people/Rick Rozoff
Open University of the Left,
11 Oct 2014

Thank you for inviting me, I'm pleased and I'm honored to be here.

The audience here, of course, has just heard the infamous, intercepted phone message [1], phone conversation, between the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland [2], and US Ambassador and coup engineer par excellence if you will, Geoffrey Pyatt [3], that is the US Ambassador to Ukraine in Kiev. I don't think a more blunt, a more naked, a more egregious example of international power politics has ever been revealed to the world as what we just heard.

We heard someone very important in the US foreign policy establishment, someone who incidently - though she is now occupying the position she does in the State Department under the Obama Democratic administration - was, during Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush's administration, was US Permanent Representative, or Ambassador, to NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thus do political roles in the US foreign policy establishment overlap political parties as well as responsibilities to the US political establishment and that of its transatlantic, or 'Atlanticist', partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Which is to say, the Western 'elite' empire-builders and their architects and executors operate simultaneously on behalf of US international interests and that of its military allies in NATO, their roles are essentially coterminus.

What Nuland states - you know, by the way, the group of functional illiterates that is running this political establishment ... to listen to Mr Pyatt make inane comments like, what is the actual statement ... “the active neutron in this” or something like that, but when he uses a mixed metaphor like “if this thing” - that is the US manufactured political transformation, the coup d'état - “gains altitude”, are his words, “Russia may try to torpedo it.” That's quite a task, to have a submarine fire a torpedo 25,000 feet in the air and knock out an aircaft, because that's what his metaphor implies. But evidently you don't have to think logically and you don't have to speak well, and you don't even have to refrain from using expletives, such as you get from the infamous four-letter word that Ms. Nuland uses, in order to pass muster in the New World Order. Representatives of foreign imperial powers in the past at least had some pretense of education, sophistication, experience - the ability to speak coherently - now that's no longer necessary because power is its own justificaion and global, uncontested power is the ultimate justification.

It will soon be six years, two months from now, since Barack Obama received - again in a world that almost makes surrealism look like naturalism - received the Nobel Peace Prize, having been in office - actually he was nominated for it shortly after moving into the Oval Office without having any experience - you know this point, and we just had this year's award of course, and the Nobel Prize for Peace is awarded to people who do anything other than foster peace or combat war and militarism. You seem to be able to get it for opening a coffee shop in Nairobi or something, or for being the vice-president of the United States who officiated over the bombing of eight different countries from 1993 to 2001 [4], for anything other than fostering peace, so of course then, perhaps Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2008 [2009] really wasn't so out of character, but during his acceptance speech [5] he first of all identified himself, not in the least bit apologetically, as the Commander-in-Chief of two wars. On the occasion of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. And during the course of the speech, he made a somewhat carping statement to the effect that there is, unfortuantely - by the tone of his voice he implied - a “reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.”

On the occasion, again, in the 21st Century of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he boasted of being the Commander in Chief of two wars very far from America's shores, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the Middle East and South Asia, and identified the country of which he is Chief Executive Officer and, in his own words, Commander in Chief as being the world's sole military superpower. Let us add, history's sole military superpower.

And let us keep in mind that two years or so after that the US' so-called defense budget was in the neighborhood of 718 billion dollars. That is, in real dollars, adjusted for inflation, the highest since 1945. That is the highest since World War II. That broke down to something like twenty-three hundred dollars for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

You want health care? You want affordable housing? You want universal education, including higher education subsidized? Twenty-three hundred dollars a person will probably achieve all of those things for you, but the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was much more interested in expanding US uncontested global military power than he is in taking care of the cannon fodder, who may not join the professional army - the professional expeditionary army - and go over seas to kill and die if they have decent educational opportunities and jobs at home. So that's the way you have to cultivate cannon fodder, as you do any product, and that seems to be one of our major products for export.

Obama, on the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan - and, incidentally the anniversary October seventh was the thirteenth anniversary, so three years ago - talked about what he called the post-coldwar ... I'm sorry the post September 11th ... generation of the US military forces, several million of whom have served - I believe it is five million if I'm not mistaken - who have served overseas in that ten year period. Five to ten million US personnel had served overseas, in combat zones for the most part, in that ten year period. So this is simply to frame the world's situation in which we are discussing, the Ukrainian crisis.

Another anniversary occurred this year. It's the twentieth anniversary of the creation of what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization calls - perfectly in keeping with every Orwellian component of NATO as a whole - Partnership for Peace [6]. Partnership for Peace is a military program that has been used since 1994 when it was created, to cultivate and to graduate the twelve new members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, all of them in Eastern Europe. They were and are respectively,

the Czech Republic,
Hungary, and
Poland

in 1999, which joined NATO against the backdrop of [NATO's] Fiftieth Anniversary, Jubliee Summit, in the United States [7], officiated over by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. This is fifty years of US military alliance, the largest on history and one growing by the day. The incorporation of three former members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, or the Warsaw Pact in 1999, while NATO was conducting its first full-fledged war, against a sovereign European nation that had not threatened anyone else - I'm talking about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - in what was ultimately a 78 day, lopsided air war against that nation, Monsieur Blair and Clinton and company in Washington are welcoming in three new members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the first to join in the post-coldwar period. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union had dissolved eight years earlier. If the purpose of NATO was in any way to supposedly defend Western or Central Europe against a Soviet onslaught there is no prospect of that occurring after 1991. Because there is no Soviet Union. Notwithstanding which the US and its allies welcome in three new members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Ten years ago, another anniversary... by the way, the very first member of the Partnership for Peace in the former Soviet Union was Ukraine, and I think that's worth noting. It was seen to be a priority to get that nation first of all of the fifteen former federal republics of the Soviet Union into a NATO integration program, which was at least being met ... in 2004, a decade ago, the NATO summit in Istanbul Turkey registered the largest ever incorporation of new members into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 7 at one time, all in Eastern Europe, 3 of which were former Soviet Republics

Estonia,
Latvia, and
Lithuania.

The other five [sic] were

Bulgaria, and
Romania ...

I'll have occasion to talk about them because, being Black Sea Nations, they were an integral part of the plan of which Ukraine is also a component.

... but also

Slovakia, and
Slovenia.

Slovenia also being the first former Yugoslav Federal Republic member to come into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The history of NATO is basically : countries that are bombed are subsequently absorbed into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so their sons and daughters could be used in the next war against the next defenseless nation. I'll catalog that a little bit later, it applies to

Subsequent to that,

Libya has been identified, immediately after the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, as being a candidate for another NATO partnership program, called Mediterranean Dialogue [8], which takes-in countries in North Africa and the Middle East.

Afghanistan was identified two years ago, immediately before the NATO summit in Chicago, as being a member of one of NATO's newest programs and the first that is not geographically specific. I think the title alone is worth registering : the name of this program is Partners Across the Globe [9]. Of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The eight initial nations are

Afghanistan,
Iraq,
Pakistan,
Mongolia,
Australia,
New Zealand,
South Korea, and
Japan.

Mongolia borders both Russia and China.

Kazhakstan, which is the first country outside of Europe proper to get an advanced NATO partnership program also borders both Russia and China. The only other country that does is North Korea.

