Friday, December 2, 2016

Mr. Trump and Europe

Transcript (slightly expanded) of a Skype interview with Alex Knyazev – Russia TV24, Program ‘Geo-economics’
by Peter Koenig
Since this interview was given, an important event happened, important for world history. Fidel Castro died on 25 November, at the age of 90 (1926 – 2016). Comandante Castro, a lawyer by education, with a true sense of justice for humanity, has led a Revolution in his native Cuba to free his people from a brutal dictator, murderer and of course, what else, a puppet of the United States, Fulgencio Batista. Fidel has essentially freed Cuba from 500years of colonialism. Fidel has defied Washington’s multiple attempts to oust him, and more than 600 US secret service attempts to kill him. His Revolution has withstood a brutal, illegal, international blockade, initiated and also brutally enforced by Washington with sanctions against any country in the world that wouldn’t follow the embargo dictate of the US, against his country for almost 60 years – and counting. Fidel’s followers will continue in his spirit fighting against capitalists cumneofascists’ ruthless exploitation (see also
As a campaign pledge, repeated after his election, Mr. Trump wants to undo President Obama’s agreement for new relations with Cuba. Here is his abject reaction to Fidel’s passing: “Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.”
This is to be remembered. Everything that follows during his presidency is to be put in context of that man’s way of thinking. The 45th President of the United States is either completely ignorant or has all the elements to become a ruthless ‘dictator for corporate profit’. He is an unreliable rogue. Business and money is what drives him. Humanity is just a tool.
Russia TV24 Question
How would you describe the current political and economic situation in Europe if we take into account the latest events, Trump’s victory for example? How would Trump in the future reshape the EU’s policy?
PK Reply
The current economic situation in Europe is very uneven. There are some countries that are doing better than others. For example, Germany and the Nordic countries are generally better off than the Southern European countries. Germany has benefitted the most from the EU’s common market. But if you look at the benefit of the EU as a whole – because a union should be judged as an entity, not country by country – as a union – which it really isn’t – the EU has done worse than if there would have been no so-called European Union.
This may be difficult to prove, of course, since no study can be done of what would have happened without the union – i.e. what would the countries of Europe have done socioeconomically without the EU.
Why the claim that the sum of the EU is worse than would have been the sum of all individual sovereign EU member countries? – Because the EU was never set up as a union to serve its members equally. It wasn’t even created by the Europeans. Hard to believe, I know. Its creation was the idea of Washington, carried out by the CIA, right after WWII. Down-beaten Europe was to become a vassal for the US, already 70 years back. We have to understand the context, before we can understand what is going wrong in the EU and its equally false euro-based monetary system.
The European Union started by the creation of the Council of Europe (CoE), signed and opened in London on 5 May 1949, covering 47 countries, including the territories of today’s 28 EU member nations which currently amount to about 820 million people. It is clearly an Anglo-Zion idea, brainchild of the CIA, where the UK played patsy for the US, as they still do today.
That’s also why BREXIT was such a surprise. Nobody expected people actually standing on their own feet, asking to gain back their sovereignty. The UK as backbone of the ‘establishment’ and a Washington mole in the EU, was taken as a given.
The CoE was the precursor of today’s European Union. The idea was born out of the Washington instigated WWII – planned and prepared already in the early 1930s, as the US economy was under deep depression, the result of the 1928 banking collapse. Building arms was then and is today an efficient engine for our sick economy – truly an economy of destruction and death – that eventually serves only the rich and powerful. Because after destruction you have to rebuild. And the winners, those who have the armament and weapons to destroy (and win), have also the industry and machinery to rebuild. For them – the US – war is a double whammy.
The CoE was followed by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the first big transatlantic market. In 1955 the Rockefeller-led Bilderberg Society – the semi-secret home base of the top movers and shakers, those that pull the strings on the US Presidents, like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, other Wall Street (WS) banksters and CEOs of the war industry, pharmaceuticals, ag-corporations, like Monsanto – and last but not least of the six giant Anglo-Zionist media corporations – this Bilderberg Society pleaded already in 1955 for a common European currency. In 1958 emerged the Treaty of Rome, of which people falsely say it was the beginning of the European Union. This, and all the future treaties all the way to Maastricht (1992) and Lisbon (2007) were infiltrated and influenced by US agents.
What the US really wanted out of WWII is that Hitler defeats the Soviet Union, because of a pathological anti-socialist / communist sentiment, prevailing in the United States as of this day. So – as Washington usually does, they danced on two weddings, i.e. with the one hand they financed Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union via the Bank for International Settlement, the BIS in Basle Switzerland, created in 1930 to monitor German WWI reparation payments. In Basle, it is conveniently located at the border to Germany. The funds arrived from the FED via Wall Street (WS) banks at the BIS and were transferred to the German Reichsbank (then the German Central Bank). The President of the BIS at that time was Thomas McKittrick (1940-46), a Rockefeller confidant. He was a former WS exec and worked in close collaboration with the FED and WS. All this is documented in books, one of them is called The Tower of Basle.
Had Hitler defeated the Soviet Union, his army would have been weak enough to be beaten easily by the remaining Allied Forces. In fact, as it is, the Soviet Union defeated Hitler’s army, and the US / UK came in towards the end of the war to ‘liberate’ – as they proclaim themselves, the various occupied territories, including France, and of course Germany. But the winner was clearly the Soviet Union – which lost 25 to 30million people in this war, a tremendous sacrifice for which the west should be forever grateful.
To continue their plan of creating Europe as a vassal of Washington, now Plan B kicked in: A Cold war with the Soviet Union had to be created. This continued justifying the US very lucrative arms race. Building up the Cold War went in parallel with rebuilding Europe with an entirely US funded Marshall Plan, then about US$ 13 billion (today about 130 billion equivalent) – which bound the European countries together through a common reconstruction fund. The World Bank, alias Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the IMF were created (1944 – the Breton Woods Organizations) to respectively manage the Marshall Plan Funds and to monitor and control the so-called ‘hard’ currencies’ adherence of the then also US imposed gold standard.
Europe was never meant to become a political sovereign entity, like the US. Lest Europe might have become an autonomous competitor to the self-styled US hegemon. It follows that the creation of a common EU currency the euro, was shaped and structured exactly according to the US-dollar.
A group of countries that has no binding constitution, no common political or even economic goals, no solidarity, can never sustain a common currency. Therefore, the EU as well as the Euro are doomed to fail. It is but a question of time. This is the opinion of renowned economists, including Joseph Stiglitz.
Under these circumstances, I doubt very much that Mr. Trump can do much for improving the lot of Europe. He shouldn’t even try. He really shouldn’t continue the US tradition of meddling in other countries affairs. This is eventually the task – and the obligation of Europe – not of an outsider. A new Europe has to be built from within, by Europe, for Europe and with the full participation of European citizens – and without any involvement of Washington.
Back to Mr. Trump – there is indeed a lot of uncertainty at this time. However, the 45th President–elect is apparently backtracking on some of his extreme rightwing appointees, especially those that may have bent over backwards to please Israel and AIPAC. It looks like former NY mayor Giuliani is no longer on the shortlist to become Secretary of State – or Attorney General. But we’ll see.
On Syria, an apparent good news is that Mr. Trumps son reportedly met last month in Paris with Randa Kassis, a Syrian politician who strongly supports Russian intervention in her country. This may be an indication that the President-elect is serious wanting to partner with Russia and eliminate the US created IS and its affiliated terror groups, and freeing Syria and the democratically elected Regime of Bashar al-Assad from the ruthless claws of the empire. But the question always remains – how much freedom to act does Mr. Trump really have?
Russia TV24 Question
Which countries in your view economically benefit from being in the Eurozone and which do not?
PK Reply
As I said before, Germany has emerged as the ‘winner’ if there is a ‘winner’ in the EU, and some of the Nordic countries. Clear losers are the EU’s southern countries; and this on purpose. They are bordering the highly strategic Mediterranean Sea; they are also NATO countries and must be kept under tight control. If they are economically weak, and of course not under a socialist government, they can much better be controlled and manipulated. Austerity brings poverty and poor people are extremely vulnerable, as their survival depends on earning just enough for the basic livelihood of their families. Poor people have no energy nor time to fight for their rights. That’s a built-in axiom of the austerity programs.
Russia TV24 Question
French Jean-Luc Schaffauser recently said “the Eurozone stopped functioning and there are no prospects anymore”. What do you think?
PK Reply
I fully agree with this statement. The EU as it ‘dysfunctions’ today is doing increasing harm to the nations of Europe – more austerity, more misery, more unemployment, which is always a sign of ultra-capitalist engendered economic decline, a neoliberal-fascist take-over. We are living today in a fascist economy. The only way out of it, is dismantling the EU, and returning to sovereign national currencies.
And possibly at some point in the future – rethink the idea of a common Europe, but under completely different circumstances – and not under the dictate of Washington. It will require honest, non-corruptible European statesmen- and women. In fact, it is our hitherto destructive generation’s duty vis-à-vis the up-and-coming younger generations, those who will lead our civilization ahead, to dismantle the EU and the euro.
Russia TV24 Question 
What is the reason for the economic crisis in the Eurozone? Some experts say this is a matter of the whole system and the rules under which the EU is functioning. The ECB monetary policy does not correlate with different economic policies of the EU members, e.g. the heads of JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley claimed one of the reasons for that is Brexit and this might lead to a collapse of the Eurozone.

