Ukraine is About Oil. So Was World War I

[Catherina]

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Ukraine is About Oil. So Was World War I
by Robert Freeman


Pro-Russian supporters wave Russian flags to welcome the Russian Black Sea Fleet flagship, the missile cruiser Moskva, entering Sevastopol bay in September 10, 2008. (Photo: AFP)

Ukraine is a lot more portentous than it appears. It is fundamentally about the play for Persian Gulf oil. So was World War I. The danger lies in the chance of runaway escalation, just like World War I.

Let’s put Ukraine into a global strategic context.

The oil is running out. God isn’t making any more dinosaurs and melting them into the earth’s crust. Instead, as developing world countries aspire to first-world living standards, the draw-down on the world’s finite supply of oil is accelerating. The rate at which known reserves are being depleted is four times that at which new oil is being discovered. That’s why oil cost $26 a barrel in 2001, but $105 today. It’s supply and demand.

Oil recalls that old expression: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” In industrial civilization, the nation that controls the oil is king. And 60% of the known oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. That’s why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003: to seize control of the oil. Alan Greenspan told at least one truth in his life: “I hate to have to admit what everybody knows. Iraq is about oil.”

But the U.S. lost the war in Iraq. Remember? The U.S. was going to install a democracy and 14 permanent bases there. They’re not there. The U.S. was run out after proving unable to pacify the Islamic jihad it had unleashed under the pretext of searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Instead, Iraq allied itself with Iran, its Shi’ite comrade-in-arms in the Muslim Wars of Religion.

So today, the battle for the Persian Gulf is being carried out through its two regional powers, Saudi Arabia, the champion of Sunni Islam, and Iran, the torch carrier for Shi’ite Islam. Think of the Wars between the Protestants and Catholics in the 1500s. The U.S. backs Saudi Arabia, as it has done since 1945, when Roosevelt cut a deal with Ibn Saud to protect his illegitimate throne in exchange for the House of Saud only selling oil in dollars.

Iran, of course, is implacably hostile to the U.S. after the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democratically elected president, Mosaddegh, in 1953 and installed its own fascist puppet, the Shah of Iran. The Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979 and installed a fundamentalist theocracy that continues to this day.

Iran’s main ally in the region is Syria, which the U.S. has been trying to overthrow for three years by helping the al-Qaeda-linked rebels that are attacking Syria. Syria’s chief military patron is Russia, which conveniently bailed Obama out of his childish “red line” declaration last year, a declaration he had neither the military nor political nor diplomatic capacity to carry out.

So, the upheaval in Ukraine is really about the U.S. trying to weaken Syria’s patron, Russia. If Russia is weakened, Syria is weakened. If Syria is weakened, Iran is weakened. If Iran is weakened, the U.S. has a better chance of seizing control of the world’s largest reserves of oil. That is the Great Game that is going on here.

The problem is the risk of escalation. It’s not at all fanciful to imagine some ambitious Ukrainian colonel firing at Russian forces. Russia fires back, decisively. This puts Ukraine at risk for its European suitor, the EU. So NATO intervenes to try to intimidate Russia. Russia retaliates to blacken NATO's nose. And before anyone knows it, the U.S. is dragged into a shooting war where no one can understand how it ends. This is almost exactly how World War I started.

The Germans were gunning for Persian Gulf oil via their relationship with the Ottoman Empire. But this would have given Germany a choke hold on England, which had only just converted its navy to oil. So, England reversed its historical rivalry with France, in 1904, and with Russia, in 1907, to try to contain Germany. But a minor, unanticipated dust-up in the Balkans in the summer of 1914 escalated into The Greatest War The World Had Ever Known.

In a freak event, a Serbian teenager killed the heir-apparent to the Austrian-Hungarian throne. So Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. Russia couldn’t stand idle as its sole Balkan ally, Serbia, was humiliated. So it mobilized on Austria-Hungary, an effective declaration of war.

Germany moved to defend its ally, Austria-Hungary, by attacking Russia’s ally, France. England, France’s ally, responded by declaring war on Germany. Within less than one month of a minor incident in a minor region of the continent, all the major powers of Europe were at war.

World War I would inflict 27 million casualties through the industrialization of human slaughter. It destroyed four great empires, more than had expired in any single event, ever. Eleven new nations were created in its aftermath, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. It was the event that shifted the locus of global power from Europe to the U.S., where it has resided ever since. It rearranged the architecture of global power more than any event of the last thousand years.

So the portent of Ukraine is a global strategic order hanging in the balance. The U.S. must subdue Russia to gain control of the world’s oil. It is the same strategic objective that is driving the U.S.’s subversion of the democratically elected government in Venezuela: it sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of oil. Indeed, all of the U.S.’ aggressions on Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, and its subversion of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, can be understood in this context.

The wild card in the whole fracas is China. China is the biggest customer of Iranian oil, and the largest international investor in Venezuela. These represent some of China’s moves to counter the U.S. attempt to control the world’s oil. The potential escalation from Ukraine as the U.S. pressures Syria, Iran, and Venezuela, inescapably involves China. If China becomes involved, trying to defend its allies and its supply of oil, it is anybody’s guess where it ends. But it won’t be pretty.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Robert Freeman is the author of The Best One-Hour History series which includes World War I and The Vietnam War. He is the founder of the national non-profit One Dollar For Life which helps American students build schools in the developing world from their contributions of one dollar

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/08

Editing to OP to add some stuff from History 101 that they used to teach in school:

Oil was already of huge importance for WWI. Germany, then the UK, were converting navies to oil

In 1911 Churchill started converting the British Navy to oil from coal and securing oil rights in Persia to assure British naval supremacy (by 1908 Churchill had already secured, from the Shah of Persia (Iran), a 51 per cent controlling interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, for the UK, for £2.2 million for that very purpose). Airplanes and tanks were already eing introduced to modern warfare and they needed oil to run.

Archduke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated until 1914.

Churchill's conversion of the British Navy from coal to oil from coal was a high risk strategy because England had loads of coal but no oil. The Baghdad rail link Germany was working on was viewed in London as a threat to UK's oil security and securing large oil reserves became a national security priority for the UK.

Germany had been modernizing its fleet since 1903 and was challenging Britain's hegemony of the seas, by shifting from from coal to oil powered. No way was the UK going to let Germany eclipse it. It was about oil even back then. Germany started working on the Berlin-Baghdad Railway in 1903 to bring oil to their country, for their navy. It bypassed the Suez Canal and was a huge threat to the UK. Before even that, in the 1890s, Germany worked on the the Anatolian Railway and in 1902 the Ottoman government granted a German firm the concession to lay new track eastward from Ankara to Baghdad. By 1888, Germany had permission from the Turks to begin work on the Anatolian Railway Company, and by 1896, they had already completed a major railway line from Angora to Konya.

As a spoil of war, British forces secured all the oilfields in Mesopotamia under the Versailles Treaty in their new League Protectorate called Iraq.