South Korea is embroiled in a stand-off with its northern neighbor that could erupt into full-fledged war at any point, is a NATO partner.

Japan is involved in territorial disputes with both China and Russia, in the case of Russia with the Kuril Islands [10] - which the US State Department routinely refers to as the Northern Territories, which is the Japanese designation for the northern Kuril Islands - can be, again, involved with a military conflict with Russia and/or China is also now a NATO Partner, and so forth.

At the recently concluded NATO summit in Wales, in Newport, this summer, NATO came up with another category of enhanced partnerships and identified those new enhanced partners as

Georgia,
Finland,
Sweden,
Jordan, and
Australia.

So, the point I'm trying to establish is that what happened with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the coldwar is that far from the US dismantling - reciprocate, right, in 1991 the Warsaw Pact, the Warsaw Treaty Organization, dissolved itself formally in 1991. It had been moribund, and effectively dead for years in advance of that of course, but in that same year that the Soviet Union dissolved and fragmented into its fifteen federal republics, at that point - far from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization dissolving itelf, it decided to expand, and to set up programs like the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, to increase its membership from sixteen countries at the end of the coldwar and the breakup of the Soiet Union into twenty-eight members currently. That's a 75% increase in membership.

It has then built on military partnerships on every inhabited continent. Every inhabited continent. It has military partnership in the works with Colombia. Colombia provided military personnel for NATO's International Security Assistance Force [11] - war - in Afghanistan and across the border, incidently, into Pakistan.

During the war in Afghanistan - which is now in its fourteenth year, the longest in that country's history, the longest in the history of the United States, NATO's first Asian war, or war outside of Europe, NATO's first ground war - when NATO took over the International Security Assistance Force, NATO - the US - employed the Afghan War to build up an international, integrated, expeditionary, military strike force which includes military personnel from over fifty countries.

Over fifty countries. Never in the history of human warfare have fifty countries been belligerents in one war. Much less in one theater; even less in one country.

And what NATO has boasted of in the interim, including at the Wales summit, is the fact that this is now the prototype for mechanisms like the NATO Rapid Reaction Force [12], and other expeditionary forces that have now integrated the militaries - actually of over fifty countries - and we have to keep in mind that there are 193 countries in the Unirted Nations, including any number of tiny statelets that hardly count. So those fifty countries are well over a quarter of the nations of the United Nations, but are well over a third of the countries that count.

These have now been subordinated and integrated, into what NATO loves to refer to as “interoperability”. And that includes weapons systems, fighting doctrine, and language. All NATO exercises are conducted in English, of course. When any two NATO partners get together, their defense chiefs, or their military chiefs, their staff ... the discussions are conducted in English. Of coure. There have been meetings in Brussels, at the miliary headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in recent years - what NATO deignates by the acronym CHOD, Chief Heads Of Defense - there have been meetings that have included 64 heads of national defense - the equivalent of our Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sixty-four. Over a third of the nations of the world.

[ 16:04 ]

So we have to know what we are talking about. If people simply walk into the movie that is the Ukraine crisis at any point over the past year and do not recognize what has preceeded it is almost impossible to gain an accurate perspective on what is at stake and what's occurring.

Let me also mention this ...

You know during. since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, as I mentioned, the ink is barely dry on the document establishing Ukraine as an independent country before the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Pentagon are in Kiev making sure they can integrate it into a US-dominated global military structure. Similarly, the US immediately goes to work to set up transportation and energy arrangements that exclude Russia, one of which is known by the acronym GUAM for the countries involved, they are

Georgia,
Ukraine,
Azerbaijan,
Moldova.

This is set up by the Clinton administration about the same time as the Partnership for Peace was created, that is about 1994, perhaps even that exact year [13]. And at the same time, the United States, through the State Department, engineered what was called the “deal of the century”, the energy deal of the century with Azerbaijan, one of the four countries in GUAM, to begin the process of pumping Caspian Sea oil and routing Caspian Sea natural gas through the south Caucasus to drive Russia and Iran out of the European energy market permanently.

[ 17:50 ]

NATO expansion already dictates that one of the elements of interoperability is weapons interoperablitity and this has been an absolute gold mine for the merchants of death in the West.

This means that all the former Warsaw Pact countries, all the former Soviet republics excluding Russia that traditionally dealt with Russian-made or Russian-designed weapons are now told : those are not interoperable with NATO, from now on you buy your weapons from the United States or Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and - interestingly enough - Sweden.

In recent years, during the post-color-revolution if you will, the administration of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, when we are now led to believe that Mr. Yanukovych was a horrible tyrant, he was corrupt, he was anti-democratic, and so forth ... all of which may well be true, but if so, no worse than his predecessors and certainly no worse than the “Chocolate King” or “Baron” Petro Poroshenko, billionaire, who has teken over the country in the interim. But several things that are not noted, and I think people in the West have the responsibility to know them. Ukraine was identified by the US-dominated NATO military block as being one of four countries outside of NATO that was going to join the NATO International Response Force.

The others are revealingly enough

Georgia,
Finland, and
Sweden.

I don't know how many people in Finland and Sweden but certainly in the world as a whole realize that Finland, which had not been at war since World War II with the Soviet union, Sweden, which had not engaged in combat operations for two centuries have hundreds of troops in northern Afghanistan, engaged in combat operations under NATO command.

That Swedish and Finnish troops have killed and haved been killed in combat in northern Afghanistan, where they are in charge of 4 provinces on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

That Sweden supplied several warplanes for the war against Libya in 2011 - this is so-called neutral, so-called pacifist Sweden - but Sweden is doing it willingly and Sweden is doing very well. They're selling Gripen fighter aircraft and other arms around the world. Sweden is one of the major exporters of arms around the world.

A few years ago Sweden abolished the last remnant of conscription in its military. That is, no longer are any Swedes being drafted into the armed forces. Heaven forbid! That would suggest territorial defense. That would suggest you have an army to protect your own nation.

Part of NATO doctrine is professionalization of the armed forces, that means an end to conscription, that means a professional army, where you join - not to defend your own country - you join to be deployed as the US tells you to. To any part of the world, to any combat zone, in Africa, in Europe, in Asia, in anyplace else. One of the new parts of the transfromation of the Swedish armed forces is every new ... every person ... who joins the Swedish armed forces, man or woman, has to sign a disclaimer, a waiver, stating they agree to be deployed anywhere in the world. This is Sweden.

Sweden's foreign minister, Carl Bildt [14], about which we are going to have a little bit more to say before this afternoon is over, has played a major role in the direct precipitent for the war in Ukraine, and I want to tell you by my count, today is day 180 in the war in the Ukraine. On April 15th the rump government, the post coup regime, the junta in Kiev launched what he refers to as an anti-terrorist operation. Which has a very interesting acronym in English, of course it's ATO. If they had simply taking the additional step of referring to it as the national anti-terrorist operation we would have had a more interesting acronym, of course, and one that was much more revealing as to its actual architects.

