Syriza: Voting to join a realm of shared, sustainable prosperity

by Mario
 
Recap:

In 1971 Bretton Woods failed. The United States implemented a new strategy:
Disregard its twin deficits and act as a gargantuan vacuum cleaner that sucked in the trade surpluses of Germany, Japan and later China, attracting into Wall Street between $3 to $5 billion net on each working day.
Forcing productivity and zero real wage rises created a further daily 5$ billion domestically for corporations.
All this money, in Wall Street banks, created new money with financialisation.
By 2007 for every one dollar issued by the Fed 50 dollars of this bank private money (mainly CDOs) were circulating.
It took a small correction in the housing market to collapse this bubble and we write 2008.
The CDOs became worthless and to save the criminal banks, governments printed trillions of public money. Debt was transferred to the tax payer.
The banking system was not reformed, to the contrary, it kept the freedom to speculate, to short and manipulate the world economy.

Greece:

A common currency, like the Euro, requires monetary and fiscal coordination.
As long as debt, taxes and government expenditure stays national, the weakest members of this monetary union have to run deficits and borrow.
A country which creates surplus (like Germany) needs to invest this surplus in the weaker members, to create employment and development, to maintain their health and their demand for German products. It was never done.
Borrowing was easy and rampant until 2008.
Enter 2008: The European banking system (mainly Germany and France) holds debt from Spain, Italy, Greece and others.
Germany, mainly, could have searched for a sustainable debt relief and repayment, taking into account the debtors ability, instead it instructed austerity and the granting of new and expensive loans to repay ultimately the German banks.

Enter 2015: Expensive $240 billion loans did nothing to help Greece.

25% unemployment (50% unemployed youths), halving of pensions, failing medical and social assistance and being treated as a 2nd class European is the result of the mantra "that debt is a contract and contracts must be honoured" (Lagarde).
The political class failed and Greece could have gone to 'Golden Dawn', the fascists, but it did not, as others in Europe do by taking refuge in nationalistic and xenophobe movements, instead it voted in a modern socialist alternative, based on democracy and solidarity.

Enter Syriza: The Thessaloniki declaration demands:

1. Confronting the humanitarian crisis
2. Restarting the economy and promoting tax justice
3. Regaining employment
4. Transforming the political system to deepen democracy

On (4) the immediate programme is:

Regional organization of the state. Enhancement of transparency, of the economic autonomy and the effective operation of municipalities and regions. We empower the institutions of direct democracy and introduce new ones.

Empowerment of citizens’ democratic participation. Introduction of new institutions, such as people’s legislative initiative, people’s veto and people’s initiative to call a referendum.

Empowerment of the Parliament, curtailment of parliamentary immunity, and repeal of the peculiar legal regime of MPs’ non-prosecution.

Regulation of the radio/television landscape by observing all legal preconditions and adhering to strict financial, tax, and social-security criteria. 

Re-establishment of ERT (Public Radio and Television) on a zero basis.

More details on the programme:

http://www.transform-network.net/en/blog/blog-2014/news/detail/Blog/-5ed1064aab.html

Russia Leaves the European Commissioner for Energy Union out in the Cold

by Aleksei Kettunen

GAZPROM–EU: 6–0

Yesterday on Wednesday the EU negotiated with Gazprom in Moscow. The EU negotiators had three aims:

1. Pressure Russia into extending the special winter pricing on gas supplies to Ukrainian due to end in March,
2. Force Russia to further unilateral concessions by forcing all European energy purchases to happen through a new “European Energy Union”,
3. Pressure Russia to resurrect the canceled South Stream gas pipeline project and build it in accordance with the restrictive rules of the Third Energy Package.

The Russian response was a cold shower.

Firstly, Gazprom said there is no need for a special summer agreement on Ukrainian gas purchases, as a valid contract already exists.

In practice, this means that all the concessions Kiev has received for the winter season are temporary and there is no space for negotiations. If the EU wants to ensure their gas transits through Ukraine then it must put pressure on Kiev to comply with existing agreements. If Kiev needs gas it cannot afford to pay – thus endangering transit deliveries to EU countries – it is not Russia's problem. The same applies to Kiev's gas debts; the EU will have to pay both the Ukrainian gas debts and any future gas purchases.

Secondly, Gazprom announced that the South Stream gas pipeline project is dead and will not be realized. The project collapsed under US and EU pressure. The greatest obstacle turned out to be EU's Third Energy Package. It heavily restricts how Gazprom could use their own pipeline; Gasprom could only use 50% of South Stream's capacity and would be forced to offer the remaining 50% of the transportation capacity to third parties. Although all of the agreements between Gasprom and the various transit and consumer countries were made before the Third Energy Package entered into force, the European Commission now demands that it is applied retroactively.

Russia's solution is as follows: Gazprom will build the pipeline to Turkey and extend it the Turkish-Greek border. The pipeline will end in a gas distribution hub near the EU border. If the EU wants to buy gas, it will have to build a pipeline to Turkey at its own expense. It will also need to expand the gas transport capacity between its South European member countries – and do so under the constraints imposed by its own Third Energy Package.

The final punch to EU arrogance was Gazprom's declaration that after the completion of the gas hub and the Turkish pipeline Gazprom will end all gas transit through Ukraine. Russian gas will only be available through Turkey! The Ukrainian pipeline network will be used exclusively supply gas to Ukraine. Gazprom based its decision on Ukraine's instability and the high transit risks.

Maroš Šefčovič, the week-old European Commissioner for Energy Union must have had the worst day of his life. EU arrogance hit a brick wall. A major scandal is brewing about how Germany ruthlessly secured its own gas supply through the Nord Stream Pipeline and then used all means possible to sabotage the South Stream pipeline. There is no better cause inflame the North-South conflict in the EU. The prospective users of the South Stream pipeline are sure to feel “eternal gratitude” to the United States for killing the project.

The perpetual EU candidate Turkey will feel Schadenfreude watching the EU's plight while calculating the future revenues from gas transits. Turkey also happens to be Gazprom's second-largest customer after Germany. The biggest loser will be Ukraine, the world's preeminent gas siphoner and blackmailer.

Despite all the arrogant talk the EU has no real alternative to Russian natural gas. Brussels has to swallow it pride and come to its senses.

Now we are anxiously waiting for the Western mainstream media's spin on the story.

Sources:

ЕК: Россия решила перенаправить идущий через Украину газ на новую трубу в Турцию

Миллер: Снять риски транзита через Украину ЕС поможет только «Турецкий поток»

See also:

Russia Cuts Off Ukraine Gas Supply To 6 European Countries

The European Central Bank – ECB – invented yet another tool to hold Europe hostage vis-à-vis Russia

by Peter Koenig

The ECB has just launched – effective 4 November 2014 – a new watchdog to control and regulate the European banking system. It is called the Single Supervisory Mechanism – SSM. It is supposed to monitor and reign in European banks that do not ‘behave’ in terms of overstretching their investment and risk lending as compared to their capital base.

In fact, the SSM is one pillar of the three pillar ‘security’ system put in place by the ECB and the European Commission – EC.

The Single Resolution Mechanism – SRM – is ECB’s strong arm to save or liquidate ‘troubled’ banks. In other words, it will administer ‘bail-ins’ to ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks in distress; meaning – over-indebted banks will rescue themselves from depositors’ money, or from shareholders. This practice was tested in Cyprus in 2013. As reported by Reuters on 30 July 2013 – According to Cyprus's central bank, “47.5 percent of deposits exceeding 100,000 euros in Bank of Cyprus would be converted into equity to recapitalize the troubled lender as part of an international financial bailout for the island”.

