“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone
knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”
Alan Greenspan
War-for-oil, or more precisely, power projection to preserve the petrodollar,
is realpolitik.
Per capita energy usage in the United States is the highest among all nations of the world. The USA
consumes 25% of would energy resources while having only 5% of the population. Approximately half of
the energy used in the US is electrical energy generated by coal-fired power plants. The other
part is oil that is mainly imported.
Securing uninterruptable supply of oil became the key task of the USA foreign policy since president
Carter. The second important goal is maintaining dollar as the world primary reserve currency,
and, especially, the main currency you can buy oil with. That includes maintaining the stability
of client Arab regimes, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Oil Wars
Recently the USA waged several "oil wars" (Iraq war, Libya war, Syria war, attempt of "color
revolution" in Russia) with the most brutal being the Iraq war. The two main messages from the war
in Iraq are:
If you repeat a boldfaced lie frequently enough, it will someday become accepted truth.
The bolder is the lie, the better. This is the same idea that was first revealed to the world by
doctor Goebbels.
Saving face is much more important than admitting a mistake, no matter how destructive the outcome.
Manipulating the facts became the norm for the Bush administration, which invaded Iraq on what we
know now (and the administration almost certainly knew then) were utterly false pretenses. Thanks to
these lies, Americans, including our soldiers and civilians serving in Iraq, were killed or injured.
Links to the 9/11 attacks and the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, two of the ever-evolving
reasons for getting into the war were blatantly false from the very beginning. They were fabricated
to achieve specific goals. Engaging in mass deception in order to justify official policy both
degrades the society, so the war has had a detrimental effect on the USA, as a society. It just has
shown that elites now are audacious enough to throw out even attempt to present their actions as legitimate
of serving national goals. Of course, by far, it is ordinary Iraqis who have suffered the most.
We know now beyond any doubt that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction.
But as Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst with the Iraqi portfolio, wrote on March 14,
“Intelligence did not drive the decision to invade Iraq – not by a long shot, despite the
aggressive use by the Bush administration of cherry-picked fragments of intelligence reporting in
its public sales campaign for the war.”
Indeed, this was a war for oil from the very beginning, and any little lie would have worked.
It is very fortuitous for all those politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats with Iraqi blood
on their hands — Republicans and Democrats both — that the only courtroom they’ve been shuffled into
is the court of public opinion, where most received light sentences. Bush II actually was reelected
for the second term.
Indeed, the Iraq war boosters are still a fixture on our television screens.
Dan Senor,
who served as a spokesman for the U.S occupation authorities and willfully misrepresented events
on the ground during that time, is a regular commentator on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” a veritable roundtable
of Washington establishment punditry.
Kenneth Pollack, a longtime Brookings fellow and CIA analyst who wrote the 2002 book The
Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (which is barely mentioned today on the Brookings
website), is a familiar face on the commentary circuit and among think tank salons.
Ex-Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, who each left their most recent posts in disgrace,
are raking in thousands of dollars for speeches, lectures, and consulting work.
Sure, there are pundits and reporters who admit they wrongly supported the war, but their regrets
are usually reserved for their blind faith in the war planners and their own lack of inquisitiveness.
For example, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius confessed in a March 21 column that Iraq
was one of “the biggest strategic errors in Modern American history.” But the thrust of his own
mea culpa was that he did not write enough “on the overriding question of whether the war made
sense,” which would have allowed him to see that the U.S was not strong enough nor flexible enough to
succeed.
Rarely do pundits apologize for the horrendous Iraqi losses inflicted by the war: more than a million
deaths and millions more wounded with varying lifelong disabilities, including thousands of tortured
prisoners, with an estimated
16,000 of them still unaccounted for. Twenty-eight percent of Iraqi children suffer from post-traumatic
stress disorder, and 2.8 million people
are still internally displaced or living as
refugees outside the country.
Add to that the complete destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure outside oil sector, as well as its
transportation, education, and medical institutions. Don’t forget the countless people suffering from
trauma and depression, sectarian war with daily killings, terrifying birth defects from toxic pollution,
and a brain drain that has left the country illiterate.
Not since the American Civil War has the U.S citizenry had to endure such horrors. Yet discussion
of these repercussions is noticeably absent as we still struggle to understand the scope of the Iraq
war and what all of its lies have wrought.
Let us start with a sincere apology to the Iraqi people for the crimes the U.S. government has committed.
A long-range plan for restitution is a second step. Empires decline due to moral decay from within.
Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, our nation is looking at the moral abyss. If lies have delivered
us to this place, then only the truth will begin our journey back.
Because it was marked "confidential" on each page, the oil industry stooge couldn't believe the
US State Department had given me a complete copy of their secret plans for the oil fields of Iraq.
Actually, the State Department had done no such thing. But my line of bullshit had been so well-practiced
and the set-up on my mark had so thoroughly established my fake identity, that I almost began to
believe my own lies.
I closed in. I said I wanted to make sure she and I were working from the same State Department
draft. Could she tell me the official name, date and number of pages? She did.
Bingo! I'd just beaten the Military-Petroleum Complex in a lying contest, so I had a right to
be chuffed.
After phoning numbers from California to Kazakhstan to trick my mark, my next calls were to the
State Department and Pentagon. Now that I had the specs on the scheme for Iraq's oil – that State
and Defense Department swore, in writing, did not exist – I told them I'd appreciate their handing
over a copy (no expurgations, please) or there would be a very embarrassing story on BBC Newsnight.
Within days, our chief of investigations, Ms Badpenny, delivered to my shack in the woods outside
New York a 323-page, three-volume programme for Iraq's oil crafted by George Bush's State Department
and petroleum insiders meeting secretly in Houston, Texas.
I cracked open the pile of paper – and I was blown away.
Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to buy up
its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the neo-cons true
casus belli: Blood for oil.
But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil". Much, much
worse.
The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline & Scenario Analysis:
"...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship with OPEC."
Gas wars
EuroMaidan can be considered to be a proxy "gas war" when the USA hides behind Ukraine far right
to fight Russia and EU. See
Well, there is a plan BRICS - or so the BRICS nations would like to think, at least. And when
the BRICS do act in this spirit on the global stage, they quickly conjure up a curious mix of fear,
hysteria, and pugnaciousness in the Washington establishment.
Take Christopher Hill as an example. The former assistant secretary of state for East Asia and
US ambassador to Iraq is now an advisor with the Albright Stonebridge Group, a consulting firm deeply
connected to the White House and the State Department. When Russia was down and out, Hill used to
dream of a hegemonic American "new world order". Now that the ungrateful Russians have spurned what
"the West has been offering" - that is, "special status with NATO, a privileged relationship with
the European Union, and partnership in international diplomatic endeavors" - they are, in his view,
busy trying to revive the Soviet empire. Translation: if you're not our vassals, you're against
us. Welcome to Cold War 2.0.
The Pentagon has its own version of this directed not so much at Russia as at China, which, its
think tank on future warfare claims, is already at war with Washington in a number of ways. So if
it's not apocalypse now, it's Armageddon tomorrow. And it goes without saying that whatever's going
wrong, as the Obama administration very publicly "pivots" to Asia and the American media fills with
talk about a revival of Cold War-era "containment policy" in the Pacific, it's all China's fault.
Embedded in the mad dash toward Cold War 2.0 are some ludicrous facts-on-the-ground: the US government,
with $17.5 trillion in national debt and counting, is contemplating a financial showdown with
Russia, the largest global energy producer and a major nuclear power, just as it's also promoting
an economically unsustainable military encirclement of its largest creditor, China.
Russia runs a sizeable trade surplus. Humongous Chinese banks will have no trouble helping Russian
banks out if Western funds dry up. In terms of inter-BRICS cooperation, few projects beat a $30 billion
oil pipeline in the planning stages that will stretch from Russia to India via Northwest China.
Chinese companies are already eagerly discussing the possibility of taking part in the creation
of a transport corridor from Russia into Crimea, as well as an airport, shipyard, and liquid natural
gas terminal there. And there's another "thermonuclear" gambit in the making: the birth of a
natural gas equivalent to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that would include
Russia, Iran, and reportedly disgruntled US ally Qatar.
The (unstated) BRICS long-term plan involves the creation of an alternative economic system featuring
a basket of gold-backed currencies that would bypass the present America-centric global financial
system. (No wonder Russia and China are amassing as much gold as they can.) The euro - a sound currency
backed by large liquid bond markets and huge gold reserves - would be welcomed in as well.
It's no secret in Hong Kong that the Bank of China has been using a parallel SWIFT network to
conduct every kind of trade with Tehran, which is under a heavy US sanctions regime. With Washington
wielding Visa and MasterCard as weapons in a growing Cold War-style economic campaign against Russia,
Moscow is about to implement an alternative payment and credit card system not controlled by Western
finance.
An even easier route would be to adopt the Chinese Union Pay system, whose operations have already
overtaken American Express in global volume.
Why Energy is Central to the Economy
BC, January 22, 2015 at 6:44 pm
Economics is politics. Politics is war by other means. War is the business of empire (hegemony).
War is good business for imperialists.
Therefore, economics is the intellectual and political rationalization for the business objectives
of imperial expansionism, expropriation, and co-optation of client-states’ elites by means of state
violence when necessary, which is more often than not when resources become increasingly scarce and
the hegemonic frontiers of expansionism are threatened.
Yet, most Americans do not yet perceive the US as an empire (successor to the British Empire),
not surprisingly, which would necessarily require the inference that empires peak, decline, and eventually
collapse, and we have been in relative decline since the 1970s-80s, which most of the working-class
bottom 90% would have to concede were they honest with themselves and their fellows. And, no, McConnell,
Romney, Rubio, Paul, et al., care not about the working-class bottom 90% but themselves and those
deep-pocketed Republicans who cut the largest campaign finance checks.
But one suspects that the 80-90% of the population who were slaves during the Greek city-state
dominance and later Roman Empire neither perceived themselves living in the context of imperial decline
and incipient collapse, as their daily life experience was preoccupied with acquiescing to their
imperial masters’ demands and the imperative to survive and thereafter subsist within their circumstances,
if they/we’re luck . . ., or not.
Same as it ever was . . .
Coilin MacLochlainn, January 22, 2015 at 8:19 pm
Malthus was not wrong, he was right. The reason for that is, the Earth is finite and has limited
resources. The human population has reached 7 billion. If it continues to grow, or even if it doesn’t,
it will exceed the ability of the Earth’s remaining land base to support us.
In fact, it already has. Several of the Earth’s planetary limits have already been exceeded and
we are cannibalising what remains of the Earth’s surviving natural resources just to keep going.
What I mean is, we are using up the very resources that we rely on as a species to survive into the
future. And at the same time, we are making it impossible for much of the rest of life on Earth to
survive, which is why so many species are going extinct now and most will be wiped out before we
are done.
For those of us living in the developed world, it is hard to picture this, because we are living
off the exploitation of resources and labour in less well off countries.
There are also glaring examples of excessive exploitation in the developed world. For example,
in California, which leads the world in the production of almonds, walnuts and pistachio nuts, there
is not enough surface water available to supply the industry and so nut farmers are irrigating their
crops using underground water. With the ongoing drought in California, the underground aquifer is
not being recharged, so it won’t be long before the nut farmers run out of water and the industry
goes bust. It will go bust and it will also leave the aquifer dry, with no possibility of refilling
with water while the drought lasts, which could be for years or forever.
Jan Steinman, January 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm
“Capital is embodied energy.”
Are you talking about physical capital, such as factories, machines, and such?
A lot of very smart people seem to think “capital” is little bits of coloured paper, or even invisible
magnetic bits on a spinning disk. But I think that’s where the second half of your essay (debt) comes
into play.
It would be nice to have some simple term-of-art to distinguish between the two forms of “capital.”
I agree that physical plant is capital. It may even be that, pre-Bretton Woods, money was an adequate
symbol for capital. But it seems to me that there is way more money around than there is physical
capital these days.
garand555, January 21, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Economics is a pseudo-science, at least the way it is practiced.
... ... ...
InAlaska, January 21, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Economists endorsed the idea of globalism after it became apparent that without it, national economies
could no longer grow. Globalization is going to kill us because it removes from local control the
basic production of necessities. Speaking of economics, here is part of a post on The Automatic Earth
from yesterday concerning the Davos crowd and the World Economic Forum:
“When it comes to basic necessities, to food, water and shelter, we shouldn’t strive to compete
with other economies. That is not good for us, or for our peers in those other economies; it’s good
only for those who skim off the top. The larger and more globalized the top, the more there is to
skim off. All the ‘reform’ is geared towards making our economies ever more dependent on the global
economy. And that is not in our best interest.
It’s not all just even about money, it’s about our security, and independence. Everybody likes
the idea of being independent, but at the same time few realize that globalization is the exact opposite
of independence. Global trade is fine, as long as it’s limited to things we don’t need to survive,
but it’s not fine if and when it takes away the ability of a community or a society to provide for
itself.
Protectionism has acquired a really bad reputation, as if it’s inherently evil to try and protect
your community from being gutted by economic ideas and systems it has no defense against, or to make
sure it can generate and provide for its own basics at all times. But that’s just propaganda too.
If our societies are not designed and constructed to provide for themselves, they’ll end up with
no choice but to go to war with each other. Along the same lines, if our societies don’t have strict
laws in place that guarantee we can’t and won’t destroy the natural resources of the land we live
on comes with, we’ll also end up going to war with each other.
We’re not going to solve the Gordian knot of the entire global economy and all the hubris and
propaganda the present leading politicians, businessmen and ‘reporters’ bring to the table. And we
probably shouldn’t want to. Our brains did not develop to do things on a global scale. The clowns
will blow themselves up sooner or later. We should focus on what we can do, meanwhile, in our immediate
surroundings.
And it’s pretty easy from there, really. The economic problems we have are mostly artificial.
They have been induced by the broken economic model the Davos crowd, the central bankers and you
know who else would have us believe is the one and only, and that they are busy fixing for our sake
and greater glory. But they care only about their own glory.”
Gail Tverberg, January 22, 2015 at 8:38 pm
On the other hand, without the growth that was obtained from globalization, the financial system
would have collapsed earlier. So in some sense, we are better off, even if it is not sustainable.
The US started hollowing out its manufacturing not too long after the oil problems of the 1970s.
Japan came first in globalization, before the other Eastern countries.
InAlaska, January 21, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Liquid Assets,
Economists run the Federal Reserve Bank and all the central banks in the world.
How has their “straight thinking” worked out? Has the world ever been in such a fiscal mess before?
How have all of those over-educated PhDs in Economics done better than an Actuary could do?
Economics is the dismal “science” in part because it is predicated on the assumption that their
can be infinite inputs into the system. Before you insult Gail and suggest she get a “real education,”
consider that this whole edifice of “Economics” and endless growth is based on and within a finite
world.
escravaisaurabr, January 22, 2015 at 7:33 am
InAlaska,
Two perceptive posts you wrote. Thank you.
I would like to add this post. I think most of you will appreciate. I sure love this post….
By falak pema
Economics is a means to achieve an end, like language.
So linguists are capable of understanding the logic of communication for DECISION MAKING; whether
it be in words and intellectual concepts or in numbers/statistics and algorithms.
The issue here is that perfect markets like perfect speech do not exist for themselves in society,
except for the “initiated”, but have a different function as a VEHICLE for body politic; which defines
the AIMS and uses the means, all the means : of language as of images and of statistics and mathematical
constructs.
So the thesis of the Mises/Hayek type Shamans that Economia is the “be-all” of society is just
wrong. No more than the works of Shakespeare or Hugo, or of Picasso etc.
They do not define politics and power in society. They may influence it but they don’t define
it’s objectives.
Linguists like economists can add substance to a political construct that defines the power play
in civilization. And in that respect markets are just a means and their perfection as important as
a perfect face on the screen.
All imagery or conceptual work in life is virtual.
It becomes real when it faces the real world of power and its continual balancing act; facts and
irreversible acts that define our future as they have our past.
Chomsky is more relevant today to society than Mises.
The first analyses real political acts and consequences the other confines himself to theoretical
pontification about the real economy looked at through the lens which keeps referring to the mantra
of perfect markets.
Not saying markets are not important just saying they are not ALL important.
For the Mises theory to become reality we would have to live in a perfect “anarchy” state without
government. The last time they wanted the state to “shrivel away” it was called the “ultimate step
of communism” and it parented Stalinism. So…you have to know what you wish for in the REAL world.
History says you are wrong. You keep harping about a system that has gone off the cliff twice
because of market forces being spiraled into Vesuvian eruption under irrational exuberance and greed
and thanks to lack of Government regulation : in 1929 and 2008.
You are into DEEP denial of historical FACTS.
The historical thread shows us neo-feudal oligarchs are just as destructive of wealth creation
as are statist hegemonists.
The only realistic solution is to balance state power and private oligarchy power and make sure
NEITHER is in dominant position by having transparent control of public and private spending and
by ensuring due diligence and SANCTIONS.
Today we have a Mussolinian economy of crony collusion between statists and oligarchs. We
have the worst of both worlds.
We need good state governance and non monopolistic private sector innovative investment, compatible
with “general good”, that does not run us off the cliff in mad speculation nor poison the planet.
The GDP should be run on an equitable basis between both power structures.
Whether this divide is 30/70 or 50/50 between private and public and how its used and how its
controlled and monitored is the role of the Republic. And it should be debated and then voted and
then executed in a legal framework which is NOT CORRUPT.
Порошенко
заявил немцам,
что
строительство
"Северного
потока – 2" не
имеет никакого
смыслаPoroshenko has told Germans that the
construction of "North Stream 2" makes no sense. По его словам,
российский газ
европейцам
гораздо
выгоднее
получать через
Украину, а
новый
газопровод –
лишь
"инструмент
давления" на
Европу According to him, it is much more profitable to send Russian gas to Europe through the
Ukraine, and the new pipeline is just a "tool to pressurize" on Europe
Please help me get even more wealthier, I beg you!
The leader of "Independent" Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, has once again tried to convince
Europeans that they do not need the "North Stream 2", pipeline, which is being constructed on
the bed of the Baltic sea, bypassing the Ukraine
"This pipeline makes no sense from an economic point of view. This is a Russian attempt
to weaken the Ukraine, which previously received about three billion dollars annually for
transit", he said in an interview with German newspaper "Rheinische Post".
According to Poroshenko, "Why spend $20 billion on a pipeline", if his country "has
more than sufficient logistical capacity for the delivery of Russian gas to Europe". He
stressed that "the facts speak against" this project.
The President of the Ukraine has decided to warn his "European friends" that the gas
pipeline "North Stream 2" is "a geopolitical instrument of pressure on Western Europe, and
that the dependence of European countries on gas supplies from Russia is opening up a wide
area for their blackmailing".
Recall, as reported by the website kp.ru previously, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela
Merkel, speaking at a joint press conference with the President of Lithuania, Dalia
Grybauskaite, and the Prime Ministers of the three Baltic State countries, stated the
importance of the "North Stream 2" project for Germany, noting that the need of her contry
for natural gas supplies will only grow.
Put a sock in it, Banderatard. Nord Stream II makes sense merely because it removes the $3
billion per year of transit fees you parasites charge. The Banderatard thinks that everyone
is an innumerate moron.
I notice the estimated transit fees have gone up by almost a billion dollars. I wonder if
they have budgeted in planned increases if they are successful at getting Nord Stream II shut
down. Or were they just low-balling the figures before, like when they were joking about the
planned pipeline and how it would make no difference to Ukraine?
Ignoring reality and focusing just on a comparison of a $3 billion recurring expense versus a
$20 billion CAPEX, a ROI of less than 7 years is quite respectable for a major project.
Another landmark for the "Northeastern passage" -- so far only tankers had made the trip
Brendon Petersen
16 hours
ago
|
1,546
5
Explorers and navigators have long searched for a way to move ships through the Arctic Circle as find a faster way
to move goods between the Atlantic and the Pacific without having to go around either Asia or South America.
Groups of people hunted for the fabled Northwest passage through North America for decades. The problem, of
course, is that the Arctic contains too much ice.
Over the past few years, however, ice levels in the Arctic
have been
hitting
record lows
thanks to climate change, and while its effects are almost universally negative, one benefit is
opened northern sea routes. Over the past month, a container ship sailing from Eastern Russia is pioneering a new
Arctic route by
being
the first such ship to cross the Arctic Ocean
.
On August 23, the container ship Venta Maersk left the Russian port of Vladivostok and headed to Bremerhaven in
Germany. Normally, a trip like that would take the Venta Maersk through the Suez Canal on a 34 day trip. Instead,
the ship will sail through the sea north of Russia on a route that will only take 23 days.
Last week, the Venta Maersk passed through the Sannikov Strait, the narrowest and most hazardous part of its
journey, and is expected to arrive in Germany by the end of the week. Once it arrives, it will become the first
container ship to complete a successful route through the Arctic Circle.
We protect the countries of the Middle East, they would not be safe for very long
without us, and yet they continue to push for higher and higher oil prices! We will
remember. The OPEC monopoly must get prices down now!
OPEC does, in fact, control oil supply to a significant extent but that does not necessarily
mean that it is also in full control of the oil prices, Jack Rasmus, a professor of Political
Economy at St. Mary's College of California, told RT, adding that the policies pursued by the
US president himself play a much bigger role in what happens to oil and gasoline prices in the
US.
"The US economy is overstimulated by the Trump $4 trillion tax cuts for investors and
businesses," Rasmus explained, adding that the rising inflation is one of the primary
factors contributing to the oil price surge. Apart from that, Trump's trade war with China and
even with the US allies in the West also drives up the prices, as businesses also have to raise
them to adapt to the tariffs that both the US and its trading partners have imposed
recently.
Trump's sanctions war on Iran also does not make the situation any better. The US sanctions,
which are aimed at bringing Iran's oil exports to "zero," led to a decrease in Iran's
oil sales, thus cutting the supply and driving the prices up. As if it was not enough, Trump's
rhetoric only adds fuel to the fire, according to Rasmus.
"When Trump accuses Iran publicly, it gives the global oil speculators a reason to drive
up the price," he told RT, adding that it is the "global speculators that are driving the
short-term oil prices." "There is a connection between the speculators and Trump policies. When
he makes those statements, it certainly does contribute to the oil prices rise," the analyst
explained.
This rhetoric was more about winning voters' support ahead of the November mid-term
elections than about really remedying the situation in the oil market, Rasmus says. "He is
whipping up his domestic base," the analyst said, adding that "Trump [is] trying to
blame foreigners of all kinds for economic situation in the US."
Trump got elected on a platform of economic nationalism in particular, Rasmus said, adding
that the president now sticks to that narrative and blames foreigners –be they immigrants
or some foreign competitors– for the US' woes. However, this is "another factual
misrepresentation," the analyst said.
As oil prices remain high, prices for gasoline in the US are growing. The average cost of
gasoline has risen 60 percent from $1.87 per gallon in February 2016 to over $3 in
September.
This scenario would leave the US with the main sources of 'low production cost' Middle
East energy in its hands (i.e. Gulf, Iran and Iraqi oil and gas). On the face of this week's
events however, it looks more likely that these resources - or at least, the greater energy
resources of Iran and Iraq - will end up in the Russian sphere (together with Syria's
unexplored Levant Basin prospects). And this Russian 'heartland', energy-producing sphere,
may, in the end, prove to be a more than substantive rival to US (newly emerged as 'the
world's top oil producer') aspirations for restoring its Mideast energy dominance.....
The piece covers both Trump's plans for global energy dominance by taking full control of
middle east oil and also the Trump Kushner moves against the Palestinians.
Russia and the West are facing the worst crisis since the Cold War. According to US Special
Envoy Amos Hochstein, Washington's goal is to reduce Russia's gas market share in Eastern
Europe by 20% by 2020.
Russia cannot be allowed to build a gas pipeline that would bypass
Ukraine, as it would pose a threat to Europe's energy security
Pipeline bypassing Ukraine = threat to Europe's energy security
That is a total non sequitur. Also, Russia is part of Europe. The EU is not the whole of
"Europe". In fact, the EU is not even the EU as evidenced by Hungary and Italy.
And Washington can have Eastern Europe. Go ahead – take them as customers, and sell
them expensive LNG they can't afford. Russia would probably be glad to be shut of Poland and
the Baltics. And having to pay way more for their gas would teach them a lesson. Win/win.
Pipeline bypassing Ukraine = threat to Europe's energy security
That is a total non sequitur. Also, Russia is part of Europe. The EU is not the whole of
"Europe". In fact, the EU is not even the EU as evidenced by Hungary and Italy.
And Washington can have Eastern Europe. Go ahead – take them as customers, and sell
them expensive LNG they can't afford. Russia would probably be glad to be shut of Poland and
the Baltics. And having to pay way more for their gas would teach them a lesson. Win/win.
Doesn't the pipeline via the lo-land of Po-land go via Belarus? Warsaw buying gas from
elsewhere would starve Minsk of transit fees, no? Maybe the idea is similarly to undermine
Belarus and thus impose further costs/indirect sanctions on Russia?
So what does Trump do before the midterms? Live with higher prices? Quietly drop the
sanctions ? Find a way to get Iranian oil on the market while pretending there are sanctions?
Accept the high prices and blame Obama?
Oil price can rise some, now. It's only a month and a half to go. Gasoline stocks are high,
so it will take some trickle down time. Raiding the SPR is overkill.
I'm betting they don't. Saudi production in September is more likely to be down than up. But
if it is up it will only by a tiny amount, not near enough to affect prices. Saudi Arabis is
just not interested in increasing production by any significant amount. They would like to
keep production steady .if possible.
"Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the
turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil
production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference Prices to high! He has
agreed!" the tweet read.
And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going
to do any of that shit." The Saudis, just like Trump's staff, know he is an idiot.
"And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do
any of that shit."
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm. My guess
is that Trump has turned up the heat on Iran because of requests from KSA & Israel.
The USA has been helping MbS with is Yemen war, as well as proxy war in Syria. If KSA want
the US to economically crush Iran, than KSA will need to help but increasing its Oil exports.
Perhaps KSA as some oil stashed in storage that it could release for a short period. My guess
KSA would delay using its storage reserves until there is a price spike that might force the
US to back off on Iran.
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm.
You doubt what happened? The quote was a tweet directly from the President. He sent it out
to the world, you don't need an inside contact to the White House. Trump's tweets go out to
the public.
Yes, it did happen. Of course, the part about what the King did afterward was just
speculation on my part. But he did not increase oil production as Trump requested. That much
we do know.
Not arguing the tweet Trumpet made, but your reasoning that the MbS will ignore the
request.
I am reasonably sure MbS wants the USA to go after Iran, and thus has a motive to try to
comply with Trumpet's request for more Oil. That said, I very much doubt KSA can increase
production, but they may have 50 to 150 mmbl in storage they could release if Oil prices
spike.
FYI:
"Why The U.S. Is Suddenly Buying A Lot More Saudi Oil"
" the Saudis are responding to the demands of their staunch ally U.S. President Donald
Trump, who has repeatedly slammed OPEC for the high gasoline prices, urging the cartel in
early July to "REDUCE PRICING NOW!""
"Saudi Arabia cut last week its official selling price (OSP) for its flagship Arab Light
grade for October to Asia by US$0.10 a barrel to US$1.10 a barrel premium to the Dubai/Oman
average"
So it appears that KSA is trying to comply with Trumpet's request. At least by trying to
lower the oil prices via selling their oil at a discount.
** Note: Not trying to be a PITA, just providing an alternative viewpoint. I do value what
you post. Hope you understand.
So people think that oil production next year will not meet demand. Of course consumption
will equal production, but demand will be higher, and we won't be belabor this further
because the point here is a question above -- how does society react too insufficient oil?
The question is never analyzed in a particular way. It's usually evaluated from the
consumer's perspective. Who does what to get the oil they need. We can imagine they bid
higher, we can imagine that day seize the oil enroute to someone else, and we can imagine a
magical agreement on the part of everyone to stop all economic activity not involved in food
production/distribution to reduce global consumption.
What seldom is described is the decision making process within the leadership of oil
producers and exporters. It seems clear that a sudden awareness of insufficiency would yield
leadership meetings making decisions not about how to distribute more oil to customers, but
rather how to keep the oil for future generations of the producing country, without getting
invaded and destroyed.
One would think that the optimal strategy for a country that has oil is to ally itself
with a military power that can deter invasion by some other military power, without having
the ally's troops actually present on the territory. Or perhaps more effective would be
investing in the necessary explosives or nuclear material for one's own oil fields, and
inform potential invaders that the oil will remain the property of the country whose
geography covers it, or the fields will be contaminated for hundreds of years to deny them to
anyone else.
Clearly this is the optimal path for an oil producer and not seeking some technology that
can allow them to drain the resources of future generations more rapidly now.
So people think that oil production next year will not meet demand. Of course consumption
will equal production, but demand will be higher,
Watcher, I assume you think demand is what people want. But there is no way to measure
what people want but can't afford. So "demand" in that sense has no meaning whatsoever. So
what happens is the price of gasoline, or whatever, rises or falls until supply equals
demand. As prices rise, demand falls and as prices fall, demand rises because people can now
afford it. Therefore demand always equals consumption. Demand is what people buy at the
price they can afford. I wish we had a word for what people want but even if we did there
would be no way to measure it. A poll perhaps?
Estimating demand is essential for a company and can determine its survival. Demand is
dependent on price, so demand estimates are essential for deciding the price of a product.
The curves for price and demand cross at a point that maximizes income.
Demand is estimated statistically (polls sometimes), with models, and expert forecast. It
has a large uncertainty.
"there is no way to measure what people want but can't afford."
That is potential demand at a lower price point. It is estimated in the same way.
Companies decide to lower their prices with hopes to realize that lower-price demand.
"demand always equals consumption."
Exactly. Demand becomes consumption when realized, so it only makes sense to talk about
demand in the future or the present (due to lack of real-time data). It doesn't make sense to
talk about past demand, because it becomes consumption or sales.
There is a numerical measure for how much people want gasoline, regardless of price.
It is the length of the line of cars at the gas station in the 1970s. Demand was measured
in 100s of feet. Price somewhat doesn't matter. If you can't afford it, you put it on a
credit card and then default.
The length of the queue is an interesting metric by which to measure the want that people
have for an item. Nice one. I'm gonna use that. Reminds me of my Dad's old story about lining
up for a week to buy tickets to see The Beatles.
When you are lining up to buy tickets to see the Beatles it might be called a 'Want' or a
'Desire'. However, when it is the line at the soup kitchen it becomes 'Hunger' or
'Desperation'!
And that queue can sometimes feel like a hundred miles
The bigger issue is people, Business, & gov'ts servicing their debt. If the cost of
energy increases, it make it more difficult to service their debt. Recall that Oil prices
peaked at $147 right before the beginning of the 2008/2009 economic crisis. Since then 2008
Debt continued to soar as companies & gov'ts piled on more debt. Debt is promise on
future production. Borrow now and pay it back over time.
I recall the presentation Steven Kopits did about 4 or 5 years ago that stated Oil
production was well below demand. I think real global oil demand was projected to be about
120mmbd back in 2012-2013 (sorry don't recall the actual figures).
I think the bigger factor is how steep the declines will be. Presumably all of the super
giants are in the same shape and likely heavily relied on horizontal drilling to offset
natural decline rates. Presuming as the oil column shrinks in the decline rates will rapidly
accelerate. Most of the Artic\Deep water projects were cancelled back in 2014\2015, and I
believe most of those projects would take about 7 years to complete and need between Oil at
$120 to $150/bbl (in 2012 dollars) to be economical. I am not sure the world can sustainably
afford $120+ oil, especially considering the amount of new debt that has been added in the
past 10 years.
Ron Wrote:
" I wish we had a word for what people want but even if we did there would be no way to
measure it"
Perhaps the word "Gluttony" or the phase "Business As Usual". People don't like change,
especially when the result, is a decrease in living standards.
Being willing to pay more for oil may change who gets it. But it will not alter the fact that
someone who wants oil will not get it. That will be a ripple of market information which will
travel around the world pretty quick, I should imagine!
The vast majority in almost all the places in the world would like to use more oil but their
income is not enough so they end up doing with less. That includes me. Who doesn't want a
bigger faster newer lawn mower, truck, or tractor? What person would not prefer the latest
iphone etc. ? or going on vacation, eating out at high end steakhouses? The main reason they
can't is because it would take more and cheaper oil for them to be able to afford it. Else
they can only try to take it away from someone else? The peak in global oil production/person
happened back in 1979, not because folks were tired of using it all but due to the laws of
physics coming into play.
So there are two 'classes' of 'peak oil'. One class is where oil supply is constrained by
price (throwing more money at production sees an increase in production), the second class is
where oil supply is constrained by physical availability at any price (wave more money at
production, but production cannot increase).
In the first case (price constrained) normal market behaviour will apply – folk pay
more (if they can afford it) to get more.
But in the second case (resource constrained), it does not matter how much is offered,
there is simply no more oil to be had.
With the prevailing declining yields and declining discoveries, are we not in the
transition between these two states – moving from price constrained to resource
constrained? And once we get well into resource constrained, the price a buyer can pay will
determine who gets the remaining available oil, and no amount of screeching and
dollar-bill-waving by those who have missed out will improve the supply situation for
them.
LTO decline rate would be no problem by a conventional / state possessed oil company.
They would have a field with tight oil, and then just equip let's say 20 fracking /
drilling teams and start to produce through their field in 30 or 50 years. They would have a
slow decline by starting at the best location and getting to the worse one, while increasing
experience / technic during the years to compensate a bit.
You have a pretty good argument except for the "30 or 50 years" part. That's where the wheels
fell off your go-cart. Just how large would the tight oil reservoir have to be to keep 20
drilling and fracking units for 30 to 50 years? And if you assume other oil companies are in
that same reservoir doing the same thing? They are going to cover a lot of acreage very fast.
It matters very little. At any time t the available supply is limited and the market price
will determine who gets what is available. Those willing to pay more than others will get the
oil. When we reach a point where no more oil can be supplied at price P, there might always
be some more oil that could be at some higher price P', it is simply a matter of oil prices
reaching the point that there are substitutes that can replace the use of oil in some uses.
Today the biggest use for oil is transport and electricity and natural gas may soon replace a
lot of this use, especially as oil becomes scarce and prices increase.
At $100 to $120/b the transition to EVs could be quite rapid, maybe taking 20 to 25 years
to replace 90% of new ICEV sales and then another 15 years for most of the fleet to be
replaced as old cars are scrapped. So by 2055 most land transport uses for oil will be
eliminated.
The higher oil prices rise, the more incentive there will be to switch to cheaper EVs,
even natural gas will probably not be able to compete with EVs as Natural Gas will also peak
(2030 to 2035) and prices will rise. It will probably be unwise to spend a lot of money for
Natural gas fueling infrastructure, though perhaps it might work for long haul trucking, rail
seems a more sensible option.
Adam Ash Wrote:
"So there are two 'classes' of 'peak oil'. One class is where oil supply is constrained by
price (throwing more money at production sees an increase in production), the second class is
where oil supply is constrained by physical availability at any price (wave more money at
production, but production cannot increase)"
Consider this way:
There is already a huge shortage of $10/bbl oil, and a massive glut of $300/bbl oil. There is
always shortage resources. Price is just a system that balances demand with supply.
Adam Ash Wrote:
"But in the second case (resource constrained), it does not matter how much is offered, there
is simply no more oil to be had no amount of screeching and dollar-bill-waving by those who
have missed out will improve the supply situation for them."
Not exactly. People that can only afford $50/bbl Oil get out priced by people willing to
pay $100/bbl. Supply shifts to the people that can afford the hire price at the expense of
people that cannot afford the higher cost. Higher prices will lead to new production, even if
has a Negative EROEI (ie tar sands using cheap NatGas).
In an ideal world, higher prices lead to less energy waste (flying, recreation boating)
and better efficiency (more energy efficient buildings & vehicles). But I am not sure
that will be the case in our world.
The first to suffer from high energy prices will be the people living in poor nations.
Recall back in 2008-2014 we had the Arab spring when people could afford the food costs, and
started mass riots and overthrough gov'ts. This will return when Oil prices climb back
up.
Its possible that the world make continue to experience price swings, as global demand
struction decreases demand. For instance in July 2008 Oil was at $147/bbl but by Jan 2009 it
was about $30/bbl. I doubt we will see such large price swings, but I also doubt that Oil
will continuously move up without any price corrections.
Realistically we are in deflation driven global economy as the excessive debt applies
deflationary force to the economy. However central banks counter deflation with artificially
low interest rates and currency printing (ie Quantitive Easing). My guess is that
industrialized nation gov't will become increasing dependent on QE and other gimmicks that
lead to high inflation\stagnation.
I think Dennis said some time ago that Saudi's 266 billion barrels of reserves that they
claim was perhaps when they raised P2 reserves to P1 reserves.
Naaaa, that's not where they got it. They still claim 403 billion barrels of P2 reserves
and 802 billion barrels of P3 reserves. And that 802 billion barrels will soon be increased
to 900 billion barrels via enhanced recovery techniques.
This is a good article if you need a good belly laugh today. It is brought to you on the
opinion page of Arab News. Arab News is a Saudi Publication just in case anyone is
wondering. I used to get it in hard copy, free, courtesy of ARAMCO, when I was there.
Saudi Aramco, according to its own records, has about 802.2 billion barrels of oil
resources, including about 261 billion barrels of proven reserves; 403.1 billion of probable,
possible and contingent reserves. The company has produced up to 138 billion barrels of oil
to date out of the 802.2 billion barrels.
It plans to raise oil resources to 900 billion barrels from the 802.2 billion over the
long term as its also plans to increase recovery rate of reserves to 70 percent from the
current 50 percent.
P.S. When I was in Saudi they had a word for this kind of thing. They called it
wasta . Wasta means "deliberate exaggeration" as a way of dialogue. That's just the
way they talk. They don't believe they are lying. They really expect you to know they are
just exaggerating. They don't expect you to take it literally.
Another problem is how much gas for sale the USA actually has? Or they want to resell gas
they buy for Russia Sakhalin? They already did a couple of times.
Oh, please, God, let the USA impose sanctions on European companies in an attempt to stop the
building of Nord Stream II (which, incidentally, has begun and is already underwater).
I can't think of anything more likely to incite European fury against America, and while
we're on the subject, under what authority would the USA fine European companies for not
obeying sanctions imposed by the USA? I can see how they could get away with further
penalizing Russia – they are piggybacking on the Skripal affair, that's why they
pretend so fervently to believe Britain's accusations even though it has offered no proof at
all, just more accusations. The legal instrument it is using is a national-security clause
(big surprise) meant to stop the spread of chemical-warfare threats. But how is it going to
justify imposing a big fine on BASF-Wintershall, for example, and what would it do if the
latter simply said, "Cram it up your chuff!" and refused to pay?
Anyway, the calling-out of Britain's 'evidence' in front of the UN is going to be
extra-special, in that light. Because the Skripal thing is the USA's whole basis for further
sanctions. Without it – if the case is demolished, and I frankly can't see how the UK
government could sensibly respond to all the discrepancies picked up at sites like Slane's
'Blogmire' – they've got nothing; no grounds for further sanctions.
And that was perfectly possible, had it been started years ago, and had the USA come to
Europe with a business plan which answered the question, "What's in it for me?" Everybody in
business likes to make money; it's kind of what keeps business going. And if the USA could
still sell to Europe under those circumstances – because it has a lot of a product it
can sell at a competitive price and still make money – it would still be possible to do
it. The problem there is that the USA cannot sell LNG at a competitive price against pipeline
gas and still make money. A further problem is that in business dynamics, the guy who has
control in a business relationship is the guy who supplies you with a product you can't get
anywhere else at the same or a lower price.
The USA wants the profits realized by selling gas to Europe, and right away, that's not
going to work, because shipborne LNG cannot compete with pipeline gas for price. The USA
would have to sell it for a lot less than it takes to recover and ship it, and it's not
willing to do that because it is contrary to every principle of business. But that's a big
problem, because the profit is actually secondary. What Washington really wants is the power
conveyed by being Europe's main supplier – then it can play energy politics like it
constantly accuses Russia of doing, although actual evidence of Russia threatening to cut off
Europe's gas if it does not, let's say, drop sanctions against Russia, is zip, Nada. No
evidence. But Washington would do it, and you know they would, and so does Brussels. So it is
trying to muscle Europe's main supplier out of the market by coercion, because it can't do it
simply by offering a better price.
Which leaves it in the ridiculous position of arguing, "We should be your supplier instead
of Russia, because ain't we the bestest of friends and allies?", at the same time it is
conducting a trade war for American business advantage and threatening to impose sanctions
against European companies who participate in the pipeline project as investors.
Here we go again with reliable pot-stirrer the UK, in the form of a ruling by the UK Court of
Appeals that Ukraine does have a valid case, after all, of grieving the ordered repayment of $3
Billion it was lent by Moscow after Yanukovych decided to reject the European Association
Agreement, and petitioned Russia for assistance.
Some facts that should be recalled here; Ukraine has to the very best of my knowledge
never paid this debt, although the IMF
grudgingly backed Russia's claim that it was a bilateral loan . Then Ukraine imposed a
moratorium on further payments, trying to squeeze Russia into accepting a 'restructuring' of
the debt, a colourful euphemism for 'write off some of it and give us until forever to pay
the rest', allowing Ukraine to simply roll over its outstanding debt each year and put off
payment until the promised western flood of incredible prosperity finally arrives.
The ever-helpful IMF then rewrote its own laws so that it could continue lending to
Ukraine although it exhibited all the classic symptoms of a bad debtor. Most of us said it
would all end in tears for the IMF, and where is it now, again? How much of that $17 Billion
aid package has been disbursed?
Georgetown University Professor Anna Gelpern offered Ukraine
an out , stating that in her legal opinion, the obligation amounted to 'odious debt',
which consequently did not have to be repaid. Longtime kook Anders Aslund enthusiastically
embraced that view, bleating that really Russia should be repaying Ukraine, for invading and
plundering it.
Let me give you my not-legal opinion; Ukraine does not have a hope of winning this case.
The UK is just trying to help it kick the can a little further down the road, and put off
repayment for another year or two while the courts wrangle the issue out all over again, and
lawyers pocket hefty fees. It also serves the British hobby of sticking its thumb in Russia's
eye every chance it gets to do it. The money is probably not a big issue to Russia; it's the
principle, and it would probably suit the Kremlin to duke it out in court again just on the
probability that Ukraine will suffer another humiliating defeat, although that will make no
difference at all to its willingness to pay. I propose, though, another option; one to be
exercised immediately, and one down the road a bit. First, communicate to Kuh-yiv that if it
goes ahead with this, Russia will pull out all foreign investment in Ukraine, immediately and
finally. I personally do not think the economy could sustain that kind of hit, since it is on
life support now. Second, Russia should communicate to Britain that once Brexit becomes
operative, the UK will have to negotiate with Europe for energy supplies and pay their asking
price, since there will be no direct transfers of energy to the UK. That might have been the
case anyway, since to the best of my knowledge no systems serve the UK directly from Russia
except LNG cargoes. But it would not hurt to remind them.