Today is day 180 in the war against the people of the Donbas basin in Southeastern Ukraine. It flares up ... technically there's a ceasefire there but there is still active fighting occurring including for control of the airport in Donetsk. Within the last 48 hours, Petro Poroshenko, the nominal president of the country, has announced that he has dismissed the titular governor of Donetsk, I presume he's living in Kiev if he's not living in Berlin or Brussels, in favor of a military commander. We have to keep in mind the junta in the Ukraine has already introduced what is effectively universal conscription. That every male between the ages of 18 and 40 if I'm not mistaken [15], has to register with the draft board. This is a country rapidly approaching total warfare after 180 days of warfare. So how did this all begin?

[ 23:00 ]

It began on November 21st of last year [2013], when Viktor Yanokovich decided that he was simply postponing a decision to sign what is called an Association Agreement [16] with the European Union. Within weeks, within days, within hours perhaps, tens of thousands of Ukrainian youth, for the most part, are out in the Maidan Square, Independence Square in the capital city of Kiev, in a replication of the color revolution scenario of 2004-5. As though the most burning issue to a young person in Kiev was not the video game they're playing, as it is with young people around the world, regrettably; was not the latest popular culture concert they're going to; it's that - Heaven forbid! - the Association Agreement is not being signed! I defy anyone to tell me that that kind of 'spontaneous' outpouring of people going into Maidan Square and setting up tent camps again, and throwing Molotov cocktails at law enforcement officers and, as many of us have seen on youtube, setting them afire is because they were disturbed that an Association Agreement was not being decided against but simply being postponed.

The Association Agreement with Ukraine, as it is with the other GUAM countries - let's see how the pieces fit together with Moldova and Georgia in the first instance - are under the auspices of a program called the Eastern Partnership [17]. The Eastern Partnership was set up in 2009 by two countries

Sweden, with Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, and
Poland, with Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski [18].

Mr. Sikorski lived in the United States for a long time. He was a member of a major conservative think tank. His wife is an American journalist, Anne Applebaum [19]. He was a BBC correspondent and British Citizen in the 1990s. Mr Sikorski has no right to be foreign minister of Poland.

[ 25:00 ]

But, Mr. Bildt and Mr. Sikorski set up the Eastern Partnership which identifies the 6 former members of the Soviet Union, excluding those in Central Asia - for which, incidently there is an analagous European Union program to incorporate them as well - but for the 6 members of the former Soviet Union, excluding Russia, that have ever been in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), that's the trade/ecomomy bloc that emerged from the former Soviet Union, excluding the three Baltic states, which in 2004 joined both the North Atlantic Treaty Organizatio and the European Union. Those six countries are

Belarus,
Moldova, and
Ukraine in Europe,
Azerbijan,
Armenia, and
Georgia in the Caucasus.

The intent of the Eastern Partnership is

To isolate Russia completely from its former Soviet colleagues.

It's more dangerous than that. The GUAM countries are bad enough - and by the way the GUAM countries, you know the “deal of the century”, the GUAM countries were set up for two purposes ... and this was divulged by a former State Department Fellow, Matthew Bryza [20] who was in the US embassy in Poland during the Solidarność period, was in the US embassy in Moscow during the transition from Gorbachev to Yeltsin, was recently the US ambassador to Azerbaijan, you're getting some picture of who Mr. Bryza is ... but the energy corridors were set up with the GUAM arrangement twenty years ago, he said, were surprisingly enough the very same corridors running the opposite way to bring troops and military material and equipment for the war in Afghanistan. The two were part and parcel of the same project.

But that Azerbaijan, which is an energy producing country on the western border of the Caspian Sea, and Georgia and Ukraine and Moldova - GUAM - were going to be used as the main transit corridor for Caspian Sea oil and natural gas to, again, exclude the other two Caspian Sea littoral states, Iran and Russia, from any energy dealings in Europe. That's part and parcel of it.

Ukraine then is a very pivotal part of that arrangement, and during the victory of the Yushchenko government of 2005-2010, the Ukraine government, under US orders, was engaging in what was called “reverse flow” transit of natural gas - rather than going east to west it was going from west to east - it was meant to knock Russia out of the natural gas market in Europe. I should add, I don't believe I've said it since the camera's been on, that Mr. Yushchenko, America's so-called freedom exemplar - the Paladin of Democracy in the Ukraine - who supposedly was deprived of his run-off election victory in 2004 and won in a third round, I think - I don't know if it's legal or not according to the Ukrainian constitution, but its certainly unprecedented - but during the so-called “orange revolution” he became president - his wife, Katherine Yushchenko [21] was born and raised in Chicago. She's a graduate of the University of Chicago. She worked for the Whitehouse, the Treasury Deartment, and the State Department during the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations.

I'm going to make a statement that I think has not been made sufficiently before, I'm going to say in the post-coldwar period that the US has basically sent people to govern Eastern European nations including former Soviet republics in a manner not dissimilar to what the Ottoman empire did under the Janissary system [22], where they basically took people from the conquered country - or descendants thereof - brought them back to the metropolis, indoctrinated them - in the religion, in the past - in political ideology currently, sent them back to govern on behalf of the metropolis.

Currently, the president of Estonia, who is arguably the most belligerent, calling for everything short of war against Russia, is a man named Toomas Gulmas [sic] [23], was raised in the United States, worked for Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, was safe at the State Department at the very least.

Five years ago his colleague in Lithuania was Valdas Adamkus [24], who left with his family, left Lithuania at the end of World War II with the Nazi Wehrmacht, lived in Nazi Germany until the end of the war. Came to United States, also worked for the federal government, he was Nixon's environmental protection agency chief, he lived in Chicago for decades, when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 he went back and became president of Lithunia as Gulmas [sic] became president of Estonia.

Five years ago the president of the third Baltic state, Latvia, was a woman who was born in Morocco, if I am not mistaken [25] and raised in Canada where she worked for the federal government.

So, we see that the wife - and I would argue the control agent - for Viktor Yushchenko is an American from Chicago; the president, until recently, the president of Lithuania was from Chicago; the president of Estonia to this day is an American.

And this goes all the way down the line. So when we hear Victoria Nuland state of the three major - of the triumvirate of opposition figures - who will occupy which posiion, this should not surprise us. This is exactly what the US has done for the last 23 years in Eastern Europe.

[ 31:11 ]

Now, during, again the now-infamous Yanukovich government, which would have ended anyway in March of next year when scheduled presidential elections were to have occurred, where there was no reason to set the capital of the European country aflame, and ultimately to plunge it into a six-month war, and cause a massive political destabilization of arguably the entire European continent, fraught as it is with the potential for direct military conflict between the world's two nuclear superpowers. There was no need to do that. If a presidential election was going to be held in thirteen months, anyhow, right?

But to listen to the apologists of this bloody coup d'état, and I'm thinking most particularly of Mr. Obama's speech at the [UN] General Assembly recently [26], where he talked about justifying this thing. And as I've had occasion to mention to people over the past six months or so ...

If we were to employ Mr. Obama's rationale, his logic, that because the people of the Ukraine were fed up with the legally elected and universally recognized president they had the right to go out in the street, murder police officers - at least twelve were killed - set fire to parts of the city, overthrow a government and plunge the country into chaos because Mr. Yanokovich wasn't popular [27] ... I would be willing to wager that Yanokovich's ratings in the country - given where his support came from in the East and the South - were higher than Mr. Obama's are currently.

