Ukraine: Eurasian Bastion in the face of NATO

Umberto Mazzei

01/04/2014

Opinión

^-A ⁺A

Since the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763) until the First World War the British Empire expanded, almost unchallenged, its political control and trade to all non European corners of the world. By that time there was a scientific and technological revolution in Europe that created the basis for the Industrial Revolution. Then also began the preaching for a liberal economy, for the opening of markets that produced the imperial exchange of manufactured products for raw materials. It is then when the Great Game begins, the British siege of the Euro-Asian mass where Russia was moving towards India, China and Japan. One hundred years later, the British financial control of the former Spanish colonies and the partition of Africa already outlined the Anglo-Saxon prototype for globalization. Its check was the alliance between the Russian Empire and the newly reconstructed German Empire.

With the advent of the First World War, the first technical phase of neo-liberal globalization began. Shortly before - in 1913 - the Anglo-American financial elite had created the Federal Reserve, which would be the source of financial resources that made the US the creditor of all belligerents at the end of this terrible and unnecessary war. By the end of the war the center of financial gravity had shifted from the financial City of London to Wall Street in New York. It was only a geographical shift, because the Anglo-Saxon financial groups were already closely linked together.

The crisis that began in 1929 and lasted until World War II was the first test of the effects of globalized finance with open markets. Like now, a few got richer and many were ruined. In 1941, the policy of open markets was set in the Atlantic Charter, which was the Anglo-American joint statement on international economic policies for after the war; it must be noted that it was made before the U.S. became belligerent.

The Allied victory brought with it an eternal payment of war debts, the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, the IMF and the US dollar as the reference currency, that gave Wall Street banks the world economy as a sand box to play in. With the Euro-Asian industry destroyed, the U.S. was standing as the only industrial power and also as a commodity exporter. The US helped recovery, but in exchange for an opening for their businesses, that ended up covering with their branches the entire world without Soviet control. This second phase towards an Anglo-American controlled world replicated the British Great Game in Eurasia, but in 1948 they lost China, the prize won with the Opium Wars (1839 -1860).

In Eurasia there are two great powers: Russia and China. India could become one, but it is a British creation, with disparate parts put together that hinder its decision-making capacity. Eurasia has the human and physical resources to become the axis of the international economy and the political balance, the role that, for millennia, its European and Chinese extremities played separately. That is precisely what the Anglo-American foreign policy seeks to prevent. That is the raison d’être of militarily and financially occupying Europe and eroding its culture; the reason to promote backward and corrupt governments, to promote war and civil unrest and in general, an instability that prevents Eurasian projection.

The Great Game continues. An essential part is to prevent a maritime projection of China in the South China Sea and of Russia into the Mediterranean. Another element in this strategy is energy control and the cheapest way to do it is to control transport. These elements show the importance of Ukraine as a corridor for Russian gas to Europe and to the Crimean bases of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Hence the Euro-American regime change coup in Kiev.

Ukraine and its energy role

Europe depends on Russia for about 40 percent of its imported gas and most of it is transported via Ukraine. That gas is distributed by pipelines belonging to Gazprom, but that could change. In November 2013, Chevron signed a contract with the Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, to explore 650 thousand hectares for gas. A few months ago the same government had signed a less important one with Royal Dutch Shell.

Chevron’s agreement was supported by Washington in order to reduce energy trade and economic complementation of Europe with Russia. The area assigned to Chevron includes the Oleska Block, where there is shale gas potential. The problem is that the method for obtaining it, called hydraulic fracking, is highly polluting and has already been banned in some European countries where it was used, as in Romania and Lithuania.

Derek Magness from Chevron (left) at the signature of the Ucranian gas deal

There is probably some coordination between the State Department and Chevron for the regime change coup in Kiev, because it was during a meeting sponsored by Chevron where Victoria Nuland, Deputy U.S. State Secretary for Eastern Europe announced that the U.S. government had invested US$5 billion to “promote democracy in Ukraine”, she said. One can speculate whether a reason for the coup is to nationalize Gazprom’s pipelines and give them in administration to Chevron. Thus the sale of Russian gas and European supply would be in the hands of an American company closely linked to Washington's foreign policy.

