon: Willy Wimmer - Albrecht Müller - Dr. Daniele Ganser: Krieg gegen Russland

Published on 16 Mar 2015
Amerikanische Aussenpolitik wird, bevor sie das Weißen Haus verkündet, in Think-Tanks erdacht. Hier geht es vor allem um private Ziele die dann militärisch vom Staat umgesetzt werden. Einer der einflussreichsten Denkfabriken für Geopolitik nennt sich STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting Inc) und wird von Georg Friedman geleitet.

Am 5. Februar 2015 traf sich STRATFOR in Chicago um über Krieg und Frieden auf dem Europäischen Kontinent zu beraten. Nach der Tagung kam es zu einem finalen Statement von Friedman. Der Gründer der Organisation nahm dabei kein Blatt vor dem Mund und sprach ganz offen über seine Ziele wenn es um die Politik der USA in Europa geht. STRATFOR ist auch im Umfeld des Präsidenten aktiv und hat einen heißen Krieg in Europa quasi beschlossen. Primäres Ziel dieses Krieges ist es, so Georg Friedman, einen Keil zwischen die Deutsch-Russischen Beziehungen zu treiben.

Der von Putin vorgeschlagene gemeinsame Wirtschaftsraum, der sich von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok erstreckt, ist den USA mehr als ein Dorn im Auge. Sie betrachten diese Idee als Kampfansage gegen Washington und sind bereit, dafür den Frieden in Europa nachhaltig zu zerstören.

Geht es nach STRATFOR, schießen Übermorgen schon wieder Deutsche auf Russische Soldaten.

Georg Friedman macht aus dieser Machiavelli-Politik keinen Hehl. Er gibt offen zu, dass die USA seit je her alles getan hätten um Russen und Deutsche wann immer es geht gegeneinander aufzuhetzen.

KenFM wagt einen umfangreiche Analyse der STRATFOR-Pläne und sprach dazu mit Willy Wimmer, Albrecht Müller und Dr. Daniele Ganser. Es geht auch um die Frage wie die europäische Politik sich aus dem zerstörerischen Kriegskurs der USA lösen können und welche Rolle aktuell der neuen Friedensbewegung zukommt.

http://www.kenfm.de
http://www.facebook.com/KenFM.de
http://www.twitter.com/TeamKenFM
http://kenfm.de/unterstutze-kenfm

Googlish translation of the above:

American foreign policy, before proclaiming the White House, conceived in think-tanks. Here it is all about personal goals which are then converted militarily by the state. One of the most influential think tanks called geopolitics STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting Inc) and is directed by George Friedman.

On 5 February 2015, STRATFOR met to discuss in Chicago at about war and peace on the European continent. After the conference, there was a final statement of Friedman. The founder of the organization took it not mince his mouth and spoke openly about his goals when it comes to US policy in Europe. STRATFOR is also active around the president and decided on a hot war in Europe virtually. The primary objective of this war is so to drive a wedge between the George Friedman German-Russian relations.

The approach proposed by Putin common economic space, extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok, is the United States more than an eyesore. You are watching this idea as a challenge to Washington and are willing to destroy a lasting peace in Europe.

If it goes to STRATFOR, shoot tomorrow again German to Russian soldiers.

George Friedman makes this Machiavellian politics no secret. He openly admits that the US had always been done by Russian and German whenever it goes against one another to incite.

KenFM ventures a comprehensive analysis of STRATFOR plans and talking to Willy Wimmer, Albrecht Müller and Dr. Daniele Ganser. There is also the question of how EU policies can trigger a damaging war rate of the US and what the role of the current new peace movement.