This confiscating or stealing of depositors’ funds, also called the ‘haircut’ in the denigrating jargon of the Occident, is better known as a ‘bail-in’ – since it avoids the taxpayer, those who have been bearing the brunt in previous US and European ‘bail-outs’.

This atrocious predatory and outright criminal imposition by the infamous troika (ECB, EC, IMF), with no legal backing whatsoever, went largely without protests in the rest of Europe, it was shortly thereafter accepted by the EC as the new ‘norm’.

In one of his last proud statements before handing his job as European Commissioner to Jean-Claude Juncker, Manuel Barroso exclaimed – “The European Union intends to break the vicious link between sovereigns and their banks. In the future bankers’ losses should no longer become the people’s debt, putting into doubt the financial stability of whole countries.”

There it is. The ratification of the new ‘bail-in’ rule. It is surprising that there is no run of the European banks, as many of them are less stable than they were in 2008, at the onset of the man-made ‘crisis’. Bail-ins might be imminent.

The third pillar will be the Single Resolution Fund – SRF – a stabilization and rescue mechanism for banks facing bankruptcy. It is planned to become effective on 1 January 2016 – if – and that is a big IF – the necessary funding will be put in place by the member countries.

Pillars one and two are compulsory for the Eurozone countries and banks, some 6000 – which is a lot to supervise. The ECB has quickly declared that it – i.e. SSM – will directly monitor the 150 most important ones. The others will continue to be controlled by national mechanisms, whatever these are. They will be given strict regulations to follow by SSM with sanctions or fines if the rules are not followed – to make sure they will not stray.

Membership for non-Eurozone countries is voluntary. Remarkably, the UK has not (yet) volunteered for membership.

This is the biggest boost in ECB’s power since its creation some 16 years ago. ECB now sets all banking standards throughout Europe, according to which a bank may fall or rise. This is a clear infringement on the Eurozone countries sovereignty – one of the key principles to be maintained according to the Lisbon Treaty. There is no covenant in ECB’s regulations that would give it this power leverage. It is all self-serving – and the neoliberal leaders of the Eurozone countries go along with it –to the detriment of their constituency.

And let’s not forget, ECB is intimately linked to Wall Street, the FED and the IMF – Mario Draghi, the ECB President, is a former Goldman Sachs executive.

The SSM is a flagrant conflict of interest – and it looks like the financial czars of this western greed economy are getting away with it. For now.

An independent audit of all European banks, especially those 100 or 150 considered “too big to fail” – and including the ECB itself – would indeed be in order. – Independent means – the auditors would report to a special council of Eurozone countries – but independent of the European Commission. The special council would include representation from member countries parliaments, the banking, industry and service sectors, as well as civil society.

Of course – this is unlikely to happen, equally unlikely as an independent audit of the FED. That would mean transferring power to the people, to those whose money is at play, those who are really interested in a well-functioning banking system – not a predatory one as we know it today.

According to The Guardian, a recent stress test carried out by the ECB on some 100 of the largest European banks, 24, or one of five, failed (including 9 Italian and 3 Greek banks), leaving a hole of 25 billion euros in banking capital – which eventually may need to be bailed-in --- if there are no bail-outs and the SRF is not yet functional.

Implementation of the SSM will be a point of no return for European banks, including for individual countries sovereign central banks. Until now, they were nominally free to print their own money. For example, Greece could have rescued them-selves by printing its own euros, instead of submitting to the draconian, literally killer conditions, imposed by the troika. But it didn’t, since the ruling elite in Greece was and is part of the scheme. As of now, there is no ECB rule that forbids a local central bank to print its own money – which in the Eurozone is the euro.

Europeans will be at the mercy of the ECB and through it, of Wall Street and the FED – the defunct greedy dollar based monetary system.

And why do the people not react? – Because they are on purpose misinformed, kept in the dark by the media. The new SSM is presented as a system that would protect them from future crises – when the contrary is true.

However, at least equally important and highly suspicious, is the timing of this new delegation of power for the ECB. The abrogation of Eurozone countries and their banks sovereignty is not coincidental. It comes at a time when a new west-east conflict, a new Cold War with Russia is being instigated by Washington and its European vassals.

ECB’s new strong arm, the Single Supervisory Mechanism, with its transboundary powers and disregard for national sovereignty is intent to hold the Euro system and its countries hostage against Russia, or the new Russia-China alliance. The new watchdog watches that none of them will stray – perhaps into the eastern camp of honest trading, into a new realm of economic prosperity and equality, where banking may serve the peoples development, instead of the accumulation of wealth for a few.

Remember, Mr. Xi Jinping, President of China, visited Germany in March 2014, to offer Madame Merkel participation in the New Silk Road – a new trading alliance from Germany, the western most borders, all the way to Shanghai, covering Russia, the former Soviet Republics, north-western and central China. An incredible potential for trade and development that can hardly be ignored. If Germany accepts, the strongest nation of the Eurozone, the rest of Europe will follow - follow a path of more security and independence than the current alliance with threats and sanctions from a warmongering White House will offer.

Washington is aware of this. They will hold no barrels to sow unrest and destabilize Europe to eventually justify a US intervention, more NATO, more CIA surveillance, more profit-yielding armament – and moving ever a step closer to Moscow. The new banking control mechanism is just an additional – but extremely powerful tool in this direction.

An alternative monetary system, detached from the predatory dollar scheme, will be a welcome means to peacefully counter this latest financial aggression.

Peter Koenig is an economist and former World Bank staff. He worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, the Voice of Russia, now Ria Novosti, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

The Last King of Scotland: Splitting the ‘Anglo’ in ‘Anglo-Zionist’

Dear friends,

It is my *huge* pleasure to share with you an analysis written by American Kulak.  I got it a few days ago exactly as he describes: no questions, no warnings, no heads-up, nothing but the article itself.  I *love* this "just do it" approach as it makes it easy for all sides to make good things happen.  And good his piece really is.  When I read it the first time I was absolutely delighted.  Not only was this first-rate analysis, it was also "deep".  AK draws an absolutely correct and spiritually valid parallel between Scotland and Novorussia and I can confirm that Russian history also records the ancient events AK mentions.  And, of course, any mention of the past of Europe when it was truly united into one Christian world by such figures as Saint Andrew, Saint Patrick, Saint Ambrose, Saint Martin (the Pope), Saint Bede or Saint Gregory and many others is dear to my heart and I rejoice each time their real lives are remembered in the West (and not only during Saint Patrick parades!).

I hope that American Kulak will contribute more articles to this blog on this immensely interesting and important topic or on any other topic he wants to look into.

Enjoy and kind regards to all,

The Saker

*******

The Last King of Scotland: Splitting the ‘Anglo’ in ‘Anglo-Zionist’

by American Kulak

This is my first contribution as a guest to the Saker’s blog and hopefully will not be the last. It is submitted in the spirit of the Saker’s admonition ‘if you want to do something [constructive to this online global community], just do it!’