And for information from a random link (there are thousands more out there):

Welsh coalfields produced steam coal, a type of coal that both packed full of energy and quick to heat, by far the best fuel for coal-powered battleships (Updated). But these miners had been engaged in a wave of strikes and unrest from 1910-1914, which led Winston Churchill, then in charge of the admiralty, to switch the navy to oil. Whereas Britain had very small discovered deposits of oil (large discoveries in the North Sea would come much later), oil had different physical characteristics than coal. It could be drilled, and easily shipped through pipelines and oil tankers, thus rendering it far less vulnerable to labor slowdowns and sabotage.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/how-coal-brought-us-democracy-and-oil-ended-it-lessons-from-the-new-book-carbon-democracy.html

[Scuba]

1. It's about oil? Who knew?

[Dollface]

31. Major General Smedley Butler

[coldbeer]

44. Viet Nam was about OIL

Just google shell oil and Viet Nam.

[Javaman]

142. Also Rubber plantations. nt

[cthulu2016]

2. Very silly

[aristocles]

3. I agree.

[sabrina 1]

4. I imagine there were lots of people back then who thought the same thing.

I thought it would be silly to go to war in Iraq eg and that wiser heads would prevail. But I was wrong and untold numbers of human beings were annihilated which continues after ten years or more.

One thing could change repeating history. All of those in positions of power on all of the different 'sides', could sit down and talk to each other about sharing the world's resources rather than killing each other over them.

But that seems like an even sillier idea, doesn't it?

[Catherina]

9. Fall in line with the propaganda that it's about "democracy"

Lots of people frothing for "democracy" right now who obviously haven't transcended the excitement of cold war movies yet.

And here's the best part for the so-called "environmentalists" so busy repeating the MSM's cold war2 propaganda that they can't add 2+2.

U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

WASHINGTON — The crisis in Crimea is heralding the rise of a new era of American energy diplomacy, as the Obama administration tries to deploy the vast new supply of natural gas in the United States as a weapon to undercut the influence of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, over Ukraine and Europe.

The crisis has escalated a State Department initiative to use a new boom in American natural gas supplies as a lever against Russia, which supplies 60 percent of Ukraine’s natural gas and has a history of cutting off the supply during conflicts. This week, Gazprom, Russia’s state-run natural gas company, said it would no longer provide gas at a discount rate to Ukraine, a move reminiscent of more serious Russian cutoffs of natural gas to Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe in 2006, 2008 and 2009.

The administration’s strategy is to move aggressively to deploy the advantages of its new resources to undercut Russian natural gas sales to Ukraine and Europe, weakening such moves by Mr. Putin in future years. Although Russia is still the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas, the United States recently surpassed it to become the world’s largest natural gas producer, largely because of breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing technology, known as fracking.

Over the past week, Congressional Republicans have joined major oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil in urging the administration to speed up oil and natural gas exports. Although environmentalists, some Democrats and American manufacturing companies that depend on the competitive advantage of cheap domestic natural gas oppose the effort, they have fallen to the sidelines in the rush.

...

The United States does not yet export its natural gas. But the Energy Department has begun to issue permits to American companies to export natural gas starting in 2015. American companies have submitted 21 applications to build port facilities in the United States to export liquefied natural gas by tanker. The agency has approved six of the applications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/us-seeks-to-reduce-ukraines-reliance-on-russia-for-natural-gas.html?_r=1

Frack baby FRACK!

And we, the people, are going to have to subsidize it too, not just enough to ensure massive corporate profits but enough to undercut Russia's prices to the any European governments who allow themselves to get dragged any further and bet their nation's interests on game of Snakes and Ladders.

[BlueJac]

17. Spreading freedom like we are at home.........

wire tapping the senate

[Catherina]

25. +1. I'm keeping an eye on that one too. That might help the Senate wake up a bit n/t

[sabrina 1]

138. I was told today on DU, believe it or not, that spying on the Senate 'is about transparency'!

Don't be shocked at the lengths people will go to to defend the indefensible.

[okaawhatever]

21. Why don't you mention that Russia also fracks for gas? And why are you on this site if you don't

support democracy? The terms of service state that this is a website for those who are Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

23. Russia is fracking in the US? Since when?

Yes, this is a Democratic Forum where for as long as I have been aware of it, Democrats ask questions, unlike the far right, and asking questions, reading history, struggling to find out what our foreign policy is all about, is a uniquely democratic trait, or it certainly was when we all KNEW what the Iraq War was for. Btw, what WAS the Iraq war for iyo?

[zeemike]

41. Support democracy?

By supporting a coup that overthrows a democratically elected government?...wow...just wow, we have went down the rabbit hole.

[Igel]

5. Many can't get over themselves.

Egypt was about the US.

Ukraine is about the US.

WWI was about the US.

Everything is about the US.

And all that matters is oil.

Soon it will be revealed that the sacking of Rome by the Goths was about the US, Muhammed was about the US, Jesus was a Southern-Baptist plant, Buddha was a US/CIA false-flag operation, and somehow the US engineered the Chicxulub asteroid impact to produce oil (but characteristically got it wrong so that too much oil was located in the wrong places).

So everything is about oil. And our control of it.

Nobody and nothing else matters because, well, we think oil is important and our politics are all-important in the world.

It's just another way in which we are truly a paragon of awesomeness in our humility, stunningly great in our modesty. Truly other-centered and all-altruistic, enlightened in being wedded to nuance and able to deal spectacularly with uncertainty, stellar in critical thinking.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. The odd thing about your list is that most of it is true.

Egypt was about the US.

We propped up the Mubarak dictatorship for decades, until it collapsed. How Egypt's descent into chaos was not about our policies in Egypt is an exercise for the whitewash brigade.

The same brigade of denialists refuses to understand that we most certainly were involved in the collapse of the Ukrainian government, and that it has been our aim since the collapse of the Soviet Union to "push Eastward" in Europe, isolating Russia and diminishing its power in the region. How involved we are in the events in the Ukraine is of course a state secret, and absent a Snowden type leak we won't know the details for years, if ever.

WWI was not about the US. You got that part right.

It is a great rhetorical device to insert one obvious truth in a bunch of bullshit in order to cover up the stench.

[Catherina]

12. I hope you didn't work too long on that nonsensical post n/t

[bemildred]

19. QED. nt

[sabrina 1]

24. Why are giving billions of dollars to Ukraine right now? Is just altruism or an investment, and if

the latter, who benefits from that imvestment?

Airc, we don't have any money, which is why school lunches and veterans' benefits and SS and food stamps need to be cut. So why is it more important to send billions to a country 'that has nothing to do with us' rather than spend it right here?

Sorry for asking questions, it's what we, apparently inconvenient Democrats, do and always have .....

