The wider context

On Zerohedge, a Russian academic explains the roots of the conflict in Ukraine in terms of the long term objectives of the rival global elites:

Let’s look at the situation in and around Ukraine in a wider, global context, considering the role which the West collectively, by their various games, has assigned to Ukraine.

  •     Firstly – the battle against Russia.
  •     secondly – the clash with China, and
  •     thirdly – concerning the unleashing of war in the Middle East.

Let me repeat, By no means is it all groups in the West who want to unleash war in the Middle East. But quite a few of them are interested in it. Likewise Saudi Arabia and Israel are interested, for a whole series of reasons. And these three vectors converge in Ukraine – all three plans unite into one.

That is, the global geo-economic and geo-political re-distribution of assets in the course of the global economic crisis.

The “Yellowstone Threat”

Of course, there is this Yellowstone threat – I mean the super-volcano. That could completely change the rules of play at any time. The super-volcano could solve for the Western elite the very problems which they’ve been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to. An eruption of the volcano could solve those problems. But that’s another subject.

The origin of the current situation

Let’s look at how the situation came about that preceded the current situation, namely: It’s 1991. The USSR has collapsed. After 10 years of robbery the Americans are wondering “should we go for more?” Evidently they decided not to, as it would have fallen to the Chinese. Besides, Yeltsin’s team seemed to be running the country into the ground. Then suddenly in 2001 came the attacks in New York. The Americans’ political vector shifted to the Middle East. They became occupied with the Middle East. i.e. they got distracted from the goals.

Then we had Iraq, Afghanistan. During this time the Russian Federation got room to breathe, rise onto its feet again. Then there was the war of 08.08.08, which showed the West they had somewhat let go of Russia.

After that the Medvedev episode, when we didn’t react on Libya. Evidently, 08.08.08, Putin’s coming to power, and our position on Syria, in spite of the West’s pressure, changed the approach toward Russia of those who brought Obama to power.

Two points to note:

  •     Obama established his military doctrine during his address to the Australian parliament on 17 Nov 2011, and
  •     And a new military doctrine of the US, established by Obama on 05 Jan 2012.

In the new doctrine of 05 Jan 2012 is established that the US can wage one war and some other indirect actions in other parts of the world. Previously it said two wars – meaning they’re not up to that any more. More interesting statements made by Obama in the Australian parliament 17 Nov 2011: This was said in Obama’s vague style. But if we call a spade a spade, it means:

Firstly: in this doctrine: political-economic encirclement of China. Control over the flow of energy into China. That’s why we have seen their naval power being moved to the straits between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This is why land-based energy supply routes are so important for China. Sea-based supply routes can be easily interrupted by the Americans.

Secondly: applying pressure on the Russian Federation, as a partner of China, and as a country beginning to rise up.

Really, Obama didn’t say anything new here.

There’s an organization Stratfor -(Strategic Forecasting Inc), a kind of private CIA. Their founder and chairman, George Friedman, said openly that the primary task of the United States is the destabilization of Eurasia, in order that there could never be a state or group of states able to challenge the US.

I find the point about Yellowstone to be intriguing, especially considering the source.  What are “the very problems which they’ve been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to?” I imagine they are the limitations imposed by the remnants of the US Constitutional system and the fact that the traditional American population is armed and therefore must be deceived and persuaded and ruled indirectly rather than directly by dictate.

If you find it hard to understand why rich and intelligent men not only seek wars, but work very diligently to start them, you have to stop thinking of war as intrinsically bad and see it as a tool. It is like dynamite; if you want to move large quantities of earth, you are going to need a powerful destructive force.

Large-scale wars happen when multiple parties reach the conclusion that the only way they can obtain their objectives is through a war involving other parties that increase their leverage. World War I happened mostly because French politician Raymond Poincaré was obsessed with recovering Alsace-Lorraine, the Russians sought to regain their position on the Black Sea they had lost in the Crimean War, and the Serbs sought to reclaim Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Austro-Hungarian empire. As it happened, both the French and the Russians were successful in their objectives; despite being the ones to set the match for the winning side, the Serbs ended up losing everything.