Seven countries in five years

by "Observer"
translated by "lmimkac" (thanks a lot!!)

Seven countries in five years and the US dollar is raising from the dead. Ukraine fulfilled its purpose, ISIL conquering Iraq and Syria, just conquering strategic Koban. Turkey does possum, Kurdistan rejoices. Asad has yet to fall, then comes the Iran and the "New Middle East" will be finished and dollar saved. Or - weaned Russia, China and dependent dollar still petrodollar. So simple!

But first about how the stones fit into a mosaic.

The December's 2014 hit of all pro-Western news media was a celebration of the weak ruble. Low oil prices with the US sanctions enjoying a robust support of Europe took a penalty and Russia is getting where they want her to be - on her knees. I am just wondering about how the situation would have developed, if Yanukovych had signed the association agreement with the EU. Apparently the US would "only" have built up NATO bases on Ukrainian-Russian border and the next process of targeted weakening of Russian Federation would continue in a "moderate" way – by classical color revolutions to remove Putin (this effort is still ongoing and weakened ruble also fulfills this purpose). But Yanukovych did not sign it and action "Ukraine" was performed in a very bloody way. Today, no one in the US or EU cares about that Ukraine is not far from bankruptcy, they are even not interested in having Ukraine join NATO and that is because it was really never about Ukraine. Ukraine is to only fulfill one purpose: to separate Russia from Europe, to prevent Russia from trading with European countries, but above all - to get rid of Europe's energy dependence on Russia. And as we will see later on, that was the most important purpose. And because this should have been achieved at any cost (and how else than through the oil and gas taps on the Ukrainian territory), Ukraine would have paid the price to its strategic location by hook or crook. I say "paid the price" because by joining the EU, no country helped itself and Ukraine especially would not (just remember the text of the Association Agreement not to mention the fact that it would become a territory where all European gypsies would be moved to).

But action Majdan eventually served more than if Yanukovych signed the agreement. Majdan has become a trump-card in the hands of the US and EU and the rest has been arranged by the corporate media. And the world has fancied that Russia is evil and Putin is Hitler and therefore it is necessary to defend him and hurriedly flee from him. There was a reason for the anti-Russian sanctions (secured even by the downed Boeing). One year from Majdan and we are where we are - Russia is almost separated from Europe, sells oil for little and its currency is falling. Thanks to this, the US dollar is just getting a few drops of living water and, seeing how the plans are being met, also optimism into the veins. However, it is not time to celebrate yet, more is coming down the road. We have to have a look at other news that would seem to be saying something completely different, but it is not - it still only and only about the dying US dollar.



Seven countries in five years

And it is all about US dollar for many years. Years ago a plan to maintain its hegemony was laid down and it is about to be finished. Ukraine is part of the finale, like ISIL, Kurdistan, Turkey, currently city of Kobani. Before it was a number of other countries and it is revealed only in hindsight what their place in the mosaic is. Even the September 11 could be seen through completely different optics and I am now convinced that this also was a flint stone but necessary - an event to get a public approval to start. And this plan from its very beginning has a clear goal, see this quotation from one speech:

"In 1991 I had a meeting with Paul Wolfowitz (former president of the World Bank and at that time the second deputy of US Department of Defense, which was a very high position) and I told him that he must surely be satisfied with Operation Desert Storm (Kuwait). And he answered: Well, yeah, but not quite, because the truth is that we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and we failed. But there is one thing we have learned - we found out that we can use our military in the Middle East, and the Soviets will not stop us. We now have about five to ten years, to clean up the area from the old Soviet influence before an appearance of a new big superpower that we will be able to challenge us. Subvert the entire Middle East, destabilize it and repaint the map - that was the planned strategy! Ten days after September 11, I was walking in the Pentagon (where else was I supposed to be at that time?) when I was called by the commander of the US coastal waters asking me to come to his office. He told me there that he wanted to let me know that we were going to attack Iraq. Why? I asked him, does it have any connection with the terrorist attacks? Unfortunately, it's even worse. I have just got this Memorandum from the Ministry of Defence. It says that we have to attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years. Let's start with Iraq, then we move to Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran . Is this an official battle plan? - I asked him. Yes, sir! "

This is a quote from interviews in 1991 and the end of September 2001, as described by the US General Wesley Clark in his speech in October 2007. The full speech is known as a video under the unofficial title "Seven countries in five years' [ here ]

Let me once again repeat the words of former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz: “But there is one thing we have learned - we found out that we can use our military in the Middle East, and the Soviets will not stop us. We now have about five to ten years, to clean up the area from the old Soviet influence before an appearance of a new big superpower that we will be able to challenge us.” . And I stress that these words are from 1991! It is not a subject of this article, but – do not you feel that the USA really needed September 11? Already in October, after the attack on the WTC Afghanistan was attacked (and the US is trying to take control of it until present days. It is called an underbelly of Russia i.e. a very sensitive place for Russia) and then everything continued the way we all know.

After Kuwait (An attempt to overthrow S. Hussein in 1991 and confirm that the US can rely on Gorbachev and the Soviets really left USA free hand in this this field) came Afghanistan (October 2001). Next: Iraq (2003 and the overthrow of Hussein), Syria (2011 and a civil war)) Lebanon (strategic territory for Israel and Syria, and the eternal struggle in 2006 Cedar Revolution). Further on, the US got engaged in Africa: Sudan (1996 attacks due to bin Laden's stay in this area, in 2003 uprising). Under the title "Arab Spring" more African countries are hauled into the play: Libya (2011 overthrow of Gaddafi), Egypt (2011 overthrow of Mubarak). Also, do not miss Algiers (1991 overthrow of the President and still under military rule and martial law) and Morocco (since 1999 ruled by a king Mohamed IV., Who has good relations with the US, so we do not hear much about Morocco). Ethiopia is also a friend of the US (in 1991 turned away from the Soviets and became a security guard American interests through wars with neighboring Eritrea). Next Somalia is also in the US viewfinder (entry of the US Army in 2007) and on the opposite side is even Pakistan, a neighbor of Afghanistan and especially Russia (Al-Kájida assassination of Buth in 2007).

I for a long time did not understand the context of the US engagement in these countries. I had the classic explanation that comes to energy sources in oil-rich countries, but seeing Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and others my understanding was elusive. But it only needed to take a good look at a map:



The European Union and the Arab Spring have the same purpose - to expand the US influence to the East
Put aside oil and we can see another US strategic interest in the mentioned countries. And that is the borders that have come under control of the US to exactly according to their plan close the grip on Russia from all sides. So what is happening in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall through the EU, in Africa and the Middle East takes place as the Arab Spring. And when, after a few years since the launch of the plan we have a look at the map, from Northern Europe to Southern Africa, almost all countries including the important seas are under the US control.

The south of Europe could be seen in a completely different light and it is clear why Spain and Greece was never allowed to fall, but instead became the most dependent vassals. Also North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt) as well as the East (Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia - and I can not stop from remarking that it is no coincidence that Sudan was the second African country, where Ebola appeared and that a conference for the unification of Africa in the fight against Ebola took place in befriended Ethiopia. For primitive peoples it just a simple means of obedience and looking out to the Americans as the gods because they "accidentally" have a cure).

When we examine the Mediterranean coast then all around almost (!) all countries are under the US (EU) control and there is no trace of any Soviet or Russian interests. However. up to two (and now actually three) countries. And these are Lebanon, Syria and now even Turkey. Apart from an indication that there are significant oil and gas reserves in the waters around Greece and Cyprus, the Black Sea is considered a strategic transit and military area where the US plans are only being dented by Lebanon and Syria; but more on that later.

When we go further on to East Africa, we see that the US has control of the whole Red Sea, because the other side is controlled by Saudi Arabia and Israel. And by controlling the Red Sea they also control the Arabian Sea and the Suez Canal!



The "New Middle East" and "Seven countries in five years' project goes according to the plan, and before there is a grand finale, which will be Iraq, Syria and then Iran, they are trying to to disable Russia by bringing NATO bases close to its borders (hence the involvement of Ukraine, Afghanistan and Pakistan) as well as working to make Russia not economically grow but by far the best option would be to get it economically collapse. And all that is to at any price prevent Russia from rising up to be a competing superpower. And that is the reason for low oil prices in collaboration with the Saudis...