PK Reply

Yes BREXIT could indeed inspire other EU members to decide exiting the EU. Next in line could be Italy, or France.
Take France – Mr. François Fillon, the new candidate of the French extreme right, would bring more austerity and more hardship to France. He has already said so. He may be Washington’s candidate, as was Sarkozy at his time. He has been shoved in from outside, mysteriously ousting Mr. Alain Juppé, in the French Primaries of the Republican Party. He will, thus, become the prime opponent of Marine Le Pen, the current frontrunner for the Presidential elections next spring. Marine Le Pen wants to exit the EU, the Eurozone and NATO. This, of course, is a no-no for the Atlantists and Washington. They don’t want to take such a risk. France has still relatively much social capital to be stolen by the neo-fascist oligarchs, like the health system, the pension funds, the workers relatively long leaves and short workweeks – all achievements of the syndicates and paid for by the workers – could be taken away by unbridled privatization under a Fillon Presidency.
Let’s not even talk about the countrywide austerity programs he would bring to the French populace. And remember, austerity always comes with strings attached: debt – debt that needs to be serviced by interest and amortization, taking away some of the workers’ output, shifting it to the banksters and other oligarchs, and weighing down people’s mobility with the albatross of debt. Greece is a glaring example.
However, as mentioned before, there is Marine Le Pen, the ‘independent’ National Front (‘Front National’ – FN) candidate. The British Telegraph reports that “Marine Le Pen, the far-right leader of the Front National, “can win” France’s presidency next year, [as] the country’s shell-shocked mainstream Right predicted”, adding that “Donald Trump’s surprise triumph has thrown all political certainty into doubt.” – And that’s precisely why Mr. Fillon had to be ‘pushed in’ at the far right of the Republican Party. On domestic issues, he is pretty much in line with Marine Le Pen, but he does not vouch to exit the EU, euro and NATO. Therefore, he is slanted to defeat Le Pen in a second round.
Ms. Le Pen’s key campaign promises would be a blessing for the vast majority of European electors- though not for their mostly undemocratically elected leaders, but for the electorate – exiting the EU and the Eurozone, as well as exiting NATO. For most Europeans, including parliamentarians, although the MSM ignore them, getting rid of NATO would be a benediction, as it would stop or largely diminish the constant, counter-productive and illegal threat on Russia, it would diminish the risk of a nuclear annihilation of mankind and it would open the doors for Europeans to reestablish the natural partnership with Russia that has been a tradition for hundreds of years, before the self-anointed exceptional nation’sascension to world tyranny.
Russia TV24 Question 
There are more and more right-oriented politicians in the EU. Why? At the same time, Mme. Merkel is going to run for her fourth term in the next elections (Fall 2017). What would it lead to?
PK ReplyTrue, there are ever more right wing politicians in the EU, actually heading EU members. There is currently no country that comes to mind that has a true left-wing leader. None. You can imagine that this is not just a coincidence. This is a clear sign that democracy has ceased to exist, that Democracy remains a dream of Greek philosophers some 2000 years back, and that elections are fabricated by the ‘new’ western fascism, especially by the unlimited and unrestrained lie-propaganda of the Anglo-Zionist MSM. Case in point is the recent ‘soft’ and hardly noticed parliamentary coup in Spain. The neoliberal President Rajoy, hated by at least three quarters of the population for the poverty and misery he has brought to Spain during his previous term from 2011-2015. See this election analysis
Interestingly, shortly after President Obama’s fare well visit to Berlin, during which he had extensive talks with Angela Merkel, she emerged announcing her fourth-time candidacy for the Chancellorship of Germany. Obama called her the new leader of Europe. I wonder what he promised her and how he explained to her that she will win the elections, while two thirds of the population oppose her.
Let us also be reminded that Germany still has no Peace Agreement after WWII. Germany’s status remains one of ‘Armistice’ in which it is clearly pointed out that the Chancellor shall never oppose the will of Washington. There it is. What better puppet Obama could have selected to continue with this absurd term in the Armistice Agreement, which currently acts as the German Constitution.
The agreement is being applied as it pleases Washington. For example, it also says that no military aggression shall ever emanate from German territory – which is outright baloney. Ramstein, in the center of Germany, is one of the most important US military bases in Europe. Most drone attacks in Pakistan and the Middle East emanate from Ramstein. Also, the German Luftwaffe has quietly joined the French, UK, US and NATO in bombing Syria and Iraq. A future German Chancellor with backbone might want to revisit this Armistice Agreement, in view of converting it into a Peace Agreement, giving Germany full sovereignty which would be a first step of liberating Europe from the fangs of the American vulture — ehhh, I mean eagle.
It depends now on what Mr. Trump has in mind, when he pledges no more US interventionism. Does he mean to give Europe back to the Europeans? That would be a strong feather in Mr. Trump’s hat. – But would those who pull the strings on the western marionette leaders allow it?
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world
More offers

Is Donald Trump really only a showman who will prepare the USA for war?