My topic today is the Anglo-American or Western media’s increasing unease if not outright opposition to the looming independence vote in Scotland, where credible polling shows the momentum is clearly increasing behind a ‘YES’ vote for secession. A ‘NO’ vote in this case would mean the continuation of the United Kingdom and the union between Scotland, England and Wales passed by the English parliament in 1706 and ratified by the Scottish parliament of 1707.

Although many in the ‘Better Together’ campaign against Scottish secession have insisted in recent days that Scotland can receive more autonomy and control over its local tax revenues while still retaining the economic and military benefits of staying in the UK (this will sound familiar to those Saker readers who are reading Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s boasting that Novorossiya will remain in Ukraine and his government will not cede on square meter of 1922 Bolshevik ‘gifted’ ‘Ukrainian land’), it appears that hope is weak sauce. Fear of economic disruption or of long term subversion of the (Atlanticist, read what Saker calls ‘Anglo-Zionist’) European project is already being ramped up as the pro-unity forces in London and Brussels become more desperate.

On the one hand, Scotland’s push to secede has very little to do with the war in Ukraine and for Novorossiya. On the other hand they seem to have every bit to do with it because Catalan, Basque, northern Italian, and even Novorossiyan independence supporters are all backing Scottish independence on social media like Facebook and Twitter. The lone exception I’ve identified thus far being Graham W. Phillips, the British reporter who was expelled from Ukraine after being held hostage by the Kiev regime who slipped back across the border into Lugansk. Mr. Phillips identifies himself both as a supporter of Novorossiya and a Scotland-born British patriot, seeing no contradiction between the two. Graham remains opposed to Scottish secession and has expressed his opposition on his Twitter feed.

In spiritual and symbolic terms, there is indeed a connection between Novorossiya’s flag and that of Scotland -- the ancient cross of St. Andrew which is called the saltire or Scottish flag, a white X cross on dark blue. This flag also makes up Scotland’s contribution to ‘the Union Jack’ which mixes Scottish blue with the red of England’s St. George’s cross. St. Andrew the Apostle according to ancient Christian tradition dating to the undivided, pre-1054 Schism Church stretching from Ireland’s County Kerry in the West to Kiev in the East and Ethiopia and India to the South preached the Gospel from Spain all the way to the Greek-colonized Scythian lands that later converted to Orthodox Christianity under the Rus Prince Vladimir near what is today Kherson in Ukraine. The Holy Apostle Andrew according to tradition was martyred in Achaia (modern day Greece) on an X-shaped cross, because like St. Peter who died in Rome on an upside down Cross Andrew did not consider himself worthy to be crucified in the same manner as the Lord Jesus Christ. The X also corresponds to the Latin numeral for ten which in Biblical numerology derived from the ancient Hebrews represents the Ten Commandments God gave the ancient Israelites on Mount Sinai, symbolizing God’s Holy Law.

Today the St. Andrew’s cross is visible in the red and blue battle flag of Novorossiya seen on the shoulder patches of the Donbas soldiers, and on the naval ensign of the Russian Federation which flies over Sevastopol. This symbolism has not been lost on the Empire’s more clever shills. Indeed, when Novorossiya first debuted its flag two months ago paying tribute to both St. Andrew and the Anglo-Scottish industrialists who founded Donetsk as a coal-mining center in the 18th century Russian Empire, there was a great deal of snark on Twitter about it resembling the battle flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA). The snarkists, of course, having no idea about the St. Andrew’s heraldry preceding the CSA by centuries and inspiring the Scots-Irish settlers of the American South who chose it as their battle flag and whose war-like settler/soldier traditions were highlighted in former US Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb’s folk history, Born Fighting.

While there are many Saker readers who maintain that absolutely no geopolitical shifts can take place without a full consensus among the globalist Western elites that Saker refers to collectively as the ‘Anglo-Zionist’ empire and whose confabs at Bilderberg, Davos, and the recent NATO summit in Wales are well documented, the increasingly shrill propaganda directed against Scottish independence suggests otherwise. The BBC in particular has led the charge against a ‘YES’ vote, calling into question its phoney pretense to objectivity and highlighting ‘Auntys’ total subservience to the British Deep State. But the BBC and other British media have to be careful not to excessively offend their Scottish audiences. Meanwhile, American and Atlanticist ‘think tank’ agitprop against the Scots has often been crude and pathetic.

The online magazine Business Insider (which the Washington-based independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has linked to a smear campaign run against Madsen in mid-2013 by an ex-National Security Agency officer named John R. Schindler) recently ran an article claiming the departure of British nuclear ballistic missile and attack submarines from their base at Faslane, Scotland could leave the peninsula open to a Russian invasion. The article was widely panned in BI’s comments section as ridiculous propaganda. [http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-and-russian-submarine-invasion-2014-8]

The former London-based Henry Jackson Society neoconservative front man Michael D. Weiss, who now runs the pro-Kiev propaganda site The Interpreter Mag, tweeted “if Scotland secedes, then Europe can expect to see a foreign-policy Venezuela created overnight on the North Sea. Putin will rejoice.” [https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/508962026690187264]

Not surprisingly considering their overlap on issues of anti-Russian foreign policy, NSA surveillance, and other matters, Weiss tweets a link to a more Business Insider article warning that Scotland will have to win ‘four bets’ to avoid being doomed to poverty as an independent state. [https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/508961378678214656]

The World Affairs Journal, the bimonthly publication of the ‘former’ Central Intelligence Agency operative run quasi-NGO Freedom House, published an article by former Time magazine journalist Roland Flamini titled “European Disunion: Cameron, the EU and the Scots” which concluded with the lament: “If separatism triumphs in the referendum, David Cameron will be remembered as the prime minister who lost Scotland. He also faces the further prospect of being the man who led Britain out of the European Union.” [http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/european-disunion-cameron-eu-and-scots]
 
Note the prominent use of the word ‘separatism’ which has become a dirty word in Atlanticist circles since the Novorossiya uprising began in March. The same September/October issue of World Affairs Journal featured Peter Pomeranstev saying, “The channel [RT] has its fans in the West and has been nominated for an Emmy for its reporting on the Occupy movement in America. And it’s not just the left that’s applauding. Nigel Farage of the right-wing non-parliamentary [not for long - American Kulak] UK Independence Party is regularly featured in its newscasts.” Farage of course has been a vocal critic of the EU’s relentless eastward expansion, which he has blamed for sparking the Ukraine crisis and antagonizing Russia. Farage also believes the EU’s policies towards Romania and Bulgaria have led to an influx of impoverished job seekers from these countries at a time when the UK is already facing high unemployment and is one of the most crowded countries in Europe.
[http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/yes-russia-matters-putin%E2%80%99s-guerrilla-strategy]

The connection between Farage, who has half-heartedly campaigned for the ‘No’ side in Scotland this past week, and the Scottish secession vote isn’t clear. Except when one considers that Scotland’s secession will weaken the British Labour Party’s position in parliament, thereby allowing more Tories to split with their EUrocrat leadership and defect to UKIP. But the broader concern for the Empire’s ideologists is that Russia sympathizes with almost any group of European nationalists who wish to deviate from the NATO or EU party line, and European nationalists from Hungary to Greece are returning the favor by empathizing with Russia’s position on Crimea and the Donbas. It is noteworthy, for example, by its absence that Anglo-American media are not interested in reporting the foreign fighters fighting for Novorossiya, including a half dozen French veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Chad [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1suDxke9jBQ], nor in interviewing the Swedish Nazi Mikael Skillt fighting for the openly Nazi Wolsfangel-armband-wearing Azov Battalion. The BBC did do one report that curiously even mentioned Novorossiya Armed Forces’ (NAF) allegations that Polish military contractors are fighting for Ukraine, a charge the Polish government denies, but this story was the exception that proved the rule. The internationalization of the Novorossiya war, the possibility that it could become a second Spanish Civil War if it drags on for months or years, is not something either Washington or London wishes their propaganda outlets to emphasize. Why? Perhaps Mr. Pomerantsev’s essay provides a clue.