Then Mr. Obama had better watch what he is advocating. Because if turnabout is fair play he could be out of the Whitehouse and Washington DC could be in flames. But nobody, regrettably, in the United Nations mentioned that point afterwards. As I believe it could and should have been made.

Mr. Yanukovich did a couple of things. He sent a very small contingent of Ukrainian troops to serve under NATO in Afghanistan, much smaller than his predecessor, by the way, Leonid Kuschma [28], who, as part of the arrangement with NATO's Partnership for Peace, had to prove his bona fides to NATO and the United States by sending almost a thousand Ukrainian troops to Iraq.

And, by the way, another fiction that really needs to be ... that we need to be disabused of ... is the idea that somehow NATO is independent of the United States, can take an independent position vis-à-vis the United States, and that that's exemplified by - there's only one example most people would say - but it's exemplified by Iraq in 2003. That's what we are told. NATO stood up to the United States and said “No, Mr. Bush, we are not participating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.” That is a flagrant lie.

That is so inaccurate that I don't know where to begin, but I can say this, that in the weeks preceeding the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, NATO invoked Article 4 of its Washington Treaty, or North Atlantic Treaty [29], which is the mutual defensive clause, and sent advanced Patriot missle - interceptor missle batteries - to Turkey. As it had, incidently, in 1991 before the first war against Iraq, and that it sent missles near the Iraqi border as an act of solidarity with the United States and Britain on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. And that during the occupation of Iraq of the current 28 members of NATO, 23 had troops in Iraq. And those that did not

Germany,
France,
Canada,
Luxemburg,
Belgium

compensated by sending additional troops to Afghanistan to serve under NATO. So let's be clear about this, the Iraqi military to this day - this may be one of the reasons it folded up in the face of the ISIS onslaught - was trained by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under what is called the NATO Training Mission in Iraq - there's also a NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan, the first head of which was David Petraeus - so Iraq, as I mentioned again a moment ago, is a member of the new NATO program, Partners Across the Globe.

Mr. Yanukovich, before he was overthrown, not only lent NATO to being as I mentioned one of only 4 non-NATO countries that was going to join the International NATO Response Force, and will no doubt, he was also the first country ... Yanukovich made Ukraine the first country ... to supply a warship for NATO in what is called Operation Active Endeavor [30].

Operation Active Endeavor is a permanent NATO-enabled surveillance and interdiction operation in the entirety of the Mediterranean Sea, that is part of NATO's Article 5 mutual assistance clause - its war clause - which was invoked for the first, and to date only, time after the events of 9/11 in the United States in 2001. In the intervening 13 years NATO warships are patrolling the entire Mediterranean Sea, from the Straits of Gibralter, to the Bosphorous, to the Suez Canal - no ship can enter or exit the Mediterranean Sea without being monitored by NATO, which can then board it.

Every country bordering or in the Mediterranean Sea - there are 2 island nations, Malta and Cyprus - every single one with the exception of, to date, Lebanon and Syria are members of NATO, or members of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, or Partnership for Peace program, or are slated to be. And that is Cyprus is the last hold-out because it had a left-wing government until the US got all the opposition parties together in Cyprus and made sure that the AKEL (Progressive Party of Working People) [31] government was defeated a year-and-a-half, 2 years ago. People of the world don't know this, and now Cyprus is slated to join the Partnership for Peace program and that means in addition to the military bases that Britain retains in Cyprus, there will now be NATO/US military bases in Cyprus, right across from Lebanon and Syria, of course.

As I mentioned, Libya was slated to join - it was announced by NATO - that Libya would join the Partnership for Peace program immediately after the overthrow of the Qaddafi government.

The only two states, then, in or bordering on the Mediiterranean Sea that are not part of NATO in one form or another are Syria and Lebanon. They are both slated, as soon as the US and its NATO allies can succeed in overthrowing the government in Syria with Lebanon rapidly following suit, are, I'm sure slated to join the Mediterranean Dialogue.

So what we are seeing is that the US is using NATO not only to subjugate the entire European continent, in a way that, frankly, Napolean Bonaparte or Adolph Hitler never dreamt of. That is that the entire European continent, excluding Russia, is under the thumb - under the heel - of a US dominated, aggressively-oriented, military block. Every country in Europe - except for micro-states like the Vatican and Monaco and Liechtenstein - is a member of NATO or of a NATO membership program. Every single country in Europe.

Ukraine under Yanukovich, as I mentioned, was the first ... he lent a Ukrainian naval vessel to Operation Active Endeaver in the Mediterranean ... became the first non-NATO country to do so. He then, immediately afterwards, assigned a Ukrainian military vessel to what's called Operation Ocean Shield [32] in the Indian Ocean, off the Horn of Africa.

As people generally don't know that every European country except Russia is a NATO member or Partner, or that every Mediterranean country is a NATO member or Partner except for Syria and Lebanon, so I dont think they know that NATO also has a permanent naval operation and prescence in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea.

I mean this is what's going on in today's world that people don't notice. Ukraine became the first non-NATO country to supply a warship for Operation Active Endeaver.

[ 39:50 ]

Operation Active Endeaver is complemented by Operation Atalanta [33], which is the European Union's first ever naval operation in the same area off the coast of Africa. It is

And recently the commander of that fleet ... and this is something worth noting, too ...

This is another illusion that has to be put to rest. If NATO is in no way independent of the United States - can you imagine for a moment Luxembourg vetoing an American militay interest? - if there is a misconception that NATO is somhow independent of - and is the multilateral alternative to - US unilaterlism and so forth, then there's an equally bad, I'd say a more insidious fiction, that the European Union is in some manner distinct from NATO and the United States, and is a counterbalance to it.

Up until recently the commander of Operation Atalanta, the European Union's naval operation in the Indian Ocean/Aabian Sea off the Horn of Africa was a man named Richard Shirreff. He was simultneously the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

It's always, by the way, an Englishman, somebody from the United Kingdom, who occupies that second major position. The first one is always an American. Back to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was the first Supreme Allied Commander for NATO.

And the term - it's what they call a dual head in military command, whoever occupies that chief military position in NATO is simultaneously the commander of US European Command - which is now, in effect, merged with US Africa Command. So, for example right now, US Air Forces Europe is now US Air Forces in Europe/US Air Forces Africa. Same with US Navy Europe/US Navy Africa.

[ 41:55 ]

So you're beginning to see something I should call the Berlin Plus agreement [34] under which the European Union and NATO share military facilities, military equipment, vessels, commanders - as I have indicated - and part of the Eastern Partnership-dictated Association Agreement with Ukraine that was at least the nominal precipitant for what's been happening since last November, is a very - I'd like people to read it, you can see it online [35], which has now been signed of course in Kiev - it includes a very, very strong military agreement, and is already, I'm sure as we speak, integrating Ukraine deeper and deeper into the Western military alliance, not only for the European Union - because the European Union and NATO overlap at almost every point - into NATO its own. This is basically a backdoor for Ukraine into NATO.

