Die Finanzkrise – Sie erinnern sich? Gut! …

Karen Hudes war 1986-2007 Chef-Juristin bei der Weltbank und deckte dort diverse Bilanzfälschungen auf, Ihre Anklagen sind bemerkenswert, noch bemerkenswerte ist, dass ich davon nie in einer der „wichtigen“ deutschen Zeitungen gelesen habe:

„Die Weltbank hat an den Kapitalmärkten mehr als 180 Milliarden Dollar in Anleihen ausgegeben, doch ihre Bilanzen sind nicht korrekt.“

„Die Zensur in den Massenmedien, die den Aktionären der Federal Reserve gehören, hilft garantiert nicht dabei, Politiker zur Verantwortung zu ziehen.

Eine Netzwerk-Analyse der Direktorien der zehn großen Medienorganisationen in den USA hat ergeben, dass nur 118 Leute in den Direktorien der zehn großen Mediengiganten sitzen. Acht von zehn großen Mediengiganten teilen gemeinsame Cialis online Mitglieder in den Direktorien, und diese Leute sind auch im Direktorium des „Supergebildes“.“

„Eine Analyse der Finanzmärkte zeigt, dass die Finanzen der Welt in den Händen von nur wenigen Investmentfonds, Banken und Konzernen sind. Die acht größten US-Finanzinstitute (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon und Morgan Stanley) werden zu 100 Prozent von zehn Aktionäre kontrolliert. Vier Unternehmen sind bei allen Entscheidungen immer dabei: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard und Fidelity. Zudem besteht die Federal Reserve aus zwölf Banken, die von einem Direktorium aus sieben Leuten repräsentiert werden, und die aus den Vertretern der „Großen Vier“ bestehen, die wiederum in allen anderen Institutionen vertreten sind. Kurz gesagt: Die Federal Reserve wird von vier Konzernen kontrolliert: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard und Fidelity.“

Mehr davon hier:

Whistleblowerin fordert Reformen bei der Weltbank

„Es lebe die Heilige Atlantische Allianz!“

Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Online-Flyer Nr. 455 vom 23.04.2014

Zur zukünftigen Rolle Deutschlands in einem unantastbaren Militärpakt
NATO ausgedient?
Von Jürgen Rose (1)

Als Heiligste Kuh im Stall der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik dieser Republik gilt nach wie vor die Mitgliedschaft im Nordatlantischen Bündnis. Sie besitzt den Status der Unantastbarkeit und genießt quasi religiöse Sakralität – im aktuellen Koalitionsvertrag der amtierenden Regierungsparteien heißt es dazu wortwörtlich: „Wir bekennen uns zur NATO und zu ihrem neuen strategischen Konzept.“ Bekenntnisse werden gemeinhin in der Kirche abgelegt, was im vorliegenden Fall wohl gleichsam bedeuten soll: „Es lebe die Heilige Atlantische Allianz!“.

Dabei war die North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nordatlantik-pakt- Organisation) schon immer ein höchst dubioses Unternehmen, wie schon ihr erster Generalsekretär, Lord Ismay, wußte, als er mit britischer Unverblümtheit deren eigentlichen Zweck mit den Worten umschrieb: „to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down.“ Richtig brisant wurde die Lage dann, als die Alliierten im Jahre 1999 erstmals gemeinsam Krieg im Bündnis führten, einen flagranten Angriffskrieg zumal, und 78 Tage lang die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien bombardierten. Der nicht eben als Friedenstaube bekannte Henry Kissinger sah sich daraufhin zu einer dramatischen Warnung veranlaßt. Unter dem Titel „Die erschreckende Revolution in der NATO“ konstatierte er: „Das Bündnis hat seine historische Selbstdefinition einer streng defensiven Koalition aufgegeben. Dieser abrupte Abschied vom Konzept der nationalen Souveränität, verbunden mit der Beschwörung universeller moralistischer Slogans, markierte einen neuen aussenpolitischen Stil. … Sollte sich die NATO-Doktrin der ‚universellen Intervention‘ verbreiten und sollten konkurrierende Wahrheiten erneut in einen offenen Wettstreit treten, droht uns eine Welt, in der die Tugend Amok läuft.“