After getting in his digs at Mr. Farage from his perch in London, Mr. Pomerantsev like many Russian liberals (who some Russians like Mark Sleboda refer to as liberasts for a perennial pedestal-lization of the West dating back to the late 19th century St. Petersburg liberals lampooned by Dostoevsky [https://twitter.com/MarkSleboda1/status/508675733489995776]) gets to the heart of his complaint about Russia’s support for nationalist parties dissenting from Anglo-American Empire politics in the West. That complaint is that the Kremlin is trying to cast doubt on whether it is Washington or Moscow that maintains ‘Captive Nations’:

“It is no accident that a recurring feature of RT programs is conspiracy theories, ranging from tales of the Bilderberg Group to lurid reporting on how Western media cover up their governments’ crimes. Appealing to the conspiracy mind-set (read: anti-Washington, anti-Anglo-American empire, and anti-central banking) reinforces the Kremlin’s underlying message that the Western model of democratic capitalism is a failure and a sham [hence the urgency with which people like Pomerantsev invoke Western economic ‘recovery’ from the crash of 2008 and the myth that the US and EU could crush the Russian economy with sanctions if they but had the will to do so]. In a recent paper titled “The Conspiratorial Mindset in an Age of Transition [transition to what, Eurocrats?], which looked at the rise of conspiracy theories in France, Hungary, and Slovakia, a team of researchers from leading European think tanks showed how supporters of the far-right parties the Kremlin supports in Europe are also the ones most prone to believing in conspiracies [read: any facts or events outside or parallel to the Anglo-American led media Narrative, like the evidence that Ukrainian forces shot down MH17], and that this factor was becoming more pronounced as trust in the power of national governments is eroded by globalization [read: people don’t trust governments that have completely handed over the people’s sovereignty to banker-led globalists by design] and populations turn to outlandish theories to explain crises [meaning Westerners no longer believe the mainstream media explanations or cheery economic numbers, but believe ‘their lying eyes’ that things are deteriorating culturally and economically across the Western world].”

Another article in the same issue, hidden behind a pay wall, written by Woodrow Wilson International Center scholar Alina Polyakova, laments “Strange Bedfellows: Putin and Europe’s Far Right”. [http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/strange-bedfellows-putin-and-europe%E2%80%99s-far-right ] In the portion of the article that isn’t pay-walled, Polyakova confidently calls Marine Le Pen and the Front Nacional in France “a far right party”, despite Le Pen now drawing more support from likely voters than current French President Francois Hollande if run-off elections were held this week. [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6ecbb6c4-34d5-11e4-aa47-00144feabdc0.html]. Ms. Le Pen for her part has deflected the ‘radical right wing/fascist’ charges by appealing to socialist voters with calls for the preservation of France’s social welfare state, and insisting France can no longer remain a poodle of US foreign policy when it comes to Russia {her real crime in the eyes of the same Atlanticists who constantly downplay the anti-EU fascist elements in Ukraine so long as their members are fighting Russia’s proxies in Donbas]. She has also tied her anti-immigration and ‘France out of the EU’ positions to the defense of French secular values in the face of Islamism and EU political correctness, appealing to both the left and the right.

In the most telling sign that Ms. Le Pen believes she can win the presidency of France, she has even sent FN representatives to Israel to distance herself and the party from her father’s anti-Israel views, openly courting the votes of French Jews. It is of course, no accident that Ms. Le Pen is gaining support across the French political spectrum, if only as a protest candidate, while the US government is fining France’s BNP Paribas to the tune of $10 billion and trying to block the sale of the Mistral warships to Russia. Gaullism whether left or right wing is stirred up when French banks are used as Washington’s doormat and the creaky financial stability of France is put at risk by Washington and Brussels’ fanatical attachment to keeping the impoverished Greek, Spanish and Portuguese economies trapped in the euro straight jacket.

Perhaps in the back of their minds, the Empire’s ‘political technologists’ still hold that old bugbear of anti-Communism in Southeast Asia during the Cold War, the domino theory. If Scotland successfully votes to secede from the UK, and Britain’s pound sterling and banks take a beating in the subsequent fallout. With Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank and other rotten derivatives-stuffed houses on the brink, the dominoes of rotten financial and political structures start to tumble across Europe. After Scotland, comes Catalonia. After Catalonia departs as the richest and most innovative part of Spain, the Spanish cry ‘no mas’ to continued Depression era levels of unemployment. The Lombards and Venetians move to more than symbolic independence. The Greeks, spurred by the Spanish example, finally throw out their austerity imposing eurocrat Quisling overlords, if necessary exiling Greek ‘technocrats’ with charges of massive financial fraud and embezzlement. Portugal’s too big to fail banks led by Espiritu Santu are finally allowed to fail, with rumors about the solvency of French and German banks including the aforementioned BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank running wild.

The secession of Scotland is going to bring home awkward questions of identity to Britons: what does England now stand for, besides total subservience to Washington in return for ‘a seat at the table’ and a bloated financial sector in the City of London? What does it mean to be English in an age of open borders and mass immigration? How can English identity be preserved even if the faces or colors of those holding to the ideals that made the British Empire successful change, when so many young Muslim men are rejecting the UK’s diseased postmodern values in favor of fighting for ISIS in Syria?

On this side of the Atlantic, the question will continue to be where does the USA go from here as the cries for regionalism, Southern and Western state government defiance of Washington’s executive orders, and increasingly assertive ethnic identities roil the USA in places like predominantly black Ferguson, Missouri or an increasingly Mexican Los Angeles ruled over by a shrinking white elite? On the topic of immigration, for example, Texas is placing its National Guard troops on the border with some Texan lawmakers denouncing President Obama’s ‘executive actions’ on the non-deportation of undocumented Mexican migrants as unconstitutional, and thereby null and void. Meanwhile, California’s governor is basically nullifying the southern border through the announcement of ‘sanctuary cities’. The point is not which state is right or wrong. The point is both states are making policy assertions that contrast with either federal law either as it is written or as an administration chooses to (not) enforce it. This can only lead to further proclamations of the United States being more united than ever while real disunity festers along class, racial and regional lines.

Short update on the events in the Ukraine and a better option for Russia

I just wanted to update everybody on a few interesting aspects on the current crisis in the Ukraine.

The opposition:

 Vladimir Klichko, Arsenii Iatseniuk, Oleg Tsiagnibok

 

Yulia Timoshenko

The opposition is currently headed by four people: Vladimir Klichko, Arsenii Iatseniuk, Oleg Tsiagnibok and, of course, Yulia Timoshenko (in jail, of all things, for signing a gas deal with Putin).  There are a number of smaller parties also participating on the opposition movement, but these four politicians are clearly in charge.  Well, by now, all four of them have officially declared that they goal is not to get the government to reverse its decision or to renegotiate anything.  By now all four have openly and officially declared that they goal is to overthrow the current government.  This is now the official goal of the opposition: regime change.

