This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Imperial Collapse Playbook
Submitted by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,
Some people enjoy having the Big Picture laid out in front of them—the biggest possible—on what is happening in the world at large, and I am happy to oblige. The largest development of 2014 is, very broadly, this: the Anglo-imperialists are finally being forced out of Eurasia. How can we tell? Well, here is the Big Picture—the biggest I could find. I found it thanks to Nikolai Starikov and a recent article of his.
Now, let's first define our terms. By Anglo-imperialists I mean the combination of Britain and the United States. The latter took over for the former as it failed, turning it into a protectorate. Now the latter is failing too, and there are no new up-and-coming Anglo-imperialists to take over for it. But throughout this process their common playbook had remained the same: pseudoliberal pseudocapitalism for the insiders and military domination and economic exploitation for everyone else. Much more specifically, their playbook always called for a certain strategem to be executed whenever their plans to dominate and exploit any given country finally fail. On their way out, they do what they can to compromise and weaken the entity they leave behind, by inflicting a permanently oozing and festering political wound. “Poison all the wells” is the last thing on their pre-departure checklist.
• When the British got tossed out of their American Colonies, they did all they could, using a combination of import preferences and British “soft power,” to bolster the plantation economy of the American South, helping set it up as a sort of anti-United States, and the eventual result was the American Civil War.
• When the British got tossed out of Ireland, they set up Belfast as a sort of anti-Ireland, with much blood shed as a result.
• When the British got tossed out of the Middle East, they set up the State of Israel, then the US made it into its own protectorate, and it has been poisoning regional politics ever since. (Thanks to Kristina for pointing this out in the comments.)
• When the British got tossed out of India, they set up Pakistan, as a sort of anti-India, precipitating a nasty hot war, followed by a frozen conflict over Kashmir.
• When the US lost China to the Communists, they evacuated the Nationalists to Taiwan, and set it up as a sort of anti-China, and even gave it China's seat at the United Nations.
The goal is always the same: if they can't have the run of the place, they make sure that nobody else can either, by setting up a conflict scenario that nobody there can ever hope to resolve. And so if you see Anglo-imperialists going out of their way and spending lots of money to poison the political well somewhere in the world, you can be sure that they are on their way out. Simply put, they don't spend lots of money to set up intractable problems for themselves to solve—it's always done for the benefit of others.
Fast-forward to 2014, and what we saw was the Anglo-imperialist attempt to set up Ukraine as a sort of anti-Russia. They took a Slavic, mostly Russian-speaking country and spent billions (that's with a “b”) of dollars corrupting its politics to make the Ukrainians hate the Russians. For a good while an average Ukrainian could earn a month's salary simply by turning up for an anti-Russian demonstration in Kiev, and it was said that nobody in Ukraine goes to protests free of charge; it's all paid for by the US State Department and associated American NGOs. The result was what we saw this year: a bloody coup, and a civil war marked by numerous atrocities. Ukraine is in the midst of economic collapse with power plants out of coal and lights going off everywhere, while at the same time the Ukrainians are being drafted into the army and indoctrinated to want to go fight against “the Muscovites.”
But, if you notice, things didn't go quite as planned. First, Russia succeeded in making a nice little example of self-determination in the form of Crimea: if it worked for Kosovo, why can't it work for Crimea? Oh, the Anglo-imperialist establishment wishes to handle these things on a case-by-case basis, and in this case it doesn't approve? Well, that would be a double-standard, wouldn't it? World, please take note: when the West talks about justice and human rights, that's just noise.
Next, the Russians provided some amount of support, including weapons, volunteers and humanitarian aid, to Ukraine's eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk, which declared themselves People's Republics and successfully fought Ukraine's so-called “anti-terrorist operation” to a stalemate and an imperfect, precarious cease-fire. Very significantly, Russia absolutely refused to get involved militarily, has withheld official recognition of these republics, has refused to consider breaking up Ukraine, and continues to insist on national dialogue and a peace process even as the bullets fly. According to Putin, Ukraine must be maintained as “a contiguous political space.” Thus, the Russians have responded to the Anglo-imperialists' setting up of an anti-Russia in the form of Ukraine by setting up an anti-Ukraine in the form of DPR and LPR, thereby shunting the Anglo-imperialist attempt to provoke a war between Ukraine and Russia into a civil war within Ukraine.
You might also notice that the Anglo-imperialists have been getting very, very angry. They have been doing everything they can to vilify Russia, comparing Putin to Hitler and so on. This is because for them it's all about the money, and they didn't get what they paid for. What the Anglo-imperialists were paying for in corrupting Ukraine's politics was a ring-side seat at a fight between Ukraine and Russia. And what they got instead is a two-legged stool at a bar-room brawl between Eastern and Western Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine accounts for a quarter of the Ukrainian economy, produces most of the coal that had formerly kept the lights on in the rest of the country, and contains most of the industry that had made Ukraine an industrialized nation. Western Ukraine is centered on the unhappy little rump of Galicia, where the political soil is so fertile for growing neo-Nazis. So, paying billions to watch a bunch of Ukrainians fight each other inconclusively while Russia gets to play peacemaker is not what the Anglo-imperialists wanted, and they are absolutely livid about it. If they don't get the war they paid for PDQ, they will simply cut their losses, pack up and leave, and then do what they always do, which is pretend that the country in question doesn't exist, which, the way things are going in the Ukraine, it barely will.
Note that leaving, and then pretending that a place doesn't exist, is something the Anglo-imperialists have been doing a lot lately. When they left Iraq, they did succeed in setting up a sort of anti-Iraq in the form of Iraqi Kurdistan, but that all blew up in their face. Their attempts to set up an anti-Syria or an anti-Libya died in their infancy, and they don't seem to have any plan at all with regard to Afghanistan, unless it is to repeat every single blunder the Soviets made there as carefully and completely as possible.
What's more, it's starting to look like they are about to get kicked out of Eurasia altogether. Most of the major Eurasian players—China, Russia, India, Iran, much of Central Asia—are cementing their ties around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to which the United States isn't even admitted as an observer. As for the European Union, the current crop of EU politicians is very much bought and will be paid for upon retirement by the Anglo-imperialists, but the only reason they are still in power is that there are lots of older voters in Western Europe, and older people tend to cling to what they know even after it stops working—for them or, especially, for their kids. If it was up to the young people, the Anglo-imperialists would face open rebellion. In fact, the trends in voting patterns show that their departure from the region is a matter of time.
Here is a preview of possible coming attractions. On their way out, the Anglo-imperialists will of course try to set up an anti-Europe, and the obvious choice for that is Britain. Of all the European nations, it is the most heavily manipulated by their Anglo cousins from across the pond. It would take minimal effort for them to hurt Britain economically, then launch a propaganda campaign to redirect the blame for the bad economy toward the continent. They wouldn't even have to hire translators for their propaganda—a simple “spelling-chequer” (or whatever) would suffice. And so, to make sure that their efforts to provoke a large-scale, hugely destructive, festering conflict between Britain and Europe fail, Europe would do well to set up an anti-Britain within Britain.