Wie wahr. Einige Jahre danach thematisierte Egon Bahr, sicherheitspolitischer Vorzeigeexperte der SPD und ehemaliger Direktor des Instituts für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg, die hegemoniale Rolle der USA in der Allianz: „Zur Sache selbst stellt sich als entscheidende Frage, ob die NATO ein Instrument der Erweiterung und Sicherung der amerikanischen Weltvorherrschaft ist. … das ist ja gerade ein Grund, weshalb die NATO kein global handlungsfähiges Instrument werden darf, das weltweit faktisch im Interesse der USA eingesetzt werden kann.“ In dieselbe Kerbe schlug Lothar Rühl, bekannt als in der Wolle gefärbter Atlantiker und ehemals Staatssekretär im Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, als er monierte, die NATO sei auf dem Weg, zu einem immer weniger integrierten, interalliierten militärischen Dienstleistungsbetrieb bei amerikanischem Bedarf“ zu degenerieren.

Analog kritisierte Willy Wimmer, ausgewiesener Christkonservativer und ebenfalls vormals Staatssekretär im Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, die bündnispolitische Asymmetrie: „Es kann nicht sein, für eine verfehlte Politik jetzt das westliche Bündnis wie eine Art Fremdenlegion in Anspruch zu nehmen. Damit würde jene verhängnisvolle Politik fortgesetzt, wie sie mit dem NATO-Gipfel des Jahres 1998 in Lissabon eingeleitet wurde, als der Nordatlantikpakt als Verteidigungsbündnis quasi aufgebrochen und mit einem globalen Interventionsauftrag ausgestattet wurde. Ich hielt das immer für einen Kurs, der weder mit dem NATO-Statut noch mit der UN-Charta vereinbar ist.“ Als jemand, der anstelle einer parteipolitischen Sollbruchstelle im Rückgrat noch den Mut besitzt, sich seines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen, wetzte der damals noch aktive CDU-Bundestagsabgeordnete darüber hinaus freilich nichts weniger als das Schlachtermesser für die Heiligste Kuh bundesdeutscher Sicherheitspolitik, als er unmißverständlich forderte: „Unter diesen Umständen bleibt uns letztlich nichts weiter übrig, als aus der militärischen Integration der NATO auszusteigen, wenn wir nicht völlig die Maßstäbe einer rationalen und von den Interessen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bestimmten Sicherheitspolitik aus dem Auge verlieren wollen.“ Chapeau, Herr Abgeordneter!

Vor diesem Hintergrund mag es kaum verwundern, daß der Arbeitskreis »Darmstädter Signal« Doxycycline No Prescription (Ak DS) die Forderung erhob, daß die „Bundesrepublik Deutschland … nach dem Vorbild Frankreichs unter General Charles de Gaulle ihre militärische (nicht die politische!) Integration in die NATO-Strukturen [suspendiert].“ Die Kritik der im Ak DS zusammengeschlossenen aktiven und ehemaligen SoldatInnen der Bundeswehr an der offiziellen deutschen Sicherheitspolitik geht indes noch viel weiter, wie das nachfolgend dokumentierte „Positionspapier zur Bundeswehrreform der Regierung Merkel“ zeigt.

(1) Autor Jürgen Rose war Oberstleutnant der Bundeswehr und ist Mitglied im Vorstand des „Darmstädter Signals“, des Forums für kritische StaatsbürgerInnen in Uniform.

Von IWF- und Faschoverstehern

Dieser Tage muss sich der gesittete Bürger in Sachen Ukraine von der Journallie einiges gefallen lassen und wird durch die Bank als Putin- oder Russlandversteher tituliert. Allein, dass man sich als Putinversteher beschimpfen lassen Viagra No Prescription muss, geht mir auf den Sack! Dass den Sessel-mit-Arsch-Polierer-Journalisten-Verstehern jetzt merklicher Gegenwind ins Gesicht bläst, ist für diese gewohnheitsgemäßen Eliteversteher sicher was neues – Telepolis berichtete:

www.heise.de/tp/artikel/41/41507/1.html

Dass gleichzeitig die Dauerlügen vom „Angegriffensein“ des Westens (Giftgas in Syrien, False-Flag in der Türkei) durch diverse Leaks aufgedeckt werden ist, dürfte auch einigen Mainstreamverstehern aufgefallen sein.

www.voltairenet.org/article183223.html

www.freitag.de/autoren/propagandaschau/nato-land-tuerkei-plant-ueberfall-auf-syrien

Es ist außerdem kaum vorstellbar, dass die Ukrainer unter dem Ausverkauf des IWF und den faschistischen Schlägertrupps aus Kiew besser leben, als unter den bisher bestehenden Verträgen mit Russland. Aber uns das zu erklären, gibt es sicher bei der Süddeutschen & Co genug IWF-Versteher und Faschistenversteher.

www.freitag.de/autoren/soenke-paulsen/ausverkauf-der-ukraine-noch-vor-neuwahlen

Kurzum, ich wünsche mir, dass der große Haufen der Atlantikbrückenjournalistenversteher bald zu Harz-4-Verstehern wird.

