Martin Armstrong Warns "World War III Looms In Eastern European Tensions"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

Europe could become the site of a new global war in the East as tensions build there against refugees and the economic decline fosters old wounds. The EU is deeply divided over the refugee issue and thus it is fueling its own demise and has failed to be a stabilizing force. After five days of demonstrations, Romania’s month-old government backed down and withdrew a decree that had decriminalized some corruption offenses. They were still acting like typical politicians and looking to line their pockets. After one month, the people have been rising up saying “We can’t trust this new government.”

On the eastern border of the EU, only a few hundred miles from Berlin as well as Vienna, there is a growing danger that the world will stumble into a global war. The leading cause is primarily stemming from through the incompetence of the politicians in the EU as well as in the East. The EU is more concerned about punishing Britain and trying to hold on to overpaid political jobs that to address the real issues facing Europe, while these seemingly regional disputes in the East are being ignored.

The problem with NATO has been that most members have not paid into the support of NATO that they had agreed to. The USA has been shouldering the majority of the cost of NATO, which would be like the EU funding US military. Then NATO leaders agreed back in 2016 to deploy military forces to the Baltic states and Eastern Poland for the first time and increase air and sea patrols to reassure new allies who use to be part of the Soviet bloc that they would defend them following Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine. This has merely increased the confrontations with Russia on the one hand but the Eastern countries themselves are not really aligned. The chaos inside the EU and the overreaching of NATO are the major factors inviting war. This also raises a most serious question: Exactly where does the power of NATO end and Russian power end? Effectively, where precisely is the border of influence?

This question cannot truly be answered in the midst of this chaos. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the agreement emerged whereby Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia were to form the buffer for Russia. NATO’s influence on the borders between Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were to come to an end. Russia directly borders Estonia and Latvia, while Lithuania shares a common border with Belarus. Thereby, a meeting between the West and Russia developed in the 1990s with agreements between the EU and Moscow along with several treaties including the USA. Russia was to then enter the G7 making it now the G8. It was Obama who did his best to undo all of this.

Carving Up China_imperialism

The annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia in 2014 is seen as a trigger of the crisis and Russia is described as an aggressor. But Crimea was always Russian territory and it was given to Ukraine to manage back in 1954. What if Spain wanted Puerto Rico back? It is not part of the United States.

Risk

The predominant language in Crimea was Russian – not Ukrainian. Ukraine should have been split along the line of language and instead of funding military forces, offered the people to buy their property on either side who desired to move to the West or East. Instead, we have a cold war simply over territory and the people have no say. Politicians still act as if they are playing the board game RISK, but for real. This has always been about territory as if we are still living the dreams of Napoleon, Hitler, Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great. There are people who live in these regions who are oblivious to the games politicians play. All wars are begun by politicians, ministers, or kings.

Carving up world

Politicians have been carving up the world for a very long time. People mean nothing. They carved up the Ottoman Empire and created the chaos of the Middle East. This is what Trump has been against – nation building. The so called “progressives” who protest against Trump would have been in the front lines of war under Hillary, who was simply keeping the game going. How many lives has it cost when politicians are so concerned over territory rather than the people living in such territories?

From 2004 onwards, NATO has sought to expand its sphere of influence beyond the bounds of peace and go right at the throat of Russia inviting World War III so they get to play with their toys. These activities were first conducted in Georgia. The President at that time was Mikhail Saakashvili from 2004 to 2013. He promoted an active pro-Western policy and was welcomed as a friend and partner of the West. At first, it was supposed to be about democracy, something the EU itself rejected in its new structure with all the power-players being UNELECTED officials, and economic cooperation with the EU and the USA. It did not take long to create the impression in Georgia that NATO would also help the country in an engagement with Russia. Then in the summer of 2008, the conflict escalated. Russia invaded Georgia and occupied the provinces of Abkhazia and Ossetia. These were dominated by Russians originally. Most people have no idea but Joseph Stalin was from Georgia.