[JEB]

97. We don't "give" anything.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Looting-Of-Ukraine-Has-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-Crimea_Euro_Putin_Russia-140306-182.html?show=votes

[go west young man]

123. Your right we take a lot.

And Ukraine has now lost out on the $8 billion China had recently negotiated for them in December plus the negotiated gas cuts and the $15 billion from Russia. They need about $50 billion just to get back close to normality. The West is not gonna come up with that money however, they will promise em a lot while they stay broke. The country is in a much tougher place now more than ever.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ukraines-yanukovych-secures-8-billion-investment-commitments-from-china-234746421.html

[JEB]

124. Thanks for the link.

There is so much about Ukraine that we do not get in the MSM version of what is happening.

[Catherina]

10. Well that was subtle...

THIS TOPIC MAKES THE US LOOK BAD! NEW TOPIC!

[cali]

42. not a good piece, but the claim itself- isn't silly

Control of Middle East Oil was definitely a significant factor in WWI

The Baghdad RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Railway

My problem with this article is it's way too reductive.

[cthulu2016]

52. Your refutation of things I have never said is noted.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

141. Your logic is flawless...

I counter with the equally devastating... "No it's not, as anyone with half a brain can see - he's right"

[grahamhgreen]

6. Yup. Oil and gas. And big oil wants us foot the bill for their war.

[Catherina]

11. Thank you n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

66. Well done. Good graphics.

[Token Republican]

8. Old news

The breaking news is the Peloponnesian War was about oil too.

Granted, it was olive oil, but connect the dots.

[sabrina 1]

13. What do you think it's about? n/t

[Catherina]

18. Naw, here's the news- We're going to frack away in the US, Ukraine and export American natural gas

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Chevron's fracking plans in Ukraine?

They can export gas to West Europe which will reduce their dependence on Russia. And since Ukraine will never part of EU - no worries about those pesky environmental regulations for Chevron. Everybody wins... except maybe Russia and perhaps Ukraine which will be stuck with polluted water supplies and occasional earthquakes.

I thought the goal was for the US to become energy independent. Now Obama wants to export American natural gas. He wants to
FRACK up the environment with sludge and pollute the water table so we can sell American natural gas to the highest bidder? I suppose next he'll approve the XL pipeline so we can pollute the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest freshwater aquifer in the world? Makes perfect sense - if your goal is to screw the environment and the American people.


All hail PNAC, Chevron, Neocons, Neolibs.

How cute that the same US Assistant Secretary of State, who was one of Dick Cheney's right hand Advisors and is married to the co-founder of PNAC, the same one whose open cell calls about toppling the democratically elected government of Ukraine were intercepted, is so proud to stand in front of the Chevron and Exxon Mobil logos as she claptraps her propaganda.

All hail. Old news. Move on. Nothing to see here.

[ctsnowman]

26. That's not fair

Exxon Mobil has their logo too so both sides were represented.

[Catherina]

32. Event was sponsored by Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Monsanto... Lovely eh?

Thank you ctsnowman. I just corrected my post to reflect them too.

[2banon]

105. omg. listening to this Neo-Con rah rah speech is sickening

to the tune of 5 billion dollars courtesy of U.S. tax payers.

[raccoon]

14. Some interesting comments at the link. nt

[Catherina]

16. That's what I like about CD

the comments go into more depth than on partisan political boards.

[ProSense]

15. World War II was about oil, and

so were the Korean War and Civil War, allegedly.

Now that it has been established that every war is about oil, does that make Putin right to invade another country?

Analysis: Why Russia's Crimea move fails legal test
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024623531

[grahamhgreen]

68. You want us to spend our money defending big oil?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

20. "It's about oil" is the lunatic-left's equivalent of "It's about Benghazi"

But here's a clue. Sometimes it's really not all about the U.S.

Here's another. It's Russia that has the oil - and we're jeopardizing being able to buy that oil because we're taking a moral stand against what they're doing. So by definition, it's not about oil.

Robert Freeman isn't just an anti-American asshole. He's a transparently stupid one as well.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[sabrina 1]

22. Hi Conservative, nice to see you again. Why don't you tell us what it is about?

'lunatic left'. Why do you continue to bring those right wing epithets for Democrats to this forum? We all know where they come from, maybe you're just unaware of how silly they are?

Sabrina, uncertain if she is a member of the Lunatic Left, awaiting confirmation, depending on whose opinion, in order to declare her proud membership!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

27. Hi Sabrina. I'm rather amused you're stalking me. Enjoy your irrelevance.

...and just FYI, reflexive hatred of the United States and the President may be big on the lunatic fringe (both right and left), but it's not in the Democratic Party. Oh, and did you know that despite all your bile and spittle, President Obama has an 85% approval rating among self-described liberal democrats?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[polly7]

28. You're beyond transparent. nt.

[sabrina 1]

33. Sure, we Dems have heard all that before, now that you got it out of your system ...

Anyone who objects to you coming here attacking democrats, is stalking you. They all do that, didn't you know? Lol, 'inconvenient discussion/questions = 'stalking'!

Anyhow, now that you have told us what you think of Democrats, since you claimed your expertise on Ukraine, why are we sending money, much needed here, to a country which we 'have nothing to do with', and again, why do you continue to bring those old right wing attacks on Democrats here to a Dem forum?

We've seen them all before you know, and considering the source, most Dems just laugh at them, of course we don't expect to see them right here.

If you don't want to discuss your comments, maybe don't put them on a public forum,. That's what discussion boards are for.

And you can be sure that if you attack Dems on a Dem forum people will definitely respond.

Sabrina, still waiting to find out who thinks she is from the 'lunatic fringe' so she can decide whether to be a proud member or not, definitely leaning towards proud membership so far!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

47. No, Sabrina, we DEMOCRATS have heard it all before...

- The bitching and moaning about President Obama
- The lying about President Obama
- The bitching, moaning, and outright lying about other elected Democrats
- The trashing of the Democratic party, and misrepresenting its positions
- The lying about people who state facts about the Democratic party
- The laughable "purity troll" bullshit where people say "I'm a Democrat, but DAE think all Democratic electeds are the WORST?"
- The hilarious attempt to twist defense of Democrats and the Democratic party from such bullshit, into an attack on "democrats"

I'm well aware you're not even the slightest bit interested in any sort of rational discussion, but for anyone else reading, what the U.S. and E.U. is doing is sending "bailout money" (to replace the billions that Yanukovych embezzled, so that they can get over the hump). This is actually a LOAN not a gift. And the U.S. has done this before - President Clinton did it for Mexico when they had financial troubles.

Again Sabrina, you don't speak for all Democrats. Given your obvious hatred towards the President, you absolutely don't speak for 85% of Liberal Democrats. And even among the 15%, a much much smaller percentage than that would go so far as to effectively accuse President Obama of engaging in a war for oil.

Enjoy your irrelevance.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[sabrina 1]

51. "Given your obvious hatred towards the President"

Another personal attack on Democrats!

Prove that lie you just told with a link, something, anything to explain why you would dare to post such an outright lie against a DUer here.