It occurs to me that the west has only itself to blame for Ukraine's current and ongoing
dysfunction and 'cutie-pie' criminality, since the west keeps encouraging it to greater
heights of irresponsibility, covering for it and then rewriting its own rules so that
behaviour previously illegal is magically permissible.
The London High Court is not going to like being reversed; such reversals often do not look
good for the judges, although there certainly cannot be any murmuring of 'political
motivation' here, since the court was most decidedly motivated to rule for Ukraine in the
original judgment if it could. As I said, this is just kicking the can down the road a piece,
and buying time for Kuh-yiv. And that might be a valid strategy, if a burgeoning economy was
about to break free in Ukraine. Is that the case? I'm afraid I don't think so. In fact,
Ukraine is broke and living on handouts, its reserves down to record lows; it doesn't have
the money, so the UK is trying to rig the judgment so as to head off its having to pay, at
least temporarily. More short-term thinking, such as is characteristic of crisis management.
The Appeals Court is likely ruling on a technicality because it believes (or has been
encouraged to believe) it deserves further examination. But, again, I have to believe that in
such a politically-charged case, the court which rendered the original verdict would have
carefully picked over every argument which might have worked in Ukraine's favour, since the
UK was highly motivated to support Ukraine if there were any way it could legally do so. The
efficacy, reliability and non-volatility of Eurobonds is at stake here, and a ruling now for
Ukraine is likely to provoke a drawback from Eurobonds and European financial instruments by
every nation that perceives it is or might one day be perceived as a foe of a Europe still in
thrall to the United States. Russia chose such an instrument precisely because of the high
risk of a Ukrainian default even if Yanukovych had remained in power, and that was a wise
decision to the extent that the west has had to completely rewrite the book in order to
challenge the stratagem. That, too, will play to its great disadvantage down the road, as
every debtor nation has the right of precedent to exercise such options.
The funny thing is that if Europe simply laid out the situation bluntly to Moscow, as an
equal and a respected partner to the deal, and asked for mercy for Ukraine, there is every
chance Moscow would find a way to accommodate, provided it was given due credit for its
magnanimity. Instead, as usual, Europe has gone with a strategy of creating the appearance
that Moscow fucked Ukraine, breaking the law in the process. It will be interesting to see
what Alexander Mercouris has to say about this, and I am sure he will offer an opinion, but
I'm afraid I haven't time now as I have to get ready for work. But I should like to once more
point out that all the advantage lies with Russia here, if it only remains patient and keeps
its temper; it is Russia which is keeping Ukraine alive now, through transit fees and
significant FDI. It can choose to withdraw one at any time it pleases, and the other as soon
as Nord Stream II is completed. The west's attempts to change the beloved 'facts on the
ground' amount to no more than scrabbling at the noose that is tightening around Ukraine's
throat.
"... Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. ..."
Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic
growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political
situation. September 12th, 2018
Despite the Trump administration's "
maximum pressure " campaign targeting the Iranian economy, Iran's crude oil and oil product
revenues
jumped a surprising 60 percent from March 21 to July 23. In addition, figures provided by
Iran's Central Bank show that Iran's revenues from oil sales soared by 84.2 percent over that
same period, setting a new record.
The increased revenues seem to have resulted from a jump in oil prices this year as well as
Iran's high oil export volume during part of that period. Notably, the increased revenues were
reported despite the United States' announcement in May that it
would sanction those purchasing Iranian oil starting in early November, with the ultimate
goal of reducing Iranian oil sales to zero in order to place pressure on the Iranian
government.
The U.S.' efforts have had some noticeable effects on Iranian oil exports, as the country's
exports for the month of August were
significantly lower than those of July. However, the drop has only seen exports fall to
near March 2016 levels , when the U.S. was not pursuing a sanctions policy against Iran and
the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was
in effect.
Further dashing U.S. hopes of crushing Iranian oil exports have been recent announcements
from Iran's top two customers,
China and
India , that they would continue to import Iranian crude despite the looming threat of U.S.
sanctions. India, along with some other countries, has sought " waivers
" from Washington that would allow them to continue to import Iranian oil and avoid retaliation
from the U.S. for a certain period of time.
In addition, the European Union, which had previously joined the U.S. in targeting Iranian
oil exports in 2012, has shown its unwillingness to follow Washington's lead this time around,
openly
vowing to rebel against the U.S. sanctions regimen and increasing the likelihood that
Europe will continue to buy some Iranian oil despite U.S. threats.
Risks for U.S. and
global economies
Another indication that efforts to curb Iranian oil exports are backfiring for the Trump
administration is
the jump in oil prices that has resulted from concerns about the U.S. sanctions on Iran's
oil exports. The increase in oil prices is likely to be felt domestically in the U.S., the
world's largest consumer of oil, potentially posing a political risk to Trump and his fellow
Republicans ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. In addition, further oil price increases
could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate
the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation.
Such concerns have prompted
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to meet his Saudi and Russian counterparts in an effort to
convince those two countries to keep oil output high in order to offset a reduction in future
Iranian oil exports. While Saudi Arabia
has already stated it would increase output, Russia is unlikely to comply, given its
relationship with Iran and Washington's threat to impose new sanctions on Moscow. The U.S.,
Saudi Arabia and Russia
are currently the world's three largest oil producers, accounting for about a third of
global crude oil output.
While the Trump administration may have assumed that U.S. oil producers – and the U.S.
economy in general -- would benefit from the elimination of Iranian oil exports, the growing
rejection of the impending U.S. sanctions by other countries shows that these nations are
unwilling
to pay for more expensive American oil or even Saudi oil,
preferring less expensive Iranian oil despite potential future consequences. Furthermore,
efforts to increase U.S. crude production
have fallen short of government expectations, further complicating the U.S.' efforts to
offset an increase in oil prices resulting from Iranian oil sanctions.
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann's Truth
in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century
Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently
lives with her family in southern Chile.
Below is a New Silk Strategies translation from the Russian site teknoblog.ru .
It is clear from Trump's enthusiastic sales talk to the Polish authorities on July 6, 2017
(as we reported here
) that the centrepiece of Trump's economic policy is LNG exports. The US has no major economic
projects even remotely comparable to China's One Belt One Road initiative, the biggest
infrastructure project in history. But worse, all of the energy companies involved in fracking
are
running in the red with no prospects of ever making profits unless oil prices skyrocket to
new highs and stay there. The wells are short-lived and by the time they are producing
steadily, they are already drying up, necessitating new drilling and more borrowing. Worse,
that big deal with China to sujpply a major portion of their gas needs may be about to fizzle,
thanks to Trump's tough guy act.
In 2016, Henry Kissinger
floated the idea of using Russia to oppose China and shared the idea with an enthusiastic
Donald Trump. Kissinger had entertained this idea in the 1970s as Nixon's national security
adviser. The problem is, the whole notion of granting China "most-favoured nation" status, ie,
doing essentially free trade with it, was based on just the opposite mission of opposing
Russia using China as a club, and both ideas have their die-hard supporters
in Washington. Keen observers know neither approach will succeed. In fact, recently the
National Interest reported that China and Russia are planning joint military drills.
Basra demonstrators, enraged over polluted water and years of extreme neglect, engage in arson to make their point September
9, 2018 12:48 AM (UTC+8) Basra protesters set the Iranian consulate ablaze on Friday night, the latest manifestation of outrage against
influential actors in Basra city, which should be one of the richest in the country with its massive oil reserves and port, but which
has become one of the most decrepit.
More than 18,000 Basra residents have been poisoned by tap water since the start of the month, according to the Basra province
health directorate. Hospitals, inundated with patients, have collapsed under the pressure.
Basra, like neighboring Iran, is majority Shiite. But in recent years, residents have grown hostile toward Tehran over its dominance
of Iraqi affairs, its support for political parties notorious for public waste and its backing of armed factions that enforce themselves
as morality police.
The torching of the Iranian consulate came just 24 hours after the protesters -- ignoring a government curfew -- set fire to the
offices of powerful Shiite political parties and Iran-backed militias that formed the backbone of the paramilitary Popular Mobilization
Units.
The demonstrators did not spare the local government headquarters and provincial council, setting those ablaze as well.
Basra has been roiled by unrest since July, and the latest round of revolt was met with tear gas and live fire. The first week
of September saw nine demonstrators killed and 93 wounded, according to the UN.
The deadly force has only inflamed the movement. Over the past two nights, security evaporated from the streets while the military
kept to the sidelines. Angry groups of youths roamed the city center, demanding revenge for those killed and for years of neglect.
The city appears out of control.
The unrest has put a spotlight on corruption in Iraq's economic capital, just as the Ministry of Oil seeks foreign investment
– including from China – to transform the country from an importer of oil products to an exporter.
Gulf port closed
Demonstrators on Thursday shut down the country's most important port, Umm Qasr.
Basra province is Iraq's only outlet to the sea, and Umm Qasr is just one of five commercial sea ports that serve as the country's
main gateway for basic necessities.
The costly shutdown prompted the minister of transportation to call for restraint via local radio stations.
"Iraq is losing millions," Kadhim Finjan pleaded over the airwaves. The port was eventually reopened Saturday before dawn.
Like the oil fields, these critical hubs have drawn protesters, who see the wealth they create being siphoned off by corruption.
An officer with the port authority, who spoke to Asia Times on condition of anonymity, said it was "impossible" for security
to control the port
The ports – strategically placed on the Persian Gulf – are shared between the political parties, a phenomenon that saps their
revenues and allows goods to enter without passing through customs.
An officer with the port authority, who spoke to Asia Times on condition of anonymity, said it was "impossible" for security to
control the port.
"The political parties treat the ports like their private property. Goods are exempted from controls and inspection, and the taxes
are reduced for traders dealing with the ruling parties," he said.
Before the ports earned the ire of the demonstrations, it was the oil sector.
Basra's 15 oil fields account for nearly 60% of the country's oil reserves. Revenues from the province generate approximately
$60 million daily, or 3.6 of Iraq's total 4.3 million barrels per day.
The government relies on the sector to finance its activities, but only a fraction of the national budget flows back to Basra.
The stark contrast between Basra's oil wealth and the miserable conditions of the population has prompted demonstrators this summer
to organize sit-ins blocking the gates to the oil fields.
In addition to the 15-hour power cuts and filthy drinking water, they are demanding jobs.
Foreign companies operating in Basra are required to hire locals for at least 50% of job posts, and up to 80% depending on the
contract. But those laws are often flouted.
The government has also allowed foreign companies to acquire vast swathes of agricultural lands to be used as oil fields north
of Basra, resulting in the bulldozing of orchards and date palm fields and increased unemployment.
"The oil extracted from our city lands is not beneficial to us," one demonstrator told Asia Times.
"It is better to stop its extraction than have it stolen," he said, blaming the government and foreign companies alike.
According to provincial council member Ahmed Abdel Hussein, half of Basra residents live in poverty.
The government says unemployment stands at about at 7.8%, but academic studies suggest a far higher rate. There are no official
statistics for the province.
Feared militia takeover
The government in Baghdad fears the deteriorating situation in Basra could disrupt oil production.
"The oil companies have been greatly affected by the protests," said Adel al-Thamari, an academic and investment analyst in Basra.
"The workers cannot access the fields because of the closure of roads or closing of entry gates," he told Asia Times, adding that
"the oil companies have reduced the number of foreign experts for fear of their lives and inability to afford high insurance costs."
The decline in production puts the financial burden on Baghdad. "Companies will raise the terms of credit, which means a great
loss for Iraq, which will have to pay compensation to the companies," he said.
Along with the world's major oil companies, hundreds of logistics and security support companies provide operational services
to the fields in Basra. As security deteriorates, they too will have to withdraw. "The withdrawal of these companies would mean production
stops," Thamari said.
The concerns of oil companies go beyond the protests to fears of a militia takeover.
"The army has taken the position of neutrality toward the demonstrations, and the fear is that the Popular Mobilization Units
will deploy. This would cause a further deterioration of security, because the militias have their own internal divisions and such
an escalation could neutralize the official security forces," Thamari said.
"... In return for the EU dropping billions of dollars in penalty fees, GazProm agreed to end limitations on the use of gas purchased by EU members, allow them to re-sell the gas ..."
"... About the Author ..."
"... Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold War ..."
"... Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 ..."
"... Russia's Islamic Threat ..."
"... The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond ..."
Russia has advanced forward in something of a tactical and potential strategic victory in
the Russo-Western gas war. This is a three-party war, with the US, EU, and Russia each
promoting separate interests. It is one sphere where a united West has failed to 'isolate
Russia.' The US seeks move in on the European energy market with LNG supplies and replace
Russian pipeline-delivered natural gas supplies to Europe. Washington is using the risks of
dependence on Russian gas and Russia's 'bad behavior' as leverage in attempting to convince
Europeans to reject Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia is said to be unreliable and prone
to shut off gas supplies to Europe.
Due to past Russian-Ukrainian gas crises, the Ukrainian crisis, and general Russian-Western
tensions, Europe has decided on a gas diversification policy in which each EU member should
have at least three sources of natural gas supply. One additional option that could facilitate
this diversification policy is US liquified natural gas (LNG), but the US is still unable to
supply enough LNG to offset Russian gas supplies that might be rejected by Europe. In the
process, Washington is looking less like a 'team West' player and more like a solely
self-interested power maximizer in European eyes and therefore no more reliable than Moscow. As
a result, Europeans are deciding to stick with the Russians while finding new options in the
east, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is creating competition if not tensions in present
and potential gas transit countries in southeastern and eastern Europe, for example.
The Battle Over Re-Sale: No Victors
One recent battle was largely inconclusive, but if a victor has to be designated it may be
Moscow. In May, the European Commssion concluded a settlement with Russia's Gazprom in May
ending a seven-year anti-trust dispute. In return for the EU dropping billions of dollars in
penalty fees, GazProm agreed to end limitations on the use of gas purchased by EU members,
allow them to re-sell the gas. Some EU members, such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have re-sold or wanted to re-sell gas. Moscow
frowned, for example, on Slovakia's resale of natural gas to Ukraine at cheaper prices than
Moscow sought to charge Kiev.
The agreement will also restrict Moscow's ability to charge
different countries different prices. So EU members in central and eastern Europe can get a
price close to that paid by Germany and appeal to an arbitration court in case of a dispute.
The agreement guarantees Russia's presence on the European gas market at a time when the
latter's reliance on the former has peaked.
The Northern Front: Nord Stream 2
At the same time, the battle over Russia' Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline has heated up.
When it comes on line in 2019, the 759-mile pipeline will carry GazProm natural gas along the
bed of the Baltic Sea to Germany and double the supply Nord Stream pipeline's current annual
capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm). The Trump administration has threatened yet more
sanctions on third-party companies, this time with those that work on the pipeline. The US
sanctions threat is an attempt to promote American LNG interests as well as to protect
Ukrainian interests, though it contradicts the view that Ukraine should eschew its dependence
on Russian gas.
US officials have been hammering home to Europeans the 'Russian threat' in tandem with the
risk of reliance on Russian gas may pose, which will increase with Nord tream 2, but to no
avail. Public opinion is not working in the US favor, with Germans trusting Moscow more than
Washington, despite all the crimes laid at the Kremlin's door by the West. A recent ZDF
Television opinion survey found that only 14 percent of Germans regard the U.S. as a reliable
partner, while 36 percent view Russia as reliable (
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/trump-s-global-disruption-pushes-merkel-closer-to-putin-s-orbit
). Thus, notwithstanding Ukraine, Syria and alleged chemical attacks, Russiagate, and the
Skrypals, GazProm's supplies to Europe have risen to hold nearly 40 percent of its gas market,
growing last year by 8.1 percent last year to a record level of 193.9 billion cubic metres
(bcm).
Nevertheless, with the EU decision, the U.S., Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and others have
stepped up their pressure on Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and other western Eureopean EU
members to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. Germans and other western Europeans are unlikely
to give up the short-term gain of energy security for the US LNG given the higher price and
unproven nature of Washington's numerous allegations against the Kremlin. German officials say
they still have no proof from 10 Downing on Russia's culpability for the Skrypal poisoning so
loudly trumpeted by British PM Theresa May.
One motivation for the Russians in building Nord Stream 2 is to obviate the need to
transport gas through Ukraine, which will hurt Ukraine's own energy supply – given
Ukrainian skimming -- and overall economy beyond the present non-sale of Russian gas to
Ukraine. Another Russian motivation is to avert the unreliable Ukrainians, who have failed to
make payments according to contract in the past causing Russian gas cutoffs to Ukraine and thus
Europe with the resulting crises blamed solely on Moscow. The Trump sanctions threat has put
Germany and the other Nord Stream 2 supporting countries between a rock and a hard place,
between Russia and the US. Therefore, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while supporting Nord
Stream 2, has called for guarantees from Russia that Ukraine will remain a gas transit country.
Ukraine's current contract with Russia ends in 2019 at the very time Nord Stream 2 is to go on
line and the EU has urged re-starting EU-mediated negotiatons now in order to avoid another gas
crisis. Putin agreed to do this at his meeting with Germany's merkel in late May. Nord Stream 2
significantly strengthens Putin's hand in any such talks.
The Southern Front: Turkish Stream, SGC and the Azeri and Bulgarian Factors
Russia is strengtheining its position on the European gas war's southern front by building
the Turkish Stream (TS) gas pipeline to Europe. TS consists of a sea and a land leg. The former
runs under the Black Sea from Russia to Turkey and is built, with Russo-Turkish talks on the
land leg ongoing.
Russia's Turkish Stream is being challenged by the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) backed by
Western powers, including the EU (along with Turkey and Azerbaijan), which sees the SGC as a
means of diversifying from dependence on Russia. Not just Turkey, but Azerbaijan is emerging as
a major player on the EU gas market, with a shift in policy accenting gas supplies to Europe as
well as oil supplies as in the past. The SGC consists of three components: an expanded South
Caucasus Pipeline and the to be constructed Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). TANAP is 51 percent Azerbaijani owned, 37 percent Turkish, and
12 percent belonging to British Petroleum. The SGC will carry Azerbaijani gas through Turkey to
Europe and will be able to supply up to one-third of the gas consumed by Bulgaria, Greece and
Italy ( https://en.trend.az/business/energy/2910573.html
). However, the source of the gas supplying the pipeline demonstrates the limits of Western
attempts to isolate Russia (and Iran). Azerbaijan's Shah-Deniz gas field is co-owned by British
Petroleum (29 percent), Turkey's Turkish Petroleum (19 percent), Azerbaijan's SOCAR (17
percent), Malaysia's Petronas (15 percent), Russia's LukOil (10 percent), and Iran's NICO (10
percent). Moreover, Russia's LukOil is negotiating with SOCAR a stake in Azerbaijan's
second-largest gas field, Umid-Babek, which also includes Britain's Nobel Upstream (
https://newsbase.com/topstories/lukoil-talks-join-umid-babek-project
).
Again the Ukrainian issue is part of the picture here, as a good portion of GasProm supplies
to Bulgaria go through Ukraine. Turkish Stream can replace at least some of that supply should
Moscow decide to entirely avert Ukraine's pipeline system. It is of interest that no one in the
West has offered to include in any of these projects or attempted to fashion a pipeline or
pipeline extension that could link up with the Ukrainian network.
During Bulgarian President Rumen Radev's late may visit to Moscow, Putin reported to Radev
that during his meetings with Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the latter said he would
pose no oppsotion to extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline to Bulgaria. In response, Radev
seemed to suggest making Bulgaria a "a gas redistribution center, a hub" for the Turkish
Stream's supplies further into Europe ( http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57608
).
Moreover, one gets the impression that Bulgaria is wary more about its dependence on Turkey
and Ankara's new offensive energy policy in Europe than on Russia and might help Moscow detour
Ukraine.
In 2015, Erdogan declared a major policy initiative of making Turkey a, if not
the major energy transit hub for supplies heading from the east to Europe.
Russia's
annexation of Crimea could help Russia in its talks both with Erdogan over the Turkish Stream
and pose the threat of undermining the SGC. It may also help Putin deal with Merkel, Kiev and
the EU over the Ukraine pipeline system's future role. Bulgarian President Radev also said in
Moscow that Sofia supports building a direct gas pipeline under the Black Sea to bring Russian
gas to Bulgaria ( https://echo.msk.ru/news/2206394-echo.html ).
The Bulgarian option could be used by Putin to threaten Erdogan with reducing the Turkish
Stream's supplies or abandoning it altogether in favor of a Black Sea Russian-Bulgarian Stream
and to reduce Russia's dependence on Ukraine as well.
Implications
Thus, EU energy diversification policies are transforming Turkey, Azerbaijan and perhaps
even Bulgaria into key players on the southern gas transit front, while Ukraine falters to
Germany, and eastern Europe to Western Europe on the northern front.
Tensions between Ankara
and Sofia on these grounds cannot be excluded, and they could draw in Turkey's semi-ally
Azerbaijan. US, EU, Russian and Ukrainian energy diplomacy is likely not only to be focused on
each other, therefore, but also on Ankara, Baku, and Sofia over the next year.
Unless, the US
can rapidly reduce the cost of extracting and shipping LNG to Europe, it is unlikely to be able
to become a major alternative to these players, and Russia will continue to dominate the
European gas market, with a balance of competition and cooperation with Azerbaijan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014). He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
"... If the reports are true, the situation is an ironic one for Europe: while trying to reduce its dependence on Russian gas it is inadvertently increasing it and is even paying more for it than it would if it bought the extra loads directly from Gazprom. ..."
The documents suggest that a company with US ownership is buying Russian
gas from petrochemical giant Sibur, and then selling it -- at a profit, of course -- to the
European Union, which is in a rush to build as many LNG terminals as it can in a bid to reduce
its dependence on Russian gas.
If the reports are true, the situation is an ironic one for Europe: while trying to reduce
its dependence on Russian gas it is inadvertently increasing it and is even paying more for it
than it would if it bought the extra loads directly from Gazprom.
One might wonder how a U.S. company is able to do business with a Russian one. It's simple:
Wilbur Ross himself said earlier this week that
Sibur is not a subject to sanctions, so for Navigator Holdings and the petrochemical giant,
everything is business as usual.
According to Balmasov, while the number of voyages via the Northern Sea Route so far
this year has been roughly the same as last year, the main difference compared to 2017 is LNG
traffic out of the port of Sabetta, the port that Russia's gas producer Novatek uses to ship
the Yamal LNG cargoes to Europe and to Asia.
Arctic Logistics data compiled by Bloomberg shows that by early July, a total of 34
tankers made the voyage from Sabetta to Europe, and one to the east. Since early July,
another two LNG tankers have shipped the fuel to Asia
In mid-July, Novatek said that it had shipped its first LNG cargoes from Yamal LNG to
China via the Northern Sea Route, with the voyage from Sabetta completed in 19 days, compared
to 35 days for the traditional eastern route via the Suez Canal and the Strait of
Malacca
####
Tut tut! Cannot have LNG going via Russia's northern passage (fnar! fnar!).
Vis ship pollution, why simply hold LNG carriers up to much higher environmental
standards? After all most of them are much newer and are specialist vessels. Or are they
already? Indeed they are, the use of duel-fuel engines that can make use of boil-off:
As of 2005, a total of 203 vessels had been built, of which 193 were still in service.
At the end of 2016, the global LNG shipping fleet consisted of 439 vessels.[3] In 2017, an
estimated 170 vessels are in use at any one time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier#Reliquefaction_and_boil-off
According to WGI, on a typical voyage an estimated 0.1–0.25% of the cargo converts to
gas each day, depending on the efficiency of the insulation and the roughness of the
voyage.[16] In a typical 20-day voyage, anywhere from 2–6% of the total volume of LNG
originally loaded may be lost.[16]
Normally an LNG tanker is powered by steam turbines with boilers. These boilers are
dual fuel and can run on either methane or oil or a combination of both. ..
I love how an eventuality we were all raised to dread – the melting of the polar
ice caps – is now spun as a net positive. Make hay while the sun shines! When life
hands you lemons, make lemonade! Pick your metaphor. We are destroying the planet we live on,
inch by irrecoverable inch, but the merchants of Stay-Positive maintain it is
AWESOME.
I don't know if you heard – probably not, since it was never much of an
international story – but the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals, in a surprise
decision, overturned the government's commitment to the Trans-Mountain pipeline.
Alberta's Rachel Notley reportedly bent spoons with her teeth, since she had just
jubilantly reported that the court challenge by the city of Burnaby (British Columbia) was
defeated. "To date, Alberta has won every case brought against Trans Mountain. Your Alberta
government will not back down until this pipeline is built and the national interest is
secured", she crowed on Twitter; the modern equivalent of a legislature, I guess, since all
politicians who are anybody turn first to Twitter to get their message out.
That one, of course, was "a victory for all Canadians". Except for British Columbia's
crybabies, of course, who did not want to play host to Alberta's tanker armada, considering
Alberta has no seacoast. So you would think she would quietly accept this later decision by
the legal system she purports to revere. Not a bit of it. She immediately withdrew Alberta
from the national climate-change plan, and restarted her rhetoric about cutting off BC's gas
supply.
Get it? When the court rules in Alberta's favour, it is just – the solemn power
of the law makes you want to weep with awe. When it rules against Alberta, it is a clown show
of unevolved primates. That's modern politics.
All this theatre when the completion of the pipeline is inevitable – the very
day, almost to the hour that the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the shareholders of
Kinder-Morgan Canada voted 99% in favour of selling the pipeline to the government of Canada.
So now the government owns it, and although it may be delayed a couple of years, it's down
but not out. Now the government has to re-do its consultations with all the native bands,
this time selling the impression that it is actually listening and the consultative process
is real, and it has to conduct a review of the environmental impact of increased tanker
traffic (which it formerly declaimed as outside its purview). I'd say if there is agreement
on changing some routes and perhaps permissible speed until well offshore, it will almost
certainly pass next time.
@82 There is some logic to the Iranians fielding a jet fighter of any sort, even if it is
based on a relic of the 1970s.
An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets
loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like
an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.
If that is all those Iranians do that then they will have achieved their purpose.
Alternatively, the Israelis could use fighter escorts but then you have to consider that
each escort represents one less bomb-laden F-16 (or, put another way, twice as many
sorties).
Simply put: Absent any Iranian jet fighters then the Israelis can commit ALL of their jets
to the task of bombing Iranian targets, and do so from the very beginning. But once Iranian
fighters are in the mix then the job becomes much harder: the Israelis either have to take
out those jets first before committing to a bombing campaign, or they have to commit half
their force to escort duties from the very start.
Sure, SU-35s would be much better, but an F-5 is still way better than nothing.
You seem ignorant about economic issues. For example, when it comes to natural gas market,
European countries are not in the same boat. Britain and Spain import virtually no gas from
Russia. These countries built lots LNG terminals and import from Qatar.
Germany, Italy and France have a well-diversified supply from multiple sources. The
countries that are truly dependent on Russia are in ex-communist Eastern Europe. They still
rely on a network of pipelines built by USSR, and would go into energy crisis if Russia
suddenly ended supply.
There is no Chinese FDI in Belarus, and in Russia it accounts for 1% of the total FDI.
Nobody is learning Chinese in Russia or Belarus. I don't know what you're smoking.
Your comment implies that people should continue to bang their heads against a wall.
In fact, no one has said NOT to participate in politics. To be effective, it's important
to understand the reality of politics and the power structure.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while
average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination
...
That's why candidates like Ron Paul on the Republican side and Denis Kucinich on the
Democratic side never stood a chance. They made way too much sense; they dared speak truth to
power so they had to be marginalized by their respective parties so no one would take them
seriously. They were literally swallowed up by the duopoly and relegated to
quasi-obscurity.
I would say 'contra-Russia'. Trump is just the current vessel.
Let us not forget, that under the mighty and loved O-bomber, a group of US Senators back
in 2014 made Bulgaria drop South Stream with god knows what threats, whereas Brussels had
previously failed (intentionally?) to do so. Guess who was the lead Senator?
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've suspended
the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with John McCain,
Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further proceedings
will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes anybody
it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no
economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for cheap
energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the thing
with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben Aris,
editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
See, nothing has changed. At least it looks like U-rope has learned its lesson. Not so the
US. Russia hatin' is a too good 'dead cat on the table' to give up.
Underneath everyone's observations/comments lurks the basic question: Why?
Enter the Big Picture provided yesterday by Pepe Escobar who also links to and cites the
controversial Alastair Crooke ideological essay I linked to last week. Part of the Big
Picture is the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire--Full Spectrum Dominance of the
Planet--and its recently published National Defense
Strategy(NDS) related to that goal:
"The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term,
strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist
powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with
their authoritarian model -- gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic,
and security decisions."
Do please note the combination of prevarication with ideology in the above as it's
reflective of the point Crooke tried to make in his piece. A strategy based upon lies to
oneself is a sure recipe for defeat as you're deceiving yourself which violates the first law
of war as pronounced by so many: "All war is based on deception." But then given the
political-economic nature of the USA's Keynesian Militarism, perhaps this deception is aimed
domestically so as to transfer even more tax dollars upwards to the 1%. So, actions must be
closely observed even more than usual.
During the election campaign, it was speculated that Trump's desire to ease tensions with
Russia was a last-ditch gambit suggested by Kissinger to split the Chinese-Russian alliance.
So, Russiagate served to defeat that gambit while pushing China and Russia even closer
together. With the Syrian regime change ploy rapidly being defeated and Ukraine going
nowhere, Deep State planners were left without an oar, so the reversion to Cold War
Russophobia with an occasional bout of Sinophobia thrown in for good measure--neither of
which is any sort of strategy.
Another quote from the NDS:
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive
military
advantage has been eroding."
That was realized before Putin's display of highly advanced Russian weaponry, which was
announced in March, the NDS was released in January. What's amazing is "strategic atrophy"
with budgets beyond $600 billion must mean a massive portion's being wasted--delivered to the
1%--such that it's corruption that's caused the erosion of "our competitive advantage." I'd
opine much of the chaos we see being played-up is done to obscure interpretations like mine
so that even more $$$ can be wasted, although lip service is given to improvements.
So, who/what's really in charge? Big Money rules as it has since the Civil War within the
USA and much earlier when we include London and Amsterdam. Big Money's angry because it's
locked out of BRI, BRICS, EAEU, and developing nations are mostly on to IMF's and World
Bank's disingenuous "development" plans because it abhors the notion that it's not Top Dog.
So, the dollar got weaponized and the Trade and Financial War--the Hybrid Third World
War--was finally begun in earnest after earlier fits and starts. Yet it appears that the
effort will fail since Big Money is finding itself trapped inside a web of its own making
that's based on a fiat currency supported by Junk Economics.
It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out
of the project due to the risk of US sanctions (previously it said Uniper will pull
out sic see link.).* In related news, construction has been started in German waters.
Still silence from Denmark as to whether they will block it or not.
If I were Moscow, I would announce that the pipeline's route will avoid Danish waters and
sit back to see the reaction. Why? Coz you can bet that some will claim it is
punishment/bribe/threat/anti-competitive to Denmark, to whit, Russia can simply reply that
Denmark has XXX days to provide the permits before it is no longer economically feasible for
the route to go through its waters.
What p* me off about the reported 'threat from NSII' and even in articles like the one
above that point out it is in Europe's interest, none of them mention the preceding sabotage
of South Stream II under the mighty Obama and the impact from that led directly to
Nord Stream II.
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've
suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with
John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further
proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes
anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there
is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for
cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the
thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben
Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
Yes kids. Warmonger McCain was at the forefront of getting it killed after interference
from Brussels failed to shift the asshole Borissov's government. So when a European asks
"What has John McCain done for us? , he's already f*ed you over for the benefit of the US
and U-ropean poodle Krazy K**t Klan.
And let's remember what a hard lesson Bulgaria learned from its leap of faith into
Brussels' arms.
On May 30, Bulgarian PM Boyko Borisov met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During
the joint press conference, Borisov apologized to Putin for the failure of South Stream and
for his responsibility in causing the deterioration of relations between the two countries.
Borisov said: "We know about the difficult relations in the past and are grateful to our
colleagues for not being vindictive and the fact that Russian-Bulgarian relations do not
depend on the extent of guilt of some politicians
"I would like to thank President Putin for his attitude once again. I am to blame for
creating certain tensions When it came to the worst and I wanted to talk, my calls were
always answered. And I really accept part of the guilt for those developments."
Putin then added that he regrets that the South Stream project has not been
implemented, since it would have "greatly benefited" Bulgaria.
In response, Borisov blamed the EU of having imposed Bulgaria diktats that other
countries do not respect anyway. Borisov said: "We are the most loyal and the most
disciplined country in the European Union. This is the reason why all the pipelines bypassed
our territory. We hope that today we have redressed an injustice.
Bulgaria stepped up when the European Commission called and got absolutely fuck-all in the
way of thanks or compensation – to the contrary, the decision cost Bulgaria a great
deal of money. Let that be a lesson to other EU countries; Brussels is big on ideas, but it
does not have your back and if your stepping-up causes your country grief and it turns out
you made a terrible mistake, and want to talk about it
There is absolutely nobody else to blame but Borissov himself, a third rate playa .
The position of neither Brussels nor Washington was a surprise at all. They are very well
known quantities. Big surprise. Not.
Borissov vacillated and played the same failed and weak gambit we have seen for years in
the Ukraine. That he is still around as the biggest fish in the local fish shop is that he is
the biggest spineless shit that floats to the surface while the opposition is little more
than useless. That is repeated elsewhere in the neighborhood to various degrees and where it
is not, it's a choice between two sides of the same gangster/clan coin. To misquote Douglas
Adams, So long, and thanks for none of the fish.
Well, I don't think a decision has been made yet. But the consortium has 'applied to
Denmark for an alternate route' – which, since the alternate route would not go through
Danish territorial waters, implies Denmark does not really have any say over it, and is
essentially a challenge to Denmark to either veto the original route on security grounds (you
never know, Putin might hide submarines in it, or Novichok or something) or get on with it.
But Denmark is presented with more or less the Bulgarian Alternative: do Washington's bidding
and get a pat on the head, or defy it and get transit fees.
All the news on the subject that I saw announced that the consortium is 'exploring' an
alternate route. It seems they are still hopeful the original route will be cleared, but are
getting it on the table that denying it will not stop the project.
But of course western 'analysts' continue to squeal that Putin and the Kremlin are using
the Nord Stream II pipeline to 'invade Europe'. Curiously, the same people who once smirked
scornfully that Nord Stream II was not needed because the current pipeline is only running at
half-capacity now claim "even with Nord Stream 2 on line Russia would still need to send
substantial amounts of gas through Ukraine – at least until the upcoming TurkStream
pipeline is also finished." Whoa – wut? Even both legs of Nord Stream running at full
capacity will not be enough? You don't say.
Once again, nobody is forcing Europe to take more Russian gas than it needs, although the
draw-down of domestic supplies suggest it will need more all the time unless 'green energy'
becomes more commercially viable and reliable. Certain players want Europe's gas to go
through Ukraine for two reasons – one, Ukraine badly needs the money from transit fees
to prop up its calamitous economy. Two, it is a ready tickle-trunk of conflict whenever the
west wants to make problems for Russia; presto! Ukraine is in a new fight with Russia over
gas prices, and Europe is trembling with fear that its gas supplies will be shut off.
Here, you numpties – let me solve the problem for you. Soon there is going to be a
perfectly good (according to Ukraine and the west) pipeline network idling without much to
do. Why not let all those competitors Europe is always gibbering about use Ukraine's pipeline
network to send their gas to Europe? They could have the whole thing all to
themselves, completely cutting Gazprom out of Ukraine! What a victory that would be! And they
could pay Ukraine transit fees, saving the day there and bringing enormous comfort to
Ukrainian economists! It's win/win!
See,
this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that
Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty
is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a
realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States
cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high
opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.
Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy
– arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest
economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in
order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of
feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.
Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on
punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy
industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the
other.
In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington
pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of
Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen
then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would
happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an
8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump
government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with
it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European
resolve against the USA.
"... The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests. ..."
The US is prepared to use sanctions to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero, the US
national security adviser, John Bolton, has said.
"Regime change in Iran is not American policy, but what we want is massive change in the
regime's behaviour," Bolton said on a visit to Israel, as he claimed current sanctions had been
more effective than predicted.
Donald Trump took the US out of Iran's nuclear deal with the west in May and is imposing
escalating sanctions, both to force Iran to renegotiate the deal and to end Tehran's perceived
interference in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
Complete removal of Iranian oil from world markets would cut oil supply by more than 4%
probably forcing up prices in the absence of any new supplies.
SNIP
Fuller US sanctions, including actions against countries that trade in Iranian oil are due to
come into force on 5 November, 180 days after the initial Trump announcement to withdraw.
The measures against Iranian oil importers, and banks that continue to trade with the Central
Bank of Iran, will ratchet the pressure to a higher level.
Pompeo has set up an Iran Action group inside the US State Department to coordinate US leverage
on companies and countries that cannot show that their trade, including in oil, has fallen
significantly by November.
Measures may also be taken against firms that insure ships carrying Iranian crude.
It is expected some of the major Iranian oil importers, such as Russia, China and Turkey, will
either ignore the threat of US sanctions, or, possibly in the case of Iraq, Japan and South
Korea, seek exemptions.
China takes a quarter of all Iran's oil exports, and with Chinese banks little exposed to the
US it can avoid the impact of Trump's sanctions.REPLY
I wonder if China could just take all of Iran's oil? I imagine at the right price they
would be happy to do so. China imports about 8 Mb/d, Iran exports about 2.5 Mb/d of oil,
seems possible.
Also note that if this does occur and there is no drop in Iranian output, the impact of
the Iranian sanctions on the World Oil market will be effectively zero.
I wonder what the capacity is of the Chinese and Iranian oil tanker fleet is? If nobody
else will buy it or ship it then the tanker fleet will have to be owned/insured by either
Iran or China.
I'm interested in knowing if Chinese oil tankers are even capable of hauling 2.5 million
barrels a day home from Iran. It seems doubtful that anybody else will be doing it for them.
I can't find much info on the size of the Chinese owned tanker fleet and it's
capabilities.
While US forces have been known to seize North Korean oil tankers hauling Libyan oil, I
find it doubtful that they will seize Chinese ones, for the reason you mentioned; China
punches back. Nothing spells the end of hegemony like getting your ass kicked.
One would assume its easy for the chinese to buy used oil tankers if they offer a bit over
current market prices. This is a very long term conflict, and they could buy tankers,
reregister them Chinese or Iranian or say Russian and start moving that oil.
The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose
main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out
for US interests.
Saudi Aramco, apparently there was an audit of their reserves in preparation for the Aramco
IPO. It says Baker Hughes was involved???
2018-04-29 DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) – An audit of Saudi Aramco's oil reserves – an
essential part of the preparatory work for its planned initial public offering – has
found the state oil giant to have higher reserves than it previously reported, sources familiar
with the matter told Reuters.
Two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the independent external audit has
found the proven oil reserves to be at least 270 billion barrels, which is slightly higher than
the 260.8 billion barrels the company reported in its 2016 annual review.
Dallas-based DeGolyer and MacNaughton, and Gaffney, Cline and Associates, part of Baker
Hughes, are involved in the auditing, sources have said.
Did they pay for the audit? I've found that audits often show the results the customer is
looking for. Its not quite a science. More like a combination of fishing and editing.
"In no way should these results be construed as a true representation of the 'real' ."
au·dit
NOUN
an official inspection of an individual's or organization's accounts, typically by an
independent body.
VERB
conduct an official financial examination of (an individual's or organization's
accounts).
"companies must have their accounts audited"
They audited their books! I have no doubt that they found exactly what Saudi had on
their books. But that is likely to bear no resemblance to what field reserves actually are.
At any rate, it is entirely possible that Saudi could have doctored their books in
anticipation of the audit.
How would one go about actually checking the remaining reserves in Ghawar? Or any of the
other Saudi fields?
Dipstick??🤡 Seriously, they are both oil consulting companies. Hardly an audit.
Just high priced consultants. Key phrase is high priced. Nobody is going to jerk their
consulting license if they accept the high price, and give SA what they want. If SA runs out
of oil tomorrow, the worst that could happen is the companies say, whoops, missed that
one.
it is absolutely clear who is behind the food and medicine boycotts (empty supermarket
shelves), and the induced internal violence. It is a carbon copy of what the CIA under
Kissinger's command did in Chile in 1973 which led to the murder of the legitimate and
democratically elected President Allende and to the Pinochet military coup ; except,
Venezuela has 19 years of revolutionary experience, and built up some tough resistance.
To understand the context 'Venezuela', we may have to look at the country's history.
Before the fully democratically and internationally observed election of Hugo Chavez in
1998, Venezuela was governed for at least 100 years by dictators and violent despots which
were directed by and served only the United States. The country, extremely rich in natural
resources , was exploited by the US and Venezuelan oligarchs to the point that the population
of one of the richest Latin-American countries remained poor instead of improving its
standard of living according to country's natural riches. The people were literally enslaved
by Washington controlled regimes .
A first coup attempt by Comandante Hugo Chavez in 1992 was oppressed by the Government of
Carlos Andrés Pérez and Chavez was sent to prison along with his co-golpistas.
After two years, he was freed by the Government of Rafael Caldera.
During Peréz' first term in office (1974-1979) and his predecessors, Venezuela
attained a high economic growth based on almost exclusive oil exports . Though, hardly
anything of this growth stayed in the country and was distributed to the people. The
situation was pretty much the same as it is in today's Peru which before the 2008 crisis and
shortly thereafter had phenomenal growth rates – between 5% and 8% – of which 80%
went to 5% of the population oligarchs and foreign investors , and 20% was to be distributed
to 95% of the population – and that on a very uneven keel. The result was and is a
growing gap between rich and poor, increasing unemployment and delinquency.
Venezuela before Chavez lived practically on a monoculture economy based on petrol. There
was no effort towards economic diversification. To the contrary, diversification could
eventually help free Venezuela from the despot's fangs, as the US was the key recipient of
Venezuela's petrol and other riches. Influenced by the 1989 Washington Consensus,
Peréz made a drastic turn in his second mandate (1989-1993) towards neoliberal
reforms, i.e. privatization of public services, restructuring the little social safety
benefits laborers had achieved, and contracting debt by the IMF and the World Bank. He became
a model child of neoliberalism, to the detriment of Venezuelans. Resulting protests under
Peréz' successor, Rafael Caldera, became unmanageable. New elections were called and
Hugo Chavez won in a first round with more than 56%. Despite an ugly Washington inspired coup
attempt ("The Revolution will Not be Televised", 2003 documentary about the attempted 2002
coup), Hugo Chavez stayed in power until his untimely death 2013. Comandante Chavez and his
Government reached spectacular social achievements for his country.