And the obvious choice for an anti-Britain is of course Scotland, where the recent independence referendum failed because of... the recalcitrance of older voters. A dividing line between the Anglo empire and Eurasia running through the English Channel/La Manche would be a disaster for Europe and moving it somewhere west of Bermuda would pose a formidable challenge. On the other hand, suppose that line ran along Hadrian's Wall, with the traditionally combative and ornery Scots, armed with the remnants of North Sea oil and gas, aligning themselves with the Continent, while England remains an ever-so-obedient vassal of the Anglo-imperialists? That would reduce the intercontinental conflict to what Americans like to call a “pissing contest”: not worth the high price of admission. Yes, there would be some strong words between the two sides, and some shoving and shouting outside of pubs, and even some black eyes and loose teeth should diplomacy fail, but that should be the extent of the damage. That I see as the best-case outcome.
So that's the big picture I see heading into 2015, which I am sure will be a most tumultuous year. Not to make a prediction as to timing (don't worry, you won't ever get one out of me!) but 2015 could be the year the Anglo-imperialist franchise finally starts shutting down in obvious ways. We know it will have to shut down eventually, because failing all the time is not conducive to its survival. The bonus question is, what sort of anti-America will these parasites set up inside America before they abandon their host and scatter to their fortified compounds in undisclosed locations around the world? Or will they not even bother, and just provoke a war of all against all?
I would think that they would at least try to leverage their expensively engineered red/blue divide within the United States. This fake cultural/political divide, with all the pseudoliberal/pseudoconservative indoctrination and university- and church-based brainwashing that put it in place, cost them a pretty penny. It was engineered to produce the appearance of choice at election-time while making sure that there isn't any. But could it not be pressed into service in some more extreme manner? How about leveraging it to organize some sort of rabidly homophobic racist fundamentalist separatist enclave somewhere down south? Or perhaps one somewhere in the north, where zoophilia is de rigeur while heterosexual intercourse requires a special permit from a committee stocked with graduates in women's studies? Now, fight, you idiots! Don't you see how well that could work in practice? Would they waste such a nice opportunity to set up a system of controlled mayhem? I think not!
I leave all of that up to you to imagine.
»
- 23140 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Sigh, more tedious whining from Russian apologists.
Russia invades Ukraine, and somehow America and Britain are the imperialists. World class delusion.
But, hey, as long as the Russian state is paying, I guess they can get anything published.
Serious, they even have a dating site for elites now...
http://www.elitesingles.co.uk/
If you can't beat em', join em'?
Sigh, more tedious whining from a subhuman supporter of the most murderous and destructive country in the world.
Your mother has a lot to be proud of having a ignorant ass like you for a child.
The red-blue divide won’t work because it will not be tumultuous enough. The ”red” side is not particularly disposed towards violence and although the red side is not disposed towards tumultuous protests, vandalism, looting and arson, it does have the political strength of numbers.
Emperor Obama’s fundamental transformation is infecting the country with millions of unscreened and unskilled aliens that do not share or aspire to traditional American values as well as sponsoring a general ethic of victimhood, helplessness, apathy and dependence on the state across a large percentage of the 99%.
The poison is, even today, is a seething jealousy of those who are productive or have any degree of economic security or independence by the lowest of the lazy and non-productive bottom half.
Unless effectively countered on the political arena, the U.S. is a well that will remain poisoned for a long time.
That, and there are a lot of people who subscribe neither to red nor blue. That's a wildcard. A class divide would be easier to play, and there are more than just two classes. Rich vs poor, black vs white, etc...
.
Appears the State dept is mentally ill.
Orlov is obviously insightful, but at the same time either disingenous or blind as a bat. Question: Who walks around endlessly blaming an authority figure while not considering the roles of any other persons or groups?
Answer: a child or, if adult, a generally disposessed person. This kind of thinking is too low to even be called one dimensional.
The world is a complicated place, with many, many aggressive players. Every large country has desires and plans to take over the world. Think the Chinese don't? Think the Russians don't? If you believe it is only the NWO players, you are thinking like a child. They are the easiest target because they are essentially in power now and the consequences of their actions are most obvious.
Look at the history of countries that have been at the crossroads of wars. They are beat up, robbed, raped, etc., by whichever side is present at a given moment. Some countries went fairly crazy during WWII when different armies took turns invading and occupying.
Sorry, life is just not as simple as Orlov makes out. He is so one-sided as to make the reader think that he is more than a cheerleader for the Russians. BTW, Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. They also have multiple re-entry warheads compared to the U.S., which has decommisioned its MRVs and replaced them with single nuke warheads.
Could there be something more going on than Orlov discusses in his "Big Picture"? Of course there is, and he is either a short-sighted cheerleader for his team, or a paid agent.
The fact that this article attracts so much glib, indefensible criticism tells you the author is making some important points, well expressed and accurately contextualised. Troll somewhere else, whores.
Rhetorical questions: How many superpowers do we have, today and during the last 20+ years? Are accusations they would do the same if they could in any way helpful except as the lamest of excuses? What significance do MRVs have if a conflict in which they would be used wouldn't have a winner?
The point is while pretending to dislike oversimplification, you are pursuing exactly that with the arguments you presented above, while at the same time ignoring the much deeper reaching thoughts of Orlov.
Spot on Tao. I looked at the content and level of reason, analysis and rank presumption/assumption, plus the usual team-slav nonsense ... boy, how does such muck clarify things for him, or for any reader? What's the point? Echo chamber delight? Who can't laydown 10 paragraphs of over the top rancid blah-blah and call it an 'article'.
Well, happy you know, ... like, 2015 'n stuff ... yeah, feeble init? :D
Tao -> while impossible to cover 100 years history in one article. I think Orlov main point when empires begun to collapse they do a lot of damage on the way down. I do not read this article about Russia vs. US, what I read here is Western Alliance via it's failing system will not be part of the next system, which most likely will be Eurasia. If Germany or OPEC countries or both join the Shanghai Corporation in 2015 or so,most
Likely dollar as trade settlement device is gone and US is a third world state, with inability to import goods. There will be a lot of toilet paper called treasury bonds.
The western press likes to say Russia economy is in trouble, ruble is down but so is oil, which nets no change to Russia which is light to zero on debt. The rising dollar and falling oil is more of a bad moon rising for US economy, which less we forget has 18 trillion of 'foreign held debt'. Shale industry was adding increment in middle US economy and will go dark now in 2015. Looks to me Russia is securing imports with US treasuries, that is absent is western press. Which is smart, giving the economic climate.
As far as war waging machines, the US seems to be the leader here as of late. And the more I read valid history, I feel we have been to understate it 'mis-led' in the US.
@ Tao 4 the Show
You are stupid.
No country outside of the US is anywhere near creating a world government.
heywood...jablowme
"This is a public service announcement for our FSA minions who we love so much. All the racist white hoarders and small business owners are conspiring to make your EBT cards not buy jack shit. You be OWED, bitchez! Now go out there and fuck shit up. Make them beg for an even nastier police state. And keep whitey pinned down while we escape to our hollowed-out volcano lair and plot our next giant scam!"
And speaking about poisoning the well, fracking will haunt us for thousands of years. Rural people in particular will lose a lifeline of self-sufficiency. They might just have to go back on the grid and be serfs again.
OK. He had me until the last paragraph. Why would they abandon the seat of their power, where they have total control, where they have successfully relegated the opposition to fringe paranoic lunatics?