The coup was obviously intended to penetrate Ukraine with Anglo-American interests rather than those of the EU, because Europe is not sovereign; it is ruled by puppet governments that take orders from Washington and London; it is still under a financial and military occupation. This is clearly demonstrated by Brussels’ wish to impose sanctions on Russia – which would be very inconvenient to European Industry and to the European population. The pretext is to punish Russia because it accepted Crimea’s application to join the Russian Federation. Such application reflects the will of the people of Crimea, already expressed in 1994, when Ukraine became independent, but Russia did not welcome it then, no doubt because of the ubiquitous Anglo-American influence on Boris Yeltsin, that sad government.

Sanctions for Crimea

Russia did not bomb for 78 days to snatch Crimea from Ukraine, as NATO did in Serbia for Kosovo. The Crimea, with a Russian majority population, detached itself from Ukraine, when the illegitimate government installed by the Anglo Americans in Kiev started an anti-Russian abuse campaign. Self-determination is a basic right of peoples, recognized by international law. The Crimean backlash of the coup in Kiev is something that inspires jokes about the US$ 5 billion spent by Washington to… give the Crimea back to Russia.

The frustration of failure and the fear that the “provisional government" in Kiev may be too provisional, causes a tantrum at the White House, which wants to punish mother Russia because Crimea decided to return to her lap. Washington pretends that sanctions against Russia are necessary to protect U.S. vital interests, which, as always, are located in another country.

The sanctions have no fear of being ridiculous, and, until now, are as follows.

Firstly, to stop military cooperation with Russia. Oddly enough, it is NATO who needs military cooperation with Russia to carry military supplies to Afghanistan safely.

Secondly, to exclude Russia from the G -8. It does make sense, because prosperous Russia should not belong to a club of bankrupt countries. As the next meeting was supposed to be in Sochi, the exclusion saves Russia the efforts and expenses of being the host.

Thirdly, to stop a list of Russian officials from travelling to the US, without knowing if they wanted to go there; their US banks accounts were frozen, without knowing if they have any. The EU has also just made its list. I guess they may or not travel somewhere else, but the main effect of those sanctions will be to keep savings inside Russia and the repatriation of capitals abroad. Incidentally, it allowed Russia to prohibit the entry of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subversive agents, like Senator John Mc Cain.

There is dark talk of imposing economic sanctions, but that would be impossible for the EU. Those by the U.S. would be irrelevant because of the amount and composition of Russian trade. The graphic is eloquent.

Trade between Russia and the EU in 2012 was 276.5 billion. Russian exports were mainly oil and gas, for 76 billion and the EU needs them badly; another major export is cereals. Russian imports are machinery and transport, for 50 billion, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, all of high added value.

The US would also suffer with its own sanctions because Russia is one of the few countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. In 2013 Russian exports were for US$ 112 billion, mainly aluminium and gas; Russian imports were US$ 167 billion, all of high added value, such as boilers, nuclear material and optical equipment.

The Ukrainian future perspective

Since the overthrow of the last elected government by the NED-funded mobs in Maidan, Ukraine has not known peace. Partly because among the four parties that associated for the coup, only Batkivshina – that of Yulia Tymoshenko and "Yats" Yatseniouk, as Ms. Nuland calls him - have any electoral base. The other three are rather recent ones: Svovoda, that took 10 percent in the last election; UDAR, which in Ukrainian means “blow”, was founded in 2010 by a boxer; Pravy Sector is a militia for street fights, created in November 2013. The homage visit by "Yats" Yatseniouk to Obama is not the way to make him loved by his nationalistic partners, by Russian traditionalists or by the army. It is known by surveys that most of Ukrainians are against NATO membership.