The EU:

Over the past week or so, the center of Kiev has witnessed constant flow of senior EU political figures who came to express their support for the opposition including Carl Bildt (ex Prime and Foreign Minister of Sweden), Loreta Grauziniene (chairwoman of the Lithuanian Parliament), Guido Westerwelle (German Foreign Minister and homosexual activist), Vlad Filat (ex Prime Minister of Moldova), Mikheil Saakashvili (ex Georgian President and loser of the 08.08.08 war), Jerzy Buzek (ex President of the European Parliament), Jaroslaw Kaczynski ( leader of Poland’s opposition party Law and Justice), John Baird (Canada’s Foreign Minister, no EU but still) and many others. All spoke about the *Russian* interference in the Ukraine's internal affairs :-)

The "pro-Russian" government:

In the meantime it became know that President Yanukovich put forth a number of demands which the EU would have to accept before the Ukraine would sign the association agreement including the joint modernization of the Ukrainian gas transport system and the revision of the EU's position "on the construction of economically unsound facilities for the transportation of natural gas to Europe, bypassing Ukraine".  In other words, the EU would have to stop getting gas from Russia by the North Stream and South Stream gas pipelines.  Yes, this "pro-Russian" politician demands that the EU stop directly purchasing Russian gas.  With friends like these...

The Ukraine riding to a bright future, no doubt

Let's summarize it all:

The opposition wants to overthrow the government, EU politicians are actually on the ground supporting the opposition while the putatively pro-Russian government of Yanukovich demands that the EU renege on its agreements with Russia.

As for me, I honestly wonder whether Russia would not be far better off *without* such wonderful "allies", "friends" and "brothers" as the modern Ukrainians and whether it not be a far better option for Russia to let the (already sinking) Ukrainians join the (already sinking) EU and then sit back and relax to watch the ensuing "love fest" between these two russophobic forces.

The Saker

Is a Syrian "domino effect" being used in a power struggle in the US deep state?

written specially for the Asia Times

Following the ratification by all parties of the recent Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it is worth looking again at the official narrative explaining this "sudden breakthrough".  It goes something like that:

"Iran was ruled by President Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, who did everything in his power to deny the international community the monitoring rights it demanded and to keep the Iranian nuclear program unimpeded in its progress.  Then the people of Iran elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, who accepted the terms of the P5+1 countries and a deal was finally signed."

That is pretty much the official version.

Of course, every sentence in the above paragraph is absolute nonsense. 

The new President of Iran

Iran is not ruled by its President, but by its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who selects the six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council which, in turn, vets all aspiring Presidential candidates before they can run for office and which also can veto any decision of the Iranian Parliament.  The Supreme Leader also appoints all the members of the Expediency Discernment Council which can resolve any disagreements between the Parliament and the Guardian Council.  Hassan Rouhani was appointed as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his bid to run for President was also approved by the Guardian Council.  In other words, not only did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never have the political authority to independently take any crucial political decisions, but his successor has the 100% approval of the Supreme Leader.  Thus, while there is a very clear difference in style between Ahmadinehad and Rouhani, it is ridiculous to suggest that the replacement of the former by the latter is the real cause of the "sudden" breakthrough in the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.  The fact is that Rouhani has the full support of the Supreme Leader and that his election, while not trivial, cannot be considered as a real change in Iranian policies, including nuclear ones.

P5+1?

The media speaks of the P5+1 as if it was a body formed of more or less equal partners taking decisions together.  This is also nonsense.  Who are the P5+1?  The five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany:  China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States (P5) and Germany (+1; officially added for economic reasons).  P5+1 is really a misnomer as it should be called "1+1(+4)":  Those who matter - the USA and Russia - and those who don't China (which is happy to follow the Russian lead on this issue) France, the UK and Germany  (who will pretend to have an opinion but who will let the USA deal with the serious stuff).  And since Russia under Putin is a strong ally of Iran, this really only leaves the "Big One" i.e, the USA as the negotiating counterpart to Iran.

So why this "sudden" breakthrough in negotiations between the USA and Iran.  Could it be that the big change which made it possible did not occur in Iran but in the United States?

I have a different interpretation to offer.

It is my belief that it all began in September when, following a few dramatic days which almost saw a US attack on Syria,  Barak Obama had to accept "Putin's gambit": the US would not attack Syria in exchange for the full destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.  I believe that this absolutely tectonic reversal US foreign policy has now triggered what I would call a  "domino effect" which is still ongoing and which might result in  further unexpected changes in US foreign policy.

Let's look at this domino sequence of events one by one:

Domino 1: Barak Obama accepts Putin's gambit

Whether it was really Barak Obama himself or his puppeteers is really irrelevant here.  The President being the official Commander in Chief he is the person who had to announce that an agreement had been reached and that a US attack on Syria would be delayed/scrapped.  Let's set aside for a moment the exact reason(s) why the US took this decision (we will come back to this crucial issue later) and just say that this was a major change for the following reasons.

a) This meant that the US would have to delay and, in all likelihood, give up on its long-standing objective of "regime change" in Syria.
b) This also meant that the US would now have to negotiate with the Syrian government.
c) Since chemical weapons were completely irrelevant to the military dynamic on the ground and since US had committed not to strike government forces, this meant that the USA was essentially giving up on its plan to help the insurgency win the war.
d) This removed the last pretext(s) possible for the US to continue to stall and avoid a Geneva II conference.  From now on, the US had to get serious about Geneva II or lose it all.

Before this development the USA had two possible ways to deal with a Geneva II conference: to try to sabotage it or to try to use this opportunity to achieve something.  As soon as Obama accepted Putin's gambit only the second option remained.  Indeed, since regime change in Syria is clearly not an option any more, and since the US foreign policy in the Middle-East was predicated on regime change in Syria, the US now had to reconsider it all.  This meant that the best possible option for the US was  to try to use Geneva II to actually finally get something done.  However, there is one truism which the US diplomats had to take into account: no solution in Syria will ever be achieved unless Iran approves of it.  In other words, having accepted Putin's gambit, the US was not only committed to negotiations with the Syrians, but also with the Iranians.  This the real causes of the "sudden" breakthrough between the "P5+1 and Iran": the defeat of the US in Syria literally forced the White House to negotiate with Iran, at which point to continue to stonewall at the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program became counter-productive and, frankly, absurd.

Domino 2: the USA and Iran finally agree on the nuclear issue.

As I have written it many times in the past, nobody in the US (or elsewhere), really believes that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear weapon right under the nose of IAEA inspectors (who are still working in Iran) while remaining a member in good standing of the NPT Treaty (no NTP member has ever developed nuclear weapons).  The real US objective has always been to prevent Iran from becoming a regional economic superpower and, if possible, to find a pretext to isolate and destabilize the Iranian regime.  By accepting to negotiate with Iran, the USA is not "making the world safe from nuclear-armed Mollahs" but accepting the reality that Iran is, and will remain, a regional superpower.  This is really what is at stake here, and all that talk about Iran nuking Israel in a "2nd Holocaust" is just a pious fig-leaf used to hide the real US policy objectives.  Now that the US had given up on the notion of attacking Syria it made no sense to continue to act as if an attack on Iran was still possible.  This left only two possible solutions: let the Iranians do whatever they want and appear to have failed to persuade Iran to take into consideration US objections, or actually find a mutually acceptable compromise which would be to the advantage of both sides.  The US, wisely, chose the second option.