You have lots of research material to draw from, over 40, 000 comments. Either prove it or it stands as the lie that it is and does nothing more than prove that right here on DU Democrats are being subjected to vicious attacks now on a regular basis.

As I said before, and repeat, this is very familiar to Democrats.

Either back it up or you will have accomplished nothing other than prove me right. Which is fine with me.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

99. I'm supposed to "come up with research" on how you hate Obama...

...in a thread in which you are clearly defending the notion that Obama's only motivation for helping Ukrainians is oil?

You remind me of that challenge that the schizophrenic who wrote timecube.com has, in which he says he'll give $1000 to anyone who "proves him wrong". The catch being that he must admit to being proved wrong, which of course he'll never do.

From literally 5 minutes of googling, you believe that President Obama "assassinates" Americans (where you never use that language towards Lincoln), and you apparently like intervening with military action in foreign countries! (at least if you think it's something Obama wouldn't want), and you have the habit of interpreting any description of your constant attacks on Obama as attacks as a "personal attack" against you. You're also apparently in the habit of issuing this "prove to me that my attacks on Obama are attacks" challenge to others, which they've done and you haven't accepted.

I'm done with my 5 minutes. Trying to prove something to someone who doesn't have the emotional maturity to admit that they're ever wrong just wastes time, although I must admit it was amusing to see Sheepshank smack you around so badly in this thread - including doing a lot more research on "proof" of your behavior that you promptly ignored.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Enthusiast]

35. They didn't poll me.

[geek tragedy]

90. why don't you ask a Ukrainian? nt

[sabrina 1]

104. That's a great idea, when are the elections? We haven't heard from the Ukrainian people

throughout the country, just the few who showed up in Kiev.

I assume there will be elections within weeks and then we will finally know what THEY think.

As of now, all they have is an unelected government, no?

[Catherina]

29. So what exactly is the difference between a Conservative Democrat and a Republican

My guess it's traditionally liberal aka democratic issues like the environment, war and social security.

Well here's a newsflash for you, Robert Freeman isn't an anti-American asshole. That honor goes to the conservatives and their enablers who are too transparently stupid to think they're fooling everyone in this country.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

40. So what do you call yourself?

You're sitting here coming up left & right with ways to somehow blame the US for Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea. It's really quite extraordinary. You're an enabler of something. You and I both know what that is.
I'd like to know how you live with yourself.

[Catherina]

45. Sorry, this thread is about oil, wars and Ukraine

If you'd like to start a thread about me to spread your nasty insinuations, instead of sticking to the discussion, feel free to do so.

[bvar22]

56. Results of The Jury.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This notjing but a call-out. There's no argument, no point, just the call out.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:27 PM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What is the call out in this post?

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Let it be a lesson for the laziness that can't figure out how to disagree with something they don't understand except by calling it "right wing" as an insult.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Catherina should probably have a hide in this too. Both are guilty of call-outs. I'm not going to alert, but If I serve on the jury I'll vote to hide it too.

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Attacking people makes DU suck.

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Vindictive, unsupported personal attack.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was Juror #6.

[Catherina]

60. Thanks to jurors 3-6 n/t

[AverageJoe90]

30. I'm sorry, but no. Just no.

World War I started because of the assassination of Austria's archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, not because of oil in the Persian Gulf.....hardly a "minor event", Mr. Freeman. And furthermore, what does the Ukraine have to do with Iran?

There's honestly so many flaws with this premise, It'd be a huge waste of time just trying to get to them all.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

34. Waste of time nails it.

I'm just curious how many different ways there are to justify invasion and occupation. Here I thought only the right engaged in this sort of idiocy. Oh well.

[ProSense]

38. Some on the left are becoming like the right: history dunces. n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

39. No kidding.

But that's not the worst part. This is clearly an invasion justified in the absolute worst way by Putin: to "protect" Russians. Ethnic Russians, not Russian citizens, by the way. It doesn't even rise to the level of justification used in the Hawaii case I posted that was rejected by Grover Cleveland: http://www.hawaii-nation.org/cleveland.html
The pro-Russian party in Crimea got single digits in the last election, but its leader is the one the Russians put up in the new, occupied Crimea.
I fail to see the difference between this and Bush in Iraq. But apparently if it's done by Putin, it's OK.

[go west young man]

125. Not that it matters considering the last elections in the whole country.

[sabrina 1]

43. I couldn't agree more!

[Number23]

65. Well how ever many ways there are, this forum will find them all

And for what it's worth, that was an absolutely absurd hide of your post upthread.

Calling someone right wing is a hideable offense now, huh? That will be of immense interest to the the folks that get that word tossed at them daily because they have the unmitigated gall to support the Democratic Party on a Democratic web site.

[Catherina]

46. You really, really need to work on your reading skills. Let me bold a passage for you

In a freak event, a Serbian teenager killed the heir-apparent to the Austrian-Hungarian throne. So Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. Russia couldn’t stand idle as its sole Balkan ally, Serbia, was humiliated. So it mobilized on Austria-Hungary, an effective declaration of war.

Germany moved to defend its ally, Austria-Hungary, by attacking Russia’s ally, France. England, France’s ally, responded by declaring war on Germany. Within less than one month of a minor incident in a minor region of the continent, all the major powers of Europe were at war.

[AverageJoe90]

55. I read this quite well, thank you.

The problem was, he claimed the assassination of the Archduke was a "minor event". Here, I'll even quote him directly:

"Within less than one month of a minor incident in a minor region of the continent....."

So, I don't know where you got this idea about me supposedly having reading comprehension problems, but you really should rethink that.

[Javaman]

143. Actually...

when the author wrote, "Russia couldn’t stand idle as its sole Balkan ally, Serbia, was humiliated. So it mobilized on Austria-Hungary, an effective declaration of war."

while Russia might not have liked that Serbia was "humiliated", they didn't declare war because of that.

Triple Entente of 1907 is why they declared war. They were allies with both Britain and France. The Triple Entente was a counter weight to the Triple Alliance, which included: Germany, Austria-Hungry and Italy.

The German Offensive attack plan, created by German General Von Shlieffen, had Germany attacking France then once that was successful, they were then to attack Russia. This was on the pretense that Russia, notorious for having a long call up and arming time for their military (at least back then), would take the Russian's roughly 45 days to have their military ready for deployment.

However, due to various problems with their plan, the Germans attack upon France was not going as swiftly as they had hoped. (This was mostly due to a surprising counter offensive by the French)

Germany then had another surprise. The 45 day window on which they counted on before the Russians were ready, was cut short when the Russians began fielding troops after only 30 days.

[Catherina]

146. Thanks for your great comment here. I totally agree with you.

The article is "reductive" (great word), as Cali stated, but I didn't write it

[Javaman]

148. I corrected it to reflect the authors opinion not yours. :)

thanks for the correction.
Cheers!

[dixiegrrrrl]

71. Actually, the assassination was not the cause

it may have been the excuse.
the First World War is never taught in schools as an invasion of Iraq.