NATO did not come to the aid of Georgia. There were no sanctions imposed for occupying Georgia as there were for the occupation of the Crimea. Why? What was the difference when Georgia was actually being solicited by the West and Crimea was not? Was it simply that Crimea was an important military base for Russia all along? It appears that the world politicians sitting at the table playing the game RISK were really just trying to end Russia’s port in the Black Sea and isolate it. That is certainly something the USA would have done in a second if the roles were reversed. The sanctions imposed against Russia were not to really protect Ukraine, but because the West was trying to take away Russia’s access to the Black Sea.

Economic cooperation with the West was accepted by Moscow under Reagan. The cold war had ended. Ronald Reagan worked hard to bring down the Berlin Wall. Why did Obama work so hard to reestablish the cold war? NATO has clearly raised hopes in Eastern Europe as they did in Georgia. Indeed, the Ukrainian crisis is in many ways a continuation of the events in Georgia. Since the “Orange Revolution” in 2004, Ukraine was seen as a knife to poke in the ribs of Russia. The pretend President Viktor Yanukovych was pro-Russia because he came from the East and spoke Russian. He could not even speak proper Ukrainian. But he and his sons sought to rule Ukraine like a Russian oligarch. Businesses had to pay protection money to even survive. The Ukrainian Revolution was real. The West’s politicians moved in to try to seize control of the new government, but the uprising was against corruption as we now see in Romania.

In November 2013, Yanukovych put a “freeze” on negotiations with the EU. As a result, the people began to rise up. The police were ruthless exploiting the people and were not there to protect the people from the State. Revolution began and since June 2014, Ukraine has sought a pro-Western course reaching treaties with the EU and with NATO. Indeed, once again, NATO gave the impression to Ukraine that it would implicitly defend it but Ukraine has not formally become a member of NATO.

The EU is no longer an economic community, but a political union that is closely linked to NATO. Most have overlooked the  Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) which was an international agreement that amended the two previous treaties thereby creating the federalized constitutional basis of the European Union (EU) without ever putting that to a vote. The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on December 13th, 2007, and went into force on December 1st, 2009. This treaty has decisively altered the very core foundation of the EU transforming from 2009 onwards. This fact is always overlooked in the EU because few have read the text of the Treaty of Lisbon. Ever since, there have been closer ties between the EU which is now linked to NATO, which is why Trump says the USA should exit NATO and Le Pen is arguing the same in France. Additionally, Ukraine was given direct contracts with the EU with regard to a military alliance. This is a “soft” membership in NATO addition Ukraine but not really.

There is no way the US would give up its pacific military basis in Japan at Okinawa. Yet we impose sanction upon Russia for annexing its original territory pre-Ukraine where it maintain its Black Sea Fleet is stationed in the Crimea. The sanctions imposed upon Russia for Crimea are very hypocritical. From Russia’s perspective, the alternative would have been that Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet would be docked in a NATO country. That would present a circumstance that was totally unacceptable leaving the annexation of the Crimea a logical and obvious reaction that the USA would have done if the roles were reversed.

Ukrainian eastern region of the country remains a strategic concern. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) was willing to provide loans to Ukraine but demanding they engage Russia in the East. This demonstrated that the IMF was playing military politics – not economic. The fact that in the Eastern Ukraine is composed of Russian-speaking people, gives Moscow justification to protect its ethic citizens. This is why Ukraine should have simple been divided along the ethic lines and stop trying to poke Russia for the sake of military ambitions as was the case with Vietnam against China.

Ukraine assumes that NATO will intervene. This has not happened so far, but the danger remains that Russia could be forced into an invasion as was the case in Ukraine especially if the EU begins to break apart. Likewise, the border of Belarus against Russia also presents a potential power keg. Belarus is also now in conflict with Moscow. As in the case of Ukraine, Minsk and Moscow are also arguing about gas prices, oil supplies and disabilities in foreign trade. Additionally, Moscow imposed border controls, whereby a two-country agreement on open borders existed for twenty years. Belarus imposed a 5-day visas for citizens of 79 states, including all EU states and the US. This measure is seen in Moscow as the approach of Belarus to the West. Belarus has been courting the West with trade playing both sides of the world Russia v West.