„Korruption durch Nähe“

Ergebenst – Ihr Allesversteher
Sir John

This is all too reminiscent of Moscow in 1993 – AsiaTimes

atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-110414.html

This is all too reminiscent of Moscow in 1993

Russia might very soon do something rather counter-intuitive: nothing at all.

All the signs are that the freaks in Kiev have decided to put down the demonstrations in Kharkov, Donetsk and Lugansk by force. YouTube is full of amateur footage showing all sorts of militarized units, APCs and even artillery pieces being moved towards these cities. Local people have tried to stop them, but without success.

It appears that the attacking force will include loyal cops from other cities, regular military units, private contractors hired by the oligarchs, riot police, „anti-terrorist“ units of the SBU and volunteers from the Right Sector.

Facing them are crowds of largely unarmed or minimally armed civilians. In Lugansk some of these civilians have looted the SBU armory and have assault rifles (AKM-74s). The crowds are relatively large, but not huge, most of the local activists have taken up positions inside key government buildings which they occupy and while there are some barricades around these buildings, they do not appear to be properly defended, at least not in a military sense.

This all reminds me of Moscow in 1993 and it scares me. Badly.

For those of you who do not remember, let me remind you of what happened then.

In 1993 the Russian Parliament building was defended pretty much in the same way as the buildings in eastern Kiev are: all sorts of supporters outside the building, but the core defenders inside. Once the shooting began, the crowd of sympathizers outside rapidly dispersed. Shortly after the building itself was assaulted an offer was made to those willing surrender to let them out safely. Some accepted. Others stayed.

The assault of the building resumed and the bloodbath which took place inside was hidden from the public. As for those who surrendered, they were hunted down while leaving the area, beat up and often murdered. Finally, the winning side engaged in a massive hunt for Parliament-sympathizers who were hunted down, arrested, beat up and even killed for a least a week. Something very similar might happen in the next few days in eastern Ukraine.

Cops will be used to clear the vicinity of the buildings. Then APCs will be brought in and after some gunfire exchange, the attacking force will be given the option to come out and surrender. Some will accept, others will refuse. Those who will surrender will be handed over to the SBU and Right Sector thugs to be tortured, beat up and jailed. Then a full scale assault, supported by 30mm gunfire with incendiaries will take place. As soon as the lower floors will be cleared of resisting people, the private security contractors and Right Sector thugs will move in to kill the remaining people. Finally, the official regime media will announce that 10 or 15 „terrorist“ have been killed, and that law and order has been restored. This version will be fully endorsed by the western corporate media while western politicians will say that they „understand“ that the „government“ had to act, they will blame Russia for instigating the violence, and they will urge the freaks in Kiev „legitimate Ukrainian government“ to use „dialog with all parties“ and „show restraint“. They might even do what the USA did with Israel and praise the regime for its „restraint“. Away from the public eye a massive campaign of arrests will result in most pro-Russian activists sent to jail on chargers of terrorism, armed rebellion, sedition and sabotage of the Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence. They Buy Levitra Online No Prescription will face 15+ years in jail (though the rump-Parliament in Kiev wants to pass a law making this a mandatory life sentence crime).

This worked in 1993 and this will work in 2014.

Many will then wonder if Russia will step in and send in troops. And a few days later, even more will wonder why Russia has not already intervened.

This is what I will attempt to explain (assuming events go as I predicted above).

The first thing to understand is that this scenario, while horrible and disgusting, does not meet the criteria of „mass violence“ at least as seen from the Kremlin. Even if, say 100 or 200 people die, this is not much in comparison to the full population in the Ukraine. Furthermore, Putin will have to weigh the number of people murdered in such a crackdown against the likely number of casualties should the Russian military intervene.