[Paul Rigby]

Can't offer a translation as yet, sadly, but intrigued to see Daniele Ganser among the guests on this lengthy radio discussion-reaction:

[video]https://youtu.be/uUht1s6m-7Q[/video]

KenFM am Telefon: Willy Wimmer - Albrecht Müller - Dr. Daniele Ganser: Krieg gegen Russland

Published on 16 Mar 2015
Amerikanische Aussenpolitik wird, bevor sie das Weißen Haus verkündet, in Think-Tanks erdacht. Hier geht es vor allem um private Ziele die dann militärisch vom Staat umgesetzt werden. Einer der einflussreichsten Denkfabriken für Geopolitik nennt sich STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting Inc) und wird von Georg Friedman geleitet.

Am 5. Februar 2015 traf sich STRATFOR in Chicago um über Krieg und Frieden auf dem Europäischen Kontinent zu beraten. Nach der Tagung kam es zu einem finalen Statement von Friedman. Der Gründer der Organisation nahm dabei kein Blatt vor dem Mund und sprach ganz offen über seine Ziele wenn es um die Politik der USA in Europa geht. STRATFOR ist auch im Umfeld des Präsidenten aktiv und hat einen heißen Krieg in Europa quasi beschlossen. Primäres Ziel dieses Krieges ist es, so Georg Friedman, einen Keil zwischen die Deutsch-Russischen Beziehungen zu treiben.

Der von Putin vorgeschlagene gemeinsame Wirtschaftsraum, der sich von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok erstreckt, ist den USA mehr als ein Dorn im Auge. Sie betrachten diese Idee als Kampfansage gegen Washington und sind bereit, dafür den Frieden in Europa nachhaltig zu zerstören.

Geht es nach STRATFOR, schießen Übermorgen schon wieder Deutsche auf Russische Soldaten.

Georg Friedman macht aus dieser Machiavelli-Politik keinen Hehl. Er gibt offen zu, dass die USA seit je her alles getan hätten um Russen und Deutsche wann immer es geht gegeneinander aufzuhetzen.

KenFM wagt einen umfangreiche Analyse der STRATFOR-Pläne und sprach dazu mit Willy Wimmer, Albrecht Müller und Dr. Daniele Ganser. Es geht auch um die Frage wie die europäische Politik sich aus dem zerstörerischen Kriegskurs der USA lösen können und welche Rolle aktuell der neuen Friedensbewegung zukommt.

http://www.kenfm.de
http://www.facebook.com/KenFM.de
http://www.twitter.com/TeamKenFM
http://kenfm.de/unterstutze-kenfm

Googlish translation of the above:

American foreign policy, before proclaiming the White House, conceived in think-tanks. Here it is all about personal goals which are then converted militarily by the state. One of the most influential think tanks called geopolitics STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting Inc) and is directed by George Friedman.

On 5 February 2015, STRATFOR met to discuss in Chicago at about war and peace on the European continent. After the conference, there was a final statement of Friedman. The founder of the organization took it not mince his mouth and spoke openly about his goals when it comes to US policy in Europe. STRATFOR is also active around the president and decided on a hot war in Europe virtually. The primary objective of this war is so to drive a wedge between the George Friedman German-Russian relations.

The approach proposed by Putin common economic space, extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok, is the United States more than an eyesore. You are watching this idea as a challenge to Washington and are willing to destroy a lasting peace in Europe.

If it goes to STRATFOR, shoot tomorrow again German to Russian soldiers.

George Friedman makes this Machiavellian politics no secret. He openly admits that the US had always been done by Russian and German whenever it goes against one another to incite.

KenFM ventures a comprehensive analysis of STRATFOR plans and talking to Willy Wimmer, Albrecht Müller and Dr. Daniele Ganser. There is also the question of how EU policies can trigger a damaging war rate of the US and what the role of the current new peace movement.