Moreover, Belarus is now also breaking up, where border controls are apparently being carried out by Russia. We are witnessing the fragmentation of countries and governments all due to failing economic systems. We are looking at the Baltic countries opposing Russia. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all full members of the EU and NATO. So where exactly does NATO end and Russian influence begins? This is becoming a very dangerous and grey area.

Cold-War

The new US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may help and he was a wise choice on the part of Trump. NATO is the focus of attention right now. The military alliance is dominated by Washington yet this is actually contradictory to the Treaty of Lisbon. Donald Trump has questioned NATO as a whole, and the press do not fully explain what has evolved. Is the USA just paying the military bill for the EU yet the Treaty of Lisbon makes the NATO the national force of the EU?

The new US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed it best: “Russia is dangerous, but predictable”. Tillerson does know Russia well and far better than any politician filling that role before. Tillerson could actually establish a dialogue with Russia to secure world peace. The machinations of Obama have merely ended dialogue and reestablished the cold war that took more than 30 years to thaw. Democrats are too preoccupied with trying to stop Trump and fueling protests to distract the press and the American people from the real risk of war the Obama administration has created.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
c2nnib2l's picture

bullshit, from my Eastern EU perspective there is nothing on the horizon for the moment being. Ukraine maybe... but the war is already there 

petar's picture

Absolutely agree. Eastern Europe (except east Ukraine) is probably the safest place on world right now. 

Joe A's picture

Yes, but some people are stoking up the tensions in the region. An American congress man named Dana Rohrabacher -who was a candidate for US SoS- recently said that Serbia and Kosovo should do a land swap. Yesterday he said that Macedonia is not a country and should be carved up. He is accussed of lobbying for the Albanians to create a greater Albania. An author for Foreign Policy recently wrote that countries should be carved up along ethnic lines. With so many different ethnic groups living so close and also with so many mixed marriages, that can only be achieved by violence. Make no mistake, people promoting these ideas in the US have influence there at a policy level.

And then there are tension between Greece and Turkey.

Both the US and Russia are messing around in Eastern Europe and Southern Eastern Europe. The EU is also partly responsible because the don't provide any prospects for countries in the region that are not member of the EU yet.

Europe is easy to divide and foreign actors know how to play that game well.

neutrino3's picture

Who would expect that butterfly-hurricane theory may have juice.

You squeeze Taksim Beily a little, thinking that it is only miteser, and all across the world suddenly cracks festerohr.

Grid? Net? ... It is fucking parallel fester truct.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

The "protests" in Romania have nothing to do with anti-corruption. They are, no surprise, another Soros production, coordinated with the IMF, Brussels, and Berlin. Romania is essentially a slave labor colony. The recently elected government, against which these paid protests are directed, has taken steps to remove externally imposed "austerity measures" and improve the lives of average Romanians.

The foreign owners of Romania, primarily German and French capital, are displeased with this labor camp revolt and are using the same methods used in Kiev to impose obedience on the Romanian government or, failing that, overthrow it and replace it with their own management.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/02/romania-revolt-indeed-but-whose-revolt....

steaua's picture

Are you Romanian or just an expert?

I'm Romanian and can tell you the socialists promissed free money: free for children, raised pensions, salaries for doctors of 3000 euro / month etc etc etc.

Before elections I told my friends these are about 10billion euros minimum.

My oh my oh my the first week the socialists found 14billion less.

So no free money for the morrons who voted for them. And the bonus was the order to basically free 2000 corrupt politicians.

Dude they overpromised and from their 50%+ they were over-arogant.

Now they pay the price.

NoDecaf's picture

Mish should know better, that all wars are bankers wars, the politicians are just another chess piece.