Let me begin by immediately say that I have the utmost respect for F. William Engdahl and that I consider him a person far more knowledgeable of US politics than myself.  Furthermore, I want to also make it clear that I am not going to refute a single argument Engdahl makes in support of his thesis simply because I believe that his arguments are fact-based and logical.  I strongly urge everybody to read Engdahl’s article “The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency” in the New Eastern Outlookand carefully consider each of his arguments.  Of course, Engdahl only offers indirect, circumstantial, evidence and only time will really show whether he is right or wrong.  What I propose to do today is to consider the other possibility, that in spite of all the evidence presented by Engdahl, Trump might not be a fraud and a showman.  You will see that this conclusion is not necessarily more optimistic than Engdahl’s.
My main argument is much more primitive than Engdahl’s and even more circumstantial: I see clear signs of a *real* struggle taking place inside the US elites and if, indeed, such a struggle is taking place, then I conclude that Trump is not a showman who has been “selected” (to use Engdahl’s words) by the US elites but that quite to the contrary, his election is a nightmare for these elites.
My subsidiary argument is that even if Engdahl is right and if Trump is a showman, the ploy of the US elites to save the Empire and prepare for war will fail.
Let’s take them one by one:
The reality of the struggle inside the US elites
Frankly, I don’t believe that the imperial “deep state” was so devious and sophisticated to order the mainstream media to organize a year-long hate campaign against Trump because the “deep state” has calculated  that only such a demonization of Trump would make him popular and get him elected.  Why?  I just don’t believe that the US propaganda machine is that flexible.  You look at freaks like Rachel Maddows or Martha Raddatz and you can tell that they are for real, in the sense that they were never hired to parrot a specific political line but they were hired because they are the living embodiment of a specific political line.  And that goes for 90% of the Trump-bashing media.  Yeah, maybe some are cynical presstitutes, but most of them come from what I would call the “tribe of assorted minorities” which viscerally hates everything Trump stands for.  Their hate is sincere, it is pure, it comes from their very identity.
Likewise, when I look at the fawning in lockstep before Hillary which the mainstream media carefully nurtured I can only conclude that this is the logical outcome of decades of brainwashing by the liberal propaganda machine.  This machine was built around hating the “common” American, the “deplorables” in Hillary’s parlance, and this machine could not do anything but to worship her 24/7.
I am therefore convinced that Donald Trump got elected in spite of, and not thanks to, the “Patriarchy of loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George Herbert Walker Bush“.  Furthermore, when I see the desperate efforts by Soros & Co to organize some kind of “color revolution” against Trump under the slogan “not my president” and the efforts by, again, Soros & Co. to get Jill Stein to get a recount only in the states were Trump won, I come to the clear conclusion that the Neocons have still not accepted their defeat and that they are still trying to prevent Trump from occupying the White House.  In contrast, Engdahl writes that,
We should not imagine for one second that the Patriarchy– those loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George Herbert Walker Bush or unnamed others– were so overwhelmed by the political genius of candidate Trump emerging from every scandal more powerful than before, that they were surprised, out-foxed, and just groaned and let it happen.  The Trump Presidency has been planned in minute detail by them and their think tanks
I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t get the feeling that what is taking place today is the result of something carefully planned.  I fully agree that the US deep state did not just “groan and let hit happen“.  But rather than letting it happen, I see the US deep state fighting against Trump with everything it has!  I don’t think that the post-election anti-Trump hysteria has been planned by the likes of Rockefeller or Bush at all.  What I see are the Neocons using every bit of “ammunition” they have to try to oppose and sabotage a Trump presidency.
Engdahl also brings some very strong arguments against the nomination of General Mike Flynn who not only is known for his rather crude anti-Islamic rhetoric, but who even co-authored a book with the notorious Neocon Michael Ledeen. That a man like Flynn could find no better co-author than Ledeen should set off “red alert” alarms in the minds of everybody who understands what Ledeen stands for and represents.  And Flynn is most definitely one of the better people around Trump.
In fact, a closer look at the folks around Trump reveals a lot of Neocons, Israelis and Judaics and all in key positions.  There is a definite Likudnik smell to a lot of the people Trump has surrounded himself with.   But that argument could also be reversed – if indeed Trump is “securely surrounded” by doubleplusgoodthinking Zionists, why their big panic?  Could it be that these doubleplusgoodthinkingZionists have some very strong concerns about what Trump might do as a President once he is in full control?
Last but most definitely not least: not only has Jill Stein been used to trigger a recount in some states, but there are now rumors that some Electors are now being pressured not to give their vote to Trump, as the law says they should.  Whether true or not, this kind of rumors clearly indicate that the Neocons are willing to do anything and everything to prevent Trump from getting into the White House or, if that is impossible, to maximally weaken him even if that puts the entire country at risk.
Why do I say that?
Because events have a way of getting out of control which makes the kind of reckless doubling-down the Neocons are currently engaged in extremely dangerous.  Of course, nobody currently expects the Electoral College to refuse to nominate Trump.  But the unexpected seems to be happening a lot these days.  So what if something like that happens?  Or what if some states accept Trump’s victory, but others don’t?  What if the “not my President” slogan really goes viral and infects the minds of many more people than right now?  Or even worse, what if this absolutely irresponsible rhetoric ends up in violence with either protesters or Trump himself being shot?  We know that the very same US deep state which organized and executed 9/11 also used snipers in Vilnius in 1991, in Moscow in 1993 and in Kiev in 2014 to bring about an insurrection.  There are also report that such snipers were used in Libya, Egypt and Syria.  Is there any logical reason to think that this time around the deep state would not use such snipers *inside* the USA?