Washington will not let go easily – or at all, to re-conquer Venezuela into the new
Monroe Doctrine, i.e. becoming re-integrated into Washington's backyard. Imagine this
oil-rich country, with the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves, on the doorsteps of the
United Sates' key refineries in Texas, just about 3 to 4 days away for a tanker from
Venezuela, as compared to 40 to 45 days from the Gulf, where the US currently gets about 60%
of its petrol imports. An enormous difference in costs and risks, i.e. each shipment has to
sail through the Iran-controlled Strait of Hormuz.
In addition, another socialist revolution as one of Washington's southern neighbor –
in addition to Cuba – is not convenient. Therefore, the US and her secret forces will
do everything to bring about regime change, by constant economic aggressions, blockades,
sanctions, boycotts of imports and their internal distribution – as well as outrights
military threats. The recent assassination attempt of President Maduro falls into the same
category. "
This "Trump vs Davos globalists" theme is unconvincing. Trump actions
are ruthless globalist actions, who wnat to preverse the US status of
superpower at all costs, even by abrogating important treaties.
He might be not a neoliberal globalist thouth -- he does not offere equl
seats on the table to vassals.
Trumpo statement that if Germany buy Russian gas it does not need NATO
is very shroud indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Optics are important and this image captures what both parties wanted to convey. This meeting is the beginning of a shift in the relationship between Germany and Russia for the better. ..."
"... The obvious answer is necessity brought about by pressure being placed on both countries by Donald Trump through sanctions and tariffs and their shared interests represented by the Nordstream 2 pipeline. ..."
"... But, this meeting went far deeper than that, especially since Merkel's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas boldly proclaimed that Europe needs an alternative to the SWIFT system of international electronic payments so as to keep global trade alive while the U.S. further weaponizes the U.S. dollar ..."
"... Why would Merkel allow Maas to state this publicly and why was it picked up by that establishment stenographer The Financial Times ? ..."
"... If Trump's goal, as presented by much of the European press (as presented here by Gilbert Doctorow), is to regain complete subjugation of Europe to American dominance, then this seems counter-productive. ..."
"... SWIFT is the main lever on which much of the U.S.'s sanctions power rests. Because it is through SWIFT that transactions can be tracked, payments halted and fines imposed. That none of this is strictly legal is irrelevant in the game of power-politics. ..."
"... This undermines the EU's credibility at a foundational level. It shows them to be the toothless and, in EU President Donald Tusk's case, witless when faced with opposition to their rule that isn't supported by The Davos Crowd, which Trump most definitely doesn't represent. ..."
"... And I've talked about these in the past. His real goal is the destruction of that post WWII institutional order which in his mind bankrupts the U.S. treasury through massive trade deficits. ..."
"... I said back in June that Trump's leaving the JCPOA was all part of his strategy to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Germany. The Davos Crowd needs that deal to keep the dream of transferring the power of the world back to Europe from the U.S. via cheap, Iranian energy and keep the conflict between Israel/Saudi Arabia and Iran front and center to foment global chaos awhile keeping Russia from getting rich again. ..."
"... It needs that to support the narrative we need NATO to protect us from the inevitable Russian attack after we provoke them into it. This keeps the money flowing through the banks and lobbyists while draining the U.S. dry through the military/industrial complex. ..."
"... And despite relentless Russia bashing since before Trump was elected, the American people overwhelmingly want peace with Russia, not war. ..."
"... By driving a wedge between Germany and the US over NATO and attacking the foundations of the German economy Trump is ensuring the current rapprochement between Germany and Russia? ..."
Vladimir Putin's charm tour of Germany and Austria last weekend is a significant sign of
change to come.
To the U.S. and European press Putin is only a step or two away from Hitler reincarnated
(thanks chiefly to Bill Browder). It serves the purpose of maintaining the post WWII
institutional order.
But, Putin is always nothing but relentlessly patient in his diplomatic efforts, even when
European leaders, like Merkel, treat him and Russia poorly. She is, after all, the leading
mouthpiece and political ally of The Davos Crowd that believes they run the world.
The conduct of his Foreign Ministry under Sergei Lavrov always strikes the perfect balance
between bluntness and diplo-speak.
So, color me surprised when I see the official photos of his meeting with Merkel carefully
framed to paint him in a positive light.
Putin in light blues and grays, Merkel in green, the fountain in the background, leaning in
looking directly at each other and a simple Sunday morning chat.
If I didn't know better I'd be expecting them to share photos of their grandkids, well,
Putin's grandkids anyway.
Optics are important and this image captures what both parties wanted to convey. This
meeting is the beginning of a shift in the relationship between Germany and Russia for the
better.
And the question is why?
The obvious answer is necessity brought about by pressure being placed on both countries by
Donald Trump through sanctions and tariffs and their shared interests represented by the
Nordstream 2 pipeline.
But, this meeting went far deeper than that, especially since Merkel's Foreign Minister
Heiko Maas boldly proclaimed that Europe needs an alternative to the SWIFT system of
international electronic payments so as to keep global trade alive while the U.S. further
weaponizes the U.S. dollar.
The U.S. just seized another $5 billion of Russian 'oligarch' money using Credit Suisse as
its enforcement arm.
SWIFT is the main lever on which much of the U.S.'s sanctions power rests. Because it is
through SWIFT that transactions can be tracked, payments halted and fines imposed. That none of
this is strictly legal is irrelevant in the game of power-politics.
Banks like Credit Suisse can't function without access to SWIFT.
So they will roll over to the pressure. That's why the response from EU leadership to
Trump's abandoning the JCPOA has been far more bark than bite. Because the measures implemented
to protect European businesses from U.S. retaliation against them hold no weight with the
companies staring at billions in losses.
Case in point: France's Total pulling out of a multi-billion exploration deal with Iran.
This undermines the EU's credibility at a foundational level. It shows them to be the
toothless and, in EU President Donald Tusk's case, witless when faced with opposition to their
rule that isn't supported by The Davos Crowd, which Trump most definitely doesn't
represent.
So, again, the question is why?
All of this seems incredibly contradictory, at times even to a jaded and cynical observer
like me. Until you step back for a second and think bigger picture and ask the most important
question of all.
What are Trump's real goals?
It's Good to Have Goals
And I've talked about these in the past. His real goal is the destruction of that post WWII
institutional order which in his mind bankrupts the U.S. treasury through massive trade
deficits.
And in a word that means . NATO.
Trump goal is the dissolution of NATO. He wants it dismantled because it is a massive drain
on our capital base. Building weapons and maintaining bases in Europe is expensive and that
money is needed here. He knows this.
Even the mere hint of this has The Davos Crowd in apoplexy. Hence, the post-Helsinki freak
out. Hence, the drive to impeach him over Stormy Freaking Daniels. It's pathetic.
I said back in June that Trump's leaving the JCPOA was all part of his strategy to drive a
wedge between the U.S. and Germany. The Davos Crowd needs that deal to keep the dream of transferring the power of the world
back to Europe from the U.S. via cheap, Iranian energy and keep the conflict between
Israel/Saudi Arabia and Iran front and center to foment global chaos awhile keeping Russia from
getting rich again.
It needs that to support the narrative we need NATO to protect us from the inevitable
Russian attack after we provoke them into it. This keeps the money flowing through the banks
and lobbyists while draining the U.S. dry through the military/industrial complex.
The problem is that that narrative is garbage. And despite relentless Russia bashing since
before Trump was elected, the American people overwhelmingly want peace with Russia, not
war.
Poland and the Baltics sound like Democrats unhinged hysterical children over the 'threat of
Russian aggression.'
This is why Trump is also pressuring Turkey at the same time. He knows Europe is vulnerable
to Turkey's implosion. Turkey and Germany are major trading partners and the vast bulk of
Turkey's foreign currency exposure is owned by European banks, making them, as
I've said previously, Ground Zero for the debt bomb.
So the final question then is this.
Has this been Trump's goal the entire time? Is this what Trump and Putin discussed behind
closed doors in Helsinki?
The NATO Wedge
By driving a wedge between Germany and the US over NATO and attacking the foundations of
the German economy Trump is ensuring the current rapprochement between Germany and Russia?
Merkel, for her part, has been so terminally weakened by her immigration policy and
strong-armed approach to dissent that this whirlwind weekender by Putin was as much for her
benefit, politically, as his.
The implication being that if Merkel wants to stay in power with her weakening coalition and
poll numbers it's time for her to reverse course. And if that means cozying up to Russia then
so be it.
Merkel will continue to talk a good game about Crimea and Ukraine while Putin will speak
directly to the German people about ending the humanitarian crisis in Syria as a proxy for
ending the threat of further immigration.
This outflanks Merkel's position and undermines George Soros' goals of the cultural
destruction of Europe. At this point, politically, how can Merkel even argue against that
without betraying her true loyalties?
And that's what makes the implications of this Summit-That-Wasn't so interesting.
If this is indeed the case then the future of the world rests on the mid-term elections and
whether Trump is not indicted for having sex with a couple of porn stars.
I almost feel dirty writing that.
* * *
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 155 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.
The antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran sets off a variety of political reverberations
affecting the countries of the Persian Gulf, unsettling the situation between Turkey, Syria,
and Iraq, and entangling Russia and the United States in the ensuring imbroglio.
... ... ...
The role of the Russian Federation cannot be viewed apart from what is happening in the
energy-rich, formerly Soviet Central Asian republics. The so-called -Stans (Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan) are major players in today's energy markets. Whatever
they do, however, cannot be seen as separate from what Russia is doing or from Russia's
intentions. Although some of them, primarily Azerbaijan, have initiated projects that are not
aligned with Moscow's goals, they nevertheless need to behave in ways that do not upset their
powerful northern neighbour on whom they are heavily reliant, to some extent, for their welfare
(due to their dependence on oil and gas pipeline networks).
Politics is therefore deeply intertwined with energy in most of those cases, bringing
diplomacy front and centre as a determinant of behaviour and economic outcomes.
... ... ...
Europe's problem is that, with the exception of North Sea oil and gas, it relies entirely on
imports to provide it with a comfortable level of energy. Thus, events in the Middle East and
the Russian stance toward the continent determines whether it is adequately supplied with
energy or faces shortages.
The deposits in the North Sea have kept some European states (Britain and Scandinavia among
others) well supplied for quite a while. But unfortunately there is a strong suspicion that
these deposits are diminishing at a dangerous rate. As a result Europe will gradually become
dependent on imports from the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, and the Atlantic (Angola,
Brazil, Mexico, and the US). The situation is disquieting since Japan, and more recently,
China, are seeking to buy their own supplies from the same sources.
"...Things started to change after the fracking and shale gas revolution. The United
States suddenly realized that it could not only became absolutely self-sufficient in oil and
gas, but it also emerged as one of the most important exporters to the rest of the
world..."
Ths is factually untrue. The US still depends on crude oil imports to meet its needs. And
if this simple, verifiable fact is misunderstood by the author, then I have to wonder about
the rest of his analysis...
From the middle of the last century to the present, everything has been about oil. The
peak oilers were correct. What they did not consider was the power of debt to hold this whole
thing together long after it should have collapsed. Shale oil is not profitable. That does
not mater as long as debt underwrites the cost of production. What does matter is the rapid
decline rate of shale oil wells. Yes it is true that shale wells are continuing to produce
long after they have reached their peak but it is the volume of production that matters.
If you read the projections put out by the Hirsch Report, the Llyiods Report and the
Bundeswehr Report, things should get interesting in the next couple of years.
"... but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline" ..."
"... Unleashing American Energy ..."
"... American energy dominance, ..."
"... Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ..."
"... "... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. – Just as you want a secure homeland in Israel." ..."
Two weeks ago, we
wrote about how President Trump's foreign policy somehow had 'folded' into
'neo-Americanism', and quoted US Foreign Affairs Professor, Russell-Mead, suggesting that
Trump's 8 May metamorphosis (the exit from JCPOA), represented something new, a step-change of
direction (from his being principally a sharp Art of the Deal negotiator), toward
– pace, Russell-Mead – "a neo-American era in world politics – rather than an
[Obama-ist] post-American one". "The administration wants to enlarge American power,
rather than adjust to decline (as allegedly, Obama did). For now, at least, the Middle
East is the centrepiece of this new assertiveness", Russell-Mead opined, explaining that this
new Trump impulse stems from: [Trump's] instincts telling him that most Americans are anything
but eager for a "post-American" world. Mr. Trump's supporters don't want long wars, but
neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline" .
There is something of a paradox here: Trump and his base deplore the cost and commitment of
the huge American defence umbrella, spread across the globe by the globalists (sentiments
aggravated by the supposed ingratitude of its beneficiaries) – yet the President wants to
" enlarge American power, rather than adjust to decline". That is, he wants
more power, but less empire. How might he square this circle?
Well, a pointer arose almost a year earlier, when on 29 June 2017, the President used a
quite unexpected word when speaking at an Energy Department event: Unleashing American
Energy . Instead of talking about American energy independence , as might be
expected, he heralded instead, a new era of American energy "dominance" .
In a speech "that sought to underscore a break with the policies of Barack Obama", the
FTnotes , Mr Trump tied
energy to his America First agenda..."The truth is we now have near limitless supplies
of energy in our country," Mr Trump said. "We are really in the driving seat, and you know
what: we don't want to let other countries take away our sovereignty, and tell us what to do,
and how to do it. That's not going to happen. With these incredible resources, my
administration will seek not only the American energy independence that we've been looking for,
for so long – but American energy dominance, " he said.
It seems, as Chris Cook explains , that
Gary Cohn, then chief economic adviser to the President had a part in the genesis to this
ambition. Cohn (then at Goldman Sachs), together with a colleague from Morgan Stanley,
conceived of a plan in 2000 to take control of the global oil trading market through an
electronic trading platform, based in New York. In brief, the big banks, attracted huge
quantities of 'managed money' (from such as hedge funds), to the market, to bet on future
prices (without their ever actually taking delivery of crude: trading 'paper oil', rather than
physical oil). And, at the same time, these banks worked in collusion with the major oil
producers (including later, Saudi Arabia) to pre-purchase physical oil in such a way
that, by withholding, or releasing physical crude from, or onto the market, the big NY banks
were able to 'influence' the prices (by creating a shortage, or a glut).
To give some idea of the capacity of these bankers to 'influence' price, by mid –
2008, it was estimated that some
$260 billion of 'managed' (speculative) investment money was in play in energy markets,
completely dwarfing the value of the oil actually coming out of the North Sea each month, at
maybe $4 to $5 billion, at most. These 'paper' oil-option plays would therefore often trump the
'fundamentals' of real supply, and real end-user demand.
'Step one' for Cohn, was therefore, for the US to manage the trading market, both in price
and access – with U.S. antagonists such as Iran or Russia, being able to access the
market on inferior terms, if at all. The putative 'step two', has been to nurse US shale
production, build new American LNG export terminals, and open America to further oil and gas
exploration, whilst strong-arming everyone from Germany to South Korea and China, to buy
American LNG exports. And 'thirdly', with Gulf oil exports already under the US umbrella, there
were then, two major Middle East energy producers beyond the boundaries of cartel 'influence'
(falling more into rival Russia's strategic energy-producing 'heartland'): Iran – which
is now the subject of regime change–style, economic siege on its oil exports, and Iraq,
which is subject of intense (soft) political pressures (such as threatening to sanction Iraq
under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ) to force its
adherence to the western sphere.
What would this Trump notion of energy dominance mean in simple language? The US
– were energy dominance to succeed – simply would control the tap to the economic
development – or its lack thereof – for rivals China, and Asia. And the US could
squeeze Russia's revenues in this way, too. In short, the US could put a tourniquet on China's
and Russia's economic development plans. Is this why JCPOA was revoked by President Trump?
Here then, is the squaring of that circle (more US power, yet less empire): Trump's US aims
for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of the US defence
umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by
ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in
turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. In this way, Trump can
'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony. Military conflict becomes a last
resort.
Senior advisor Peter Navarro said on NPR earlier
this week that "we can stop them [the Chinese] from putting our high tech companies out of
business" and "buying up our crown jewels of technology ... Every time we innovate something
new, China comes in and buys it, or steals it."
Is this then Trump's plan: By market domination and trade war, to prolong America's
'superiority' of technology, finance and energy – and not somehow be
obliged to "adjust to decline"? And by acting in this way, curtail – or at least postpone
– the emergence of rivals? Two questions in this context immediately present themselves:
Is this formula the adoption of neo-conservatism, by the US Administration, which Trump's own
base so detests? And, secondly, can the approach work?
It is not neo-conservatism, perhaps – but rather a re-working of a theme. The American
neo-conservatives largely wanted to take a hammer to the parts of the world they didn't like;
and to replace it with something they did. Trump's method is more Machiavellian in
character.
The
roots to both of these currents of thought lie however – more than partly –
with Carl Schmitt's influence on American conservative thinking through his friend, Leo
Strauss, at Chicago (whether not, Trump has ever read either man, the ideas still circulate in
the US ether). Schmitt held that politics (in contrast to the liberal/ humanist vein) has
nothing to do with making the world fairer, or more just – that is the work of moralists
and theologians – politics for Schmitt, concerns power and political survival, and
nothing more.
Liberals (and globalists), Schmitt suggested, are queasy at using power to crush alternative
forces from emerging: their optimistic view of human nature leads them to believe in the
possibility of mediation and compromise. The Schmittian optic, however dismissed derisively the
liberal view, in favour of an emphasis on the role of power, pure and simple – based on a
darker understanding of the true nature of 'others' and rivals. This point seems to go to the
root of Trump's thinking: Obama and the 'liberals' were ready to trade the 'crown jewels' of
'Our Culture' (financial, technological and energy expertise) through some multilateral
'affirmative action' that would help less developed states (such as rival China up the ladder).
Perhaps such thoughts too, lay behind Trump's withdrawal from the Climate Accord: Why help
putative rivals, whist, at same time, imposing voluntary handicaps on one's own Culture?
It is on this latter, quite narrow pivot (the imperative of keeping American power intact),
that neo-cons and Trumpists, come together: And both also share in their disdain for utopian
liberals who would fritter away the crown jewels of western Culture – for some or other
humanitarian ideal – only to allow America's determined rivals to rise up and overthrow
America and its Culture (in this optic).
The common ground between both currents, is expressed with remarkable candour through
Berlusconi's
comment that "we must be aware of the superiority of our [western] civilisation". Steve
Bannon says something very similar, though couched in the merits of preserving (a threatened)
western Judeo-Christian culture.
This sense of Cultural advantage that must at all costs be recuperated and preserved perhaps
goes some (but not all) way towards accounting for Trump's ardent support for Israel: Speaking
to Israel's Channel Two, Richard Spencer, a prominent leader of the American Alt-Right
(and one component to Trump's base), highlighted the deeply felt
the dispossession of white people, in their own country [the US]:
"... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of
nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should
respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a
white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure
homeland for us and ourselves. – Just as you want a secure homeland in
Israel."
So, can the attempt to leverage and weaponise the American élites' Culture –
through the dollar, and putative energy hegemony, and its hold over technology transfer –
succeed in holding on to American 'Culture' (in the reductionist construct of Trump's base)?
This is the sixty-four thousand dollar question, as they say. It may just easily provoke an
equally powerful reaction; and a lot can happen domestically in the US, between now, and the
November, US mid-term, elections, which might either confirm the President in power – or
undo him. It is difficult to hold to any analytic horizon beyond that.
But a larger point is whilst Trump feels passionately about American Culture and hegemony;
the leaders of the non-West today, feel just as passionately that it is time for 'the American
Century' to yield place. Just as after WWII, former colonial states wanted independence –
so, now, today's leaders want an end to dollar monopoly, they want an opt-out from the global,
US-led order and its so-called 'international' institutions; they want to 'be' in their own
distinctive cultural way – and they want their sovereignties back. This is not just
cultural and economic nationalism, it portends a significant inflection point – away from
neo-liberal economics, from individualism and raw commercialism – towards a more rounded
human experience.
The tide, in the wake of WWII, surely was irreversible then. I can even recall the former
European colonialists subsequently bemoaning their forced withdrawal: "They'll [the former
colonies] regret it", they confidently predicted. (No, they never did.) The tide today runs
strongly too, and has spread, even, to Europe. Where – who knows – whether the
Europeans will have the spine to push back against Trump's financial and trade machinations: It
will be an important litmus for what comes next.
But what is different now (from then), is that currency hegemony, technological prowess, and
energy 'domination', are not, at all, assured to western possession. They are no longer theirs.
They began their migration, some time ago.
"... Trump's US aims for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. ..."
"... "Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000, [Trump's U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market platform." ..."
"... "Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum)." ..."
"... "The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [ military ] was obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet – South Pars. ..."
"... Energy Dominance ..."
"... In the four months since President Trump's announcement, the market strategy developed by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view. ..."
"... Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market, particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry on June 27 th 2017. ..."
"... The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands. However, I see the market rather differently. ..."
"... Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will be positive even in the medium term. ..."
"... This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale contracts). ..."
"... My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad bin Salman." ..."
"... Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite. ..."
"... the U.S. economy becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military, ..."
"... War against King Saud's chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against the U.S. aristocracy's chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia's allies: China, Iran, and Syria) -- seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump's geostrategy. ..."
"... "I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and to count[r]ies around the world. ..."
"... At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table talking about the Paris accord, you can't get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we would go into our bilats and they'd go, how about some of that LNG you've got? How do we buy your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent. ..."
"... We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that they control in the Ukraine. ..."
"... If that was more the reality of Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" policy than just the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump's mere words, then it seems to be -- in the policy's actual intent and implementation -- more like "send more troops in" than "bring the troops home," to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy. ..."
"... In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics' interests. This is the way it's done -- by compromises with each other. ..."
"Trump's US aims for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of
the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial
clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the
energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals.
In
this way, Trump can 'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony [America's
control of the world, global empire]. Military conflict becomes a last resort."
He bases that crucially upon a landmark 6 November 2017 article by Chris Cook, at Seeking
Alpha, which laid out, and to a significant extent documented, a formidable and complex
geostrategy driving U.S. President Donald Trump's foreign policies. Cook headlined there
"Energy Dominance And
America First" , and noted that,
"Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000,
[Trump's U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with
his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan
to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market
platform."
This "global market platform," which had been started months earlier in 2000 by Jeffrey Sprecher , is "ICE,"
or InterContinental Exchange, and it uses financial derivatives in order to provide to Wall
Street banks control over the future direction of commodites prices (so that the insiders can
game the markets), by means of the financial-futures markets, locking in future
purchase-and-sale agreements. It also entails Wall Street's
buying enormous commodities-storage warehouses and stashing them with such commodities - such
as, in that case, aluminum) , and so it influences also the real estate markets, and
doesn't only manipulate the commodities markets. Those vast storehouses (and the operation of
the U.S. Government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to carry out a similar price-manipulation
function in the oil business) are crucial in order for the entire scheme to be able to
function, because without control over the storehousing of physical commodities, such
futures-price manipulations aren't possible. Consequently, ICE couldn't get off the ground
without major Wall Street partners, which are willing to do that. Cohn and Shapiro (Goldman,
and Morgan Stanley) backed Sprecher's operation; and Wikipedia states that,
"Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he
launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the
control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum)."
This is today's financial world -- a world in which billionaires control the future
directions of commodities-prices, and thus manipulate markets, and even determine the economic
fates of nations. It's not the myth of capitalism; it is the reality of capitalism. It
functions by means of corruption, as it always has, but the corrupt methods constantly
evolve.
However, Trump's geostrategy goes beyond merely this, especially by bringing into the entire
operation the world's wealthiest person, the trillionaire King Saud, who, as the sole owner of
the Saudi Government, which in turns owns the world's largest corporation Aramco, which in turn
dominates the oil market and which is also #6 in the natural-gas market (far behind the three
giants, which King Saud is trying to destroy -- Russia, Iran, and Qatar -- so that the Sauds
will become able to dominate even there). Trump's geostrategy ties King Saud even more tightly
than before, into America's aristocracy.
King Saud, as Cook noted, is trying to disinvest in petroleum and reposition increasingly
into natural gas, because outside the United States and around the world, people are seriously
concerned to minimize global warming so as to postpone global burnout from uncontrollably
soaring atmospheric carbon. Petroleum has an even worse carbon footprint than does natural gas;
and therefore natural gas is the world's "transition fuel" to a 'survivable' future, while
solar and other alternatives take hold (even if too late). Despite all of the carbon-fuels
industries' propaganda, people outside the United States are determined to delay global
burnout, and the insiders know this. King Saud knows that his petroleum-laden portfolio will
have to diversify fast, because the long-term future for petroleum-prices is decline. And he
won't be able to control prices at all in the natural-gas business unless he's got America's
aristocracy on his side, in the effort to keep those prices up (at least while the Sauds will
be increasing their profits from natural gas). Unlike his dominance over OPEC, Saudi Arabia has
no such position to control natural gas-prices. He thus needs Wall Street's cooperation.
Cook said:
"The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [
military ] was
obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional
base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet
– South Pars.
Energy Dominance
In the four months since President Trump's announcement, the market strategy developed
by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view.
Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market,
particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the
starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry
on June 27 th 2017.
The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging
global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands.
However, I see the market rather differently.
Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical
demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price
over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of
this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would
not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will
be positive even in the medium term.
This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated
and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar
risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale
contracts).
My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia
and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad
bin Salman."
However, I do not agree with Alastair Crooke's "In this way, Trump can 'bring the troops
home', and yet America keeps its hegemony [America's control of the world, global empire].
Military conflict becomes a last resort." I explained at Strategic Culture on March 25th
"How the
Military Controls America" and noted there that "on 21 May 2017, US President Donald Trump
sold to the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, an all-time-record $350 billion of US
arms-makers' products." This means that not only Wall Street -- the main institutional agency
for America's aristocracy -- and not only American Big Oil likewise, are committed to the royal
Saud family, but U.S. corporations such as Lockheed Martin also are. Vast profits are to be
made, by insiders, in invasions and occupations, just as in gas and oil, and in brokerage.
Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite.
And even if this trend reverses and America's troop-numbers head down, while
the U.S. economy
becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military,
America's military budget is, under Trump, the only portion of the entire U.S. federal
Government that's increasing; so, "Military conflict becomes a last resort" does not seem
likely, in such a context. Rather, the reverse would seem to be the far likelier case.
War against King Saud's chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against
the U.S. aristocracy's chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia's allies: China, Iran, and
Syria) -- seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump's geostrategy.
In fact, on 29 June 2017, when President Trump first announced his "Unleashing American
Energy Event," the President spoke his usual platitudes about the supposed necessity to
increase coal-production, and what he said was telecast and
publicized ; but his U.S. Energy Secretary, the barely literate former Governor of Texas,
Rick Perry, also delivered a speech, which was never telecast nor published, except that a few
days later, on July 3rd, an excerpt from it was somehow published on the website of Liquified
Natural Gas Global, and it was this:
"I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important
American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and
to count[r]ies around the world.
At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table
talking about the Paris accord, you can't get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we
would go into our bilats and they'd go, how about some of that LNG you've got? How do we buy
your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue
for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made
the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the
most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent.
We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by
being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in
particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can
lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that
they control in the Ukraine. That singularly will have more to do with keeping our allies
free and building their confidence in us than practically anything else that I have seen out
there. It is a positive message around the world right now."
If that was more the reality of Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" policy than just
the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump's mere words, then it seems to be -- in the
policy's actual intent and implementation -- more like "send more troops in" than "bring the
troops home," to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military
policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy.
This sounds even better for the stockholders of Lockheed Martin and other weapons-firms than
for the stockholders of ExxonMobil and other extractive firms. On 6 March 2018, Xinhua News
Agency reported that, "U.S.
President Donald Trump's chief economic adviser Gary Cohn has summoned executives from U.S.
companies that depend on aluminum and steel to meet with Trump this Thursday, in a bid to
persuade the president to drop his tariff plan, media reported Tuesday." After all: Goldman has
warehouses full of aluminum, and has the futures-contracts which already commit the Wall Street
firm to particular manipulations in the aluminum (and other) markets. Controlling the
Government so that it does only what you want it to do, and only when you want the Government
to do it, is difficult. In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with
other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics' interests. This is the
way it's done -- by compromises with each other.
"... Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times' ..."
"... I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian ..."
"... Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair. ..."
"... La Libre Belgique ..."
"... "Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people." ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that. ..."
"... Vremya Pokazhet ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news. ..."
"... When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases. ..."
"... By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . ..."
"... Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it. ..."
Reading the tea leaves of the Putin-Merkel meeting
During this past Saturday, 18 August, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brief visit to
Austria to attend the wedding of the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl. Per
the Kremlin, this stop of several hours in the Styrian wine country not far from the border
with Slovenia was a "purely private" side excursion "on the road to Germany" for the state
visit with Chancellor Angela Merkel starting later in the day at the Meseberg Palace, the
federal guest house 60 km north of Berlin.
Journalists were admitted to film the wedding party, including Putin's dance with the 53
year old bride. No questions were taken and no statements were issued by the President's Press
Secretary, who also was present. We know only that on the return journey to Graz airport, Putin
was accompanied by Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Presumably they had some issues to
discuss that may be characterized as official talks.
Prior to their meeting both Putin and Angela Merkel made statements to the press listing the
topics they intended to discuss. We may assume that these lists were not exhaustive. Comparing
their lists, we find that the respective priorities of the parties were in inverted order, with
economic cooperation at the head of Putin's list while regulating the Donbass crisis in Ukraine
was the top concern of Merkel. Moreover, the content of issues bearing the same heading was
very different. Both sides spoke of Syria, but whereas for Putin the issue for discussion is
the humanitarian crisis of refugees, ensuring their return to their homes from camps in
Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by raising funds to repair and replace fundamental infrastructure
destroyed in the war. For Merkel, the number one issue in Syria is to prevent the
Russian-backed Syrian armed forces from creating a new humanitarian disaster by their ongoing
campaign to retake Idlib province from the militants opposed to Bashar Assad.
Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at
all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new
sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both
countries support.
As was explained at the outset, there was to be no press conference or joint statement
issued at the conclusion of the talks. The only information we have is that Merkel and Putin
conferred for more than three hours, which is in itself quite extraordinary and suggests that
some understandings may have been achieved.
In a word, the potentially very important diplomatic developments of Saturday remain, for
once, a state secret of the parties, with no leaks for the press to parse. And yet there is
material here worthy of our consideration. I have in mind the interpretations of what might
transpire before, during and after the events of Saturday in the news and commentary reportage
of various countries having greater or lesser interest in Russian affairs. Indeed, my perusal
of French, Belgian, German, British, American and Russian news media shows great diversity of
opinion and some penetrating and highly pertinent remarks based on different information bases.
This material is all essential if we are to make sense of the behavior of the parties on the
international stage in the coming weeks.
In this essay, I will set out what I have found per country, starting with the least
attentive to detail - the United States - and ending with those who offered the best informed
and most interested reportage, Germany and Russia. I will conclude with my own reading of the
tea leaves.
* * * *
Let us take The Washington Post and The New York Times as our markers for
how US mainstream media reported on Putin's meetings this past Saturday.
On the 18th, The Washington Post carried in its online edition two articles dealing
with the Putin diplomatic doings. "At Austrian foreign minister's wedding, Putin brings the
music, the flowers and the controversy" was written by the newspaper's bureau chief in Berlin,
Griff Witte. It is accompanied by video clips of Vladimir Putin dancing with the bride and
speaking, in German, to the wedding party seated at their banquet table. The journalist touches
very briefly on the main political dimensions of Putin's visit to Austria, including the party
relations between United Russia and the far right Freedom Party in Austria's ruling coalition
which nominated Kneissl for her post, the criticism of Putin's participation in the wedding
coming from the Opposition parties in Austria who see it as a violation of the government's own
ambition to be a neutral bridge between East and West, and the issue of Putin's sowing division
on the continent. The only criticism one might offer is that the article is superficial, that
each of the issues raised deserves in-depth analysis separately.
The newspaper's second article online, which spread its net more broadly and covered the
meeting with Merkel in Germany as well as the visit in Austria, came from an Associated Press
reporter, not its own staff. Here again, the problem is that issues surrounding the meetings
are not more than bullet points, and the reader is given no basis for reaching an independent
finding on what has happened..
The New York Times' feature article "Merkel and Putin Sound Pragmatic Notes After
Years of Tension," also published on the 18th and datelined Berlin was cited by Russian
television news for a seemingly positive valuation of the talks in Meseberg Palace. However,
the content of the article by reporter Melissa Eddy is more cautious, highlighting the pattern
of "conflicts and reconciliations" that have marked German-Russian relations over the centuries
and seeing the present stage not as a warming of relations but instead as reaching for
compromises "on Syria, energy and other key issues while maintaining their differences over
Russia's role in the conflict in Ukraine." She sees the Syrian issue as one where German and
Russian interests may be closest given that refugees from the Middle East are now a German
preoccupation with political weight. The reporter cites several experts attached to well-known
institutes in Germany that are generally skeptical about Russia's intentions. But the end
result is better informed than most NYT reporting on Russia even if it leaves us
wondering what will result from the Saturday diplomacy.
In both mainstream papers there is no attempt to find a link between Putin's two visits on
Saturday.
I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing
to an article in
The Guardian from the 18th entitled "Putin urges Europe to help
rebuild Syria so refugees can return." This piece comes from the Agence France-Presse in Berlin. It is not much
more than a recitation of the lists of topics for discussion that Putin and Merkel issued
before their talks. But the reporter has made his choice for the most important of them, Syria
and refugees.
The French-language press does not seem to have been very interested in Putin's "private"
trip to the wedding of the Austrian foreign minister, but was definitely keen to discuss
Putin's trip to Berlin. On the day preceding the Putin-Merkel meeting, the French press offered
a clear concept of where things were headed. We read in Figaro , "Merkel receives
Putin Saturday to renew a difficult dialogue." A caption in bold just below is more
eye-catching: "While the German Chancellor has become the main opponent to the Russian
President within the EU, the policy of sanctions conducted by Washington has led to a
rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow with regard to numerous issues."
The reporter notes that following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, relations
between the two heads of state had become quite bad and in four years they met only when
obliged to do so during international summits.
"But starting three months ago, their diplomatic exchanges have intensified: in May Angela
Merkel met the chief of the Kremlin in Sochi, Russia. In July, she met the head of the Russian
diplomatic corps, Sergei Lavrov, in Berlin. By inviting Vladimir Putin this time, the German
Chancellor has promised 'in-depth discussions.' "She is pursuing a pragmatic attempt at
normalization of German-Russian relations, because the international realities have changed,'
explains Stefan Meister, director of the Robert Bosch Center for Russia."
And how has the calculus of international relations changed? Both Merkel and Putin are now
facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and
for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir
Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on
Russia relating to the Skripal affair.
"The American policy represents a danger for the Russian economy and a threat to German
interests."
A spokesperson from Merkel's CDU party responsible for foreign policy is quoted on the
possible dangers of secondary sanctions being directed at Germany through the application of US
extraterritoriality against those failing to respect the new sanctions on Russia.
The article explains the issues surrounding the Nord Steam 2 pipeline, and in particular
Trump's hostility to the project for its locking in German dependence on Russian
hydrocarbons.
And the author points to the common interests of Germany and Russia over maintenance of the
Iranian nuclear deal as a factor powering the rapprochement of the two countries. Here again
the common threat is Donald Trump and American sanctions against those companies which continue
to trade with Iran.
The article concludes that divergent views of Russia and Germany over Ukraine and Syria
exclude any breakthrough at the meeting on Saturday. But nonetheless the dialogue that was
lacking these several past years is being recreated.
In its weekend edition issued on 18 August, the Belgian mainstream daily La Libre
Belgique was even more insistent on interpreting the Merkel-Putin meeting as a consequence
of the policies of Donald Trump. Their editorial captures the sense very nicely in its
tongue-in-cheek headline: "Trump is the best 'ally' of Putin."
La Libre sees Vladimir Putin's latest diplomatic initiatives as directly resulting
from the way his host at the White House has annoyed everyone. Moreover, his outreach is
welcomed:
"Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full
advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering
away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for
confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism
will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt
did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people."
The editors point to Turkish President Erdogan's clear signal that he is now
looking for other allies. He has done his calculations and has said he has more to gain with
Moscow than with Washington.'
The editorial concludes that a summit on reconstruction of Syria might even take place at
the start of September between Moscow, Ankara, Paris and Berlin. The conclusion? "Putin has
taken center stage on the chessboard. Thank you, Mr. Trump."
The article filed by La Libre 's correspondent in Berlin, Sebastien Millard, bears
a heading that matches the editorial view of the newspaper: "Merkel and Putin - allies of
convenience facing Trump." The author credits Donald Trump with being the catalyst for the
resumption of dialogue between Germany and Russia; they are telling Washington that they do not
accept its blackmail. He notes that we should not expect any reversal of alliances. There are
too many differences of view between Berlin and Moscow on a variety of issues.
* * * *
The German press paid a good deal of attention to Vladimir Putin's visit to Austria for the
wedding of Foreign Minister Karin Kreissl.
In an article posted on the 16th entitled "Suspicion that Austria is a Trojan horse,"
Die Welt highlighted the negatives of Putin's presence. Quoting an "expert from the
University of Innsbruck" this does not cast a good light on the country. They anticipate
political fall-out. This will impair Austria's ability as chair of the European Council to play
a role of intermediary in the Ukraine conflict. The only beneficiary of the visit will be the
the Russia-friendly be the Russia-friendly Freedom Party. For Putin, being a guest provides him
with the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not isolated but is instead highly welcome in
society of an EU country.
As for the coming meeting with Merkel on Saturday evening, Die Welt in a related
article of the same day lists the issues for discussion. Without taking a position, it cites
experts for and against the Nord Stream II pipeline and other issues on the list.
Welt's report from the wedding party on the 18th was gossipy and unfriendly, comparing it to
a wedding of some European royal family because of the extraordinary guest list that included
the country's chancellor, vice chancellor, and defense minister as well as the head of OPEC
and...Vladimir Putin. With typical German petty financial accounting, they reckon that the 500
police and other security measures needed for the safety of the highly placed guests cost the
Austrian tax payers 250,000 euros.
A separate article in Die Welt deals with Putin's meeting with Merkel at the
Meseberg Palace. The emphasis here is on Merkel's remarks during the Statement prior to the
talks that cooperation with Russia is "vital" to deal with many conflicts globally and that
both sides bear responsibility to find solutions.
The article quotes from the opening statements of the leaders on all the issues in their
list for discussion - Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream II. We are given bare facts without any
analysis to speak of.
The other major mainstream daily Frankfurter Allgemeine in its Saturday, 18 August
edition offered separate articles on Putin's visits to Austria and Germany.
The article on Karin Kneissl's wedding heads off in a very different direction from the
reporting in other media that I have summarized above. FAZ notes that Kneissl is
rarely in the headlines and it asks: who is she? They answer the question with some curious
details. We learn that Kneissl was once active in competitive sports and even now swims a
kilometer every day. For many years she has lived on a small farmstead with a couple of boxers,
two ponies, hens and cats. Each morning her chauffeur takes her and the dogs to her office in
Vienna, to return in the evening. Regrettably, FAZ does not take this curious
biographical sketch further. No connection is drawn between her personality and the Russian
President's acceptance of her invitation to her wedding.
FAZ similarly has chosen to amuse rather than inform in its coverage of the meeting
in Berlin entitled "Sparkling wine in Austria, sparkling water in Meseberg." They comment on
how Putin arrived half an hour late, on how it is hard to see how the meeting could be
characterized as a success. They stress that we know nothing about the content of the
consultations. Then they tick off the opening positions of the sides as set out in their
statements before the talks.
Spiegel online risks more by giving more interpretation and less bare facts. Its
article entitled "Something of a new start" suggests that a rapprochement is underway and that
both Merkel and Putin have a lot in play. Unlike the other German press we have mentioned,
Spiegel sees a direct link between Putin's attending the wedding in Styria and his visit to
Merkel.
Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now
chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right
populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of
Merkel and Putin knows that.
Meanwhile, says Spiegel , Germany also is interested in improving relations with
Russia despite all the controversy, namely due to the growing conflicts with US President
Donald Trump. We don't know the exact content of the talks which were confidential, but there
is some movement now between Germany and Russia.
Spiegel remains cautious. Cordiality does not enter into the relationship. The
parties keep their distance. There is no laughter to lighten the atmosphere. Yet, it concludes:
"The talks have prospects and we can see the wish to make progress through common positions,
and without being silent about contradictions. Diplomatic normality, as it were. A step
forward."
* * * *
If the great bulk of commentary in the West about Putin's diplomatic weekend was reserved
and stayed by the bare facts without speculation, Russian television more than made up for
dryness. I point in particular to two political talk shows which invited a mixture of experts
from different backgrounds.
Let us begin with the show Vremya Pokazhet (Time will tell) on
state television's Pervy Kanal . Their Friday, 17 August program focused on Putin's
forthcoming visit to the wedding 'on the road to Berlin,' which several panelists saw as a
strong signal to Germany that Russ1+
ia had other channels to the EU if Germany refuses to be its intercessor.
The visit was said to be breaking new ground in diplomatic practice. According to panelist
Andrei Baklanov, deputy chair of the association of Russian diplomats, this kind of positive,
human diplomacy is Russia's answer to the negative behavior in international affairs that has
occupied center stage in the recent past - sanctions, fake news, etc. As another panelist
interjected, this is the first time that a Russian head of state attended a wedding abroad
since Tsar Nicholas did so in Germany in 1913.
Baklanov proceeded to provide details about the bride, however, bringing out aspects of her
career that are far more relevant to her attracting the attention of Putin than the
Frankfurter Allgemeine produced. We learn that she grew up in Amman, Jordan, that she
speaks 8 languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Magyar, French, Spanish, Italian, English as well as her
native German. She studied Near Eastern languages in Vienna University, in the Jewish
University of Jerusalem, in the University of Jordan and also graduated from the National
School of Administration in France. She holds a doctorate in law. She is a non-party minister,
which also attests to her generally recognized professionalism. For all of these reasons, she
is a good fit with Putin's determination to find supporters in Europe for investments to
restore Syrian infrastructure and enable the return of refugees.
Sergey Mironov, leader of the socialist party Fair Russia said that despite Merkel's warning
in advance not to expect breakthroughs it is likely progress was made in agreeing how to deal
with US sanctions. This would be tested in the coming days.