Red-blue is already exposed as a fraud. Turn out in 2012 of real voters was only about 27-30%. That is why red and blue import so much amnesty and hand out voter cards. Another failing system being kept alive in the Anglo-Imperial system.
heywood ja fuck off!! 17 weeks and you are fanning flames? Hows the pay in your goverment job? Are you paid in hookers and blow?
Putin could be Stalin reincarnated, and it would not excuse the shit that we have pulled in any way, shape or form. We fomented that coup in Ukraine and the evidence to prove it is in the public domain. Pay attention to what your own government is doing, because a lot of it is some bad shit.
Right you are, and there is much evidence and implication of the CIA as the main spoon in the pot.
I am going to make some bold predictions in the next few days, chief among them is that 2015 will see a huge acceleration in the push towards woar.
There is absolutely no way to make the CB debt go away and the age old play is to go to war and settle the books.
The fallout of this lead up is going to be unrest in the US the likes of which we haven't seen since 1968, it was a very hot summer with riots all around.
2015 is going to see the US start to really come apart at the seams.
DaddyO
Yep, the psychopaths are trying very hard to ramp up hate locally, domestically and internationally. But I think Europe shatters first. Last and hardest to collapse will be the heart of the dollar-sphere.
"We" didn't do anything. They did it. We are part of the victims, not the victimizers.
And what did you do to stop it from happening? If nothing, then you are complicit. I include myself in that category. Yes, we very well did do it.
B But I din do nuffins.
Mama: He a goot boy. Trine turn his life around.
El Vaquero, I do as much as I can, but that nevertheless ends up being practically nothing. All of my efforts amount to something like 0.0000001% of what should be done. That is not quite nothing, but still practically nothing.
I do not regard that as being complicit, but rather the result of attempting to resist a collective group of trillionaire mass murderers, when the surplus that I can devote to do that is merely measured in thousands. They already have the power to legally make more "money" out of nothing, as debts for everyone else, while I would have to exchange my labour for their "money" in order to do anything to try to participate in the political processes.
Worrying about the nuclear arms race between the USA and the USSR, which reached a previous peak in 1986, was what motivated me to become involved in the political processes, because the funding of politics is the focus point with the maximum leverage. However, the more I learned about that, the worse it looked.
How is anyone supposed to compete against an established system in which a handful of enormous mass media corporations dominate more than 90% of the "news" that people get? The established systems are already entrenched. There are no practical ways to compete with those who already own and control the mass media, as well as every other social institution that one may look at.
On a more theoretical level, there is practically nothing but controlled opposition groups that one could join with, to attempt to resist the established systems. However, one then ends up trapped within the same basic bullshit world view that is the underlying problem.
Compliance is our complicity.
Their crimes of theft and violence are funded from our backs. Funded from our labors, efforts and production.
Stop complying. Turn away, and withdraw one's back from their support structure, and their ponzi of graft and violence will tumble down upon them.
The banksters need to repay us.
No need to huff-and-puff. Just quit producing the straw, wood, and bricks they need to withstand the onslaught of the blowback they have created and nutured.
What country's intelligence agency has assassinated or ousted 42 leaders since it was started, which country's intelligence agency covers it expenses with narco dollars, one hint it ain't Russia's.
Nice job Brother.I am gonna recommend to the authority to increase your paycheck.I got a hike yesterday.
Pretty quick on the draw there, partner, you propagandist ass-wipe.
Pure troll. Best to simply ignore. We seem to be attracting lots of such creatures these days, don't you find?
"Russia invades Ukraine..." Really? When did that happen?
I do recall that Victoria Nuland was there, and John McCain.
In a way it's more like Russia invades the USSR.
Russia is reasserting herself after being infected by the tribe for 70+ years.
"Russia is reasserting herself after being infected by the tribe for 70+ years"
Bingo!! Nailed it!!
2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014-15_Russian_military_intervention_in_Uk...
Nuland, "Fuck the EU".
Start from there, grasshopper.
Sigh, more tedious whining from an American apologist.
CIA invades Ukraine, and somehow Russia and Putin are the imperialists. World class delusion.
But, hey, as long as the American taxpayer is paying, I guess they can get anything published.
FIFY-FF
It's a false delimma. It's the idea that you are either rooting for Russia or you are rooting for the US. That is the unsaid part of "you're either for us or you are against us." It is the failure to even consider the possibility that there may be other options. Like being on my own fucking side. Seriously. Fuck the FSB and fuck the CIA. They're corrupt and they are looking out for their own best interests and the best interests of the uberwealthy. They don't give a shit about you and I. Nor the statist troll up above, unless he is employed by .gov.
I am on my daughters' side. I could give fuckall about Putin, Obama, Heywood Jablome or who ever.....it's nuclear chicken with shackles and chains for you, me and ours.
The most recent documentary covering the fights in Donetsk and Donbas, very well made with english subs. A Max Fadeyev movie 1 hour long:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GzOaIXnkPs
I watched the whole thing. You get a perspective that is unavailable from the MSM. They know who's behind all of the destruction. Its one thing to read about it, but another to see the indiscriminate shelling of a large city. And Its not only the direct hits, but the concussion breaking windows of the other houses and apartments. It is very cold and they try to patch with plastic sheeting, but it's not the same. The interviews with the various militia members is telling. They volunteered and are made up of many ethnicities and even, religions. They fight for freedom. They fight against the Nazis. The one soldier said, there are a hundred ways to get the Russian Bear out of his lair, but there is no way to get the bear, back in, once it's out....
Simple question:
1) Was the Crimea within the Ukrainian border [Hint: Yes],and whose army is in ther now [Hint: Not NATO]?
So, I'm NOT saying you are wrong about the CIA, but there is an actual invading army within the former border of the Ukraine - a border recognized by treaty by Russia.
You don't find that significant?
Ummm. There's that self-determination aspect that you seem to be avoiding.
Yes, the old "referendum" trick. Same way Chavez, the billionaire 'defender of the poor' became president for life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela
I'm holding a referendum in my house. I counted the votes, and [gasp!] I won!!
I'm declaring my house and property an independent country, and I ask Russian troops in to help secure my independence!
Please forward military, humanitarian and financial aid.
It seems you somehow forgot to respond to Orlov's explicit example of Kosovo.
check again, and
Here are the irrefutable facts (whch many can't accept):
1) Crimea was part of Ukraine.
2) Russian Federation troops now occupy and control that territory.
3) All done in violation of treaties and international law.
Would you be kind enough to provide some details regarding your third 'irrefutable fact'? Which specific treaties and international laws have been violated?
Thanks.