Ich danke Ihnen sehr, Frau

[David Guyatt]

More Friedman:

`In Ukraine, U.S interests are incompatible with the interests of the Russian Federation` Stratfor chief George Friedman on the roots of the Ukraine crisis

Author: us-russia


Published 17-01-2015, 16:00

Interview by Elena Chernenko and Alexander Gabuev

Translation: Paul R. Grenier

George Friedman, the well-known American political scientist, recently visited Moscow. Stratfor, the private analytical and intelligence agency which he directs, is often referred to in the US as a "shadow CIA." In an interview with "Kommersant" he talked about what goals the United States is pursuing in Ukraine, and explained why these goals are incompatible with Russian interests.KOMMERSANT: In your analytical work you refer to the fragmentation of Europe. How is this fragmentation manifested?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: During the Cold War the borders within Europe have been preserved. It was understood that, if you start to change them, it will lead to destabilization. Once the Cold War ended, the redrawing of borders got started in Yugoslavia. Later, there came about also a de facto change of the borders in the Caucasus. Quite recently, 45% of Scots voted for independence. The Catalans are also seeking independence.Against this background, I do not think the Ukrainian situation (where one part of the country feels pulled toward convergence with the EU, while the other is inclined toward Russia) is something altogether unique. The Ukrainian situation fits into the centrifugal tendencies that we have been already been seeing in Europe for a while now. Indeed, until recently, no one thought that the British-Scottish question, which appeared to have been settled 300 years ago, would suddenly and so urgently resurface. In other words: the Ukrainian crisis is connected with Russia, but not only with Russia. It is also associated with processes in Europe, with the crisis of Europe itself.KOMMERSANT: European politicians say that what is causing the destabilization of Europe are Russia's actions directed toward Ukraine.GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Europeans are very proud of what they call their "exceptional" status: that supposedly they have rid themselves of war and that, for more than half a century, they have lived in a world of stability and prosperity. But until the early 1990s Europe, in essence, was occupied by the Soviet Union and the United States. And then there was Yugoslavia, then the Caucasus. The European continent has never been truly peaceful.KOMMERSANT: But US officials, as well as the leadership of EU member states, have explained their harsh policy toward the Russian Federation on the basis that, through its annexation of the Crimea, Russia for the first time since the Second World has "redrawn borders by force."GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Americans know that this is nonsense. The first example of the changing of borders by force was Yugoslavia. And Kosovo was only the culmination of this process. And the United States is directly involved in these events.KOMMERSANT: What is the goal of US policy as far as Ukraine is concerned?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: For all of the last 100 years Americans have pursued a very consistent foreign policy. Its main goal: to not allow any state to amass too much power in Europe. First, the United States sought to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, then it sought to prevent the USSR from strengthening its influence.The essence of this policy is as follows: to maintain as long as possible a balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party, and if the balance is about to be significantly disrupted -- to intervene at the last moment. And so, in the case of the First World War, the United States intervened only after the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917, to prevent Germany from gaining ground. And during WWII, the US opened a second front only very late (in June 1944), after it became clear that the Russians were prevailing over the Germans.What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian naturaland human resources.KOMMERSANT: Today, who in your opinion is the United States trying to restrain?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Today the US is seeking to block the emergence of a whole range of potential regional hegemons: Serbia, Iran, Iraq. At the same time, the US authorities take advantage of diversionary attacks. For example, in a battle, when the enemy is on the verge of achieving victory, you hit him in the side get him off balance. US does not seek to "defeat" Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong.KOMMERSANT: And with regard to Russia, what tactics do they use?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The fragmentation of Europe is accompanied by a weakening of NATO. European countries, in essence, have no [real] armies of their own. In the North Atlantic Alliance the United States is the only country that is strong in military terms. Against the background of the weakening of Europe, the comparative power of Russia has grown significantly.Russia's strategic imperative is to have as deep a buffer zone on its western borders as possible. Therefore, Russia has always been particularly concerned about its relationship with Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States and other countries in Eastern Europe. They are of great importance for Russia's national security.At the beginning of this year there existed in Ukraine a slightly pro-Russian though very shaky government. That situation was fine for Moscow: after all, Russia did not want to completely control Ukraine or occupy it; it was enough that Ukraine not join NATO and the EU. Russian authorities cannot tolerate a situation in which western armed forces are located a hundred or so kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.KOMMERSANT: In other words, the Ukrainian crisis is the result of the confrontation between Russia and the United States?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Here you have two countries: one wants a Ukraine that is neutral. The other wants Ukraine to form part of a line of containment against Russian expansion. One cannot say that one party is mistaken: both are acting based on their national interests. It's just that these interests don't jive.For the Americans, as I have said, it's important to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in Europe. But recently the U.S. has begun to worry about Russia's potential and its intentions. Russia is beginning to move from the defensive position that it has held since 1992 in the direction of the restoration of its influence. It's a matter of the fundamental divergence of the national interests of two great powers.KOMMERSANT: What actions on the Russian side could have caused the United States to become wary?