As for the link between the visits to Austria and Germany, the representative of a
pro-business party Sergey Stankevich reminded viewers that Germany and Austria are the market
makers in Europe for Russian gas. Nord Stream II gas may land in Germany but a large part of it
will be pumped further to Austria's hub for distribution elsewhere in Europe. Whatever may have
been said publicly, Stankevich believes that Merkel and Putin did agree on many if not all the
subjects named before the start: Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream.
Russian media coverage of the Saturday travels of their President continued on Russian news
programs into Monday, with video clips of Putin dancing at the wedding and speaking alongside
Merkel before entering into their talks at Meseberg Palace.
* * * *
Looking back at the media coverage of Putin's visits to Austria and Germany on 18 August,
and with all due respect to those who opinions are different from mine, I find that the most
helpful for our understanding of the present day international situation were the report and
editorial in Belgium's Libre Belgique and the unruly, risky but at times brilliant
insights on Russian television.
What comes out of this is the understanding that the visits to a wedding in Austria and to
the federal Chancellor outside Berlin were directly linked in Russian diplomatic strategy, that
Russia is playing the Austrian card during the country's six months at the helm of the European
Council in Brussels, that Russia is pushing for a multi-party relief effort for Syria to
facilitate the return of refugees to their home and pacification of the war-torn country. The
web of common interests that Russia is pursuing has at its core the fragility of the current
world order and generalized anxiety of leading countries due to America's aggressive pursuit of
narrow national interest under Donald Trump as seen in his tariff wars and sanctions directed
at friends and foes alike.
Where I differ from the interpretations set out in the foregoing press reports is in my
understanding of what Trump is doing and why.
The nearly universal assumption of commentators is that Trump's policies known as "Make
America Great" are ignorant and doomed to fail. They are assumed to be isolationist,
withdrawing America from the world community.
However, Trump did not invent bullying of US allies. That was going strong under George W.
Bush, with his challenge "you are either with us or against us" when he sought to align the
West behind his invasion of Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council. His
more urbane successor Barack Obama was no kinder to U.S. allies, who were slapped with crushing
fines for violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran, just to mention one way in which they were kept
in line. And the U.S. Congress today is no more reasonable and diplomatic than the President in
the brutal unilateral sanctions it has on its own initiative advocated against not just Russia
but also against Turkey and other states which are not snapping to attention with respect to
purchases of military materiel from Russia.
What made U.S. bullying tolerable before Trump was the ideological smokescreen of "shared
values," namely democracy promotion, human rights and rule of law, that all members of the
alliances could swear to and which set them apart from the still unenlightened parts of the
globe where autocrats hold sway.
In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally
different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He
invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in
principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before
the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a
360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the
small slices we see discussed in the news.
When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what
he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming
more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the
American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas
bases.
The first two presidencies of this millennium undid the country's greatest geopolitical
achievement of the second half of the 20th century: the informal alliance with China against
Russia that put Washington at the center of all global politics. Bush and Obama did that by
inattention and incomprehension of what was at stake. That inattention was an expression of
American hubris in the unipolar world which, it was assumed, was the new normal, not a
blip.
By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not
conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is
not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of
the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of
these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . We see this understanding when he speaks
about looking out for American interests while the heads of state whom he meets are looking out
for the interests of theirs.
In his tweets we find that our allies are ripping us off, that
they are unfair competitors. His most admiring remark about Russia is that it is a strong
competitor. The consistent element in Trump's thinking is ignored or willfully misunderstood in
the press.
Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line
with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it.
Good Optics · about 3 hours ago
This nuanced analysis rings true and speaks to the fact that -
though Trump may not exactly be playing 47D chess - he certainly
does have some good intentions that, left to follow their course,
would have a chance of making the world a better place. But that
will not be allowed to happen by those in the US with firm
commitments to pursue the world's subjugation through any means
possible.
The Cs did tell us that Trump's heart is in the right place, unlikely
though that does appear a lot of the time . . .
Gazprom leads the world in capital expenditure (capex) on global energy projects, by a
wide, wide margin – $160 Billion to be spent on 84 projects worldwide, including Nord
Stream II and Turkish Stream. That's nearly double the spending of its next-closest
competitor, Sinopec, at $87 Billion. Royal Dutch Shell is third, and Exxon a distant
fourth.
If you add Rosneft, that's another $50 Billion in capex for Russia. Odd behaviour for an
isolated country whose economy is in tatters. One whose government debt is 12.6 % of GDP and
declining.
Speaking of government debt, how's that parameter looking for The Exceptional Nation?
Whoa: that's exceptional. Not even much point in expressing it as a percentage of GDP, I
guess.
Just to drive the point home for any who might not have gotten it, Russia –
friendless, alone against the world, and reeling from the bite of American sanctions –
is outspending the USA nearly three to one on global energy investments, although its debt is
a tiny fraction of America's out-of-control spending on other important things, like its
bloated defense budget.
Oh, that's right – Vladimir Putin is a tyrant and a dictator, squeezing the country
dry in neverending pursuit of self-enrichment. I almost forgot.
"Russian influence will flow through that pipeline right into Europe, and that is what we
are going to prevent," an unnamed U.S. official told the
Wall Street Journal just as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chancellor Angela
Merkel meet outside of Berlin on Saturday centered on the two countries moving forward with the
controversial Russian-German Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, but also involving issues from the
Iran nuclear deal to ending the war in Syria.
Intense pressure from Washington is overshadowing the project, construction of which is
already in advanced stages, as
the WSJ cites current and former US officials who say sanctions are under discussion and
could be mobilized in a mere matter of weeks .
These potential sanctions, ostensibly being discussed in response to US intelligence claims
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, could target companies and financial firms
involved in the massive pipeline's construction . This comes after comments from President
Trump at the opening of a NATO summit in July made things uncomfortable for his German
counterpart when he said that Germany is so dependent on Russia for energy that it's
essentially being "held captive" by Vladimir Putin and his government.
"Germany is captive of Russia because it is getting so much of its energy from Russia. They
pay billions of dollars to Russia and we have to defend them against Russia,"
Trump told NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg at a televised opening breakfast.
The pipeline has been opposed by multiple US administrations, who have long accuse the
Kremlin of seeking to accrue political leverage over Europe given the latter's already high
dependence on Russian natural gas. The pipeline has been a frequent talking point and target of
attacks by Trump,
who has threatened to escalate the trade war against Germany going back months if it
supported the construction of the pipeline. US officials have also expressed concern that
Russia will pull pack significantly from delivering natural gas via Ukraine when its Gazprom
tranit contract expires by the close of 2019. Ukraine is currently the chief Russian
natural-gas export point to the EU and depends heavily on levying fees on this trade.
Both Russia and Germany have sought to calm US concerns over the Ukraine issue, with Putin
himself reportedly telling both Merkel and Trump that he is "ready to preserve" gas transit
through Ukraine even after Nord Stream 2 was completed.
US officials speaking to the WSJ , however, downplayed the Ukraine issue, instead focusing
on the urgency of allowing such significant and irreversible Russian economic, political, and
infrastructural inroads into the heart of Europe .
Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, told the
WSJ , "We have been clear that firms working in the Russian energy export-pipeline sector
are engaging in a line of business that carries sanctions risk," -- something which he's
repeatedly emphasized with officials in Berlin. President Trump himself has also reportedly
raised the issue directly with Chancellor Merkel on multiple occasions. But for all the shrill
US media claims that Trump is somehow doing Putin's bidding, the WSJ
has this illuminating line : "Officially, the European Commission, the EU's executive body,
is coordinating the gas-transit talks, but Ms. Merkel also has played a leading role because of
her regular contacts and longstanding relationship with Mr. Putin, European officials say
."
Meanwhile, it appears that Washington has a losing hand even while making threats of
sanctions in an attempt to block the pipeline project.
A European energy executive familiar with the discussions said company representatives had
told John McCarrick, deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Energy
Resources, that the five European companies and Gazprom had already provided €5.5
billion ($6.3 billion) in financing and that the project wouldn't be stopped even if the U.S.
were to impose sanctions .
The Nord Stream 2 project was started in 2015 and is a major joint venture between Russia's
Gazprom and European partners, including German Uniper, Austria's OMV, France's Engie,
Wintershall and the British-Dutch multinational Royal Dutch Shell.
The pipeline is set to run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea - doubling the
existing pipeline's capacity of 55 cubic meters per year, and is therefore critical for
Europe's future energy needs.
Currently, the second phase involves utilizing an existing pipeline already channelling
smaller amount of gas from Russia to Germany. Construction for the second phase started in May
of this year.
"... Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ..."
"... there will be no war and no negotiations ..."
"... carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state ..."
"... Trump's ALL IN CAPS meme ..."
"... This is where Ali Khamenei's stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack? His words make it sound like he is quite certain that there will be no war. How can he be so sure? I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious Russian policy of actively preparing for war since at least 2014 (also see here , here , here , here , here and here ). Of course, Iran has been preparing for war with the US for almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently. I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei's statement (there might be more, of course) ..."
"... Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history. Conversely, while Hezbollah did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale ground offensive. Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that they would end up in disaster. ..."
"... If it weren't for its nuclear arsenal, the US could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country led by ignorant leaders with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces. Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know that top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state's conventional force in the past . In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you. Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger ..."
"... Shaytân-e Bozorg ..."
"... It would be a big mistake to dismiss the US because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy. The truth is that in terms of aggregate national power, the US still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don't include nuclear weapons). Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping: the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Turkish lira , etc.) or how little time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel . ..."
"... As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli "Atlantic Integrationists" continue to try to sabotage (often successfully) everything Putin and his supporters are doing . I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting. ..."
"... So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation, job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?). But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply of Chinese-made US flags to wave! ..."
=>
◄ ► ◄ ❌
► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment
Next New Reply Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text
Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
We can all thank God for the fact that the AngloZionists did not launch a war on the DPRK, that no Ukronazi attack on the Donbass
took place during the World Cup in Russia and that the leaders of the Empire have apparently have given up on their plans to launch
a reconquista of Syria. However, each of these retreats from their hysterical rhetoric has only made the Neocons more frustrated
and determined to show the planet that they are still The Hegemon who cannot be disobeyed with impunity. As I wrote after the failed
US cruise missile strike on Syria this spring, " each click brings us closer
to the bang ". In the immortal words of Michael
Ledeen , " Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show the world we mean business ". The obvious problem is that there are no "small crappy little countries"
left out there, and that those who are currently the object of the Empire's ire are neither small nor crappy.
Having now shown several times that for all its hysterical barking the Empire has to back down when the opponent does not cower
away in fear, the Empire is now in desperate need to prove its "uniqueness" and (racial?) superiority. The obvious target of the
AngloZionist wrath is Iran. In fact, Iran has been in the cross-hairs of the Empire ever since the people of Iran dared to show the
AngloZionists to the door and, even worse, succeed in creating their own, national and Islamic democracy. To punish Iran, the US,
the USSR, France and all the other "democratic" countries unleashed their puppet (Saddam Hussein) and gave him full military support,
and yet the Iranians still prevailed, albeit at a terrible cost. That Iranian ability to prevail in the most terrible circumstances
is also the most likely explanation for why there has not been an overt attack on Iran for the past four decades (there have, of
course, there has been plenty of covert attacks during all these years).
I won't list all the recent AngloZionist threats against Iran – we all know about them. The bottom line is this: the US, Israel
and the KSA are, yet again, working hand in hand to set the stage for a major war under what we could call the " Skripal-case rules
of evidence " aka " highly likely ". And yet, in spite of all this saber-rattling, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has summed
up Iran's stance in
the following words " there will be no war and no negotiations ".
First, let's first look at Iranian rationale for "no negotiations"
The obvious: "no negotiations"
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been very clear in his explanations for why negotiating with the US makes no sense. On his Twitter
account he wrote:
The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain the Iranian position:
Finally, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated his fundamental approach towards the AngloZionist Empire:
The contrast between the kindergarten-level low-IQ bumbling hot air and threats coming out of the White House and the words of
Ali Khamenei could not be greater, especially if we compare the words the two leaders decided to post all in caps;
Trump : To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES
OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS
OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Khamenei : THERE WILL BE NO WAR, NOR WILL WE NEGOTIATE WITH THE U.S..
Notice first that in his typical ignorance, Trump fails to realize that Hassan Rouhani is only the President of Iran and that
threatening him makes absolutely no sense since he does not make national security decisions, which is the function of the Supreme
Leader. Had Trump taken the time to at the very least check
with Wikipedia he would have understood that the Iranian President " carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme
Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state ". It is no wonder that Trump's infantile threats
instantly
turned into an Internet meme !
In contrast, Khamenei did not even bother to address Trump by name but, instead, announced his strategy to the whole world.
Trump's ALL IN CAPS meme
Of course, issuing ALL IN CAPS threats just to be treated with utter contempt by the people you are trying to hard to bully and
having your words become a cause of laughter on the Internet will only further enrage Trump and his supporters. When you are desperately
trying to show the world how tough and scary you are, there is nothing more humiliating as being treated like some stupid kid. Therein
also lies the biggest danger: such derision could force Trump and the Neocons who run him to do something desperate to prove to the
word that their "red button" is still bigger than everybody else's.
ORDER IT NOW
It is important to note here that making negotiations impossible is something the Trump administration seems to have adopted as
a policy. This is best illustrated by the conditions attached to the latest sanctions against Russia which, essentially, demand that
Russia admit poisoning the Skripals. In fact, all the western demands towards Russia (admitting that Russia is guilty for the Skripal
case, that Russia shot down MH-17, that Russia hand over Crimea to the Ukronazis, etc.) are carefully crafted to make absolutely
sure that Russia will not negotiate. The sames, of course, goes for the ridiculous
Pompeo demands towards the DPRK
(including handing over to the US 60 to 70 percent of its nukes within six to eight months; no wonder the North Koreans denounced
a "gangster-like" attitude) or the latest US grandstanding towards Turkey. Sadly, but the Neocon run media has successfully imposed
the notion that negotiations are either a sign of weakness, or treason, or both. Thus to be "patriotic" and "strong" no US official
can afford to be caught red-handed negotiating with the enemy of the day.
Under these conditions, why would anybody want to negotiate with the US?
Frankly, the "no negotiations" approach makes perfectly good sense, and while the Iranians are the only ones who have openly said
so, the Russians have hinted to the same on many occasions (see their words about the US being "non-agreement capable" or about US
diplomats confusing Austria and Australia). To any objective observer it should by now be completely obvious by now that a) the US
cannot negotiate (due to intellectual, cultural and political limitations) and b) the US has no desire to negotiate. This is, of
course, a highly undesirable and dangerous situation, but it would only make things worse to pretend that civilized negotiations
with the US are possible.
So, if both sides agree on "no negotiations", what about war?
The not so obvious: No war?
This is where Ali Khamenei's stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean
that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack? His words make it sound like he
is quite certain that there will be no war. How can he be so sure? I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that
the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious
Russian policy of actively preparing for war
since at least 2014 (also see
here
, here ,
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). Of course,
Iran has been preparing for war with the US for almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently.
I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei's statement (there might be more, of course):
Political: Iran is trying to demonstrate that it will do everything possible to avoid a war so that if a war should break out,
it would be absolutely clear to everybody that Iran did not want it, Iran did not trigger it and the responsibility for the consequences
fall entirely and solely upon the US and Israel. Deception: Iran knows that a war is coming but is trying to pretend like it won't
to better conceal the war preparations and lure the Empire into a sense of complacency resulting into an ineffective/costly attack.
Intelligence: the Iranians might have intelligence indicating to them that all the US threats are just hot air spewed in order
to appease the Israel Lobby and to look "patriotic" in preparation for the upcoming elections this Fall. Miscalculation: the Iranians
might underestimate the level of hubris, arrogance and stupidity of the US leadership and mistakenly conclude that since an attack
on Iran makes no sense and the US cannot "win", such an attack will therefore not happen.
Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened
in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they
could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history. Conversely, while Hezbollah
did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale
ground offensive. Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that
they would end up in disaster.
It seems to me that in purely military terms (not in political ones!) Israel could be seen as a stand-in for the US and Hezbollah
as a stand-in for Iran and that the outcome of any future US-Iranian war will be very similar to the outcome of the war in 2006,
albeit on a much larger (and bloodier) scale. I am confident that the folks in the Pentagon realize that, but what about their Neocon
bosses – do they even care about Iranian or, for that matter, US casualties? I highly doubt it: all they care about is their power
and messianic ideology.
If it weren't for its nuclear arsenal, the US could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country led by ignorant leaders
with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces. Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know
that
top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state's conventional force in the
past . In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international
or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you. Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all
of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger
and the Herrenvolk of the 21st century and their messianism is in no way less delusional than the one of their Nazi predecessors
(or, for that matter, the one of the Popes of the past 1000 years). And why would the people who nuked two Japanese cities under
the (entirely fallacious) pretext of "shortening the war" (almost a humanitarian operation!) not do the same thing in Iran?
Of sure, they probably realize that using nukes will result in a massive political backlash, but they are confident that no matter
what happens in the end, they will always be able to say "screw you!" to the rest of the planet. After all, this is something which
Israel and the US have been doing with almost total inpunity for decades already – why would they stop now? As for the fact that
the Persian people have been dealing with all kinds of invaders since no less than 2500 years will not stop the AngloZionists from
trying to crush them. After all, having laid waste to a country which many see as the cradle of civilization, Iraq, why not do the
same thing to Iran? Iraq, Iran – what's the difference, they are all just "sand niggers" and our red button is bigger than theirs,
right?
Standing up to Shaytân-e Bozorg (almost alone?)
It would be a big mistake to dismiss the US because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy. The truth is that in terms
of aggregate national power, the US still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don't include nuclear weapons).
Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping:
the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the
Turkish lira , etc.) or
how little
time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel .
As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli "Atlantic
Integrationists" continue to try to
sabotage (often successfully)
everything Putin and his supporters are doing . I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack
of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting.
Sadly, but the only ally Iran can truly count on is Hezbollah. And while Hezbollah is considered a "non-state actor", it has a
formidable capability to strike at the US's colonial masters,
especially in terms of missiles .
This will not protect Iran, but it could serve as a very real deterrent to the Israelis, especially since Hezbollah Secretary
General Hassan Nasrallah he has made it clear that Hezbollah more than capable
of taking on Israel .
Does that look to you like there will be no war against Iran?
I hope so. But to me it very much looks like an attack is pretty much inevitable. I have been predicting such an attack since
2007 and, so far, I have been completely wrong (and thank God for that!). The very first article I ever wrote for my blog was entitled
" Where the Empire meets
to plan the next war " ended with the following words:
So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation,
job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even
Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?). But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply
of Chinese-made US flags to wave!
And yet, 11 years later, the AngloZionist attack which looked so imminent in 2007 has not happened yet. Could it be that this
time again an attack on Iran can be avoided? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appears to be very confident that it will not happen. I am not
so sure, but I fervently hope that he is right.
With much joviality and humour, Ukraine prepares to sever all remaining public-transit links
with Russia. I suppose there are still roads, and if you have a car and can afford gas, you
can still drive there.
This, according to the transport minister, is 'like the good old days'. I'll tell you
something else that's like the good old days, Mr. Minister – the living wage in
Ukraine.
And yet Ukraine still seems to think Europe must force Russia to continue transiting
Russian gas through Ukraine, and paying Kuh-yiv for the privilege.
It took more than 20 years for littoral states of the Caspian Sea to reach an agreement that
would lay the legal foundations for the full utilization of the region's resources. The Fifth
Caspian Summit in Aktau, Kazakhstan, brought the long-sought breakthrough after leaders of
Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Iran signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea
– a remarkable feat considering that heretofore, barring bilateral deals, the Caspian has
been governed by an obsolete 1940 convention between the Soviet Union (of which four current
littoral states were a part) and Iran.
As the current Convention incorporates a plethora of tradeoffs between countries, let's look
at them in greater detail so as to grasp the implications of the deal.
The Convention stipulates that relations between littoral states shall be based on
principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, equality among members, non-use of
threat of force (it was only 17 years ago that Azerbaijan and Iran almost started a full-blown
naval war over contested fields) and non-intervention.
The military-related clauses of the document can be considered a net diplomatic success for
the Russian Federation as it prohibits the physical presence of any third-party armed forces,
along with banning the provision of a member state's territory to acts of aggression against
any other littoral state. Since Russia is by far the most power nation in terms of both general
military clout and military presence around the Caspian, this will placate Russian fears about
any potential US (or other) encroachment in the area.
Then there's energy... Although the Convention establishes a general legal framework for
territorial disputes to be solved, it refrains from any particularities. Therefore prolonged
negotiations are to be expected with regard to many disputed oilfields, stemming predominantly
from Irani and Azerbaijani claims . Iran advocated throughout the entire negotiation process an
egalitarian approach to delimiting the seabed (each nation would get 20% of the coast), running
counter the other countries' aspirations. The things is that when Russia concluded its seabed
delimitation agreements with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in 2001 and 2003, respectively, the
parties split their parts using the median line. Point 8.1. effectively keeps the delimitation
task in the hands of relevant governments, thereby providing a very modest boost to the
demarcation of the Southern Caspian (the Northern part is fully delimited).
There are two main territorial conflicts to be settled – the Irani-Azerbaijani and the
Azerbaijani-Turkmen disputes. The row between Baku and Teheran revolves around the
Araz-Alov-Sharg field (discovered in 1985-1987 by Soviet geologists), the reserves of which are
estimated at 300 million tons of oil and 395 BCm of natural gas. Even though the field is only
90 kilometers away from Baku and should seemingly be under Azerbaijan's grip, if one is to draw
a straight line from the Azerbaijani-Irani border most of the field ought to be allotted to
Iran (the median would keep most of it in Azerbaijan). As those old enough to remember the 2001
naval ship hostilities would attest, it does matter at what angle the final line is drawn.
The Serdar/Kapaz field (estimated to contain 50 million tons of oil) is the bone of
contention between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Considered to be an extension of Azerbaijan's
main oil-producing unit, the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli field, Baku sees it as an indispensable
element in its quest to mitigate decreasing oil output numbers. Geographically, Serdar/Kapaz is
closer to Turkmenistan, yet here too Azerbaijan might come out the ultimate winner. The
Apsheron peninsula stretches out some 60km into the Caspian Sea, in effect extending
Azerbaijan's geographical reach. Absent previous demarcation agreements between Baku and
Ashgabat, the settlement will once again boil down to getting the angles right, as in the case
of Araz-Alov-Sharg. However, it must be said that a resolution might come about as a by-product
of new gas endeavors.
Clause 14, dealing with laying subsea pipelines and cables, is the one most coveted by
energy analysts , since it has the potential to significantly alter Europe's gas supply
options.
According to point 14.2., all parties have the right to construct subsea pipelines given
that they comply with environmental standards (which are particularly strict in the Caspian
Sea). With no further caveat included, some analysts might be tempted to think that Russia will
inevitably use the "environmental protection" card when trying to stop the construction of the
Trans-Caspian pipeline (TCP) from Turkmenistan, a pipeline it spent many years to halt .
Under current circumstances, when US-Russian relations falling ever deeper into an
insurmountable ditch, Moscow's decision to allow for the construction of the mightily
Washington-backed TCP to take place might be perceived as a massive omission.
Since the Turkmen gas is unlikely to find demand in Azerbaijan or Turkey, it would need to
take the whole route via the South Caucasus Pipeline, TANAP and TAP. Merely the transportation
tariffs from these pipelines would render any transportation economically unviable unless
European gas prices rise substantially to levels above $300/MCm. Moreover, the estimated cost
of building the subsea TCP of $2 billion is a disabling burden for either Türkmengaz or
SOCAR. Thus, allowing the construction of Trans Caspian gas pipelines might be a brilliant ruse
from the Russians – cognizant of all the deficiencies above, they can wield it as a sign
of good will in their never-ending negotiations with the European the economics for supplying
gas to Europe via the Southern Gas Corridor are far from being Union.
This being said, there are natural impediments to see the TCP implemented anytime soon.
Azerbaijan might be interested in getting transit fees for Turkmen natural gas, yet it lacks
the required infrastructure to include the above volumes in its traditional conduit via
Turkey.
All in all, the Caspian convention is a good basis for further negotiations, even though it
falls short of being an all-encompassing legal framework. Territorial disputes will most likely
remain frozen for quite some time and no new gas pipeline projects will see the light of day
unless market conditions change.
Patient Observer says:
August 6, 2018 at 1:46 pmPublic opinion polling suggests that many Americans would
not think twice if there were a great many casualties against evildoers. For example, a
2017 survey found that 60 percent of Americans would support a nuclear attack on Iran that
would kill 20 million civilians, to prevent an invasion that might kill 20,000 American
soldiers.
"We were not surprised by the finding that most Americans place a higher
value on the life of an American soldier than the life of a foreign noncombatant.
What was surprising, however, was the radical extent of that preference.
Our experiments suggest that the majority of Americans find a 1:100 risk ratio
to be morally acceptable. They were willing to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to
save 20,000 U.S. soldiers. One respondent who approved of the conventional
air strike that killed 100,000 Iranian civilians candidly expressed even more
extreme
preferences regarding proportionality and risk ratios, while displacing
U.S. responsibility for the attack onto the Iranian people: "I would sacrifice
1 million enemies versus 1 of our military. Their choice, their death."
But the state of American 'journalism' is such that the media must portray America as
winning, and will not acknowledge catastrophe until major damage has already been done, because
it is patriotic to report on American success.
FYI Officials from three leading US groups that support increased exports of US LNG separately
addressed concerns on Aug. 3 over the Chinese Ministry of Commerce's announcement that
tariffs ranging 5-25% will be imposed on US LNG.
"China's retaliation will hit America's energy industry particularly hard," said
American Petroleum Institute Vice-Pres. for Regulatory and Economic Policy Kyle Isakower.
"American oil and gas already hit by US tariffs on industrial products and specialty steel
essential to our industry will now be faced with Chinese tariffs on critical US exports,
affecting American jobs that rely directly and indirectly on the energy industry."
August 5, 2018 at 7:17 pm Oh, look; Ukraine already is down to about half the gas in
storage that it will need for winter. Turning to the west certainly made it
'energy-independent' at least to the extent that the west must 'lend' it money to buy gas which
is reverse-flowed from eastern-European countries so that all the Russian is squeezed out of
it, and it becomes European freedom gas. Nice work if you can get it, and since Ukraine will
not be able to pay it back, it becomes a gift! Why worry, as long as Uncle Sugar is paying the
bills?
Speaking of gas, once-bitten-twice-shy Bulgaria is eager to get a piece of the action,
signifying up front its willingness to tap into Turkish Stream for transit to Europe.
There seems to be a tremendously broad American – and western – assumption that
US production is going to 'soar' and continue to ramp ever upward. Is it? Bear in mind that
the USA's own consumption of natural gas is growing steadily, at least partly based on this
assumption that natural-gas bounty will just continue to increase. What if it doesn't? Then
America will have refashioned itself as another huge natural-gas market which has
insufficient domestic supply to sustain itself.
The headline is pure tabloid and not supported in the body of the article apart from
'opinions' by certain people or through use of qualifiers. This is not journalism .
Only further proof in my opinion that Euractiv has become part of the EU's unofficial
channels of hybrid warfare . Euractiv/Neuters has also expanded in to the Balkans to
provide 'services' in Croatia/Serbia etc. which just so happens to coincide with all the
shrill headlines about Russia 'influencing the Balkans' – which are of course BS. Just
look at the map. Short of Macedonia (not for long) and Serbia, they are all NATO
states . Russia only helps states who want to help themselves (Syria/Serbia – more
or less).
Not a shred of proof, nay evidence, that Germany is shifting away from NordStream II. FAKE
NUDES!
Ten years ago, in August 2008, Russia and Georgia went to war over South Ossetia, a small
separatist Georgian region which Moscow would later controversially recognise as independent,
in the face of international criticism.
Ten years later, Moscow has still not softened its position towards its neighbours and
its rift with the West has only deepened.
Russia launched armed action against Georgia to come to the rescue of South Ossetia, a
small pro-Russian separatist region where Tbilisi had begun a military operation. The Russian
army rapidly outnumbered the Georgian forces and threatened to take the country's
capital.
A peace treaty was finally hammered out by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that
led to the withdrawal of Russian forces. But Moscow recognised as independent the breakaway
regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where it has stationed a large military presence ever
since.
Russia demonstrated its military might over the five days and showed its readiness to
defend – by force, if necessary – its interests in the region it considers its
sphere of influence .
####
Well shove that in your pipe and smoke it!
Yet again, no attribution, no name. It smacks of a thinktank piece peddled through their
Slovak branch.
But this is how things work in the West. No-on is ordered on pain of death to produce
certain items, but is is made very clear that it is in their interests to do so, from
without & from within, but remember kids, it is voluntary ! Neither
self-censorship exists. Those in positions of influence may convince themselves, but for the
rest of the great unwashed, no so much. We've already seen the system fail and produce
not only BREXIT, but other referendums contrary to EU dogma. The evidence is all around us
and plain to see, but still the structures persist in the same old ways, which only bodes
ill. Apparently they still think the sheeple are too stupid to notice let alone act.
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been
pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole
thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the
near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil
and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.
"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led
alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one
day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The
potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would
give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian
energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if
necessary."
Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report
"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads
by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries
toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political
interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)
It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these
were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty
of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not
long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because
it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have
control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'
Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact,
Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not
support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the
White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations
to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial
and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important
tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.
Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy
supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have
brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas
to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests,
and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming
about.
Analysts told RT that what Khamenei said is not really surprising given the worsening
economic situation inside the country after the relations with the US went on a downward
spiral. The supreme leader has been trying to keep Iranian society balanced by taking a neutral
position between the liberal and conservative parts of the establishment. Now the former,
including President Hassan Rouhani, are finding themselves in a weaker position, according to
Irina Fedorova from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
"The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop
up his regime," Fedorova told RT. She said that "the opponents of the
conservatives," and Rouhani in particular, who supported the JCPOA, will fall victims of
this approach. But it will not lead to his resignation, the researcher noted. However, this
means the conservatives' positions, such as those of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are to
strengthen significantly.
The statement may also mean a reshuffling of the political elite as well as some economic
changes, Jamal Wakeem, professor of history and international relations at Lebanese University
in Beirut, told RT. He said that "reformists" and those who pressed for the deals with
the West are to be targeted, while the leadership is going to seek alternatives to the West,
including a partnership with Russia and China.
The US reinstated certain economic sanctions against Iran last week, with President Trump
promising more to come in November. The restrictive measures had been lifted under the historic
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but Washington unilaterally withdrew from the
landmark deal despite international condemnation, including from its EU allies. The 2015
agreement placed tight controls on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of
international sanctions. Iran's commitment has been confirmed by the IAEA since then.
Tehran has repeatedly blasted the US for the move, vowing to restart its nuclear program in
retaliation against any foreign restrictions. While the US has been pressing its allies to
completely refuse Iranian oil imports, the Islamic Republic has threatened to close the Strait
of Hormuz, effectively blocking all the oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, should they accede
to American demands.
The row between the US and Iran escalated last month, when their respective leadership
exchanged a barrage of threats. Back then, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that a
conflict with Iran would be "mother of all wars," provoking Trump's harsh response
when he promised "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will
take all the oil business, leaving Western companies sitting on the sidelines. On the other
hand, I wonder if US O&G companies are waiting for other Western competitors to go
bankrupt.
Uncoy @22:
US sanctions have already failed. Other nations will give lip service, then turn around to
continue on whatever they were doing.
Washington cannot dictate trade rules to others, Germany's economy minister said, adding
that his country should be more assertive and defy American sanctions – particularly
by investing more in Iran.
"We don't let Washington dictate [their will] on trade relations with other countries,"
German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told Bild newspaper on Saturday. He said the US
sanctions on Iran are one instance in which America's neglect of its partners are clearly
shown.[.]
Only 1/3 of US debt is owed to foreigners and that is denominated in their own currency.
They just print whatever is due.
A country with the land and natural resources the US has to go along with with its
agricultural, human and military capital can never go bankrupt, especially when they control
the debt collectors
As for Germany they are an occupied country, as are many countries. Between the military
bases and CIA controlled NGO's they dance to whatever musuc is played. Some squawking is
permitted for appearances sake so people can maintain their illusions of nationalist
control.
I dont rule out a major financial adverse event in the US (and global) soon so the elite
can profit off the collapse and shrink the wealth of the bottom 90%, but that wont affect
much at all and much of the world will suffer in much the same way
When one looks at the major financial disasters over the last century, many seem to come
in the 8th-9th year of the decade. After the elections we should see a great fall as bubbles
are burst and the 17 trillion dollar + investment firms that maintain liquidity will swoop in
and buy low. This time around the banks wont need a government bail out as the laws have
authorized them to seize deposits like what was done in Greece.
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit:
Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson
chide Trump for his dangerous Iran obsession:
The United States' treatment of Iran as a serious strategic competitor is deeply
illogical. Iran imperils no core U.S. interests.
Trump's Iran obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it
is also the most irrational. The president's reflexive hostility to Iran is one of the few
constants in his view of the world, and it is one that aligns him most closely with his party's
hawks and parts of the foreign policy establishment. This has been clear for several years ever
since
Trump declared his
opposition to thenuclear
deal and surrounded
himself with hard-liners .
The Iran obsession is among the worst aspects of Trump's presidency, but it is also one of the
least surprising. Over the last eighteen months, Trump's Iran obsession has become more of a
derangement ,
and it is putting the U.S. and Iran on a collision course at the expense of our relations with
many other states and our own economic interests. The risk of unnecessary war continues to rise
because the president and his allies insist on making maximalist demands of Iran while imposing
stringent sanctions on the country without justification.
As Simon and Stevenson capably explain, there is no valid reason to view Iran as a major
threat to the U.S. Contrary to the fevered warnings about Iranian "expansionism," Iranian
military power in the region is quite limited:
Yet Iran's foreign policy has evolved essentially on the basis of opportunistic realism
rather than especially aggressive revisionism, and, as noted, it has a sparse military
presence in the region.
There is certainly no reason for our government to treat Iran as if it were a major
competitor. Our government's fixation on Iran as the source of all the region's problems
exaggerates Iran's influence and puts the U.S. at odds with a regional power whose interests
are sometimes aligned with our own. The obsession simply makes no sense:
Casting Iran as a major strategic rival simply doesn't make sense in terms of traditional
international relations considerations such as threat- and power-balancing.
The authors list a number of causes for the unwarranted obsession with Iran, including
"pro-Israel" influence and the influence of the Saudis and Emiratis in Washington, and I agree
with them. Our political leaders' enthusiasm for engaging in threat inflation and credulously
accepting the threat inflation of others would has to figure prominently in any explanation as
well. Obsessing over a non-existent Iranian threat to U.S. interests obviously has nothing to
do with American security, and it represents an unhealthy subordination of American interests
to those of its reckless regional clients. Indulging those clients in their paranoia about Iran
will only stoke more regional conflicts and ensure that the U.S. becomes more deeply involved
in those wars, and the result will be greater costs for the U.S. and greater turmoil,
instability, and loss of life throughout the region.
Obama's Yemen obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it
is also the most irrational.
Cluster bombs, drone strikes, covert kill teams and, most importantly, the backing for
Saudi Arabia and the UAE to cross the blood-red line and commence an aggressive illegal
bombing campaign, invasion and occupation of Yemeni territory did not start with Trump.
Direct participation of US military logistics personnel and US military assets in this
military aggression – while other US forces operate in the same territory under the
"separate but equal" Authorization To Use Military Force – did not start with
Trump.
Trump might apply his Reverse Midas Touch to this aspect of Obama's legacy as well, but
just because Obama manufactured another transient executive "achievement" in JCOPA does not
mean that his policy with respect to Yemen was any more irrational than Trump's policy
towards Iran, or that Obama's willingness to hire out US military forces to support Saudi
aggression for 100 billion dollars in blood money is any less venal, corrupt and despicable
than Trump's willingness to do the same.
Mattis didn't become fixated on Iran when he joined the Trump administration either,
although he might just be blaming – in the absence of conclusive evidence – Iran
today for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeting Reagan's negligent use of the Marine
Corps. That is even less of a defensible foundation for foreign policy and military
aggression that profiteering.
It is a good guess that Obama's obsession with Yemen was rooted in printer cartridges,
shoe bombs, and the fear to have any terrorist attack "succeed". For Obama & Co. the fear
of the Next Big Blowback led them to Yemen. It would appear that Pence has supplied the Trump
administration with a Grand Unified Theory that all campaigns in the Great War On Terror
ultimately lead to Tehran – or the Trump administration made him their willing
mouthpiece.
Pence is so desperate to connect terrorism to Iran that he has to reach back almost 40yrs to
pin an at best Hezbollah pre-cursor organization on them. Isn't it more telling that
Hezbollah has avoided attacking U.S. troops during their entire existence? Pence doesn't seem
alarmed about the 3,000+ Americans who died on U.S. soil in NYC that we can attribute to the
Saudis and their cohorts.
BTW the Khobar tower bombings was Al Qaeda. The Saudis extracted confessions in their
torture chambers. There was no corroborating evidence that it was a branch of Hezbollah.
This is ,of course, hypothesis by Eric Zuesse, and the idea that the USA elite decided to
abandon EU elite is somewhat questionable, but some of his consideration are interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Yeah, its the defense contractors. It has nothing to do with the zillions of cars that clog every fucking freeway in this country every morning and every evening, 7 days a week. Its not the assholes cruising around in monster trucks alone, just to show off their stupid trucks. It has nothing to do with the the zillions of jets screaming through the skies carry all those fat assholes to meetings all over the world for no reason. It has nothing to do with the billions of barrels of oil that come to the US on tankers as long as city blocks filled constantly day and night. ..."
The following is entirely from open online sources that I have been finding to be
trustworthy on these matters in the past. These sources will be linked-to here; none of this
information is secret, even though some details in my resulting analysis of it will be entirely
new.
It explains how and why the bottom-line difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama,
regarding US national security policies, turns out to be their different respective estimations
of the biggest danger threatening the maintenance of the US dollar as the world's leading or
reserve currency. This has been the overriding foreign-policy concern for both Presidents .
Obama placed as being the top threat to the dollar, a breakaway of the EU (America's largest
market both for exports and for imports) from alliance with the United States. He was
internationally a Europhile. Trump, however, places as being the top threat to the dollar, a
breakaway of Saudi Arabia and of the other Gulf Arab oil monarchies from the U.S. Trump is
internationally a Sunni-phile: specifically a protector of fundamentalist Sunni monarchs -- but
especially of the Sauds themselves --
and they hate Shia and especially the
main Shia nation, Iran .
Here's how that change, to Saudi Arabia as being America's main ally, has happened --
actually it's a culmination of decades. Trump is merely the latest part of that process of
change. Here is from the US State Department's official
historian , regarding this history:
By the 1960s, a surplus of US dollars caused by foreign aid, military spending, and
foreign investment threatened this system [the FDR-established 1944 Bretton Woods gold-based US dollar as
the world's reserve currency ], as the United States did not have enough gold to cover
the volume of dollars in worldwide circulation at the rate of $35 per ounce; as a result, the
dollar was overvalued. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson adopted a series of
measures to support the dollar and sustain Bretton Woods: foreign investment disincentives;
restrictions on foreign lending; efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars;
international monetary reform; and cooperation with other countries. Nothing worked.
Meanwhile, traders in foreign exchange markets, believing that the dollar's overvaluation
would one day compel the US government to devalue it, proved increasingly inclined to sell
dollars. This resulted in periodic runs on the dollar.
It was just such a run on the dollar, along with mounting evidence that the overvalued
dollar was undermining the nation's foreign trading position, which prompted President
Richard M. Nixon to act, on August 13, 1971 [to end the convertibility of dollars to
gold].
When Nixon ended
the gold-basis of the dollar and then in 1974 secretly switched to the current oil-basis,
this transformation of the dollar's backing, from gold to oil, was intended to enable the
debt-financing (as opposed to the tax-financing, which is less acceptable to voters) of
whatever military expenditure would be necessary in order to satisfy the profit-needs of
Lockheed Corporation and of the other US manufacturers whose only markets are the US Government
and its allied governments, as well as of US extractive industries such as oil and mining
firms, which rely heavily upon access to foreign natural resources, as well as of Wall Street
and its need for selling debt and keeping interest-rates down (and stock-prices -- and
therefore aristocrats' wealth -- high and rtising).
This new system didn't only supply a constant flow of Saudi tax-money to the US Government;
it supplied a constant flow of new sales-orders and profits to the military firms that were
increasingly coming to control the US Government -- for the benefit of both aristocracies: the
Sauds, and America's billionaires.
That was near the end of the FDR-produced 37-year period of US democratic leadership of the
world, the era that had started at Bretton Woods in 1944. It came crashing to an end not in
1974 (which was step two after the 1971 step one had ended the 1944 system) but on the day when
Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981. The shockingly sudden ascent, from that moment
on, of US federal Government debt (to be paid-off by future generations instead of by current
taxpayers) is shown, right here, in a graph
of "US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP, 1940-2015" , where you can see that the debt had
peaked above 90% of GDP late in WW II between 1944-1948 , and then plunged during Bretton
Woods, but in 1981 it started ascending yet again, until reaching that WW II peak for a second
time, as it has been ever since 2010 , when Obama bailed-out the mega-banks and their
mega-clients, but didn't bail out the American public, whose finances had been destroyed by
those banksters' frauds, which Obama refused to prosecute; and, so, economic inequality in
America got even more extreme after the 2008 George W. Bush crash, instead of less extreme
afterward (as had always happened in the past).
Above 90% debt/GDP during and immediately following WW II was sound policy, but America's
going again above 90% since 2010 has reflected simply an aristocratic heist of America, for
only the aristocracy's benefit -- all of the benefits going only to the super-rich.
Another, and
more-current US graph shows that, as of the first quarter of 2018, this percentage
(debt/GDP) is, yet again, back now to its previous all-time record high of 105-120%%, which had
been reached only in 1945-1947 (when it was justified by the war).
But can the US Government's extreme misallocation of wealth, from the public to the
insiders, continue without turning this country into a much bigger version of today's Greece?
More and more people around the world are worrying about that. Of course, Greece didn't have
the world's reserve currency, but what would happen to the net worths of America's billionaires
if billionaires worldwide were to lose faith in the dollar? Consequently, there's intensified
Presidential worrying about how much longer foreign investors will continue to trust the
oil-based dollar.
America's political class now have two competing ideas to deal with this danger , Obama's
versus Trump's, both being about how to preserve the dollar in a way that best serves the needs
of 'defense' contractors, extractive firms, and Wall Street. Obama chose Europe (America's
largest market) as America's chief ally (he was Euro-centric against Russia); Trump chose the
owner of Saudi Arabia (he's Saudi-Israeli centric against Iran) -- that's the world's largest
weapons-purchaser, as well as the world's largest producer of oil (as well as the largest
lobbies) .