The next map clearly shows why Ukraine is so important and why Putin has gone too far by letting Crimea join Russia. The plan was to have Ukraine and with it another sea, this time Black Sea full of NATO bases and to become part of the US-EU border with Russia. Ukraine should have been "completed" before Turkey becomes the next; Turkey is planned to have a role of alias Ukraine and the main role next to Syria and Iraq. When you walk through the map from the north to the south through the lens of the EU member states and the optics of the Arab Spring, you can see that the plan has progressed a lot since its launch. All of Europe including the countries of the former Soviet Union is united in the EU and now militarily and economically under the influence of the United States, from Norway down to Georgia and Azerbaijan - Ukraine and Crimea, and the whole Black Sea is still being worked on. The entire North and West Africa is under the US control, but the only obstacle in controlling the whole Mediterranean Sea and the whole Middle East, is now Syria and Iraq. And currently Turkey is a country of a paramount strategic importance! Turkey is a neighbor of Syria, Iraq and Iran and has good relations with Russia. And it is so close from there to Crimea, just across the Black Sea. Moreover to Russian Crimea not NATO Crimea. And that is what Putin has committed the most for what he cannot be forgiven (he betrayed the NWO). The Black Sea then has become far greater obstacle than it was expected to be in relation to the role of Turkey.



Turkey is namely a fundamental point through which Europe is planned to become energy independent of Russia or respectively to put aside Russian energy resources from the European reach. It is thus killing two birds with one stone, because both are desirable.

Putin canceled South Stream, petrodollar is on the rise

I started the article with the hit of the December 2014 news that the ruble was weakened. But the bigger hit should be a different December report such as a statement that Putin was to cancel the completion of the South Stream project. In other words – Russia would not deliver gas to Europe via the south route (via the Black Sea) (the northern route, Nord Stream through which the Russian gas is delivered to Germany, is up and running). South Stream was expected to cross the Black Sea to Bulgaria, via Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and Austria in northeastern Italy with branches to Croatia, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey. Its construction was decided in 2010 and should have been completed the year after. After the Russia-Crimea reunification the US-EU decided to push Putin via South Stream. How much from the Crimea-Russia reunification did the EU scream that South Stream is legally wrong. How much did the EU threaten Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria that the construction must be suspended! Hungary was the most criticized for waiting with the work suspension to the last minute, while Bulgaria announced the end already in June - "The Bulgarian government at the request of Brussels suspended work on the South Stream" until the final cancellation of the project by Putin himself. And now on to the three-hour conference Putin says that the Russian crisis would last more than two years and that then the world would again need Russia's energy resources. Putin realized that it was whatsoever not about the pipeline or gas transport through Ukrainian territory, but from the beginning it is just and just about shutdown of Russian oil and gas from European markets. Therefore, not only weakened ruble, but especially the withdrawal of Russia from additional gas supplies to Europe is the living water for the US dollar! What the US needs is Europe's energy dependency on other than Russian resources and Russia deprived of energy markets and thus economically depressed.

The South Stream, and I can add is as a complete mockery of the current EU position headed by A.Merkel. It was her who mostly called for the end of the completion of South Stream, she ordered its termination and when Putin declared that the project would not continue (some servers describe this as the pride and pique, others as punishment for Europe, which has no other source, and by 2015 would have not), it was again Merkel, who mandated Bulgaria to require completion! Otherwise she threatened Russia with courts and penalties for failure to comply with agreements not only to Bulgaria but to the whole EU! So, after Russia is economically weakened by the economic sanctions and low oil prices, it is threatened with more penalties for failure to comply with contracts!

Dollar is getting living water and is rising from the dead. Who would think that the reason is the American shales (that Europe counts on), they are mistaken. The cancellation of the South Stream is moving closer to a plan which is currently being executed by ISIL and to the task actually Turkey is supposed to fulfill. The next map shows an area that is being controlled by ISIL. This area spreads through Iraq and Syria (again two birds with one stone?), But in addition, note city of Kobani on the border with Turkey.

Have a look at this Syrian city and Turkey from other key points:



Ukrainian Majdan and ISIL perform the same task - oil and gas

In 2013, Ukraine had to sign an association agreement with the EU, Yanukovych was pressured from all sides and it was believed that by the end of the year it would have been done. Now it is time to focus on the final point of the plan, which is Syria and Iraq. And Turkey. The Islamic State has existed since 1999, but in 2013 it was radicalized. And by some "accident" after May 2013 the US Senator McCain pays a visit to the future ISIL leaders and during friendly meetings he even got photographed with them. Once again see on the previous map the marked area where the ISIL is most radical: Syria and Iraq (in Iraq, especially those areas where oil is extracted) and the border with Turkey – city of Kobani. Throughout 2014, the main events covered by the mainstream media was ISIL - their expansion and conquest of oil terminals. And because Yanukovych did not sign, we also start hearing about Majdan in Ukraine throughout the year. But the situation is such that in the meantime, "Ukraine" task got complicated by not having the Association Agreement signed up (it is currently being finalized at any cost, even at the cost of bringing Nazis to power). The task "Syria, Iraq, Turkey," that was too started in accordance with the plan is running independently of the "unfinished" Ukraine plan. And that is despite the fact that year 2014 brought a complication, which was not foreseen and that is the loss of Crimea. However, Ukraine and equally ISIL are about the borders, about the sphere of influence under the US control, about putting Russia on a side-track and taking control of all Eastern energy resources.

A project about how to get oil and gas to Europe while having Russia completely excluded is already in existence since 2002 and is the Nabucco pipeline.

Caspian carbon to Europe passes through Turkey, Middle East carbon carbon goes to Europe via Turkey. Turkey starring and a big Majdan on the horizon

I have long believed that the aim of Europe's energy independence from Russia promoted by the US and its European slaves is Europe's dependence on the US shales. This certainly will happen because there will be no other alternative to Europe other than to buy expensive American energy - especially when Putin resigned from the South Stream and Nabucco ended in a fiasco. But no American shale have to supply energy to Europe, Europe is to be dependent on Caspian and the Middle East oil in particular. And one fact is that the energy from both the US shale or from the Middle East will be paid for by the US dollar.

Therefore already in 2002 the project Nabucco was founded. It's still an unbuilt pipeline, which should reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil and it was to bring Caspian gas from Azerbaijan to Europe. Russia sends 120 billion cubic meters of gas per year to Europe and that just across Ukraine, while the capacity of Nabucco was planned to be at 31 billion cubic meters at most. However, if there was also a branch to Iran added, the capacity would be fully covered by its resources only. Since Iranian resources are out of the sight of Europe and the Caspian supplies would be insufficient, Europe in its own interest kept delaying the construction of Nabucco against the US will. However, the biggest problem for Nabucco was Turkey that asked for up to 15 percent of the gas pumped away for their needs. After years of negotiations with the EU Turkey finally gave up this requirement. (Note: Do you also see that when it comes to joining the EU these similarities between Turkey and Ukraine cases are purely coincidental?)

In 2009, when the transport arrangements among Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria were agreed, the signing of an agreement on the construction of the Nabucco pipeline took place. Turkish Prime Minister called it a historic moment and the EU expected that the first gas independent of Russia, comes to Europe as early as 2014. And this despite the fact that - as was said then - "there are still a few issues, one of which the most pressing is the one from which sites the gas would be pumped for Nabucco . " It was counted from the beginning on the Azerbaijani sources, then on the fact that there are another large oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea so the production volume would gradually increase. In the summer of 2013, however, came the shocking news: The fiasco for the EU and USA, the Nabucco project ends, Europe would remain dependent on Russian gas.

Instead of the Nabucco pipeline Azerbaijan chose to transport gas to Europe TANAP-TAP pipeline, which would lead to the Turkish border via Greece and Albania and to Italy. The main reason behind was lower capital cost and higher gas prices in the South. The EU and USA were especially shocked and Putin rejoiced. The construction of the South Stream pipeline, although already decided in 2007 and sealed in 2010 - regardless of Nabucco - was in my opinion approved only because the Caspian resources do not have enough capacity needed for Europe and only for so long until Nabucco is connected to other sources of oil (Iraq, Iran, Egypt). Only then the dependence on Russia would fully be achieved. Furthermore, the South Stream praised the fact that the Russian Gazprom would only have a 50% stake and the remaining 50% would be split among the German, Italian and Austrian corporations. And, of course, the South Stream was approved under the influence of high expectations from Nabucco project. And suddenly it was all over.