Stooge, what's your angle? "International Law" is a bit of a misnomer
But the treaties among Ukraine and Russia are a long, complex affair, which nevertheless always saw Ukraine as a separate sovereign
even in 1922, both Russia and Ukraine were seen as the two founding members of the Soviet Union. at the UN, Ukraine always had a separate delegation
on April 2010, for example, the two countries signed a treaty about Sevastopol, assigning it for further 25 years as a Russian Federation base. A lease
it is an accepted principle that if two sovereigns have a treaty, they are at peace and do recognize the inviolability of their borders... even if they still have claims on territories or populations
the claim on a territory or a population is a recognized, legitimate "casus belli", i.e. reason for (legitimate) war. yet it would warrant a declaration of war, or an ultimatum asking for redress before a war
what is internationally not recognized is the "grab" of a territory without (old style) an ultimatum/declaration or without (new style) a UN authorization
Russia did not follow the old style and did not follow the new style of internationally accepted norms of sovereign territorial dispute. in part in protest of neither the old or the new style being internationally enforced. In a way, Russia is asking for clarity, like "folks, which rules do you really want? the new ones aren't working, and the old ones neither"
nevertheless, Russia is an aggressor with a somewhat legitimate casus belli though waging an undeclared conflic according to the old style, the "Old World Order" (or pre-UN order) I know, there is always a danger on blogs that if you cite Hitler the whole thing degenerates, but that is the exact same problem when Germany defended the rights of German populations outside it's borders, which lead to a lot of confusion and the grab of territories beyond the scope that would be seen as legitimate, at least in part
again, what's your angle?
Too early in the day for an angle, as I haven't even had any coffee yet.
I agree regarding international law. My observation is that the inconsistency and double standards of the US government regarding international law exceed by at least an order of magnitude the already volatile standards it applies to the "rule of law" domestically.
I asked for specifics simply because over the years I've seen more than a few claims of 'irrefutable facts' turn out to be at least somewhat refutable.
your angle is head between putin's legs - tongue out
Oh, look, the first fappar* of the day.
Let's wait for the next round of entertainment.
*fairies against President Putin and Russia
what is your's, pendragon?
the russian puppet replaced by a democratically elected successor chosen by the ukranian people (as opposed to the russian president). everything else is just a self loathing distraction.
and the elected Ukrainian parliament?
enjoy your coffee and have an excellent 2015, then
the whole thing needs arbitration, badly. but from a formal point of view, the Treaty regarding the Lease of Sevastopol as a Russian Federation Navy base is crystal clear
In Old World Order terms you don't sit at a table and sign a treaty with a sovereign partner for a sovereign lease... and then later grab the whole province around that said lease. At least not without an ultimatum, and then a formal declaration of war, possibly even declaring a limited scope in said war
in UN-World Order terms, Russia ought to have denounced the US of planning to install bases on Crimea, and at least to ask for a UN resolution forbidding the US to do so
Russia was naughty, in Old World Order terms, while having some reason. the problem is, of course, double standards
meanwhile yes, the "New World Order" seems to be all about "Might Makes Right". which is not acceptable, not in the long run
Factor in also the theft of Ukrainian fleet. Most states would consider that more than a bit provocative, would they not? Try doing that to Germany or England. Most states would start firing all sorts of very nasty weapons from there regardless of past Treaty arrangements or observances.
That Sovereign state is free to make strategic links and develop alliances and new Treaties with other powers willing to come to its assistance and protect against its systematic undermining. Which is what Kiev has, OF COURSE, had to do. And it had to finally take the despicably miserable loan conditions of the IMF terms. i.e. these were obviously impossible and ruinous terms which the filthy IMF and various powers knew in advance would resolve nothing (by design), so would produce another crisis, and would force further re-financing and renegotiation to follow, quite soon after the initial loans ... which has now commenced.
The US funded IMF, thus tipped the entire thing from atop the geopolitical cistern, to the sovereign-default toilet bowl. If you don't pay the gas bill and reneg and try to escape legit demand to pay you are going to be treated pretty badly all around and will have to offer major strategic concessions to the new partners to make it worth their while to be a part of a new Treaty and Alliance.
So what do the new partners want, what can they get, and what can Ukraine offer to get what it needs in order to force the Russians out, regardless of their determination to stay?
So first off Russia feels slighted and disrespected, as well as strategically undermined, and the local Russians (it appears) took this golden opportunity to whiff the winds of imminent financial and economic realities and change, and wanted out of the predictable impoverishing effects of the Ukraine Sovereign default and collapse process to follow.
So they suddenly turn all conveniently 'pro-Russian', and super-duper 'patriotic', and wanted to vote to break-away into a Russian-backed and bankrolled protectorate/Republic ... and to pretend this would be OK.
And it's not. the very process of trying to escape the other down-sides, has now fully transitioned from frying pan, to fire.
Escape via that method, was not and is not viable, and the situation is now far worse for them than it would otherwise have been.
That seems to roughly sum things up, so far.
But for sure, Ukraine has a legit right to defend itself under the "New Way", with all means at its disposal, and to acquire that means via Alliance, and that is the one "way" that matters here, because it's the process the new sugar-daddies are going to insist be followed from here.
And why wouldn't they? The Old-Way was replaced for good reason, it was a diabolical failure, which Putin seems to have forgot, never reflected on, or just not cared about ... the latter I suspect. And if the aim is to avoid another failure, and great war, then the New-Way is the designated mechanism and the best that humanity, given its geography and cultural mix and variance in affluence and power, could define and cobble together.
We have a major snafu though when great powers simply derail it and contravene it, or provide cover and vetos for others to flout the 'New-Way', making it disreputable and dysfunctional. How do you resuscitate something so repeatedly abused and corrupted when you really need it to work, on spec?
And how does the rest of humanity punish the biggest misbehaving power(s), and also the biggest money-printing super-criminal financial giant(s)?
Quite a fly in the ointment that one. Without such a mechanism to effect and inflict mutually agreed punishment on misbehaving big powers the New-Way lacks the necessary credibility at the time we need it to work as designed.
So we either observe and insist on the observance of human rights, everywhere, in every country, or we will end up with wars and the absence of human rights, everywhere, instead.
i.e. what is developing and deepening in east Ukraine.
Neither of the major powers is behaving itself, both are more or less going rogue, and both can not be effectively reined-in by the rest of humanity, and that's an untenable way to operate this planet.
Cold-War will not work, it will take us out in the same way every motorbike rider knows that it's just a matter of time until you come off. You ride like a maniac for years and look great and feel competent and capable, and half a second later you're into an iron bark tree at 150 km/hr.
That's what cold war is. We just haven't come off yet, but we definitely will.
Which is what makes it so bloody disappointing to note the vast sea of moronic partisans panting to support some heroic jerk, or another. When you see that garbage at zerohedge its pretty clear a blog like zh is also a dismal failure. And I'm not surprised at all.
Fortunately, as you know Ghordius, I expect no less than total abject failure from very informed thinkers, and I've not been disappointed even once so far. Thank goodness I don't come here for the 'answers', because there are none here.
(I do wonder what akak would say though about 4S's remarks these days, and all the statism-based solutions being thrown about everywhere, but more importantly, the lack of road-side squatting issues being examined)
"International Law" is a bit of a misnomer"
I am sure you have explained this before, but what do you mean by that again ?
Treaties matter until they don't ? Didn 't you say somewhere something along the lines that sovereigns only need to be concerned with who and who's army ? You still adhere to ius ad bellum ?
International law is a bit of a swamp. International law is above all the law of the strongest imho, but maybe less so than it used to be.
I'm oldfashioned, of course I adhere to jus ad bellum. I even adhere more in jus in bello
call me a realist while asking for limited war, and then going on to limit limited war
I think you can be a realist, ask for sensible Real-Politik, and fight war as an unnecessary evil. only because it's your "right" does not mean you have to do it
the misnomer is in calling it "law". this gives too many people the impression that then, there ought to be one police. which again is against sovereignty
I call for grown-up, peace loving sovereignty
"there ought to be one police"
Is that not what the UN Security Council pretends to be ?
