Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 9, 2014
Ukraine is About Oil. So Was World War I
Pro-Russian supporters wave Russian flags to welcome the Russian Black Sea Fleet flagship, the missile cruiser Moskva, entering Sevastopol bay in September 10, 2008. (Photo: AFP)Ukraine is a lot more portentous than it appears. It is fundamentally about the play for Persian Gulf oil. So was World War I. The danger lies in the chance of runaway escalation, just like World War I.
Let’s put Ukraine into a global strategic context.
The oil is running out. God isn’t making any more dinosaurs and melting them into the earth’s crust. Instead, as developing world countries aspire to first-world living standards, the draw-down on the world’s finite supply of oil is accelerating. The rate at which known reserves are being depleted is four times that at which new oil is being discovered. That’s why oil cost $26 a barrel in 2001, but $105 today. It’s supply and demand.
Oil recalls that old expression: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” In industrial civilization, the nation that controls the oil is king. And 60% of the known oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. That’s why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003: to seize control of the oil. Alan Greenspan told at least one truth in his life: “I hate to have to admit what everybody knows. Iraq is about oil.”
But the U.S. lost the war in Iraq. Remember? The U.S. was going to install a democracy and 14 permanent bases there. They’re not there. The U.S. was run out after proving unable to pacify the Islamic jihad it had unleashed under the pretext of searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Instead, Iraq allied itself with Iran, its Shi’ite comrade-in-arms in the Muslim Wars of Religion.
So today, the battle for the Persian Gulf is being carried out through its two regional powers, Saudi Arabia, the champion of Sunni Islam, and Iran, the torch carrier for Shi’ite Islam. Think of the Wars between the Protestants and Catholics in the 1500s. The U.S. backs Saudi Arabia, as it has done since 1945, when Roosevelt cut a deal with Ibn Saud to protect his illegitimate throne in exchange for the House of Saud only selling oil in dollars.
Iran, of course, is implacably hostile to the U.S. after the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democratically elected president, Mosaddegh, in 1953 and installed its own fascist puppet, the Shah of Iran. The Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979 and installed a fundamentalist theocracy that continues to this day.
Iran’s main ally in the region is Syria, which the U.S. has been trying to overthrow for three years by helping the al-Qaeda-linked rebels that are attacking Syria. Syria’s chief military patron is Russia, which conveniently bailed Obama out of his childish “red line” declaration last year, a declaration he had neither the military nor political nor diplomatic capacity to carry out.
So, the upheaval in Ukraine is really about the U.S. trying to weaken Syria’s patron, Russia. If Russia is weakened, Syria is weakened. If Syria is weakened, Iran is weakened. If Iran is weakened, the U.S. has a better chance of seizing control of the world’s largest reserves of oil. That is the Great Game that is going on here.
The problem is the risk of escalation. It’s not at all fanciful to imagine some ambitious Ukrainian colonel firing at Russian forces. Russia fires back, decisively. This puts Ukraine at risk for its European suitor, the EU. So NATO intervenes to try to intimidate Russia. Russia retaliates to blacken NATO’s nose. And before anyone knows it, the U.S. is dragged into a shooting war where no one can understand how it ends. This is almost exactly how World War I started.
The Germans were gunning for Persian Gulf oil via their relationship with the Ottoman Empire. But this would have given Germany a choke hold on England, which had only just converted its navy to oil. So, England reversed its historical rivalry with France, in 1904, and with Russia, in 1907, to try to contain Germany. But a minor, unanticipated dust-up in the Balkans in the summer of 1914 escalated into The Greatest War The World Had Ever Known.
In a freak event, a Serbian teenager killed the heir-apparent to the Austrian-Hungarian throne. So Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. Russia couldn’t stand idle as its sole Balkan ally, Serbia, was humiliated. So it mobilized on Austria-Hungary, an effective declaration of war.
Germany moved to defend its ally, Austria-Hungary, by attacking Russia’s ally, France. England, France’s ally, responded by declaring war on Germany. Within less than one month of a minor incident in a minor region of the continent, all the major powers of Europe were at war.
World War I would inflict 27 million casualties through the industrialization of human slaughter. It destroyed four great empires, more than had expired in any single event, ever. Eleven new nations were created in its aftermath, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. It was the event that shifted the locus of global power from Europe to the U.S., where it has resided ever since. It rearranged the architecture of global power more than any event of the last thousand years.
So the portent of Ukraine is a global strategic order hanging in the balance. The U.S. must subdue Russia to gain control of the world’s oil. It is the same strategic objective that is driving the U.S.’s subversion of the democratically elected government in Venezuela: it sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of oil. Indeed, all of the U.S.’ aggressions on Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, and its subversion of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, can be understood in this context.