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia had begun to take certain steps that the United States considered unacceptable. Primarily in Syria. It was there that Russians demonstrated to the Americans that they are capable of influencing processes in the Middle East. And the US has enough problems in that part of the world already without the Russians.Russians intervened in the process in the Middle East among other reasons because they had hoped to get leverage to influence US policy in other areas. But they miscalculated. The United States thought that it was Russia's intent to harm them. It is in this context that we should be evaluating the events in Ukraine. The Russians, apparently, simply have not calculated how seriously the US side might perceive their actions or the extent to which they can easily find countermeasures. It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.KOMMRERSANT: So you think Ukraine is a form of revenge for Syria?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: No, not revenge. But Russian intervention in the process in Syria, while the United States was still addressing the problems in Iraq, and was in negotiations with Iran ... In Washington, many people have the impression that Russian want to destabilize the already fragile US position in the Middle East - a region that is of key importance for America.About this question there were two different points of views in Washington: that the Russian were just fooling around, or that they have found a weak point of the US and were trying to take advantage of it. I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, that would be a stretch. But this intervention tipped the balance of opinion in Washington in the direction of the opinion that Russian is a problem. And in that case what does one do? Not confront them in the Middle East. Better to pull their attention away to a problem in some other region.Now all of this is a bit oversimplified, obviously it is all more complicated than this in practice, but the cause and effect relationship is as I just described it. As a result, the bottom line is that it is in the strategic interests of the United States to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And it is in the strategic interests of Russia not to allow the United States to come to its borders .....KOMMERSANT: What, in your opinion, is the idea behind the US sanctions? Russian authorities say that the US wants to bring about regime change.GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The purpose of the sanctions is to -- with minimal damage to the US and with a somewhat larger damage to the EU -- hurt Russia in order to make it capitulate to US demands.The sanctions demonstrate the power of the United States. And the United States are happy to make use of that power against countries who lack the means to adequately respond to it. It is also an opportunity to "line up" the Europeans. I do not think that the United States' main purpose is regime change in Russia. The main goal was to limit the Russian authorities' room for maneuver, which is indeed what we are witnessing. But here other factors also played a role, such as, for example, the slowing down of the Russian economy, and falling oil prices.KOMMERSANT: In Russia, many say that oil prices have dropped thanks to a US conspiracy with countries in the Persian Gulf.GEORGE FRIEDMAN: It is always easier to explain a difficulty by reference to someone else's deliberate actions. But a number of countries, including China, India and Brazil, have reduced their forecasts as regards their rate of economic growth. And Europe by the way has a zero growth. What is more, a revolution in the petroleum sector is taking place, the amount of available oil is growing.A fall in oil prices wasinevitable. What else did you expect? But you have built your economic strategy not only on high oil prices, but on the export of energy resources as such. That made you vulnerable! You should have used the last 10-15 years of high earnings from selling energy resources to diversify the economy, but your government did not do this.KOMMERSANT: Can we expect US-Russian relations to improve after the next presidential election in the US?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In Russia you overly personify American politics. In the US the president is only one of the institutions of power, he is not all-powerful. Obama is also bound hand and foot, as were his predecessors. If in the Middle East groups like the "Islamic State" are rapidly gaining momentum it doesn't matter whether the US President is a Democrat or a Republican -- he will have to hit them hard.And no American president can afford to sit by idly if Russia is becoming more and more influential. Russia's actions in the Middle East, or, say, in the case of granting asylum to Edward Snowden were perceived in the US as being directed against US interests. Any US president would have to react to it. About three years ago, in one of my books, I predicted that as soon as Russia starts to increase its power and demonstrate it, a crisis would occur in Ukraine. It was obvious.KOMMERANT: Howrealistic do you think is Russia's rapprochement with China?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: China has a lot of problems of its own now -- declining growth, high inflation and unemployment. There is no point expecting gifts from Beijing. And the construction of a pipeline to China, on which the Russian authorities will have to spend a significant amount of money, is unlikely to have any sort of tangible impact on the Russian economy.KOMMERSANT: What's your sense of how the situation in the Ukraine will develop further?GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, that is obvious. But I imagine it will face serious problems with getting supplies to the peninsula. And yet Moscow cannot retreat from a number of its requirements with respect to Ukraine. It cannot allow Western military forces to be located on Ukraine territory. This is a nightmare in Moscow, and limits its room for maneuver.The US will need to make a strategic decision, not now but in the future, either to intervene more actively in events in Ukraine, which is fraught with difficulties, or to build a new alliance -- within NATO or outside of NATO -- with the participation of Poland, Romania, the Baltic States and, for example, Turkey. This is already happening, slowly but it is happening. And this will be something that Russia will not accept -- a "cordon sanitaire." It's not that the US needs to have control over Ukraine; for them the important thing is that it not be controlled by Russia.Much will depend on Kive.The government in Kiev is the Ukraine's weak point. If it fractures - something which, surprisingly, is not what we observe, then Russia will try to turn this to their favor.But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.