While it is possible that the current situation has been triggered by the US deep state, it is equally possible that the US deep state is losing control of the situation which might now be developing a momentum of its own.  Would the US deep state really take such a risk just in order to put “Trump the showman” into the White House?
The plan
According to Engdahl, Donald Trump was put into office to,
prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, “rebuild America’s defenses.”  To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It’s already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It’s classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naïve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump’s handlers.
If that indeed the plan, then I fully agree with Engdahl – Putin is not so naive or stupid to fall for it.  In fact, such a possibility has been discussed many times by Russian experts on various Russian talkshows and they all agree that while Russia will definitely tone down its criticism of the USA if Trump appears to be interested in collaborating with Russia, there is no chance in hell that Moscow would in any way let the Americans weaken or otherwise affect the unofficial but extremely strong strategic partnership between Russia and China.  Besides, the USA have nothing very interesting to offer the Russians anyway.  Why would the Russians spend any capital on a clearly dying Empire when they have an extremely beneficial alliance with a growing superpower?  Does anybody in Washington DC really think that two decades of rabid russophobia have suddenly been forgotten or that anybody in Russia will ever trust a word coming out of an American politician’s mouth?  For the past two years Russia has been scrambling to prepare for war against the USA and NATO.  Now that the danger of President Hillary has almost certainly passed, yes – the Russians are delighted that a thermonuclear war has become unlikely.  But they will never forget how close it came and they will most definitely not stop their preparations.  At most, they will somewhat slow down some programs, but that’s it.  Fundamentally Russia will continue her rapid pace of military development which, considering the situation in the Ukraine and in the Middle-East, is a sound decision regardless of what the Americans do or say.
I think I can very accurately predict what Russia will do during the next four years: Putin will meet with Trump and try to work out with him as many of the outstanding issues between the USA and Russia as possible (that is, assuming the Neocons around Trump don’t torpedo it all before it even starts!). If Trump wants a reasonable solution for Syria and the Ukraine, he will get it from the Russians.  If Trump is serious about forcing the CIA & Co. to stop using al-Qaeda & Co., that is to say if Trump is serious about smashing Daesh, the Russians will help him too.  And if Trump wants the Russians to help secure a deal for Israel and Palestine, or help mediate some deal with the DPRK – the Russians will oblige again.  But what will not stop is the massive re-armament of the Russian armed forces and the Russian efforts to politically decouple the EU from the USA.  These are strategic goals of Russia which will not be affected by the USA.  Furthermore, even if during the next four years the USA spends X billion dollars on “defense”, Russia will spend far less but get much more than the USA.  Why?  Because the entire US military-industrial complex is corrupt to the bone and the US armed forces in an advanced state of decay.
Contrary to what some Russian (and non-Russian) hurray-patriots think, Russia is still much weaker than the USA, but she is catching up at a rate which the USA is simply not able to match, Trump or not Trump, so the power ratio of the USA to Russia in four years will be even more favorable to Russia than it is now.  If the Neocons really think that they can somehow reverse or even significantly affect this trend they are wrong.  The USA are going down and Russia is going up, and nothing can stop this process.
The strongest argument in favor of Engdahl’s thesis is this: while the Neocons have always been clever and very driven, they are not very bright and they can only see as far as the immediate short term.  Furthermore, their truly infinite arrogance always brings them to the same solution when presented with a crisis: double down.  And if that don’t work, double down again.  And again.  And again.  This is why all their grand plans first kinda work, but then inevitably come crashing down, over and over again.
Right now, there is nothing more stupid and self-defeating the USA could do than to double down on all their failures, miscalculations and mistakes.  The smart thing to do is what Trump promises to do: to change course, “drain the swamp” in DC and save the USA by giving up on the AngloZionist Empire.  I hope that this is what the slogan “make America great again” means: make it great by dumping the Empire.
My gut-feeling is that Trump is at least partially sincere, how could we explain the current Neocon panic otherwise?  They seem to know something which really is freaking them out.  Might that be that Trump is serious about kicking their collective rear-end back down to the basement from which they crawled out?
This being said, please don’t conclude that I am any more optimistic than Engdahl. I am not.  It’s just that my fear is different from his.  He thinks that Trump is a fraud while I think that the Trump is unlikely to have the right combination of intelligence, willpower, courage, abnegation and patriotism to purge the USA from the Neocon rot.  Simply put – I don’t think that Trump will be the “American Putin”.  Furthermore, I think that the choice of Pence as VP is indicative a deeply misguided hope by Trump that he can appease the Neocons.
Finally, let’s try to make sense out of Trump’s absolutely bizarre and, frankly, irrational phobia of Iran.  Is that not his attempt at throwing the Neocons a bone to chew on in the hope that they will let him be if he “gives” them Iran?
One thing is absolutely certain: if the Americans attack Iran, any rapprochement with Russia will immediately go down the tubes.  There is no way Trump can get some kind of partnership with Russia while threatening Iran.  Yet another contradiction in the putative Neocon plan.
God knows I hope that I am wrong.  And, of course, I hope that Engdahl is wrong too.  Miracles do happen and sometimes seemingly mediocre or hesitant individuals end up showing a strength and willpower which can change the course of history.  But I think that Engdahl is asking the right questions and sounding the right warnings.  While it is legitimate to hope for a miracle, one must never forget miracles happen very rarely and that it is far more likely that they will not happen.
The Saker
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