The wild card in the whole fracas is China. China is the biggest customer of Iranian oil, and the largest international investor in Venezuela. These represent some of China’s moves to counter the U.S. attempt to control the world’s oil. The potential escalation from Ukraine as the U.S. pressures Syria, Iran, and Venezuela, inescapably involves China. If China becomes involved, trying to defend its allies and its supply of oil, it is anybody’s guess where it ends. But it won’t be pretty.
36 Comments on "Ukraine is About Oil. So Was World War I"
Arthur on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 2:08 pm
Wow, wow, wow, what a nice, blunt article. Not bad for self-described progressives like common-dreams, although I have some issues with details about how WW1 came about. But, while sitting on a terras in the sun, with rolled up sleeves, I am too lazy to go into detail, again. Cheers!
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 2:18 pm
My God, another uniformed narrow minded “its all about oil” heathen writer. I get so tired of articles that fixate on a subject and view everything in the world from that point of view. The situation in the Ukraine is yes about oil but also many other issues. There are issues like nationalism and competition that are far more important!
rockman on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 2:31 pm
Of course it will always be difficult to prove that Event A (and only Event A) led to a war. Collection dynamics on all sides. Did the US oil embargo to Japan “cause” Pearl Harbor? Or was the embargo just one chip in the game of the Japanese military’s effort to gain more control of its society in its Asian expansionist plans?
Thus with the complex oil dynamics in the ME. A variety of different actors with different but occasionally overlapping/conflicting interests. Yep…very predictable. LOL
ian807 on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 4:02 pm
Mr. Davy,
With all due respect, you’re simply wrong. Nationalism and competition are appearances. They are tools used by the wealthy to manipulate governments and population. They have no more reality than an equation or a comic book character. Nationalism, in short, is a show for the rubes.
What matters in the end, is the physical. Oil represents physical energy to get things done, to get food grown, and on the table, to keep from freezing in the dark, and to maintain the wealth and power. The transnational, transgenerational wealthy are very aware of this, and do their best to keep governments in line. They are not omnipotent and it doesn’t always work. It’s not working now.
Their favored outcome is peace and a nice reliable money flow for as long as there is oil. They’ll probably manage it too. The world has a much bigger toolkit than it did in the early 1900s. Nobody wants war. Bad for business, you know.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 4:26 pm
Davy and rockman, I’m share your point of view. While it is true that oil/gas is a big consideration in what is going on in Ukraine — as it is in ANYTHING that goes on these days, there are plenty of other factors involved as well that have an equal or greater impact on what is happening in Ukraine.
The article also spews some unsubstantiated B.S. out as if it were fact, which prompts me to give this article a flat out F- grade.
For example: “Syria’s chief military patron is Russia, which conveniently bailed Obama out of his childish “red line” declaration last year…”.
Childish? Biased or objective adjective? You decide. The other and more informed and probably much more correct POV is that the Obama admin blustered and faked war against Syria, with Putin’s knowing and being “in” on the plan, the goal being to scare Syria into giving up their chemical weapons which were not only being used on civilian populations in Syria, but which also stood an all-too-probable chance of falling into other non-government (i.e., terrorist) hands. They (Putin and Obama) wanted to get that chemical weapon stockpile out of Syria, they convinced Syria and the world that America was ready to go full shock and awe, Putin steps in with a plan to end the crises right on queue — goal accomplished. That is every bit as likely a scenario as the Obama-hating POV that Putin “conveniently bailed Obama out of his childish “red line” declaration last year — but Obama haters believe what they want to believe, of course, and state their bias as fact — as in this article.
Here’s another one: The article’s POV that America “lost the war in Iraq” and failed to accomplish their objectives. What utter B.S. I remember American shock and awe crushing Iraq forces like bugs in the sand — no competition. It was a massacre. It may be that America doesn’t have the bases established in Iraq that they initially stated they were going to have, but that is totally irrelevant. The big question is, does the USA control Iraq oil, and did the USA (and allies) succeed in putting enough military firepower in and around the ME to totally lock down and control oil in the ME? The answer to that is “yes”. This limp article wants to make the point that Iraq kicked USA out of Iraq, but that is just pure B.S.
“Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.”
“For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit.”
“In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush’s first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq’s entire oil productive capacity.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
In summary, this article sucks and spews out lies and one-sided interpretations of events as if they were fact. Just exactly what we get far too much of — lies and B.S. intended to support pre-conceived notions.
dubya on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 4:29 pm
ian807
“Nationalism, in short, is a show for the rubes.”