But besides Mr. Freeman, there are other writers who also can read history:
According to A History of Oil, by Robert Newman
and to
Marching to the Drums: Eyewitness Accounts of War from the Kabul Massacre to the Siege of Mafeking
by Ian Knight

Marching to the drums is a gung-ho military history full of stirring tales of the British Empires Colonial campaigns 1860 – 1900. and has chapters on Gordon of Kartoum, Omdurman, the Boer War.
At the top of each chapter there’s a short single paragraph introduction explaining just what the British Army in the 1880's was doing in Egypt or Sudan or Afghanistan.
a quote:

“In 1886 the Suez Canal became the most direct route to India, the most valuable possession of the Empire.
Thus it was necessary for Britain to control all traffic through the Suez Canal, which therefore meant crushing the indigenous independent movement of Egypt and the indigenous independent movement of Egypt and the Sudan"
So that is one element..
Andthey also write what Catherina has pointed to :
Around the same time,Admiral Jackie Fisher converted the British navy from coal-fired to oil-powered ships
Meanwhile, The German navy follows suit but they don’t have any oil-producing colonies, no place in the sun. Thus begins the ‘Drang Nach Osten’, the ‘drive to the east’. The spine of this policy is the Berlin-Baghdad Railway.
It currently ( at the time) ran from Berlin to Constantinople. The famous Orient Express. The Germans just needed to build that last 900-kilometre extension that would bring them clear into Baghdad.
however, Russia, France, Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands of Royal Dutch Shell, and Britain do not want Germany to get the oil.
In 1914 secretary of the War Cabinet Sir Maurice Hankey wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that ‘control of Middle Eastern oil supplies’ has become ‘a first-class British war aim."

Ferdinad is shot, perhaps a one-off incident, who knows, but a good excuse.

[Catherina]

73. Thanks for this great addition about Europe's pre-WWI jockeying for oil domination

I'm astounded that this is even in dispute. What are our schools teaching in history class? I really thought this was basic knowledge, even as a long footnote.

It didn't take Britain, France, Russia, the US, very long to figure out that planes and tanks for war needed oil and that was before WWI. By the time WWI started they were all outfitted with the fancy new machines and already working on guaranteeing fuel sources.

Thank you for adding this.

[dixiegrrrrl]

75. Another good book is The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power

by Daniel Yergin.
Talk about detailed...thick tome, chock full of details from the minute oil was discovered on widespread basis.
He deserved the Pulitzer he got.

[Catherina]

78. That was one of my favorite books! Highly recommended

One of my sisters gave it to me many Christmases ago and I couldn't put it down.

PBS aired a documentary based on it that's available on youtube. I'm going to watch it right now. Here's part 1. Have you seen it? I don't think anything can compare to the book though.

[dixiegrrrrl]

79. "the first British regiment to be deployed in the First World War goes to Basara

Where it is joined by 51 other British divisions."
History of Oil, Robert Newman

Basara is home to massive oil fields, the history of which is covered quite well in Yergin's book.

[Catherina]

96. I'm dusting off his book right now to reread it and googling to see what he has to say about Ukraine

I didn't know he wrote a new one in 2011 called "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World" that critics say is even better than "The Prize". Have you read it?

I was just googling a little to see what he had to say about Ukraine and found this

(08.12.2011) ...

“The analysis conducted by HIS CERA shows that Ukraine could have quite substantial reserves of alternative fuel. <…> The main issues that have to be addressed are the potential volumes of production of such reserves and what will be the cost,” Daniel Yergin warned. “The experience of shale gas exploration in the U.S. points to the necessity of caution. It clearly shows that believing there are substantial resources without conducting a thorough inspection of this fact would have been a grave mistake.”

Ukraine has great potential to attract investments if it helps create internationally competitive conditions, primarily the possibility of financial gains depending on the volumes and prices of produced gas, confidence in legal ownership rights and system of regulating bodies, the pace of potential investments (which is influenced by the effectiveness of the regulatory process) and the effectiveness of the decision making process, the expert who is the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and United States Energy Award for Lifetime Achievements in the Energy Sector and Fostering International Mutual Understanding continued.

Mr Yergin hailed the “huge and most likely unprecedented efforts” that the Ukrainian government is making to find an appropriate method of working with investors in the oil and gas sector and this is clearly reflected in the Dialog on Policy Issues of Ukraine.

http://www.unian.info/politics/579855-daniel-yergin-development-of-alternative-fuels-need-unprecedented-efforts.html

US vs. Europe: Energy battle heats up

Published: Monday, 27 Jan 2014

...competitiveness among nations gets measured in many different ways. Sometimes, it is in terms of rule of law and sanctity of contracts, regulatory predictability, risks of litigation and class-actions suits — or even the length of time it takes to start a new business.

But this year at Davos, it was calibrated along only one axis — energy. And that measure is creating great angst for European industry. It is also emerging as a challenging issue for policy makers, who, until now, have been quite assured that Europe was on the right course when it came to energy policy.

It all comes down to shale gas and the energy revolution it has triggered in the United States. As a result of the rapid advance of shale technology, the United States now has an abundance of low-cost natural gas — at one-third the price of European gas. European industrial electricity prices are twice as high as those in some countries and are much higher than those in the United States. To a significant degree, this is the result of a pell-mell push toward high-cost renewable electricity (wind and solar), which is imposing heavy costs on consumers and generating large fiscal burdens for governments. In Germany, it was further accentuated by the premature shutdown of its existing nuclear industry after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan.
...

A year ago at Davos, this question was hardly evident. I can recall only one discussion on the topic last year, and it was over a cup of coffee in the cramped lounge halfway up the main staircase. But this year, the issue was at the top of the agenda. In one session I attended, a senior European official declared that Europe needs to wake up to the "strategic reality" that shale gas in the United States is a "total game changer." Without a change in policies at both the European and national levels, he warned, Europe "will lose our energy intensive industries — and we will lose our economy long term."

(Read more: Where were all the women in Davos?)

Yet the competitiveness gap will continue to expand as Europe remains locked in a path of still-higher costs — unless there is a change in policy. And the first signs of a potential change of policy abruptly emerged in both Brussels and Berlin during Davos week. European policy makers, struggling with already high unemployment, have begun to visualize the further job loss that will result from shutting down European plants. They have also started to pay attention to the 2.1 million jobs in in the United States supported by the unconventional oil and gas revolution.

...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101365772

[dixiegrrrrl]

100. I have The Quest, have not yet read it.

He also has web site, with articles and news, and a lot of information about various tpes of energy.
http://danielyergin.com/

[Catherina]

110. Just pick it up one afternoon, you won't be able to put it down

at least I couldn't. Thanks for his website

[AverageJoe90]

82. No. Again, it *was* the assassination that caused the war(well, in our world anyway).

Even if there had been some diplomatic wrangling over oil(that I don't doubt), it was not amongst the immediate causes of the war(again, it was the death of Ferdinand that sparked the whole thing), and did not play a large role in the war itself. That's the thing.