So far, Dominos 1 and 2 have fallen, but let us take a look at what might be happening next if nothing stops the momentum generated by these two dominos.

Domino 3: the two big losers - Saudi Arabia and Israel

It is rather obvious that the Saudis and the Israelis have done literally everything in their power to prevent the fall of Dominoes 1 and 2 from happening and that they are now the big losers.  Both countries hate and fear Iran, both countries were deeply involved in the Syrian war and both countries appear to be outraged by the actions of the White House.   When all the signs indicated that a deal would be struck, the Saudis and the Israelis even sent their top decision-makers (Bandar and Netanyahu) not to Washington, but to Moscow in a (futile) attempt to prevent what they see as an absolute catastrophe from happening. 

Now that a deal has been reached, both Israel and the KSA are now showing all the signs of "loosing it" and are turning to crude forms of terrorism to lash out at their enemies: according to Hezollah, the Saudis are behind the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut while the Israelis are behind the murder of a Hezbollah commander, also in Beirut.  One can dismiss these Hezbollah accusations as politically motivated, but I personally find them very credible simply because they "fit the picture" perfectly (and Hezbollah does have an excellent record of making only truthful statements).  Whether one chooses to believe Hezbollah or not, nobody denies that there are now real and deep tensions between Israel and the KSA on one side and the USA on the other.  That would also explain the rather amazing "rapprochement" taking place between Israel and the KSA who now have a common problem (the USA) and lots of common enemies (first and foremost Iran, of course).

Considering the huge power of the Israel Lobby and the, more discrete but also very powerful, Saudi Lobby in the USA, it is by no means certain that the new KSA-Israeli alliance shall not eventually prevail over what I would call the "USA-firsters" (in contrast to "Israel-firsters").  I shall also come back to this topic later, but let us assume that the current US policies will not be revered and that the US will sign a long-term agreement with Iran in six months or so.  What could happen next?

Domino 4: goodbye US anti-missile "defense shield" in Europe?

Think about it: if the USA accepts the notion that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, why insist on deploying an anti nuclear missile defense shield over Europe?  Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has already clearly said that much and that is likely to remain a Russian policy position for the foreseeable future: now that the putative "threat" from Iran has been dealt with by means of negotiations - why should the US still deploy anti-missile systems in Europe?

Of course, the US could plow ahead with this project as if nothing had changed, but would it not be logical to at least talk to the Russians to see if some modifications could be made to the US anti-missile system which would satisfy the Russian side?  Having agreed to negotiate with Syria and Iran, would it not also make sense to seriously sit down with the Russians and find a mutually acceptable compromise?

After all,  Russia (backed by China, of course) can easily prevent any deal between the US and Iran (by a UNSC veto for example) and that would leave the USA is a very vulnerable negotiating position: to be in a great need of a deal with Iran while Iran would not feel equally interested in negotiating.  And, of course, a breakdown in negotiations between Iran and the USA on the nuclear issue would mean very bad news for the USA in Syria.  The fact is that the USA will desperately need Russian collaboration to hammer out a long term deal with Iran.  And that, in turn, will have major consequences for a host of other issues, including European foreign policy.

Domino 5: an end to the European "Drang nach Osten"?

Not since the days of Hitler has Europe been so hysterically anti-Russian as in the last decade.  Of course, some of that russophobia has been fed by US propaganda needs, but one quick look at the European press and will show anyone that the worst of this Russia-bashing really comes from Europe, especially the UK.  As for the EU and NATO, their offensive to towards the East is really reminiscent of Hitler's, the only difference is that it is pursued with different means.  Of course, West European revanchism is only part of the picture.  There is definitely a desire by many East Europeans to become "true Europeans" combined with a hope that a EU+NATO combination would protect them from Russia.  Nevermind that Russia is not in the least interested in invading them - most east Europeans are generically afraid of what they perceive as a resurgent superpower in the East.  And if getting the "protection" of NATO and the EU means accepting a semi-colonial status in the US empire - so be it.  Better to be a serf of the US empire than a serf in the Russian one.  That is an ideological position which cannot be challenged by facts or logic.  Most east Europeans probably understand that Russia has no interest in invading them, and most of them must be aware that joining the EU has been disastrous in economic terms for countries like Bulgaria or the Baltic States.  Frankly, most people don't care.  They look at German highways, French stores or Dutch airports and want to get a share of that wealth even if that is only a pipe-dream.

As for the west Europeans, they shamelessly feed that illusion, promising much and delivering nothing.  As for NATO, it continues to follow Hitler's example and attempts to push its influence into the Caucasus.  As a result, the EU+NATO offensive now spans a "front" from Estonia in the Baltic to Georgia in the Caucasus - an exact copy of Hitler's strategy for his war on Russia.

Hitler and his promised "1000 year Reich", of course, was defeated in only 12 years and the EU is not doing too well either.  In fact, it is facing a systemic crisis that it has no idea of how to tackle.

The modern Kulturträgers

I am not even referring to the so-called "PIGS" (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain), but also to the supposedly "better off" nations of northern Europe.  Did you know that only 3 of the 17 nations of the Eurozone have a AAA credit rating or that while no fewer than seven of the world’s top rated nations are in Europe, most are either not in the Euro (Denmark, Sweden) or not in the EU at all (Norway, Switzerland)?  Anyone doubting the full magnitude of the social and economic crisis which has hit the Eurozone should read the report recently published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled "Think differently: humanitarian impacts of the economic crisis in Europe" (makes me wonder if anybody in the Ukraine has read this one!).  Europe is in a deep crisis and this begs the obvious question: can Europe really afford a new Cold War with Russia?  What about the US - does it need a new Cold War in Europe?  Isn't it about time to set aside this crazy Drang nach Osten and accept that a non-imperial Europe would have much more to gain from a partnership with Russia than from another Cold War?

Time will show whether this last domino will also fall.  What matters for our purposes here is not to accurately predict the future, but to look at the opportunities such a different future would offer.  Let's ask a key question: if all the dominoes above did fall, would the USA be better or worse off?  My personal reply is that the USA would be far better off, as would be Europe.  And if that is the case, one can wonder, did the US really stumble into a situation which triggered a domino effect or what this the plan all along?  Could it be that some forces of the USA have decided to use the failure of the US policy in Syria to trigger a much larger change?

A project of the "USA-firsters"?

As I have written in a recent article, I believe that the Presidency of Barak Obama has resulted in a shift of power in the US "deep state" which had the previously almighty Neocons pushed aside from the Executive Branch and replaced with what I call "old Anglo imperialists".  They could also be called "USA-firsters" (as opposed to "Israel-firsters").  As a rule, they are far more sophisticated actors than the Neocons.  Typically, the USA-firsters are better educated, more cautious in their discourse and methods and, unlike the Neocons, they can count on the support of patriotically-inclined Americans in the armed forces, State Department, CIA, and elsewhere.  Finally, they enjoy the big advantage over the Neocons in the fact that they have no need to hide their real agenda: in their foreign policy they care first and foremost about US national interests (internally, of course, both the USA-firsters and the Neocons are the prototypical "one percenters" whose real objective is to defend their class interests while keeping the remaining 99% in serf-like conditions).

So could it be that this "domino sequence" was deliberately initiated by Anglo USA-firsters who seized the opportunity to promote their agenda while pushing the Neocon Israel-firsters aside?