The Saudi King owns Saudi Arabia, including the world's largest and most valuable oil
company, Aramco, whose oil is the "sweetest" -- the least expensive to extract and refine --
and is also the most abundant, in all of the world, and so he can sell petroleum at a profit
even when his competitors cannot. Oil-prices that are so low as to cause economic losses for
other oil companies, can still be generating profits -- albeit lowered ones -- for King Saud;
and this is the reason why his decisions determine how much the global oil-spigot will be
turned on, and how low the global oil-price will be, at any given time. He controls the value
of the US dollar. He controls it far more directly, and far more effectively, than the EU can.
It would be like, under the old FDR-era Bretton Woods system, controlling the exchange-rates of
the dollar, by raising or lowering the amount of gold produced. But this is liquid gold, and
King Saud determines its price.
Furthermore, King Saud also leads the Gulf Cooperation Council of all other Arab oil
monarchs, such as those who own UAE -- all of them are likewise US allies and major
weapons-buyers.
In an extraordinarily fine recent article by Pepe Escobar at Asia Times, "Oil
and gas geopolitics: no shelter from the storm" , he quotes from his not-for-attribution
interviews with "EU diplomats," and reports:
After the Trump administration's unilateral pull-out from the Iran nuclear deal, known as
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), European Union diplomats in Brussels, off the
record, and still in shock, admit that they blundered by not "configuring the eurozone as
distinct and separate to the dollar hegemony". Now they may be made to pay the price of their
impotence via their "outlawed" trade with Iran.
As admitted, never on the record, by experts in Brussels; the EU has got to reevaluate its
strategic alliance with an essentially energy independent US, as "we are risking all our
energy resources over their Halford Mackinder geopolitical analysis that they must break up
[the alliance between] Russia and China."
That's a direct reference to the late Mackinder epigone Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard"
Brzezinski, who died dreaming of turning China against Russia.
In Brussels, there's increased recognition that US pressure on Iran, Russia and China is
out of geopolitical fear the entire Eurasian land mass, organized as a super-trading bloc via
the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), [and] the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), is
slipping away from Washington's influence.
This analysis gets closer to how the three key nodes of 21st century Eurasia integration
-- Russia, China and Iran -- have identified the key issue; both the euro and the yuan must
bypass the petrodollar, the ideal means, as the Chinese stress, to "end the oscillation
between strong and weak dollar cycles, which has been so profitable for US financial
institutions, but lethal to emerging markets."
It's also no secret among Persian Gulf traders that in the -- hopefully unlikely -- event
of a US-Saudi-Israeli war in Southwest Asia against Iran, a real scenario war-gamed by the
Pentagon would be "the destruction of oil wells in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]. The
Strait of Hormuz does not have to be blocked, as destroying the oil wells would be far more
effective."
And what the potential loss of over 20% of the world's oil supply would mean is
terrifying; the implosion, with unforeseen consequences, of the quadrillion derivatives
pyramid, and consequentially [consequently] of the entire Western financial casino
superstructure.
In other words: it's not the 'threat' that perhaps, some day, Iran will have nuclear
warheads, that is actually driving Trump's concern here (despite what Israel's concerns are
about that matter), but instead, it is his concerns about Iran's missiles, which constitute the
delivery-system for any Iranian warheads: that their flight-range be short enough so that the Sauds will be
outside their range . (The main way Iran intends to respond to an invasion backed by the
US, is to attack Saudi Arabia -- Iran's leaders know that the US Government is more dependent
upon the Sauds than upon Israel -- so, Iran's top targets would be Saudi capital Riyadh, and
also the Ghawar oil field, which holds over half of Saudi oil. If US bases have been used in
the invasion, then all US bases in the Middle East are also be within the range
of Iran's missiles and therefore would also probably be targeted.)
Obama's deal with Iran had focused solely upon preventing Iran from developing nuclear
warheads -- which Obama perhaps thought (mistakenly) would dampen Israel's (and its billionaire
US financial backers') ardor for the US to conquer Iran. Israel had publicly said that their
concern was Iran's possibility to become a nuclear power like Israel became; those possible
future warheads were supposed to be the issue; but, apparently, that wasn't actually the issue
which really drove Israel. Obama seems to have thought that it was, but it wasn't, actually.
Israel, like the Sauds, want Iran conquered. Simple. The nuclear matter was more an excuse than
an explanation.
With Trump now in the White House, overwhelmingly by money from the Israel lobbies (proxies
also for the Sauds) -- and with no equivalently organized Jewish opposition to the pro -Israel
lobbies (and so in the United States, for a person to be anti-Israel is viewed as being
anti-Semitic, which is not at all true, but Israel's lies say it's true and many Americans
unfortunately believe it) -- Trump has not only the Sauds and their allies requiring him to be
against Iran and its allies, but he has also got this pressure coming from Israel: both the
Big-Oil and the Jewish lobbies drive him. Unlike Obama, who wasn't as indebted to the Jewish
lobbies, Trump needs to walk the plank for both the Sauds and Israel.
In other words: Trump aims to keep the dollar as the reserve currency by suppressing not
only China but also the two main competitors of King Saud: Iran and Russia. That's why
America's main 'enemies' now are those three countries and their respective allies.
Obama was likewise targeting them, but in a different priority-order , with Russia being the
main one (thus Obama's takeover
of Ukraine in February 2014 turning it against Russia, next door ); and that difference was
due to Obama's desire to be favorably viewed by the residents in America's biggest export and
import market, the EU, and so his bringing another member (Ukraine) into the EU (which still
hasn't yet been culminated).
Trump is instead building on his alliance with King Saud and the other GCC monarchs, a group
who can more directly cooperate to control the value of the US dollar than the EU can.
Furthermore, both conservative (including Orthodox) Jews in the United States, and also white
evangelical Protestants in the US, are strongly supportive of Israel, which likewise sides with
the Arab oil monarchs against Iran and its allies. Trump needs these people's votes.
Trump also sides with the Sauds against Canada. That's a matter which the theorists who
assert that Israel controls the US, instead of that the Sauds (allied with America's and
Israel's billionaires) control the US, ignore; they ignore whatever doesn't fit their theory.
Of course, a lot doesn't fit their theory (which equates "Jews" with "Israelis" and alleges
that "they" control the world), but people whose prejudices are that deep-seated, can't be
reached by any facts which contradict their self-defining prejudice. Since it defines
themselves, it's a part of them, and they can never deny it, because to do so would be to deny
who and what they are, and they refuse to change that. The Sauds control the dollar; Israel
does not, but Israel does the lobbying, and both the Sauds and Israel want Iran destroyed.
Trump gets this pressure not only from the billionaires but from his voters.
And, of course, Democratic Party billionaires push the narrative that Russia controls
America. It used to be the Republican Joseph R. McCarthy's accusation, that the "commies" had
"infiltrated" , especially at the State Department . So: Trump
kicked out Russia's diplomats, to satisfy those
neocons -- the neoconservatives of all Parties and persuasions, both conservative and
liberal.
To satisfy the Sauds, despite the EU, Trump has dumped the Iran deal . And he did it also to
satisfy Israel, the main US lobbyists for the Sauds. (Americans are far more sympathetic to
Jews than to Arabs; the Sauds are aware of this; Israel handles their front-office.) For Trump,
the Sauds are higher priority than Europe; even Israel (who are an expense instead of a
moneybag for the US Government) are higher priority than Europe. Both the Sauds and Israel
together are vastly higher. And the Sauds alone are higher priority for Trump than are even
Canada and Europe combined . Under Trump, anything will be done in order to keep the Sauds
and
their proxy-lobbyists (Israel) 'on America's side'.
Consequently, Trump's political base is mainly against Iran and for Israel, but Obama's was
mainly against Russia and for the EU. Obama's Democratic Party still are controlled by the same
billionaires as before; and, so, Democrats continue demonizing Russia, and are trying to make
as impossible as they can, any rapprochement with Russia -- and, therefore, they smear Trump
for anything he might try to do along those lines.
Both Obama and Trump have been aiming to extend America's aristocracy's dominance around the
world, but they employ different strategies toward that politically bipartisan
American-aristocratic objective: the US Government's global control, for the benefit of the US
aristocracy, at everyone else's expense. Obama and Trump were placed into the White House by
different groups of US billionaires, and each
nominee serves his/her respective sponsors , no public anywhere -- not even their voters'
welfare.
An analogous example is that, whereas Fox News, Forbes, National
Review, The Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily,
Breitbart News, InfoWars, Reuters, and AP , are propagandists for the Republican Party ; NPR,
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Mother Jones, The Atlantic, The New Republic, New Yorker, New York
Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast , and
Salon , are propagandists for the Democratic Party ; but, they all draw their chief sponsors
from the same small list of donors who are America's billionaires, since these few people
control the top advertisers, investors, and charities, and thus control nearly all of the
nation's propaganda. The same people who control the Government control the public; but,
America isn't a one-Party dictatorship. America is, instead, a multi-Party dictatorship . And
this is how it
functions.
Trump cancelled the Iran deal because a different group of billionaires are now in control
of the White House, and of the rest of the US Government. Trump's group demonize especially
Iran; Obama's group demonize especially Russia. That's it, short. That's America's aristocratic
tug-of-war; but both sides of it are for invasion, and for war. Thus, we're in the condition of
'permanent war for permanent peace' -- to satisfy the military contractors and the billionaires
who control them. Any US President who would resist that, would invite assassination; but,
perhaps in Trump's case, impeachment, or other removal-from-office, would be likelier. In any
case, the sponsors need to be satisfied -- or else -- and Trump knows this.
Trump is doing what he thinks he has to be doing, for his own safety. He's just a figurehead
for a different faction of the US aristocracy , than Obama was. He's doing what he thinks he
needs to be doing, for his survival. Political leadership is an extremely dangerous business.
Trump is playing a slightly different game of it than Obama did, because he represents a
different faction than Obama did. These two factions of the US aristocracy are also
now battling each other for political control over Europe .
The US #1 objective is to protect US$ as the only one reserve currency that is the
foundation of US economic and military power as well as the US economic stability and
prosperity
Zionist Banking Mafia controls US$ and both US major political Parties
The USA can accomplish its goals only by destroying China, Russia, and Iran. The USA
cannot achieve its goals short of having a major military confrontation with China. Russia
is only one power that can provide/satisfy China with raw materials including oil &
gas. However, politically Trump is locked in a corner by the Democratic Party and it's
globalists allies who are trying to destroy Russia due to it's "misguided" policies in
Syria and Iran.
China understands the game and does it's best to confront America. Time is on China's
side. Very shortly China will move it's military to Iran and Syria with Turkey becoming a
serious US headache.
The Bottom Line
Trump and its policies have no chance to succeed neither inside nor outside the USA. The
USA has less than 3-5 years to maintain the present status quo.
Yeah, its the defense contractors. It has nothing to do with the zillions of cars that clog every fucking freeway in this
country every morning and every evening, 7 days a week. Its not the assholes cruising around
in monster trucks alone, just to show off their stupid trucks. It has nothing to do with the
the zillions of jets screaming through the skies carry all those fat assholes to meetings all
over the world for no reason. It has nothing to do with the billions of barrels of oil that
come to the US on tankers as long as city blocks filled constantly day and night.
Its not that, its Lockheed selling them airplanes. Thats how the sand niggers got so much
US money, Lockheed.
What a fucking conspiratorial ass-swipe this guy is.
Eric Zeusse ranks in popularity right along the Gatestone Institute - though Eric may just
be ignorant and opinionated whilst Gatestone is an affirmative disinformation propaganda
organ, both are equally annoying to read. I just came for the comments :).
+1. Eric Zuesse is part-and-parcel of the agenda that the Gatestone Institute
espouses.
Eric Zuesse's real agenda can be revealed by his position on 9/11 (see second link below).
He also blames Obama for everything (he shifts the blame away from Israel onto any other
party which could be blamed due to either direct or indirect ties)
Here is Eric Zuesse in his own words:
Notice the absence of Israel/Zionism
Historic New Harpers Article Exposes Who Controls America
Posted on December 17, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
"The fundamentalist-Sunni royal family of the Sauds have bought the highest levels of the
U.S. government in order to control U.S. foreign policies, especially the ongoing wars to
take down the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and ultimately (they hope) of Russia itself,
which latter nation has allied itself instead with Shia countries. The controlling entities
behind American foreign policies since at least the late 1970s have been the Saud family and
the Sauds' subordinate Arabic aristocracies, which are the ones in Qatar (the al-Thanis),
Kuwait (the al-Sabahs), Turkey (the Turkish Erdoğans, a new royalty), and UAE (its six
royal families: the main one, the al-Nahyans in Abu Dhabi; the other five: the al-Maktoums in
Dubai, al-Qasimis in Sharjah, al-Nuaimis in Ajman, al-Mualla Ums in Quwain, and al-Sharqis in
Fujairah). Other Saudi-dominated nations -- though they're not oil-rich (more like Turkey in
this regard) -- are Pakistan and Afghanistan."
". But, perhaps, one can safely say that the alliance between the U.S. aristocracy and the
royal Sauds, is emerging as a global dictatorship, a dictatorial type of world government.
Because, clearly: those two aristocraciues have been, to a large extent, ruling the world
together, for several decades now. From their perspective, jihadists are themselves a weapon,
not merely a political nuisance.
This is a more realistic explanation of America's decades-long catastrophic failures to
make significant progress in eliminating even a single one of the numerous jihadist groups
around the world: that's how things have been planned to be. It's not just 'intelligence
errors' or 'not being tough enough.' Those 'explanations' are just cover-stories, propaganda,
PR from the aristocrats. It's skillful 'crowd control': keeping the people in their 'proper'
places."
9/11: Israel Didn't Do It; The Plan Was Co-Led by U.S. & Saud Governments
By Eric Zuesse
March 15, 2018
"9/11 was a well-planned operation, whatever it was. Substantial money paid for it, but
little if any of that came from either Iran or Israel. It all came from
fundamentalist-Sunnis.
And, if all of the money was fundamentalist-Sunni, then the only non-Sunni people who
could have been involved in planning the operation would have been George W. Bush and his
friends
The problem certainly isn't Jews nor Muslims. The problem is the aristocracy, which
controls Saudi Arabia, and the aristocracy which controls Israel, and the aristocracy which
controls America. The victim is the public, and the victimizer is the aristocracy. It's not
just 9/11."
Obama's Nazis
Posted on August 17, 2014 by Eric Zuesse.
(Zuesse's obsession with the word nazis or Nazis)
"What Obama has done and is doing in Ukraine is historic, like what Adolf Hitler did, and
like what Slobodan Milosevic* did, and like other racist fascists have done; and he, and we
Americans (if we as a nation continue accepting this), will be remembered for it, like they
and their countries were. Evil on this scale cannot be forgotten. No matter how solidly the
American "news" media hide this history, it is already solidly documented for the history
books. Obama will be remembered as the worst President in U.S. history, just as the
racist-fascist or 'nazi' leaders of other countries are."
Jewish Billionaire Finances Ukraine's Aydar SS Nazi Troops
Posted on April 7, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
"The hyper-nationalist Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the
Obama White House and employer of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, is a major donor to far-right
Ukrainian causes. He sides with the followers of Stepan Bandera, the pro-Nazi Ukrainian
leader whom Hitler ditched when Bandera made clear that he wanted Ukraine to be nazi but
independent of Germany's Nazi Party. Briefly, Bandera's #2 in command, Yaroslav Stetsko, led
nazi Ukraine, and approved the slaughter of thousands of Jews there."
"Zuesse is pushing Zionist lies. One of the links in the article goes to a Reuters story,
"Exclusive – Over 100 Russian soldiers killed in single Ukraine battle – Russian
rights activists," that claims to get its info from the "Russian presidential human rights
council."
If you want to read more lies by Zuesse, go to this "AMAZON" link to read reviews of his
book, "Iraq War: The Truth," in which Zuesse claims that GW Bush invaded Iraq to thank Jesus
for his alcohol and drug addiction cure and to neuter the International Criminal Court???
There is one comment lavishing praise on Zuesse's book about the Iraq War by David
Swanson, another Zionist tool and BS artist, who's been outed in the past by the blog,
"American Everyman."
See how fast the internet warriors are to claim the article is rubbish, and not reflecting
reality. No argument to back up their propaganda, but that's not important. Must be
depressing running the Sunday evening shift in the cubicle farm; all the boys in their neatly
pressed uniforms, clicking away to keep us safe from democracy. Well done lads, another day
keeping the evil Russians /Iranians at bay.
I actually find it interesting to see what shakes the foundations, and this article seems
to be something that they don't like, so probably worth a re-read just to get all the
nuances. Of course, the author suggesting that it is not Jews running America will get short
shrift from some commenters, but it is certainly interesting to have pointed out, finally,
that Israel is a net drain, and Saudi Arabia an enormous gain for the US. We always say to
follow the money, and whilst Israel is good profit for the MIC, Saudi Arabia IS the
petrodollar system - mustn't forget that. No oil in Saudi Arabia, no petrodollar. I wonder
how long they have left until it's all gone? That would probably be the over-riding factor in
deciding war with Iran.
I always wondered why the EU did nit make bigger efforts to replace the petrodollar with
the petroeuro but nobody wants to end up as Ghadaffi or Saddam Hussein who threatened to do
just that. Iran has also repeatedly threaten to that. Also Putin has recently said that
Russia wants to move away from the petrodollar. He must know that that is dangerous for one's
health so there must be some sort of alliance against the dollar being formed.
1. Iraq is run by a pro-Iran Shite government that tolerates the US occupation due to the
money provided. Before the USA attacks Iran, it should remove all its 10,000 troops and
10,000 civilians and close its massive embassy there and write that country off. Otherwise,
we'll have thousands of American POWs. Meanwhile, the Kurds will get crushed as the Turks and
Iraqis use the chaos to destroy them.
2. The oil-rich British puppet state of Kuwait is hated by all Iraqis and Iranians. If the
USA attacks Iran, one should expect Iranian and maybe Iraqi units crossing the border, while
Kuwait's army flees as expected. The USA keeps an army brigade there, but that may not be
enough to fend off an invasion, even with air superiority.
3. In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits. The insurers
(mostly Lloyds of London) and others announced they would not cover losses, and unionize ship
crews refused to enter the war zone. So even if the USA keeps the straits open, all that oil
will not flow forth.
4. Iran has a fortified island in the Gulf whose guns cannot be silenced with just air
power. A major amphibious landing is required to clear that island, and it will be bloody.
Note the ship channels in the map. Supertankers are huge, so while the Straits of Hormuz are
large, these big ships can only pass thru these two narrow channels, which are easily
blocked. Iran could park its own tankers in these channels to block them and hope the USA
foolishly sinks them, thus really blocking the entire channel.
These four issues are of more importance than air battles over Iran.
The US
Congress has revived
the so-called "NOPEC" bill
for countering OPEC and OPEC+.
Officially called the "
No
Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act
",
NOPEC is the definition of so-called
"lawfare" because it enables the US to extra-territorially impose its domestic legislation on
others by giving the government the right to sue OPEC and OPEC+ countries like Russia because of
their coordinated efforts to control oil prices.
Lawsuits, however, are
unenforceable
, which is why the targeted states'
refusal to abide by the US courts' likely predetermined judgement against them will probably be
used to trigger sanctions under the worst-case scenario, with this chain of events being catalyzed
in order to achieve several strategic objectives.
The first is that the US wants to break up the
Russian-Saudi
axis
that forms the core of OPEC+, which leads to the second goal of then unravelling the
entire OPEC structure and heralding in the free market liberalization of the global energy
industry.
This is decisively to the US' advantage as it seeks to become an energy-exporting superpower,
but it must neutralize its competition as much as possible before this happens, ergo the
declaration of economic-hybrid war through NOPEC. How it would work in practice is that the US
could threaten primary sanctions against the state companies involved in implementing OPEC and
OPEC+ agreements, after which these could then be selectively expanded to secondary sanctions
against other parties who continue to do business with them.
The purpose behind this approach is to intimidate the US' European vassals into
complying with its demands so as to make as much of the continent as possible a captive market of
America's energy exporters, which explains why Trump also wants to
scrap
LNG export licenses to the EU
.
If successful, this could further erode Europe's shrinking strategic independence and also
inflict long-term economic damage on the US' energy rivals that could then be exploited for
political purposes.
At the same time, America's recently unveiled "
Power
Africa
" initiative to
invest $175 billion
in gas projects
there could eventually see US companies in the emerging energy frontiers
of
Tanzania
,
Mozambique
,
and elsewhere become important suppliers to their country's Chinese rival, which could make
Beijing's access to energy even more dependent on American goodwill than ever before.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the
trade
one
as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it's being
portrayed as by the media,
NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it
actually is,
with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it's
properly wielded by American decision makers.
It's too earlier to call it a game-changer because it hasn't even been promulgated
yet, but in the event that it ever is, then it might go down in history as the most impactful
energy-related development since OPEC, LNG, and fracking.
No way US can manipulate oil trade at this
point without hurting themselves or helping
their "enemies". Cause and effect, just think
it through.
The world needs energy, Russia has
energy...and a real surplus for sale. The US
is a net energy consumer with no surplus.
China needs energy in a big way. Trying to
cut off Russian and Iranian oil and trying to
blow up the Chinese economy are acts of war.
The West realizes there is no way they can
survive in their current status of moar with
that kind of competition out there. The
BRICST now constitute $17 trillion in
combined GDP. They have the energy sources
(Russia and Iran), they have the
manufacturing base (China), they have the
agricultural base (Russia, Brazil, South
Africa), and they have plenty of
customers.....even outside the BRICST union.
That is a formidable competitive force to
face when you are an economy structured on
infinite growth on a finite planet......that
you control less and less of each year.
War with Iran? I can not imagine a more foolish thing to do.
Of course they will rally with their own Countrymen, everyone hates the USA.
The World economy will be in a complete tailspin, the US will likely finally go broke over it
and chances are pretty good that Israel will be flattened and paved [one positive thing].
You fight Iran you fight China, you don't go messing with their road. Likely not bombs and
guns either most likely money, something America has not much of.
The faster America dumps this crazy fascination with the Jews the faster it will get it's
act together and become a Country again.
What can that possibly mean? We can bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, but Iran does not
need a modern economy or military to close Hormuz. All they need do is fire a few land-based
artillery and anti-ship missiles at a defenseless freighter or tanker. The insurance
companies would do the rest–remove all commercial shipping from the Persian and Oman
Gulf regions. That eliminates 20% of the World's oil supply, and it would collapse the
World's economy, including our own.
Asymmetric warfare would engulf the entire Middle East, including Israel, with its large
native Arab population and its occupation of large Arab populations in Gaza and the West
Bank.
Iran has the upper hand here. We need to be very careful.
Let's face it-when we impose sanctions on Iran, we are already at war with them. Just like we
are already at war with Russia. Imbeciles, all who run this country.
Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran
would imperil, not secure, that interest.
The American Empire's only strategic three letter word interest in the Middle East is O --
I –L.
The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative
faction in the Republican Party wants to elevate the three letter word J -- E –W to
paramount importance in the Middle East.
OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in
the Middle East.
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
Mueller proceeds.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
Iraq.
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
story.
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
institutions?
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
Source: gulfbusiness.com
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
via free
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
Russia.
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
affair
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
currently in.
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
that murdered
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
Americans.
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
prosperity.
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
"... "They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," ..."
"... "If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," ..."
"... "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security." ..."
"... "behaves like a normal country." ..."
"... "require enormous change" ..."
"... "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales." ..."
"... "the mother of all wars." ..."
"... "confronting possible threats." ..."
"... "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" ..."
Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be the biggest mistake Iran has ever made, the US
president's national security advisor John Bolton said. He urged Tehran to sit down for talks
on its nuclear and missile programs with the US. Dismissing Tehran's threats to block the
strait if its oil exports are stopped, Bolton on Monday said the Iranians were
"bluffing." He then quickly changed his tone saying that Iran should actually engage in a dialog with the US instead of
issuing threats.
"They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their
ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the
onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," Bolton told
Fox News, referring to the US President Donald Trump's demands to "re-negotiate" the
2015 Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
"If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are
or not," Bolton added. The White House national security advisor's remarks came less than
a day before the first round of renewed US sanctions take effect on Tuesday after midnight US
Eastern time. The harshest restrictions are expected to be re-imposed by early November.
Washington decided to reinstate the penalties following Trump's decision to unilaterally
withdraw from the JCPOA in May. Shortly after exiting the agreement, the US penned a 12-point
ultimatum to Iran, which, among other things, demanded that Tehran end its ballistic missile
program, a condition it has repeatedly rejected. The move was then widely condemned by the EU
and other signatories of the deal, including Russia and China, which still consider the
agreement to be an effective means of non-proliferation and have vowed to keep their part of
the deal.
Earlier on Monday, the EU said that starting August, it is enforcing its so-called Blocking
Statute aimed at protecting the European companies doing business in Iran from the
extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. The bloc said that maintaining the nuclear deal with
Iran is a "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international
security."
Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed to "rigorously" enforce the
sanctions on Iran until it "behaves like a normal country." He added that it would
"require enormous change" on Iran's part for the US to review its increasingly hostile
approach to Tehran.
In July, Brian Hook, the US State Department's director of policy planning, said that
Washington's goal is to "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its
revenue from crude oil sales."
Iranian leaders repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and stop the Persian
Gulf oil exports if its own oil exports are blocked. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also
cautioned Washington against launching a war against Tehran by saying that it would be "the
mother of all wars." Iran's Revolutionary Guards have recently admitted that its warships
took part in a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to hone skills in "confronting possible
threats."
Earlier, the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has slammed Donald Trump's recent proposal
to enter into talks with Iran by calling it nothing but a PR stunt. "The hours of our
negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and
say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this
[negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" he said.
The Trump administration has reportedly requested a meeting with
Rouhani eight times, but the Iranian side refused to participate.
As Iran is preparing for the first wave of returning US sanctions that could largely hamper
its foreign trade, the country's banks appear to have already created a mechanism for imports
of essential goods from
Russia .
Bank Saderat Iran (BSI) announced in a statement on Sunday that it had sealed a deal with
the Moscow offshoot of Bank Melli Iran (BMI) over a re-financing scheme that envisaged
providing €10 million to fund imports of essential commodities, medicines, medical
equipment and the raw materials for industrial units.
New restrictions aim to protect currency from further falls
With US sanctions against Iran officially going back into place on August 6, the Iranian
government is scrambling to take some last minute measures to shore up their economy, and
particularly their currency, before the sanctions start to hit.
Iran wants to make sure that what foreign currency does flow overseas is strictly
allocated to a handful of important industries. The fall of prices for the rial has been
heavy related to the surge in the price of gold, as economic uncertainty has many Iranians
running to precious metals, and gold imports surged in recent weeks.
US sanctions aim to limit, if not totally eliminate, Iran's access to foreign markets.
That also has Iran trying to make some last-minute purchases while they know they still can.
Five new planes were purchased from ATR for the state airline. It's far short of the new
fleet of airliners Iran initially sought, but the best they can do with the US blocking
Boeing and Airbus from fulfilling contracts.
Since the August 6 date has been known for months, it's likely much of the market reaction
to the sanctions is already factored in to Iran's currency pricing. China's refusal to comply
with US sanctions, likewise, is a sign that Iran won't be totally cutoff from world markets.
Still, it will take awhile before the full extent of the US attempt, and its effectiveness,
is known.
The US Congress has revived the so-called "NOPEC" bill for countering OPEC and OPEC+.
Officially called the " No Oil Producing and
Exporting Cartels Act ", NOPEC is the definition of so-called "lawfare" because it enables
the US to extra-territorially impose its domestic legislation on others by giving the
government the right to sue OPEC and OPEC+ countries like Russia because of their coordinated
efforts to control oil prices.
Lawsuits, however, are unenforceable , which is why the targeted states' refusal to abide by
the US courts' likely predetermined judgement against them will probably be used to trigger
sanctions under the worst-case scenario, with this chain of events being catalyzed in order to
achieve several strategic objectives.
The first is that the US wants to break up the Russian-Saudi axis that
forms the core of OPEC+, which leads to the second goal of then unravelling the entire OPEC
structure and heralding in the free market liberalization of the global energy industry.
This is decisively to the US' advantage as it seeks to become an energy-exporting
superpower, but it must neutralize its competition as much as possible before this happens,
ergo the declaration of economic-hybrid war through NOPEC. How it would work in practice is
that the US could threaten primary sanctions against the state companies involved in
implementing OPEC and OPEC+ agreements, after which these could then be selectively expanded to
secondary sanctions against other parties who continue to do business with them.
The purpose behind this approach is to intimidate the US' European vassals into complying
with its demands so as to make as much of the continent as possible a captive market of
America's energy exporters, which explains why Trump also wants to scrap LNG export licenses to the EU .
If successful, this could further erode Europe's shrinking strategic independence and also
inflict long-term economic damage on the US' energy rivals that could then be exploited for
political purposes. At the same time, America's recently unveiled " Power Africa " initiative to invest $175 billion in gas projects there
could eventually see US companies in the emerging energy frontiers of Tanzania
,
Mozambique , and elsewhere become important suppliers to their country's Chinese rival,
which could make Beijing's access to energy even more dependent on American goodwill than ever
before.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the
trade
one as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it's being
portrayed as by the media, NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it actually is,
with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it's properly wielded by
American decision makers.
It's too earlier to call it a game-changer because it hasn't even been promulgated yet, but
in the event that it ever is, then it might go down in history as the most impactful
energy-related development since OPEC, LNG, and fracking.
The USA can't compete on price and volume. But dir to dvassal status of EU can still force
"diversification"
Notable quotes:
"... As a result, Europeans are deciding to stick with the Russians while finding new options in the east, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is creating competition if not tensions in present and potential gas transit countries in southeastern and eastern Europe, for example. ..."
Russia has advanced forward in something of a tactical and potential strategic victory in
the Russo-Western gas war. This is a three-party war, with the US, EU, and Russia each
promoting separate interests. It is one sphere where a united West has failed to 'isolate
Russia.' The US seeks move in on the European energy market with LNG supplies and replace
Russian pipeline-delivered natural gas supplies to Europe. Washington is using the risks of
dependence on Russian gas and Russia's 'bad behavior' as leverage in attempting to convince
Europeans to reject Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia is said to be unreliable and prone
to shut off gas supplies to Europe.
Due to past Russian-Ukrainian gas crises, the Ukrainian crisis, and general Russian-Western
tensions, Europe has decided on a gas diversification policy in which each EU member should
have at least three sources of natural gas supply. One additional option that could facilitate
this diversification policy is US liquified natural gas (LNG), but the US is still unable to
supply enough LNG to offset Russian gas supplies that might be rejected by Europe. In the
process, Washington is looking less like a 'team West' player and more like a solely
self-interested power maximizer in European eyes and therefore no more reliable than Moscow. As
a result, Europeans are deciding to stick with the Russians while finding new options in the
east, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is creating competition if not tensions in present
and potential gas transit countries in southeastern and eastern Europe, for example.
The Battle Over Re-Sale: No Victors
One recent battle was largely inconclusive, but if a victor has to be designated it may be
Moscow. In May, the European Commssion concluded a settlement with Russia's Gazprom in May
ending a seven-year anti-trust dispute. In return for the EU dropping billions of dollars in
penalty fees, GazProm agreed to end limitations on the use of gas purchased by EU members,
allow them to re-sell the gas. Some EU members, such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have re-sold or wanted to re-sell gas. Moscow
frowned, for example, on Slovakia's resale of natural gas to Ukraine at cheaper prices than
Moscow sought to charge Kiev. The agreement will also restrict Moscow's ability to charge
different countries different prices. So EU members in central and eastern Europe can get a
price close to that paid by Germany and appeal to an arbitration court in case of a dispute.
The agreement guarantees Russia's presence on the European gas market at a time when the
latter's reliance on the former has peaked.
The Northern Front: Nord Stream 2
At the same time, the battle over Russia' Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline has heated up.
When it comes on line in 2019, the 759-mile pipeline will carry GazProm natural gas along the
bed of the Baltic Sea to Germany and double the supply Nord Stream pipeline's current annual
capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm). The Trump administration has threatened yet more
sanctions on third-party companies, this time with those that work on the pipeline. The US
sanctions threat is an attempt to promote American LNG interests as well as to protect
Ukrainian interests, though it contradicts the view that Ukraine should eschew its dependence
on Russian gas.
US officials have been hammering home to Europeans the 'Russian threat' in tandem with the
risk of reliance on Russian gas may pose, which will increase with Nord tream 2, but to no
avail. Public opinion is not working in the US favor, with Germans trusting Moscow more than
Washington, despite all the crimes laid at the Kremlin's door by the West. A recent ZDF
Television opinion survey found that only 14 percent of Germans regard the U.S. as a reliable
partner, while 36 percent view Russia as reliable (
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/trump-s-global-disruption-pushes-merkel-closer-to-putin-s-orbit
). Thus, notwithstanding Ukraine, Syria and alleged chemical attacks, Russiagate, and the
Skrypals, GazProm's supplies to Europe have risen to hold nearly 40 percent of its gas market,
growing last year by 8.1 percent last year to a record level of 193.9 billion cubic metres
(bcm).
Nevertheless, with the EU decision, the U.S., Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and others have
stepped up their pressure on Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and other western Eureopean EU
members to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. Germans and other western Europeans are unlikely
to give up the short-term gain of energy security for the US LNG given the higher price and
unproven nature of Washington's numerous allegations against the Kremlin. German officials say
they still have no proof from 10 Downing on Russia's culpability for the Skrypal poisoning so
loudly trumpeted by British PM Theresa May.
One motivation for the Russians in building Nord Stream 2 is to obviate the need to
transport gas through Ukraine, which will hurt Ukraine's own energy supply – given
Ukrainian skimming -- and overall economy beyond the present non-sale of Russian gas to
Ukraine. Another Russian motivation is to avert the unreliable Ukrainians, who have failed to
make payments according to contract in the past causing Russian gas cutoffs to Ukraine and thus
Europe with the resulting crises blamed solely on Moscow. The Trump sanctions threat has put
Germany and the other Nord Stream 2 supporting countries between a rock and a hard place,
between Russia and the US. Therefore, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while supporting Nord
Stream 2, has called for guarantees from Russia that Ukraine will remain a gas transit country.
Ukraine's current contract with Russia ends in 2019 at the very time Nord Stream 2 is to go on
line and the EU has urged re-starting EU-mediated negotiatons now in order to avoid another gas
crisis. Putin agreed to do this at his meeting with Germany's merkel in late May. Nord Stream 2
significantly strengthens Putin's hand in any such talks.
The Southern Front: Turkish Stream, SGC and the Azeri and Bulgarian Factors
Russia is strengtheining its position on the European gas war's southern front by building
the Turkish Stream (TS) gas pipeline to Europe. TS consists of a sea and a land leg. The former
runs under the Black Sea from Russia to Turkey and is built, with Russo-Turkish talks on the
land leg ongoing.
Russia's Turkish Stream is being challenged by the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) backed by
Western powers, including the EU (along with Turkey and Azerbaijan), which sees the SGC as a
means of diversifying from dependence on Russia. Not just Turkey, but Azerbaijan is emerging as
a major player on the EU gas market, with a shift in policy accenting gas supplies to Europe as
well as oil supplies as in the past. The SGC consists of three components: an expanded South
Caucasus Pipeline and the to be constructed Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). TANAP is 51 percent Azerbaijani owned, 37 percent Turkish, and
12 percent belonging to British Petroleum. The SGC will carry Azerbaijani gas through Turkey to
Europe and will be able to supply up to one-third of the gas consumed by Bulgaria, Greece and
Italy ( https://en.trend.az/business/energy/2910573.html
). However, the source of the gas supplying the pipeline demonstrates the limits of Western
attempts to isolate Russia (and Iran). Azerbaijan's Shah-Deniz gas field is co-owned by British
Petroleum (29 percent), Turkey's Turkish Petroleum (19 percent), Azerbaijan's SOCAR (17
percent), Malaysia's Petronas (15 percent), Russia's LukOil (10 percent), and Iran's NICO (10
percent). Moreover, Russia's LukOil is negotiating with SOCAR a stake in Azerbaijan's
second-largest gas field, Umid-Babek, which also includes Britain's Nobel Upstream (
https://newsbase.com/topstories/lukoil-talks-join-umid-babek-project?utm_campaign=466286_GERD%2031%20May%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=NewsBase%20LTD&dm_i=4NTN,9ZSE,2Q5R2D,13DVS,1
).
Again the Ukrainian issue is part of the picture here, as a good portion of GasProm supplies
to Bulgaria go through Ukraine. Turkish Stream can replace at least some of that supply should
Moscow decide to entirely avert Ukraine's pipeline system. It is of interest that no one in the
West has offered to include in any of these projects or attempted to fashion a pipeline or
pipeline extension that could link up with the Ukrainian network.
During Bulgarian President Rumen Radev's late may visit to Moscow, Putin reported to Radev
that during his meetings with Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the latter said he would
pose no oppsotion to extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline to Bulgaria. In response, Radev
seemed to suggest making Bulgaria a "a gas redistribution center, a hub" for the Turkish
Stream's supplies further into Europe ( http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57608
). Moreover, one gets the impression that Bulgaria is wary more about its dependence on Turkey
and Ankara's new offensive energy policy in Europe than on Russia and might help Moscow detour
Ukraine. In 2015, Erdogan declared a major policy initiative of making Turkey a, if not
the major energy transit hub for supplies heading from the east to Europe. Russia's
annexation of Crimea could help Russia in its talks both with Erdogan over the Turkish Stream
and pose the threat of undermining the SGC. It may also help Putin deal with Merkel, Kiev and
the EU over the Ukraine pipeline system's future role. Bulgarian President Radev also said in
Moscow that Sofia supports building a direct gas pipeline under the Black Sea to bring Russian
gas to Bulgaria ( https://echo.msk.ru/news/2206394-echo.html ).
The Bulgarian option could be used by Putin to threaten Erdogan with reducing the Turkish
Stream's supplies or abandoning it altogether in favor of a Black Sea Russian-Bulgarian Stream
and to reduce Russia's dependence on Ukraine as well.
US wants to leverage his dominance in Europe into gas market. That's can work as long as gas
is plentiful. As soon as it became a scarcity the situation will radically change.
This month, the Wall Street Journal
reported that U.S. President Donald Trump has been pressuring Germany to drop its support
for a major new Russian gas pipeline if Europe wants to avoid a trade war with Washington,
while a senior U.S. diplomat warned that the project could be hit with U.S. sanctions; Russian
President Vladimir Putin responded
defiantly . This development, sadly, fuels the further politicization of the European gas
market -- a space that, in many ways, has reflected the triumphs of a depoliticized, pro-market
technocracy, which has managed to stimulate competition and lower prices irrespective of
changing political trends. Just last year, Trump called on European countries to buy American
liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which, for now, remains more expensive than Russia's pipeline
gas. Certainly, the U.S. has much to gain on the global gas market, which has changed
drastically over the past decade, as America rapidly transformed from an importer to an
exporter. Europe's gas market, meanwhile, has much to gain from additional supply. But Trump's
approach, especially if the latest reports are true, both alienates Western European partners
and feeds into a sensationalist, simplistic portrayal of the new U.S. role's effect on Russia
-- as a zero-sum game, in which these new, plentiful U.S. gas supplies serve as an antidote to
Russia's "gas dominance" in Europe and hence to Moscow's political leverage.
In fact, even if Russia remains Europe's dominant gas supplier in the coming years -- as is
likely -- it now has to play by EU rules and vie hard for market share, ultimately benefiting
European consumers. America's gas boom has catalyzed this thriving competition, but an equally
important factor has been a massive, long-term investment in infrastructure and regulation by
Brussels. These EU efforts have done a great deal to weaken Moscow's geopolitical "gas power,"
which has never been uniform across the continent. Today, gas is a prized commodity but not a
major weapon in East-West relations: Russia's gas leverage cannot harm the West, and neither
does competition with U.S. gas pose a major threat to Russia as a state or, for now, to its gas
behemoth, Gazprom. Moreover, in the near to medium term, Russian and U.S. gas companies may
face many
challenges in common : Both will be competing against new, price-lowering producers and
grappling with ever "greener" regulations on the European market, while also trying to profit
from Asia's thirst for energy.
How cheap could Russia produce to compete with growing US LNG exports?
Gazprom needs price around 4 $ per mmbtu in Europe to be profitable. Today in Europe are close to 8 $. US LNG long term imho
need about 8 to 9 $ per mbbtu.
European
Union representatives told me that they would start buying soybeans from our great farmers immediately. Also, they will be buying
vast amounts of LNG!
perated by high gasoline prices just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, lawmakers in
Congress are trying to make it easier for the United States to sue OPEC. And unlike previous
failed efforts to go after the oil-exporting cartel, this time Congress will find a
sympathetic ear in the White House.
The bipartisan No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, or NOPEC bill, would tweak U.S.
antitrust law to explicitly ban just the kind of collusive behavior that OPEC was created to
engage in. The bill, a carbon copy of previous legislation, makes illegal any activity to
restrain the production of oil or gas or set oil and gas prices and knocks away two legal
defenses that in the past have shielded OPEC from U.S. antitrust measures.
The international lawyers of Wall Street did not hide from each other their shared belief
that they understood better than Washington the requirements for running the world. As John
Foster Dulles wrote in the 1930s to a British colleague,
The word "cartel" has here assumed the stigma of a bogeyman which the politicians are
constantly attacking. The fact of the matter is that most of these politicians are highly
insular and nationalistic and because the political organization of the world has under such
influence been so backward, business people who have had to cope realistically with
international problems have had to find ways for getting through and around stupid political
barriers. 44
This same mentality also explains why Allen Dulles as an OSS officer in 1945 simply evaded
orders from Washington forbidding him to negotiate with SS General Karl Wolff about a
conditional surrender of German forces in Italy – an important breach of Roosevelt's
agreement with Stalin at Yalta for unconditional surrender, a breach that is regarded by many
as helping lead to the Cold War. 45 And it explains why Allen, as CIA Director in
1957, dealt summarily with Eisenhower's reluctance to authorize more than occasional U-2
overflights of the USSR, by secretly approving a plan with Britain's MI-6 whereby U-2 flights
could be authorized instead by the UK Prime Minister Macmillan. 46
This mentality exhibited itself in 1952, when Truman's Justice Department sought to break up
the cartel agreements whereby Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) and four other oil majors
controlled global oil distribution. (The other four were Standard Oil Company of New York,
Standard Oil of California or Socony, Gulf Oil, and Texaco; together with Royal Dutch Shell and
Anglo-Iranian, they comprised the so-called Seven Sisters of the cartel.) Faced with a
government order to hand over relevant documents, Exxon's lawyer Arthur Dean at Sullivan and
Cromwell, where Foster was senior partner, refused: "If it were not for the question of
national security, we would be perfectly willing to face either a criminal or a civil suit. But
this is the kind of information the Kremlin would love to get its hands on." 47
At this time the oil cartel was working closely with the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
(AIOC, later BP) to prevent AIOC's nationalization by Iran's Premier Mossadeq, by instituting,
in May 1951, a successful boycott of Iranian oil exports.