And if I understand you correctly, you oppose the "responsibility to protect" ?
I simply think that you can't take war out of humanity, but you can take war crimes out of war
I'm not sure what you mean with "responsibility to protect". who? an ally? in front of unwarranted aggression? of course
R2P, or responsibility to protect, is a concept used in international circles which is not really consistent with the concept of sovereignty. The intervention in Libya was ( formally ) based on R2P, as it was a reaction to an internal conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
well, it depends, doesn't it? a good principle can anytime be misused. if I remember correctly, that's why they are called principles, they are a priori
Treaties matter until they don't ?
Yep - Ask the Indians, or maybe the Ruskies about US involvement in Poland and Georgia
I checked again,
and have not found a single explanation from you why the secession of Kosovo from Serbia (which was supported if not pushed for by Western powers) somehow didn't violate any such laws or treaties - or if it did why it was broadly accepted by Western powers without audible protest.
"...there is an actual invading army within the former border of the Ukraine..."
Is that what your tee-vee told you?
In 1954 a drunk Nikita Khrushchev, originally from Ukraine, removed Crimea from Russia and gave it to Ukraine.
After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, in a referendum that exceeded all international standards, Crimea voted itself an independent republic rather than to be part of Ukraine; that vote was ignored by Ukraine and the people of Crimea didn't press it, as for all practical purposes Crimea was part of Russia.
Per an agreement that was in force for years because of its Black Sea base lease, Russia was entitled to station up to 25,000 military in Crimea.
There is no evidence that number was ever exceeded, even after the US violently overthrew the government of Ukraine.
A referendum was held last spring — again exceeding all international standards, and that included official observers from more than 20 countries — in which Crimea seceded from Ukraine and asked to be part of Russia.
Russia accepted.
Incidentally, probably the best option for the rest of the world is for neo-Nazi/CIA Ukraine to recede back to its 1654 borders:
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/l/t1.0-9/s720x720/1029114...
"...gave it to Ukraine." Correct, it was LEGALLY part of the Ukraine, so you agree with me!
"Russia accepted." Correct again, the RUSSIAN ARMY now controls the area, so you agree with me!
Don't know why you're being argumentative when you agree with me?! Could it be, that you don't like acknowledging those facts because they don't provide an opportunity to bash the US?
BTW, you're asserting that if a "referendum" in an area occurs, parts of countries must change hands. The is NOT international law. For example, if a referendum is held in Cuba, must the Cuban government allow those areas to become part of Gitmo? If millions of illegals enter SoCal, can they legally vote themselves a new nation that the US must recognize?
Hey! I just held a referendum in my house, and following the logic of your assertion, I am now the leader of the world's newest nation!
Have a good year bashing the US; you have plenty of company!
Competent readers will have missed neither the first line (within quotes) nor the paragraph beginning "Per an agreement..." of my comment that you are referring to.
And the competent reader will also note that you comment refers to the "base", not the entire Crimea. Keep squirming!
Again, applying your assertions/logic to Gitmo and Cuba, no? Hold a referendum around Gitmo, and then US Gitmo troops leagaly there "per an agreement" take control of the areas that vote out of Cuba. And ta-da; the US is not the agressor! Really?! That's OK with you?
Sorry, but facts are stubborn things, and applying your assertions/logic regarding Russia not being the agressor in the Crimea, thus not the agressor in the Ukraine, and referendums legally allowing territorial "outs" just doesn't hold up to historical fact or international law, as my examples point out.
Since you like to quote Wiki...
Regarding "base" vs entire Crimea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditio...
Regarding historical fact and international law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opi...
BWA-HAHAHA!!!
Did you even bother to read the source you're quoting?! YOUR SOURCE links to "The Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation"
And that is the point you refuse to admit, for some inexplicable reason[?!]
YOUR SOURCE: "The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was the March 2014 incorporation of most of the Crimean Peninsula, internationally recognized as part of Ukraine"
And that is simply my point! I don't know why you and your pals are getting your panties all wadded up about it. It's a fact.
You and your pals can assert CIA, McPain, etc. - and, again, I'm not saying that isn't true, but THE UNDENIALBLE FACT IS, AND YOU ADMIT: IT'S RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THE UKRAINE.
I don't know what you are blabbering about.
The link is about Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet which was signed between Russia and Ukraine on 28 May 1997 and which
allowed Russia to maintain up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on the Crimean peninsula.
1) My post states: "YOUR SOURCE links to 'The Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation' ", but you "don't know" what that means.
2) Note the word "links" in my post, but you don't know what that means.
3) Read your own source, but you can't follow a reference in the first paragraph.
4) Search Wikipedia for: "The Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation". My post clearly has that quote. But you can't/won't research that.
"Don't know what your blathering about"
Then, you're either a liar or an idiot.
"In 1954 a drunk Nikita Khrushchev, originally from Ukraine, removed Crimea from Russia and gave it to Ukraine."
True or not???!!
It seems in your eyes, that was perfectly legal but a referendum by the people of Crimea decades later to return to Russia is unacceptable and illegal.
Fuck!! Some people are beyond stupid!!! You are one of them!
"...gave it to Ukraine." Correct - not part of Russia anymore.
The referendum is only "legal" if the Ukraine law says it is, as the Crimea is now bound by Ukrainian law.
If your wife says she doesn't want to be married to you anymore, is she divorced? Depends on the law where you live, right? If you're in California or Saudi it's different - no matter what she, you or both of you want - it's the law where you are that determines the marital status.
If Putin, his boot-lickers, and the international media claim a referendum was held, and therefore the Crimea isn't part of the Ukriaine anymore, that's nice and all, but that's not what international law says.
No matter how loud Putin or you scream, cry, curse, attack the messenger, change the subject, etc.
"The United Nations General Assembly also rejected the vote and annexation, adopting a non-bindingresolution affirming the "territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders"
You are just proving that: "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names."
Logical, darteaus.
Old drunk dude gives away Crimea, on a whim, no examination, no policy of a govt, just some old geezah gets on the bottle and says, aw screw it, I feel a bit bloated, I think I'm goin' to sign over Crimea to Kiev for no other reason than my empty bottle of vodka.
Sure, I believe that ... allusion ... implicit excuse for resumption ... totally! ... but millions probably wouldn't.
But you've gotta love the endless feed of sozzled rooskie Presidential anecdotes. It's much more interesting than ridiculous lies like, "...but I didn't inhale ...". Not that even one person on the whole earth believed him, and everyone knew he was shamelessly lieing his ass off. The incomprehensible absurdity of the lie was a far more manageable reality, than what everyone knew was actually true.
Hence 'one drunk rooskie did it', myth.
Lucky the old git didn't decide Eisenhower had stalked in and drank all his vodka.
Torunaga: "There are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion
against a sovereign lord."
Anjin San: "Unless you win." -- Shogun, James Clavell
I don't foresee Native-Americans getting their land returned to them anytime soon.
Why don't the Indians hold a "referendum"?
Apparently, that's all one needs to do to legally set up a new political entity.
Well, our local Indian tribe has removed their " Welcome to our Sovereign Nation" sign. I do not know the circumstances that resulted in this action. Perhaps the realization that sovereignty by decree without any means to defend it was a bit presumptuous.