Let's look at "domino 1" again.

I think that there is a preponderance of evidence that Obama accepted Putin's gambit against a background of absolute chaos both in Syria and in the USA.  Iranian forces were covertly entering Syria to fight, a powerful  Russian naval task force was positioned right off the coast of Syria, the British Parliament had refused to support an attack on Syria, demonstrations were taking place all over the USA - and elsewhere - against an attack, and all the signs were that Congress would not approve a military operation.   It is hard to prove a negative, of course, but my sense is that the first domino fell pushed by all these factors and not a result of a deliberate change in US policies.

What about "domino 2" then?

In contrast to domino 1, there is strong evidence that domino 2 clearly "fell" as a direct result of a political decision made in Washington.   If we accept that the only change in the Presidency of Iran was mainly a cosmetic one, then we also have to agree that the USA deliberately decided to open negotiations with Iran.  Could it be that somebody in the White House or in the US deep state realized that the fall of "domino 1" presented real opportunities for the USA and the interests of the USA-firsters and decided to deliberately add momentum to  "domino 1" and also push "domino 2"?

I believe that the sequence of events in Syria and Iran does offer a fantastic opportunity for the USA to finally rid itself from the disastrous legacy of many years of Neocon rule (in my opinion from 1993-2009).  I should immediately stress that I am not saying that the Neocons are "out" as they still control the US corporate media and Congress with an iron hand.  I am only saying that I am detecting the signs of a major change in US foreign policy which appears to be breaking free from the "Wahabi-Zionist alliance" of the combined lobbies of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  Again, the fact that both Netanyahu and Bandar felt the need to travel to Moscow to stop Washington is absolutely unprecedented and amazing and I have to interpret that as a real sign of panic.

How far can the US really go?

A shift in the power equation inside the US does not mean regime change, far from it.  In most circumstances US politicians will continue to mantrically repeat "there is no light between the U.S. and Israel”, the constant verbal genuflection before everything Jewish, Israeli or Holocaust-related will continue and it is quite possible that the next Israeli Prime Minister to address Congress will also get more standing ovations than the US President.  However, it is also quite possible that between closed doors the Israelis and the Saudis will be told to "tone it down or else" and that the US support for these two regimes will become contingent of them not doing anything crazy (such as attacking Iran).

Let's look again at dominos 4 and 5 (basically, a stop in anti-Russian policies) from a non-Zionist and non-Wahabi point of view:  would the USA gain or lose from such a development?  It could lose some money if the European missile defense "shield" was scrapped, but the Russians are offering two alternative solutions: either let the Russian military become full partner in this system (thereby removing the threat to Russia) or move the entire system to western Europe away from the Russian borders (thereby also removing the threat to Russia).  Since the Russian asymmetrical response (special forces, relocation of launchers, special missiles) will defeat the proposed system anyway - why not accept either one of the Russian offers?

Politically, such an agreement would open the doors for far more important collaborative opportunities (in Central Asia and the Middle-East) and it would remove the USA from the "collision course with the rest of the planet" it has been on since 9/11.

Clearly, a deal with Russia would be very beneficial for the USA.

What about Palestine?

Here, unfortunately, I have to remain as pessimistic as ever.  As so many times in their history, the Palestinians have again committed something of a "strategic suicide" when they decided to support the anti-Assad forces in Syria.  Just as with Saddam, the Palestinians are yet again with the losing side and, which is even worse, their only halfway decent resistance movement - Hamas - has now been taken over by Saudi interests which basically puts them under Israeli control no less than Fatah.  The last "real" resistance movement in Palestine is now the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but it is comparatively small and weak and cannot be a partner in any real negotiations with the USA and Israel.  In this context, it is likely the Israelis will simply impose whatever "solution" they want on the ground without having to negotiate with any Palestinians at all.  This is very sad and this did not have to be, but the Palestinians really did it to themselves and they only have themselves to blame now.

Bottom line: no domino effect in Palestine.

Conclusion: a real window of opportunity

The future is by no means certain and the Israel-firsters and their Saudi allies have many options to reverse this process (just imagine Hillary as President!!).  And yet it is also possible that the USA might shift away from the disastrous course it has been following for the past two decades and return to a more traditional, pragmatic, foreign policy: it will remain an imperial power with global imperialist goals, but at least it will be driven by pragmatic - if cynical - considerations and not foreign ideological interests.  In contrast to what the USA has been doing for the past two decades, it is possible that the developments in the Middle-East will convince the USA that negotiations and compromise are more effective foreign policy tools than threat and military actions.

Historically, Republicans have had a comparatively better foreign policy record than the Democrats and senile psychopaths like McCain are not typical of Republican leaders.  In contrast, US Democrats have often provided the most ideological and arrogant leaders and the very real possibility of Hillary running for the Presidency is a frightening indicator that what appears to be the current phase of pragmatism might be short lived.  The good news is that both parties have an opportunity to seize the moment and nominate halfway sane candidates for the next Presidential election.  Of course, if what we end up with is a Sarah Palin - Hillary Clinton race all bets are off and the world will be in for some very, very bad times.  But if the USA-firsters can give the boot to the Israel-firsters currently controlling the key positions inside both parties (folks in the model of Rahm Israel Emanuel) then there is a real possibility that the US could break free from its current subservience to Zionist and Wahabi interests and resume a more pragmatic, reasonable, foreign policy.

Do these USA-firsters really exist?  Honestly, I don't know.  I hope that they do and I want to believe that the fact that the fall of the Syrian domino was followed so soon by the fall of the Iranian domino might be a sign that somebody inside the US deep state has decided to use this opportunity to try finally rid the USA from the foreign interests which have literally hijacked the country. 

If after six month a permanent deal is agreed upon and signed by the P5+1 and Iran and if more or less at the same time the US begins serious negotiations with Russia such a scenario will become credible.  At this point, it is too early to tell. 

The Saker

Fascism in Europe next?

In 2007 I wrote several pieces warning of the arrival of overt Fascism in the USA (see: "Rudy Giuliani - the face of American Fascism", "The only thing which can prevent a Fascist President in 2008" and "When is the use of the "F" word appropriate?").  Now, five years later, I would say that what I observe in the USA is some form of "creeping Fascism" which has succeeded in avoiding the type of overt full-spectrum crackdown on the US general public mainly thanks to the artificial but nonetheless semi-effective way a full-scale economic collapse of the US economy has been avoided.  Basically, the laws are in place, the repressive apparatus ready to go in high gear, but the plutocrats in power have managed to avoid using these instruments, at least on a noticeable scale.  A great deal of the credit for this goes, I sincerely believe, to the US general public who have shown many signs of push-back against some of the most ridiculous excesses of the TSA, the Border Patrol, the FBI, the Pentagon and other agencies.  Still, I believe that all it would take is one "bank holiday" for the curtain to come down and the repression to start.  But that is a topic for another day, today I want to turn my attention to Europe and what is taking place there, in particular in regards to Cyprus.

What has happened in Cyprus is almost irrelevant to the EU's economy.  As one economist aptly put it, the magnitude of the economic crisis in Cyprus is basically one of a rounding error in the EU's overall economy.  As far as Europe is concerned, Cyprus could vanish from the face of the earth overnight, and it would not even notice it.  Same deal, by the way, for Russia.

In political terms, however, what happened in Cyprus is, I believe, an event of truly apocalyptic nature: the political suicide of Europe.  Why?