 

My bad - I meant Armstrong... but my point still stands

fiatmasochist's picture

Thank you very much for the link.

Urban Redneck's picture

Then your Eastern Eu perspective is rather limited.  General Pizzagate (Flynn) advised Orange Jesus that moar NATO expansion in the former Yugoslavia should be official US policy.  The same thing that motivated Putin to threaten Bushy with nuking Ukraine in 08.  TPTB may choose to fight elesewhere, but they will fight until Eastern Europe is changed or destroyed

neutrino3's picture

Careful, careful pom-pou ... you can't run as fast as wild/war fires. Blind-blanket is not excuse.

Half_Irish's picture

I'm weary of this meme "world war looms", among many others.  Anything for a clickable or attention-getting headline.  Sensationalism anyone? Fear mongering?  This is the sad state of so-called journalism. Everybody's got a crystal ball.

charlie303's picture
charlie303 (not verified) c2nnib2l Feb 9, 2017 11:05 PM

Obama sent tanks and troops into Poland.
Trump has left them there.
Why the need if everyone is happy?

wow thats crazy's picture

Its a distraction from all the problems in Europe! making war with big bad Russia.

cossack55's picture

Fuck the EU

 

   V. Noodleman (currently unemployed)

Vageling's picture

Yeah and how did it work out for her handpicked puppet Yatsenyuk? Oh yes... He was forced to resign. 

Idaho potato head's picture

They grabbed him by the pussy!

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

...but not before Yats was able to make himself a grifter billionaire. Because looting your country is a European Value®.

beijing expat's picture

The problem is that the bullshit was not sufficiently applied in these areas. By following the Obama doctrine of doubling down on BullShit whenever his imperial project hit a bump, we should be able to smother dissent in these areas.

Samidare's picture

Like the others said - Eastern Europe is just fine - and gonna be.
American troops won't stay here forever. There is a limited time.

Let me tell you how it's gonna be. Western Europe is going to war with their own people and muslims. You will see more and more fights on streets.

USA with Russia gonna probably for real fight ISIS togheter. They already started practicing.

Eastern Europe however is building this V4 group (Visegrad group consisting of Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) which may become quite strong team against UE and Ukraine+Russia. It's gonna be safe anyway.

Sandmann's picture

Khrushchev in 1954 transferred the Crimean Peninsula to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a constituent component of the USSR. He did so as General Secretary of the CPSU and  Head of the Politburo. Ukrainian SSR was created by Lenin and defined by Stalin in 1946. The inhabitants of Crimea were Citizens of USSR.

Boris Yeltsin in coordination with George HW Bush withdrew Russian SSR from the USSR in 1991 leaving Gorbachev hgh and dry as President of the USSR. It was as if England withdrew from UK leaving the peripheral Celtc states insolvent and without legal basis or status.

However in international law the successor state to USSR is Russian Federation and Crimea belongs to Russian Federation.

Twice in 20th Century France detached Saarland from gErmany - and twice by Referendum - Saarland in 1935 and 1955 voted to return to the German Republic

new game's picture

we have our own war right here in merica; libtards vs deplorables.

fuck the rest of the world...

I Feel a little Qeasy's picture

Well fucking get on with it then you retard, all mouth and trousers. And fuck you too.

solomon_ru's picture

Russia was promised by Reagan and James Baker that NATO would not be expanding to the East after the USSR collapse and in line with the Warsaw Pact that was a pre-requisite document confirming that.

However, Russia was way too weak to push for signing of such official document although records at the State Department confirming that such affirmations were given.

Thus, it was NATO that started breaking such agreements and has gone all the way to Ukraine where Russia just had to invade Crimea to stop it.

It amazes me how hypocritical Western officials are and what would be the reaction of the US population shall, say, Russia or North Korea or Iran decide to place nukes pointing at Washington from Cuba. Like democrats with republicans would unite and people stop paying taxes and revolt if ever shit like that happened to the US yet they expected Russia to close eyes on that.