Miffed
But I heard from a native American in Las Vegas that there are T-shirts with "Fighting terrorism since 1492" on it.
Funny !
Regarding your comments about the millions of illegals invading Southern Caifornia and declaring it a country; except for country naming part, it's already done. 85% of the LAUSD or the Los Angeles Unified School District is Hispanic. We have numerous Spanish radio, TV stations and newspapers and nearly everything is on both languages.
Simple questions:
Were the ppl inside Crimea of russian ethnicity?
Did those ppl welcome the presence of russian army to protect them from an ethnic cleansing?
Did they vote on their self determination to join a country they want?
Now, to close off, lets apply your fallacy to another situation and see how that works out: What armies and militay adivisors are within Syrian border right now? Should we call them invaders, because AFAIK Syrian government didn't ask for their presence...
Are the people in San Diego of Mexican ancestry?
Can they hold a referendum to join Aztlán?
If they welcome the Mexican army to protect them from the US reactionary forces following the vote, is it OK?
BTW, I just held a referendum in my house to create a new country. I'm inviting the Russian army to help. That's legally binding, right?
You guys are saying it's all ok. no?
"My armies"?! I didn't know I had any!?
Is your house a constitutional entity with clearly identifiable borders and do you have a legislative authority with referendum organizing jurisdiction?
Crimea was not a constitutional entity - Ukraine was. Your first requirement thus does not hold for Crimea, and I claim the same right that Crimea claimed to disassociate.
My property has clearly identifiable borders. I meet your second requirement.
Crimea did not have "legislative authority with referendum organizing juristiction" - Ukraine did, and it did NOT grant that authority to any other legislative body:
"the Yatsenyuk Government, responsible for internal Ukrainian affairs at the time, confirmed at least seven constitutional violations of the process, including the dodged obligation of Crimea to request such restitution from Ukraine itself first, before being given the formal right to conduct any supra-political processes for the matter." Your final requirement thus does not hold for Crimea, and I claim the same right that Crimea claimed to disassociate.
So, send military, financial and humanitarian aid so I can repel any invasion!
Crimea was not a constitutional entity
Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a constitutional entity within Ukraine. It had its own parliament and president.
"Are the people in San Diego of Mexican ancestry?
Can they hold a referendum to join Aztlán?
If they welcome the Mexican army to protect them from the US reactionary forces following the vote, is it OK?"
Yes, if the SD people want it, and "Aztlan" accept SD, there's nothing USA can do about it... Do you know why? Because of a human right called "Self Determination", backed by UN. The same reason Scottland can run a referendum to secede from UK, or Texans are allowed to vote to leave the federation. What you don't get, and what usually governments around the globe keep forgeting is that the will of the people that matters, not the will of governments.
Just to prove you're either a dumbfuck or just pretending to be dumb to support your agenda, let me tell something: if that could be consired that Russia invaded Crimea, why can't Ukraine, USA or UN do anything about it? After all, if it was an invasion, there's nothing holding back them from intervene there, right?
USA and Ukraine are trying too hard to find a reason to classify Russia as an invasor on east Ukraine, why would they spend the entire year doing that if the invasion already happened on Crimea?? They focused on discussing only east Ukraine, like the humanitarian convoy, the fake tank columns, all that work when they could only use Crimea as a reason to fight back Russia, right?
They never mention Crimea because they know that they can't do shit about it, they can't call it an invasion... Do you really believe if USA, Ukraine and even UN could do something about Crimea, they would not have done it already?
And before you keep parroting the same bullshit about Cuba, I'm sure cubans would vote to join USA, but Cubans were never allowed to vote, unless USA protect them from Cuban government, but USA never wanted Cuba (well, maybe now Obama wants Cuba for its potential Democrat voters). Also east Ukraine didn't vote to join Russia, only to be autonomous, and Russia doesn't want to annex east Ukraine...
And let's not forget, answer my question about Syria please, unless you're a paid troll with an agenda, ofc...
"...the will of the people that matters, not the will of governments."
BWA-HAHAHA. What comic book are you reading?!
"Do you really believe if USA, Ukraine and even UN could do something about Crimea, they would not have done it already?"
Uh, they have done something: "The event caused much controversy and was condemned by many world leaders, as well as NATO, as an illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory, in disrespect to the signing of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on its sovereignty and territorial integrity, by Russia.[7] It led to the other members of the then G8 deciding to expel Russia from the group, thereby returning it to the previous G7, then introducing the first round of sanctions against the country." Where have you been?
"but Cubans were never allowed to vote"
But, what about your earlier statement about "will of the people"? Can't you be consistent in one post?
I'm still in doubt if you're a retard or paid troll..... Any world leader are free to "condemn" any country they want, it's only words... Heck, North Korea keeps condeming USA and South Korea all the time, does it matter?
However they can't take military action against any other country without a good reason towards the UN security council... So what action did UN security council take against Russia? Nothing... Not even Ukraine itself dared to attack Russians back or try to retake Crimea (yet, they're willing to do everything they can to kill their own people)...
Kicked from G8? Really? Is that a real action? This is the same as unfriending on facebook, ffs...
About cubans, again, either you really lack reading compreension or are trying to hard to sell your agenda... The cubans are not allowed to vote because no one wanted to step up against Cuba government to let them vote... Cuba will deny the human right of self determination to cubans, but no one is willing to argue otherwise... Russia stepped up to let Crimea vote, NATO stepped up to let Kosovo vote, Britain didn't oppose Scotland to vote. As long as people get the voting done, governments can't do shit but respect their decision, that's why some governments are doing everything they can to not let people vote. Hmmm governments not wanting people to vote, I think I heard that not long ago, maybe Spain, maybe Greece, I don't know...
Oh yeah, still dodging my question about Syria?
Anyway, I'm done discussing with you, it's a waste of time giving attention to you...
Ok, I'll indulge your distraction about the illegel annexation of the Ukraine by the Russian Federation - all without calling you names, cursing, etc.
"What armies and militay adivisors are within Syrian border right now?"
How could I possibly know? [And you don't know either, but I bet you think you do] Here is my guess: Everyone: Iran, Russia, Muslim Fundamentalists, Saudis, Israelis, Blackwater, etc.
Should we call them invaders, because AFAIK Syrian government didn't ask for their presence...
And how could you possibly know what the AFAIK Syrian goverments asks for or doesn't ask for? You can't possibly know that, and I don't know either. My guess: Quite a few are "allies", Russina, Iranian, etc. A lot of them (most?) are probably subersives, adverterers, bandits, criminals, opportunists, sadists, befuddled, tricked, etc. I don't know if they are technically "invaders" unless they are actively trying to overthow the Syrian governemnt.
Here are the irrefutable facts about the Crimea (whch many can't accept):
1) Crimea was part of Ukraine.
2) Russian Federation troops now occupy and control that territory.
3) All done in violation of treaties and international law.
second that: "Here are the irrefutable facts about the Crimea (which many can't accept)"
and I belong to those that are pissed off by those facts
the whole thing needs a peace conference, badly
Could we have a "peace conference" about Kosovo, too?
Or is your contention that in Kosovo case, might makes right?
every case is unique, but Kosovo and Crimea are really different cases.
Kosovo declared independence and became a new nation, Crimea might have declared independence but was very quickly annexed by Russia.