From this Canadian perspective the deafening silence from the Party Quebecois from the last 25 years seems telling. All Quebecers say they want to be independent, but in 1989 they accidentally almost voted for it. Since then the P-Q somehow became the ‘official federal opposition’
I would argue that the success of a Quebec Libre is questionable. However keeping the nationalist emotion worked up is politically expedient, as long as they don’t actually have to run an independant country.
Davey on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 4:30 pm
Ian807, do not deny the physical is a primary factor but at most 70%. The spirt and abstract is very evident in human affairs. Just witness a civil war where the physical is destroyed in the name of an idea. We don’t go to church to worship oil. Yet oil allows us to get to church. They go hand in hand.
Davey on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 4:33 pm
NR, as usually, very well put!
Boat on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 7:04 pm
The US doesn’t lose wars. We just have a hard time remembering that it is to expensive to occupy the remnants of a beaten military.
andya on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 7:21 pm
In the land of the blind, the blindest man is King. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is just batshit crazy.
The dinosaur part was a bit off too.
Puts a different perspective on things when you add in the Persian Gulf. I’ve always stated that the Ukraine is a bungled attempt by Odrone to get back at Putin for the humiliation in Syria. Of course all this shit is connected, you gotta be dumb to think they are all isolated incidents. Not that it excludes other factors, more that those are factors are the reason it is happening there, not somewhere else.
shortonoil on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 7:21 pm
Just as Emperor Octavian Augustus began his campaign against the Teutons across the Rhine, Rome was attacked on the West by its old arch enemy, the Persians. Octavian marshaled his legions, and marched south, never to return to a Northern campaign of conquest. Neither Rome, or Persia ever produced a decisive victory; they just exhausted themselves in a century of bloody conflict. The next three centuries of Rome’s history was basically one of maintaining what they had already conquered.
“History rarely repeats itself, but it often rhythms.” As the ability of petroleum to power the American empire declines, America is faced with the same dilemma as Octavian. Expansion is no longer possible so maintaining the boundaries of the empire becomes the principal policy of state. Because we are an oil based culture, protecting the borders of our petroleum supply becomes tantamount. Like Rome, we will battle the invaders until all sides have exhausted themselves.
Unlike Rome our battle will not continue for centuries. The era of King Oil has less than two decades to rule. As petroleum’s ability to power our civilization declines, our ability to extract, process and distribute will decline with it. Exhausting ourselves, and our perceived opponents over a declining resource will only be self defeating. We have much more important matters to attend to.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Northwest Resident on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 7:37 pm
shortonoil — Wow. Nice post. And I totally agree with the premise that America and ALL countries are now much more concerned with holding and protecting existing borders, not expanding into new territories which will very much upset the global status quo at a time when that global status quo is a bubble ready to burst anyway.
From my point of view, it is exceptionally ignorant and imperceptive of people who think that America has colonial/empire goals in Ukraine or against Russia. The reality is exactly the opposite. Europe and America and everybody with a brain just wants Ukraine to settle down and stop rocking the boat.
andya — “I’ve always stated that the Ukraine is a bungled attempt by Odrone to get back at Putin for the humiliation in Syria.”
And you would be repeating verbatim exactly what all the Obama-hating loonies repeat incessantly in their whacked out echo chamber, along with chants of “Benghazi, Benghazi” and all the other absurd fact-less nonsense.
What makes you think that Obama was “humiliated” by Russia in Syria? Other than nonsense spewed on all the right-wing idiot sites you obviously get your info from, what facts do you have that Obama was “humiliated”?
And your premise that Obama is single-handedly deploying the mighty diplomatic and security forces of America on a personal and petty grudge against Putin just shows how warped your perceptions are and how utterly incompetent your point of view on the subject is. How can you live with the shame of believing such an idiotic premise?
Oh, btw, “Odrone” — catchy, cute, real classy andya. You just don’t get how simple-minded such silly name-calling makes you look, do you?
rockman on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 8:07 pm
NR – I wouldn’t say humiliated but the POTUS called for the slaughter of innocent civilians to stop. And despite the fact that there’s not as much coverage by the MSM the slaughter and displacement continues today. But I don’t fault the POTUS for that given that he and other political leaders are helpless to stop it short of military intervention. I wouldn’t even call him weak given he’s well aware most Americans have tired of spending our capital and lives in local conflicts in the ME. I also think he had little choice but to publicly condemn the Syrian gov’t even though he knew he would likely be ignored and appear impotent. The proverbial rock and hard place IMHO.