Trump stoppt Umsturz-Politik der USA

 © AFP 2016/ Jewel Samad
 Die Außenpolitik der künftigen US-Administration wird sich nicht auf den „Sturz der Regime“ anderer Staaten richten, wie der designierte US-Präsident Donald Trump im Bundesstaat Ohio bei seinem ersten Meeting mit Anhängern seit der Wahl sagte. „Wir werden keine Regime oder Regierungen stürzen. Erinnern Sie sich an die sechs Billionen US-Dollar im Nahen Osten? Unser Ziel ist Stabilität, kein Chaos. Deswegen wollen wir unser Land wiederaufbauen. Es wird ja auch Zeit!“, so Trump. Syrien-Lösung nur mit Russland: Trump hat schon „ernsthafte Ideen“ Damit wiederholte der künftige Staatschef seine Aussagen aus dem Wahlkampf darüber, dass die USA sechs Billionen US-Dollar für Kriege im Nahen Osten ausgeben würden, während sich das Land selbst im „kompletten Zerfall“ befinde.  Zudem bekräftige Trump die Bereitschaft der USA, im Kampf gegen die Terrormiliz Daesh (auch Islamischer Staat, IS) mit jedem Land zusammenzuarbeiten. „Wir werden den IS besiegen und sind bereit, mit jedem Land zusammenzuwirken, welches uns dabei helfen wird, den IS und den islamischen Radikalismus zu besiegen“, sagte er.   ? Die Präsidentschaftswahl in den USA fand am 8. November statt. Der Republikaner Donald Trump dominierte dabei über seine Rivalin, die Demokratin Hillary Clinton, indem er bedeutend mehr Wahlmännerstimmen für sich gewinnen konnte. Die neue US-Regierung mit Trump an der Spitze wird nach der Amtseinführung des neuen Präsidenten am 20. Januar 2017 ihre Tätigkeit aufnehmen. Die Terrororganisation „Islamischer Staat“ hatte im Sommer 2014 Teile Syriens und des Irak eingenommen. Die Terroristen riefen in den besetzten Gebieten ein Kalifat aus. Die offiziellen Regierungen in Bagdad und Damaskus sowie eine internationale Koalition unter US-Führung kämpfen gegen die Besatzer. Russland setzt seit Herbst 2015 seine Luftstreitkräfte gegen die Islamisten in Syrien ein.