Under the US influence even after the Nabucco cancellation the EU has not given up on finding ways to expel Russian gas from Europe. Again, after long negotiations with Turkey in the end a month before Putin announced the cancellation of South Stream, Turkish President Erdogan signed final documents needed for construction of TANAP-TAP pipeline. It was agreed in late October 2014 that the construction of TANAP-TAP can begin. The first Caspian gas to be transported this way to Turkey would be in 2018 and from Turkey to Europe in 2019. TANAP-TAP pipeline has been projected to bypass Russia and is essentially similar to Nabucco.



When we summarize projects Nabucco, South Stream and TANAP-TAP the EU still has problems to meet the US wishes to get rid of Europe's energy dependence on Russia. In addition, whether it is Nabucco or TANAP-TAP, Europe always needs Turkey. Turkey is aware of it and dictates the terms, while the EU plays chess with Turkey (this explains not only why Turkey is still not a member of the EU, but it also explains the recent attempts of a color revolution in Turkey). Oil and gas deliveries from Saudi Arabia to Europe, it needs to get in the first place through Syria. Syria is guarded by the Russian interests from one side and it also makes sure the energy flow was not over the Mediterranean sea and on the other side it makes sure it even does not go over Turkey. Syria alongside with Lebanon represents the only setback on the Mediterranean coast and the only country Russia has not left with the post-Soviet anti-Zionist influence. The same problem is Iraq, an ally of Syria (extra full of oil) and also Iran (the largest anti US dollar country full of oil that, however, wants to manage it on their own, not just to feed the petrodollar).

Now we know why suddenly there is such a radical leg of the IS. Why this radical leg is conquering Syria and Iraq, why it is conquering just oil terminals and why exactly rushing to town so insignificant as the Syrian city of Kobani on the border with Turkey. And why Turkey (the second largest army in NATO) suddenly becomes a dead beetle when it comes to fighting ISIL. And why it suddenly becomes an ally, not only of Russia but also ISIL. Turkey has finally understood what was known a long ago - it was to be thrown overboard. And that there is such Majdan ready for Turkey that the Ukrainian one was really just a slight "virus disease". I want to add that country carrying oil and gas have the same luck as those that have oil and gas - from both the profit is benefited and taken by the USA.

All roads lead to city of Kobani and Ceyhan. NATO Alliance on side of Kurdistan

"Battle of Kobani may rewrite the history of the Middle East," a headline of one blog says; in which the author among other things writes: Kobani - a city that a few weeks ago was practically not known apart from the Kurds or the inhabitants of Syria. Now that name inflicts media in all corners of our planet, starting with CNN and Chinese CCTV ending. But why are the allies spending so much effort that costs daily Washington and other countries millions of dollars, while the result is not sure at all?

The answers are few. Kobani, a rural town in which 45 thousand people lived before the outbreak of fighting, is defacto the last bastion of the Kurds, and if the Islamic state conquered it, that would have opened the way to the occupation of the territory along the 1200 km long Turkish-Syrian border . Fatal consequences would then be mainly for the Kurds that the Jihadists kill on sight and cut off their heads.

Victory would also strengthen the position of the Islamic State that sends more and more fighters to city of Kobani. The whole world would have shown that it can not stop raids that involve even the most advanced US fighters . Finally, the IS would gain control of the areas that would be used to send much greater amount of smuggled oil and collect millions more dollars.

Turkish hypocrisy - thousands of Kurdish refugees alongside with Turkish soldiers are every day watching the fight in Kobani. The guns of their tanks are pointing to IS positions, but they do not open fire on them. Ankara, in the past, one of the key NATO allies, is refusing to help the Kurds and attack the Jihadists.

Turkish tenacity in which they refuse to retreat raises further speculation. Why did the IS dismiss dozens of detainees Turks, while the Americans, British and Iraqi journalists are being beheaded and videos of their executions sent out to the whole world? Why did they even dismiss relatives of Caliph of the IS held in Turkish prisons or hospitals?And why did 180 Islamic radicals find themselves free, some of whom holding British, Swiss and Macedonian passports and everyone immediately engaged in combat in Iraq and Syria?

Ankara practically did not respond to calls from Syrian Kurds for help. Even the United States failed to persuade Ankara to at least give its air bases to strike against IS. To this day they have start from Bahrain, Qatar and other countries in the Arabian Peninsula.

The massacre of Kurds, who are connected to the Kurdistan Workers Party PKK, in Turkey banned and called a terrorist group, plays Turks into cards. Therefore, Turkey has criticized the US supply of arms and ammunition to the Kurds in Kobani. Conversely Ankara lets the leading members of the so-called Syrian opposition, whether they represent a Front al-Nusrat - al-Qaeda in Syria or even Islamic State, drink in coffee shops in Istanbul.

"Turkey as NATO and IS ally – is a shame of the alliance. The Turkish government has repeatedly indicated publicly that they would not cooperate with NATO in case of possible military action against ISIS until the Jihadists would not start conquering their own borders. And if someone else has the feeling that perhaps the IS would invade Turkey, they will surely be disappointed. Turkey, on the contrary subtly reinforces alliance with ISIS and did not allow NATO forces mobile base on its territory. And if it's not far enough to the media and intelligence agencies to start examining whether Turkey was committing war crimes, it is at least to to wonder what Turkey can do against NATO itself.

Turkey has for weeks been releasing prisoners - orthodox Muslims or even directly IS members in exchange for Turkish men captured by IS. Among other things they freed a Muslim who murdered in Northern Europe and was caught in Turkey. Turkey that is trying to cover for a genocide from the beginning of the last century perhaps subtly expresses his gratitude.

ISIS with Turkey agreed upon building an embassy in Turkey. So by doing so Turkey has recognized IS as an official and full-fledged nation. With its own actions that are effectively going against NATO Turkey goes even further. Turkey and IS on its borders do not let the Kurds enter city of Kobani. Turks alongside the Islamists do not let the Kurds neither with water nor food across the border to city of Kobani. An adequate reaction would be to exclude Turkey from the alliance and suspend all negotiations on joining the club with the EU. There would come even greater influence of Islam in Europe with it.

It's a mess, and who in fact could understand it? Nevertheless, it is quite simple - the US decided to sacrifice a good chunk of Turkey's territory in favor of a new Kurdistan. Turkey borders as they are, would not be valid anymore and the Kurds living here in Syria, here in Iraq and Iran, and also in a great part of Turkey, should have their new great and officially recognized state at the expense of reduction of Syria and especially Turkey and division of Iraq. The emergence of Kurdistan is a goal. Kurdistan, which would be thankful for the expansion of their country so that it would not oppose to oil and gas transits in any direction as it has been done by Turkey, and would become subservient to the US. Turkey, as well as Ukraine pays for its strategic position and as well as Ukraine faces a choice to either sacrifice a piece of their land for the establishment of Kurdistan or prefer to ally with ISIL. Which evil is easier to cope with for Turkey to make a stand against after having the USA forcing it (like Ukraine) to the necessity to choose from?

It is, from early beginning, perhaps obvious to IS leaders that they are supposed to meet the US interests and once a complete breakdown in all the three mentioned countries is achieved, NATO would stop from pretending that it has no power to defeat them and that all the promises (including the Islamization of Europe) are just a grass field. Indeed, even now we can hear from all sides that "the greatest danger for the world is an Islamic state". And maybe the IS is following this game to get something for themselves. And the IS might know that it is just a matter of time until NATO in alliance with Kurdistan attacks the same Islamists, with whom they are pretending an inability to militarily cope with (which is especially an obvious fact).

What was a friendly meeting with Senator McCain future leaders ISIL in May 2013, when today, all NATO alliance have not a bigger problem than ISIL defeat?



And is not there something strange in the fact that NATO, daring to engage Russia, is losing with some ISIL and to help against IS mobilizes and supports the Kurds? It reminds me very much of the support of the fascists in Ukraine. Turkey so far, as well as Ukraine had quite normal life - whether it was any pipeline in question, Turkey has always had links to the Russian source so to Iranian. The focal point of supply to Turkey is town Ceyhan, a city with finished transit routes from the Middle East. City of Ceyhan is located on the Mediterranean Sea, and it is a short walk to the Syrian Allepa. So having dominated Ceyhan it would be enough to remove Assad from power and oil from Qatar and Saudi-Arabia can freely travel to Europe. Ceyhan lies on the same border line as the Syrian city of Kobani. This begs a question: Is an attack on Syrian Kobani way to get to Turkish Ceyhan and thereby control the border with Syria and Turkey to break the two obstacles in the way of the Middle East energy to Europe? Because why to wait for TANAP-TAP pipeline when you can cancel Turkey and Syria in its present form and establish Kurdistan on the part of their territories and the Middle East carbon path to Europe would almost be complete. And why do not send Qatar, Saudi-Arabian and Israeli carbon to Europe just by getting rid off Assad, take advantage of Ceyhan city and the route to Europe would almost be finished. What it is really all about is Kobani and Ceyhan and the Syrian-Turkish border.