In May 1951 the AIOC secured the backing of the other oil majors, who had every interest
in discouraging nationalisation.... None of the large companies would touch Iranian oil;
despite one or two picturesque episodes the boycott held. 48
As a result Iranian oil production fell from 241 million barrels in 1950 to 10.6 million
barrels in 1952.
This was accomplished by denying Iran the ability to export its crude oil. At that time,
the Seven Sisters controlled almost 99% of the crude oil tankers in the world for such
export, and even more importantly, the markets to which it was going. 49
But Truman declined, despite a direct personal appeal from Churchill, to have the CIA
participate in efforts to overthrow Mossadeq, and instead dispatched Averell Harriman to Tehran
in a failed effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of Mossadeq's differences with London.
50
All this changed with the election of Eisenhower in November 1952, followed by the
appointment of the Dulles brothers to be Secretary of State and head of CIA. The Justice
Department's criminal complaint against the oil cartel was swiftly replaced by a civil suit,
from which the oil cartel eventually emerged unscathed. 51
Eisenhower, an open friend of the oil industry changed the charges from criminal to civil
and transferred responsibility of the case from the Department of Justice to the Department
of State – the first time in history that an antitrust case was handed to State for
prosecution. Seeing as how the Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles and the defense
counsel for the oil cartel was Dulles' former law firm (Sullivan and Cromwell), the case was
soon as good as dead. 52
Thereafter
Cooperative control of the world market by the major oil companies remained in effect,
with varying degrees of success, until the oil embargo of 1973-74. That the cooperation was
more than tacit can be seen by the fact that antitrust regulations were specifically set
aside a number of times during the 1950-1973 period, allowing the major companies to
negotiate as a group with various Mideastern countries, and after its inception [in 1960],
with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC. 53
Also in November 1952 CIA officials began planning to involve CIA in the efforts of MI6 and
the oil companies in Iran 54 -- although its notorious Operation TP/AJAX to
overthrow Mossadeq was not finally approved by Eisenhower until July 22, 1953.
55
The events of 1953 strengthened the role of the oil cartel as a structural component of the
American deep state, drawing on its powerful connections to both Wall Street and the CIA.
56 (Another such component was the Arabian-American Oil Company or ARAMCO in Saudi
Arabia, which increased oil production in 1951-53 to offset the loss of oil from Iran. Until it
was fully nationalized in 1980, ARAMCO maintained undercover CIA personnel like William Eddy
among its top advisors.) 57 The five American oil majors in particular were also
strengthened by the success of AJAX, as Anglo-Iranian (renamed BP) was henceforth forced to
share 40 percent of the oil from its Iran refinery with them.
Nearly all recent accounts of Mossadeq's overthrow treat it as a covert intelligence
operation, with the oil cartel (when mentioned at all) playing a subservient role. However the
chronology, and above all the belated approval from Eisenhower, suggest that it was CIA that
came belatedly in 1953 to assist an earlier oil cartel operation, rather than vice versa. In
terms of the deep state, the oil cartel or deep state initiated in 1951 a process that the
American public state only authorized two years later. Yet the inevitable bias in academic or
archival historiography, working only with those primary sources that are publicly available,
is to think of the Mossadeq tragedy as simply a "CIA coup."
VK
I posted the sequence of events used to create the petro dollar back in the 2018-33
thread.
Will post them again here as this thread concerns Kissinger.
More specifics can be added to this planned sequence of events, this just the basics.
...........
In the late 1960s, US found oil at Prudhoe bay and by 1970 it was a proved crude oil
reserve.
Due to environmental and other legal challenges, construction of the pipeline was held up.
In late 1972 the US Secretary of the Interior declares the trans-Alaska pipeline to be in
the US national interest
1973-74. OPEC oil embargo due to US backing of Israel pushes oil prices up in an initial
rise.
1973 (OPEC oil embargo) The Trans-Alaska pipeline Authorization Act legislation is quickly
pushed through. Signed by Nixon on November 16 1973. This blocked all further challenges
allowing construction to begin. pdf
Late 1973 Nixon along with Saudi Arabia create the petro dollar beginning in 1974.
1979-80 the price of oil skyrockets due to the Iranian revolution. The US is now the
global economic hegemon as all countries now need US dollars to purchase oil.
I have read that Kissinger withheld information from both Nixon and Israel, but have not
followed that line of research.
Here is a piece from an official Kissinger biography. You can see here he was working both
sides.
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/kissinger-henry-a
Kissinger entered the State Department just two weeks before Egypt and Syria launched a
surprise attack on Israel. The October War of 1973 played a major role in shaping Kissinger's
tenure as Secretary. First, he worked to ensure Israel received an airlift of U.S. military
supplies. This airlift helped Israel turn the war in Israel's favor, and it also led members
of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to initiate an oil embargo
against the United States. After the implementation of a United Nation's sponsored ceasefire,
Kissinger began a series of "shuttle diplomacy" missions, in which he traveled between
various Middle East capitals to reach disengagement agreements between the enemy combatants.
These efforts produced an agreement in January 1974 between Egypt and Israel and in May 1974
between Syria and Israel. Additionally, Kissinger's efforts contributed to OPEC's decision to
lift the embargo.
It is noticeable that Trump's US attack any Syrian forces coming too close to US occupied
zones of al Tanf and Dier Ezzor. Also Trumps takeover of the Deir Ezzor oilfields where US
forces simply set up bases or forward posts in the ISIS occupied area.
Under Trump, US has set up a number of new bases in Syria. On the other hand, no concern
about Afrin and Manbij. The Deir Ezzor area is Arab tribes and this and al Hasakah
(Kurd/Arab?) is the top end of the Persian Gulf/Mesopotamia oil field.
US now controls al Hasakah and half of Deir Ezzor province. The have been ongoing efforts
by the US under Trump to take Al Bukamal. US has a base just south of Al Bukamal in Iraq. US
bases are now thick throughout Mesopotamia, with more being built.
Also a new base being installed in Kuwait.
The US controls the Arab shore of the Persian gulf, it now has many bases in Iraq and
Syria. The only thing missing is the oil rich strip of Iran running alongside the Persian
gulf and Mesopotamia.
"... How different is it really from the past 70+ years (since that 45' meeting between FDR and the then ruler of KSA), and especially since the "oil shocks" of the 1970's ? The Trumpians are little more direct and crude in their wording, but that is really the only difference I see. ..."
"... Putin's announcement after Turkey's shooting down of a Russian jet that Turkey has been systematically facilitating ISIS oil sales illustrates how the terror-entity has become a figleaf to justify military action. ..."
"... As INSURGEintelligence has previously reported, there is significant evidence that high-level elements of Turkish government and intelligence agencies have covertly sponsored Islamist terrorist groups in Syria, including ISIS, and that this has involved permitting black market oil sales. ..."
"... Why, however, did Vladimir Putin wait until the murder of a Russian pilot before announcing Russia's possession of intelligence on Turkish state-sponsorship of ISIS? ..."
"... There can be little doubt that Putin had previously been more interested in protecting Russian relations with Turkey as an emerging gas transshipment hub to Europe, under which he and Erdogan planned to build the multibillion Russia-Turkey gas pipeline, Turkish Stream -- now suspended after the recent diplomatic furore. ..."
"... It has become increasingly clear that the US-led coalition strategy is aimed primarily at containment of the group's territorial ambitions within Syria. ..."
"... In this context, as Russia and Iran consolidate their hold on Syria through the Assad regime -- staking the claim to Syria's untapped resources in the Mediterranean -- the acceleration of Western military action offers both a carrot and a stick: the carrot aims to threaten the Assad regime into a political accommodation that capitulates to Western regional energy designs; the stick aims to replace him with a more compliant entity comprised of rebel forces backed by Western allies, the Gulf states and Turkey, whilst containing the most virulent faction, ISIS. ..."
The Saudi's. Interesting watching them agree to whatever Trump wants. The most recent one was Trump telling them to raise oil
output. The Saudi's now are very pro zionist and will back them against the Sunni Palestinians no matter what. If Trumps tells
them to pay for a US war or occupation they pay. If they are told to by lots of useless junk from the US MIC, they buy it and
manage to pull a twisted smile when Trump turns the screws about billions being peanuts.
Seems very much like KSA is now an expendable asset for the US, and their only chance of survival is a lot of 'yes sir, how
high sir'.
How different is it really from the past 70+ years (since that 45' meeting between FDR and the then ruler of KSA), and
especially since the "oil shocks" of the 1970's ? The Trumpians are little more direct and crude in their wording, but that is
really the only difference I see.
Posted by: Peter L. | Jul 1, 2018 11:21:17 PM | 23
Look no further than the first sentence of the text you quote. It has been documented a few times, including in the Intercept,
that there were some very serious money flows towards a certain foundation run by the family of the named person. Money flows
that originated in the Gulf. Money flows that were related to what happened in Libia.
Putin's announcement after Turkey's shooting down of a Russian jet that Turkey has been systematically facilitating ISIS
oil sales illustrates how the terror-entity has become a figleaf to justify military action.
As INSURGEintelligence has previously reported, there is significant evidence that high-level elements of Turkish government
and intelligence agencies have covertly sponsored Islamist terrorist groups in Syria, including ISIS, and that this has involved
permitting black market oil sales.
Why, however, did Vladimir Putin wait until the murder of a Russian pilot before announcing Russia's possession of intelligence
on Turkish state-sponsorship of ISIS?
There can be little doubt that Putin had previously been more interested in protecting Russian relations with Turkey
as an emerging gas transshipment hub to Europe, under which he and Erdogan planned to build the multibillion Russia-Turkey
gas pipeline, Turkish Stream -- now suspended after the recent diplomatic furore.
US, British and French military operations have been similarly inconsistent, inexplicably failing to shut down ISIS supply
lines through Turkey, failing to bomb critical ISIS oil infrastructure including vast convoys of trucks transporting black
market oil, and refusing to arm the most effective and secular Kurdish ground forces combating ISIS.
It has become increasingly clear that the US-led coalition strategy is aimed primarily at containment of the group's
territorial ambitions within Syria.
....
As Russia expands its military presence in the region in the name of fighting ISIS, the US, Britain and France are now scrambling
to ensure they retain a military foothold in Syria -- an effort to position themselves to make the most of a post-conflict
environment. As the US Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook put it:
"Most of the international investors who pulled out of Syria following the deterioration of the safety and security situation
throughout the country are expected to remain so until the military and political conflicts are resolved."
In this context, as Russia and Iran consolidate their hold on Syria through the Assad regime -- staking the claim
to Syria's untapped resources in the Mediterranean -- the acceleration of Western military action offers both a carrot and
a stick: the carrot aims to threaten the Assad regime into a political accommodation that capitulates to Western regional energy
designs; the stick aims to replace him with a more compliant entity comprised of rebel forces backed by Western allies, the
Gulf states and Turkey, whilst containing the most virulent faction, ISIS.
Hysteria is at fever pitch. After the NATO summit in Brussels, the definitive Decline of the West has been
declared a done deal as President Trump gets ready to meet President Putin in Helsinki.
It was Trump himself who
stipulated that he wants to talk to Putin behind closed doors, face-to-face, without any aides and, in theory,
spontaneously, after the preparatory meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov was canceled. The summit will take place at the early 19
th
century Presidential Palace in
Helsinki, a former residence of Russian emperors.
As a preamble to Helsinki, Trump's spectacular NATO blitzkrieg was a show for the ages; assorted "leaders" in
Brussels simply didn't know what hit them. Trump didn't even bother to arrive on time for morning sessions dealing
with the possible accession of Ukraine and Georgia. Diplomats confirmed to Asia Times that after Trump's stinging
"pay up or else" tirade, Ukraine and Georgia were asked to leave the room because what would be discussed was
strictly an internal NATO issue.
Previewing the summit, Eurocrats indulged in interminable carping about "illiberalism" taking over, from Viktor
Orban in Hungary to Sultan Erdogan in Turkey, as well as mourning the "destruction of European unity" (yes, it's
always Putin's fault). Trump though would have none of it. The US President conflates the EU with NATO,
interpreting the EU as a rival, just like China, but much weaker. As for the US "deal" with NATO, just like NAFTA,
that's a bad deal.
NATO is 'obsolete'
Trump is correct that without the US, NATO is "obsolete" – as in non-existent. So essentially what he did in
Brussels laid bare the case for NATO as a protection racket, with Washington fully entitled to up the stakes for
the "protection".
But "protection" against what?
Since the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, when NATO was repositioned in its new role as humanitarian imperialist
global Robocop, the alliance's record is absolutely dismal.
That features miserably losing an endless war in Afghanistan against a bunch of Pashtun warriors armed with
Kalashnikov replicas; turning functional Libya into a militia wasteland and headquarters for Europe-bound
refugees; and having the NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council lose its bet on a galaxy of jihadis and crypto-jihadis in
Syria spun as "moderate rebels".
NATO has launched a new training, non-combat mission in Iraq; 15 years after Shock and Awe, Sunnis, Shi'ites,
Yazidis and even Kurdish factions are not impressed.
Then there's the NATO Readiness Initiative; the capacity of deploying 30 battalions, 30 battleships and 30
aircraft squadrons within 30 days (or less) by 2020. If not to wreak selected havoc across the Global South, this
initiative is supposedly set up to deter "Russian aggression".
So after dabbling with the Global War on Terror, NATO is essentially back to the original "threat"; the
imminent Russian invasion of Western Europe – a ludicrous notion if there ever was one. The
final
statement
in Brussels spells it out, with special emphasis on item 6 and item 7.
The combined GDP of all NATO members is 12 times that of Russia. And NATO's defense spending is six times
larger than Russia's. Contrary to non-stop Polish and Baltic hysteria, Russia does not need to "invade" anything;
what worries the Kremlin, in the long term, is the well being of ethnic Russians living in former Soviet
republics.
Russia can't be both threat and an energy partner
Then there's Europe's energy policy – and that's a completely different story.
Trump has described the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as "inappropriate", but his claim that Germany gets 70% of its
energy (via natural gas imports) from Russia may be easily debunked. Germany gets at best 9% of its energy from
Russia. In terms of Germany's
sources
of energy
, only 20% is natural gas. And less than 40% of natural gas in Germany comes from Russia. Germany is
fast transitioning towards wind, solar, biomass and hydro energy, which made up 41% of the total in 2018. And the
target is 50% by 2030.
Yet Trump does have a sterling point when, stressing that "Germany is a rich country", he wants to know
why America should
"protect
you against Russia"
when energy deals are on the table. "Explain that! It can't be explained!" as he
reportedly said to Nato Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday.
In the end, of course, it's all about business. What Trump is really aiming at is for Germany to import US
shale gas, three times more expensive than pipeline-delivered Russian gas.
The energy angle is directly linked to the never-ending 2% defense spending soap opera. Germany currently
spends 1.2% of GDP on NATO. by 2024, it's supposed to reach at best 1.5%. And that's it. The majority of German
voters, in fact, want US troops
out
.
So Trump's demand for 4% of GDP on defense spending for all NATO members will never fly. The sales pitch should
be seen for what it is: a tentative "invitation" for an increased EU and NATO shopping spree on US military
hardware.
In a nutshell, the key factor remains that Trump's Brussels blitzkrieg did make his case. Russia cannot be a
"threat" and a reliable energy partner at the same time. As much as NATO poodles may be terrified of "Russian
aggression", the facts spell out they won't put their money where their rhetorical hysteria is.
Foreign ministers attend a working dinner during the NATO Summit in Brussels on July 11, 2018. They gathered to
discuss Russia, Iraq and their mission in Afghanistan. Photo: AFP/ pool/ Yves Herman
Are you listening now?
"Russian aggression" should be one of the top items discussed in Helsinki. In the – remote – possibility that
Trump will strike a deal with Putin, NATO's absurd
raison d'etre
would be even more exposed.
That's not the US "deep-state" agenda, of course, thus the 24/7 demonization of the summit even before it
happens. Moreover, for Trump, the transactional gambling man's Make-America-Great-Again point of view, the ideal
outcome would always be to get even more European weapons deals for the US industrial-military-intelligence
complex.
Terrified by Trump, diplomats in Brussels over these past few days have conveyed to Asia Times fears about the
end of NATO, the end of the World Trade Organization, even the end of the EU. But the fact remains that Europe is
absolutely peripheral to the Big Picture.
In
Losing Military Supremacy
, his latest, groundbreaking book, crack Russian military-naval analyst
Andrei
Martyanov
deconstructs in detail how, "the United States faces two nuclear and industrial superpowers, one of
which fields a world-class armed forces. If the military-political, as opposed to merely economic, alliance
between Russia and China is ever formalized – this will spell the final doom for the United States as a global
power."
The US deep state (its influential bureaucrats) may be wallowing in perpetual denial, but Trump – after many a
closed-door meeting with Henry Kissinger – may have understood the suicidal "strategy" of Washington
simultaneously antagonizing Russia and China.
Putin's landmark
March
1 speech
, as Martyanov stresses, was an effort to "coerce America's elites, if not into peace, at least into
some form of sanity, given that they are currently completely detached from the geopolitical, military and
economic realities of the newly emerging power configurations of the world". These elites may not be listening,
but Trump seems to indicate he is.
As for the NATO poodles, all they can do is watch.
Putin/Russia is also the only entity that can prevent Trump's US from simply walking in and
taking over the rich energy hub (Mafia style) to the south of Eurasia.
Notable quotes:
"... Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US. ..."
"... Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy. Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits. ..."
"... Russia supply energy to Eurasia from the North. The opening for the Trump mob is in the south. The meet with Putin may well be to sound out the possibilities of forming a cartel. ..."
"... Yes, it absolutely is. But this is not a new "Trump policy." Certainly Zbiginew Brzezenski laid this out quite clearly in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." It's really all in there, just as you're now identifying. If you can't take the time to read it, please consider at least reading some book reviews. As I've noted before, Ziggy apparently didn't foresee Putin rising to power and restoring the Russian state, which threw the proverbial monkey wrench into the globalists' plans, but really, US foreign policy has continued to follow his plans otherwise. ..."
The latest article at the Saker site by Rostislav Ishchenko - Trump's Geopolitical Cruise
- I think is the best take on Trump's and his backers mindset. Worth a read and covers what I
think was the cause of the split in the US elite.
The petro dollar, kicking off in the late 70s was a piece of creative accounting to give
unlimited credit. This should have been ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but
greed got the better of most. Trump and the people backing him could see that this was now in
its terminal stages and US close to collapse itself.
Rostislav Ishchenko, like many thinks that Trump is pulling the US back to a form of
isolation from the world, but I don't think this is the case.
Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not
labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can
clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US.
Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy. Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is
looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits.
Russia supply energy to Eurasia from the North. The opening for the Trump mob is in the
south. The meet with Putin may well be to sound out the possibilities of forming a cartel.
Putin/Russia is also the only entity that can prevent Trump's US from simply walking in
and taking over the rich energy hub (Mafia style) to the south of Eurasia.
"Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy."
Yes, it absolutely is. But this is not a new "Trump policy." Certainly Zbiginew Brzezenski
laid this out quite clearly in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives." It's really all in there, just as you're now identifying. If you
can't take the time to read it, please consider at least reading some book reviews. As I've
noted before, Ziggy apparently didn't foresee Putin rising to power and restoring the Russian
state, which threw the proverbial monkey wrench into the globalists' plans, but really, US
foreign policy has continued to follow his plans otherwise.
Kissinger has written much the same, though I don't recall in which books/articles. This
page from the US Navy seems a fine reading list, designed as it appears to indoctrinate
officers in AZ Empire geopolitics.
IMO, the US took the lead in the Empire's Global Energy Dominance quest when FDR met with
King Saud on Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal in 1945 (swinging by after the final
post-war world planning meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta). This was when the US
largely replaced Great Britain in primacy over Asian/Middle Eastern energy dominance.
The US is in the Persian Gulf to stay. Trumps face face meet with Putin will be so Trump
can try and gauge what Putin will do - if he will run any blocking moves, his reaction to a
fait accompli ect. Most likely a few more face to face meetings before any move on Iran.
Peter, thanks for pointing out the new and unwanted US base in Iraq. I just read that the US
was building the world's largest Embassy Compound in "Iraqi Kurdistan." I wonder it they're
the same thing?
In a quick web search, failing to find an answer, I noticed that besides the "Green Zone"
compound we built in Baghdad at the start of the current military occupation, the record
holder was the US Embassy Compound in Pakistan.
James and I have discoursed here a bit on the history of US military occupations since WW
II. Boils down to the US has never removed its military from any country it's occupied with
the exception of Vietnam.
veritas semper vincit @103 linked blogpost notes that the US has 40,000 troops still
occupying Germany. His (I presume) post is quite entertaining considering the severe
seriousness of the topic.
Dis is a nice little country ya gotz heyah. Id be a shame if sumpin' bad was ta happen to
it.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Friday that a deal under which
Russia would provide goods to Iran in exchange for oil is still possible.
Russia is studying all legal issues related to the possible deal, he said.
Looks like OPEC 14 peaked two years. Can they beat it?, perhaps by a small amount in a world
without chaos.
Today orange fatty called out Germany for being captive to Russia. I'm pretty sure he was
referring to German dependence on imported fossil energy from Russia.
As of 2015 Germany net energy imports are 64% of total [USA 12% for comparison]. If this
means 'captive', then perhaps we should acknowledge that 11 of our top 13 trading partners
are highly dependent on imported energy from either Russia or the big OPEC producers.
'Captives' so to speak. Better get used to that idea, and learn how to get along with
others. Only Canada and Mexico aren't 'captives', but we don't look to good at being friends
with them either.
"... Trump seems to enjoy antagonizing the Europeans one way or the other. As to NATO, Trump made the same complaints during his campaign while calling it "obsolete." Sometimes it sounds like he would rather have the US out of NATO. One theory I have is that he is limited in what he can do so he works around TPTBs to get closer to his goals. So he antagonizes and threatens Europe on NATO. The same goes for Syria. He talked about wanting to pull out but kept being drawn back in by the usual suspects. So he's pulled monetary support in certain cases and refused to dig the US in any deeper than it is. And it will be interesting to see what happens with his upcoming meeting with Putin considering how much he had to backtrack on his talk of better relations during his campaign. Those who've wanted him to join the "hate Russia" team may get frustrated. ..."
"... Within this new "mulit-polar" world, only Russia is cutting its military budge. And they still seem to have at least one of the most effective conventional war-fighting capability, and their next generation nuclear deterrence looks nothing short of awesome. They have pipelines to build, and like China, long-term economic contracts to sign. ..."
"... I'm no fan of Angela, but she/Germany have been trying to tamp down this AZ Empire New Cold War against Russia since at least 2013. When she, Putin, Yanukovych (elected President of Ukraine) and the leaders of the Maidan protests got together and signed an agreement in which Yanukovych acquiesced to essentially all of the "peaceful, pro-democracy protesters'" demands, it was the Asst. Secretary of the US State (Vickie Nuland) who said, "F*ck the EU" "We can midwife this thing" and even appointed the new PM "Yats is the guy." ..."
"... The US can't keep funding your crappy little joke of a disintegrating "European Union" for ever. Sooner or later you'll have to put on big-boy pants. ..."
"... USA govt's assessment of China and Russia as "revisionist" should be understood as a determination to remain the hegemonic power. Thus, we have Cold War II. From that perspective, European objections to more "defense" spending are considered naive (or worse) as Europe's fate is views as tied to that of the Empire. ..."
"... I think European elites are much more likely to side with USA than European people. If the Trump's talk with Putin doesn't go well, we are likely to see increased scaremongering to rectify public opinion. ..."
"... Chaos can make doing business harder, but that can also increase profits. As the posters said in the '60s, "War Is Not Good For Children And Other Living Things." But it's great for the psychopaths. ..."
"... Here is an article that explains the relationship between Russian pipelines, USA sanctions on Russia, MH17, Crimea, and Syria. It is an excellent background to comprehend Trump's accusations about Germany's purchase of gas from Russia. Patrick Armstrong and Pat Lang seem to think that Trump is about to cut NATO support, reduce/eliminate sanctions against Russia, and redirect relations with Israel, but I am not persuaded. https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/ by Kees van der Pijl He also wrote a book on this topic. ..."
"... Everything the US does works to undermine its old power in the new world. We see this continually. Trump is an accelerator. But whether any of this is intentional and actually desired by a part of US vested interests, is still an open question. ..."
"... Nevertheless, as we watch, we see every action of the US working to cement the bonds of its opposition in the rest of the world. From the Escobar article linked by karlof1 above, we see the pressure on the Middle East to reject the US and turn for safety to the Eurasian institutions of commerce, finance and national security. The same thing is happening to Europe. ..."
"... he equation as it stands now is this: A muscle-bound USA + an anaemic Europe "deterring" a Russian Federation that has no intention of invading. ..."
"... Since Russia is no threat either way then there is no need - none whatsoever - for the Europeans to increase their military expenditure to "defend themselves" against a non-existent Russian threat. ..."
"... Indeed, the only reason the Europeans would feel that they might have to prepare to "defend themselves" would be because that muscle-bound US military is now outside the tent pissing in, not inside the tent pissing out. ..."
"... Since whenever, America has been the proxy front for the current instantiation of empire with the core of control being ongoing private finance with global tools like BIS, IMF, World Bank, etc. Since WWII and even before the goal of empire is to have all of the world under its control. Since the engine of empire is a supra-national matrix of private finance control, the enemy becomes any nations who do not want to be impregnated with the Western model of private Central Bank, an oligarchy , inheritance, private property, etc. ..."
"... The empire model of growth through wars and boom/bust expansion has reached its "logical" limits and the the existential question has become, blow everything all up or agree to a multipolar world. I think that the elite hope Trump's bluster will make it so they do not have to answer that existential question.....yet ..."
"... If Trump's fake argument gambit was intended to inspire people inside and outside the EU to think outside the box then it seems to have worked. ..."
"... I LUV how Trump stomped on all those preaning European elite scumbags. ..."
"... Agree with Patrick. It is surprising to still see so much animosity towards a president who has done more to combat the absurdity of NATO and globalism than I can remember any other President doing. The ball is in the EU elites court, now. Put up or shut up and I believe it makes no difference to Trump. We are about to find out who is REALLY to blame for marching lockstep with the current of hypercentralization (globalism): the Trump admin or the EU elitez. ..."
"... The US has been manipulating NATO ever since it was formed. Most NATO officials are vetted by the US. Trump is an idiot, like the bulk of US politicians. ..."
"... Trump's "reasoning" makes sense in an infantile sort of way, but there's more too it than meets the eye, is there not? Trump doesn't just want to Europe to "pay their fair share" for NATO, which we all know is code for buying more US mil.gear but also to buy their LNG from US too. It's like NATO is some sort of grotesque, evil franchise where the franchisees can only buy goods/services from that single source, even though it's crap & inordinately expensive, and even if you can get it cheaper elsewhere, i.e Russia. ..."
"... Wow! You don't feel that Trump has, by his mere existence and by winning the presidency, been given a platform of which to decry the myriad injustices of globalization and to utter things unspeakable by any Prez in the last fifty years? ..."
"... Europe has an arms industry of their own. I doubt European countries invest their money into US stuff - they buy their own. Most of the money does not go into weapons anyway, but personel and administration. Germany contributes to the maintenance and infrastructure of US bases, but those bases are business, too. This is not Saudi Arabia buying protection. The real news is that Trump has started a trade war negotiating by tantrum. ..."
You are agreeing with an idiot, no matter what...Europe has nothing to worry about with
regards to Russia. Unless they threaten Russia. 'Love this exchange at breakfast;
"Stoltenberg: [ ] I think that two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that we
are stronger together than apart.
Trump: But how can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the
person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
Stoltenberg: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing
with Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that --
Trump: No, you're just making Russia richer. You're not dealing with Russia.
You're making Russia richer."
You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with Trump here.
Trump seems to enjoy antagonizing the Europeans one way or the other. As to NATO, Trump
made the same complaints during his campaign while calling it "obsolete." Sometimes it sounds
like he would rather have the US out of NATO. One theory I have is that he is limited in what
he can do so he works around TPTBs to get closer to his goals. So he antagonizes and
threatens Europe on NATO. The same goes for Syria. He talked about wanting to pull out but
kept being drawn back in by the usual suspects. So he's pulled monetary support in certain
cases and refused to dig the US in any deeper than it is. And it will be interesting to see
what happens with his upcoming meeting with Putin considering how much he had to backtrack on
his talk of better relations during his campaign. Those who've wanted him to join the "hate
Russia" team may get frustrated.
Will he take direct action on any of these things? I doubt it. The indirect route seems to
go in the right direction.
karlof!. Good to "see" you back. The following is specifically to you, but it does continue
from your first comment. [I couldn't get some links to embed, sorry]
My best short term hope is that all this war-blustering is just to convince we commoners
to bend over so the military/industrial contractors can make lots of gelt. The Global War OF
Terror has been terrific for their bank accounts, but with SAA and the MoD of the RF beating
the snot out of terrorists wherever they go to such an extent that the Pentagon is
considering ISIS essentially defeated.
Besides, the really "big ticket products" are things like aircraft carriers,
"upgraded" nuclear weapons, 5th Generation fighters, etc. etc. etc., that are harder to
excuse when their targets are guys in sandals with AK47s and IEDs. That could be why the 2018
National Defense Strategy plan has shifted from fighting "terrorism" back to " the long-term,
strategic competition between nations."
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
Same with our "adversary" across the big pond in China. Just the other day, the CPC warned
of "China's army infiltrated by 'peace disease' requiring a major new "defense posture" just
like the US and NATO.
Within this new "mulit-polar" world, only Russia is cutting its military budge. And
they still seem to have at least one of the most effective conventional war-fighting
capability, and their next generation nuclear deterrence looks nothing short of awesome. They
have pipelines to build, and like China, long-term economic contracts to sign.
No dear b, for once I think you've got it wrong. I see Trump asking three question for all of
which there is one answer.
1. Angela. You tell us that NATO ought to concentrate on the Russian threat. If Russia is a
threat, why are you buying gas from it?
2. Angela, You tell us that Russia is a reliable energy supplier. If Russia is a reliable
supplier, why are you telling us it's a threat?
3. Angela. I hope you're not saying Russia is a threat and its gas is cheap but the USA will
save us.
The answer to all 3 questions is: we're out of here, defend yourselves. It's Trump cutting
the Gordian Knot of obligations.
Aarrgghh! Besides some continuity problems when I recut and pasted the above since the links
weren't working, I also left out the following completely.
That could be why, even though the US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review observes we are changing
from: "For decades, the United States led the world in efforts to reduce the role and number
of nuclear weapons." To " the current, pragmatic assessment of the threats we face and the
uncertainties regarding the future security environment." Which conveniently can use up, or
more likely go over budget on former President CareBear's additional $10 Billion in nuclear
weapons development over the succeeding 10 years.
I'm no fan of Angela, but she/Germany have been trying to tamp down this AZ Empire New
Cold War against Russia since at least 2013. When she, Putin, Yanukovych (elected President
of Ukraine) and the leaders of the Maidan protests got together and signed an agreement in
which Yanukovych acquiesced to essentially all of the "peaceful, pro-democracy protesters'"
demands, it was the Asst. Secretary of the US State (Vickie Nuland) who said, "F*ck the EU"
"We can midwife this thing" and even appointed the new PM "Yats is the guy."
She was then an active participant in the Minsk Agreement to end the "anti-terrorism
action" Which our gal Vickie shredded publicly the next day because the AZ Empire thought the
Uki-Nazis would finish off those Muscovite, Colorado hicks and (can I post the Ukie terms for
Jews?) in the east like they'd done in the south.
Then, Angela was involved in the Minsk II cease-fire/road to peace (when the Uki-Nazis
were being driven out of the east, and were about to lose Mariupol).
I know there are others in addition to b here who know this stuff better than I. Isn't
this about right?
"It is extremely hypocritical for Poland to lobby against Nord Stream when it significantly
contributes to Poland's energy security."
There are other explanations that could be better documented, like stupidity and insanity.
BTW, Poland has big pollution problem, and a major part is that many older multifamily
buildings and new single family building has polluting heating with coal furnaces and stoves.
Natural gas does not generate pollutants except for CO2 which is not affecting health, plus
it uses less than half of carbon than coal.
On the other note, merely to get enough gas for internal needs, Poland could get enough
through Belorus. But if you need to add re-export to Ukraine, that is not enough. So Poles
can pride themselves of not being as stupid and insane as their southeastern neighbors.
Well stated. There are many gordian knots. The BIS should be dissolved
""Responsible fiscal practice requires a government to fill spending gaps left by
fluctuations in non-government spending patterns. In that way, the government takes
responsibility for maintaining full employment. What the Troika did in Greece was the
exemplar of irresponsible fiscal practice.""
I really really like the way you include a 'solution' to a global problem in this analysis b.
To many times we just speak to the choir and rarely are solutions presented regardless where
they lie on the possible/probable line. Did I mention I really like this SA. Thanks.
karlof1 @7. In graph 1, of actual dollar expenditure, NATO spending was going down until
2012, then it started to rise again, and has been a net increase every year since 2015.
In graph 4, per nation spending relative to GDP went up from 2014 to 2017 in almost all
member states notably, except the US and UK, but even then, US went from 3.58% to slightly
over 3.5% and UK from 2.14% to a touch over 2.1%, so both are above the 2% "minimum."
Graphs 5, 6, 7 all show actual dollar expenditures dropping from 1010 to 2014, but then
increasing every year since then.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. But it sure looks like NATO spending has been rising
since this "New Cold War" really kicked into gear in 3024/2015.
"One big reason they deposed the Shah who was planning to go big with nuclear power with
orders for about 20 French and /or German reactors"
Another hat in the ring for CIA/MI6/Mossad helping to install the Islamic part of the
Iranian Revolution? WooHoo!
"China basically has a monopoly on these metals"
Yes. Bear in mind though that "discovered" after the US invasion/occupation is that
Afghanistan has perhaps the world's largest reserves of lithium. And the "Democratic
Republic" of Congo also has much rare earth wealth. As in fact do other parts of central
Africa. Hence, the AZ Empire's new "AfriCom" military classification and the reinstallation
of French Colonialism.
I'm not so up on this whole tariff thing. Hasn't Germany had substantial tariffs on
automobiles for years now? Do those tariffs apply to other EU states?
Daniel
I have read in the past that Afghan is very rich in a number of minerals and China was
looking at development there as part of it road belt intuitive. Going by the state
Afghanistan is in I can't see the US extracting minerals there. US squatting in Afghanistan
may be simply to deny Chinese access to the mineral deposits.
If NS2 goes online and EU goes dark to Qatar, especially if Iran corks Qatar with a South
pipeline, the Middle East economies will collapse into chaos, and nobody will be buying
either US guns or butter.
US'own economy is going down the crapper with No Taxes for the Rich running an $800B
Deficit, and private Fed Bank ratcheting up $50B at a gulp in interest-only Debt financing
...forever. Collapse of MediCare and MediCaid will bleed even more out of the retsil economy,
which will increase the Deficit, into a National Debt death spiral, and collapse of the
public pensiin systems.
If you project MIC arms spendung and Fed interest-only bleed out, Trump's illegal 25% Fed
VAT sales tax (aka 'tariffs) and EU/RU/CH counter-tariffs, all US health and human services
will be insolvent by 2025.
When that happens, and could happen much sooner, the world we knew in 20C will be
inverted, upended, chaos, albeit, only chaos for the Lower Classes, Workers and Private
Pensioners/401Ks. The Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty will...uhh...find a way!
@kgw
"You are agreeing with an idiot, no matter what...Europe has nothing to worry about with
regards to Russia. Unless they threaten Russia."
Well shit or get off the pot why don't you - "idiot" Trump is calling your bluff - stop
freeloading off a (by your assessment) non-existent threat, or he'll stop it for you. Can't
have it both ways. The US can't keep funding your crappy little joke of a disintegrating
"European Union" for ever. Sooner or later you'll have to put on big-boy pants.
James, @44. I largely agree with (and have called for) Patrick's recommendations for what
Ukraine should do now. I don't see anything in there that contravenes what I wrote about
Germany's role in the AZ Empire's coup and resulting war, though.
Do you remember those events, or should I dig out citations? I was following it pretty
closely from mid/late 2013 until it quieted down in 2015. Since then, I just pick up articles
here and there.
When you'd have to be an idiot to agree with Trump ($1 TRILLION MIC arms profiteering
slash National Police State slash MIC Indefinite Detention Gulags), but now you'd have to be
an idiot NOT to agree with Trump (drag EU into the funeral pyre)m then you know it must be
the Red Army v Blue Army media spewfest and the National Novitiate in November is near.
Rahhh.
E pluribus now get back to work. Your 2Q ONE TRILLION Deep Purple State tithe-tibute is
due in 3 more days, ONE TRILKION that you and your hiers will never see again.
USA govt's assessment of China and Russia as "revisionist" should be understood as a
determination to remain the hegemonic power. Thus, we have Cold War II. From that
perspective, European objections to more "defense" spending are considered naive (or worse)
as Europe's fate is views as tied to that of the Empire.
I think European elites are much more likely to side with USA than European people. If
the Trump's talk with Putin doesn't go well, we are likely to see increased scaremongering to
rectify public opinion.
Not to mention those same rare earth metals are getting out of DRC despite millions of
murderous deaths and disease.
And the oil started flowing out of Libya before Gaddafi was even lynched. Oil's been
flowing out of "Kurdish" Iraq into Israel come hell or high water. And of course, ISIL was
shipping Syrian oil through Turkey and Jordan (if not Israel) throughout.
Chaos can make doing business harder, but that can also increase profits. As the
posters said in the '60s, "War Is Not Good For Children And Other Living Things." But it's
great for the psychopaths.
Trump's native approach I suspect may be something like that of fellow-New Yorker and great
American chess player Bobby Fischer who famously said: "Try something!"
That sounds about right. I would only add that Minsk Accord is another example of a
non-agreement. Ukraine never signed yet Russia is accused of not implementing this
non-agreement whenever people feel the need for some more Russia-bashing.
Here is an article that explains the relationship between Russian pipelines, USA
sanctions on Russia, MH17, Crimea, and Syria. It is an excellent background to comprehend
Trump's accusations about Germany's purchase of gas from Russia. Patrick Armstrong and Pat
Lang seem to think that Trump is about to cut NATO support, reduce/eliminate sanctions
against Russia, and redirect relations with Israel, but I am not persuaded. https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/
by Kees van der Pijl He also wrote a book on this topic.
Trump follows the footsprints of the post-USA Civil War Republican Party policy. From
Chapter 1 of The Politicos 1865-1896 by Matthew Josephson (published in 1938)
"The new industrialist and financial class and the farmers of the North emerged the
greatest gainers by far among the mixed coalition of classes which fought to win the social
revolution underlying the War Between the States. But no less triumphant and dominent was the
war party itself, the youthful organization of professional politicians and officeholders
known as the Republican Party. A minority party in 1860, and victor in a three-cornered
electoral contest, it knew during the war the intoxication of unchallenged power and fortune
beyond calculation, leaving it in command of all the offices of the Federal Government!"
From Beard, Contemporary American History, p.91
It had the management of the gigantic war finances, through which it attached to itself
the interests ... of the great capitalists and bankers throughout the North. It raised
revenues by a high tariff which placed thousands of manufacturers under debt to it and
linked their fortunes also with its fate ... Railway financiers and promoters of all kinds
had to turn to it for privileges and protection...
jackrabbit@59
surprised to hear you say Ukraine did not sign MinskII. On the contrary, I read that it was
signed by LD Kuchma, Second President of Ukraine. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Signatories
The document was signed by:[23]
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
Separatist's leaders Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II#Signatories
All-night negotiations on Wednesday ended with the signing of the Declaration of Minsk in
support of the "Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements" by Angela
Merkel of Germany, Francois Hollande of France, Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Vladimir
Putin of Russia and release of the full agreement. The talks, according to some reports,
almost collapsed near the end as Ukraine and rebel leaders balked at signing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/02/13/putin-comes-out-on-top-in-new-minsk-agreement/#21ffe18f4ede
From Chapter 1 of The Politicos 1865-1896 by Matthew Josephson (published in 1938):
"The prosecution of the war against rebellion had been associated with a protective tariff
levied against a hated England. which profited and sought to profit further from our
disaster. With the close of the war, a cry arose from the Northeastern region that high
tariffs were needed to pay the war debt. and an outburst of high Protectionism followed in
1866."
Everything the US does works to undermine its old power in the new world. We see this
continually. Trump is an accelerator. But whether any of this is intentional and actually
desired by a part of US vested interests, is still an open question.
Nevertheless, as we watch, we see every action of the US working to cement the bonds
of its opposition in the rest of the world. From the Escobar article linked by karlof1 above,
we see the pressure on the Middle East to reject the US and turn for safety to the Eurasian
institutions of commerce, finance and national security. The same thing is happening to
Europe.
Some days I think that Trump was a brilliantly inspired choice of some deep state players
to further their agenda of fragmenting the old arrangements to allow new alignments to come
into place - to modernize the elite control of the world. But most days I just don't know.
What can one say about a force this magisterial and still this enigmatic?
I was talking with a friend today about Trump. She said she sees his approach as quite
typical of US business style. You come out with the big stick, knowing it will get chopped in
half by the time you get to agreement. But at least you end up with half a stick. Gotta start
big. You don't ask, you don't get.
This style worked perfectly with North Korea, which was a standout among the nations of
the world, in my opinion, for understanding superbly well how Trump played the game, and
played it right back. The result was a meeting of equals, where something could actually get
done. But NK worked hard to develop the bargaining chip to put on the table too. Words
without substance don't work.
I'm not seeing many other countries responding with this same kind of exaggerated bravado
- it is a very US way of doing business. Most countries are simply working to go around the
US. Europe seems to be doing the same thing, simply rejecting and turning away. But the
European countries could certainly create bargaining chips if they wanted to play the Trump
game of negotiation. I truly suspect his style is something they're still getting to grips
with. Perhaps they should call Kim for pointers.
I think ultimately we are seeing two things at work, and in tandem: the natural style of
Trump, and the very real and unstoppable current of history. Whether either force is aware of
the other, I can't say. Like the success or failure of the French Revolution, it's too soon
to tell.
@65 Good summary. I think the Europeans simply don't know what to make of him. The look on
Stoltenberg's face said it all. They just don't know how to respond to someone so direct.
Maybe Putin is the only one who can talk his language....but not in public.