Thursday, December 1, 2016

'NATO, an aggressive organization in search of a mission' Jim Jatras

NATO is a product of the Cold War. It does not fit into our time anymore. My party and other parties; we can imagine a treaty which is for defense but not against Russia but more or less against another kind of threats, for example, terrorism…We should rearrange NATO and give NATO another structure and philosophy. In NATO there are still a lot of people in power who are attached to this old philosophy.Joachim Paul, from Alternative for Germany Party (AfD)

"NATO is essentially a tool of Washington to maintain control over Europe in security affairs" Jatras
© Yves Herman
Donald Trump has said that NATO is obsolete because it is not really defending its members’ territory against Islamic terrorism, which is the only real threat Europe suffers, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat and geopolitical analyst, told RT.
Washington says it is worried about Moscow's deployment of Iskander short-range ballistic missile in Russia's western exclave of Kaliningrad in response to new US cruise missiles being placed just across the border.
Tension with Moscow is not the only thing bothering the military alliance.
With a new US president soon to enter the White House, Western media is raising concerns over his plans for NATO. The European elites are growing increasingly worried about what any changes Trump may bring to the NATO alliance.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Stoltenberg urged NATO members to follow the British example and contribute two percent of GDP to the military alliance.
Besides the UK, Poland, Estonia, Greece, and the United States are the only members of the 28-country alliance meeting the two percent threshold. The US contributes the highest proportion of its GDP to the military block, some 3.61 percent, according to NATO’s 2015 Annual Report.
RT: What do you make of Western media raising fears over Donald Trump’s plans for NATO?
Jim Jatras: When the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were out of business in 1991, NATO should have gone out of business as well. That didn’t happen. Unfortunately, NATO doesn’t have any particular function as a defensive organization - as we saw in Bosnia and Kosovo - it has behaved as an aggressive organization. It is an organization in search of a mission. Right now, we have Donald Trump who said that it is obsolete because it is not really defending its members’ territory against Islamic terrorism which is the only real threat Europe suffers. So frankly, what good is it?
NATO is a product of the Cold War. It does not fit into our time anymore. My party and other parties; we can imagine a treaty which is for defense but not against Russia but more or less against another kind of threats, for example, terrorism…We should rearrange NATO and give NATO another structure and philosophy. In NATO there are still a lot of people in power who are attached to this old philosophy.Joachim Paul, from Alternative for Germany Party (AfD)
RT: Why are the European elites concerned about changes Trump may bring to the NATO alliance?
JJ: It seems that there is still a very strong consensus for NATO in the American political establishment. Part of this is simply inertia that it is something that has been around forever. And let’s keep in mind: NATO is essentially a tool of Washington to maintain control over Europe in security affairs. Remember back in the 1990s, the EU indicated it wanted to develop its own defense capability, and that provoked near panic in Washington. The Washington establishment moved very quickly to quash any such independence from the Europeans and to insist that security affairs must be governed by NATO and only NATO as the premier security organization in Europe. The Europeans could help out if they wanted to, but they were not in control of the process.
RT: If we imagine that NATO breaks up one day, what could be the consequences?
JJ: If NATO actually breaks up, then we would see the assertion of more national interests based policy of its various member-states who will be promoting their own sovereign state interests and not basically subservient to a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels and even more so in Washington. I think it is also very interesting to see what is happening to NATO’s twin – “Euro-Atlantic organization” – the EU, which is under threat of a break up with the British withdrawal, with the hopeful election of Marine Le Pen in France next year. I think we have many Europeans saying that ‘We want our country back.’
RT: The US claims that NATO is a “defensive alliance” that is not threatening Moscow. Is that true? Is it defending Europe?
JJ: Defend themselves from whom? One of the criticisms that Donald Trump has made of European countries and NATO is that they don’t spend the two percent threshold on defense which he considers rightly to be free-loading on the US. Why don’t they spend that much? These are wealthy countries. They can spend that money if they want to. Even Greece, which is not in a very good position, is actually one of the countries that does spend more than the threshold because they do perceive the threat, but from Turkey, a fellow NATO member. The reason these countries don’t spend the money is because they don’t feel threatened. For all the hype of a so-called Russian threat, with the absence of maybe Poland and the Baltic States, nobody in Europe feels threatened by Russia or any other external threat. The only real threat they face is the threat of terrorism. And NATO doesn’t seem to know what to do about that.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Europe Turns Towards Russia in Major Foreign Policy