Source

[Paul Rigby]

More Friedman:

`In Ukraine, U.S interests are incompatible with the interests of the Russian Federation` Stratfor chief George Friedman on the roots of the Ukraine crisis
]But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.

Source

What, I wonder, is the purpose of Friedman's apparent recent garrulousness? Syke-warfare? If so, targeted at whom? The Russians? Or is this for the benefit of US policy-makers?

[David Guyatt]

More Friedman:

`In Ukraine, U.S interests are incompatible with the interests of the Russian Federation` Stratfor chief George Friedman on the roots of the Ukraine crisis
]But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.

Source

What, I wonder, is the purpose of Friedman's apparent recent garrulousness? Syke-warfare? If so, targeted at whom? The Russians? Or is this for the benefit of US policy-makers?

What he says in article - or speeches - to informed bodies is considerably different to the free analytical pieces that you can subscribe to at Stratfor. Those I have read today are very slippery and specious article "Can Putin Survive" which I've just posted HERE.

My take on his is that if you're one of the informed insiders, he'll speak - more or less - the way it actually is. For everyone else, it's soft propaganda and designed to keep everyone else in their mushroom state - in the dark and fed on shit.

[Lauren Johnson]

What's Washington Doing in Central Asia Now?

Since the time the CIA financed and trained more than one hundred Mujahideen Islamic Jihadists, including a fanatical Saudi named Osama bin Laden, to wage a decade-long proxy war against forces of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, Washington has been obsessed with the idea of penetrating deep into Central Asia in order to drive a wedge between China and Russia.

Early attempts in the wake of the post-2001 US forces' presence in Afghanistan met with mixed success. Now it appears that Washington is frantically trying a repeat, even calling the ageing US Ambassador Richard M. Miles out of retirement to head a new try at a Color Revolution.

There seems to be a sense of urgency to Washington's new focus on Central Asia. Russia is hardly buckling under from US and EU financial sanctions; rather she is looking more vibrant than ever, making strategic economic and military deals seemingly everywhere. And Russia's Eurasian neighbor, The Peoples' Republic of China, is laying plans to build energy pipelines and high speed rail links with Russia across Eurasia.

