Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 10, 2015
Is Peace or War at Hand?
At this time we do not know the outcome of the meeting in Moscow between Merkel, Hollande, and Putin.
The meeting with Putin was initiated by Merkel and Hollande, because they are disturbed by the aggressive position that Washington has taken toward Russia and are fearful that Washington is pushing Europe into a conflict that Europe does not want. However, Merkel and Hollande cannot resolve the NATO/EU/Ukraine situation unless Merkel and Hollande are willing to break with Washington’s foreign policy and assert the right as sovereign states to conduct their own foreign policy.
Unless Washington’s war-lust has finally driven Europeans to take control over their own fate, the most likely outcome of the Putin-Merkel-Hollande meeting will be more meetings that go nowhere. If Merkel and Hollande are not negotiating from a position of independence, one likely outcome after more meetings will be that Merkel and Hollande will say, in order to appease Washington, that they tried to reason with Putin but that Putin was unreasonable.
Based on Lavrov’s meeting in Munich with the Europeans, the hope for any sign of intelligence and independence in Europe seems misplaced. Russian diplomacy relied on European independence, but as Putin has acknowledged Europe has shown no independence from Washington. Putin has said that negotiating with vassals is pointless. Yet, Putin continues to negotiate with vassals.
Perhaps Putin’s patience is finally paying off. There are reports that Germany and France oppose Washington’s plan to send weapons to Ukraine. French president Hollande now supports autonomy for the break-away republics in Ukraine. His predecessor, Sarkozy, said that Crimea chose Russia and we cannot blame them, and that the interests of Americans and Europeans diverge when it comes to Russia. Germany’s foreign minister says that Washington’s plan to arm Ukraine is risky and reckless. And on top of it all, Cyprus has offered Russia an air base.
We will see how Washington responds to the French statements that European interests with regard to Russia diverge from Washington’s. Washington does not recognize any valid interest except its own. Therefore, it has been fruitless for Russia to negotiate with Washington and Washington’s EU vassals. To come to an agreement with Washington has required Russia’s surrender to Washington’s terms. Russia must hand over Crimea and Russia’s warm water port, and Moscow must stand aside while the Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine, the “break-away” provinces, are slaughtered. Russia must support the hostile regime in Kiev with loans, grants, and low gas prices.
That is the only deal Russia has been able to get from Washington, because the EU has supported Washington’s line. With French presidents reportedly now saying, “We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” Europe is on the road to independence.
Can Europe stay on this road, or can Washington bring Germany and France back in line? A false flag attack could do it. Washington is a control freak, and the neoconservative ideology of US hegemony has made Washington even more of a control freak. Europe with an independent foreign policy means a great loss of control by Washington. If Washington retains or regains control, I see two clear options for Russia.
One is to disengage totally from the West. The West is a morally depraved and economically bankrupt entity. There is no reason for a decent country like Russia to wish to be integrated with the evil that is the West. Russia has the option of abandoning the dollar payments system and all financial relationships with the West.
By trying to be part of the West, Russia made a strategic error that endangered the independence of Russia. Russia found herself dependent on Western financial systems that gave Washington power over Moscow and allowed Washington to place economic sanctions on Russia.
It was Russia’s desire to be part of the West that made possible Washington’s sanctions and Washington’s propaganda against Russia.
It was Russia’s desire to be accepted by the West that produced the weak Russian response to Washington’s audacious coup in Kiev. Washington is using Ukraine against Russia. After seizing control in Kiev, it is unlikely that Washington will accept a peaceful solution in which the “break-away” provinces are permitted to become autonomous republics of Ukraine.
Is negotiation with Washington possible when Washington only wants conflict?
Russia’s other clear option is to destroy NATO by ceasing to sell energy resources to NATO members. The countries would choose energy over NATO membership.
Why should Russia empower its obvious enemies by meeting their energy needs? Russia could also encourage Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal to default on their loans and rely on Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank for financing. China holds a massive amount of dollars. Why not use them to break up Washington’s European empire?
Russia could also default on its loans to the West. Why should Russia pay an enemy that is trying to destroy her?
If Europe cannot gain its independence, at some point Russia will either have to surrender to Washington or demonstrate decisive action that causes the Washington’s European vassal states to understand the cost of vassalage to Washington and decide to abandon Washington in the interest of their own survival.