Europe Turns Towards Russia in Major Foreign Policy Change

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, believes that Europe does not need to dependent on US foreign policy regarding its relationship with Russia.
In his interview with Euronews, the EU Commission President said that he «would like to have an agreement with Russia that goes beyond the ordinary framework, bearing in mind that without Russia, there is no security architecture in Europe». Mr. Juncker noted that «Russia must be treated as one big entity, as a proud nation». The president emphasized that he «would like to have discussions on a level footing with Russia». He thinks that President Obama was wrong saying that Russia was only «a regional power».
There are reasons to make Mr. Juncker make such a statement at this particular moment.
With Donald Trump in office, the US European policy on is expected to go through drastic changes and a period of uncertainty will last in Washington at least until January 20.
This is also the time the so-called «pro-Russian» politicians gaining more clout in the Old Continent. Actually, they are not exactly pro-Moscow but rather pro-national, putting national interests at the top spots of their priority lists. For them, the interests of their countries are more important than the priorities of the US or the EU. They believe that normalizing the relations with Moscow is what meets the national interests to make it part of foreign policy plans.
Two weeks ago, such leaders came to power in Bulgaria and Moldova. The EU’s image has been damaged in both countries, where the public perceives economic progress as too slow and sees a failure to tackle corruption by nominally pro-EU leaders.
François Fillon - a politician advocating rapprochement between Russia and the EU - won the center-right nomination for French presidency on November 27. His victory means that two «pro-Russia» candidates - François Fillon and Marine Le Pen – will probably face each other off at the presidential election in April 2017.
A presidential election will take place in Austria on December 4. Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party has a good chance to win. According to what he has said during the election campaign, Mr. Hofer will consider pulling out of the EU and visit Moscow, if elected president. He promised «to show my strong commitment to the withdrawal of sanctions against Russia because I am firmly convinced that sanctions hinder communication».
If the Italian referendum on December 4 says «no» to the major government overhaul plans, then a snap election will become a possibility to benefit the Italy's Northern League party, which advocates the improvement of relations with Russia. Its leader, Matteo Salvini, has visited Moscow and Crimea a number of times and called for lifting the EU-imposed sanctions.
Some signs to confirm the trend of changing EU’s policy on Russia are largely kept out headlines. In late October, the EU lifted a cap on Gazprom's use of the Opal pipeline in Germany, opening the way for Russia to expand Nord Stream's capacity and bypass Ukraine as a gas transit route. The Nord Stream-2 has been recently supported by London. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel is an outspoken advocate of the project.
It has been reported recently that large Western companies, like IKEA, Leroy Merlin, Mars, Pfizer, have started to reinvest in Russia. They are pumping billions of dollars into Russian economy expecting the consumer demand in the country to grow.
There are calls to address European security concerns. A large group of European leaders has recently called for launching a dialogue with Moscow on a new arms control treaty within the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). There is also a group of EU members who have started to openly challenge the anti-Russia sanctions policy.
There are NATO members who express their will to develop military cooperation with Russia. Turkey - a NATO member - has stated it mulls turning towards the Shanghai Cooperation Organization led by Russia and China, instead of trying to join the EU «at all costs».
All these events testify to the fact that NATO and the EU have started a turn towards Moscow. The cooling period of Russia-West relations is becoming a thing of the past giving way to more pragmatic approaches. Mr. Juncker stated the obvious fact – the rapprochement between Russia and Europe is one of the trends shaping the contemporary political landscape in Europe.
Meanwhile, the idea to recognize Russia as a global power and make it part of the global US-Russia-China equation is floated among US foreign policy pundits. In his recent MSNBC’s «Morning Joe» comments, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a well-known foreign policy guru, said, «America is needed to pull together some larger coalition that can deal with global problems. And in that larger coalition America, China and changing Russia could be preeminent». Actually, what Mr. Brzezinski suggests makes remember the Yalta Conference held in February, 1945.
Indeed, the «big three» format talks is the right place to address global issues: trade, finances and global security architecture. Will Mr. Trump listen to what foreign policy pundits say? Anyway, the pivot to Russia is becoming a global trend.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

"Trump Victory Fits Into Decadent Scenario"