Washington appears now to be responding.

The problem with the Washington neoconservatives is that they aren't very creative, in fact, in terms of understanding the larger consequences of their specific actions, they are rather stupid. And their shenanigens have become very well-known, not only in Moscow, but also in Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and other Central Asian republics formerly part of the Soviet Union.

The Coming Eurasia Economic Boom

Central Asian republics, most especially Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, are strategically located between China, Kazakhstan and Russia. They are also in the midst of the developing economic boom region that will follow China's New Silk Road high-speed railway networks. Those rail networks will create a highly efficient land route, independent of possible US sea lane interference, to facilitate the rapidly-growing trade across Eurasia and potentially, if the hapless EU ever gets the courage to buck Washington, to Europe as well.

China recently made headlines with the establishment of its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a clear rival to the IMF and the US-controlled Asian Development Bank, when the UK, Germany, France and most every major nationwith exception of the USA, Canada, Mexico and Japanrushed to be founding members and to get in on what promises to be the global economic locomotive for at least the next half century or more, if done right. The AIIB was founded by Beijing with its initial contribution of $50 billion, to partly finance the New Silk Road.

Recently Beijing also revived an earlier plan to build a rail link from China's Xinjiang Province in far western to Uzbekistan across the territory of northern Kyrgyzstan. Their initial plans were derailed in 2005 when an earlier US-instigated Color Revolution made Kyrgyzstan too unstable.

On January 21, 2015 Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev announced that his government was sending a delegation to Beijing to finalize details of the project launch.It will be a $2 billion 270 km-long rail link from Kashgar in the Xinjiang region of western China to Andijan in eastern Uzbekistan via Kyrgyzstan's Naryn and Osh oblasts.

In a recent memo on the development, the UK Foreign Office notes that the rail project would have significant benefits for especially Uzbekistan and for China as well as advancing the overall Eurasian New Silk Road rail projects. They note that for China, it would create an additional land-based route through Central Asia for its exports to European markets, assuming it would connect into the existing Uzbek and Turkmen rail network running to the Caspian Sea. It would also improve Chinese access to gold, coal and other mineral deposits within Kyrgyzstan, a largely economically forgotten state since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and Kyrgyzstan's declaration of an independent republic.

For Uzbekistan, the Foreign Office memo notes that it would offer a new rail route for trade with Asia-Pacific markets. This would be especially important for the GM-UzDaewoo car assembly plant located in the Andijan region, which relies on regular imports of parts and components from South Korea. For Kyrgyzstan, it would offer the potential to earn transit fees of up to $200 million per year, by some estimates, in addition to creating up to 20,000 construction jobs during the implementation phase. As well there are the potential gains for opening Kyrgyzstan to significant Chinese mining investment, something the Kyrgyz economy sorely needs.

And in another geopolitical Eurasian economic advance, on April 9, Pakistan announced that, once US Iran sanctions are lifted, it will proceed with long-stalled construction of a $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan natural gas pipeline that would pass through Pakistan's port of Gwadar to the city of Nawabshah in southeastern Pakistan providing a desperately needed equivalent of 4500 Megawatts of electricity.

In 2014 Washington sabotaged the project by essentially bribing the financially-strapped Pakistan government with $1.5 billion in Saudi money if she were to abandon the project. Washington threatened Pakistan with penalties were they to violate US economic sanctions on Iran. Washington, like Wall Street, prefers to use other peoples' money to advance their agenda. A year later, the Saudi money spent, Pakistan has announced the pipeline project will now go ahead. Pakistan has quietly secured a $2 billion loan from… China. The Pakistan segment of the pipeline will be 485 miles, funded by a Chinese loan and construction would be undertaken by China's CNPC state energy company. Iran has already completed its 560-mile segment of the pipeline.