Steve on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 8:13 pm
NWR, “chemical weapons which were not only being used on civilian populations in Syria” That was disproved, no?
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/20/mit-study-further-destroys-washingtons-syria-chemical-weapons-claim/
Davey on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 8:49 pm
Right on target Rock!!
From my point of view, it is exceptionally ignorant and imperceptive of people who think that America has colonial/empire goals in Ukraine or against Russia. The reality is exactly the opposite. Europe and America and everybody with a brain just wants Ukraine to settle down and stop rocking the boat.
Arthur on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 10:18 pm
From my point of view, it is exceptionally ignorant and imperceptive of people who think that America has colonial/empire goals in Ukraine or against Russia.
You must have missed that the entire crisis began when Janukowitsch in last moment opted out from an EU offer for an association treaty. This re-ignited the decennial old conflict within the Ukraine about where that country belongs: Europe or Russia. That’s when the first demonstrations began and then western politicians smelled an opportunity to instigate a revolution in the Ukraine and hurt Putin-Russia and started to show up in Kiev and choose sides and thus meddled with internal affairs of the Ukraine. The ruthless criminals that run the West today try to instigate a civil war in the Ukraine, exactly like they did in Syria. You have to be a real sleepwalker if you can’t see that happening before your eyes. They intentionally started a civil war in Syria, costing more than 100,000 victims and counting and now they want to achieve the same thing in the Ukraine. Their target is anybody who dares to oppose the NWO.
andya on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 10:53 pm
What makes you think that Obama was “humiliated” by Russia in Syria? Other than nonsense spewed on all the right-wing idiot sites you obviously get your info from, what facts do you have that Obama was “humiliated”?
I’m not into your right/left paradigm that’s your problem, not mine.
Obama was the one with a ‘red line’ which he accused Assad of crossing. Then he failed to fulfil his promise of bombing the crap out of the Syrian population. It was Russia who opposed him, and moved it’s navy in to prevent him. Then Putin proposed that instead of killing more Syrians why not just take the chemical weapons. So maybe Obozo is proud of not being a man of his word. Or maybe he was forced on the international stage to back down on his threats. I say he was humiliated.
It’s obvious from the Nuland ‘fuck the EU’ tape that the US has been trying to manipulate the situation against the Russians. Why provoke the Russians?
As to your childish namecalling of Obama hating loonies and right wing idiots. Sorry try again, but the presstitute media is full of biased self serving bullshit I agree. It appears you have swallowed a lot of the leftist crap, enjoy.
Europe and the US just want the Ukraine to settle down? Really? What gives you the idea the US and Europe have the same goals? If they wanted the situation to settle down, why are they not working with the Russians? The Russians have far more influence, not to mention ties through trade, population and language then the EU and the US combined. Yet the US which has no reason to even be involved is stirring up the most shit. Just another full frontal of US hypocrisy. Which is what has really been exposed here. It’s not that Obozo is doing this singlehandedly that’s your fantasy that the President runs the country.
Arthur on Sun, 9th Mar 2014 11:05 pm
It looks indeed that Obama, now in his second and last term, is putting up some light resistance against the US imperial agenda, both in Syria and now in the Ukraine and is happy if he can find an excuse not to become too much embroiled in foreign wars. But as andya says, the US president does not really run the country, or rather is not expected to run the country, but merely should read aloud in a microphone what is written on policy papers, discretely handed over to him, straight from some policy think tank. And provide for some photo opportunities, like jolly jogging with Biden through the White House or shoot some ‘selfies’ with Cameron and some blonde bimbo from Scandinavia, much to the dismay of Michelle.
Yeti on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 12:31 am
“Just another full frontal of US hypocrisy.”
Ok andya, you can post drivel like this and not worry about a “knock on the door” from some US official.
How about the freedom in Russia to freely express your dislike for Putin and/or the Oligarchs?
And Arthur, we didn’t start the Syrian civil war, Mother Nature did. A prolonged drought combined with a grab of water rights by Assad pushed people to the “I ain’t got shit to lose, where’s a gun” mode.
Why don’t you just man up and state your nationality and defend what your government is doing so much better?
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 12:31 am
Arthur said – The ruthless criminals that run the West today try to instigate a civil war in the Ukraine, exactly like they did in Syria. You have to be a real sleepwalker if you can’t see that happening before your eyes. They intentionally started a civil war in Syria, costing more than 100,000 victims and counting and now they want to achieve the same thing in the Ukraine. Their target is anybody who dares to oppose the NWO.