And ... you know we've seen where Ukraine has been to successive administrations - Kuchma, Yuchenko, Yanukovich - bent over backwards to accomodate the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that I might suggest to anyone who believes that you can placate the United States by grovelling in front of it, I think the fate of Mr. Yanukovich ought ot be an object lesson, and if you're gonna go down, brother, go down fightin'. You know, history is going to be kinder to you. Mr. Quisling in Norway and similar characters don't come out very good in the history books.

[ 43:30 ]

Now. What's going on in Ukraine is ... I think this is a case where there is ... chronology and causality are being reversed. The Western control of international media, their opinion forming mechanisms ...

It would be wise to recall that in his infamous book of 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, arch-Russophobe, former national security advisor in the Carter administration, who by most accounts was the real foreign policy architect in the Carter administration. There was also a rumor that I think is fairly-well substantiated that he himself “did-in” Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and had him resign under a cloud, and that Mr. Brzezinski effectively engineered the major transformation of world politics that we're still suffering the consequences of. But in 1997 in his book The Grand Chess Board [36], in addition to referring to Russia as an unnatural political entity, that logically ought to be trifurcated into the South, East, and West, he also talked about the fact that - and you know the western part, by the way, would be something dangerously close to what Alfred Rosenberg [37] and others in the Third Reich had proposed for dividing up the former Soviet Union into economic, and grain belts, energy resource areas and so forth, it's something quite like that is occurring, for the same reason, it's geopolitics.

You know the name of a state or country may change - where it is and what it has does not. And it should not surprise us when we see parallels with events going back as far as the Crimean War. You know where at that time Napolean III and England, and Britain, allied themselves with the Ottoman Turks to prevent Russia from getting a warm-water port to the Mediterranean, and I think it's worth noting also that the Crimea is still important for exactly that same reason. And that Russia's Black Sea fleet is based of course in Sevastapol, in Crimea. And that there is no question about that if a major transformation occurred in the Ukraine which would yank it out of the Commonwealth of the Independent States - which, by the way, it is now officially, and irradicably outside of the Commonwealth of Independent States - we see the second most populous country of the former Soviet Union is now pulled out of the pro-Russia Commonwealth of former Soviet States, is going to be incorporated into the European Union. That is a tremendous economic, and geographic, and security blow to Russia.

We now can envision the fact that Ukraine, moving both towards the European Union and NATO membership - the two of them going hand-in-glove ...

By the way, it's also a fact worth noting, and I don't think people have paid the proper attention to it, that far from using the European Union as the carrot, to entice people into NATO, the US has used NATO as the precondition for countries getting into the European Union. Let's keep in mind that when Poland, the Czech Republc, and Hungary come into NATO in 1999 they then get the green light to go into the European Union, the same thing with most of the seven countries that joined in 2004. So, we see a European Union that is very suspiciously non-European.

And that many of the calls are being engineered - notwithstanding Ms. Victoria Nuland's statement about the Europen Union - the EU is the faithful handservant to the United States, as is - if we listen very attentively to her statement - as had been rather, the two former, the two most recent, Secretary Generals of the United Nations. Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan, both hand-picked puppets of the United States, did the US' bidding at every turn, and when Victoria Nuland reveals that Mr. Ban Ki-moon will dance to our tune - he does.

So that's not to suggest a ... that US control of international mechanisms is so thorough that it's fruitless to combat them, to do anything about them ... but it's to have a realistic perspective about what we're actually dealing with, and not to believe that our forces may be stronger than they actually are. That's a fatal thing to do if you are going to engage in any kind of battle including political.

But I think what we need to know about the situation in the Ukraine right now is that after the NATO expansion of 2004, a decade ago, the US immediately went to work building up this military presence along Russia's western border.

That is within days of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO took over a major airbase in Lithuania and in the interim has been flying so-called air-policing, which is to say air-patrols, with major, advanced, new-generation, multi-role, combat aircraft. On four month rotations. They were formally 4 warplanes at a time, it's now up to 20. And as a former Russian Defense Ministery official said right at the time, “These planes are twenty minutes from Saint Petersburg”. That is you can take, potentially in the near future a super-stealthy, fifth-generation fighter-bomber and strike the second largest city in Russia - I'm sorry he said 5 minutes - 5 minutes from Saint Petersburg, 20 minutes from Moscow! So we have some idea of what's been going on.

[ 49:18 ]

Now, what is happening in the interim the US has taken control of and upgraded a similar airbase in Estonia, and is working on one in Latvia as well. in 2008 and 2009 Condoleeza Rice, then Secretary of State - the way these matters are arranged, it's the State Department that goes and signs the military deal and then the Pentagon comes in and delivers - so, Condoleeza Rice went to Romania and Bulgaria in 2008 and 2009. Keep in mind they just joined NATO 4-5 years earlier in 2004. She then secured the rights to 8 major military bases in those two countries, including 3 major airbases. Those airbases, by the way, have already been used, surreptitiously if you will, for the attack on Iraq in 2003, they've been used in the interim for the wars, in Afghanistan and against Libya. These are airbases, the three I'm talking about, capable of being upgraded to what in military terminology would be strategic airbases, longrange bombers with a strategic payload, nuclear bombers.

And the US has builtup steadily, through the mechanism of NATO, on the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and Romania, a presence that is not only as we talked about the Mediterranean Sea being converted into a NATO Sea, but we've had the president of Romania recently brag about the fact that the Black Sea is now a NATO Sea. His words.

[ 50:42 ]

There are 5 countries that are contiguous, that border the Black Sea.

Bulgaria,
Romanina,
Ukraine,
Turkey, and
Russia.

Three are members of NATO, Ukraine is heading towards NATO, that would leave Russia, which has a comparatively narrow strip - minus Crimea - on the Black Sea - the only non-NATO member. This would convert - and this is almost going back to the Crimean War of the 1850s - in the sense that's it's meant to box-in, and exclude Russia from almost everything.

Now, where does the Russian Black Sea go? It goes to the Mediterranean. Where does it dock and refuel when it goes to the Mediterranean? Tartus, the Syrian port city. The only place. They used to have Cyprus, but now the US has engineered the defeat of the AKEL party in Cyprus, and got rid of the leftists, and now they have to comply in a pro-NATO regime in Nicosia, so now, Russia can't go to Cyprus. And if the US has its way they can't go to Tartus in Syria.

At the same time, I think what you have to look at - this is naked geopolitics - and there's something very offensive about something this reductive. I understand. And it offends me as much as it does anybody else. I hate to think of any human agency being reduced to self-interested geopolitics but that's how the adversary works and let's not fool ourselves.

They are thinking about Caspian Sea Oil, they are thinking about who turns the oil spigot on and off to Europe. The European Union is the second largest consumer of petrochemicals in the world next to the United States. Who controls where they get their oil and natural gas from? Who pays for it, and so forth, is a matter of supreme interest to the United States. And Iran already having been effectively excluded from the European market in terms of natural gas and oil, Russia's next.

Once you knock Russia out of the energy market in Europe and you knock it out of the armaments market because of NATO expansion, Russia has no export products. Russia as an economy is dead. This is economic warfare. This is economic warfare of the sort that if the situation were reversed - I can tell you how the United States would react.