Alternatively, Russia can forget about the West and integrate with China and the East. Considering Washington’s hegemonic posture, there is no counterparty for Russia’s diplomacy.
Predictions are difficult, because policies can have unintended consequences and produce black swan events. For example, the Islamic State is the unintended consequence of Washington’s wars in the Muslim world. The Islamic State was created out of the Islamist forces that Washington assembled against Gaddafi in Libya. These forces were then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. As Muslims flocked to ISIS’s banner and its military prowess grew, ISIS realized that it was a new and independent force consisting of radicalized Muslims.
Radicalized Muslims are tired of Western domination and control of Muslim lands. Out of ISIS’s self-awareness, a new state has been created, redrawing the Middle Eastern boundaries created by the British and French.
It is curious that Iran and Russia regard the Islamic State as a more dangerous enemy than Washington and are supporting Washington’s moves against the Islamic State. As the Islamic State is capable of disrupting Washington’s policy in the Middle East, Iran and Russia have an incentive to finance and arm the Islamic State. It is in Washington, not in the Islamic State, where Sauron resides and is gathering up the rings in order to control them all.
In their attempts to negotiate with Europeans, Putin and Lavrov should notice the total unwillingness of the EU to negotiate with its own members. Right in front of our eyes we see Merkel and Hollande driving their fellow Greek EU compatriots into the ground.
The EU has told the new Greek government that the EU doesn’t care a whit about Greece and its people. The Europeans only care that they don’t get stuck with the cost of the bad loans the German and Dutch banks made to Greek governments in the past.
As I described in my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, one purpose of the “sovereign debt crisis” is to establish the principle that private lenders are not responsible for their bad judgment. Instead, the peoples of the country who were not parties to the loans are responsible. The EU is using the crisis not only to protect powerful private interests, but also to establish that over-indebted countries lose control of their fiscal affairs to the EU. In other words, the EU is using the crisis to centralize authority in order to destroy country sovereignty.
As Washington and the EU do not respect the sovereignty of Greece, one of its own, why does the Russian government think that Washington and the EU respect the sovereignty of Russia or Ukraine? Or of India, Brazil and other South American countries, or China. Currently Washington is trying to overthrow the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.
Washington respects no one. Thus, talking to Washington is a waste of time. Is this a game Russia wants to play?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.
65 Comments on "Is Peace or War at Hand?"
Makati1 on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 7:20 am
If you are interested…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-hegemony-in-the-guise-of-collective-defense-against-russia-moscows-response/5430554
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-war-kiev-announces-americas-war-with-russia/5430558
http://www.globalresearch.ca/white-house-preparing-military-response-if-diplomacy-with-russia-fails-lethal-defensive-weapons-and-other-options-being-examined/5430523
“Since World War II, the United States has invaded, bombed, and/or occupied the Korean Peninsula, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. Some of these nations have been attacked by the US more than once. In many more countries the US has facilitated the violent overthrow of various governments, particularly in South America and the Middle East, first through the use of its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), then through more veiled organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It has troops stationed in over a hundred nations around the world, occupying hundreds of military installations….”
…you are watching WW3 begin.
Dredd on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 7:59 am
The old oil wars get new clothing when the old elite 1% fogies are asked “who wants pudding” at Senate votes.
Of course they raise their hands, they love pudding.
High hos, high hos, its off to war we go.
GregT on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 8:04 am
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
The phrase was thought to have been “war-based” industrial complex before becoming “military” in later drafts of Eisenhower’s speech, a claim passed on only by oral history.[7] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was “military–industrial–congressional complex”, indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word “congressional” was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.[8] James Ledbetter calls this a “stubborn misconception” not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally “military–industrial–scientific complex”.[8][9] Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally “military–industrial–academic complex”.[10] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower’s speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[11]
Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern “military–industrial complex” existed before Eisenhower’s address. Ledbetter finds the precise term used in 1947 in close to its later meaning in an article in Foreign Affairs by Winfield W. Riefler.[8][12] In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Elite that a class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control. Friedrich Hayek mentions in his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom the danger of a support of monopolistic organisation of industry from WWII political remnants:
According to SIPRI, total world spending on military expenses in 2009 was $1.531 trillion US dollars. 46.5% of this total, roughly $712 billion US dollars, was spent by the United States.[23] The privatization of the production and invention of military technology also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and development of many technologies.
