With “friends” like European Council President Donald Tusk and top NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove, the EU certainly doesn’t need enemies.
Gen. Breedhate has been spewing out his best Dr. Strangelove impersonation, warning that evil Russia is invading Ukraine on an everyday basis. The German political establishment is not amused.
Tusk, while meeting with US President Barack Obama, got Divide and Rule backwards; he insisted, “foreign adversaries” were trying to divide the US and the EU – when it’s actually the US that is trying to divide the EU from Russia. And right on cue, he blamed Russia — side by side with the fake Caliphate of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Tusk’s way out? The EU should sign the US corporate-devised racket known as Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or NATO on trade. And then the “West” will rule forever.
And still, revolving around NATO, there are many more diversionist tactics than meet the eye. Take the latest uttering by notorious Russophobe Dr. Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski. In a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dr. Zbig advanced that the US and Russia should have an understanding that if Ukraine becomes a member of the EU, it won’t become a member of NATO.
Well, dear Doctor, we got a problem. The EU has zero interest in incorporating a failed state on (immensely expensive) life support by the IMF, and technically mired in a civil war.
On the other hand the US has undivided interest in a Ukraine as NATO member; that’s the whole rationale of the relentless post-Maidan demonization of Russia.
Call it the Dr. Zbig maneuver; neo-con wishful thinking; what certain key Empire of Chaos/Masters of the Universe factions would die for; or all of the above; the ultimate target is regime change and dismemberment of Russia. Russian intelligence knows all about the inside story.
To forestall it, there would be only one possible settlement, including; end of sanctions on Russia; end of the raid on the ruble/oil price war; eastern European nations out of NATO; Crimea recognized as part of Russia; eastern Ukraine totally autonomous but still part of Ukraine.
We all know this won’t happen anytime soon – if ever. So a nasty Cold War 2.0 atmosphere is bound to prevail – alongside with relentless demonization reaping its benefits. A new Gallup poll shows most Americans now see Russia – ahead of North Korea, China and Iran – as the US’s public enemy number one and the greatest threat to the West.
The Empire of Chaos dream of regime change in Russia has always hinged on controlling large swathes of Eurasia. A puppet in Moscow – a carbon copy of the drunken stooge Yeltsin – would free up Russia’s immense natural resources for the West, with those from the contiguous Central Asian “stans” as a bonus.
Russian intelligence is very much aware of relentless US pressure geared to breaking parts off of Russia, weakening them, until Russia becomes a chaos wasteland not dissimilar to Iraq or Yemen – with natural resources then flowing freely to the West.
That’s why the pressure has been ratcheted up to nearly nuclear war proportions. Some adults in the EU though are starting to get the picture.
The EU simply does not have the funds to really invest in the Central Asian stans, or to pump billions of (devalued) euros into pipelines through Azerbaijan. Libya, Nigeria and the Middle East (from Iraq to Yemen) are a mess. The EU has no energy security in the Middle East and North Africa, and without Russia will have no energy security at all.
This set of circumstances unveils the specter of Cold War 2.0 turning hot as even more bewildering. Needless to add, Poland, Ukraine, and other hapless Eastern Europeans would be mere pawns if a full-blown civil war does break out in Ukraine – the explicit aim of that American fantasyland, the Kaganate of Nulands, or Nulandistan.
Provoking the Russian bear is a self-defeating proposition. Russia quitting the landmark Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe is really serious business; NATO is beyond alarmed. Not to mention Moscow announcing it has the right to place — and may even have placed — nuclear weapons in Crimea. Meanwhile the Russian military continue to test NATO’s defenses by flying their planes into NATO’s defensive perimeter.
Yet it ain’t over till the fat (geopolitical) lady sings. The Russia-China strategic partnership keeps evolving – check out the upcoming BRICS and SCO summits in Russia this summer. The oil and natural gas wealth of Russia and Central Asia will keep performing their U-turn towards China and Asia. And in a few years the “Exceptionalists Rule the Waves” mantra will cease to be a game-changer.
Regime change? Keep dreaming.
Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu party on Monday recommended that President Reuven Rivlin choose Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu as the next prime minister, giving Netanyahu the requisite majority of 61 MKs.