Here is also a video where you can again see the map of ISIL operations around Kobani and you can hear Pentagon stating that American air strikes can not save Kobani from its takeover of the government of ISIL, although there are unspeakable crimes against humanity waiting for the people in this country, until ISIL wins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RwQ6VkgmW-A

Syria, Iran and Turkey know about the plan since 2006

Now I have to return to the very beginning and recall a video, in which Wesley Clark, in 2007, delivered his speech "Seven countries within five years." Here is a link [here ], and this time I suggest time at around 5:55, where W. Clark says, "And that's why we collapsing in Iraq. Because Syria and Iran are aware of this plan "

I do not know what motives led W. Clark, the former Pentagon's slave, to his speech. There might really be a change in his heart and he really meant it. But his speech raises doubts about the fact that it was delivered a year after maps from 2006 to redraw the borders of the Middle East leaked to the public. These maps also reached Turkey leaving it in a deep shock.

Here are the maps plotting the borders of the Middle East Before and After:






See that Kurdistan that has taken a part of Turkey, Syria and Iraq? And who entire NATO is helping fight ISIS?

The US dollar is rejoicing prematurely

If Syria, Iran and Turkey know the plan from 2006, s Russia certainly knows about it. And quite possibly ISIL leaders also know about it. So we created a classic situation where two are fighting and the third can laugh. The US want to defeat Russia and want to remove her from the position of a global player. And how else then through the energy resources. To do this, the US needs to not only push Russia out of energy markets, but also own a maximum of world energy resources. Why, it's simple; whoever wants to buy oil and gas, they must first buy the US dollar. Because there is no other way of self-preservation of the USA that it is being threaten by a total bankruptcy. For its plans to work the US need to dominate the whole of Europe economically, so that Europe could only trade with the US (it is almost done) and energetically so it wholly depends on the resources under the US control - whether it's American-Canadian shale, or Caspian or Middle Eastern source. The ideal would be if China has also become dependent on energy for dollars.

Thus weakened ruble and Putin's resignation from South Stream is flowing blood into the veins of the petrodollar, but it has not won yet. Majdan in Ukraine finished by connecting Crimea to Russia - a biggest upset of the plan. A Majdan in Turkey is currently evolving in such a direction that a country with the second largest army in NATO is not only helpful to ISIL, but wants to recognize the state that already controls most of the Middle Easte energy resources and get it on its side. At the same time Turkey is increasingly leading friendlier negotiations with Russia – and the media commented that Erdogan meeting with Putin is an event comparable only with Crimea-Russia reunification. Well why not? Turkey is in the same situation as Ukraine and the color of the Black Sea got a completely different shade after Putin was received with royal honors in Turkey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R-L7HMBOHE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP8T9LbT0MA&list=UUFU30dGHNhZ-hkh0R10LhLw

Unfortunately what that means for the world is anything other than that the US will resort to harsher means than the nazification of Ukraine, Kurdistan or muslimification of Europe or the Middle East to achieve their goals. And Putin will resist. And it looks like Turkey will defend itself too. The war to save the petrodollar is already on the way and USA are playing vabanque with the world. And stupid Europe is helping the very third time in its history.

Let's follow the developments surrounding Kobani and Ceyhan and watch not only Russian, but also Turkey's attitude. If the country with the second strongest army in NATO decided instead to ally with artificially created enemy of the US and even link up with Russia, there is truly a global Majdan ahead. But what else could be expected from a desperado before bankruptcy the USA is. One American editor in his article, among others, writes: "If the US knew another way to keep global power than war, would long ago have used it. But because of having Russia weakened and China controlled so it develops just as much as it is allowed, no other option exists than the full control over the world's energy resources and having the NATO bases closest to the Russian and Chinese border. As a result the world stands before the great world war to maintain the petrodollar's hegemony. Do you need oil or gas, buy a dollar otherwise forget it. And this is true and especially for Europe, which is fully subdued into the USA services.

The whole situation is very reminiscent of the world after the crash on the NY Stock Exchange in 1929 and subsequent WW II. Even then, the US joined with anyone - Stalin and Hitler promoting genocide from both sides and would eventually join the winner. And today - Christians, Muslims, Jews fight again, the USA needs it!

And finally have a look at the last map [ here ], and notice the position of Israel. It is done in the USA, Europe and Africa and what remains is to control just a little bit of the world on that map. All the "conspiracy" talking about Greater Israel and the Anglo-American-Zionist connection might not seem to be a conspiracy whatsoever.

The purpose of the article is not the view of the Islamists, Kurds and others. The purpose is to illustrate how one country makes what they want of the whole world. And it uses the very same script all the time: "Make the problem and then solve the problem?" or "Use a kick out when used up" until in the finals we are all victims. The main purpose of this article is to show how all the world events are just pebbles in the mosaic of one global power. May God save the world.

Using resources [ here ] and [ here ]

December 29, 2014 - Addition of two very related information:

1) After the collapse of South Stream on December 8 Turkey and Russia agreed to build a pipeline between the two countries, Gazprom already setting up companies for its construction. Meanwhile nameless pipeline is already partially done. Freshly-based company Gazprom Russkaia just lay pipelines along the bottom of the Black Sea and stretch it to Turkey to Greek border. (Black Sea, it again takes on new importance because this probably would not be liked)

2) The title "The fighting in Iraq to help the independence of Kurdistan and the foreign oil companies" - Kurdistan in the last three years (!) has concluded a number of contracts with foreign oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Total and Chevron oil, and despite the fact that Baghdad is fundamentally against. Kurdistan has managed to prepare large quantities of oil for export using trucks and tankers despite the statement of Baghdad that these are illegal activities. The pipeline for export is now complete and millions of barrels over it were sent to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan , still not for sale. Tankers, containing 2 million barrels of Kurdish oil, waiting for buyers who are afraid to buy because Baghdad wants to sue anyone who buys this oil. The Kurds have an estimated 45 billion oil and planning to export 400,000 barrels per day " [source] . A richest deposits are around the city of Kirkuk, which is to become part of Kurdistan

- Observer -

Form an original published by AE News:

http://aeronet.cz/news/sedm-zemi-do-peti-let-a-americky-dolar-vstava-z-mrtvych-ukrajina-splnila-ucel-isil-dobyva-irak-a-syrii-prave-dobyva-strategickou-kobani-turecko-dela-mrtveho-brouka-kurdistan-se-raduje-jeste-mu/

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 Bankster International

by Mark Hackard

Geopolitical analysis, the art of explaining power relationships through the prism of impersonal geography, can be a helpful tool for observers of the Great Game – but it also has its limitations. A case in point is the renewed US-Russia confrontation. Think tanks and policy insiders easily sell the narrative that from the dark days of the Cold War to our own time, Russia and the United States are fated to play in a zero-sum contest for the future of Eurasia and the world. Deterministic theories, though, can be used to legitimize predatory policy, and pseudo-scientific formulae often conceal manipulations by parasitic elites. Scoring a fortune off human misery and mass death, plundering economic assets, and shaping entire societies in one’s own image all find justification in claims of historical inevitability and the necessity of “progress.”

While Russia and the United States can easily be cast as eternal enemies in the manner of Rome and Carthage, or Ivan Drago and Rocky Balboa for modern audiences, we should recall that the two states were originally allies. From the time of 1776, Russo-American friendship was a contributor to the peace and security of both nations for nearly a century and a half. Catherine the Great shrewdly supported the independence of the American colonists, who were able to mount a successful rebellion against an exploitative oligarchy acting through the British Crown. In the terrible cauldron of the US Civil War, Tsar Alexander II, liberator of the peasantry, sent his fleet to America’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts to deter British and French intervention schemes.

In Realpolitik, where expediency is the order of the day, alliances are defined by a common adversary. For both Russia and the United States, that adversary was not simply another nation-state like England or France, but a financial international bent on controlling the world through elaborate fraud, war, and revolution. Banking dynasties under names like Rothschild, and later Morgan, Warburg, and Rockefeller, had ascended to power in the West from the seventeenth century onward. Their planned global imperium of borderless labor and capital flows, today promoted as the Open Society by billionaire speculators such as George Soros, was already entering its initial stages of implementation. Thus the fledgling American Republic, an Enlightenment project but not yet under bankster domination, and Imperial Russia could unite for the freedom of their peoples and against the assaults of the Money Power.