The military budget of the United States for the 2009 fiscal year was $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.[24] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget. Overall the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.[25]
The defense industry tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.[26]
In a 2012 news story, Salon reported, “Despite a decline in global arms sales in 2010 due to recessionary pressures, the U.S. increased its market share, accounting for a whopping 53 percent of the trade that year. Last year saw the U.S. on pace to deliver more than $46 billion in foreign arms sales.”[27]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex
GregT on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 9:48 am
“Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which over 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers from Nazi Germany and other foreign countries were brought to the United States for employment in the aftermath of World War II.[1] It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), and in the context of the burgeoning Cold War. One purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific expertise and knowledge to the Soviet Union[2] and the United Kingdom,[3] as well as inhibiting post-war Germany from redeveloping its military research capabilities.
Although the JIOA’s recruitment of German scientists began after the Allied victory in Europe on May 8, 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman’s order expressly excluded anyone found “to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism”. However, those restrictions would have rendered ineligible most of the leading scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun, Kurt H. Debus and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a “menace to the security of the Allied Forces”.[4]
To circumvent President Truman’s anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists’ Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Once “bleached” of their Nazism, the scientists were granted security clearances by the U.S. government to work in the United States. Paperclip, the project’s operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists’ new political personae to their “US Government Scientist” JIOA personnel files.[5]”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Rodster on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 12:42 pm
“The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im_HEX5ba6M
Who do you think is behind the globalization of war? If your answer is the USSA, you are correct !
bobinget on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 1:10 pm
“Girl Scouts of America Condemn Yemen Coup”
Concerned about cost of bus fuel for up-coming Girl Scout Round-up.
Zeroing in on KSA—— NEXT.
Cairo–Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi on Sunday condemned the takeover of the Yemeni government by Shiite militia as a “coup” that would trigger more violence in the troubled member state.
On Friday, the Huthi militia, which has controlled the capital Sanaa since last September, dissolved the government and parliament, and installed a presidential council, throwing the divided country into further disarray.
The Huthis’ decree establishing transitional bodies outside the framework of a UN-brokered dialogue, was a “coup against constitutional legitimacy to impose that group’s will at gunpoint,” Arabi said in a statement.
The move by the Shiite militia, which has caused alarm among Yemen’s mostly Sunni Gulf Arab neighbours, would lead to “an increase in divisions and violence,” he added.
Yemen’s Western-backed president Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi had been under virtual house arrest since the Huthis seized the presidential palace and key government buildings last month, prompting him to tender his resignation to parliament.
The Huthis have said they will set up a national council of 551 members to replace the legislature in the violence-wracked country, a key US ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda.
Yemen has been riven by instability since a bloody Arab Spring-inspired uprising forced longtime strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh from power in 2012.
bobinget on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 1:40 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/11/yemen-embassy-closures/23220185/
The question posed: “Is Peace or War at Hand”?
I’ll nominate that one for one of the dumbest headlines for the month old year.
Let us count the ways…
Syria’s ‘civil’ war alone has already generated
more refugees then any WW conflict since 1945.
No one knows (or much cares) how many South Sudanese refugees there are. Estimates are as high
as two million.
Israel will, without doubt strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure unless Iran agrees to stop uranium
enrichment. Iran will not stop U enrichment.
Unless V. Putin backs down Thursday, Right Wing
hawks in Washington will insist on intervention.
V. Putin is not known for indecision and invites a
“precipitation of crisis”
We are currently doing air strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Mali and only
a forgiving God, victims, and highly classified
dudes know where else. Last time I looked
bombing folks would be casus belie.
As I wrote here months ago, this entire ‘oil glut’ nonsense is one great ‘self fulfilling prophecy’.
As long as war, hot world war remains imminent, oil markets will be manipulated. Don’t believe ?
Your mistake for not seeing evidence in front of you.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 3:12 pm
Peace or War is not so much an American decision as it is a global banking/finance decision. If the financial masters of the world get pressed hard enough, then America will be ordered to war along with whoever is needed.
What? Do you think the global banks would not burn a billion people to keep their profits flowing? Think again.