Washington Scrambles to Sabotage

With the explosion of trans-national Eurasian economic linkages, rail and pipeline, Washington has realized it must react if they are not to be outflanked by the states of the Shanghai Cooperation OrganizationRussia, China, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan.

Not only that, also in January 2015 Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia launched their Eurasian Economic Union with Kyrgyzstan planning to join. That's the same economic union which Ukraine's democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovich opted to join rather than accept the paltry proposal of an EU Associate Membership status. Washington's Assistant Secretary of State Viktoria Nuland and the usual gaggle of neoconservative warhawks launched the Maidan Square Twitter protests and the February 2014 coup d'etat partly to block that Ukraine move.

So it's worth noting that in late March 2015, the Kyrgyz newspaper Delo No, reported that a mysterious Ukrainian aircraft delivered 150 tons of cargo with the status of "diplomatic mail" to the US Embassy in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek late last month. The status diplomatic mail meant it could not be inspected by Kyrgyz customs police. Apparently the US Embassy staff in Bishkek are furious letter writers.The paper reported that the cargo was delivered during two separate flights by an AN-124 transport jet of the Ukrainian air carrier Antonov Avialinii between March 28 and March 30, and each time the plane was en route from the UAE capital Abu Dhabi to the Manas international airport. Hmmm.

It's worth noting that in November 2013, the US Embassy in Kiev also received "diplomatic cargos" that were delivered by US Air Force transport aircraft. Former Ukrainian Security Service chief Alexander Yakimenko was quoted by Russia's Vesti.ru news network as saying that the Kiev cargos included boxes with 60 million dollars in small bills that were distributed to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Square during anti-government riots in late 2013Victoria Nuland's idea of democracy. Until April 2014 the US Government had maintained a strategic airbase at Manas in Kyrgyzstan totally immune from Kyrgyz inspection. Reports were rampant at the time that US military cargo laden with Afghan heroin landed there en route to Russia and the EU.

In November, 2014 Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) head, Nikolay Bordyuzha, accused the West of attempting to destabilize CSTO countries. The Collective Security Treaty Organization is a security alliance of former Soviet states, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan to cooperate in strategic issues amongst the member states.

Bordyuzha charged that activities of "NGO's financed by Western Agents" have increased in the region. Bordyuzha accused the West of destabilizing the situation in the CSTO countries. As proof he cited a "disproportionate increase in the number of officials in Western embassies, especially those of the US as well as the activation of the work of the many NGOs financed by Western grants." He noted that just before the launch of Washington's Kiev coup d'etat, the number of US Embassy personnel in Kiev exploded to a staggering 1,500, that for a country whose only interest to Washington is to drive a wedge between Russia, China and the EU.

Then on February 5 this year, the US State Department announced that it had hauled out 78-year-old retired Color Revolution maker, Richard M. Miles, as "Charge d'Affaires ad Interim" at the US Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Miles was the point person behind the CIA "Rose Revolution" that fraudulently installed Washington's hand-picked Mikhail Saakashvili as President of the Republic of Georgia as well as similar dirty operations in the 1990's in Azerbaijan where BP and the US oil companies wanted to build an oil pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan via Georgia to avoid the existing Russian oil line running through Chechnya.

The appointment of Miles came at the same time US State Department Assistant Secretary, Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative former Dick Cheney assistant and ex NATO Ambassador who was key point person for the Kiev coup of 2014, travelled to the Southern Caucasus to visit the governments of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Washington clearly aims to wreak havoc in the form of Color Revolutions across Central Asia, in order to sabotage the rapidly-developing Eurasian economic developments. Kyrgyzstan is especially strategic to that aim as chaos there immediately threatens China, Russia and Kazakhstan economic cooperation.

We can expect a new wave of Washington-orchestrated Color Revolutions across Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia. It will likely also include Baluchistan in Pakistan where radical Jihadists, backed by the CIA, are being prepared to sabotage the Iran-Pakistan-China gas pipeline that passes through Baluchistan as well. It's all a bit tiresome, but a Superpower in decay is not generally the most creative.