 

 

 

 

Bay of Pigs's picture

Yes. NATO expansion under Clinton, Bush and Obama are the main reason for the problems today. It wasnt ever about Russia's actions. The Ukrainian civil war was also instigated by the CIA and the State Dept. (Nuland).

south40_dreams's picture

Not sure, but I have a hunch, there might be a war in Syria

Reptil's picture

KEEP WATCHING UKRAINE! THey're crazed neo-nazies and desperate oligarchs. And it's all going to HELL right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSP-_AEaFI

BUt that didn't stop the EU sending hundreds of millions: http://925.nl/archief/2016/12/21/eu-stort-miljarden-in-oekraiens-cypriot...

George Friedman (STRATFOR) wants war, or at least conflict cause they want to seperate Europe and Russia/Kazachstan/China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ablI1v9PXpI

we can still stop this useless war. no one in europe in their right mind wants it, really.

Erek's picture

"no one in europe in their right mind wants it, really"

If you are referring to the average Joe on the street you are 100% correct.

Al the "Defense Ministers" should be renamed "Aggression Ministers" because they are defending nothing and are - along with NATO and various factions in the US - persuing an aggressive stance. There is no real value there for anybody - strategic or otherwise - except for the people who live there.

NATO/Europe/US should give Ukraine their gold back, reinstate the duly elected government which they ousted under force and just go home.

land_of_the_few's picture

Very many Ukies are good decent and intelligent people including in Kiev, they just need to get the Lvov-West-UKR based crazies and the Oligarchs off their back.

vesna's picture

S&P 500 to 5000, hope his new pussy manager goes short!

Batman11's picture

The fall of the Berlin Wall was the signal for the robber barons to come out and play and re-create their glory days of the 1920s.

1920s/2000s - high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase

1929/2008 - Wall Street crash

1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism and extremism

1940s/? - Global war 

Who is going to be the new Germany?

My guess is the US, a fading super-power with extraordinary military might.

They have turned the Middle East into one large war zone.

Every country their foreign policy touches descends into civil war.

They are already doing their very best to antagonise the Russians, the other nuclear super power.

SorinSop's picture

That's lame.

You associate pictures with words for views?

That crowd in Romania has nothing to do with any war and any refugees you stupid reporter. It has to do with a law that the people didnt agree, THATS IT.

 

 

GreatUncle's picture

3 option for the world right now ...

WW3, NWO or popular revolt.

Piss-ante little wars like Syria are not big enough to flush the level of debt the world has and if not WW3 a single global world of entitled globalists ruling over the slaves forever. Both these cases are strongly favoured because it retains the current power balance for them

You can of course revolt if you wish.

The other option you do nothing, debt keeps exponentially growing, FIAT collapses ... then what? Same options.

homonohumanus's picture

Bullshit... plain and simple...

June 12 1776's picture

You of all people should remember Armstrong,  The No Rule of Law, Olde World Order, Star Chamber Liar Lawyer Cartel's, Monetary Theory Fraud Outlaws has been dividing and conquering the minds of its enslaved "right" and "left" for centuries............there is no 'right' or 'left" its Master vs Slave............all else is Slave babble.

Slaves of the 'right' 'left' dialectic are never liberating the Republic...........how can slaves free anything they themselves are not free from? All your "history cycles" show this one fact over and over.....MASTER vs SLAVE...................all else including your Monetary Theory Fraud........is slave babble.

conquered.

Kefeer's picture

Master vs Slave is a biblical principal or truth and applies to everyone because truth always does.  If one looks up the definition of "freedom", then one quickly recognizes that what God has said is, in fact, true by our observations and experiences.

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money (god of materialism)..." - Matthew 6

Last of the Middle Class's picture

Please don't use the term WWIII and Eurozone in the same sentence, it makes Soros jizz in his depends all damn day long.

SpanishGoop's picture

" Ukraine assumes that NATO will intervene. "

Ukraine in not a NATO member (yet).