What changed? In the early twentieth century the masters of usury struck back decisively against the United States and Russia, by stealth in the former case and an outright coup d’état in the latter. Through various machinations, the privately-run Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913 to issue the US currency at interest, suborning institutions of government and crushing Americans with a national debt now counted in unfathomable trillions. The Great War was unleashed upon Europe in a nightmarish conflagration, and in 1917 the Russian Revolution, funded by the banking houses of London and Wall Street, installed a vicious Bolshevik regime – dependent on Western credit for the whole of its existence. As for the rest of the twentieth century, we witness globalist plutocrats’ use of dialectics, wielding ideologies as weapons and pitting nation against nation, in the Hegelian procession toward the World State.

Today the realization of that Novus Ordo Seclorum draws ever nearer. And as its grand strategist emeritus Zbigniew Brzezinski makes clear, Washington’s “indispensability” marks only a period of transition:

In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but is also likely to be the very last.

Brzezinski artfully neglects mention of what is intended to supersede American unipolarity: planetary tyranny, a system of total population control and resource extraction. Moreover, all of this is being constructed in the name of “liberty” and “equality,” abstractions serving as mere rhetorical cover for a demonic will to power. It is the liberal program of the oligarchs that has erected an all-pervasive surveillance grid unprecedented in scope, and it is their program that aims to rob man of his faith, family, and heritage, abolishing all that makes him truly human. In the novel The Possessed, Fyodor Dostoevsky articulated this drive with prophetic pathos through his utopian theorist Shigalev, who “proceeding from limitless freedom,” would “bring about an unlimited despotism.” Pyotr Verkhovensky, the leader of the story’s revolutionary cell, exults:

To level the mountains is a good notion, not a ridiculous one. I'm for Shigalev! We don't need education, enough of knowledge! There will be enough material for a thousand years, but obedience must be arranged. There's too little of one thing in the world: obedience. The wish for education is already an aristocratic wish. A little bit of family or love, and you have a desire for property. We will kill the desire: we'll unleash drunkenness, scandal, denunciation; we'll unleash unheard-of deviance; any genius we'll extinguish in infancy. All toward one denominator: total equality... The slaves must have rulers. Total obedience, total impersonality, but once every thirty years Shigalev will set off a spasm, and everyone will begin to eat each other to a certain point, just so that everything’s not boring.

Behind every effective revolutionary stands the financier who created him. Equality to the slaves, an equality of the graveyard, and to the moneyed elite – godlike power over the Cosmos. In exchange for ever more "inherent rights" and meaningless depraved spectacle, socially-engineered mass man forfeits his freedom and his soul. With the West conquered, now all of humanity is set for standardization through postmodern colonialism, covert-action NGOs, carrier battle groups, and killer drones. Any sovereign state resisting the march of progress must be destroyed.

At the Cold War’s end, a defunct Soviet Union was supposed to fold into the world controllers’ planned capitalist-communist synthesis, and minor “rogues” like Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya could be dismembered with impunity in the meantime. From the chaos, destitution, and demoralization of the post-collapse period, however, another Russia has slowly re-emerged, its people broadly nationalist and increasingly unashamed of their thousand-year ancestral faith, Orthodox Christianity (see footnote). Nothing could be more intolerable to the robber-baron superclass, who have already for the past century waged ruthless war against religion and organic cultural identity in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere to impose their desolating vision upon mankind.

Another round of US-Russia tensions might be unfolding, but such a clash was neither foreordained nor inevitable; between the two largely distant lands there is mutual nuclear deterrence and an absence of directly conflicting vital interests. Beyond inane sloganeering about democracy and human rights, more sophisticated Western strategists can cite new iterations of Halford Mackinder’s Heartland thesis or the latest Eurasian pipeline maneuvers as reasons to “contain” Russia. None of this accounts for a cosmopolitan oligarchy that sets policy, subsidizes scholarship, and manufactures consent in pursuit of its totalitarian agenda. In their quest to liquidate the American, the Russian, and every other unique people, the predators from the bankster international consider themselves above all laws human and divine. Yet the swelling arrogance of sociopaths brings about their downfall – and the sooner their crime spree comes to an end, the better chance we all might have for peace and reconciliation.
-------
Footnote: It should be noted that even Russia is still not free of the banksters in its own state apparatus, with the Central Bank and the Medvedev government under the influence of pro-Western liberal technocrats familiar with Putin from his days in St. Petersburg. With economic warfare waged by the international a present-day reality, it would be reasonable to expect a quick resolution to this problem in the near future.

Very interesting admission by a senior US diplomat: Russia "betrayed" the NWO

I was just watching Alain Soral's latest video when I heard him offer a very interesting explanation for why the AngloZionist Empire hates Putin so much.  The article Soral quotes is entitled "The End of the New World Order" and it has been written by Christopher R. Hill, "former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009", i.e. a big shot in the US imperial nomenklatura.  Here is what Hill writes:

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing intimidation of Ukraine appears to mean the end of a 25-year period whose hallmark was an effort to bring Russia into greater alignment with Euro-Atlantic goals and traditions. Now the question is: What comes next? (...) [the] new world order held for almost 25 years. Except for Russia’s brief war with Georgia in August 2008 (a conflict generally seen as instigated by reckless Georgian leadership), Russia’s acquiescence and commitment to the “new world order,” however problematic, was one of the great accomplishments of the post-Cold War era. Even Russia’s reluctance to support concerted Western action, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990’s, was based on arguments that could be heard in other European countries. Russian democracy certainly had its share of flaws, but that hardly made it unique among post-communist countries. (...) Americans do need to understand the challenge they are facing from a Russia that no longer seems interested in what the West has been offering for the last 25 years: special status with NATO, a privileged relationship with the European Union, and partnership in international diplomatic endeavor.

Bingo!  For all the wrong reasons (the usual crap about a resurgent and revanchist Russian Empire), Hill is absolutely right: Russia has absolutely zero interest in the "Western project".  Yup!  From 1991 (and really even before that) to 1999 Russia was an imperial colony run by a collection of mostly Jewish oligarchs who hated Russia and who literally stole everything they could.  From 1999 to 2012 Putin and his "Eurasian Sovereignists" had to share power with Medvedev's "Atlantic Integrationists" (for the meaning of these terms see here and here) but since 2012 the former have pretty much seized full control of the Russian state.  Hence the apparent change in course since 2012 and the West's hysterical reaction of outrage, impotent furstration and barely contained hatred for the men whom they see as the number one enemy of the NWO on the planet and in that assessment they are actually absolutely correct, if late.

Yes, today Russia has fundamentally turned away from the NWO and purged most, if not all, of the pro-NWO elite in Moscow.  The future of Russia is in Asia and in the great Russian North and there is nothing the AngloZionist Empire can do about that.

The Saker

Russia gives 240 million Euros to Syria

The news agency Regnum has announced that Russia will give Syria 240 million Euros to help it pay for its social programs.  46 millions will be donated and the rest of the sum loaned.  This agreement was negotiated by Dmitri Rogozin during his recent trip to Syria.  The agreement will not require any additional spending for the Russian budget as both side have agreed to a "debt in exchange for financial assistance" deal settling the issue of the payments Syria owed Russia before the war began and which it could not pay.

The Saker

Open letter to Putin (or the real face of the "other" West!)

We all know that the western corporate media lies, that western politicians lie, that a big segment of the population in the West has been zombified into terminal stupidity.  But there is another West which is very rarely mentioned, whose voice is systematically ignored, which is categorically opposed to what is being done in its name by the ruling plutocracy and which refuses to shut up and obey.  All of us who have lived in the West know this and, I believe, most people outside the West do realize that too.  The truth is that the enemy of Russia today is also the enemy of the 99% of people in Europe and in the USA.  Of course, the 1%ers try to divide us all into small groups and oppose us to each other, and when that does not work, they try to scare us.  And still, some, many, see straight through this.

Today, thanks to a good German friend (thanks "FR"!!) who agreed to translate this letter especially for this blog now I have the translation into English of an "open letter to Putin" signed by large and diverse group of Germans who were touched by Putin's words about Germany and its reunification and who decided to reply to him in an open letter.  You can find the original of the letter here.  What follows is the full translation into English:

[I have been informed that another translation is available here.]
-------

About the anti-Russian statements of our mass media and politicians

Open letter to Putin
By Volker Braeutigam

President Putin has turned in his speech to the reintegration of Crimea from March 18, 2014,  directly to the German people. This appeal deserves positive resonance that corresponds to the real feelings of the Germans, so how they got these days in ad hoc surveys to the expression. The unilaterally anti-Russian statements of many our mass media and politicians as well as the escalating actions of Berlin do not represent the German population and her increasing distance to the bellicose policy of the EU and NATO. Therefore, here is now an open letter to president Putin which will be handed over on Thursday to the Russian embassy in Berlin:
–-----

Dear Mister President!