Think of it in the simplest of terms:

Bank robbery in Cyprus

Some Cypriot banks were told that they had to reimburse their creditors.  These banks admitted that they did not have the means to do so.  Then, the so-called "Troika" met.  What is this "Troika"?  A tripartite committee composed of the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission (EC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Now please keep in mind two crucial things about this "Troika":

a) Nobody has ever elected the "Troika" itself or even any of its constituent parties (ECB, EC, IMF).
b) Neither the Cypriot people nor the Cypriot banks, are represented at this "Troika".

The Troika basically decided to reimburse the creditors of the Cypriot banks by seizing the money deposited in the Cypriot banks.  Now, just to make things clear, please keep in mind that if you are in investor or a shareholder in Bank X your fortune does depend on how well this bank is managed and how it performs.  However, if you deposit your money in Bank X this money still remains yours, it might be trusted to the care of the bank, but the bank does not own this money which is strictly and only yours.  And yet, the "Troika" ordered the Cypriot banks to simply seize the money which had been deposited in (not invested in) their banks and hand it over to their creditors.

Now, the "Troika" really has zero democratic credentials, this is just a product of the will of the EU bureaucracy.  It has no legal right to force the Cypriot banks to do anything.  Furthermore, the Cypriot banks have no legal right at all to seize the money which has been deposited in them.  To take something which does not belong to you is called *theft*.

Marx wrote the private property generates capitalism, and he was right.  But what remains of capitalism if its most important aspect, its ideological cornerstone, is suddenly abolished?  Does that not mean the end of capitalism itself?

Hitler as a European knight

All the political evolution of Europe since the past three or four hundred years has had as its goal to secure each individual's private property not only from the arbitrary seizure by bandits and thugs, but also by kings and governments.  I can think of only one example in the history of western Europe when a government decided to overly seize the property of private individuals by force with no other justification than "because we say so" and that is Kristallnacht in 1938.  Yes, the Nazis did dare to openly do what the "Troika" is doing now.  And, of course, in the East, the Bolsheviks "nationalized" pretty much all the private property of the Russian people.  But at least the Nazis and the Bolsheviks more or less had some kind of argument to be acting on behalf of at least one part of the population of their country.  Not so the "Troika" which has no national or electoral mandate or legitimacy.

What does all this really show?

It shows that in Europe the rule of law is a big fat joke.  Yes, the big players such as Germany will insist on the respect of the rule of law as long as it is beneficial to them, but as soon as it is not, to hell with it - they will use the same methods as the mob.

That, by the way, should surprise nobody.

The rule of law took a big hit in Europe when the Europeans let the US invade Bosnia under the cover of UNPROFOR and it completely died when NATO attacked Serbia in complete illegality.

Turns that that all these oh-so-respectable European politicians and ideologues are nothing more than your garden variety mobsters, with exactly *zero* respect for the rule of law.

This also means that all the money now deposited in Europe is potentially at risk.  Though the EU bureaucrats denied it, it is absolutely clear even to the dullest of idiots that what happened in Cyprus sets precedent, that from now on the very method of seizing money deposited in banks has now the "respectability" of having been used by the ECB, the EC and the IMF.  I would even argue that the fact that the IMF was part of this decision makes it an international precedent which now has applicability worldwide.

Furthermore, having acted in complete violating of national and international laws, having arrogantly disregarded banking regulations and laws, and having also condoned the illegal use of force (against Serbia), the EU is now showing its true face: a transnational Fascist cartel run by bankers and plutocrats which does not give a damn about what the European population thinks, or what the law says.  The real motto of Europe has now clearly become "might makes right", and that is true in Libya, Syria and Cyprus, but that also means that this is true throughout the EU.

Somewhere I welcome that.  "Bas les masques!" (off with the masks) as the French say.  At least all of the West - USA and Europe - are done playing cute games about democracy, freedom and human rights.  Now, finally, we can see beyond any doubt that the entire western political system is about one thing and one thing only: pure, unfettered, greed.  Greed and nothing else.

All this take about lofty ideals of individual rights, private property, freedom, representation, democracy, human rights, etc. was just a load of propaganda aimed at masking the true nature of the beast.  Most of us already understood that, but now even the dullest of the doubleplusgoodthinking "democrats" will see that there is nothing real at all in the entire edifice of western political thought besides greed served by violence and lies.

Yet another proof that Fascism was a genuine expression of European civilization.  Let's remember here that European Fascism has two very different roots: a southern one - the Papacy (Petain, Franco, Pavelic, Mussolini) and a northern one - the Protestant bourgeoisie (Hitler).  Or look at the anti-Fascist resistance in Europe: what are the countries which really gave the Germans a determined resistance?  Serbia, of course.  Who else?  The Netherlands, the Poland and the Greece had major resistance organizations.  As for the rest of Europe, it did very little real resistance - they Nazis were certainly not loved, but they were accepted in most countries.  After WWII the newly imposed elites tried to turn Hitler and Mussolini into some abject monsters and their ideologies into some satanic creation of a few mad men, but the fact is that Fascism and National-Socialism had deep religious, political and cultural roots in Europe and that both the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists very much saw themselves as people who are reviving the true traditions from the European past.

The situation today is different, of course.  We are often told that what is taking place is a struggle between the European "core" represented by Germany against the European "periphery" sometimes referred to as PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).  But I would argue that what is taking place is even far bigger than that - its not only the PIIGS which are a target of the European plutocracy, but also France, which is far bigger and whose "explosive potential" is far more threatening to the international financial system.  A top analyst for a hedge fund in NY has recently confirmed to me that if France collapses so would the entire US banking system (courtesy of the crazy system of CDS put in place since the 1990s).  There are plenty of signs that the entire French economy has come to a standstill and that it is literally running out of cash (Max Keiser and Pierre Jovanovic have been warning about this for many years).

So I ask myself a basic question: if the Troika has had the nerve to basically act like a gang of mobsters in the case of a tiny economy such as the Cypriot one, what will it do if, say, the economies Portugal, Spain or, God forbid, France collapse?  What will the European rulers such as Merkel do if mass unrests begin in these countries?  France, in particular, as a long tradition of uprisings and civil unrest which could re-ignite in just a few hours given the right circumstances.  The government of Francois Hollande is already the most despised of the French 5th Republic even though the man has been very recently elected.

Finally, the anti-EU movements are still active throughout Europe and the current crisis will only strengthen then.  What will the (always submissive and pliant) European governments do if they are told by the top EU bosses to crack down on local separatists/sovereignists?  Will they hesitate?  I think not.

The bottom line is this: all the European elites, the entire European ruling class, are deeply committed to the Single Europe ideology and they will never, ever, let go of it.  The loss of face resulting from a global collapse of the EU project would inevitably result in a loss of power for all those who put their reputation and authority behind this ideology.  Nevertheless, the EU is collapsing, and each effort of the European elites to conceal this fact only make the real situation worse.  Given a choice between facing the consequences of a popular revolt and the implementation of a Fascist rule there is no doubt in my mind at all that the European elites will chose the latter, with plenty of empty words about "provisional", "exceptional", "temporary" etc.

By now it is becoming undeniable that Europe can have democracy or the EU, but not both.  The actions of the "Troika" in the case of Cyprus show, I think, which choice has been made.  Fascism might well come to Europe even before it comes to the USA.

The Saker