They have paid zero (which is less than 2%) to NATO.

 

land_of_the_few's picture

NATO will not intervene, one factor being that Porky was pushing for Clinton via Chalupa in DNC. Trump was speaking to Tymoshenko lately. An oligarch, but perhaps possible to steer her to federalism and peace in return for her favorite job back.

Kefeer's picture

The EU is no longer an economic community, but a political union that is closely linked to NATO - end  (I'd argue it became politicized since inception)

Martin is correct and this is one of the best articles on ZH this week in my opinion.

elstrom's picture

So, the people in Romania did just a month ago elected some sort of social democratic party that with 46% of the votes got majority in the parliament. Albeit only 39% voter turnout. Second party got 20% of the vote. The leader of the wining party had been convicted of corruption something about vote rigging. Probably a matter of least corrupt.

The wining party got elected on promises they would halt the further selling of Romanian resources to foreigners, anti IMF stance, Eurosceptic views, raising of pensions, etc. Romania did not as Poland get an temporary exception from EU:s free movement of capital, that foreigners can buy whatever they want on the sheep competing with locals without money. It has been a large farming land grab in Romania by foreigners, the local farmers watching more and more of their inherited land owned by foreigners. 

It seems like the wining party’s nationalistic agenda agenda awfully much looks like a trigger for “Soros”, NED, EU and NWO interest in Romania to go for regime change the Maidan way. 

steaua's picture

yet another expert in Romanian politics.

socialists promissed about 10-20billion euro free money. first week they "found" 14billion less so they said the free money will come a little later, the morrons (voters) just have to wait a little.

second, the wanna be prime minister was convicted for election fraud and hence the president told him to pick somebody else.

Romania is 85% Orthodox and socialists picked-up a muslim female. this infuriated the population. the president rejected her as well.

finally socialists formed a government and decided to free all corrupt politicians, which infuriated the population again.

and on that landslide: traditionally Romanians living abroad (like myself) do not vote socialists. so for this particular election 4million romanians could elect 6 (SIX) people in the parliament.

think think think about it: the landslide victory that you are talking about was brought by 3.5 million votes.

from those 6 seats from disapora they a willlllllddddddddd guess how many went to the socialists: ZERO, NADA, CANCI.

elstrom's picture

“After five days of demonstrations, Romania’s month-old government backed down […]  

After one month, the people have been rising up saying “We can’t trust this new government. “

 

So, one month ago, a party won a landslide victory on a nationalistic platform and now the “people” are rising up?

It more and more looks like an eastern European pattern; the people do the “mistake” and elect a nationalistic government, than in a matter of a no time they grasp what a mistake they had done and “rise up”?

Cassandra.Hermes's picture

Obviously the writer is not an expert.
"It appears that the world politicians sitting at the table playing the game RISK were really just trying to end Russia’s port in the Black Sea and isolate it."
Russia does have other ports on the Black Sea and Crimea, also they signed Russian Navy's lease of Crimean facilities for 25 years in 2010. The problem was the pipelines, Ukraine refused EU financial help and chose Russian, which triggered the people protest and the war, so Russia and Ukraine tried to blackmail EU and each other with the price of the gas and stopping the pipeline and the price of the lease of Sevastopol port as result Russia took control of Crimea. The main trigger of the conflict was not USA or EU but
Putin offer in 2013 that Russia would come to a rescue of its financially troubled neighbor, providing $15 billion in loans and a steep discount on natural gas prices. It was a bold but risky move by Russia, given the political chaos in Kiev, and Putin big mistake, he just miscalculated Ukrainian people reaction.

East Indian's picture

What? Putin offered to help Ukraine, and people revolted against that? 

pc_babe's picture

Maybe Tillerson can convince Puti-Put to attack first, so NATO can blame Russia for being aggressor

quasi_verbatim's picture

The leading cause of the problem is overpaid, oversexed Yanks over there, parked up on the Eastern Approaches.