BS Arthur that’s all I can say to the above. You are getting very far away from reality.
shortonoil on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 12:39 am
“And provide for some photo opportunities, like jolly jogging with Biden through the White House or shoot some ‘selfies’ with Cameron and some blonde bimbo from Scandinavia, much to the dismay of Michelle.”
This is supposed to provide us with information about the Ukraine, and world energy dynamics???
Pitiful, pusillanimous, juvenile !!!
Makati1 on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 2:02 am
The West wants control of the Ukraine banks and resources but seem to be bungling the opportunity. They seem to have run into a solid a wall called Putin.
Russia is going to do everything it needs to do to keep control of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, to include war. Nuclear if necessary.
The Ukraine is another of those countries ‘made’ after WW2 by the West with no consideration of the wants or needs of their citizens. Suppose the US lost the war and, in the end, everything west of the Mississippi went to Japan and everything east went to Germany, including Europe? How would YOU feel?
Northwest Resident on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 2:39 am
Hey Andya:
“I’m not into your right/left paradigm that’s your problem, not mine.”
Catchy comeback. Clever. Real class. But why is it my problem? Just curious.
“I say he was humiliated.” — Exactly, andya. YOU think he was humiliated. But that does not equate to Obama being humiliated. It is all in your mind, just your opinion, yet you state it as fact, which it isn’t. Syria gave up the chemical weapons. Putin played the hero role. Obama played the wise leader accepting a compromise role. End result, chemical weapons out of Syria and everybody looks good. How could you possibly interpret that to be “Obama was humiliated”. What?! You actually BELIEVE perhaps that Obama really wanted to bomb Syria and kills lots of people, but he was forced to back down? If so, how totally inept at perceiving reality can you be?
“…obvious from the Nuland ‘fuck the EU’ tape that the US has been trying to manipulate the situation against the Russians.”
Trying to influence the situation in Ukraine is more like it, which is what diplomats do for a living. Nuland saying “F the EU” does not equate to America trying to start a war in Ukraine — that interpretation only exists in your mind, andya, and in all the garbage web sites and news sources that pump their crud into your mind. But you don’t get that, I’m sure.
Bandits on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 2:42 am
We can all beat our gums and intellectualize and apportion blame ’til the cows come home, but in the end the simple fact is that resource depletion, conflict and famine have but one cause and it’s of course over population. Everything else is BS.
If population increases were brought under control prior to the last doubling and preferably in the 50’s we may be in a position now to save ourselves.
Over the last fifty years humans have consumed several times more resources and energy that the rest of human habitation combined. Wars are always about resources, weather it be souls, female breeding stock, land or oil, they are always about resources. If population was controlled so could growth be controlled. But consumerism and capitalism requires growth, globalization has enforced it in a finite world. That is what we are currently discovering. We are fresh out of new worlds to conquer and exploit so what is left is exploiting each other.
Just wait until TS really HTF, watch for goats to get scaped from all walks of life……..people will need to blame others, they can’t blame themselves.
GregT on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 4:55 am
Very well said Bandits.
To everyone else, this isn’t about America, Syria, Iran, Russia, or the Ukraine. It is all a game being played by the global elite, as it has been for a very long time. Everyone arguing over which ‘country’ is responsible, is the oldest strategy in the book. Divide and conquer.
andya on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 6:18 am
“Just another full frontal of US hypocrisy.”
Ok andya, you can post drivel like this and not worry about a “knock on the door” from some US official.
Well if your dumb enough to believe that the US is not the home of the hypocrite good luck to you.
LOLZ NWR Obama the wise leader, I guess given the choice between WWIII and backing down is wise in your eyes then. Wise would have been to seek a peaceful solution such as that offered by Putin before making empty threats. Instead the nobel peace prize winner’s first option is to bomb the shit out of a country. Just because Nuland didn’t say directly ‘lets start a war’ doesn’t mean she wasn’t trying to oust a democratically elected President. Sure that’s what US diplomats do in their spare time, I accept that. What fucking business is it who other countries elect to represent them? Installing an unelected extremist (which is what the rebels are) is forcing the majority of the citizens to accept a leader they don’t want. Which is kinda the opposite of democracy and freedom, incidently the latter two are exactly what the US govt presumes to be promoting.
BTW I don’t have to believe anything about what Obozo wants, he is actually on record as saying what he would do if chemical weapons were used in Syria. Sure we all know how he was ‘just kidding.’ Because he was forced down by Putin.