For all the real troubles with oil, WWI wasn't one of them; the last thing we need is revisionist history(yes, that's what it is, unfortunately)muddying up the waters, no matter the intention.

That might make an interesting alternate history, perhaps, but it's not what really happened in our world; oil was very much a secondary consideration; it took a backseat to the *Continental* ethno-cultural and geopolitical tensions that were going on then.

[dixiegrrrrl]

84. Ok..I'll bite...why was the death of Ferdinand so important?

Who were the people most upset about it
and
what did they want to accomplish re: his death that created a GLOBAL war?

[AverageJoe90]

86. The Austrians were most upset, but they weren't the only ones.

More than anything, this was a problem of blustering politicos & highly entangling treaties which dragged in so many nations into the quagmire.

Also, do remember that Ferdinand would have been the next Emperor of Austria if he hadn't been assassinated; he was the next-in-line for the throne. Literally. So his murder was hardly a minor incident as Robert Freeman claims.

[Javaman]

144. +1 nt

[malthaussen]

36. News to me.

You can float the argument that the second phase of the War for World Hegemony (aka WWII) was about oil, but in 1914 the issues were quite different and oil was not as big a deal as it would soon become.

-- Mal

[Democracyinkind]

53. That's not entirely true. German influence on the Ottomon Empire was threatening British Oil...

... interests. Iraq, Baghdad Railway. There's lots if documents that prove British concerns.

[Catherina]

54. Oil was already of huge importance for WWI. Germany, then the UK, were converting navies to oil

In 1911 Churchill started converting the British Navy to oil from coal and securing oil rights in Persia to assure British naval supremacy (by 1908 Churchill had already secured, from the Shah of Persia (Iran), a 51 per cent controlling interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, for the UK, for £2.2 million for that very purpose). Airplanes and tanks were already eing introduced to modern warfare and they needed oil to run.

Archduke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated until 1914.

Churchill's conversion of the British Navy from coal to oil from coal was a high risk strategy because England had loads of coal but no oil. The Baghdad rail link Germany was working on was viewed in London as a threat to UK's oil security and securing large oil reserves became a national security priority for the UK.

Germany had been modernizing its fleet since 1903 and was challenging Britain's hegemony of the seas, by shifting from from coal to oil powered. No way was the UK going to let Germany eclipse it. It was about oil even back then. Germany started working on the Berlin-Baghdad Railway in 1903 to bring oil to their country, for their navy. It bypassed the Suez Canal and was a huge threat to the UK. Before even that, in the 1890s, Germany worked on the the Anatolian Railway and in 1902 the Ottoman government granted a German firm the concession to lay new track eastward from Ankara to Baghdad. By 1888, Germany had permission from the Turks to begin work on the Anatolian Railway Company, and by 1896, they had already completed a major railway line from Angora to Konya.

As a spoil of war, British forces secured all the oilfields in Mesopotamia under the Versailles Treaty in their new League Protectorate called Iraq.

[FSogol]

37. Unrec. More commondreams silliness.

[madfloridian]

48. Common Dreams has some great writers. Just like any forum or website.

You pick and choose, you don't condemn the whole website.

[FSogol]

64. Perhaps, but the contemptible dreck that gets posted here makes a pretty ridiculous sample. n/t

[sabrina 1]

49. What is it about then?

Mother Jones disagrees also. See

Four Ways Unkraine Crisis All About Energy

It certainly appears to be for Russia and for Europe.

Now, American and European leaders are confronting the question of how to deal with Russia's significant influence over the world's hydrocarbon economy while also helping Ukraine's fledgling government stand on its own two feet and clean up its energy act.

Here are four things you need to know about the role of energy in the current crisis:

1. The United States is rushing to push more gas onto the market to undercut Putin's power. Russia's presence in Ukraine is prompting calls, especially among congressional Republicans, to loosen export restrictions on US natural gas in the hopes of diminishing Russia's ability to use gas as a diplomatic weapon, like it did in 2006 and 2009. With America's newfound dominance in gas production (in 2013, the United States surpassed Russia to become the biggest producer of oil and gas, thanks in part to fracking) comes greater power in energy diplomacy.

"One immediate step the president can and should take is to dramatically expedite the approval of US exports of natural gas," House Speaker John Boehner said on Tuesday. Adding new supplies to the global market—the United States is already in the process of approving a range of proposals to export gas—"sends a clear signal that the global gas market is changing, that there is the prospect of much greater supply coming from other parts of the world," Carlos Pascual from the State Department told the New York Times.

But Tim Boersma, a fellow in the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution, warns that there are going to be no easy and fast solutions to the energy dominance Russia has established in Ukraine. "At the end of the day, what will not really change—whether we like it or not—is that Ukraine is an important transit country for natural gas," he says. "The notion that some people have put out there that Ukraine could become independent of Russian gas in not realistic at all."

[AverageJoe90]

57. Not to mention an ignorance of history.

World War I had very little to do with oil at all. It started over what he called a "minor event" in the Balkans.....and that event was the assassination of the man who was next-in-line for the Austrian throne! Hardly a "minor event" at all.

[Junkdrawer]

80. Oh? Robert Newman's History of Oil .

[qazplm]

58. amazing

that you would try to make the argument that the invasion of Crimea by Russia is REALLY about US desire for oil.

Just a silly link. The US is not responsible for every last tiny shred of evil in the world. Even if we wanted to be, we aren't that good.

[Savannahmann]

59. Mr. Freeman couldn't be more wrong if he tried

World War I was the result of rising tensions. There was always a ballance of power in Europe. Germany controlled the most powerful ground army, and thus was the power to be reckoned with on land. Britain controlled the seas with thier fleet. So long as nobody threatened Germany's Ground Army control, and no one threatened the British Control of the sea, there would be little chance for a major war.

German Kaiser Willhelm felt that Germany was not considered a powerful enough force, and deduced that it was the absence of a serious Navy that allowed Germany to be ignored. After all, racisim showed that German Culture, technology, and dedication was superior to all others. So Germany started building ships. Big powerful ships that would easily match the British.

France knew it could not defeat Germany alone. So they negotiated a treaty with Russia to come to the aide of each other in the event of war.

Britain saw the danger of a German Imperial Fleet challenging them for control of the sea, and formed a loose agreement that was an alliance for all intents and purposes with France, but not Czarist Russia.

Now, Germany saw the danger of Encirclement, surrounded by enemies on all sides. The only allies she had was Austria and Italy. Toss in the meglomania of the Kaiser, and you have a recipie for disaster.

Oil became an issue when Germany tried to sway Mexico to join them in the war which would have cut off a major source of Oil to the British Navy. But Oil wasn't the first major shortage that the combatants had. The Germans started the war with a six month supply of Nitrates, vital components of both gunpowder and explosives, on hand. This was considered sufficient as any war was certain to be over in a few weeks or at most four months. Thomas Angel had demonstrated this in his book after all.

