The masters of war demand a new war. This time against Russia
De Huffington Post van vandaag. Denkt u dat de Amerikaanse mainstream media ooit zo over een Amerikaanse invasie schrijven?
NEW INVASION
Armored Vehicles, Helicopter Ships Take Southern Ukraine Town...'Kremlin Agents' Looking For Excuse To Invade... Crimea Referendum Tomorrow... U.S. Won't Recognize... Russia Vetoes U.N. Resolution... 2 Killed After Ukraine Protests Friday... Tens Of Thousands Of Anti-Invasion Protesters In Moscow... Latest Updates
George Soros Predicts Ukraine Could Ruin The EU
George Soros, one of the world’s leading investors, has warned that the European Union is in danger of falling apart if it fails to confront Vladimir Putin’s naked aggression in Ukraine.
The billionaire financier told The Daily Beast that European governments should have seized on Russia’s land grab in Crimea to breathe new life into a union that is disintegrating and stumbling towards oblivion. Instead, he argued, squabbling European nations have failed to meet the challenge and continued to act in their own narrow self-interest. “Europe was totally unprepared for this crisis and Putin outmaneuvered Europe with no difficulty,” he said.
Soros, who became known as the Man Who Broke the Bank of England after making $1 billion by betting against Europe’s previous financial union, has long insisted that the Euro was being fatally mismanaged. His latest book, published this week, is entitled The Tragedy of the European Union. A loud supporter at the launch of the Euro currency and a cheerleader for a united Europe, Soros has been confounded by what he calls the “nightmare” reality 15 years after its introduction.
Speaking in London, he said it was heart-breaking to see European governments shrug their shoulders at the precise moment the continent was finally witnessing an unprecedented popular uprising in the name of the European Union. “Ukrainians have effectively proved that they are willing to sacrifice their lives to get closer to a Europe that is, at the same time, in the process of disintegration,” he said.
With Putin’s troops in Crimea and a referendum on joining Russia due to be held over the weekend, Soros said there was still time for Europe to act, and reinvigorate the European Union’s withering soul.
“I would argue passionately that [the European Union] should not be a failed experiment and events in Ukraine are a wake-up call to face that issue,” he said. “It’s a challenge, and I hope that Europe will respond to it and actually really rediscover its original mission because that’s what got lost in this distortion that has occurred.”
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, indicated that Europe was willing to increase pressure on the Kremlin on Thursday during her most emotional and strident speech since the start of the Ukrainian crisis. She said a referendum orchestrated by Crimea’s pro-Russia parliament would be a “catastrophe,” and indicated that the EU was willing to impose travel bans and asset freezes on people and firms accused of helping to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity as soon as Monday.
“Europe was totally unprepared for this crisis and Putin outmaneuvered Europe with no difficulty.”
Soros argued that it was more important for Europe to offer positive assistance to the struggling Ukrainian government. “It’s very important to respond and respond the right way, which is not necessarily to impose sanctions on Russia, but to actually help Ukraine financially, and also with technical assistance—something like a European Marshall Plan for Ukraine—that would be the right response,” he said.
In his new book, which asks “Is it too late to save the European Union?” Soros argues that Putin’s attempt to build a new Eastern bloc in Ukraine and beyond could eventually jolt Europe back to life. “We have just witnessed a dramatic test of strength between Russia and the European Union. Russia came out ahead,” he said. “Russia has benefited from the fact that Europe is disunited. But now that Russia is emerging as a threat to Europe, it may once again become a force that brings Europe closer together. I pin my hopes on Chancellor Merkel … one must never give up hope.”
He is hardly holding his breath, however. Soros blames the Germans for eroding Europe’s fragile union by enforcing policies of austerity and allowing southern European nations to build up debts they will never be able to repay. He accused Berlin of doing “just enough” to keep the Euro afloat: “This confirms my worst fears. It’s the nightmare I’ve been talking about and there is little chance we’ll wake up soon.”
Germany’s economic strength makes it the Eurozone’s driving force—Britain is not part of the currency union—but the nation’s history has turned it into a reluctant leader. “Germany has emerged as the imperial power, the hegemon of Europe, but the German public does not want to be in that position exactly because of the painful memory of Hitler. It is in denial and is unwilling to live up to the responsibilities,” he said.
Despite its unwillingness to assume a strong leadership role, Soros argues that Berlin’s fiscal rigidity has created a two-tier Europe where debtor countries are at a permanent disadvantage. If that does not change, he said: “We will have a Europe in which Germany is seen not as a leader but as an oppressor and exploiter. It will not be loved and admired by the rest of Europe it will be hated and resisted.”
That resistance has already begun in a swathe of countries where popular anti-European sentiment has been seen on the street and at the ballot box. Europe-wide elections in May are expected to send a record number of politicians to Brussels who are hostile to the very institutions they will be populating. In Britain, the governing Conservative Party has promised a referendum on leaving the European Union altogether. “That would be a big step forward in the disintegration of the European Union,” Soros said. “Britain’s absence would greatly diminish the weight of the EU in the world … The world badly needs Europe’s soft power.”
Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt handing out candy to security forces in Kiev a month before the neo-Nazis their government funded would attack and kill many of those same forces.
On Thursday March 6th President Obama spoke at the White House on the referendum and the issue of Crimea. In his prepared remarks, Obama stated categorically that the United States would not recognize the results of the Crimean referendum. He argued that the it would violate both the "Ukrainian Constitution and international law." Obama kept the comedy coming when he noted that, "In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders." As with all statements made by the US government, and the President specifically, this must be contextualized and deconstructed in order to be effectively critiqued.