China's taking a page from Mahan regarding sea power. NATO graphs: I mentioned Obama
ordered an increase in spending and the chart shows the compliance. The ups and downs
correlate well with wars and major recessions.
@53 daniel... what you said earlier - i think much the same way... i would be curious to know
more of how patrick armstrong sees all that, but i think it is much the same as us too..
those links @53 reflect how messed up ukraine is at present.. having a failed state on your
doorstep doesn't sound like fun and that works both ways for europe and russia.. i guess that
was the usa ( and israels?) plan... screw up countries so they don't function properly, so
you have to spend a lot of imf money to fix them.. works for wall st, lol..
@38 "The answer to all 3 questions is: we're out of here, defend yourselves"
Patrick, I'm confused: they are meant to defend themselves against whom, exactly? T he
equation as it stands now is this: A muscle-bound USA + an anaemic Europe "deterring" a
Russian Federation that has no intention of invading.
Remove the muscle-bound Americans from the equation and this is what remains: An anaemic
Europe "deterring" a Russian Federation that has no intention of invading.
Since Russia is no threat either way then there is no need - none whatsoever - for the
Europeans to increase their military expenditure to "defend themselves" against a
non-existent Russian threat.
Indeed, the only reason the Europeans would feel that they might have to prepare to
"defend themselves" would be because that muscle-bound US military is now outside the tent
pissing in, not inside the tent pissing out.
@68 Maybe they thought Ukraine would join the EU at some point but Crimea was the prize. The
plan was to turn Crimea into a NATO base. Putin spoiled everything.
Wikipedia also says (as part Leonid Kuchma's bio):
Since July 2014, Kuchma has been Ukraine's representative at the semi-official peace
talks regarding the ongoing War in Donbass.
Why are they "semi-official"? Because Ukraine would not talk to the rebels
directly. They believe that the rebels are sponsored by Russia so the dispute is between
Russia and Ukraine. They would not talk to the rebels as that might convey legitimacy to the
rebels. That's why the Trialteral Contact Group was set up. The signers of Minsk II (Russia,
Germany, France, Kuchma/Ukraine) are merely "guarantors" of an agreement between Ukraine and
the Donbas rebels - neither of which has actually signed.
Kuchma "represents" Ukraine but can't bind Ukraine. Although Poroschenko attended some of
the talks, he never signed the agreement.
Minsk and Minsk II have reduced conflict somewhat but Ukraine has dragged its feet every
step of the way. For example: they were slow to pull back heavy artillery as called for under
the accord, then they wouldn't pass laws that were necessary for other provisions of the
accord.
The Minsk accords outlined a detailed procedure through which Donetsk and Luhansk would
receive "special status," hold internationally-recognized elections, and then negotiate
their reintegration into Ukraine directly with Kiev, including basic constitutional reforms
to federalize the country. No substantive steps have ever been undertaken by either side to
implement these terms, and the new "Donbass Integration Law" now makes clear that Kiev
expects the country to be re-united on its terms alone, though probably not anytime
soon.
Ukrainian lawmakers, who overwhelmingly passed the bill on Jan. 19, argue that it
simply normalizes a situation that has long existed but was clouded by misleading jargon
and official fealty to the non-functioning Minsk accords .
Poroschenko signed the bill into law in February 2018.
@dh "Maybe Putin is the only one who can talk his language"
Going by what Putin said of Trump after their 2 1/2 hour meeting in Vietnam, it seems more
likely Trump talks in Putin's language when meeting actual leaders. Same would go for his
meeting with KJU, and I would guess Xi.
Since whenever, America has been the proxy front for the current instantiation of
empire with the core of control being ongoing private finance with global tools like BIS,
IMF, World Bank, etc. Since WWII and even before the goal of empire is to have all of the
world under its control. Since the engine of empire is a supra-national matrix of private
finance control, the enemy becomes any nations who do not want to be impregnated with the
Western model of private Central Bank, an oligarchy , inheritance, private property,
etc.
The empire model of growth through wars and boom/bust expansion has reached its
"logical" limits and the the existential question has become, blow everything all up or agree
to a multipolar world. I think that the elite hope Trump's bluster will make it so they do
not have to answer that existential question.....yet
The EU has always been a bastard child with little chance of growing up because there was
no finance core agreements to manage the national variations within. I am surprised it has
lasted as long as it has given the historical tension between the nations. The US has similar
social tensions but our structure has homoginized the economy enough that we haven't
imploded...yet
The key to this process which I believe is being managed by the elite is at what point are
the big decisions made and by whom. Given the accelerated nature of the managed
deconstruction, I suspect the elite believe they will retain their mystique of power long
enough to not lose grip on private finance running the Western world. The EU countries will
have to come to terms with their oligarchs and determine what path forward works for all of
eurasia. I don't see the current leadership of any EU countries as having the public's best
interest in mind or action.
Are we seeing Western plutocracy fail of its own "weight"? Perhaps so.....nice
I LUV how Trump stomped on all those preaning European elite scumbags. He's my hero
for pooping all over their little pride parade. Tell em like it is Donald they call you
stupid and all those other useless names. Your stinking GENIUS. MORE and an ENCORE!!!!
Agree with Patrick. It is surprising to still see so much animosity towards a
president who has done more to combat the absurdity of NATO and globalism than I can remember
any other President doing. The ball is in the EU elites court, now. Put up or shut up and I
believe it makes no difference to Trump. We are about to find out who is REALLY to blame for
marching lockstep with the current of hypercentralization (globalism): the Trump admin or the
EU elitez.
Sorry for the break in the Trump-bashing. Let's all get back to that good ol'
America-hatin' catharsis.
Since the start of the 70ties I have heard exactly the same tune from the US and the
blathering idiot in charge now has not changed the tune; ever since have I had to listen to
this "The Russians are coming" tune, with the rhetoric getting ever more shrill and false,
1989 brought a brief and marvelous, albeit very short pause to this tune, and for a few years
the US Kleptocracy was happy plundering the former USSR. When Russia resisted the plunder i.
e. Putin was elected, the tune started over again from where it was paused, disregarding the
fact that Russia does not in any way compare to the former USSR.
N, noooe , it is still "The Russians are coming" playing, but with a new beat, pepped up,
but same substance. But we are not listening anymore, the disgraceful actions and evil
behavior of The United States of Mordor, have come into the open (The internet, appreciate
it, we will not for long have it in its present form), even the most daft of us quietly
starts wondering.
Well I am not daft, and the questioning ended 4 decades ago, The US must be resisted. Our
politicians here on the continent must wake up and reject US imperialism and militarism, and
devise our own defenses if deemed necessary, many European nations are not at the living
standards we enjoy in Scandinavia, surely the money were better spent on that.
If the Poles and Baltic's want American troops on their soil, withdraw EU spending, we do
not need their insane sabre rattling. (Especially the Poles are vile, they forget that when
Hitler invaded, they had been a fascist dictatorship for years).
What exactly has Trump done to combat the absurdity of globalization and NATO besides
talk? While he stopped TPP and TIPP he is negotiating similar agreements bilaterally. Also
his Personal Empire benefits from globalization.
US only contributes 1% of their defense budget to NATO's direct costs so pulling out of
NATO would make hardly a dent in the budget except to increase costs to relocate all the
personnel and hardware. Those bases are invaluableHis calling for NATO countries to increase
defense spending benefits US and Israeli companies who make up the military and security
industrial complex and wont do squat to lower the defense budget
Born and raised in Southern California, been here 70 years... The US has been
manipulating NATO ever since it was formed. Most NATO officials are vetted by the US. Trump
is an idiot, like the bulk of US politicians.
@kgw
"You are agreeing with an idiot, no matter what...Europe has nothing to worry about with
regards to Russia. Unless they threaten Russia."
Well shit or get off the pot why don't you - "idiot" Trump is calling your bluff - stop
freeloading off a (by your assessment) non-existent threat, or he'll stop it for you. Can't
have it both ways. The US can't keep funding your crappy little joke of a disintegrating
"European Union" for ever. Sooner or later you'll have to put on big-boy pants. Methinks this
guy has a good take on this.
You're assuming Europe's leaders aren't bought and paid for by Wall Bank Street Banksters.
The system is rigged. I wouldn't doubt that they go into lapdog mode and bow to blowhard
Trump.
Mrs Merkel emphasised that the German armed forces would remain commanded by parliament and
not the government, and "would not take part in every mission".
This here is a clear description of the issues
involved . Of course, in the rivalry between the US and Russia, Europe's interest is best
served playing the two off each other united. It is no surprise both - the US and Russia -
have a strategic interest to split Europe. You don't believe Russia doing this, too? This
here is from Greece . No, their government is not anti-Russian.
Macedonia is expecting an invitation at the NATO summit in Brussels this week to join
following its landmark deal with Greece whereby it will change its name to the Republic of
North Macedonia. Moscow strongly opposes NATO expansion.
...
The Greek diplomatic source told Reuters Athens would expel two diplomats and bar two
other Russians from entering the country due to concerns that they were involved in rallies
in Greece against the deal with Macedonia and that they had attempted to offer money to
Greek state officials.
Becoming a "neutral" military force would end this type of nonsense. Trump acting like
mafia is another strong incentive.
"The U.S. military is the biggest socialist organization of the world. It is
egalitarian and its citizens, i.e. the soldiers, are extremely well cared for. It runs its
own healthcare system through the Veterans Health Administration."
A wonderful conclusion b.
Does anyone know of any in-depth economic analysis of the U.S. military as a state
welfare system for its members, as well as the impact of aggregate military spending on the
general purchasing power of citizens within the society at large?
And US military spending is also an enormous job-creation and wealth-redistribution
program in the form of defense contractors spread all over the nation, where they are
especially vital for areas with weak employment.
The US winds up with a lot of projects it does not need because Congresspeople are not
about to kill a program that employs thousands in their districts.
Why should Germany spend 4% on its military? Didnt see that coming from this blog. Are
germany facing an enemy? If not, its a waste of more money. All this useless money could be
spend to actually strenghten the welfare state. Something that actually matters and are much
needed. So which enemy is Germany facing? Either Trump is right that Russia is a threat to
Germany or hes not. What is it?
The nonbinding motion, which came as the Senate voted to reconcile its version of the
annual defense policy bill with that of the House, expresses the Senate's support for NATO
and calls on negotiators to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to it. The 97-2 vote in the Senate
comes as Trump heads to Brussels.
Trump's "reasoning" makes sense in an infantile sort of way, but there's more too it
than meets the eye, is there not? Trump doesn't just want to Europe to "pay their fair share"
for NATO, which we all know is code for buying more US mil.gear but also to buy their LNG
from US too. It's like NATO is some sort of grotesque, evil franchise where the franchisees
can only buy goods/services from that single source, even though it's crap & inordinately
expensive, and even if you can get it cheaper elsewhere, i.e Russia.
I would love to see those fence-sitting NATO countries tell the US "sure, we'll increase
our mil. spending, but after what we saw in Syria, we'll be buying our gear from Russia"
(more bang for the buck too!) - that would be game, set & match right there!
I think you are wrong, Bernard. It will sell well in Europe too. To what extend were the
themes of the Brexit campaign based on Germany as the slave master of Europe, to exaggerate
slightly? It will also sell well in the US.
Wow! You don't feel that Trump has, by his mere existence and by winning the
presidency, been given a platform of which to decry the myriad injustices of globalization
and to utter things unspeakable by any Prez in the last fifty years?
I don't think you've been paying attention. The proof is in the pudding but what will be
the benefit of raising the spectre of doubt over bad deals like NATO, the current iteration
of world trade, and for animosity towards Russia? Evidently, it ain't worth shit to
predictable TDS-sufferers that hang around here.
So much for those who projected that Trump's demands for an increase in the defense spending
of other members and his scolding of Germany would lead to a weaker Nato! Nato members just
caved to Trump and are increasing their spending and Trump is touting that Nato is stronger
and everyone's doing the kumbaya.
When I say that Trump is establishment on steroids; it's an understatement. Trump is doing
the kissy, kissy with Putin because the plan is to pull Russia away from collaborating with
China. Zionist oligarchs are in league with Trump and Russia will eventually be under their
complete control.
@98 You just don't get it. Trump is fascist establishment. Trump is separating kids from
their mothers. Who does that??? He's a sick sadist.
Europe has an arms industry of their own. I doubt European countries invest their
money into US stuff - they buy their own. Most of the money does not go into weapons anyway,
but personel and administration. Germany contributes to the maintenance and infrastructure of
US bases, but those bases are business, too. This is not Saudi Arabia buying protection. The
real news is that Trump has started
a trade war negotiating by tantrum.
But Trump has a great point: if you claim that Russia is ready to invade you, why you are
buying gas from potential occupier?
Notable quotes:
"... Russia is a near neighbor to Germany. Commerce between relatively close countries is the normal course of events, so what is Trump suggesting, a 1970's style energy embargo on Russia? Depriving Russia the opportunity all trade with her neighbors 'because we said so' is no better than a blockade. ..."
Donald Trump, the 'America First' salesman, came to Brussels today to demand more tribute
to the empire. He wants Europe to buy more U.S. made weapons and to use U.S. liquefied
natural gas (LNG). But his arguments are all wrong. The people in Europe are not impressed by
them and they will reject his appeals.
His first talk in Brussels was
a profoundly wrong bashing of Germany to push it into buying very expensive LNG from U.S.
fracking producers. Trump, Putin's puppet according to the 'resistance', used the Russian
bogeyman to set the scene:
Well, I have to say, I think it's very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal
with Russia, where you're supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes out and
pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia. ... So we're protect you against Russia, but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia, and
I think that's very inappropriate. And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the
pipeline company that's supplying the gas. Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70 percent
of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas.
So you tell me, is that appropriate? I mean, I've been complaining about this from the
time I got in. It should have never been allowed to have happened. But Germany is totally
controlled by Russia , because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy
from Russia and a new pipeline. ... Now, if you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply. They got rid of
their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They're getting so much of the oil and
gas from Russia. ... I think trade is wonderful. I think energy is a whole different story. I think energy is a
much different story than normal trade. And you have a country like Poland that won't
accept the gas . You take a look at some of the countries -- they won't accept it, because
they don't want to be captive to Russia. But Germany, as far as I'm concerned, is captive
to Russia, because it's getting so much of its energy from Russia. So we're supposed to
protect Germany, but they're getting their energy from Russia. Explain that. And it can't
be explained -- you know that.
Trump was talking about the Nordstream II pipeline which will supply Germany and other
European countries with natural gas from Russia.
It is indeed hard to believe that western european governments would agree to what
Christopher Black calls a "US shakedown". Except that they have been doing so since 1949.
It is important to remember that the US Embassy exerts at least as much influence on the
government as Parliament does. And that Parliaments are full of agents of the the US empire,
in some cases they are actually on the payroll, many more are either US educated, marinated
in the imperialist ideology or in the service of corporations which know that the Empire is
the final guarantor of their survival and capable of crushing them with ease.
That having been said, things are changing, The imperialists cling to power only by exerting
the most extraordinary, and unsustainable, pressure. An example of which is the ludicrously
over-wrought campaign against the left in the UK being waged by the Israeli Embassy, with the
assistance of the entire MSM.
B's arguments are correct but it will take a mobilised and politically conscious public
opinion to impose them on governments full of people who see themselves as Washington's
servants and expect to be rewarded one day for being loyal to the US and for betraying their
countrymen and, of course, women.
The question is if Europe will truly continue to bark and bite at the deep state or if this
is all just for show and they'll eventually capitulate. I'm worried that this is nothing more
than political theatre. I'm not expecting much from the Europeans. But we'll see.
Europe buying LNG from the US just makes no sense at all. Aside from the cost, LNG is
difficult to transport and work with; the whole idea is just nuts, especially considering the
quantities involved. In addition, Russian gas is plentiful and cheap, so to expect Europe not
to use it is also nuts.
Could it be that Trump fully understands this and the hidden agenda is to get out of NATO and
bring home the troops?
Russia is a near neighbor to Germany. Commerce between relatively close countries is the
normal course of events, so what is Trump suggesting, a 1970's style energy embargo on
Russia? Depriving Russia the opportunity all trade with her neighbors 'because we said so' is
no better than a blockade.
One of these days, my country is going to get a taste of, 'no soup for you' and we will be
screaming like stuck pigs.
Yes, I am obsessed w/Sean Hannity
It's his earnest, self-righteous, mind numbingly idiotic voice, I'm hypnotized. Ollie
North was on his show and they were going on about 'Iran's' saber rattling by threatening to
close the Straits of Hormuz. Sean rattled off how the EU would wake up and it would be the
end of Iran's belligerence.
He neglected to mention that this 'threat' is only coming after our act of war by actively
trying to cut off all of Iran's oil exports which is no better than a naval blockade.
Much can be gleaned from
this NATO Defence Expenditure pdf with special attention given to graphs 5, 6
& 7. Since the dissolution of the USSR, military spending as share of GDP by EU &
Canada decreased about 50% as shown in Graph 5. It should also be noted that the demand made
by the Outlaw US Empire for EU NATO members to increase their wastage of monies on military
equipment began with Obama in 2015, with compliance noted by the graphs in 2016. When Obama
gave his orders, very little squawking was heard from EU/Canada governments, although it was
quite different from the public. Of course, EU/Canada are caught in a trap of their own
design--Russia's quite obviously not the "aggressive" nation that must be defended against
using all necessary means as promoted by Russophobic Media Propaganda as they all trade and
benefit from commercial interactions; thus, bean counters see NATO as a wastage of vital,
finite monies that ought to be spent on productive endeavors advancing the human condition.
In national legislatures: "Russia's a growing threat to humanity!!--BUT--No, I'm voting
against any increase in military spending as there's no need for it."
European members of NATO don't need such an organization. If they were to join the Russian
and Chinese enterprises to unite Eurasia into a common economic zone, then the need for NATO
would become indefensible. And their finally becoming independent of the Outlaw US Empire's
diktats would provide the impetus required to finally solve the status of Palestine and
reaffirmation of the paramountcy of International Law as a greatly expanded Multipolar Order
would be established. The United Nations might actually begin to function as designed.
Is Trump trying to push NATO apart by injecting it with a dose of American Chaos? Force
EU/Canada to declare their independence from the Outlaw US Empire for numerous reasons? All
of which would force the contraction of the Overseas element of the Empire and install an
actual defense policy, not one aiming to control the world? Is this Trump's way to force a
Neocon retreat?
Meanwhile, China charms Arabia
"Under the radar,..., the eighth ministerial meeting of the China-Arab States Cooperation
Forum (CASCF), established in 2004, sailed on in Beijing, hosted by President Xi Jinping."
Please note the article's citing of new demands made to Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire, which
has their roots in Trump's appraisal of the situation.
I'd say this is why you do not mix a military alliance with politics. Nor allow federal
presidents to command and represent an army. Trump's retarded bullshit aside the USA
shouldn't be holding committee meetings with allies without an war. An alliance shouldn't be
considered active during peacetime. An ally is a figment of political imagination until
military necessity requires it in actuality. Historically and currently a military alliance
is treated as a contract for warmongering against an outnumbered enemy while at peace or at
war. Which is why honorable people (currently very few) eschew alliances or non-aggression
agreements until they become a defensive requirement. If President Trump want's to crash NATO
with no survivor's, more power to him.
The bright side of Trump bullying is revealing NATO astronomical hypocrisy as they join
psychotic delusions about Russian menace they refuse to put money where their mouth is and
shamelessly disclose their vassal status begging for American military support for free.
All that knowing well that there is no threat from Russia that cannot be eliminated simply
by good neighborly relation with Russia not by spending $billions on otherwise useless
fraudulent US MIC junk.
Is that nor reverse psychology that is in play here, put up or shut up, let me make deal
with Russia so you do not have to spend on military rediculous sums to match your delusional
rhetorics about Russian threat.
Trump is s gambling man, wants to make money for US MIC on anti Russian lies or make money
for US industry on Russia peace and cooperation truths.
"Stoltenberg: [ ] I think that two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that we are
stronger together than apart.
Trump: But how can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the person
you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
Stoltenberg: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing with
Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that --
Trump: No, you're just making Russia richer. You're not dealing with Russia. You're making
Russia richer."
You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with Trump here.
A notable difference between the way Trump treats the likes of Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un
- all leaders in their own right - to the way he treats the EU poodles. Zero respect for the
poodles.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 11, 2018 6:40:20 PM |
22
"... The big advantage for Germany is that (Nordstream I and Nordstream II] pipelines
do not run through any other country ..."
That's because idiot EU / NATO countries like Denmark, who would gladly accept having the
pipelines pass through their land and maritime territories (and the transit fees that go with
them) if Russian gas were not flowing through them, prefer to support the Nazi whacko
Banderites ruling Ukraine who whine that all Russian gas should transit Ukrainian territory
in deteriorating pipelines. So Denmark and others refuse to host any part of the pipelines at
all.
When Gazprom starts sending all gas through Nordstream I and II and pipelines through the
Black Sea, completely bypassing Ukraine, then that country will be close to bankruptcy.
Denmark and everyone else in the EU and NATO had better be ready to rescue the
Banderites.
Der Speigel 's fact-checking article of Trump's assertions provides some
interesting facts, all in German, which I used Yandex to translate. To counterargue Trump's
most pointed assertion that Germany's a captive of Russia, the author provides this rebuke:
"Russland ist auf den Abnehmer Deutschland angewiesen. Die Deutschen benötigten die
Russen vor allem als Lieferanten für Erdgas." (Russia is dependent on the customer
Germany. The Germans needed the Russians mainly as suppliers of natural gas.) Overall:
"Für Russland ist Deutschland als Handelspartner wichtiger als andersherum. Von allen
deutschen Importen kamen 2017 nur drei Prozent aus Russland - und lediglich zwei Prozent der
Exporte gehen in Putins Reich. Für die Russen war die Bundesrepublik mit einem Anteil
von 8,6 Prozent ihres gesamten Außenhandels der zweitwichtigste Partner hinter China.
Und mehr als zwei Drittel der russischen Exporte nach Deutschland waren Erdgas, Öl und
Steinkohle." (For Russia, Germany is more important as a trading partner than elsewhere. Of
all German imports, only three percent came from Russia in 2017 - and only two percent of
exports go to Putin's Reich. For the Russians, Germany was the second most important Partner
behind China, accounting for 8.6 percent of its total foreign trade. And more than two-thirds
of Russian exports to Germany were natural gas, Oil and coal.)
Clearly, the total trade turnover between Russia and Germany represents just a small
fraction of their totals, and both nations would likely find a replacement if a total embargo
was to ensue.
The US began pressuring countries to forego nuclear power to support the Petro Dollar in
1978. One big reason they deposed the Shah who was planning to go big with nuclear power with
orders for about 20 French and /or German reactors
The TMI accident was likely a false flag run by the newly established FEMA.
If the restrictions on recycling nuclear fuel rods were eliminated there would not be a
disposal problem.
Germanys decision to phase out nuclear makes US happy. Germany will only accept Nord
Stream 2 if it does not bypass Ukraine. This also makes US happy although they would prefer
no Nord Stream 2. As said up thread this is as much about posturing before the Putin meeting
and gaining leverage.
A bit O/T but it appears rare metals needed by US military and tech industries are on the
list of products subject to tarrifs. China basically has a monopoly on these metals so the
only short term purpose is to drive up prices for weapons and tech gadgets which get passed
onto the taxpayer/consumer. In effect the tarrifs are just another revenue source to finance
tax cuts to corporations and the rich.
Longer term of course the tarrifs make mining some of these metals in the US more
feasible, at some cost to the environment , seeing as EPA has been gutted. But for that to
happen the tarrifs need to be more or less a permanent thing. Its not like they dont have
tarrifs on food and clothes from China. Just expanding the revenue base. The middle class
takes the hit in the end, whats left of it anyways
Trump as a used car salesman does not make much sense either. In fact I don't think he can
spell to sense. It telling that he is impervious to the mood in both NATO and the EU.
His middle name should be clueless. He is truly clueless, he will not get an increase in
defense expenditure, it would be political self goal (Hello Engeland, no not football, that's
more like clueless) for any major political party to demand that, the electorate across
Europe are firmly against it. Ohh and who cares about Perfidious Albion, they are not part of
Europe anymore, they are some Islands with bad weather in the North Sea.
Seabird sanctuary ?
Europe hopefully comes to its senses and casts of the American yoke, and fashion its own
defences, based on ITS needs.
thanks b.. informative and interesting comments from everyone too.. thanks..
trump is a hard guy to read in some respects... he is like a blunt object on the one hand,
but he might have some alternative purpose in mind, which would include the meet with trump
in 5 days..
if he wants to get rid of nato, i think he is going about it the right way.. i can't see
why he would though as that wouldn't benefit the mil complex...i can't see the purpose of
nato either way and perhaps it would be best if the poodles let go of having the usa as it's
leader in the 21st century.. consider a different approach... i am not sure what canada and
other western type poodles can do with all this..
@7 karlof1.. thanks for the pepe link... i just don't see the approach - bullying - taken
by the usa to iraq, as working out.. i am listing the demands for others to see
firsthand..
"
1. 30% of all the oil in Iraq should be American-controlled – and it's up to the US do
what it wants with it.
2. Washington must have full access and control of Iraqi banks.
3. All business and trade with Iran must cease right now.
4. The Hashd al-Shaabi, known as People Mobilization Units (PMUs), instrumental in the
victorious fight against Daesh (Islamic State),
must be immediately disbanded."
the usa takes this approach based on weakness, not strength... in fact - if one was to
read trumps comments on the surface here - it is the same thing that b has highlighted in
this post.. again - the usa is not working from a place of strength.. it is like a wild
animal in the last phase of it's life - not good..
Lost in the story is fact it is not new supply of natural gas to Europe. It is new pipe
lines including two others with the sole intent of bypassing Ukraine. Presently near all
Russian natural gas passes through Ukraine on its way to Western Europe and particularly ..
Germany. The Ukraine regime has been reaping the benefit of transmission fees and stealing
billions of cubic meters of gas, on which they also charged transmission fees. This was the
basis behind a recent dispute panel finding in favor of Ukraine and the gas theft. The
Americans and willing European Poodles would very much like to keep the gas flowing through
Naziville where they would maintain a strangle hold. Gazprom, the principle Russian supplier,
more or less said f**K you and formed consortiums to build new pipe lines
@32 So if Germany gets gas through Nordstream they are 'controlled by Russia' but if they
get it via Ukraine they aren't. Seems Nordstream would be good insurance against Ukrainian
meddling. Cheaper too, a very sound business strategy that Trump should appreciate.
"... President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil? ..."
"... Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never. ..."
"... Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond. ..."
"... Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies. ..."
"... In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD. ..."
President Trump is finding that his threats and heated rhetoric do not always have the
effect he wishes. As his Administration warns countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November
or risk punishment by the United States, a nervous international oil market is pushing prices
ever higher, threatening the economic prosperity he claims credit for. President Trump's
response has been to demand that OPEC boost its oil production by two million barrels per day
to calm markets and bring prices down.
Perhaps no one told him that Iran was a founding member of OPEC?
When President Trump Tweeted last week that Saudi Arabia agreed to begin pumping additional
oil to make up for the removal of Iran from the international markets, the Saudis very quickly
corrected him, saying that while they could increase capacity if needed, no promise to do so
had been made.
The truth is, if the rest of the world followed Trump's demands and returned to sanctions
and boycotting Iranian oil, some 2.7 million barrels per day currently supplied by Iran would
be very difficult to make up elsewhere. Venezuela, which has enormous reserves but is also
suffering under, among other problems, crippling US sanctions, is shrinking out of the world
oil market.
Iraq has not recovered its oil production capacity since its "liberation" by the US in 2003
and the al-Qaeda and ISIS insurgencies that followed it.
Last week, Bloomberg reported that "a complete shutdown of Iranian sales could push oil
prices above $120 a barrel if Saudi Arabia can't keep up." Would that crash the US economy?
Perhaps. Is Trump willing to risk it?
President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military
protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything,
Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military –
with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange
for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil?
At the end, China, Russia, and others are not only unlikely to follow Trump's demands that
Iran again be isolated: they in fact stand to benefit from Trump's bellicosity toward Iran. One
Chinese refiner has just announced that it would cancel orders of US crude and instead turn to
Iran for supplies. How many others might follow and what might it mean?
Ironically, President Trump's "get tough" approach to Iran may end up benefitting
Washington's named adversaries Russia and China – perhaps even Iran. The wisest approach
is unfortunately the least likely at this point: back off from regime change, back off from
war-footing, back off from sanctions. Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring this
advice may be higher than he imagined.
Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring [the advice to back off from Iran]
may be higher than he imagined.
Perhaps he's counting on not being President by then. Another case of IBGYBG (I'll be
gone, you'll be gone), an attitude that seems to be infecting bankers, Wall Street, and the
rest of the U.S. élite lately. A cataclysm is coming, and they can see it.
Why is Zio-America treating Iran with such hostility?
Iran and Israel are locked in a vicious cold war. Their animosities date back to mythical
antiquity. One alleged episode is even celebrated in the Jewish celebration of 'Purim'.
Take a look at the breathtaking insight that Gilad Atzmon has to offer about Purim:
In any case, Iran and Israel's antipathies for one another shouldn't concern superpower
America. Except that it does.
Like American television, Washington happens to be Israeli-held territory. Haven't you
heard?
This is why Zio-Washington invariably sides with Israel in all of its disputes, even when
1) Israel is the aggressor, 2) even when Israel is slaughtering powerless civilians who are
protesting their subjugation, and 3) even when US interests are not at stake or even in play.
And this uniform deference from Washington is thoroughly bipartisan. It is 'business as
usual'. It's basically unanimous. Both Parties. No dissent.
Many just call it 'US Mideast policy'. Ironclad. 'Unshakable'. But don't laugh or smirk.
Doing so might be seen as 'anti-Semitic'.
Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however
remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the
open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with
you-know-who. Never.
These rigid policies help explain how Crypto-Israelis in America – using Washington
as their proxy – have successfully brought the US into Israel's cold war against
Iran.
Zionist operatives have not only orchestrated the decades-long freeze of billions of
dollars in Iranian assets that belong to the Iranian people, but they have launched a global
(and crypto-Zionist) 'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions' campaign against the relatively
peaceful nation of Iran.
Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the
Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance
movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond.
Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that
is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is
nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from
unconditional and continuous US subsidies.
Politicians who dare question this phenomena – or who wander off the Zionist
plantation in Washington – tend to disappear. Rapidly. Journalists, too.
In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders
as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors
(including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD.
Due to Israeli influence here, Americans are not only actively supporting various Zionist
war efforts, but they are also paying billions more for their gasoline since Zionists have
managed to prohibit the purchase Iranian oil throughout the West. These economic 'choices'
are what Americans unwittingly make – even though the 'average Joe' remains totally
unaware of them.
Indeed, even though Iran wants to be a trading partner with America and bring its oil onto
the world market, Zio-Washington says 'NO!' US consumers be damned. The Iranian people be
damned.
This is not the first time that US economic interests have taken a back seat to Israel's.
Please recall the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Zio-Washington's intervention on behalf of Israel
during that conflict, the ensuing Arab oil embargo, and the disastrous recession that
followed.
But Zio-America never turned it back on Israel, even though American citizens never had
the opportunity to determine their allies or policies one way or another. US support of
Israel is mandatory. It's been this way since LBJ.
Today, Israel is maneuvering Zio-Washington to do to Iran what it did to Iraq, Libya and
Syria; namely, spread destabilization and impose 'creative destruction' upon all nations that
pose any long-term threat to the Zionist State.
"... Today, Western imperialism projects its global power, as far as capital is concerned, primarily from the perspective of speculative, financial asset investment. Long gone are the days of class and international compromise forced upon it after World War Two. Instead, the predatory instincts of dominant financial capital require forcibly opening up all states for commodification and exploitation. Given the global spread of product and commodity chains, the continued flow of profits to the West cannot be taken for granted as long as effective state sovereignty elsewhere persists. For the liberal, Anglophone heartland of capital, 'defence' is therefore not merely, or even primarily, a matter of upholding the territorial integrity of the states constituting it, but keeping open the arterial system of the global economy and maintaining the centrality of the West. Regime change is a logical corollary, and from this perspective we must view the coup in Ukraine in February 2014 and all ensuing events, including the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. ..."
"... Russia under Yeltsin had effectively surrendered its sovereignty to transnational capital and the West and as a result was left a social and economic disaster zone. ..."
"... The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq on a false pretext made abundantly clear that the West was abandoning the rules of the post-war international order. 'Democracy promotion' intended to prevent national sovereignty from being mobilised against Western global governance, was now made a priority. The 'Rose Revolution' in Georgia in 2003 and the 'Orange Revolution' a year later in Ukraine, marked the lengths to which the United States was willing to go. ..."
"... To ensure that countries incorporated into the US-NATO sphere of influence, really became neoliberal client states, Pascual and Krasner devised a strategy for preventive intervention with a rulebook listing the measures by which 'market democracy' was to be established. Ukraine was a key target and battleground, because by now, Russia was beginning to contest Western forward pressure. ..."
"... The economic mismanagement and infighting of the different oligarchic clans in Ukraine led to payment arrears and repeated shutdowns of the gas supply from Russia, and Gazprom, the state-owned Russian gas company, early on began to look for ways to bypass the Ukrainian grid. ..."
"... If Russia takes Ukraine, Belarus will join the Eurasian Union, and, presto, the Soviet Union (in another name) will be back. ..."
"... Far easier to [hold] the line now, in Ukraine than elsewhere, later ..."
"... weekend of 13 to 14 April, CIA Director John Brennan was in the Ukrainian capital. ..."
"... Parubiy sent out a Twitter message on the 15th that veterans of the Maidan uprising were poised to join the fight. ..."
"... The downing of MH17 on 17 July changed all that. As I said above, who did it and how remains obscure, although there are several pursued by people familiar with local circumstances, or revealed by insiders who know who which military assets were operating that day -- but all that remains inconclusive. The official reports by the Dutch Safety Board and the JIT may be conveniently dismissed although the DSB rightly pointed at the questionable decision by Kiev to allow civilian planes to fly over a war zone. However, irrespective of the actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum. ..."
"... 'without MH17 it would have been pretty difficult to find sufficient support for the increased sanctions on the Russian economy' ..."
"... Even at the time of the Kiev coup, commentators wondered to what extent shale gas from the US might be used to offset Russian deliveries. LNG facilities planned in Florida and Maryland were projected to serve the European market at Gazprom's expense, a prospect meanwhile far more realistic. ..."
"... The downing of Flight MH17 also definitively sealed the fate of South Stream. Russian banks financing the project, led by Gazprombank, were hit by new sanctions, so that the necessary capital could no longer be raised internationally. ..."
"... Since the F-16 that shot down the Russian jet was part of a pro-NATO unit based at Inçirlik airbase that took part in the coup attempt, the incident over Syria would appear to fit in a framework that may also have decided the fate of Flight MH17: a provocation to throw relations with Russia into disarray, but we don't know for sure. ..."
"... cover the scenarios from changes of leadership within the current structures, to the emergence of a group ready to pursue structural reform in some sort of accountable dialogue with the Russian population, to regime collapse ..."
"... In the current global conjuncture, even the tentative contender coalition combining the Eurasian Union, the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, constitutes an acute danger to a capitalist West in crisis. Whether the United States and NATO would therefore also be willing to take even greater risks than they are doing now is a prospect too frightening to contemplate. However, it must be confronted, or the fate of the 298 people on Flight MH17 may become that of humanity at large. ..."
Four years ago, on 17 July 2014, in the midst of a civil war raging in eastern Ukraine,
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was destroyed with all 298 passengers and crew. On 25 May last,
the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) entrusted with the criminal investigation of the downing and
composed of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and paradoxically, given its possible
involvement, Ukraine, presented its second progress report. Like the first report in September
2016, it took the form of a press conference, with video animations supporting the
investigation's findings.
This time there was even less to report; the main conclusion was that
elements from the Russian 53rd Buk missile brigade were the culprits, a claim already made by
the London-based investigative group Bellingcat two years before.
In February 2016 that
assertion had still been dismissed as unfit for evidence by the Dutch chief prosecutor on the JIT, Fred Westerbeke, in a letter to victims' relatives. How can it possibly have become the
core component of the case for the prosecution two years and two months later?
The JIT press conference was immediately followed by a formal declaration on the part of the
Dutch and Australian governments that held Russia responsible. However, JIT member Malaysia
dissociated itself from the accusation, whilst Belgium has remained silent.
The obviously
over-hasty conclusion, on the heels of the alleged Skripal nerve gas incident in Salisbury and
the likewise contested Syrian government gas attack on jihadist positions in Douma, all point
in the same direction: Putin's Russia must be kept under fire and there is no time to wait for
a court verdict.
In my book Flight MH17, Ukraine and the New Cold War. Prism of Disaster (Manchester
University Press), I have refrained from entering the slippery terrain of making claims about
who pulled the trigger, intentionally or by accident, in the late afternoon of 17 July, or even
which type of weapon was used. For the downing of the Malaysian plane has become part of a
propaganda war that was already heating up prior to the catastrophe. Instead the book is about
what we do know about the events surrounding it, in the preceding months, weeks, and days,
indeed even on the day itself. Subsequent events have only underlined that it is this context
that lends meaning to the tragedy.
Refocusing US Supremacy After the Soviet Collapse
Today, Western imperialism projects its global power, as far as capital is concerned,
primarily from the perspective of speculative, financial asset investment. Long gone are the
days of class and international compromise forced upon it after World War Two. Instead, the
predatory instincts of dominant financial capital require forcibly opening up all states for
commodification and exploitation. Given the global spread of product and commodity chains, the
continued flow of profits to the West cannot be taken for granted as long as effective state
sovereignty elsewhere persists. For the liberal, Anglophone heartland of capital, 'defence' is
therefore not merely, or even primarily, a matter of upholding the territorial integrity of the
states constituting it, but keeping open the arterial system of the global economy and
maintaining the centrality of the West. Regime change is a logical corollary, and from this
perspective we must view the coup in Ukraine in February 2014 and all ensuing events, including
the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.
Right from the Soviet collapse in 1991, the US global perspective was articulated in several
new strategic doctrines. The first and perhaps foundational one is the Wolfowitz Doctrine,
named after Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defence in the Bush Sr. administration, who
commissioned a Defence Planning Guidance for Fiscal 1994-'99 (DPG) of 1992. It
proclaims the United States the world's sole superpower, which must remain ahead of all
possible contenders in arms technology and never again accept military parity, as with the USSR
during the Cold War. The newly self-confident European Union, too, was obliquely warned that
the US alone would handle global policing.
Additional doctrines, specifying on which grounds armed US intervention might be undertaken
and justified, added elements such as humanitarian intervention (a Carnegie Endowment report of
1992, Self-Determination in the New World Order ); it was applied in Yugoslavia and
again in Libya. Next, the'War on Terror', originally floated at Israeli Likud/US Neocon
conferences between 1979 and 1984, was revived after the collapse of the USSR as the 'Clash of
Civilizations' by Cold War strategist Samuel Huntington; Afghanistan and Iraq stand as
monuments of the application of this doctrine. Finally, Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand
Chessboard of 1997 specifically dealt with reorganising the former USSR, including
Ukraine.
Through the different episodes, NATO was transformed into a global policing structure
serving the interests of Atlantic capital. 'Out of area operations', unthinkable in the Yalta
epoch, were first tried out against the Bosnian Serbs in the mid-1990s. The enlargement of the
alliance into the former Soviet bloc, which began around that time too, was obviously motivated
to prevent European departures from US tutelage, hence its bold forward surge. Already in 1994,
Ukraine became the first former Soviet republic to join the Partnership for Peace, the newly
created waiting room for NATO membership. To quell Russian concerns about the advancing West,
the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 laid down that no nuclear weapons and permanent troop
deployments would take place in new member states. Yet Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and
Moldova not long afterwards joined a low-key organisation of former Soviet republics (after the
initials, GUAM), another oblique link up with NATO.
Mobilising Georgia and Ukraine against Resurgent Russia
Russia under Yeltsin had effectively surrendered its sovereignty to transnational
capital and the West and as a result was left a social and economic disaster zone. Under
his successor, Vladimir Putin, the country began to mutate back to a society led by a directive
state, assisted by rising oil prices. After the United States unilaterally withdrew from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and announced a missile defence system deployed in the
CzechRepublic, Poland, and Rumania, Russia shifted to a more robust international position.
The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq on a false pretext made abundantly clear that the West
was abandoning the rules of the post-war international order. 'Democracy promotion' intended to
prevent national sovereignty from being mobilised against Western global governance, was now
made a priority. The 'Rose Revolution' in Georgia in 2003 and the 'Orange Revolution' a year
later in Ukraine, marked the lengths to which the United States was willing to go.
Yet even a colour revolution means little if there is no accompanying make-over of the
fundamental state/society relation. Hence, the incoming policy planning director at the US
State Department, Stanford professor Stephen Krasner, and Carlos Pascual, former US ambassador
in Kiev, developed a comprehensive regime change doctrine in 2004. This would prove a key
element in the subsequent Ukraine intervention. To ensure that countries incorporated into
the US-NATO sphere of influence, really became neoliberal client states, Pascual and Krasner
devised a strategy for preventive intervention with a rulebook listing the measures by which
'market democracy' was to be established. Ukraine was a key target and battleground, because by
now, Russia was beginning to contest Western forward pressure.
At the Munich Security Conference in January 2007, Putin reminded his audience of the
promises made to Gorbachev in 1991 not to expand the Atlantic alliance and warned that further
attempts at enlargement (the Baltic states having been included in 2004) would imply great
risks. Yet NATO and the EU were inexorably pressing forward. At the Bucharest NATO summit in
April 2008 the Americans made the offer of NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine, only to have
the offer vetoed by Germany and France. Possibly to force the issue, the pro-Western president
brought to power by the Rose Revolution in Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, armed and encouraged
by the US and Israel, later that year embarked on a military adventure to recapture the
breakaway province of South Ossetia. It ended in a complete debacle, as a Russian army stood
ready in North Ossetia to deal the invaders a major, if very costly, blow. This, then, was what
Richard Sakwa calls, 'the war to stop NATO enlargement'. From now on, every post-Soviet
republic tempted to join the Atlantic alliance would have to reckon with Russian protection for
groups resisting such integration, irrespective of whether it concerned actual Russians or any
other of the almost two hundred nationalities of the former USSR.
The EU-Russian Energy Equation and Ukraine
The gas from Russia that feeds Europe today was discovered back in the 1960s; the Friendship
oil pipeline was built in 1964 and the Soyuz, Urengoi and Yamal pipelines followed after West
Germany started purchasing Soviet gas. The link-up culminated in 1980 with the contract for a
gas pipeline from Urengoi in north Siberia to Bavaria, signed by a heavy-industry consortium
headed by Deutsche Bank.