If the Germans had not developed the ability to pull nitrogen out of the air and convert it to a suitable nitrate the war would have ended after the first year when the Germans had nothing to go boom left.

It was German meddling in Mexico that would eventually draw the Americans into the War despite the determination of Wilson to avoid the war and continue in neutrality until the belligerants stopped acting like children.

If anything caused the first World War, it was arrogance. The Frence arrogantly believed they could defeat the Germans no matter what plan the Germans had. The Germans arrogantly believed they could defeat France in thirty days. The British arrogantly believed that six divisions of troops would make all the difference in the world against an army that had more than a million trained men in uniform. The Russians arrogantly believed that they could fight the war like it was not the age of machine guns and cannon.

Everybody was wrong, and everybody suffered.

Read The Guns of August for a nice overview of what caused the war. It is said that it was one of JFK's favorite books and was part of the reason he managed to avoid World War III over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Catherina]

63. Very interesting but please see post 54

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4630946

The oil was key in the war for power.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. No! No! No! WWI was about "Making the world safe for democracy" and to "End all wars".

It wasn't about oil, or blustering politicians, or entangling treaties, it was a glorious way of making the world safe and democratic.

But, what the hell, the slogans were swell and it only cost 10,000,000 lives and look at all the nice memorials.

[Catherina]

70. The denial is shockingly strong on this one. On basics at that n/t

[AverageJoe90]

85. It really wasn't about oil, to be truthful.

But it certainly was about blustering politicos and entangling treaties that caused perhaps the most futile major war in world history.

[bvar22]

62. Our WAR with Japan was...ultimately...about oil too.

" In 1940 Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to embargo all imports into China, including war supplies purchased from the U.S.

This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports, leading the Imperial Japanese Navy to estimate that it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining and to support the existing plans to seize oil resources in the Dutch East Indies.

Planning had been underway for some time on an attack on the "Southern Resource Area" to add it to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that Japan envisioned in the Pacific.

One can NOT have an EMPIRE without Oil.

In the 30s, the US had plentiful domestic sources for Oil.
(and little desire for Empire)

Japan had ZERO sources of domestic oil production,
so they just went and brutally occupied some Neighbor Countries that DID have oil.

The US said: "No Oil for YOU, Japan!"

Japan said: "Try that without your Pacific Fleet, you nosy bastards."


...and the WAR was ON.

disclaimer: Yes. There were other factors,
but don't you find it worth noticing than when everything is cleared away,
you always find OIL?

[Catherina]

69. What have they been teaching in history classes?

I learned this all in High School History classes. I'm astounded that our education system has obviously not been doing its job on simple basics like the mad European quest for oil that started years before WWI.

Good post.

"One can NOT have an EMPIRE without Oil."

[2banon]

101. That was an unusual High School History Class, you went to Catherina

I didn't learn anything but State sponsored propaganda issued during the McCarthy period. Those lying pinko commies were kept far away from U.S. textbooks and classrooms.

[Catherina]

111. I admit

it was an exceptional school that focused on raising young women to think for themselves and was extremely demanding academically. There was no pledge of allegiance (I didn't even know such a thing existed until my 20s and was gobsmacked at its inanity and purpose). But my childhood friends who went to public schools knew this and on my FB page we joke that it must have been something in the water. We grew up in one of those "Liberal" states. That could have been it. Obviously the state sponsored propaganda didn't work on you. Good

[2banon]

118. And I grew up in the military...

During the cold war and vietnam era...I had a bit more to "scrub off" than the civilian population.

[go west young man]

126. Ex marine posting against all this war for oil bullshit too.

I'm glad to see there are lots of vets at DU posting to stop the insane wars for profits.

[2banon]

131. I'm what was referred to as "dependent" back in the day..

dad was in the Marines..

[go west young man]

132. Ah cool...

no biggie.. I'm sure we stomped the same ground as I was stationed at Lejuene, Pendelton and even Camp Schwab on Okinawa for while.

[2banon]

134. omg, when?

[go west young man]

136. Long time ago now.

85-88, 1st battalion, 6th marines, 2nd Mar Div. Did a NatoMed cruise on the Saipan for a 10 months then off to Oki for jungle warfare, 3 months at 29 Palms for desert warfare and 2 months at Bridgeport, Cali for Mountain warfare. Truly opened my eyes.....and turned me into a pacifist musician.

[2banon]

137. I'm a musician too! LOL!

but I'm way older than you! lol! Oh yeah, I forgot about 29 palms, lived there too. Hellish place god I hated it there.

Hell I went to 12 different schools from 1-12 .

yep, fiddle and mandolin. oh my. I don't think I'm much of a genuine pacifist but I'm definetly anti war of aggression, occupations, invasions, yeah, you know what we're always doing.

back at cha!

[2banon]

135. Dad was stationed in all three places, plus El Toro and Kaneohe

small world... which is why we should know so much more of the back story on this issue!

[AverageJoe90]

87. Some truth to that. But even with WWII, oil wasn't a *primary* cause for war, even with Japan.

The Japanese gov't at that time, was run top to bottom by militarists who were even more insane than Hitler. The oil seizure was a catalyst, more than anything. Even we hadn't intervened, there's a really good chance they would have declared war on us anyway.

And certainly, oil was very much a secondary consideration with WWI: ethno-cultural and European geopolitical tensions were amongst the primary causes, and the murder of Ferdinand sparked it all.

[MisterP]

106. cosmic-ironically, Washington had planned to ignore Japan--until Pearl Harbor

to get rid of the B-17s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dog_memo

[KittyWampus]

67. Actually, the Ukraine is about Kevin Bacon.

[whistler162]

72. I believe Mr. Freeman should have spent

more than 1 hour on studying history!

[dixiegrrrrl]

77. ohhhh...I did not see the part where he only studied history for an hour.

got a link, pls?

[whistler162]

103. I was being slightly snide about his credentials.....

"Robert Freeman is the author of The Best One-Hour History series which includes World War I and The Vietnam War."

[AverageJoe90]

88. Very much agreed. n/t

[ProSense]

74. With Journalists Under Attack, Crimea Faces ‘Information Crisis’ Ahead Of National Referendum

With Journalists Under Attack, Crimea Faces ‘Information Crisis’ Ahead Of National Referendum

By Igor Volsky

Multiple reporters have been harassed and beaten while trying to cover efforts by pro-Russian militants to seize areas of Crimea, raising serious concerns about the safety of journalists and their ability to report accurate information just days before Crimeans vote on their political future.

Ukraine’s Channel 5 television journalists and journalists from the Inter and STB channels were allegedly assaulted and had their equipment seized, AFP reports. According to accounts from the Associated Press, a group of reporters were setting up their cameras when “they were approached by unarmed men who took photos of their equipment and ‘accused the crew of being spies.’” An AFP corespondent “later saw five male journalists in hospital who had been severely beaten, their faces covered with blood, and who were being treated for head wounds.”