First and foremost is the question of democracy and, more specifically, how exactly Washington is choosing to define this gravely abused word. In referring to the so-called "interim government" in Kiev, headed by Yatsenyuk and his associates, as "democratic leaders", Obama demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of the word democracy, or as I think is more likely, an utter contempt for democratic principles. By referring to an unelected entity that has seized political power in Kiev by force, and through collaboration with Nazi elements, as "democratic leaders," Obama exposes himself and his administration to be cynical opportunists whose interests rest not in democracy but in a geopolitical agenda guided solely by strategic interests.
Naturally, the references to the Ukrainian Constitution and international law are also deeply disingenuous. Obama, and the US imperial system more generally, speak of international law purely when it suits their interests, eschewing it completely when it does not. This fact has been illustrated quite clearly with Washington's wars of aggression throughout that last two decades, including the illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, not to mention the habitual violations of international law in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and around the world.
The most significant point here is that the US recognizes democracy and international law only when it suits their interests. Moreover, US hypocrisy regarding democracy becomes self evident if one examines the recent historical precedents of Kosovo and South Sudan. In both these cases, precisely the same individuals who today cry about international law and argue against the democratic right of Crimea to determine its own future, were then eloquently and unabashedly in favor of precisely the same sort "democratic aspirations."
Kosovo, South Sudan, and Washington's Amnesia
Serbia, a European country 'shock-and-awed' by the US
In 2008, Kosovo, the region formerly part of Serbia, held a referendum on the question of independence. Because the United States had, for nearly two decades, worked diligently to carve up the former Yugoslavia, and the states that emerged from it, it was seemingly a given that the US would be a vocal supporter and guarantor of the referendum on Kosovo's nationhood. In fact, members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, all made statements declaring Kosovo's independence to be a triumph of democracy.
Then Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama came out in full support of Kosovo's referendum. In a letter to the National Council of U.S. Albanians, candidate Obama wrote:
It would seem that, for Obama, Kosovo's "sovereignty," "independence," and "democracy" were of the utmost importance, despite its being part of Serbia. Somehow, "integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions" trumped whatever sovereignty Serbia had, and whatever international law might have dictated. Of course, the incredible amount of willful self-deception required to make such statements should come as no surprise. The US establishment understood full well that there would be no tolerance or protection of minority rights in Kosovo. On the contrary, the US supported the independence of Kosovo, knowing that it would be purged of Serbian influence and would become the de facto NATO protectorate that it has become.
And so, the principles of international law were of no consequence to Obama in 2008 when, as per his establishment advisors, he came out in full support of the Kosovo referendum. So then, it would be fair to say that Obama supports independence and sovereignty only when it is at the expense of oppositional nations and to the benefit of the US-NATO alliance. It should also be pointed out that those who now accuse Russia of "aggression" in Crimea (despite there being no evidence of any violence perpetrated by Russian forces) and the violation of international law were the same individuals arguing in favor of a vicious bombing campaign against Serbia for "humanitarian reasons." In 1999, then Senator and current Secretary of State John Kerry wrote:
Salva Kiir Mayardit feted by Obama in Washington, DC
So, just to be clear, the United States and NATO have the mandate to both bomb Serbia and support Kosovo's secession, and both of these are "preserving international law." However in Crimea, where there is actually a Russian population, Russian military assets, a long-standing cooperation treaty, and a historic connection to Russia, somehow it is a violation of international law? Such staggering double standards are hard to ignore.
This point is further illustrated by Obama's unwavering support for South Sudan's independence. Carved out of the Republic of the Sudan, one of Washington's only remaining foes in Africa, South Sudan is the world's youngest country, having declared its independence in a referendum in 2011. The United States and its allies had been leading the charge to split Sudan into two nations, lending their full political, economic, and diplomatic support to the South to move toward full independence.
At a UN summit on Sudan in 2010, President Obama stated that "the referendum on self-determination...must take place peacefully and on time...and the will of the people of southern Sudan and the region of Abyei must be respected regardless of the outcome." Obama unequivocally demonstrated his support for the right self-determination for the people of South Sudan. Naturally, he used the rhetoric of democracy and human rights in order to do so. However, as with all conflicts around the world, Washington's language regarding democracy and human rights was merely a cover for their geopolitical agenda.
In Sudan, the United States sought to break apart an oil-rich nation that was a critical trading partner for China, a country whose economic interests and investment in Africa had made it a rival of the United States on the continent. In Kosovo, the United States carved up a close ally of Russia for the purposes of expanding NATO hegemony in the Balkans - creating a de facto NATO colony where once there had been a Russian partner. All the talk of democracy was simply window dressing.
In contrast to Kosovo and South Sudan however, US policy on Crimea has been precisely the opposite. Rather than recognizing the rights of the Russian majority in the region and their historical, cultural, political, military and economic ties to Russia, the US cries foul. Obama's declaration that the referendum is illegal and cannot be recognized is not only an insult to the people of Crimea, it is an insult to all those who have a historical memory and a conscience. Quite frankly, it seems about time that the US learned what democracy truly looks like.
http://www.sott.net/article/275519-Crimea-Democracy-is-not-Democracy-Unless-Obama-says-it-is
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten