|
Who Lost In Ukraine?
Who has lost in the tussle about the Ukraine?
Consider the money:
The EU has provided Ukraine with €13.8 billion ($19.1 billion) in grants and loans since 1991. Aid from the International Monetary Fund, and from individual governments that include the U.S., pushes the total well over $30 billion. On top of that, Ukraine has received massive aid from Russia in the form of discounted natural gas—a subsidy totaling $200 billion to $300 billion since 1991, says Emily Holland, a specialist on energy policy in the region
With unfriendly relations of the coup government with Russia the Russian subsidies are likely to stop. That is an extra $20-30 billion hole in an already deep in debt yearly budget. And no, shale gas will not save the Ukraine.
No one will be willing to fill the Ukrainian deficit. It will now have to default.
Then consider these questions about the outcome:
Is Ukraine more united? more democratic? richer? Is NATO stronger? more attractive? How about the EU? Does it look like a good bet for the future? Are Washington-EU relations stronger? Is Russia weaker? divided? poorer? Putin less popular? Do the people of Western countries think their leaders are smarter, more competent, more electable than they did a month ago? Do people believe their media outlets? […] And they just keep digging their hole deeper.
The result of the neocon meddling in Ukraine has created, as usual, a terrible mess for the “west” and even more so for the Ukrainians. Is there any way to prevent a repeat of such misdeeds?
Re-posting my post with a bit of added info:
I’ve been reading the many threads here at MoA about the coup in Ukraine and
here as elsewhere in the alternative media/blogosphere, I detect this
ridiculous hysteria about “Nazis”. YAWWWNNN, everyone, whether on the ‘left’ or
‘right’, when desiring to make a point, drag in the nazi boogeyman.
Who are these nazis? Are they people like “Delta”, Ukrainian Jewish commander of a Ukrainian street-fighting unit and former IDF Givati brigade soldier?
The jewish Telegraphic Agency, JTA, has reported that ‘Delta’ “has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces.” As for the “Nazi” Svoboda; “As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests. “I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their
team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’ he said. “What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any]
anti-Semitism issue.”
Check out the article here
Odd, eh? Not really. The puppet the neocons installed as ‘prime minister’, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is a Jew and has been working closely with (Svoboda’s)Tyahnybok, the ‘nazi’. Yatsenyuk has appointed as Dnepropetrovsk governor a Jewish oligarch named Igor Kolomoysky, who is a Israeli national.
Turchynov was made the acting President of Ukraine. Also has close relations to
the neocons through a church where he is a pastor or something.
The “Church” ‘The Word of Life’, reports Bollyn, ‘is a Zionist organization posing as a church. It was established by a Swedish Jew named Ulf Ekman, who created a church called “Livets Ord”, which established evangelical churches throughout the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s with the express purpose of finding and funding Jewish emigration to Israel.’
So instead of wasting time on ‘nazi’ scarecrows, one should be able to clearly see that one of the main driving forces – I’d say the main one- pushing events in the Ukraine are the neocons.
Of course there are also others, like old Polish fart, Brzezinski and his disciples.
A ‘cold war warrior’ and an ethnic Pole, the guy hates Russia with a passion(old hatreds from the old world). There we see the overlapping interests of Zbig and his people with those of the neocons. Now, Neoconservatism is a Jewish political and intellectual movement. Main themes are Israel and ‘what’s good for the jews’.
Secretary of State John Kerry (Kohn) appointed as his Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Jewish Neocon Victoria Nuland (Nudelman). The woman is married to Robert Kagan, of the neocon Kagan clan. Robert, Fred, and their father, Donald Kagan, were the founders of the ‘Project for a New American Century’, which pushed for war against Iraq during the Clinton and Bush administrations. And got it!
Nuland has spent the better part of her tenure so far shuttling back and forth to Ukraine in order to overthrow the moderately(if even that) pro-Russian president and install someone more conducive to Jewish/Zio interests.
WHY are the neocons so hostile towards Putin and Russia? Part of the answer is the
Jewish oligarchs. Former CIA analyst Philip Giraldi wrote:
“The sustained pressure on the Ukraine over the past several months has likewise
been remarkable and, under other circumstances, it would all be difficult to explain but for the fact that it and Russia are essentially two halves of one policy that is being orchestrated by the same group of neoconservatives, some of whom have now, fortuitously enough, attached themselves to the party in power in the White House, which is the Democrats.[…]Like her husband, Nuland, backed by the White House and politicians including
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, is consistently hostile to Moscow, possibly because the neocon world view favors the predominantly Jewish oligarchs who looted the Russian economy before being brought to heel by Putin.”