In your speech in front of the state Duma you asked he German people for some understanding. We are German citizens, who experienced the post-war period by the majority in the west half of Germany.  When the cold war 1990 was ended and our country was reunited, a sigh of relief went through the world, because the always threatening danger of a nuclear military conflict seemed avoided, which would have pulled the entire globe in. Germany would have been extinguished.
 
The Soviet Union has played the decisive role for the liberation of Europe from Nazism under incomparable victims.  Nevertheless, it was in 1990 ready to support the German reunification in 1991 to dissolve the Warsaw Pact and community to accept NATO membership total of Germany. This was not honored by the West.

The former Ambassador of the United States in Moscow (1987-1991), Jack Matlock, a few days ago in the Washington Post confirmed that President Bush promised not to exploit the generosity of President Gorbachev.

The expansion of NATO up to the former Soviet republics, the establishment of military bases in former Warsaw signatories and the construction of an anti-ballistic missile defense screen in East Europe with concurrent withdrawal from the ABM treaty on the part of the USA are all striking breaches of promise.

These measures are understood by us only as a claim to power by the western leadership power which are directed against the state and economic consolidation pursued by you of your land after your assumption of office in 2000.
 
Moreover, Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press stated beyond that 2006 in „Foreign Affairs “with her article „to The Rise OF U.S. Nuclear Primacy” convincingly that the anti-missile defense screen is to make a nuclear first strike possible for the nuclear neutralization of Russia.
 
This background in condensed form is the background before which we assess the events in the Ukraine since November 2013. Meanwhile, it is widely documented that the United States has exploited the legitimate protests of the Ukrainian people for their own purposes. The pattern is familiar from other countries: Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine 2004, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Venezuela ...
 
The “interference” of the European Union and OSCE was swiftly taken care within twelve hours after the deal negotiated by the foreign ministers for a peaceful transition was overturned with the help of fascist forces.

The website of the Open Ukraine Foundation of the incumbent Prime Minister shows who is behind the current coup government in Kiev.

Internal and international law questions about the secession of Crimea are differently answered. We want to evaluate them here not legally, but only  from a political point of view.
 
Against the background of developments in Europe since 1990, the deployment of some 1,000 U.S. military bases around the world, the control of the Straits by the U.S. and the outgoing of the perpetrators of the Maidan threat to the Russian Black Sea fleet, we see the secession of the Crimea as a defensive measure with a simultaneous message: up to here and no further!

The crucial difference with Kosovo's independence declaration is that the latter was made possible by the illegal bombing by NATO, unfortunately with the participation of Germany , which created the conditions for independence.
 
Dear Mr. President, you have called for an economic community from Lisbon to Vladivostok for almost four years. It would be the economic basis for the “common European home”.

The Ukraine could take up an ideal bridge function for the future cooperation between the Eurasian Union lead by you and the European Union, not least in cultural respect. We are persuaded that the massive influencing control of the USA has as its purpose prevent the Ukraine from becoming such a bridge.
 
The forces which have prevailed in the European Commission are supporting the policy of the United States against Russia. The speech of the Executive Secretary-General of the European external action service, Pierre Vimont, on March 14, this year is so unique (EurActiv: "EU shunned from US-Russia meeting on Ukraine").

Dear Mr. President, we trust that your historic speech in year 2001, will continue to form the basis for your actions against the EU and Germany in the German Bundestag. The latest polls show that the majority of Germans does not want any confrontation with the Russian Federation and are expressing understanding for Russian actions towards the Ukraine.

We do not underestimate the difficulties faced Federal Republic of Germany as a member of the EU and NATO concerning Russia, these are also known to you. However, at least we expect the Federal Government operate in the old Roman legal principle audiatur et altera pars ("hear the other side too”). This was omitted in connection with the neighborhood policy of the EU in the case of Ukraine.
 
Even during the Cold War Russia has not made use of the argument that 27 millions of its citizens died during WWII for political gain against Germany.  This figure alone  gives a special quality in the relations between our countries.
  
The people of Germany have a keen sense of to this: when  "The Group of Soviet forces in Germany" in year 1994 takes leave of  Germany with a performance of its music corps on the square before the Bundeskunsthalle in Bonn , there were moving scenes between the numerous spectators and musicians.

In this context, when we see the news reporting and commentaries in the German media we can only say that we find them disgusting.

Dear Mr. President, with our modest means as a simple citizen, we will help to ensure that the intended division of Europe does not succeed, but the ideas of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz be brought back to new life.

We are convinced: only if the states and peoples of the Eurasian double continent regulate their affairs peacefully with one another, respectfully, cooperatively, on the basis of the right and without outside interference, this will radiate also into the remaining world. We see you in this sense as our ally.  For Your current, and hopefully also the next office period we wish you strength, power of endurance, intelligence and skillfulness.

With utmost respect,

Signed by 300+ people (for full list see here)

-------
One could say that 300 people is not that much for a country of 80 million people, but that would be mistaken.  These are not "just" 300 people.  These are 300 people willing to commit social and political seppuku and who dare to openly swim against what is arguable the worst hate and propaganda campaign since the end of WWII (I for sure do not recall such anti-Soviet hysteria during the Cold War).  Furthermore, these people are showing the rest of the terminally passive Europeans that it is possible to speak up and not only refuse to participate in this hate campaign, but even to openly challenge it.  In fact, these Germans go even further: they are calling Putin (the "New Hitler" and WorstAndMostEvilEnemyOfMankindEver) an 'ally' while rejecting their own national leadership.  That, my friends, takes a lot of guts.  It also proves that there is no such thing as historical inevitability.  If the country which attacked Russia not once, but twice in the 20th century can produce this can of awareness then no situation is hopeless.  I sure hope that this letter will be translated into Russia and circulated by the Russian media not just to show "support for Russia", but to show that the people of Europe are not all the enemies of the Russian people.

I don't know if that will actually happen, but I am sure there such letters are also possible outside Germany.  I am getting a lot of emails from readers in Europe who are disgusted and outraged by what is being done, supposedly in their name.  And the same goes for the USA and even central Europe.

I want to conclude this with a short except from the Book of Genesis:

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.  And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place. (Genesis 18:17-33).

We all know how it ends: God sends two angels to remove Lot from the city and then He destroys Sodom and Gomorrah.  Thus it is said that "just one man can save a city".  

I think that the honor and dignity of 80 million Germans can be saved by the 300+ who followed the words of Stéphane Hessel and were outraged and followed the words of Yehuda Bower and refused to be bystanders.

Should any of them ever read these words - I respectfully salute them!

The Saker

President Vladimir Putin's letter to leaders of European countries. Full text

ITAR-TASS reports: 

President Vladimir Putin's letter to leaders of European countries. Full text
 
Ukraine’s economy in the past several months has been plummeting. Its industrial and construction sectors have also been declining sharply. Its budget deficit is mounting. The condition of its currency system is becoming more and more deplorable. The negative trade balance is accompanied by the flight of capital from the country. Ukraine’s economy is steadfastly heading towards a default, a halt in production and skyrocketing unemployment.

Russia and the EU member states are Ukraine’s major trading partners. Proceeding from this, at the Russia-EU Summit at the end of January, we came to an agreement with our European partners to hold consultations on the subject of developing Ukraine’s economy, bearing in mind the interests of Ukraine and our countries while forming integration alliances with Ukraine’s participation. However, all attempts on Russia’s part to begin real consultations failed to produce any results.

Instead of consultations, we hear appeals to lower contractual prices on Russian natural gas – prices which are allegedly of a “political” nature. One gets the impression that the European partners want to unilaterally blame Russia for the consequences of Ukraine’s economic crisis.

Right from day one of Ukraine’s existence as an independent state, Russia has supported the stability of the Ukrainian economy by supplying it with natural gas at cut-rate prices. In January 2009, with the participation of the then-premier Yulia Tymoshenko, a purchase-and-sale contract on supplying natural gas for the period of 2009-2019 was signed. The contract regulated questions concerning the delivery of and payment for the product, and it also provided guarantees for its uninterrupted transit through the territory of Ukraine. What is more, Russia has been fulfilling the contract according to the letter and spirit of the document. Incidentally, Ukrainian Minister of Fuel and Energy at that time was Yuriy Prodan, who today holds a similar post in Kiev’s government.