I think the importance of territorial integrity in international relations is related to possible threats from outside a country, not so much from within. You can probably not equally invoke "territorial integrity" when a region within your country breaks away ( as Kosovo did ).
I know little about either Kosovo or Crimea otherwise, just pointing out a difference.
Thank you for this remarkable document.
In their very declaration of independence they already mention a possible integration into the Russian Federation. Interesting.
Can you explain article 1 ? To me it makes absolutely no sense.
In a way, and I may be biased, this looks like a trick and can not conceal the fact that Crimea never really wanted to be or could be independent.
Clever of them to refer to Kosovo. However, when they refer to the International Court of Justice case, they make a mistake by stating that the ICJ "confirmed the status of Kosovo". This is not the case. The Court only made a judgement on the declaration of independence by Kosovo, in other words, only on whether the act of declaring independence in itself was in accordance with international law. A bit cowardly of the Court, maybe, and possibly an effort to prevent turning the Kosovo case into a precedent. Apparently declaring independence, the act in itself, is not against international law.
Generally, I know little about international law, and find that the whole international legal architecture suffers from contradictions.
In this Crimea case I do not sympathise with Russia, but as far as the UN mandate for intervention in Libya is concerned, they have a point that they ( France, Britain and US ? ) overstepped the mandate.
"I know little about international law,"
and
"find that the whole international legal architecture suffers from contradictions. "
with the second statement you just proved that you have an exceptional, above average understanding about "international law"
yes, declaring independence can't be against international law. but you have to pull it off
Funny how Kosovo was able to vote itself out of Serbia in 1998 with the full support of NATO/USA. Now suddenly the will of the Crimean voters don't matter. Funny how Ukraine was able to vote itself out of the USSR and was recognized by NATO/USA. Now suddenly the will of the Crimean voters don't matter.
"Kosovo was able to vote itself out of Serbia in 1998 with the full support of NATO/USA"
So, if that was wrong - and I believe it was wrong - how is the Crimea "referendum" right?
It's your side of the argument that says the Crimean "referendum" is legal - not mine.
The Kosovo "vote" was a sham.
The 1999 Venezualan Constitutional "reform referendum" was a sham.
The 2009 Honduran Constitutional "reform referendum" was a sham.
I'm the consistent one here.
darteaus
Ask when the Crimea was handed by the head of the Politburo to Ukraine (at a time when the Ukraine was a part of the USSR) and you will start to get an answer to your "Simple question".
And then ask what promises were given to Russia about non-expansion of NATO when Ukraine became independent. Russia is rightly concerned about a buffer at its borders.
And nothing I am suggesting is to be construed as support for Putin. But Russia as a country has a legitimate concern about the Ukraine. The same way if Russia was to set up bases in Cuba or Mexico there could be some concern from interested parties.
"Concern" - fine. Is military invasion and annexation the same as "concern"?
As you state, "...the Crimea was handed by the head of the Politburo to Ukraine". Does anyone dispute that Crimea was legally part of the Ukraine? Even Putin and his boot-lickers believed they needed to run a "referendum". Why did they do that, if they believed it was part of Russia? He wanted the fig leaf of legality that his boot lickers could point to, as many here are doing.
It was annexed by the Russian Federation, as you don't dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federat...
In violation of treaty signed by the Russian Federation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The "referendum" was unconstitutional and a violation of international law, according to " the Yatsenyuk Government, responsible for internal Ukrainian affairs at the time": ibid.
Here are the irrefutable facts (whch many can't accept):
1) Crimea was part of Ukraine.
2) Russian Federation troops now occupy and control that territory.
3) All done in violation of treaties and international law.
1) Crimea was part of Ukraine.
...and before that it was part of Russia, and before that it was part of Ottoman Empire, etc. etc. Right now it's part of Russian Federation. You better learn to accept this irrefutable fact.
2) Russian Federation troops now occupy and control that territory.
Of course they do. It's their constitutional duty.
3) All done in violation of treaties and international law.
International law has been dead for quite some time, courtesy of US/NATO. Didn't you get the memo?
.
Look in the mirror to see the source of the whining. Did those Evil Godless Soviets® make your butthole hurt some more?
Fixed it for you.
Made me laugh. This is the same kind of lame insinuation that got your original heywood account shitcanned. You might want to go ahead and create a heywood3 account when you've finished bleeding from your ass.
Another unconscious mind .
Your facts are totally wrong; you are a troll. Please fuck off.
Some action going on in Donetsk...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WanoJxbQUus
Interesting.....
Dmitry provides valuable analysis.
I don't always agree, but I always listen.
Agreed, I have been listening to him since before ZH.
He can be very nationalistic to Mother Russia, but his insight into how things fell apart in the late 90's is good reading for those prep minded on ZH.
DaddyO
The facts in Ukraine have shown that the Western block is in panic and worries that Russia could extend again its sphere of influence to the countries of the former Eastern block. In a rather clumsy move, the EU and US rushed to support neo-nazis and nationalists in Ukraine, and put them in the game for good by bringing them in power. The designers of this plan have failed to predict the reactions of Russian people in Crimea and East Ukraine since they managed to revive the national collective memory of the fights against the nazi invaders during WWII and unite the Russian population, which is the majority in these regions, against Svoboda and Right Sector neo-nazis.
ok, ok, that's a really cool Russian perspective article. one quibble, though:
"On their way out, the Anglo-imperialists will of course try to set up an anti-Europe, and the obvious choice for that is Britain. Of all the European nations, it is the most heavily manipulated by their Anglo cousins from across the pond. It would take minimal effort for them to hurt Britain economically, then launch a propaganda campaign to redirect the blame for the bad economy toward the continent. They wouldn't even have to hire translators for their propaganda—a simple “spelling-chequer” (or whatever) would suffice. And so, to make sure that their efforts to provoke a large-scale, hugely destructive, festering conflict between Britain and Europe fail, Europe would do well to set up an anti-Britain within Britain.
And the obvious choice for an anti-Britain is of course Scotland, ..."
doesn't all this betray a very imperialist way of thinking? Yes, your "Anglo-American-Empire" has a history of setting beach heads and foster dissention in the "divide et impera" tradition
but for all purposes, there is a part of continental that is sick of that. no, nobody here is going to support Scotland to secede. Or Veneto or Flanders or Catalonia, for that matter. This was often the reason of great criticism, here on ZH
dear Russian Cousin, if you would stop scheming in this imperial fashion, with all this "I love my strategic maps", perhaps we could convince Washington, London and why not, even the minors to stop, too
it's becoming silly
Scotland isn't even England's soft spot, for criminy! If someone would really want to do such a thing, the obvious choice would be... Greater London
with a border to England on that huge high-way ring around the city. 5 million, i.e. the pop size of Sweden. And not much to do with what is sometimes called "Little England" by them
Ghordius London will screw the USA in a minute. London is much better at doing finance and exchanges and have alot more experience then the USA does. The writer forgets that point. London has already set up a yuan swap facility. The so called poison the well described by the writer is spot on but his targets are off.
Who do you think is going to take the swiss place in the sdr?