First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/05/what-s...-asia-now/

[David Guyatt]

There was clearly going to be a US reaction to the Silk Road and the AIIB projects. This looks to be it.

Watch those spaces (nations), I think.

If you were China and/or Russia how would you combat American machinations in those states?

[Lauren Johnson]

If you were China and/or Russia how would you combat American machinations in those states?

Good question. I think the target of these machinations is the Russian populace. Wear them down and you get in more favorable government. This is done by an enemy that has unlimited resources as long as it can keep printing money and forcing others to take it. The beliefs that the Empire is about to collapse are mostly wishful thinking IMO.

I see Russia trying to play the rope-a-dope strategy achieve its economic ends in concert with China, etc.

[David Guyatt]

If you were China and/or Russia how would you combat American machinations in those states?

Good question. I think the target of these machinations is the Russian populace. Wear them down and you get in more favorable government. This is done by an enemy that has unlimited resources as long as it can keep printing money and forcing others to take it. The beliefs that the Empire is about to collapse are mostly wishful thinking IMO.

I see Russia trying to play the rope-a-dope strategy achieve its economic ends in concert with China, etc.

Yup, the empire is not going to collapse anytime soon -- the best we can hope for is that over time it becomes increasingly less significant as other economic systems take shape. Other reserve currencies would be a good idea to combat the US dollar.

But destabalizing/disrupting nations between China and Russia and other destinations where the new silk road rail links transit would be, I think, a favoured way of bringing Chinese trade to a juddering halt, thus making them rely again on sea routes that the US controls.

[Magda Hassan]

All these ridiculous conspiracy theories. I'm sure the US ambassador just has many pen pals. It must be quite boring in the remote boon docks He needs some thing to do.

US diplomats have refused to comment on media reports about the delivery by a mysterious Ukrainian plane of 150 tons of alleged diplomatic mail to the US Embassy in Kyrgyzstan.

© Sputnik/ Vitaliy Belousov
Kiev Does Not Need the Truth About Maidan Shootings German Newspaper

Washington has remained tight-lipped on a report by the Kyrgyz newspaper Delo No. that a mysterious Ukrainian aircraft delivered 150 tons of cargo with the status of "diplomatic mail" to the US Embassy in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek late last month. According to the newspaper, the cargo was delivered during two separate flights by the AN-124 transport jet of the Ukrainian air carrier Antonov Avialinii. The flights took place between March 28 and March 30, and each time the plane was en route from the UAE capital Abu Dhabi to the Manas international airport.

© Sputnik/ Andrei Stenin
Maidan square in Kiev, Ukraine, Feb 19, 2014

On March 28, aircraft brought seven containers weighing more than 78 tons, while the March 30 saw the delivery of five containers with a total weight of almost 74 tons.
The US Embassy in Bishkek received a total of 12 containers weighing nearly 152 tons on March 28-30, the newspaper reported.
It added that the cargo had the status of a "diplomatic mail" and was not subject to any inspection by the Kyrgyz side. The cargo was accompanied by several people and accepted by at least 14 employees of the US Embassy in Bishkek.
The newspaper recalled that in November 2013, the US Embassy in Kiev also received "diplomatic cargos" that were delivered by US Air Force transport aircraft.
Former Ukrainian Security Service chief Alexander Yakimenko was quoted by Russia's Vesti.ru news network as saying that the cargos included boxes with 60 million dollars in small bills that were emerged at Kiev's Maidan Square during anti-government riots in late 2013.

© Sputnik/ Vladislav Ushakov
Manas Base in Kyrgyzstan

There was an US airbase at the Manas international airport till June 2014. The base staff had full diplomatic immunity at the time, and all cargos delivered to the airport were not subject to border and customs inspection.
http://sputniknews.com/world/20150415/10...z3XPhMTU5x