"Yats" also ordered, on March 7^th, the delivery to the US Federal Reserve of the 36 tons of gold that were in the vaults of the Ukrainian treasury, as admitted by the Federal Reserve of New York. When it will become known, is likely to cause political turmoil and reactions in the Ukrainian armed forces. It is a clear act of treason, because anyone versed in finances – and Yats is a banker - knows that the US FED never returns gold entrusted to it, as in January with the 1500 metric tones of Germany, that when asked for 674 metric tones back, the Fed only returned five.

The Russian future perspective.

The Euro American regime change coup in Kiev developed into a foreseeable crisis with Russia. American and EU hypocrisy does not conceal that the goal was to deprive the Russian Black Sea fleet of its base in Crimea and to install NATO bases in Ukraine. Russia cannot allow either, because it affects vital Russian interests and Russia has the means to prevent it. In Washington, not even the craziest hawks have talked of military action or said “all options are on the table”.

An analysis of Russian infrastructure investments shows that they are projected more towards the Eurasian space than towards Europe. This is absolutely logical, because it is there where most of the resources to which their science and technology can be applied are to be found. The EU is only a market that shrinks because of austerity polices imposed by the rescue of insolvent private banks with public money.

The main instrument for this projection of Russia to the East is the Eurasian Economic Union, which is a development of the Customs Union among Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. The idea has being around since 1994, when Kazakhstan’s President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, first talked about it in Moscow. On November 2011, an agreement was signed and a Euro-Asiatic Economic Commission created to manage it towards its implementation by 2015. The founding members are the same ones as in the Customs Union, but it foresees the adhesion of countries that inhabit the historical Czarist space, such as Armenia, Kirgizstan and Tajikistan, and still other countries like Syria that are already interested. The US has also shown interest, but a hostile one; former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said then “we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it." (Associated Press, 06/12/2012).

Over Ukraine, a few days ago, Russia made a conciliatory proposal that was presented by Russian Foreign Relations minister Sergey Lavrov to US State Secretary John Kerry, in Paris, on March 31st. In essence it proposed to give a broad autonomy to the Russian speaking regions of Ukraine, on the Swiss model or perhaps the Spanish one. Terry advanced unacceptable conditions to even discuss it: the retreat of Russian troops from their permanent bases on Ukrainian borders, besides wanting to include in the conversations the illegitimate transitory government that Washington has imposed in Kiev.

Conclusions

The main one is that for the first time since 1990, the US is not using violence or the threat of violence to resolve an international difference. It is a sign that the US self-proclaimed exceptionalism, backed by “full spectrum dominance”, has found a political, economic and military limit. U S or world public opinion is tired of wars, another war would collapse the economy and one with Russia would be a mutual military suicide.

The clumsy hypocritical rhetoric over Crimea’s use of its right of self-determination is on the way to unmaking Henry Kissinger’s main diplomatic success: the distancing of China and the URSS. Whatever sanctions that are applied will be innocuous for Russia and deleterious to the EU, but the worst is that they will push Russia, prosperous and full of resources, to look eastwards, towards Asia; to strengthen its ties with China.

The main benefit that Russia and China – the energy powerhouse and the manufacturing powerhouse - can achieve together is to put an end, in a bloodless, but efficient way, to NATO’s aggressiveness; if they just give a little push to the collapsing dollar. It should be remembered that China is the country of Sun Tzu, the strategist of victories without battle.

The reckless regime change coup in Kiev and the clumsy sequence to legitimise it will cause that the much proclaimed “pivot to Asia” will be undertaken not so much by the US as by Russia. It will strengthen China and be very bad for the EU economy, but would have the advantage of causing the economic collapse of NATO, which is but the institutionalization, in 1949, of the Anglo-Saxon military occupation of Europe, since 1945.

Geneva, 01/04/2014

- Umberto Mazzeihas a PhD in political science from the University of Florence. He is Director of the Institute of International Economic Relations in Geneva.

www.ventanaglobal.info

https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/84503?language=es