Maybe a country that is not printing trillions worth of their currency will take over finance and exchanges.
damn, I really screwed up my point, here. bad wording, bad framing, badly set narrative. oh, well, there will be hopefully more "let's enjoy the Great Game" Russian articles
London, for all purposes, dreams of going the way of Singapore, imho. it's hilarious that this global city is embedded in the England/UK/EU
as hilarious and depressing as England wanting fully open borders for all kind of things except... foreign workers
Enjoyable read, and I love the Afghanistan comparison.
The American poison pill is already being deployed in conjunction with the false left/right paradigm; race relations and race wars, with a subset of good cops/bad cops versus the people.
Yeah, its not like the Russians ever invaded Afghanistan or anything like that ;-)
True, but they still keep getting blamed for what the Soviets did.
Americans might want to think about what they'll be blamed for, and for how long, after the collapse of the imperial regime in Vichy DC.
Just kidding! Everyone knows that thinking is anti-American. ;)
"True, but they still keep getting blamed for what the Soviets did."
Maybe you will want to take a look at Putin's past..
You're on the right track.
Talk to vets.
Racial division is a time honored ruling strategy in the US.
On that score this President is shameless. The worst since Nixon.
That startegy refined and perfected in England.
They never left. They have always been here. And it is so easy to see, is the reason it is missed.
He's dead nuts on, and it pisses everybody off.
Mission accomplished.
I say we take of and nuke the entire site from orbit..... it's the only way to be sure....
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
How much is Orlov paid by Putin?
At least $100k per year I'd say.
Otherwise he'd have moved to Moscow.
Here's an idea for Orlov, one way flights to Moscow, rather than staying in this "rotting american empire"
http://www.expedia.ca/Flights-Search?trip=oneway&leg1=from%3AWashington%...
Very bad. Looks like he learned this from us. Biting the hands that feed you. Very bad, very very bad. Only the chosenites are allowed to do this.
Anglo imperialists? Yeah, except the majority of the controlling globalist banksters aren't "Anglo". Rothschilds and friends had the reigns in the UK for much of the last 150+ years. I'm sure Orlov wouldn't be projecting his tribe's machinations and agendas.
the term is quite intelligible for people outside of the English-speaking world, or outside of the AngloSphere, in an other term
point is, however you want to call them (globalist is a non-defined empty word), that's their "home base", from a Russian perspective
Non-defined, empty word? Hardly. I think it aptly describes a subset of our species (or at least, I think they are) who pursue an agenda of self-interest.
<< When the British got tossed out of their American Colonies, they did all they could, using a combination of import preferences and British “soft power,” to bolster the plantation economy of the American South >>
This is correct. The British imperium had a conscious policy of keeping the U.S. an agrarian society. This explains one of the first acts of the U.S. Congress after the slave drivers walked out and then provoked military action: Congress passed a series of tariffs to protect and encourage the development of American industrial power.
"Congress passed a series of tariffs to protect and encourage the development of American industrial power"
how strange how protectionistic the US were then, and how much the opposite they are nowadays
Yes, the infiltration of our power spheres was most effective and pervasive.
Yeah, now the US only protects the WS Banksters. Its small Business and citizens are toast...
Hmm. Washington and Hamilton could be argued as on the dole for the Bank of England. As Hamilton argued, "we have to make good on all that debt we owe the English." What do you think the war of 1812 was all about?
After a while you wonder if the stupidity is stage managed theater disguising the titanic shifts in global wealth arising from notional values of derivatives that could be as high as 8 QUADRILLION dollars.
ALERT! Derivative notional values could be as ... - InvestmentWatch
investmentwatchblog.com/alert-derivative-notional-values-could-be-as-hig...
Wow Dmitry, you act as if Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, King Nicholas (bearing a striking resemblence to George V of England for some reason...lol) never existed ruled over an empire or fought to expand and maintain that empire.
Or has designs on doing it all over again, now that the Bolsheviks are all gone? ;-)
Funny thing about empires is that they always end up as "the former (fill in the blank) Empire". America's turn is rapidly approaching. It's just that Vichy DC is such a big turd, it's taking several flushes.
Oh, you tease! ;)
Seriously, though, do tell if you've come across anything credible indicating that this is the plan. So far, all I've seen regarding a New Russian Empire® has been the delusional ravings of John Bolton or talking points from (urgh!) Team Hillary.
BTW, best wishes for 2015.
Same to you Stooging, all the best and a healthy, prosperous 2015.
Picked up on that Bolshevik jab eh?
Its like people would like to believe they just went the way of the Dodo bird and became extinct overnight ;-)
.
Nah, they're still there. They all got jobs working for USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy.
How many of them in 1985 really believed in Communism? I bet 90% of them were there for the jobs and power. Do you think any of them really gave two shits about Marx or Lenin by then?
Well thats kinda been my point all along.
Socialists & communists don't give a flying fuck about "the little people" and never have. It has always been about the personal amassing of wealth & power via the state and if it means restricting the peasants freedom & liberty they really don't care about that either.
From Gazprom to ObamaCare its always the same.
Why do those inbreds need..oh I get it...
The western imperialists will possibly attempt to cause nuclear accidents and/or meltdowns at Ukraine's nuclear power reactors.
Poisoning the well, so to speak.
While I don't usually find much value in these obvious Russian propaganda texts that ZH seems so full of lately, this one was actually pretty spot on. The analysis of the "poisoning the well" strategy of the Anglo-American empire seems highly plausible, and there are plenty more examples throughout its history of the same tactics being used. Of course, the recommendation that the rest of Europe should use the same tactics against them is plain silly. Why should Europe, or Russia for that matter, sign on to such a primitive imperialistic way of viewing the world? Instead, lets hope the Americans outgrow it too, once theyre through the present end-of-empire panic mode.
Of course, since it is a Russian propaganda text, I guess we have to put up with a bit of ludicrous bollocking next to the analysis. This sentence cracked me up: "Russia absolutely refused to get involved militarily". Nope, Russia only refused to get openly involved, sending in their troops without markings instead. But they know that we know this, so I guess it's just a matter of keeping up appearances.
+1 second that, and already wrote the equivalent of your: "Why should Europe, or Russia for that matter, sign on to such a primitive imperialistic way of viewing the world? Instead, lets hope the Americans outgrow it too...", but your wording is way better
Do you think there aren't any American special forces and CIA in Ukraine?
If Russia were to back a violent coup in Canada and replaced the elected government with a virulently anti-American government and had Russians appointed to top government posts, how would America react?
More than one little child is now saying the emperor has no clothes
<< Instead, lets hope the Americans outgrow it too, once theyre through the present end-of-empire panic mode. >>
It is heart warming to see someone give Imperial America the benefit of the doubt but it won't work. The people who run the U.S.A. are arrogantly aggressive and are confident they can master any enemy on the field of battle. They do not fear war. They feel themselves immune to the consequences of their actions--just like their brothers on Wall Street.
Continuing that attitude, they will one day make a blunder with fearful results for themselves and the world.
It's because of all that reverse engineered alien technology..... ;-)
Jews are Anglo? wow, who knew.
Well they are European and have nothing remotely to do with Ancient Hebrews, so you are rather splitting hairs.
— Professor Carroll Quigley, in Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, 1966, p. 324
If Hillary can't own her village should she get elected you can be sure of a nuclear winter.
Obama is Anglo?!
Obama is a Commie, and they've ALWAYS tried to destroy the West, though subversion or any means necessary.