Case in point: HSBC. Founded on the death and misery of millions of opium addicted drug addicts, and still going strong. These are TPTB, and they are NOT nice people.
This Is How HSBC Celebrates 150 Years of Banking Crime & Corruption: Happy Birthday
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/02/11/this-is-how-hsbc-celebrates-150-years-of-banking-crime-corruption-happy-birthday/
GregT on Wed, 11th Feb 2015 4:25 pm
“Peace or War is not so much an American decision as it is a global banking/finance decision.”
As it has been for centuries.
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
― Napoléon Bonaparte
apneaman on Thu, 12th Feb 2015 4:22 pm
Russian bomber intercepted by Norwegian F-16s carried nuclear warhead
http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2015/02/russian-bomber-intercepted-norwegian-f-16s-carried-nuclear-warhead-01-02
serge Paul on Thu, 12th Feb 2015 4:46 pm
How can a country like Germany become independant from Washington when it has allowed to be occupy by the US military since WW2. Only a complete new Government in Germany could do this but wait, Washington have managed to buy every members of all ngovernment in germany and France anf GB Canada etc. When mone owns every person in authority in a country, the control is total. What can Merkel and Holland really do in their own political groupe.
helen on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 10:20 am
Is this Obama’s Final Solution for the ”white’ race”?
When Obama came to power, it was like a black imperial presidency.
Everything he wants and any information, planning, policies and strategies come from the ”white” officials (aka eunuchs in this case) surrounding him. He is thus controlled by the ”whites” and has no choice but to continue the agenda set forth by the neo-cons and the hawks in Washington.
The eunuchs now control the emperor!
The emperor is a puppet?
Thus it makes no difference whether Obama is in the white house or the golf course. He is basically not in control. How he really resents being an emperor without clothes!
Does Obama have a private, personal and final plan before he evaporates into oblivion?
Obama may have his own personal agenda as he approaches the end of his presidency.
Obama was born a Muslim and a black ethnic African (Kenyan) at that. (Note: his conversion to Christianity was out of opportunities and expediency in the United States).
In general, once a Muslim, always a Muslim at heart. Just like most people of other faiths.
Is he trying to take revenge on the ”whites” who had previously turned millions of Africans into slaves in the United States and that American ”whites” have slaughtered millions of Muslins in the Middle-East and elsewhere?
By provoking Russia and initiating a Nuclear War with Russia, Obama would have wiped out all the ”whites” in Europe and the United States!
Is that his insane desire before the end of his presidency!?
Is this his last laugh on the “whites”?
Is this his personal revenge?
Is Obama a psychotic black Muslim at that?
Of course, unlike what the Western mainstream media and some scientists claim, that in a nuclear confrontation, Mankind will cease to exist. This is of course not true. Many in Asia, Africa and South America will still survive. But Europe and North America will essentially be reduced to radioactive dusts together with all the ‘whites’. Essentially about one to two billion peoples will die. There is still life for the remaining billions on planet earth. And there will be also many mutants too after that!
Thus the question still remains:
Is Obama planning and implementing his Final Solution for the “Whites” in Europe and the United States!?
Northwest Resident on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 10:38 am
Helen — I’m pretty sure that Obama is just a cog in the machine, controlled and manipulated by the big money powers that rule the world. They’ve been there for hundreds of years. Obama is just a temp employee. It seems to me that you’ve delved too deeply into right wing paranoia and have been consumed by it. It isn’t too late to escape that creeping insanity that you’ve bought into.
Davy on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 10:57 am
Helen, come on Obama is irrelevant compared to what we talk about here.
If you are into dating can I recommend a match from our group here? Planter and you would be a match for sure. He is our resident Obamaphobiaist. He knows everything about Obama and somethings that even Hillary doesn’t knows. I suppose we could call him a one man Obama think tank. What is even more exciting about the planter he knows everything about gluts but he can overwhelm you with excessive gluster talk. When he does Helen use your female persuasion to quiet his obsession.
Planter, I did my arrangements now court this gal. You all have a lot in common. Please Planter some advice don’t bore this girl with glutster talk. Show her your manhood and all that but be a gentleman.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 11:28 am
Davy — Now you’ve got the glutster all excited. Too damn funny. Oh, the sweet Obama pillow talk these two can enjoy together… (retch..)