For example, when Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Jewish oligarch and former head of Yukos, was put in jail, A-grade-neocon Richard Perle led the charge against Putin, calling for the ouster of Russia from the G-8.
The other MAIN REASON for such neocon hostility, is obviously Russia’s support of Iran and Syria, IsraHells perceived enemies.
Soraya Ulrich has also added a gas pipeline angle to the neocons wet dreams in Ukraine.
She writes:
“especially in light of the fact that Israel is poised to play a huge role in eliminating Europe’s reliance on Russian gas and supplying Europe with gas it has stolen from the Palestinians – and Syrians.
Or as the New York Post put it last month: “Israel’s fortune is Putin’s horror”
She refers to an article by David Wurmser, ‘The Strategic Impact of Israel’s Export of Natural Gas’.
he writes “Israel and its neighbor now sit atop roughly two years’ worth of European consumption”. He further suggests “even modest amounts of Israeli gas exports can carry significant strategic leverage”. Wurmser opines that “The short-term inflexibility of gas trade and the difficulty of replacing disrupted supply also imply that energy prices for consumers and revenues for suppliers can be easily manipulated by marginal increases or decreases.”
Citing Europe’s gas vulnerability, Wurmser posits “Europe’s grim reality could represent a unique window of opportunity for Israel to nail down
long-term agreements and align export policy with a broader effort to reset Israeli-European relations.”
Now I say;
Does anyone here think if Russia was controlled by the Israel Lobby and Jewish interests as much as ZUSA is, this s**t would be happening??
Posted by: Luca K | Mar 22 2014 21:26 utc | 50
Posted by: Nora | Mar 22, 2014 2:52:53 PM | 9
Nora
“Perhaps we’ve all been looking at this a bit awry? Or, at least at this point, maybe we’d be better off not thinking of Neoconsevatism, Neoliberalism, Zionism, American Exceptionalism et. al. as separate faiths or clubs, each with their own dogma, articles of faith, behavioral requirements or whatever. Maybe those exclusions have become more or less irrelevant at this point?”
At the top these distinctions can be irrelevant. Though the zionist fanaticism is real in some quarters and in some areas they do unify in purpose, even if in other areas they do not, more than any other interest group among the western oligarchs. But as for the neolibs and neocons, this is more on the policy wonk level. The policy wonks work out strategy, the oligarchs pick and choose what of it they want to use, or which people to entrust with carrying it out. They make the decisions, the policy wonks are employees.
It is a mistake to assign western actions in the Ukraine to a group of policy wonks because it is the whole western establishment that is behind this sort of major campaign, such as the coup in the Ukraine, or the terrorism against Syria, the beginnings of similar in Venezuela, the Iraq and Afghan wars and so on. All these actions have been done by the oligarchs, with input from various policy wonks on what would be the best strategy.
This is the reason I singled out that line in the header article for questioning. Neither Brzezinski nor Soros are in the neocon “camp”. Brzezinski is a policy wonk, retired but still very influential, but he isn’t zionist and doesn’t seem to particularly welcome zionist interference in his planning. Russia and eastern Europe is his special field, so he, or his “apprentices” are heavily involved in the take down of the Ukraine.
Soros is an oligarch, like a Saban or Rockefeller, an equal, not an employee, like Brzezinski, and is publicly known for being opposed to neocon strategy, though not their goals, and similarly, a loyal zionist. He has been one of the most influential, if not the most influential heavies behind the eastern European coups, and he and his people are no doubt very heavily involved in the Ukraine now.
Both Brzezinski and Soros, and their people, are probably closer to the real driving force behind this Ukrainian coup, than the neocons. They have the experience. The neocons are a sideshow to take the heat and provide the media with their “celebrities”. That seems to be their usual role. Essentially political “performance artists”, since their “strategies” tend to mimic the fantasies of freshman college students who have not discovered the other sex yet.
What is really harmful about blaming the neocons for the coup in the Ukraine is that it lets the people above the neocons (in the western capitalist food chain) off the hook. As the neocons are minor players, the major instigators remain free to continue as before. Yank the neocons out of the picture, the coup against the Ukraine would have still happened, and would follow along the same general path. There would be different players in front of the media, the theatrics would be different (maybe worse, maybe better) and some tactical moves would therefore be changed, but the overall program would be as before.
Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 22:42 utc | 70
|