Today Putin said something very interesting during a public meeting with members of his Popular Front. He said that before intervening in Crimea Russian special services had covertly organized an opinion poll to gauge the popular opinion in Crimea and that they had concluded that roughly 80% of the people wanted Crimea to become part of Russia (this is a very smart use of special services, by the way!). He added that once the referendum was announced and the campaign began, these figures rose to almost 97%, but that initially, at that time, 80% was the secret Russian estimate.

We can be pretty darn sure that the Russian special services are also actively conducting such covert opinion polls today. What we don’t know is what their surveys shows. What I will say though is this: while I am confident that „many“ people in the east want to join Russia, I am not at all sure that they are the majority. Also, I strongly suspect a sizable minority who would be vehemently opposed to such a solution. Furthermore, I am quite confident that there is a minority, however small, how is actually very much in favor of the new regime in Kiev. Yes, sure, most people in the East are sick and tired of the Nazi freak show in Kiev, but „most“ is not at all the same as „all“ or even a „strong majority“. The bottom line is this:

The Donbass is not Crimea.

In Crimea it was pretty clear cut. The picture is much more complex in the eastern Ukraine.

The geography is also dramatically different. Crimea is a peninsula joined to the rest of Ukraine by a rather narrow stretch of land. It was rather obvious for the Russian forces to see where to stop. But where should they stop in the eastern Ukraine?

This is not a military problem. In military terms, the Russian military could take over all of the Ukraine. This is political problem: to which area do you limit your intervention? Only in Lugansk? Or also in Donetsk and Kharkov? What about Nikolaev? There are lots of anti-regime people there. Ditto for Odessa. Then comes the „plat de resistance“ – Dnepropetrоvsk, with over one million people inside, many opposed to Russia. Shall the Russian military also take that major urban center? At what cost in human lives?

Take a look at this very detailed map of the Ukraine (it is a big file, you will have to click on it to zoom in for a better resolution):

In fact, this file is so big (about 10MB) that those who are interested might want to download this (very good) map from: cloud.mail.ru/public/3be2b5dcf60e/Карта%20Украины%202000%20на%20год.jpg

Do you see any natural border at which the Russians should stop?

I see only one: the Dniepr river. And if that is where the Russians stop, it means taking over all of the eastern Ukraine, including Dnepropetrivsk and Kharkov (with 1,5 million people, though probably a higher pro-Russian percentage than Dnepropestrovsk). Even Poltava is in the eastern Ukraine. So we are talking about a major military operation, even if the Ukie military won’t be able to meaningfully oppose it. Lots of people will die, that is certain. So is it worth it?

Another option would be to go for a series of limited strikes with attack helicopters and some special forces. Much easier, but not risk free, and that kind of half-measure rarely works without a follow-up with boots on the ground.

There are certainly more military options, but my point is simple: they will have very real risks and major costs. Russia should learn from the many mistakes the USA made and truly only intervene when there is a clear objective achievable in the short term and then an equally clear exit strategy. Russia does not need an Iraq on its doorstep.

There is a much better option: bite the bullet over the murder of Russian and pro-Russian civilians and slowly but surely strangle the regime in Kiev economically.

The Russians have already announced that Kiev owes them $16′000′000′000 (that is sixteen billion, with a ‚b‘!) and that they are now considering restricting all energy exports to the Ukraine to only pre-paid sales. Furthermore, should events get ugly in the East, Russia will completely pull out of the local industry essentially killing it completely. And that is in the part of the country which feeds and finances all the rest. Russia will also close its borders to Ukrainian imports and begin suing Ukrainian owned companies in arbitration courts. There is absolutely nothing the West can do to prevent that, and that kind of economic warfare will bring down the regime in Kiev in a matter of months, if not weeks. So considering that – is it really wise to act immediately and use military force?

I don’t think so. Not unless things really go very, very badly. Then Putin will have no choice.

The Ukraine is like a nice, juicy apple which had the misfortune to be invaded by a ugly, nasty worm. This worm is, of course, the rabid neo-Nazis crazies who have taken power in Kiev. They are the ones destroying the unitary Ukrainian state by their actions and even by their presence and as long as they are in power, this apple will continue to rot and it will eventually simply fall down to the ground. And no amount of „gardening“ by the West will save that apple because the only thing which could save it would be to kill and yank out that worm, but since it was put there by the West in the first place, that is something the West will not consent to. Never.