The total volume of natural gas delivered to Ukraine, as stipulated in the contract during the period of 2009-2014 (first quarter), stands at 147.2 billion cubic meters. Here, I would like to emphasize that the price formula that had been set down in the contract had NOT been altered since that moment. And Ukraine, right up till August 2013, made regular payments for the natural gas in accordance with that formula.

However, the fact that after signing that contract, Russia granted Ukraine a whole string of unprecedented privileges and discounts on the price of natural gas, is quite another matter. This applies to the discount stemming from the 2010 Kharkiv Agreement, which was provided as advance payment for the future lease payments for the presence of the (Russian) Black Sea Fleet after 2017. This also refers to discounts on the prices for natural gas purchased by Ukraine’s chemical companies. This also concerns the discount granted in December 2013 for the duration of three months due to the critical state of Ukraine’s economy. Beginning with 2009, the total sum of these discounts stands at 17 billion US dollars. To this, we should add another 18.4 billion US dollars incurred by the Ukrainian side as a minimal take-or-pay fine.

In this manner, during the past four years, Russia has been subsidizing Ukraine’s economy by offering slashed natural gas prices worth 35.4 billion US dollars. In addition, in December 2013, Russia granted Ukraine a loan of 3 billion US dollars. These very significant sums were directed towards maintaining the stability and creditability of the Ukrainian economy and preservation of jobs. No other country provided such support except Russia.

What about the European partners? Instead of offering Ukraine real support, there is talk about a declaration of intent. There are only promises that are not backed by any real actions. The European Union is using Ukraine’s economy as a source of raw foodstuffs, metal and mineral resources, and at the same time, as a market for selling its highly-processed ready-made commodities (machine engineering and chemicals), thereby creating a deficit in Ukraine’s trade balance amounting to more than 10 billion US dollars. This comes to almost two-thirds of Ukraine’s overall deficit for 2013.

To a large extent, the crisis in Ukraine’s economy has been precipitated by the unbalanced trade with the EU member states, and this, in turn has had a sharply negative impact on Ukraine’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations to pay for deliveries of natural gas supplied by Russia. Gazprom neither has intentions except for those stipulated in the 2009 contract nor plans to set any additional conditions. This also concerns the contractual price for natural gas, which is calculated in strict accordance with the agreed formula. However, Russia cannot and should not unilaterally bear the burden of supporting Ukraine’s economy by way of providing discounts and forgiving debts, and in fact, using these subsidies to cover Ukraine’s deficit in its trade with the EU member states. 

The debt of NAK Naftogaz Ukraine for delivered gas has been growing monthly this year. In November-December 2013 this debt stood at 1.451,5 billion US dollars; in February 2014 it increased by a further 260.3 million and in March by another 526.1 million US dollars. Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in March there was still a discount price applied, i.e., 268.5 US dollars per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. And even at that price, Ukraine did not pay a single dollar.

In such conditions, in accordance with Articles 5.15, 5.8 and 5.3 of the contract, Gazprom is compelled to switch over to advance payment for gas delivery, and in the event of further violation of the conditions of payment, will completely or partially cease gas deliveries. In other words, only the volume of natural gas will be delivered to Ukraine as was paid for one month in advance of delivery.

Undoubtedly, this is an extreme measure. We fully realize that this increases the risk of siphoning off natural gas passing through Ukraine’s territory and heading to European consumers. We also realize that this may make it difficult for Ukraine to accumulate sufficient gas reserves for use in the autumn and winter period. In order to guarantee uninterrupted transit, it will be necessary, in the nearest future, to supply 11.5 billion cubic meters of gas that will be pumped into Ukraine’s underground storage facilities, and this will require a payment of about 5 billion US dollars.

However, the fact that our European partners have unilaterally withdrawn from the concerted efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and even from holding consultations with the Russian side, leaves Russia no alternative.

There can be only one way out of the situation that has developed. We believe it is vital to hold, without delay, consultations at the level of ministers of economics, finances and energy in order to work out concerted actions to stabilize Ukraine’s economy and to ensure delivery and transit of Russian natural gas in accordance with the terms and conditions set down in the contract. We must lose no time in beginning to coordinate concrete steps. It is towards this end that we appeal to our European partners.

It goes without saying that Russia is prepared to participate in the effort to stabilize and restore Ukraine’s economy. However, not in a unilateral way, but on equal conditions with our European partners. It is also essential to take into account the actual investments, contributions and expenditures that Russia has shouldered by itself alone for such a long time in supporting Ukraine. As we see it, only such an approach would be fair and balanced, and only such an approach can lead to success.

The painful issue of today's Europe - what are Russia's options?

I think that it is time for me to directly address the issue of today's Europe role in world affairs.  In this blog I have often voiced very harsh criticisms of both "old Europe" and "new Europe" - to use Rumsfeld's classification - but I have never addressed this issue head-on, and this is what I propose to do now.

Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I was born in the heart of Western Europe from in a family of refugees.  I spent most of my life in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone).  So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European.  Furthermore, and regular readers of this blog know that, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it.  So while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian".  In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer).  I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin".  And yet, here I am, in 2014, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Putin groupie".  I can hardly convey how weird this still feels to me.

I wanted to begin by clarifying all this because what I will write next I do not write as "a Russian bashing Europe" but as a European disgusted with his own birthplace.  So here we go:

First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though we have been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War.  Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be.  And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe.  Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed).  Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:

SORRY - I HAD TO REMOVE THESE LINKS AS I DID NOT WANT TROUBLE WITH BLOGGER.  YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK FOR THIS MOVIE BY YOURSELF

THE SAKER

This movie shows, without any exaggerations, what life was like in the last years of the former GDR and I think that for those who might be tempted to forget what daily life was under Soviet rule, this is a very good refresher.

I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free.

This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA.  So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bullseye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home.  For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could built a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history.  If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside.  As for notion of another internal European war - my generation (I am 50 now) found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium?  Or France invade Spain?  As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.

Then the Wall came down, Gorbachev betrayed his own country and Party, three Commie non-entities (Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) destroyed the Soviet Union against the will of most of its people, and the previously demure and peace-loving West suddenly became overwhelmed with a new messianic mission: to conquer the eastern "Lebensraum" for NATO and the EU.  As for the newly "freed" East Europeans, instead of finally enjoying some true freedom, they all decided that the highest they can hope for is to be colonized by the USA and NATO, lest those dangerous Russians show up again.  I will come back to the West Europeans later, but let me say this about East Europeans here:

How did they forget this basic fact of history: Russia has never attacked the West.  Not once.  Unless, of course, you consider a counter-attack as a form of attack.  The historical truth is that it is the West which attacked Russia over and over and over and over again.  This is why there was a Crimean war with Russia and not, say, a "Corsican War".  Yes, Russia did counter-attack each time and, yes, Russian soldiers did end up camping on the Champs Elysees or under Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly happened because of some mysterious "Russian imperialism".  Sure, I will be the first to agree that 19th Russia had no business keeping western monarchs in power or chewing up Finland or Poland, but in all these instances you will see that what triggered these (nevertheless unjustifiable) interventions was a (mistaken) sense of assisting the legitimate rulers of Europe.  Not saying it's right (it's not!).  I am just saying that when the West invaded Russia it hardly had as a motive to assist the legitimate authorities.  I would never blame the Chechens or the Persians for being fearful of Russia, but the Poles or Balts (who more than anybody tried to occupy, subjugate and partition Russia)?  The Germans or French?  Maybe the Brits or the Hungarians (who sure had their own little Empire going!)?  This is beyond ridiculous...

And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another.  Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass russophobia.

As for the West Europeans, probably motivated by their own inferiority complex (well, after all, Europe never freed itself from Hitler - it was freed by others!) and definitely egged on by the Anglosphere, they decided not only to turn what could have been a "Europe of fatherland" (as de Gaulle wanted) into a faceless meltingpot run by unelected EU bureaucrats but they also engaged in an "admission spree" for both the EU and NATO, sure as they were that "the more the better" which, of course, made both NATO and the EU much worse of than it was before.

So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests.  I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt.  Especially that this was far from inevitable.

If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like de Gaulle or even Mitterrand, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire.  One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".

Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible.  Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag,  as in Ekibastuz in 1952).  I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders.  So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.