When Russia - I'm not defending the Russian regime, I'm just talking about geopolitics regardless of who's governing whom - we can see in our own country how little it matters who's in the Whitehouse. In terms of foreign policy issues. And we can see, vis-à-vis NATO, how little it matters who is in the president's chair in the Ukraine. They all went along. So, what we're seeing right now is ... I have described it as the fifth act. We've seen the dénouement, this is the climax. This is the fifth act of twenty years of NATO expansion. This is what it has led up to, ineluctably, inevitably, this is what it was designed to do.

Now, what do we hear in the West? The US and its democratic allies - they're no other democratic countries in the world except for those in NATO. if we are to believe the Western press, right? When they talk about the global community, the international community, the world community, they're talking about - somebody once referred to it and a good way of guaging this was, in the past, when the former president of Iran would get up to address the General Assembly, and he would see 25 - men, for the most part - get up and walk out and leave at the same time, and they all looked to be the same, they were all white - they were the NATO countries, some of their flunkies in the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. That's who the “world community” is as the West defines it. There's no democracy, of course, in Latin America, there's no democracy in Asia, there's no democracy in Africa. This is what we swallow. This is what we allow to get past us sometimes without putting a stop to it and just halting it right there : “Look, what the hell are you talking about?”

The US and its democratic allies have decided to protect innocent Ukraine, and not only Ukraine, but to protect ... because we all know that a Russian attack on Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria ... it's right on the agenda of course it's going to happen any minute. This is the kind of hysteria, of panic they've created in the West.

And all Russia has done, rightly or wrongly, is it has decided that according to what is probably the constitutional law in Ukraine, that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has the right to hold a referendum about whether they want to be independent or not.

We certainly had no problem with that when it was the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia starting in 1991, we aided and abetted it at every turn. We supplied arms to the belligerents, against international, UN-mandated arms embargos.

We made sure that was as bloody a débâcle as we possibly could, because the US likes to eat its meal in tiny morsels.

We have to remember that the Gerald Ford administration, subsequent to that the Carter one, fully endorsed the Helsinki accords, and the final document that came out of the Helsinki arrangements that stated that however [much] less than optimal the borders in Europe were drawn after World War II - World War II being the last time that anyone had attempted to redraw the borders in Europe and it ended up in the loss of 50 million lives - that however deficient in many respects the borders and the boundaries in Europe were after World War II, that they were sacred and inviolable and they were never going to be messed with again.

There are now anywhere from 19 to 23 new countries in Europe. Since 1991. We have no problem with that. The West likes to divide countries up. And not only did they divide the Soviet Union into its 15 federal republics, and Yugoslavia into its 6 federal republics, with even tiny Montenegro having to be yanked out - in 2006 we couldn't even tolerate that, it's a country bordering the Mediterranean, we have to have it. With 600,000 people we have to break it up that far.

We then have to go even further, and keep in mind the Socialist Federal Repubilic of Yugoslavkia was very much modelled after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a Leninist nationalities program, but now federal republics, [each] based largely on its ethnicity as well as its geography, but have autonomous federal republics within the federal republics. So the US then goes the next step and wrenches Kosovo out of Serbia. Former automomous republics now pulled out of a former federal republic, and this is a kind of an infinte regress of breaking up countries into tiny, easily digestable countries.

And in part the breakup of the Ukraine does not work entirely to the disadvantage of the US and I would argue that the US has been very hypocritical in complaiing about the Crimean situation vis-à-vis Kosovo certainly, how can you defend one and attack the other? But also I should mention something because I notice that a lot of what I'm doing, what we have to do in our day-to-day work with people, is spend what seems like an excrutiatingly long period of time getting rid of falsehoods and misconceptions before we can talk about the simple truth, but one of them is this, that you hear in a lot of revisionist revanchists in the West saying

“If we had only given Ukraine full membership in NATO in 2008 at the Bucharest summit as they were demanding”

- that was our puppet regime, Yushenko was demanding, or his wife the Chicagoan Katherine Yuchenko was demanding, more likely, or maybe Victoria Nuland was whispering in her ear, but -

“If we had only done that then we'd never have this crisis because we would then start World War III with Russia!”

Isn't that a consoling thought.

The fact is - look - in Bucharest in 2008 NATO said to the two major countries - they're now called aspirin countries as in “aspiring to be”, I don't think that a week goes by that NATO doesn't come up with a new membership program of some sort - but the aspirin countries now are

Montenegro,
Macedonia,
Bosnia, and
Georgia.

It would have been Ukraine but for what's going on. In 2008 NATO said : Georgia and Ukraine will becomed full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In so many words, once they have met NATO's standards appropriate to that inclusion. This is very important.

There are two reasons .. two demands NATO places on a candidate country before they conclude what is called a membership action program [38], that's the penultimate program for full NATO membership, and they are these :

  1. no territorial disputes on the soil of the country aspiring to NATO membership, and
  2. no presence of foreign military personnel.

By foreign, let's be frank about this, we're talking about non-NATO forces.

This is where NATO expansion, the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova Bloc), the Caspian Sea transit corridor - this is actually a tri-continental system that is also to take in Nigeria and Egypt, North Africa, Northern Iraq - the Kurdish controlled areas - really Turkish controlled areas as well, Israel. But the general block that includes the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline from the Caspian into Europe, a comparable natural gas line, a comparable rail line - this is a very complex situation that if we had more time we could delve into a little bit more deeply ...

But the other component in GUAM - not only is GUAM meant to be a transit corridor, from as far east as Kazakstan, where the US plan for decades has been to build a pipeline under the Caspian Sea from Kazakstan to Azerbaijan, and then to have oil delivered from there through Georgia - which is why the first real color revolution occurs in Georgia - that's another component that links into the GUAM, I'll describe that in a moment - from Georgia to Turkey, from Georgia to Ukraine, from Ukraine to Poland, from Poland to the Baltic states, from the Baltic states to Germany, and all of Europe. This is the final strategy to knock Russia out of the European energy market.

The GUAM countries have then several things in common but two of them are very critical, three of the four - I have argued for years all four indeed - have so-called “frozen conflicts”. This is an expression used in international relations right now in regard to the former Soviet Union. That of the fifteen former republics, four of them have unresolved conflicts, armed conflicts, at the very end of the Soviet Union, before it broke up formally in 1991, and they are

  1. Karabakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke away from Azerbaijan and is now majority ethnic Armenian with an alliance with Armenia.
  2. In Moldova, it's Transnistria, which is a majority Slavic area, bordering Ukraine.
  3. In Georgia, it's Akazia and South Ossetia, and of course we know that 6 years ago a five day war was fought between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia.
  4. And I have argued that Crimea was always the fourth frozen conflict.

So it makes this, the US project of GUAM, all the more significant. It's a transit corridor for Caspian Sea oil and natural gas to come into Europe.

It is a way of subjugating minority populations within the four countries whose names form the acronym.