And if I may use the same analogy, it is far better for Russia to let that apple drop to the ground by itself and only then see what kind of tree its seeds will give birth to (an apple can rot but still deliver viable seeds). Right now the Ukraine is chock-full of problems Russia really does not need: a basically destroyed state, no real police, massive criminality, political extremism, religious extremism, a quasi-dead industry, a dysfunctional legal system (even worse than the Russian one, which is bad enough), poverty, unemployment, an ancient and decrepit infrastructure, a so-called Parliament filled with freaks, morons and thugs, and probably a big chunk of the population thoroughly brainwashed, not only in the West, who hates and fears Russia and who would prefer a NATO invasion to a Russian one.

Does Russia really need or want this?

Russia cannot simply waltz in, break it all, and leave. As they say in the USA, you break it – you own it. Right now its the West who broke it, so let’s see what all these self-enamored and pompous clowns who hold the reins of power in the US and EU will do about it.

Somewhere, and painful as this might be, this morally obscene, historically absurd and pragmatically crazy experiment of an „Independent and anti-Russian Ukraine“ needs to run its course and collapse on its own. And no matter what scenario actually plays out, this process will not happen without violence and innocent victims. So the only option for Putin is to try to minimize their amount as best can be. A military intervention is most likely not the best option, unless of course things really get ugly at which point Putin will have no other option left.

To summarize it:

Can Russia intervene? Yes.
Can the West do anything about it? No.
Can the Ukrainians stop them? No.
Is Russia willing to go to war with the USA and NATO over this? Yes.
Can NATO win a war against Russia in the Ukraine? No.
Is Putin bluffing? No.
Is Russia trying to subvert the regime in Kiev? No.
Is Russia using its power to instigate the rebellion in the eastern Ukraine? No.
Why not? Because Russia has a much better option: to wait and let the attempt to build a Banderastan in the Ukraine collapse by itself.
Will Russia do anything then? Yes, it will choke down the Ukraine economically as long as the freaks are in power in Kiev.
What would trigger a Russian military intervention in the eastern Ukraine? Enough violence to outrage the public opinion on Russia, at which point Putin will have to order a military intervention.
Will Russia intervene in case of a „not massive“ (I cannot bring myself to write „limited“) but bloody crackdown in the eastern Ukraine? No.
What will Russia do in that case? Let the inevitable blowback from this violence result in more rebellion in the eastern Ukraine and offer indirect support (safe haven, medicine, equipment, money, etc.) from western Russia and Crimea. Of course, Russia will continue to denounce the illegitimate neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, blame the West for what it has done and for its shameful support of the Banderites and appeal to the world public opinion directly.

That’s how I see the situation developing, I might be wrong of course.

My guess is that the next 48 hours will be extremely violent and there is even a non-negligible possibility that the nationalist freaks will fail in their attempt to restore their rule over the east: a combination of very desperate resistance by locals and an unwillingness of enough security forces to kill civilians just might do the trick. Alas, my experience in Moscow in 1993 (I was there during the full crisis) tells me that you can always find enough people to butcher their fellow-citizens, as long as they get to hide from the cameras. There is nothing more easy then to hide a mass murder inside a burning building – and they know that.

[Did you know that the regime in Kiev has already cut off and hidden the bullets-ridden trees in central Kiev to avoid anybody investigating from where the sniper-fire had come?]

For most of the world, and for all western politicians, „if it ain’t on TV it simply never happened“. I don’t expect much will get on western TV channels about the upcoming crackdown anytime soon.

And if by mistake, it will – they can always blame Putin and Russia for it.

I will try my best to keep you informed.

The Saker

PS: since we can expect the crackdown to begin by a news blackout, please send me any information about what is happening in the eastern Ukraine or, even better, post it in the comments section of the blog. Thank you!

PPS: I just saw this: www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-10/satellite-photos-released-revealing-russian-military-build
Now, I am no imagery analyst, but even I can tell you that these photos show, well, how shall I put it more delicately, absolutely *nothing*. Least of all a combined arms army of 40′000 soldiers about to launch an invasion. This is beyond ridiculous …

(1)
The SAKER is a Blogger (Adress: The Saker, 41 rue de la Synagogue, CH-1204 Genève, Switzerland), His sources and knowledge of the internal Russian affairs and the history/developments of/in the countrys of the former Warsaw Treaty Organization 1990ff are extraordinary. His (Blog-) contributions are occasionally published on AsiaTimes online (atimes.com).