Arthur on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 10:42 am
And Arthur, we didn’t start the Syrian civil war, Mother Nature did. A prolonged drought combined with a grab of water rights by Assad pushed people to the “I ain’t got shit to lose, where’s a gun” mode.
BS. Most Jihad-is fighting in Syria are paid foreign mercenaries. Has nothing to do with ‘water problems’. Qatar functions as a temping agency for foreign mercenaries, who get paid a typical 100$/day, funded by US and Sunni regimes, like Qatar and SA. Don’t believe me, I might be a ‘US hating child beating neo-Nazi’ for all you know. Here is former French foreign minister Roland Dumas for you, spilling the beans about Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I
Ukraine same story. The violence that lead to the ousting of the legitimately democratically elected Ukrainian government by the nationalist street mobs was triggered by violence, that is blamed by the western media entirely on Janukovitch, but recently a telephone conversation was leaked (no doubt by the Russians) between EU big wigs (EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet), the latter telling Ashton that it was not the Ukrainian government who instigated the violence:
theguardian . com / world / 2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet
Today the UK Daily Mail suggests that Blackwater mercenaries are operating within the Ukraine, trying to kick off the civil war, exactly like in Syria.
dailymail . co . uk / news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html
Why don’t you just man up and state your nationality and defend what your government is doing so much better?
I never made a secret of it that I am from Holland. Now blast away against Holland, you will be surprised in how many areas I probably agree with you. The last party I want to defend is the Dutch government, that has about the same docile attitude towards Washington as the GDR had towards Moscow, before 1989.
The US lead West is the new USSR and behaves in the field of foreign policy exactly like the USSR lead Comintern did in the twenties, trying to instigate revolution everywhere they could. And the reason why the US is behaving like she does is rooted in the ethnic composition of the US power structure, that is exactly the same as in the early years of the USSR…
haaretz . com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.530857
… until gradually Stalin took over. And this is only going to stop once the US will be deprived of it’s reserve currency and no longer can fund it’s destabilizing operations. The rest of the world is working on it.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 11:27 am
Arthur said – BS. Most Jihad-is fighting in Syria are paid foreign mercenaries. Has nothing to do with ‘water problems
Arthur Syrian civil war is a classic case of a family run country, with a minority rule, run as a dictatorship eventually implodes. And yes Arthur, water, food, and unemployment are the main issues under the surface. If Syria had the kind of Dollars KSA has it could have possibly bought off dissent for many more years. The facts are many including paid mercenaries. I believe you can lump Assad family into paid mercenaries by Iran, Russia, Hezbollah. Assad is broke and only through these sources can he continue to rape and pillage Syria for his personal gain
george on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 2:13 pm
The royal navy went nuts when Germany started to build the Baghdad to Berlin railroad.
Oil was the reason for war then and it has not changed since.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 3:27 pm
andya — “I guess given the choice between WWIII and backing down is wise in your eyes then.”
My guess is that too much exposure to insane conspiracy theory drivel has wrecked your mind, andya. WWIII — yeah, right. If Obama had not “backed down” then it would have been WWIII. Okay — if you think it, then it must be true, no arguing with that.
Stay wound up tight, andya. Never stop searching for ways to keep your levels of paranoia and hate pumped to the max. Keep exposing yourself to all that B.S. anti-Obama anti-whatever-you-hate junk. Keep believing everything you hear and see that reinforces your hate and fear and prejudices. Never question it. Your hate and fear and dark world outlook is what animates you, what makes you who you are. Don’t change a thing.
andya on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 6:17 pm
NWR I couldn’t give a shit about Obozo enough to hate him. Same would be true if Mitt Zombie was President. I laugh at your naïve assessment of me. Obviously in your world disagreeing with you is a heinous crime and means the individual must be full of fear, hate and have a dark world outlook. That’s your problem. I’m just an observer. Doesn’t take a genius to work out whats going on. It does take an impartial view though, something you are incapable of.
FACT Nuland was orchestrating the ousting of a legitimate government and installing a bunch of bloodthirsty rebels.
FACT The shooting of policemen and protesters, which bought about the culmination of events was orchestrated by the rebel government which the US supports.
Keep your head up your arse NWR, it’s pretty funny.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 7:04 pm
“I’m just an observer.”