And it's an effort to totally destroy the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Now, we've reached a new level of intensification here, too, because coming out of the former Soviet Union, not only is the economic and trade and energy block and CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, something that was kind of thrown as a sop to Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union, but Russia also setup something called the Collective Securuty Treaty Orgnization, CSTO, which is a security block. It has a military component. It has 6 members. The two members in Europe, outside of Russia - and by the way that excludes Ukraine, Russia is accused of having subjugated Ukraine, well they never brought Ukraine into the CSTO - but the two European countries that are members, actually European and Caucasian countries, are

Belarus, and
Armenia.

I mentioned earlier, Belarus and Armenia are amongst the 6 countries targeted by the European Union under the European Partnership program. I pointed this out, over five years ago, that the intent of the Eastern Partnership is to destroy all post-Soviet partnership programs of any sort, including military. And that what is necessary in Belarus and Armenia is a color revolution scenario to overthrow the governments of those two countries - it's been attempted in both countries by the way.

Let's look at, lastly, the color revolution.

That means Azerbaijan is the only one of those four that has not had a successful color revolution.

I'm suggesting that the State Department, the Pentagon, NATO, European Union, the Western 'elite', that represents collectively probably 8% of the human race but has the temerity, the audacity, to routinely refer to itself as the civilized world, or the world community ... It's playing with dynamite in Ukraine.

Russia has been - far from the accusation that it's been aggressive, in my estimate I believe that part of the crisis right now is because Russia did not take firm diplomatic action early on in the game to prevent this from occurring - nevertheless it's cast as the aggressor and as the villain.

The one question is how long will the Russian military tolerate

It's a question of how much longer this is going to be tolerated. If the war resumes, as we have every reason to believe it will, full-fledged, we can again be looking at the prospect of an extremely dangerous military confrontation in Europe.

One that could have easily been circumvented, had we been able to expose the machinations of the Victoria Nulands of the world in time.

questions

red sweater

... Hegemony. Is it coming together or falling apart? ...

Rick Rozoff

Even wih progressively-oriented educational efforts we sometimes miss very big pictures, and I'm talking about myself, and belatedly something strikes and we say, “How can I have gone 50 or 60 years of my life not seeing this?” There was a guest editorial in the London Times, maybe 5 years ago, and it was co-authored by George Robertson, who was a former Secretary General of NATO, Lord of Port Ellen, and Cathy Ashton, who had been the European Union's Viceroy, if you will, in Bosnia and who was slated to reprise that role in Afghanistan, by the way, on behalf of the European Union, before a scandal effectively kept them from doing that, and they co-authored an article in the London Times, where they said : For the first time in 200 years, Western nations are facing a world which they don't control.

Why I think they were being too modest, for the first time in 500 years ... from the era of exploration and colonization ... for half a millennium the major Western powers have dominated the world. And now they are looking at the world and the emergence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with the so-called BRICS powers, with, particularly I would argue, the Bolivarian Alliance of the peoples of our Americas, in Latin America and the Caribbean, with CELAC - the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States [39], which has every country of the Western Hemisphere except Canada and the United States as a member. You're seeing the peaceful alternative to military blocks starting to emerge, but you're getting also at the same time a Western 'elite' that says,

“This world's ours. We may be only 8% of it, but we are the civilized world, we are the democratic community.”

We have to keep in mind that when you look at, for example, Africa ... Africa now is the second most populous continent in the world, it's got over a billion people, it's second only to Asia. The founding members of NATO, of the 12 of them, 7 of them were and remain ... Constitutional Monarchies? ... democratic countries of the world ... remain monarchies. NATO countries are every single colonial power in Africa: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey. Every single one.

And these are people who just assume they have the right to govern all the people of the world. I don't even think it's conscious or deliberative, I think this is so ingrained with them that they are willing to let the world perish rather than loosen the reins of their control. And I think that's one of the things we're confronting. This is a very major watershed.

bearded obese bloviator

... Is the EU ponying up its finacial share for death and devastation? ...

Rick Rozoff

That's a good question. The actual NATO stipulation and demand is that every NATO member and aspiring member spend at least 2% of its Gross Domestic Product on the military. And most European countries are delinquent.

It's a common topic for US political officials and NATO Secreatries General to berate those countries that are not. Surprisingly, sometimes, you'll find out that a country which is not [delinquent] is Greeece, as though they could afford to do it at this time. So this is part and parcel ... people I think misunderstand, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, both at its foundation in 1949 and ...

You know Edward Herman has made this point very clear, and William Blum is another : the purpose was not military. There was no Russian threat to pour across the plains of Hungary, that's stuff and nonsense. Much less to come to the United States. The purpose was to politically corral counties where there were strong left movements coming out of the World War II resistance to the fascists. And those were particularly

Greece,
Italy,
Belgium, and
France.

And what NATO was meant to do was, under the guise of national security and military integration with the United States, to make sure that left-wing parties, communists in the first instance, never entered the government, even in a coalition. You know the so-called historic compromise in Italy in the 70s, which would have been the tamest thing, here in the US you had Kissinger and company threatening war in effect.

So you know NATO has that effect on every ... in terms of structuring the defense industry it has interoperability, it has political checks, if people notice recently the Poroshenko regime has a new lustration law, we haven't heard this term since the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic. Lustration is to go through former officials and weed out any who had loyalties to a previous regime. It's been tried recenty in countries like Bulgaria and Romania .. the only analogy I can draw is perhaps reconstruction in the South after the Civil War. Yeah, or de-NAZI-fication, that's an example. But this is what NATO is now doing. If you are political oponent in any way, or you supported any government we turned on and overthrew, you are blackmailed for life.

stright-up-questioner

... Is Russia aware of the economic warfare against it and are they helpless in the ultimate sense? ...

Rick Rozoff

I'm gonna be a little anecdotal, but I think it makes the point strongly. In March of 2009 Russia took the initiative of launching Russia Today, the TV station. RT, now. And it became, very quickly, the most watched program in the world. It outstripped FOX TV and CNN and all the others. I don't know why, but somehow my name was given to somebody right at the beginning and I did a show in March of 2009.

And it was right after Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama were talking about the “reset with Russia”. Relations had soured during the Bush administration and now we were gonna put 'em back on a solid basis. And they invited me on the program. And some guy with a British accent working for them just acted like a real SOB. He was contradicting me and gainsaying everything and “don't you see it's a reset.” But whoever in the background was doing the graphics was doing a real great job, because they showed the US missiles being placed in Eastern Europe and everything. But the opening clip is Hillary Clinton getting off the plane in Kiev and embracing Nada Golditch, right? She's coming in to wean Ukraine away. Is Russia aware? They certainly should have been.

stright-up-questioner

... Were they helpless? ...

Rick Rozoff

Are they helpless?

stright-up-questioner

... It's a chessgame. Are they destined to lose? ...

Rick Rozoff

It doesn't look good from their perspective right now, but my argument would be that the tone of that person on Russia Today suggested they were willing to deny the inevitable, fool themselves, and attempt to fool other people.

And the results of that is what you see right now, with the Russian economy being devasted, with the outflow of the foreign currency, let's be honest what the US plan is. Look you know Mr. Michael McFaul when he just left as ambassador, basically persona non grata, and was accused from the moment he arrived in Moscow of stirring up a color revolution plan, the plan is to turn the screws on so tightly on the averaged Russian citizen, worker and citizen, that he gets so sick of the government, he'll take any alternative, and then you displace the govenmant the way you did in Georgia, Moldova, Yugoslavia, Khirgizstan, Lebanon, any number of other places.

stright-up-questioner

... Will the imminet economic collapse of the Western world change the strategy and tactics of the West? ...