Following Monday’s meetings, Rivlin is expected to task Netanyahu with forming a coalition. Coalition negotiations between various parties are expected to begin in earnest Wednesday, and Netanyahu will have four weeks to form his government, with an option to extend talks for another two.
Of 88 MKs representing the first group to meet with Rivlin on Sunday, a total of 51 nominated Netanyahu to lead the government.
“The political issues and the pressure that our best friends in Europe and the US will exert require a broad coalition in the upcoming Knesset,” the president said while meeting with the ultra-Orthodox UTJ party.
Following the meetings with Rivlin, Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely addressed the coalition negotiations, asserting the Likud’s need to hold onto high-level ministerial posts while telling other parties to tone down their demands in the interest of securing a stable coalition.
“I am certain it’s of mutual interest to establish a lasting, strong and stable coalition, and for this the other sides need to lower their demands,” she said. “It’s important that key ministries such as the foreign, defense, and education [ministries] stay in the Likud.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a resounding victory at the polls on March 17th. His party Likud will have an expected 30 out of 120 seats in the Knesset, compared to 24 seats for its closest competitor, the Zionist Union. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu is in the strongest position to form a new right-of-center coalition government.
After seeing their hopes for regime change in Israel go up in smoke, Obama administration officials have been attacking what White House spokesman Josh Earnest called Mr. Netanyahu’s “divisive rhetoric” during the election campaign. They did not like that the prime minister rejected a two-state solution as they envision it should be designed. They were unhappy with likely plans by a new Netanyahu government for more settlement construction. And they objected to the prime minister’s last minute efforts to rally his supporters to come to the polls by telling them, in a video posted on social media, that they could lose the election because “Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.” Finally, Obama is still smarting from Mr. Netanyahu’s historic speech before a joint session of Congress warning about the perils of the bad nuclear deal with Iran that may be in the offing.
Obama may decide to go along with the Palestinians’ push for a UN Security Council resolution that would codify the Palestinians’ demands, or at least not veto such a resolution. Obama already agrees with much of the demands in substance. His willingness in the past, however reluctant, to block UN Security Council intervention into the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations may well have gone by the wayside, now that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been re-elected. The excuse would be that Mr. Netanyahu has reversed his prior declaration of support for a two-state solution, which leaves no option but to go to the UN Security Council to endorse the principles of a final peace agreement centered on a two-state solution. The problem is what a Security Council-endorsed two-state solution would look like.
The Palestinian resolution, if it is anything like the previous draft resolution that failed to pass the Security Council last December when the U.S. did vote against it, would define the border between Israel and an independent Palestinian state along the pre-June 1967 lines, with minor mutually agreed upon swaps of territory. It would designate “East Jerusalem” as the capital of the Palestinian state. While legitimizing the Palestinians’ demands, such a resolution would provide virtually nothing concrete regarding specific steps to ensure Israelis’ security. And it would still provide the Palestinians the leeway to continue demanding the so-called right of return of millions of so-called refugees to live within the pre-June 1967 Israeli borders.
Turning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over to the UN is akin to turning the fire truck over to the arsonist. The UN institution, all the way up to the top, is pro-Palestinian to the core. That apparently suits Obama just fine, since he sees Israel, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu, as the main obstacle to peace, just as the UN establishment does.
The UN’s institutional bias against Israel rears its ugly head so often that it is impossible to keep count. Asked for comment on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s election victory, for example, the deputy spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement on March 18th that put all the onus for reaching a peace agreement on the newly formed Israeli government.
“It’s incumbent on the new Israeli Government,” the statement said, “to create the conditions for a negotiated final peace agreement – with the active engagement of the international community – that will end the Israeli occupation and realize the creation of a viable Palestinian state, living in peace and security alongside Israel.” The statement insisted on the “cessation of illegal settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” adding that the Secretary General “firmly believes this is also the best and only way forward for Israel to remain a democratic state.” Not a single concession was asked from the Palestinian side. Only lip service was given to Israel’s security concerns. And lecturing Israel on how to remain a democratic state was an insult to the Israeli voters – including Arab Israeli citizens – who freely elected their next leader. The Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, remains split between jihadist terrorists in Gaza and a president of the Palestinian Authority who remains in power long after his term expired.
Also see:
No comments:
Post a Comment