But your observations are full of opinions stated as fact, they are chock full of insulting and childish names for Obama (name calling, the ultimate form of immaturity and childishness, your specialty). You’re a biased observer, and your stated opinions are cut-and-paste repeats of all the crap that is found on numerous hard right-wing websites. You say it is a “FACT” that “Nuland was orchestrating the ousting of a legitimate government and installing a bunch of bloodthirsty rebels”, but it takes a completely one-sided analysis of the situation to make a statement like that, which certainly is not objective or inclusive of other alternative points of view many of which are as valid as your POV, or more so. And it certainly is NOT “fact”. It IS obvious that some elements of American oil companies and neo-cons have contributed to the trouble in Ukraine, but like all true right-wingers, you attribute anything and everything that goes wrong to (insert your insulting name for Obama here). Your debate style is pathetic.
“Bloodthirsty rebels” — overly dramatic and not at all based on facts — as is your “style”.
“Keep your head up your arse NWR, it’s pretty funny.”
As usual, your inability to debate civilly is indicative of your lack of class and substance. Statements like that show who you really are, like you just pulled your pants down in public, but you’re not smart enough to know it. Truly pathetic.
andya on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 7:37 pm
LOL NWR. Sure I’m biased, every observer is biased, another fact you are unable to grasp. You like to argue, and think your opinion is the only correct one. You have to go on the offensive against anyone who disagrees with you. Though instead of arguing with reason you drop down to ad hom attacks. I have no problem with going there and so I respond in kind. I can easily have debate without ad-homs, but you choose to repeatedly go there.
I doubt you have eeven heard the Nuland tape if you think she wasn’t orchestrating the coup. Talking about who is in, and who is out.
All of a sudden it is obvious that some oil companies are involved. Seriously WTF? And neo-cons? Now you are showing your bias. You can’t process the data you don’t accept, but can string together some conjecture to involve the enemy oil companies and neo-cons. I have followed the situation reasonably closely, and you are the first person I have read that has blamed oil co’s.
LOLZ again at calling me a right-winger, as I said the whole right/left thing is your problem is yours not mine. I say Obozo because he is the President, and the one drawing red lines, he wanted the job and the buck stops with him. I could just as easily say the government of the US of ADD, doesn’t really matter. Obviously you have a boner for Obozo, and rush to defend him at any and every opportunity. What a waste of time.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 8:51 pm
andya — You must be looking in the mirror when you go off on your rant.
I definitely do not go on the offensive against anyone who disagrees with me. I just challenge ideas that appear to be based on false information — as in your assertion that America is trying to start a war in Ukraine and blah blah blah. You make assertions based on that are radical and not based in fact — you still haven’t provided any fact, just a lot of “ad-homs”, which you accuse me of using. YOU seem to be the one who attacks anybody who doesn’t agree with you. Don’t your realize that you are projecting your own faults onto others?
I’m not arguing with reason, but you are? Give me a break. All you are doing is stating strongly held opinions as if they are fact. You *think* the Nuland recording proves your point of view, but it doesn’t. What you *think* is fact, at least in regards to the subject of Ukraine and America’s supposed trying to start a war there, is actually just your own opinion stated as fact.
I did not listen to the Nuland tape. I read the transcript. Big deal. It takes a great mind like your’s to twist her words into “America is trying to start a war in Ukraine.”
Oil companies involved and neocons? Was I “blaming” oil companies — no. Just saying, they have had some influence:
“Just one month before Nuland’s speech at the National Press Club [in Dec 2013], Ukraine signed a $10 billion shale gas deal with US energy giant Chevron “that the ex-Soviet nation hopes could end its energy dependence on Russia by 2020.” The agreement would allow “Chevron to explore the Olesky deposit in western Ukraine that Kiev estimates can hold 2.98 trillion cubic meters of gas.” Similar deals had been struck already with Shell and ExxonMobil.
The move coincided with Ukraine’s efforts to “cement closer relations with the European Union at Russia’s expense”, through a prospective trade deal that would be a step closer to Ukraine’s ambitions to achieve EU integration. But Yanukovych’s decision to abandon the EU agreement in favour of Putin’s sudden offer of a 30% cheaper gas bill and a $15 billion aid package provoked the protests.
To be sure, the violent rioting was triggered by frustration with Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU deal, along with rocketing energy, food and other consumer bills, linked to Ukraine’s domestic gas woes and abject dependence on Russia. Police brutality to suppress what began as peaceful demonstrations was the last straw.
But while Russia’s imperial aggression is clearly a central factor, the US effort to rollback Russia’s sphere of influence in Ukraine by other means in pursuit of its own geopolitical and strategic interests raises awkward questions. As the pipeline map demonstrates, US oil and gas majors like Chevron and Exxon are increasingly encroaching on Gazprom’s regional monopoly, undermining Russia’s energy hegemony over Europe.”