But maybe good old uprisings are now "passé"?  Okay - fair enough.  But what prevents the people from, say, Poland, Germany or Bulgaria from following the example of Alain Soral in France and create their own version of Egalité et Réconciliation or, at least, the French National Front?!  Nothing, of course.

I do see some signs of a growing revolt:  George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself.  In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential.  The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!).  What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" similar to what the French Communists almost became in the late years of Georges Marchais.

[Sidenote: The Europeans seem to have forgotten that capitalism is not a European tradition, but an Anglo ideology.  They have forgotten that while the north of Europe fell under the influence of Reformed/Protestant Christianity with its emphasis on individual predestination and work, the culture and traditions of rest of Europe were shaped by Latin Christianity, with a much deeper sense of social justice, equality and community.  Alain Soral is quite correct when he speaks of an "Old Testament world" which now blends Reformed/Protestant ideology on one side and the rabbinical Phariseic Judaic ideology on the other.  It is no coincidence that we live in an AngloZionist Empire and not a, say, FrancoZionist or HispanoZionist one.]

When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because de Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power).  Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.

But now, what do we see?

Most European economies are undergoing a deep crisis.  I am not talking only about Greece or Cyprus here, I am talking about France, Spain, but also the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Ireland.  Socially, Western Europe has simply added East European immigrants to its already massive amount of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans.  It takes a blind person not to see that the EU is taking water from all sides and is basically sinking.  And it is under such conditions that the EU now gets involved in the Ukrainian mess, as if it did not have enough problems without having a bona fide Nazi regime on its doorstep and yet another tsunami of economic immigrants about to join the Romanians, Latvians, Gypsies, Turks, Algerians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans, Georgians or Albanians already sinking the European boat.

Seriously, how stupid and how blind can on become?!

As for NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force.  This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that.  And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent.  There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay,  admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".  Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down".  Hardly a sign of progress.  NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power.  So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO.  And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it.

[Does anybody remember that NATO once seriously declared that Yugoslav MiG-29s could pose a threat to London (I cannot prove that, but I remember that hilarious claim vividly - the MiG-29 is a light and short-range fighter)?]

Truly, the new Cold War with Russia in Europe has exactly the same function as the Global War on terror worldwide and the War on Drugs inside the USA: to terrify the general public and to justify lavish spending for full-spectrum aggression on everybody, from the average American (War on Drugs), Russia or even Papua New Guinea (GWOT!).

Everybody in Europe knows and understand most of the above.  Many, in fact, understand it all.  And yet nobody does anything about it.  Nothing.  It's like the entire continent is in some kind of catatonic stupor.  Hence the absolutely disgraceful European vote recently at the UN when every single country in Europe (even Greece!!) voted in favor of the Banderastani regime in Kiev with the sole exception of Serbia (Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to have a Serbian president and Belarus is, for all practical purposes, not only part of Russia, but also threatened by the Ukie Nazis)!  And did anybody in Europe protest against this?

How can Europeans make fun of the putative ignorance of history and geography of Americans when they themselves act in a manner so clearly in contradiction with even a basic understanding of these matters?!

Tell me, my fellow Europeans, if Americans are really so ignorant, then how is it that they are running the show in Europe?  How is it that we are their colony and not the other way around?  Might that have something to do with the fact that when they were our colony they rebelled and kicked us out while we seem unable to return them the favor?!

And if Europeans lack the courage of Americans, why can't they at least speak up and protest, you know, like Soviet dissidents did?  Like Alain Soral does today?

To me the answer is sadly obvious: Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity.  They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes".  Listen to Malcolm X himself speak about this, listen carefully, and ask yourself this basic question: is there a single word spoken by X here, just one, which does not fully apply to modern Europeans?  Just one?


Don't Europeans treat their AngloZionists masters *exactly* like the "house Negro" treated his masters?

So my question is this: where are the European "field Negroes"?

So yes, I am disgusted with Europe and its politicians.  And I am disgusted with the deafening silence of the my fellow Europeans.  I find no excuse for it.  If African slaves could rise up against their masters, how is it that Europeans seem to have this special fondness for their current overlords?

There is one final question I need to address here: what about Russia?  Is it part of Europe?

I did write about the history of Russia in past posts (see here, here and here) and I cannot repeat it all here.  I will say that the only part of the Russian society which has had a deep attraction for western Europe has always been either the reactionary nobility or the liberal elites. For the vast majority of Russian people, even today, the people of the Caucasus or Central Asia are far closer culturally than western Europeans and their central European friends.  The only exception to this are the Serbian people who have always been close to Russians (the Russian Tsar Alexander III once said to the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas he was "the only true, faithful and sincere ally Russia had in Europe".  Little has changed since).  But for the rest of Europe?  Forget it.

Are there still "wannabe Europeans" in Russia? Sure!  First, the group which I call "Atlantic Integrationists".  Then the eternal bane of Russia: its liberals.  Then most oligarchs (they love capitalism).  Finally, the same kind of folks as we see in the Ukraine today: those who associate Europe with a high standard of living and halfway decent cops.  Toss in a hodgepodge of homosexuals dreaming of living in Holland, potheads (also dreaming of Amsterdam), the many admirers of European architecture, entrepreneurs who are fed up with the dysfunctional and corrupt Russian legal system, members of West European branches of Christianity and a few others groups and you definitely get a pro-European constituency in Russia.  But ask yourself - what do most of these groups and people have in common?  What did reactionary aristocrats and liberal revolutionaries also have in common?  The answer is simple: they simply don't like Russia.  Oh sure, they will deny that, but if you dig just a tad deeper you will see that they like "a Russia" which never existed and which they aspire to bring about.  But they never liked the real Russia, the only one which really exists.  This simple truth - that these liberal "reformers" actually always hate the real Russia - is one truism with many Russian intellectuals and leaders have repeated many times, from Dostoevsky, to Solzhenitsyn to Putin today.  And over and over again, people like Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn and Putin are the type of people which inspired the Russian masses to support them, because these masses always felt, almost instinctively, that pro-Western folks are always deeply alienated from them while leaders like Putin are true Russians who love Russia for what it is, not what it should be.

This being said, history and geography have linked Russia to Europe and in that sense, Russia will always be part of Europe.  This is what Putin - and others - mean when they say that Russia will always be part of Europe: they mean that because Europe has had a huge, and sometimes even positive, impact on Russia and because it is simply impossible to build a real "Iron Curtain" which would exclude Russia from the future of Europe.  There are many in central Europe - Poles in particular - who would deny their own eastern and Slavic roots and who would love to see a huge wall cutting Poland forever off its eastern neighbors.  I suppose that if these folks had magical scissors they would simply cut out Poland and move it to, say, southern France (there is a myth that France and Poland are particularly close whereas in reality the only thing binding these two countries together are their Masonic loges).  Ditto for the Balts who would gladly move to somewhere along the Norwegian border.  So when Putin says that "Russia will always be a part of Europe" he is trying to remind these folks that magic scissors do not exist and that no matter what, Russia will have influence and say in the future of Europe.  I am sure that Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn would agree.

But it is one thing to be aware of history and geography and quite another to make fundamental civilizational and development decisions.  The "Eurasian Sovereignists" are not dreaming of magic scissors to relocate Russia to the South Pacific or the Indian subcontinent, they simply believe that Russia has to invest its energy and efforts towards developing the immense human and natural resources of the Russian East and North and that for historical, cultural and religious reasons Russia can find much better friends and allies in Asia than in Europe.  I have to say that I completely agree with this vision.

Europe has become a continent whose leaders can openly votes in support of a vicious and openly neo-Nazi regime in Kiev without any backlash at all.  The EU will send the Banderists in Kiev money which it denies to the Greeks, and these same Greeks then vote in support of the Banderists.  Judging by the amount of laws passed in EU countries to ban racism, revisionism, negationism and even Fascism or National-Socialism one could get the mistaken impression that racism is frowned upon in the EU.  This is not so.  That only applies to anti-Jewish racism.  But anti-Russian racism is actually the official order of the day, and it enjoys a consensus support from the European elites.

So I sincerely ask you all, my friends and readers, what shall Russia do in response to that?  Pretend like this is not happening?  Try to shame Europeans into realizing what they have done (like Lavrov has been trying so many times)?  Does it not make sense for Russia to follow a simple course: try to avoid as best can be any wars or confrontations with the West (and that will be decided by the USA anyway) and turn towards the South, East and North for its future?

Honestly, what is the very bust Russia can hope for on its western borders?

The Saker