Rick Rozoff

This is maybe the real gist of the question. So many truths we don't speak, but we harbor within ourselves. One of the things we know is that the US can trifle with any other country in the world including China militarily, and we all know it. There's one country in the world it has to be careful about because they have a nuclear arsenal comparable to ours, you wanna be reductionist, I'll be reductionist. And they have a triad of delivery systems like the United States, and as a result there is only one country in the world you really have to worry about.

And if you neutralize that country, then heaven help us. And if you neutralize Russia as the world's largest exporter of natural gas, and as of 3 or 4 yeas ago for a short period of time they had actually outstripped Saudi Arabia as the largest exporter of oil. The hydrocabon exporter of the world and one of the two major weapons powers, if you're gonna neutralize that, then you wanna talk about a world sole remaining superpower? Boy, you're gonna see it.

tall guy with green shirt

... What are the conseqences of the Winter in Ukraine without Russian warmth? Will that drive war? ...

Rick Rozoff

Yeah, you know that's been an issue. We have to remember that the 2004 presidential campaign in Ukraine had three frontrunners, right, they were Viktor Yushenko, Viktor Yonokovich, and Yulia Tymoshenko, all three had been Prime Ministers under the Kuchma government. and we remember that as soon as Yonkovich wins, and let's be frank about how all politics are run - I'm sure that Russia decides whatever economic and diplomatic and bribes and god knows what to affect the outcome of the 2004 election, but if you remember Yulia Tymoshenko, the “gas princess” as she is less than affectionately known in Ukraine, was immediately jailed by Yonokovich, because of supposed secret natural gas/oil deals with Russia.

So here we have the “Russian puppet” is jailing someone for dealing with Russia. The US has already indicated that it is prepared to engage in fracking - supplying fracked natural gas to Ukraine. We know that the son of the vice-president, some would argue the real gray eminence in the Whitehouse, Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, is now on the board of directors of the major energy company in Ukraine. [40]

We know that there was a meeting held in September of 2013 in Yalta, in the very same palace that Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met in, with the two Clintons, with the billionaire oiligarch Viktor Pinchuk, with a bunch of very interesting people, including Yonokovich and staff. Right? They were taking about something. And I suspect one of the topics they were talking about was oil and natural gas and so forth. So, you may see something ... I'm going out on a limb ... like the Berlin airlift. The US comes in and really bails out the Ukrainian people and brings in free gas and oil to get them through the winter. It wouldn't be beyond them a stunt like this.

tall guy with green shirt

... Are they going to be able to blame Russia for this? ...

Rick Rozoff

Of course they're going to blame Russia!

tall guy with green shirt

... But will the people accept that? ...

Rick Rozoff

My feeling is the country is bifurcated and divided amongst itself, there are those who are going to blame Russia for everything and those who aren't.

baseball hat, sunglasses, beard

... Can you go into Putin's base of support? ...

Rick Rozoff

That's an extremely rich question, I only wish I could answer it. I have to confess that I can't.

I can say this real quickly, when he became president of the Russian Federation for the first time in 2000, and by all accounts was singled out for that position by his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, at that time the major political party of both houses of Russian Parliament, the Federated Counsel - the Duma, was by a longshot the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. And it appeared to be the mission of Mr. Putin to destroy that political party, and he seems to have succeeded.

So that he's created United Russia, his own party, as the dominant political party of both houses of parliament, and that it's very difficult to challenge him politically. Then you have on the other end, the US is keeping the so-called NGOs, the color revolution contingent in supply, and then you've got any number of economic sectors, you've still got billionaire oligarchs in Russia, they haven't all fled. And when they start feeling the pinch, my guess is they will throw Putin over. Beyond that, I can't really speculate.

bearded obese bloviator

... Russia has lots of fossil fuels. Does that count? ...

Rick Rozoff

I think it's a matter of timing. If we're looking at a peaceful world that looks absolutely nothing like the current one, that could make sense.

Russia could have ten times what it has in terms of natural gas, if it has no one to sell it to it doesn't do much good. And with the embargos and the exclusion of Russia from economic relations who are they going to sell this natural gas to? You know blue gold is good, and it is definitely the clean energy resource of the future. Everyone understands that.

And they can compensate in large part by selling to China and hopefully to India and Japan and South Korea, Those countries are the next largest consumers of energy next to the United States. Yeah, EU is the second largest collective consumer of energy but there are those four Asian countries that I mentioned, so it's very important where they get their gas and oil.

And Russia can certainly compensate for that, but that suggests again, a Eurasian or an Asian turn by Russia which basically says ... I wanna quote Victoria Nuland. Russia doesn't need the EU. The EU needs Russia. But the US would prefer that they not need Russia. So .. there you go.

notes

[1]Nuland-Pyatt, “Fuck the EU”
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_R._Pyatt
[4]

Al Gore 2007/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

[5]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prizB2lbinus
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace
[7]http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/tenth-anniversary-of-natos-drive-into-eastern-europe/
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Dialogue
[9]http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/partners-across-the-globe-nato-consolidates-worldwide-military-force/
[10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
[12]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/03/nato-d03.html
[13]1997, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUAM_Organization_for_Democracy_and_Economic_Development
[14]5 Oct 2006 - 3 Oct 2014, presently Margot Wallstrom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Foreign_Affairs_%28Sweden%29
[15]

1 May 2014, 'Ukraine’s acting president [Oleksandr Turchynov] has re-instated the military draft ... Ukrainian male citizens who are physically qualified for military service, over 18 years old and older, but who have not reached the age of 25 ...', http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/ukraine-enacts-compulsory-military-draft-n94906

24 July 2014, 'Decree on a partial military draft, which Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko signed on Wednesday [23 May 2014] ... the Verkhovna Rada has revised the upper age for the individuals liable for drafting to 60 years from the previous 50 ... ', http://itar-tass.com/en/opinions/763346

[16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Association_Agreement
[17]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Partnership
[18]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikorski
[19]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum
[20]http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/matthew-bryza
[21]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kateryna_Yushchenko
[22]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
[23]Toomas Hendrik Ilves, 9 Oct 2009 -, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toomas_Hendrik_Ilves
[24]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdas_Adamkus
[25]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaira_V%C4%AB%C4%B7e-Freiberga
[26]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html
[27]Ivan Katchanovski, The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine, Paper presented at the Chair of Ukrainian Studies Seminar at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, October 1, 2014.
[28]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kuchma
[29]http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
[30]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Active_Endeavour
[31]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKEL
[32]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ocean_Shield
[33]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Atalanta
[34]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Plus_agreement
[35]http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/assoagreement/assoagreement-2013_en.htm
[36]http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf
[37]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
[38]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_Action_Plan#Membership_Action_Plan
[39]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States
[40]John Helmer, “The hunt for Burisma – when the pack of hounds is missing its master, the fox escapes”, http://johnhelmer.net/?p=12755