From Bush to Trump: Culture, Economy and War. The Pillars of the New World Order

From Bush to Trump: Culture, Economy and War. The Pillars of the New World Order

Looking at US history over a fairly long period of time, it is easy to see the destructive path that has accompanied the expansion of the American empire over the last seventy years.
While World War II was still raging, US strategists were already planning their next steps in the international arena. The new target was immediately identified in the assault and the dismemberment of the Soviet empire. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet economic model as an alternative to the capitalist system, the West found itself faced with what was defined as ‘the end of' history, and proceeded to act accordingly.
The delicate transition from bipolarity, the world-order system based on the United States and the Soviet Union occupying opposing poles, to a unipolar world order with Washington as the only superpower, was entrusted to George H. W. Bush. The main purpose was to reassure with special care the former Soviet empire, even as the Soviet Union plunged into chaos and poverty while the West preyed on her resources.
Not surprisingly, the 90's represented a phase of major economic growth for the United States. Predictably, on that occasion, the national elite favored the election of a president, Bill Clinton, who was more attentive to domestic issues over international affairs. The American financial oligarchy sought to consolidate their economic fortunes by expanding as far as possible the Western financial model, especially with new virgin territory in the former Soviet republics yet to be conquered and exploited.
With the disintegration of the USSR, the United States had a decade to aspire to the utopia of global hegemony. Reviewing with the passage of time the convulsive period of the 90’s, the goal seemed one step away, almost within reach.
The means of conquest and expansion of the American empire generally consist of three domains: cultural, economic and military. With the end of the Soviet empire, there was no alternative left for the American imperialist capitalist system. From the point of view of cultural expansion, Washington had now no adversaries and could focus on the destruction of other countries thanks to the globalization of products like McDonald's and Coca Cola in every corner of the planet.
Of course the consequences of an enlargement of the sphere of cultural influence led to the increased power of the economic system. In this sense, Washington's domination in international financial institutions complemented the imposition of the American way of life on other countries. Due to the mechanisms of austerity arising from trap-loans issued by the IMF or World Bank, countries in serious economic difficulties have ended up being swallowed up by debt.
Too many nations have experienced the tragedy of an economic collapse due to the obligation to privatize or grant to foreign corporations the rights to exploit their primary resources - the long arm of Western governments. Such an economic model has generated an epidemic of predatory finance and speculation, enormously strengthening the domination of the capitalist system on the rest of the globe. It is not a coincidence that in 1995 the WTO was founded, which imposed conditions of trade that strongly favored the European powers and the American empire.
In the event of a failure of cultural or economic pressure, Washington has often opted for real military aggression. An act of war is the most explicit form of abuse and is normally reserved for nations that refuse to comply with Atlanticist directions. In this sense, towards the end of Clinton's term, the tone of the presidency shifted from a predilection towards focussing on the economy to aggression against sovereign nations. The first victim was Somalia, then in short order followed by the bombing of Serbia and the breakup of Yugoslavia. A relatively new phase in the recent history of the United States began, whereby economic and cultural expansion gave way to the reign of destructive bombs and missiles.
Although the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia was successful, the US image in the world began to be diminished, including its cultural leadership. Military action always produces consequences in the functioning of international relations, although history is often written by the winners.
By the end of the 90's, although no country was in a practical position to oppose a cultural, economic or military resistance against Washington, the first thoughts of an alternative alliance to the Western bloc were beginning to emerge. The United States, while sniffing the danger, did not change direction, committed as it was to the idea of a ​​cultural imposition, which became even more pronounced as a result of the expansion of the Internet as well as the effects of economic globalization.
The decision to shift gears, accelerating the triad of cultural, economic and military pressure, was eloquently expressed by the elites with the controversial victory of George W. Bush in 2000.
The successor to Bill Clinton had necessarily to be a president with a strong military angle, a high capacity to expand the capitalist globalization model, and a huge sense of patriotism to spread American propaganda of every possible cultural form in every corner of the planet. The ultimate goal was to surround the Heartland (China + Russia + Eurasia generally) as was expressed by MacKinder, to control their resources. Thus began an uncertain mission, requiring the election of a president friendly to the project of a unipolar New World Order created by the elite.
In the following years, thanks to the September 11, 2001, Washington had a perfect way to expand its wars and terror to every corner of the world. Economic aggression experienced a further boost with the creation of the EURO, a maximal expression in the financial domain. The Internet and increasing growth of interconnectivity ended up accelerating globalization, centralizing even more decision-making power into a few hands. The sum of these factors made it possible to fruitfully continue the devastating work of evangelization according to the Western economic model.
Yet despite the apparent economic and cultural expansion of the United States, as well as an incessant war operation in Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001, the dream of a triumphant march towards global hegemony began to suffer the first setbacks.
The economic or cultural factor began to no longer be sufficient, requiring the opting of an armed solution as in Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating in practice how the American empire was serious about expanding eastwards, expanding its ambitions and influence. In this cultural, economic and military march, Washington often ignored or underestimated the consequences of its actions thanks to its unique position as the world superpower. This is a strategic mistake that will cost the United States and its utopian dreams of global domination.
However, the earliest forms of Eurasian resistance already began to emerge in the mid 90’s, first with the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 1996 and then with the Eurasian Economic Union in 2000 (the first discussions began in 1994), two factors that changed the course of history several years later.
The Republic of China, thanks to the pressure resulting from globalization, became the global farm, accumulating wealth and rapidly becoming over the coming fifteen years the first global economic power. The Russian Federation, on the other hand, after a decade of hunger and hardship, elected Putin, a strongman emanating from the intense nationalistic view. Thanks to a protectionist attitude towards the economy and a strong determination to reinvigorate the military role of Russia, in the space of 15 years he brought Moscow to be global power status.
In the end, the Bush era, degraded by destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, has brought more harm than good in Washington. Bush laid the foundation for a process of unification of the opposing powers to American imperialism and forced them into each other's’ arms (BRICS) to mount an effective counter to the cultural, economic and military action of the euro-American elites.
As well as unifying the enemies of Washington, the American home front was beginning to show signs of unrest, both economically and militarily. The two wars deeply shook Western public opinion, forcing the elite to propose a candidate representing rupture who was focused on internal needs. Obama has been the perfect representation of this intent.
Elected with less warlike intentions of Bush and the clear need to reform a financial system that was out of control, he has failed in both cases, dragging the world into an unending conflict while giving high finance absolute control over the levers of economic power. The Fed and the private banks have increased their power enormously under Obama, coming to determine directly the democratic order of even allied nations with mechanisms such as spread or the ability to print money at zero interest. Instead of regulating the perverse financial mechanisms, their influence has increased. Instead of trying to mediate with hostile nations, Obama embarked on a mission of nation-building, regime change and color revolutions, using the whole arsenal of soft-power at his disposal. these were of course intentional and deliberate choices.
Obama was forced to adopt new destabilization techniques to obscure their purpose in the eyes of the population without losing sight of the objectives of the elites established in the early 90’s. Drones, economic manipulation, TTIP, TTP, special forces, color revolutions, the Arab Spring, sanctions and cyber warfare - these have become the Obama administration's modus operandi.
The key factor remains the possibility of denying direct involvement in wars harmful to the image of the United States and its continuing economic, cultural and military expansion. From here these techniques can be seen in 2010 in the Middle East and North Africa, the spread of speculation in some European countries, and drone attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. This is not to mention the hundreds of troops belonging to special forces spread over five continents and the coup financed and organized by the US government organs in Ukraine.
The Obama administration has been accelerating global hegemony by swapping tools, but the effects and causes have remained the same as, or even worse than, previous administrations.
Meanwhile, the economic unions, cultural and military between the three nations pioneer of anti-imperialism, Iran, China and Russia, have accelerated their strategic alignment as an instrument of deterrence against advancing American hegemony.
The war in Syria, combined with the worsening of the crisis with Russia, tensions with China in the South China Sea, and the aggressive posture toward Iran's orbit of Shiite nations, have accelerated the erosion of American power. The main causes are the failed cultural model imposed through the Arab Spring; the economic coup in Ukraine (the nation is on the brink of bankruptcy); and the military impossibility of direct intervention in Syria. The United States, in the space of a decade, has found itself facing a reality no longer compatible with the plan of global hegemony.
The Trump victory fits into this decadent scenario. Are we facing a true revolutionary who intends to rid forever global hegemonic aims, or is he simply a well-thought-out pause, created by the elites to revitalize the economy, arrest the internal discontent in the country, and rebuild the army to resume the march toward global hegemony in 2020?
This is the typical million-dollar question that I tried to give an answer to in a previous article. At the moment, it is difficult to interpret and predict which path will be taken by the elected president. Both have many arguments to support them and can easily be disputed or accepted. Only time will tell if the reality around us is already now placed in a multipolar world order, or if we are in a convulsive transition phase in which the United States remains anchored to the role of global power hoping to preserve the 'unipolar moment' it began in 1989.