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/debt-rattle-mar-9-2014-big-oil-and-gas-wars/
I read about Ukraine all the time too, andya, and what I read closely resembles what I just cut-and-pasted in that above link. That is a reasonable assessment of the facts. And yes, John McCain himself was over there taking sides, as were some others. NONE OF WHICH equates to America is trying to start a war in Ukraine. That is all just your warped interpretation of information that other more rational people interpret much differently than you.
And finally, the only reason I’ve brought up “right wing” in this whole conversation is because every word you write, every opinion you express, every false fact you promote could have been cut-and-pasted from any one of numerous right-wing oriented Obama-hating websites. You are totally unoriginal in your arguments — you probably don’t even realize you’re just recycling other people’s garbage.
Not trying to protect or stick up for Obama, just the presidency. I tend to have a little bit of respect for the office of the presidency, despite who’s in there. Also, I detest childish, immature and ultimately obnoxious name-calling, which is your specialty.
andya on Mon, 10th Mar 2014 9:33 pm
“America is trying to start a war in Ukraine.” Wrong, never said it all in your head. Though undeniably the US has tried to have an undemocratic coup, and ‘you know fuck the EU.’
Well calling people childish for name calling is in itself namecalling and childish but you fail to see the hypocrisy there, which is amusing.
If you hadn’t started the ad-homs we would not be having this conversation. But yeah I gotta couple of days off, and felt inclined to respond. LOL at false facts, which fact is false?
As you said “Trying to influence the situation in Ukraine is more like it, which is what diplomats do for a living.” Which is correct, influence the situation in favour of rebels with zero legitimate claims to leadership. Putin talks about things like ‘the rule of law’ and describes the Ukrains ‘not as neighbours but brothers.’ Which sounds reasonable, as opposed to instating minority party as leaders, who then go on to outlaw Russian as a national language when only 35% of the population don’t speak Russian.
Putin’s offer of cheaper gas may have been ‘sudden’ but Russia has been supporting Ukraine through loans and discounted gas for many years. Exactly what business does the US have there anyways?
Well you can stick up for the office of presidency, I tend to support people that are acting rationally and in a law abiding way, without hypocrisy. Something the office of president does not represent.
As for TAE being unbiased, bad choice as an example. As I said all observers are biased, scientific fact, observeable demonstrable and repeatable.
As for ad-homs which you deny ” shows how warped your perceptions are and how utterly incompetent your point of view on the subject is. How can you live with the shame of believing such an idiotic premise?” Not sure how that gels with your opinion of yourself that you don’t start off with ad-homs if you know what it means. I am beginning to suspect not.
Name calling right wingers seems to be your specialty eg. “Obama-hating loonies right-wing idiots” yeah I got no probs with that, though your self righteous claims that you “detest childish, immature and ultimately obnoxious name-calling,” just shows what a hypocrite you are. Fascinating, really. It’s been a pleasure NWR.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 11th Mar 2014 1:16 am
“I’ve always stated that the Ukraine is a bungled attempt by Odrone to get back at Putin for the humiliation in Syria.”
That’s what started it, andya.
You believe that “Odrone” is marshaling the entire USA security and diplomatic force to “get back at” Putin for what andya *thinks* was Obama’s humiliation in Syria.
You claim Obama was humiliated. I disputed that. It is your pov, not a fact. There are other, better interpretations. You absurdly seem to believe that a president is able to direct American government on personal vendettas, but that more than anything else shows how shallow your thinking is.
“…can string together some conjecture to involve the enemy oil companies and neo-cons.”
It is a fact that oil companies are involved — why call it “conjecture”. Who is the one refusing to face actual facts and instead just pulling conjecture out of thin air? It is you, andya. Is that an “ad-hom”?
Read this: Neocons and the Ukraine Coup. There is plenty of supporting evidence. Conjecture? No, except for on your part, throughout our contentious discussion.
consortiumnews dot com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/
What is it with your “ad-homs”. Please give an example of where I used an “ad-hom”.
I have to hand it to you, your argumentative style just seems to beat down the competition. Your name calling, dragging false information into the discussion and presenting it as fact combined with nonsensical counter-attacks just leave me totally disinterested in debating with you. Carry on with your false “facts”, your cutesy name-calling and your “ad-hom” accusations.
P.S. “Obama-hating loonies” is not name calling, it is phrase that accurately describes the situation.
P.S. “Exactly what business does the US have there anyways?” Oil dude. Just because you want to blame what is happening in Ukraine on Obama’s personal vendetta doesn’t mean that the actual facts aren’t still there for people with a lot more sense than you.
Yeah, it has been a pleasure. See you around.