After the collapse of the USSR, Russian gas had to pass through the pipeline grid of
independent Ukraine, which in the meantime had become the prey of rival clans of oligarchs. For
most of them, gas was the key source of rapid enrichment -- directly, as in the case of
subsequent prime minister Yuliya Timoshenko, 'the Gas Princess', or indirectly, by supplying
steel pipes for gas transport, as in the case of president Leonid Kuchma's son-in-law, Victor
Pinchuk, the 'Pipeline King'. The economic mismanagement and infighting of the different
oligarchic clans in Ukraine led to payment arrears and repeated shutdowns of the gas supply
from Russia, and Gazprom, the state-owned Russian gas company, early on began to look for ways
to bypass the Ukrainian grid.
After Putin had come to power, he disciplined the Russian oligarchs as part of the
restoration of state sovereignty. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the energy oligarch and richest of all
Russian billionaires at the time, at the time was buying support in the Duma to build a
trans-Siberian pipeline to China; whilst negotiating with ExxonMobil and Chevron about US
participation in his Yukos concern, which he planned to merge with Sibneft into the world's
largest oil company. In 2005 he was convicted to a long prison sentence. Yukos was brought back
into the Russian patrimony via a proxy construction involving state-owned Rosneft and Gazprom,
as part of broader subordination of the economy to the state.
Gazprom meanwhile began building alliances to avoid future disruption of supplies via
Ukraine and secure its European market. In 2005 it agreed with the outgoing government of
Gerhard Schröder to build a pipeline across the Baltic directly to Germany, 'Nord Stream',
with a consortium of German companies. Schröder was made the chairman of the board of the
joint venture, Achimgaz, and two years later, a South Stream pipeline across the Black Sea to
Bulgaria was contracted with ENI of Italy. It was to be extended into south-eastern Europe as
far as Austria. In this way Gazprom and the Russian state were outmanoeuvring various EU
projects for pipelines aimed at by-passing Russia. Indeed it was the EU's plan to use a Nabucco
pipeline across Turkey to connect to the Caspian energy reserves that prompted the $40 billion
South Stream project. Romano Prodi, prime minister of Italy, who first discussed South Stream
with Putin in late 2006, was offered the chairmanship, which he declined, perhaps in the
knowledge the project would become highly contested.
The Eurasian connection by now posed a direct threat to the cohesion of the enlarged
Atlantic bloc. Besides Nord Stream and South Stream, Gazprom's collaboration with NIOC of Iran
and a joint venture with ENI in Libya set all alarm bells ringing in Washington. Already in May
2006, a few months after the gas shutdown to Ukraine, the US Senate unanimously adopted a
resolution calling on NATO to protect the energy security of its members and have it develop a
diversification strategy away from Russia. Senator Richard Lugar in a much-noted speech prior
to the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, in November 2006, argued in favour of designating the
manipulation of the energy supply as a 'weapon' that can activate Article 5 of the NATO treaty
(common defence).
In a report to the European Parliament in 2008, the director of the EurasianPolicyCenter of
the Hudson Institute in the US recommended that the EU should assist in liberalising and
modernising the Ukrainian grid instead of supporting South Stream. Tension in the Black Sea
area, her report noted candidly, might serve the purpose of blocking that pipeline altogether.
However, after the 2010 election of president Victor Yanukovych, the front man of the powerful
eastern and southern oligarchs, the lease of Russia's Crimean naval base at Sebastopol, home of
its Black Sea fleet, had been extended to 2042, so the prospects for stirring up unrest there
were mitigated by Moscow's enduring naval preponderance.
Regime Change in Kiev
One aspect of the resurgence of a sovereign Russia was the plan for a Eurasian economic
union to rebuild relations with former Soviet republics (Ukraine obtained observer status early
on). The EU's Eastern Partnership was a direct response. It was offered to former Soviet
republics in 2008, in a gesture that signalled that Europe now effectively acted as a
subcontractor to the larger anti-Russian design drafted in Washington. Concretely, the EU
offered Ukraine and other former Soviet republics an Association Agreement that also included
provisions for the country's alignment on NATO security policy, besides a neoliberal make-over
in the spirit of the Krasner-Pascual doctrine. The envisaged reforms would be devastating for
the country's existing power structure, not least for the Donbass oligarchs whose front man was
Yanukovych. Their heavy industry assets would be swept away by EU competition, the country
turned into an agricultural supplier, and Russian gas cut off.
Hence, when both the EU and Russia sought to win over Yanukovych to join their respective
blocs and Brussels ruled out the triangular arrangement by which the Ukrainian president had
hoped to postpone the choice, he could not but step back from signing the EU Association
Agreement in November 2013 and accept a Russian counteroffer. By then, 'Europe' had become a
code word for an end to oligarchic rapaciousness, in which Yanukovych and his sons had become
involved as well. The president's decision triggered mass demonstrations and occupations, which
this time included an armed insurrection by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists in the historically
anti-Russian west of the country. It created the space for actual fascists to hijack the
protests and prepare a coup. By their use of deadly force at the Maidan central square
(ascribed by the coup plotters and in the West to the riot police), the Ukrainian ultras
demonstrated they were ready to kill their own compatriots to achieve their aims.
To prevent the situation from getting out of hand completely, the foreign ministers of
Germany, France and Poland flew to Kiev on 20 February 2014. However, whilst they negotiated a
deal with Yanukovych and the opposition, the US and other NATO ambassadors met with Andriy
Parubiy, the co-founder of the fascist party of Ukraine and former head of its militia, Patriot of Ukraine . Parubiy, today the speaker of the Kiev parliament, was in command
of the armed gangs at the Maidan; two days later these took power in the capital, installing a
government of Ukrainian nationalist stripe, selected by US diplomats. Parubiy was appointed
secretary of the National Security and Defence Council (NSDC), a key post overseeing all
military and intelligence operations, which he continued to hold until three weeks after the
downing of MH17. With the Russian-Ukrainian half of the country effectively disenfranchised,
the coup was responded to by the secession of Crimea and an armed insurrection in the Donbass.
Stirrings of revolt in Odessa and Mariupol would be suppressed with deadly violence, in which
Parubiy and other far right figures were directly involved.
Confronting the BRICS in Ukraine
From late March onwards the war party in the United States and NATO began to elaborate a
strategy that would make Ukraine the testing ground for a trial of strength with Russia and
China. The secession of Crimea and its re-incorporation into the Russian Federation was
exploited to evoke the spectre of an impending Russian invasion on several fronts. General
Philip Breedlove, commander of US Eucom (European Command, one of nine regional US military
commands spanning the globe) and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur), coordinated the
Western position with General Wesley Clark, a former NATO Saceur at the time of the Yugoslavia
wars. Clark was already advising Kiev forces in eastern Ukraine before the Donbass had actually
risen in revolt. On 12April he asked Breedlove whether the NATO commander could not arrange a
statement blaming Moscow for the violence because ' if the Ukrainians lose control of the
narrative , the Russians will see it as an open door'. Clark then elaborated on the
general geopolitical situation, giving further insights into why the war party in the US
believed that Ukraine was to be 'held' and chosen as a battle ground to confront Russia and
China. No time was wasted on market democracy here. Claiming that 'Putin has read US inaction
in Georgia and Syria as US "weakness",' Clark went on to explain that
China is watching closely. China will have four aircraft carriers and airspace dominance
in the Western Pacific within 5 years, if current trends continue. And if we let Ukraine
slide away, it definitely raises the risks of conflict in the Pacific. For, China will ask,
would the US then assert itself for Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, the South China
Sea? If Russia takes Ukraine, Belarus will join the Eurasian Union, and, presto, the
Soviet Union (in another name) will be back. Neither the Baltics nor the Balkans will
easily resist the political disruptions empowered by a resurgent Russia. And what good is a
NATO "security guarantee" against internal subversion? And then the US will face a much
stronger Russia, a crumbling NATO, and [a] major challenge in the Western Pacific. Far
easier to [hold] the line now, in Ukraine than elsewhere, later .
On the weekend of 13 to 14 April, CIA Director John Brennan was in the Ukrainian
capital. The Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO, so called because the use of military
force within the country is only warranted under that label) began right after Brennan's visit;
Parubiy sent out a Twitter message on the 15th that veterans of the Maidan uprising were
poised to join the fight. Since NATO had earlier implored Yanukovych not to use force
against (armed) demonstrators, Moscow now asked the alliance to restrain the coup leaders in
turn. But according to foreign minister Lavrov, the answer they got was that 'NATO would ask
them to use force proportionately'.
In fact even the oligarch, Petro Poroshenko, elected president on 25 May 2014 to provide a
veneer of legitimacy to the coup regime, proved unable to restrain the hardliners. On 30 June,
following a four-hour NSDC meeting with Parubiy, interior minister Avakov, and others whose
armed followers were demonstrating outside, Poroshenko declared that the ceasefire would be
lifted and a new offensive launched. Three days later NATO naval manoeuvres in the Black Sea
commenced with US participation and with electronic warfare a key component. On the ground,
Kiev's forces made rapid progress, apparently drawing a ring around the large rebel city of
Donetsk. NATO had its own concerns: an upcoming summit in Wales in September was expected to
capitalise on the trope of a 'Russian invasion', vital after the Afghanistan debacle, and
dovetailing with the emerging contest with the BRICS bloc.
The BRICS, coined first as a banker's gimmick, were never more than a loose collection of
'(re-) emerging economies', but from Washington's perspective, sovereign entities not
submitting to neoliberal global governance are unacceptable. So when on 16 July, the BRICS
heads of state, hosted by the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff (removed by a rightwing
conspiracy in May 2016), signed the statute establishing a New Development Bank, or BRICS bank,
as a direct challenge to the US and Western-dominated World Bank and IMF, the US imposed new
sanctions on Russia over Ukraine, specifically targeting the energy link with the EU. The
creation of an equivalent of the World Bank with a capital of $100 billion with a reserve
currency pool of the same size (an equivalent of the IMF), laid the groundwork of a contender
pole in the global political economy challenging the West's austerity regime frontally -- or so
it seemed at the time.
Still in Brazil before flying back to Moscow, Russian president Putin on the fringes of the
football world cup finals also agreed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to pursue a
comprehensive Land for gas deal. Its tentative provisions included normalising the
status of Crimea in exchange for a massive economic rehabilitation plan and a gas price rebate
for Ukraine. However, a special European Council meeting convened on the 16th could not reach
agreement on whether the EU should follow the American lead this time, since countries with
export interests to Russia and dependent on its gas, were balking. Instead, the Council
stressed the EU's commitment 'to pursue trilateral talks on the conditions of gas supply from
the Russian Federation to Ukraine' in order to 'safeguard the security of supply and transit of
natural gas through Ukraine.'
The Downing of Flight MH17 and South Stream
The downing of MH17 on 17 July changed all that. As I said above, who did it and how
remains obscure, although there are several pursued by people familiar with local
circumstances, or revealed by insiders who know who which military assets were operating that
day -- but all that remains inconclusive. The official reports by the Dutch Safety Board and
the JIT may be conveniently dismissed although the DSB rightly pointed at the questionable
decision by Kiev to allow civilian planes to fly over a war zone. However, irrespective of the
actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt
about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum.
Former secretary of state and then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in a TV interview on
the 18th called for making 'Russia pay the price' once its culpability had been established.
Her to-do list for the EU included, one, 'toughen sanctions'; two, find alternatives to
Gazprom, and third, 'do more in concert with us to support the Ukrainians'. The 'Land for gas'
negotiations were shelved and on the 22nd Europe dropped the remaining hesitations when it
underwrote the US sanctions targeting Russia's role as an energy supplier. As Mark Leonard,
founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, noted in a newspaper
interview a year later, 'without MH17 it would have been pretty difficult to find
sufficient support for the increased sanctions on the Russian economy' .
In 2009 the EU had introduced a new energy policy, dubbed a 'Third Energy Package'. It does
not permit gas to be transported to the EU by the company producing it, effectively forcing
Gazprom to sell even the gas piped through the Ukrainian grid to other companies before it
could enter the EU. Nord Stream had still been exempted from EU competition rules, but the
projected South Stream was not, never mind that most contracts with Gazprom had been signed
before the Third Energy Package came into force. Even at the time of the Kiev coup,
commentators wondered to what extent shale gas from the US might be used to offset Russian
deliveries. LNG facilities planned in Florida and Maryland were projected to serve the European
market at Gazprom's expense, a prospect meanwhile far more realistic.
The Crimean secession and incorporation into the Russian Federation obviously played its own
role here. Crimea is a historically Russian region; having been assigned to Ukraine by a whim
of Soviet party leader Khrushchev in 1954, it never reconciled itself to being part of an
independent Ukraine. After the nationalist coup in late February, the status of the Russian
naval base in Sebastopol was in the balance. In 1991, the Black Sea had been a Soviet/bloc
inland sea, with one NATO country (Turkey) bordering it. Now there were two more NATO/EU
countries and two pro-Western, aspiring NATO members on its littoral. So when one week after
the coup, three former Ukrainian Presidents, Kravchuk, Kuchma, and Yushchenko, called on the
coup government in Kiev to cancel the agreement under which the lease of Sebastopol, home to
the Russian Black Sea fleet, had been extended to 2042, the question of who would be able to
project naval power over the Black Sea became acute. The question now was whether Russia would
be able to provide cover for a large-scale project such as South Stream, or not.
South Stream itself came into the firing line directly. The European Parliament, which never
raised the issue of why the February agreement with Yanukovych the EU brokered had been
sidelined by the coup, on 17 April 2014 adopted a non-binding resolution opposing the South
Stream gas pipeline and recommended a search for alternative sources of gas. On 28 April, the
United States imposed a ban on business transactions within its territory on seven Russian
officials, including Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, as well as
Gennady Timchenko, whose Volga Group controls Stroytransgaz, the company entrusted with
building the Bulgarian section of South Stream. Nevertheless the Bulgarian parliament approved
South Stream two weeks after the reincorporation of Crimea, circumventing the EU's anti-trust
legislation by renaming the pipeline a 'sea-land connection'.The European Commission then
instructed Bulgaria to stop work on South Stream and proceeded to cut off tens of millions of
much-needed regional development funds, whilst the US ambassador warned Bulgarian companies
against working with Timchenko. A final visit of US Senators John McCain and Ron Johnson, in
combination with other punitive measures then led to the cancellation in early June. As Eric
Draitser commented at the time, 'South Stream has become one of the primary battlegrounds in
the economic war that the West is waging against Russia'.
The downing of Flight MH17 also definitively sealed the fate of South Stream. Russian
banks financing the project, led by Gazprombank, were hit by new sanctions, so that the
necessary capital could no longer be raised internationally. Putin earlier had hinted at
moving the transit of gas for the EU to non-European countries; in August, it was reported
there was a Plan B in the works to export via Turkey. On 1 December 2014, during a state visit
to Ankara, the Russian president announced that in light of Western sanctions and the refusal
of construction permits in the EU, South Stream would be replaced by a 'Turkish Stream'
pipeline, besides the existing Blue Stream link. However, in November 2015, a Turkish F-16 shot
down a Russian fighter jet over northern Syria, throwing relations between Moscow and Ankara
into a deep crisis and entailing the cancellation of Turkish Stream. This was only overcome
after the July 2016 coup attempt against Erdoğan, in which Russia sided with the Turkish
president, possibly even warning him in advance. Since the F-16 that shot down the Russian
jet was part of a pro-NATO unit based at Inçirlik airbase that took part in the coup
attempt, the incident over Syria would appear to fit in a framework that may also have decided
the fate of Flight MH17: a provocation to throw relations with Russia into disarray, but we
don't know for sure.
Regime Change in Moscow?
The MH17 disaster occurred in the context of a deep crisis, in which capitalist discipline
as imposed from its historic epicentre in the West, has become primarily predatory, relying to
an ever-greater extent on violence.
Speculative financial operations in combination with the
'War on Terror' have spread economic risk and repression at home, war and regime change abroad.
Human survival itself has been turned into a global gamble played out over the head of the
affected populations for private gain.
The West, led by the effectively bankrupt United States,
increasingly relies on force to sabotage the formation of any alternative, something its own
social formation can no longer bring forth. Even the most promising, potentially revolutionary
IT and media developments coming out of Silicon Valley have been mortgaged by a planetary
project of communications surveillance to safeguard US imperial positions.
Back in the 1980s, when it launched the second Cold War, the Reagan administration intended
to destabilise the Soviet bloc and bring about regime change in Moscow. This is also the aim of
the current, new Cold War. A 2015 Chatham House report, 'The Russian Challenge', discusses this
in some detail. Although it concedes that the West cannot have an interest in Russia sliding
into complete anarchy, neither should the Putin presidency be protected 'against change, whether managed or violent '. Therefore, 'whether Putin was ousted by an internal
coup, by illness or by popular unrest , it would nevertheless be sensible for the West to give
further thought to how it might deal with the consequences of regime change in Russia.'
Effective communication with the Russian people and the defence of human values beforehand
would be essential for Western credibility Planning for the future ought, lastly, to
cover the scenarios from changes of leadership within the current structures, to the
emergence of a group ready to pursue structural reform in some sort of accountable dialogue
with the Russian population, to regime collapse .
The president of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman, in a piece for the Washington Post in October 2016 suggested launching a new, sustained anti-Putin
campaign, for which the contract killing of the journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, ten years
earlier, might be used as a vignette.
For such a campaign, George Soros' Open Society Foundation can be trusted to have elaborated
the 'civil society'/colour revolution scenarios, whilst identifying the groups that might be
mobilised for their execution. The OSF plan of action for 2014-17, titled Russia Project
Strategy , identifies Russian intellectuals active in Western academic and opinion
networks, the Russian gay movement, and others as potential levers for civil society protest
against the conservative bloc in power in Moscow. From the OSF documents hacked by the CyberBerkut collective, Alexei Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation emerges as the key
beneficiary, and discussion portals and liberal media such as Echo of Moscow radio
station, RBK news agency, and the newspaper Vedomosti, as the preferred
channels to disseminate content.
There is no need to repeat that all this is part a powerful offensive to derail the loose
contender bloc around China and Russia, which had constituted itself in the face of Western
aggressiveness and crisis. The seizure of power in Ukraine as well as the secession of Crimea
and the civil war in the east, which has meanwhile cost the lives of more than 13,000 people
and displaced a million, as well as economic warfare against Russia by the US and the EU, have
brought the danger of a large European war several steps closer. Whether the actual downing of
Flight MH17 was an intentional, premeditated act or an accident, whether it involved a jet
attack, an anti-aircraft missile, or both, ultimately cannot be established with certainty. Yet
both the NATO war party and the coup regime in Kiev, which on many occasions has demonstrated
that its ultra-nationalist and fascist antecedents are very much alive, would have been
perfectly capable of such an act and had the means for it. Most importantly, they had the
motive. Those in power in Kiev had several times already attempted to draw Moscow into the
civil war, directly and through a NATO intervention. If this indeed was their aim, it would
also have served the Atlantic bloc's determined and long-standing commitment to force
continental Europe into an antagonistic relation with Russia.
In the current global conjuncture, even the tentative contender coalition combining the
Eurasian Union, the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, constitutes an acute
danger to a capitalist West in crisis. Whether the United States and NATO would therefore also
be willing to take even greater risks than they are doing now is a prospect too frightening to
contemplate. However, it must be confronted, or the fate of the 298 people on Flight MH17 may
become that of humanity at large.
Kees van der Pijl is a Fellow, Centre for Global Political Economy and Professor
Emeritus of the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex.
With the US and China contemplating their next moves in what is now
officially a trade war, a parallel narrative is developing in the world of energy where Asian
oil refiners are racing to secure crude supplies in anticipation of an escalating trade war
between the US and China, even as Trump demands all US allies cut Iran oil exports to zero by
November 4 following sanctions aimed at shutting the country out of oil markets.
Concerned that the situation will deteriorate before it gets better, Asian refiners are
moving swiftly to secure supplies with South Korea leading the way. Under pressure from
Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil, according to sources, even as
it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China tit-for-tat on trade.
"As South Korea's economy heavily relies on trade, it won't be good for South Korea if the
global economic slowdown happens because of a trade dispute between U.S and China," said Lee
Dal-seok, senior researcher at the Korea Energy Economic Institute (KEEI).
Meanwhile, Chinese state media has unleashed a
full-on propaganda blitzkrieg , slamming Trump's government as a "gang of hoodlums", with
officials vowing retaliation, while the chairman of Sinochem just become China's official
leader of the anti-Trump resistance, quoting Michelle Obama's famous slogan "
when they go low, we go high. " Standing in the line of fire are U.S. crude supplies to
China, which have surged from virtually zero before 2017 to 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) in
July.
Representing a modest 5% of China's overall crude imports, these supplies are worth $1
billion a month at current prices - a figure that seems certain to fall should a duty be
implemented . While U.S. crude oil is not on the list of 545 products the Chinese government
has said it would immediately retaliate with in response to American duties, China has
threatened a 25% duty on imports of U.S. crude which is listed as a U.S. product that will
receive an import tariff at an unspecified later date.
And amid an escalating tit-for-tat war between Trump and Xi in which neither leader is even
remotely close to crying uncle, industry participants expect the tariff to be levied, a move
which would make future purchases of US oil uneconomical for Chinese importers.
"The Chinese have to do the tit-for-tat, they have to retaliate ," said John Driscoll,
director of consultancy JTD Energy, adding that cutting U.S. crude imports was a means "of
retaliating (against) the U.S. in a very substantial way".
In an alarming sign for Washington, and a welcome development for Iran, some locals have
decided not to see which way the dice may fall.
According to
Japan Times , in a harbinger of what's to come, an executive from China's Dongming
Petrochemical Group, an independent refiner from Shandong province, said his refinery had
already cancelled U.S. crude orders .
"We expect the Chinese government to impose tariffs on (U.S.) crude," the unnamed executive
said. " We will switch to either Middle East or West African supplies ," he said.
Driscoll said China may even replace American oil with crude from Iran. " They (Chinese
importers) are not going to be intimidated, or swayed by U.S. sanctions."
Oil consultancy FGE agrees, noting that China is unlikely to heed President Trump's warning
to stop buying oil from Iran. While as much as 2.3 million barrels a day of crude from the
Persian Gulf state at risk per Trump's sanctions, the White House has yet to get responses from
China, while
India or
Turkey have already hinted they would defy Trump and keep importing Iranian oil. Together
three three nations make up about 60 percent of the Persian Gulf state's exports.
Under pressure from Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil,
according to sources, even as it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China
tit-for-tat on trade.
Expecting SA to help supply the World's needs is perhaps going off the deep end. It's their
bread and butter for years to come. As years pass, they become more aware that those years
are limited. This is not the 1970's, it's 2018. They will supply what is profitable for them,
and wasting it early, doesn't sound real smart, does it? If we offered them massive support
to develop their nuclear capabilities, it would probably entice them. Or, jump out of the
pot, and into the frying pan. Iran May have more capacity for new oil.
If I have understood this correctly. When most of their fields are mature, the option they
have is to invest (almost overbuild) in facilities foremost to treat and inject the steadily
higher volume of water to keep oil production steady and at the same time overinvest in
infill drilling to keep the volume rising. All this to sustain or even increase oil output
from mature fields, so that the oil price can stay low. And then there is the extra gain in
extra barrels to consider as a result of the investments that adds to ultimate recovery at
each field. The gain from extra barrels could make up for a mediocre return on investment in
some cases and a questionable one in other cases. Given a relatively low oil price
assumption.
Why would they do that? Keeping the facilities as they are for mature fields, accepting
only small investments where they are highly profitable, limiting infill drilling to the best
locations, let the oil production fall and hope for prices to rise would be a superior
solution for them, would it not? Why rush investments in mature oil fields?
When most of their fields are mature, the option they have is to invest (almost overbuild)
in facilities foremost to treat and inject the steadily higher volume of water to keep oil
production steady and at the same time overinvest in infill drilling to keep the volume
rising. All this to sustain or even increase oil output from mature fields,
Well no, it does not usually increase production, it just drastically reduces the decline
rate. For instance, a very mature field may have a natural decline rate of 6 to 8% per year.
With infill drilling of horizontal wells along the top of the reservoir, they may reduce that
decline rate to 2% per year.
so that the oil price can stay low.
No, that's not why they are doing it. They are doing it to maintain their annual
production. Some do increase production but with oil from new fields. These new fields,
however, will have a much lower URR and will start to decline after only a few years. All the
giant and supergiant field have already been discovered.
The "so that the oil price can stay low" was a well hidden irony from my part. But you
have a point, they want to keep their long term customers supplied, not losing face in OPEC
and their long term allies happy. They stretch to keep everyone happy.
Russia is certainly being creamed. The massive infill is visible from satellites and they
haven't found/opened anything new of size, yet have outlasted what everyone (including them)
calculated would be the start of their decline.
Russia needs the oil revenue badly. But is their ultimate decline going to look like
China? Very likely.
2018-07-05 (Platts) While Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser told Platts recently that "maximum
sustainable production" was 12 million b/d, industry experts believe Saudi Arabia will
struggle to pump more than 1 million b/d of additional output.
Yeah, I think that is pretty much what Ron and George have been saying. It is why all these
drops in production, and projected production that will not get out of the ground has to
cause demand to exceed supply within the next year by a substantial amount. Throw in Iran's
sabre rattling over the Homez, and oil prices should be through the roof. That it is not, is
mainly complacency built up over the past four years from the inventory overage. As Scarlet
O'Hara said, "After all tomorrow is another day".
MSNBC announced that the Aramco IPO may never happen. MSNBC didn't say why, however I suppose
those reserves that the Saudis have touted for so long could be very difficult to have
verified based on SEC rules. I think that much of the last two years of prep for their IPO
has been shopping for a exchange that would allow them to get their stock issued without
drastically revising their prior reserve disclosures.
You can also look at this development as an indication that the above discussed "rock" may
have already dropped.
I think that the potential threat of what happens if there is a hot war are more extensive
than just having the Strait of Hormuz being closed. If you look at that map you can see that
Saudi Arabia is just across the Strait. And as luck would have it, Saudi Arabia's oil fields
are mostly in the east which means that they are within close missile range of Iran. Nice oil
fields you have there Saudi Arabia. Shame if something happened to it. The United Arab
Emirates are also within missile range as well. If both countries think that Patriot
batteries will protect them then they must have been disillusioned to find that those
Patriots couldn't even defend against wonky Houthi missiles.
Then there is the fact that Iran shares a border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember how
the CIA shipped all those anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and ManPads to the Syrian
Jihadists via countries like Saudi Arabia? Be a real shame if captured stock got passed on to
the Taliban via all those borders and started targeted US/Coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Just these two possibilities show how Iran has a whole range of options to use if it came to
a military confrontation. And it should be remembered. If a US/Coalition could not
successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million, then how can Iran with a population
of 80 million be occupied?
Another factor is that even if a US/Coalition managed to somehow suppress all those missiles
the Iranians are using to guard those Straits, you would never be sure that you got them all.
Who really want to risk their oil tankers going down those Straits and wanting to risk that
bottleneck beig turned into a flaming sea? The trouble there is no way that there would be a
quick campaign possible with everybody home by Christmas. This has the potential of still
being fought during the 2020 US elections and I do not think that the US establishment wants
to risk that one. What they do want is to strangle Iran economically and turn the place into
one of grinding poverty but if pushed too far may go the Sampson option.
Local kids could also be trained to fire rockets across the water. The straits are not
straight and cut into Iran, so there's a good vantage point for Iran.
> probably already is.
>> China is still officially stating that it will not end its Iranian oil imports and
operations.
China's investment of billions into the deep port of Gwadar should not be discounted.
While China has ceded the ocean surface to the US navy, the wei qi way is to surround and not
engage directly. By now the Gulf of Oman should be a sensory organ for information critical
to Iran, and passive systems are much harder to detect & destroy.
We're now three years out from Qiao Liang saying China "thinks that Washington will not
fight Beijing for the next ten years". China doesn't want the fight (and I mean high
explosives, not 'fighting for') yet, but they've been preparing. And let us not forget the
rooster tails on the American fleet fleeing the Persian Gulf in October 2015 when Russia
launched cruise missiles at Syria. That was three months after the 'One Belt, One Road'
speech.
While the Saud's are working out their family disputes they cannot afford to have the
petrodollar disabled. But the US is materially capable of weathering energy disruptions
better than the EU, which would become even more dependent on Russia. Long term, the
petrodollar is gone and climate migrations are coming, so the when of Fortess America could
depend on relative and not absolute 'cui bono, ciu malo'.
tldr: the fight is inevitable, there's more than two in the ring, and there's no
referee.
I doubt if it is mined at this time, but mines would be a logical way to quickly shut the
Strait down. A couple of small fast ships dropping mines at night could shut it down very
quickly. They could drop mines along the far shore which would force ships towards the Iran
side where they would be vulnerable to shore-based anti-ship missiles.
BTW, the standing NATO minesweeping group is three ships (two Lithuanian and one British).
Historically minesweeping is one of the roles carried out by other countries that the US is
currently working hard to alienate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Mine_Countermeasures_Group_1
Mine sweeping ships generally are not heavily armored to avoid magnetic and acoustic
signatures that can trigger mines. So they can struggle in contested waters and would be very
vulnerable to anti-ship missiles.
"Rouhani, considered by European politicians to be a reformist, appears to be showing a
hardline streak that is nearer the strategy of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah
Khamenei. "
Everybody becomes a hardliner when faced with an existential threat, which Trump's threats
are now creating for Iran.
There's no need to sink any oil tankers to stop all oil shipping. Those tankers don't sail
without full insurance for the cargo, and no maritime insurer will back shipping through the
Strait of Hormuz while the Iranians are on the warpath. Hence, no oil tanker.
That is why a few mines would be very effective. All oil shipping would cease immediately.
Because mines can be redeployed very easily, including by air or fishing boats, insurers
would probably not be assuaged by naval assurances that mines have been swept.
In the 1980's when the Iranians mined the Straits the tankers still moved. What was the
insurance deal then? Did it the US pick it up for that part of the trip?
"If a US/Coalition could not successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million,
then how can Iran with a population of 80 million be occupied?"
Iran is also mostly Persian. Yes, there are Arabs, Armenians, Baluchis, etc., but the vast
majority are Persian and are proud to be Persian. Unlike Iraq, where you have a country with
3 groups you can play off each other.
I visited Iran over 5 years ago and was able to speak to some regular Iranians (English is
not uncommon amongst men and women). They will fight to the last man, woman, and child if
anyone came into their country. And that's what the secular ones who hate their government
say.
Every town has lamppost flags showing the pictures of all the young men who died in the
Iran-Iraq War. It was humbling to see the generational devastation wrought on that country.
Even the youth view that war as a world war, since people from over 25 countries were found
to be fighting on the Iraq side ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
– Remember the Soviet Union was ALSO on Iraq's side!). They faced destruction and
survived. They view themselves as an ancient, sophisticated people as well as the greatest
survivors in the world (all with good reason as they are an amazing people with a rubbish
government).
I do not see this ending well if the US thinks they can put the Iranians into a corner and
get compliance. It is an amazingly ahistorical understanding of the geopolitics of Iran.
These are the people we should be allying with not Saudi Arabia. But this is the same group
who think blundering into Iraq or Syria was a good idea, so I really can't be surprised.
Just to add that the people living above the main Saudi oil fields, Eastern Province, are
mainly Shiites. Shiites are also to be found in the south along the ill defined border with
Yemen. Both communities are disaffected and have been for decades, although the BBC, which
advertises its "unparalled global expertise" (sic) between news bulletins and other
programmes, reckons the Arab Spring caused the restiveness in Saudi Arabia.
This said, the Saudis and their Pakistani poodles can foment (Sunni) Arab and Baluch
disorder in Khuzestan and Sistan / Iranian Baluchistan.
I always wonder to myself when, on the BBC News Channel, they pan across the alleged
newsroom in New Broadcasting House and you see all those desks -- rows upon rows of them --
where people are sat, or, occasionally, get up and have a wander around, what the heck are
they doing there? It can't be producing news reports because you see the same half a dozen
so-called news "stories" stripped endlessly across the schedule throughout the day.
Every so often we get "business" news, which is someone from a spread betting company
piffling on about some rot or other then "a look at the markets", not, unfortunately, a view
of Covenant Garden or something, that would be more interesting, but rather some mysterious
figures from world indices and forex rates splayed across the screen like some inscrutable
hieroglyphs.
Then a bit of sport, with a dash of added jingoism.
Finally, some rally round the flag update on "the forces" with some top brass on the poop
deck of an aircraft carrier looking for an F35 ("F35 coming real soon"). Maybe Sophie
Rayworth in a tank.
Or alternatively it's Jenny Hill from Berlin with something about sausages and Merkel with
stock footage of people drinking beer from unfeasibly large glasses wraps it all up apart
from a sky diving granny then the weather.
It could be worse. We all could work in one of these places. It would not matter how great
a story you found, it would all have to get through the editors who report directly to their
owners like with the Murdoch press. The stuff you talk about is just the stuff that gets the
editorial nod i.e. pure pap.
Some of the stuff that I have seen on Australian TV, however, is nothing less than out and
out propaganda. I watch some of this stuff and I compare it with what I read on this site or
what a commentator chips in with and I wonder what these newsreaders actually are thinking as
they read some of these stories. Probably their steady pay packets.
I wish to god I knew. I have seen this creeping in the past decade or more. I suspect that
a lot of bad practices are imported from overseas. There are international conferences for
conservative political parties so you would have American Republicans, British Conservatives,
Australian Coalition, etc. all mixing together and swapping idea and techniques. They even
work together when there is an election in their country.
Just the other day I heard one Coalition member describe another as a "patriot" which you
NEVER hear in Oz. Kinda like a Republican describing another Republican as a good Communist.
You just never hear it. We even have an ex-Prime Minister that sounds like he could be a good
buddy to Mark Rubio running around trying to blow up his own party (currently in power)
saying that we should build as many coal power stations as possible because climate change is
not real.
Historically our governments have been ruled by pragmatism and past US governments have
labelled us as "socialist" due to adopting such things as single-payer health. The past few
years I am noting more and more ideologues going into politics who want to drag the country
into their way of thinking whether it is to pick fights with China (our major trade partner)
or send the Australian military to the ends of the earth as if they were Mercenaries-r-us.
The times they are a changing.
It all reminds me of C S Lewis' description of H -- as a giant bureaucracy. "The Screwtape
Letters" were written at the end of WW-2 and still come across as 'fresh.'
Supposedly the KSA funded development of the Pakistani bomb. There probably is some
agreement to hand some over (if it hasn't already been done) for "existential threats" This
could turn very bad very fast.
Iran has lots of options. Their Navy wouldn't last very long in a hot war but they have
lots of asymetric options. They have reverse engineered Russian torpedoes and these could be
launched from land or from mini-subs in shallow waters (where they are far harder to detect),
making life very difficult for opponents, let alone tankers. They can strike the UAE and much
of Saudi Arabia using a wide variety of ballistic missiles. To prevent this, the US would
have to strike Iranian territory, and this would cause a massive escalation. In almost any
scenario, the Straits would be shut down for many months, and this would be catastrophic for
the world economy. Asia would come off worse as they are most dependent on LNG and oil from
that region.
As you say, the great 'unsaid' is the Taliban. If Iran decided it was in their interest to
supply them with a few dozen trained operators with a few thousand anti-tank missiles and
manpads, then its goodbye Kabul.
The Iranians hate the Taliban and Al Quaeda and ISIS a lot more than we do since we are on
Saudi Arabia's side. They also seem to follow their principles. Don't forget our allies and
proxies in Syria are the headcutters and madmen ..all Sunnis ..although our government does
not want to admit it. They would be a lot smarter to trigger a Shiite uprising in Saudi
Arabia and shut the country down. The Shiites in Saudi are downtrodden and abused.
To escalate a carrier sinking to nuclear war is, I believe a lose/lose proposition. Let
say the Iranians sunk a carrier and the US Nuked Tehran.
The Iranians would not be in a forgiving mood at that point, and it would do little to
remove the somewhat irritated Iranians along the northern side of the Persian Gulf. The
irritated Iranians would initiate incidents over the impact of irradiated Iranians.
The US could nuke the Iranian Coast along the Persian Gulf, but, the gulf is not wide, and
the result would be poor prospects for the US allies on the South side of the Gulf. In
addition one does not know if nuking Shea would provoke a Sunni backlash against "the
infidels, the Christian US."
One could argue that Christians and Nukes cannot be mentioned in the same sentence.
The Prologue of Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil" outlines a potential scenario of a
Shiite attack on the eastern Saudi oil fields. The sub-title is The Doomsday Scenario.
The book is about the US-Saudi relationship by a retired CIA officer. A very good read and
part of trying to understand this entire mess.
Exactly right. Logic dictates that if Iran is attacked, Iranian missiles will soon
thereafter attempt to destroy all of the oil producing capacity selling to Europe, Japan and
the US within range of its missiles. This means ships, oil fields, pipeline, ect. Oil prices
would skyrocket, plunging the US, Japan and Europe into a deep economic downturn.
Why people ignore the outcome you provided is beyond me. If I were Iran, I'd do the same
if Israel attacked too.
Your guess is that nobody will attack the Iranians after they attack the shipping to close
the straits?
In the 1987 Iran attacked about 91 ships in the Gulf. The oil still flowed. On April 18,
1988 the US attacked and severely damaged a number of Iranian ships and bases. After that
things started winding down. Then on July 3, 1988 the US shot down that Iranian airliner.
Then things really quieted down.
What are the differences now? Iran: ballistic missiles and subs?
There's Lt. General Riper, who played the Iranian side in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war
games, "killing" 20,000 Navy personnel and "sinking" 16 American warships
on the first day, so he knows better than to even start such a bottlenecked battle.
There's always General Farnsworth, the great grandson of Colonel Armstrong Custer.
Farnsworth has worked for two decades in the Purchasing & Planning wing of the Pentagon
-- three levels below daylight -- but his confidence in an immediate American victory Over
There is indubitable.
In similar vein, MI5's Eliza Manningham Buller is a descendant of Redvers Buller, British
commander in the second Boer War, but much more of a realist and moderate.
Redvers Buller? Seriously? I have read a lot about his role in the Zulu War of 1879.
Intriguing character being hard-fighting and hard-drinking and yet refused to wear his 1860
China medal on the grounds that it was an unnecessary war. And a descendant of his is head of
MI5?
Here's a little character sketch of Redvers Buller, from " On the Psychology of
Military Incompetence ", by Norman Dixon:
The leading character was the commander-in-chief, General Sir Redvers Buller. According
to a contemporary description there could be no finer choice for our South African
adventure: 'There is no stronger commander in the British Army than this remote, almost
grimly resolute, completely independent, utterly fearless, steadfast and vigorous man.
Big-boned, square-jawed, strong-minded, strong-headed Smartness sagacity administrative
capacity He was born to be a soldier of the very best English type, needless to say the
best type of all.
Unfortunately this assessment was at variance with the facts in all but two particulars.
Firstly, he was indeed big. Secondly, though sadly lacking in moral courage, he was
undoubtedly brave when it came to physical danger. In this respect, as in many others, he
was not unlike Raglan of the Crimean War, and indeed some other commanders of subsequent
years.
Of Sir 'Reverse' Buller, as he came to be known by his troops, Rayne Kruger writes: 'At the
risk of marring [the] contemporary description it should be mentioned that his big bones
were particularly well covered, especially in the region of the stomach, and that his
square jaw was not especially apparent above a double chin. He had entered the army with no
disadvantage, his mother being a Howard and niece of the Duke of Norfolk, and he was very
wealthy, which was fortunate in view of his preference for a diet of ample good food and
champagne.
Such examples of the Peter Principle, wherein people are raised to their own level of
inefficiency, was never better illustrated than in the case of Sir Redvers Buller, who has
been described as 'a superb major, a mediocre colonel and an abysmal general'. In this
case, high-level military incompetence must be laid at the door of heroic leadership, for
this was the quality which eventually put him where he could do the most damage to his own
side.
The US response will be that this unprovoked aggression is an act of war, etc. This
ignores our own unprovoked act of aggression, the embargo.
In case any has forgotten, those dastardly Imperialist Japanese launched an "unprovoked"
attack on Pearl Harbor because the US put Japan under an embargo.
Embargoes themselves are not acts of war, but blockades are. But this is all technical
blather. The US is attempting to strangle Iran. Iran will attempt to strangle the Gulf Arabs
and the US. If Iran starts firing missiles or blockading the straits, the US will attack
Iran. Iran will in turn launch attacks on the Gulf states. This could drive oil over $200,
perhaps higher.
If Iran were clever, they would institute some sort of quarantine or inspection in their
territorial waters. Indeed, they should claim jurisdiction over the entire strait in the
interest of international security (they could certainly find some US document somewhere and
just change the names). Then they could stop every ship going in and out and spend a week or
so inspecting each one for contraband, disease, etc. This would not be an act of war but
would certainly provoke the US into striking first anyway.
Iran has already extended its territorial waters to 12 miles, as did Oman. Given that the
strait is 29 miles at the narrowest, and that to deal with the amount of shipping, pretty
much all of it passes through either Omani or Iranian territorial waters. Technically,
Iran/Oman has right to stop any non "innocent" (read unarmed) shipping trough it territorial
waters. Not sure what is Omani relationship with the US/Saudis at the moment, wasn't paying
much attention to the Gulf.
Once the US decides to strike first, we're going to be on our own. The Saudis will be
completely useless as they always were, understandably not wanting to be cannon fodder for US
interests. And with most of Europe and Asia relying on gulf oil, our 'coalition of the
willing' is going to be a bit shy of members.
FILE PHOTO. © Lucy Nicholson / Reuters The tax and trade policies of Donald Trump are, in fact, what have contributed to the surge in oil prices, a US economics professor told RT, adding that the US President's tough words to OPEC are a political stunt. On Thursday, Trump accused OPEC's Middle East producers of "pushing for higher and higher oil prices" and demanded "they stop it," adding that the US is "protecting those countries." Oil prices showed a mixed reaction to Trump's words. The Brent benchmark fell 43 cents to $78.97 per barrel, while the US Texas Intermediate grew by 9 cents to $71.21.
Trump demands OPEC lower oil prices, claims US 'protects' Middle East countries
FILE PHOTO: Iranian
Parliament © Islamic Consultative Assembly News Agency / AFP In a rare statement Iran's
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lashed out at the country's authorities, accusing
them of poorly handling internal issues. The mismanagement is even worse than US sanctions, he
said. "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation
is the result of [government's own] actions," Khamenei said, according to Irna, as he was
addressing thousands of
Iranians in Tehran on Monday.
Rouhani blasts
Trump's 'psychological warfare' as Iran braces for US sanctions