Security video footage from Crimea’s main port also shows a photographer being robbed of his camera at gunpoint for taking photographs of other journalists facing intimidation and harassment...International monitors describer the crackdown as an “information crisis,” one that could significantly undermine the dissemination of information ahead of the March 16th referendum to decide if Crimea will receive autonomy from Ukraine or join Russia.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) media freedom representative warned that “extreme censorship, shutting down media outlets and press hubs and attacks and intimidation of journalists must stop immediately.” However, the team says it has been barred from entering Ukraine by pro-Russian forces...six Ukrainian channels were shutdown in Crimea and replaced with Russian broadcasts and a group of 30 masked gunmen broke into the Crimean Center for Investigative Journalism last weekend. On Thursday, a Russian lawmaker introduced legislation making media executives criminally liable for “the publication of false, anti-Russian information that provides information in support of extremist and separatist, anti-Russian forces, including portrayals of events beyond Russian borders.”

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/08/3380781/crimea-faces-information-crisis-ahead-of-national-referendum/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024630765

Ukraine: Human rights monitors urgently needed as journalists and activists face wave of attacks in Crimea

With journalists, activists and peaceful protestors facing increasing harassment and intimidation in Crimea, there is an urgent need for a strong international monitoring mission in Ukraine, said Amnesty International...calling for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to urgently establish a strong international monitoring mission in the country.

“Attempting to monitor the human rights situation in Crimea has become a near impossible task. Self-styled Crimean self-defence groups are harassing pro-Ukrainian protesters, journalists and human rights monitors with complete impunity,” said John Dalhuisen, Europe and Central Asia Director at Amnesty International.

<...>

“The OSCE must quickly establish a strong monitoring mission and enjoy unimpeded access to all parts of Ukraine – including Crimea, which remains on a knife edge and where tensions are still high. Russia should welcome, not block this initiative,” said John Dalhuisen.

Peaceful protesters who attempt to express their support for the unity of Ukraine and opposition to Russian military presence in the Crimean peninsula face intimidation from pro-Russian activists.

- more -

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/ukraine-human-rights-monitors-urgently-needed-as-journalists-and-activists-face-wave-of-attacks-in-c

[lostincalifornia]

76. World War I was about colonialism for resources. Hmmmm, just like our invasion of Iraq I think

[dixiegrrrrl]

81. Did you know that Britain was in Iraq for decades?

Both before and after WW1.

1901 when William Knox d'Arcy was granted a 60-year concession to look for oil in Iran by Shah Muzaffar al-Din.
From this beginning came the discovery of the first commercial oil field in the Middle East by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), the first major oil producer in the Middle East. With exclusive concessionary rights over 500,000 square miles (1,294,995 square kilometers) of territory, Anglo-Persian's commercial interests in southern Iran reinforced the long established presence of Britain in the Arabian Gulf.

https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198403/a.king.and.a.concession.htm

In the 95 years since Mesopotamian oil was discovered the UK has been at war with or occupying Iraq for 45 of them

History of Oil

[AverageJoe90]

83. And? Still doesn't change the facts: WWI was primarily fought over *European* geopolitical tensions.

Not Middle Eastern oil. Oil may have played a secondary role in prior diplomatic disputes, that much may be true, but it wasn't amongst the core causes for the war's beginning.

[lostincalifornia]

93. I think you are right. Definitely in regard to the outbreak of the war caused by the assassination

In Bosnia where each side prior to that was trying to gain strategic advantage over the other had very little to do with resources

[AverageJoe90]

94. Yeah.

As I said, oil did have it's role in WWI. But it wasn't the cause of the war as Freeman seems to think, and frankly, I don't think the Ukraine crisis really has much to do with Syria or Iran either, TBH.

[lostincalifornia]

95. Good information, thanks

[lostincalifornia]

92. The Ottoman Empire controlled that whole region for about 500 years until western colonialism I

Believe

[Catherina]

113. Mid 1800's the oil tycoons were already trying to snatch everything up

when they realized how the automotive and aero industries were going to revolutionize the world. As your phrase points out, the song remains the same. These wars are never fought for the little people or over principles just geopolitics and profit.

[geek tragedy]

89. Russia RAWKS! Putin RAWKS!

Seriously, do any of the fuckwits who write this crap understand that Ukrainians are human beings with motivations that have nothing to do with their inane conspiracy theories?

[amandabeech]

91. Like maybe they want a chance to get rid of the unbelievably bad corruption

and avoid being sent to the gulag for criticizing the corrupt?

I've been watching this on that right-wing rag Al Jazeera for some time. The Ukrainians are pissed, and I don't blame them.

The US and EU are not magicians. Things don't get this far unless there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of pissed off locals.

Putin is paranoid over his military bases, true. He should have put money into building a new base at one of the Russian ports to the east of the Crimea instead of building that monument to himself at Socchi. Now, he won't even admit that those are Russian troops running around Crimea. What a stand-up guy!

But what he's really scared about is the thought that he might have a Maidan in Red Square and that it would cost him and his friends those billions that they managed to extract from the Russian economy.
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking real money and a ticket to Lichtenstein.

[go west young man]

127. Wow..."fuckwits"...

Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

you sure are on a roll tonight! You must be getting frustrated with us constantly disproving your completely inaccurate posts and snarky little zingers. Love ya though. You make for great entertainment.....and not much more.

[geek tragedy]

128. Um, yeah, your parroting of rt.com's dispatches from Putin's desk

totally blow everyone away, just like they did when you told GLBTQ activists to STFU when they dared to criticize Mother Russia.

[go west young man]

129. Those are your words..not mine.

I said the Russia bashing has backfired and that the approach was wrong during the Olympics. You can call it what you want but you can't say I told anyone to STFU as it didn't happen. If you believe so strongly that I did say that then put your cards on the table and link to the comment. You won't be able to because it never happened. Have a nice night with your inane call out.

[go west young man]

130. Couple that with you seem extra upset tonight.

Is that because your friend Pretzel Warrior just took a 90 day respite a few threads over? Incidentally it wasn't me that alerted on them as I explain in that thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024616147

[KoKo]

98. Recommend! Great History Lesson...Thanks..!

[Catherina]

112. Thanks Koko! n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. There's always a truth, but it's seldom told by the MSM nt

[soundsgreat]

107. Thanks Catherina - your contributions

are top notch and the best reason to stay with DU.

[Catherina]

114. Wow, thanks. That's extremely kind and gracious of you n/t

[Junkdrawer]

108. Hi Catherina. Yep, without a basic knowledge of history and the sciences...

people are lied to with impunity. They simply do not have the tools to distinguish truth from propaganda, so they will go with:

1.) The version of history which jibes with the well established, find it anywhere, propagandized version of events
2.) The version which comes from the poster with the most Lounge posts

So, so fucking sad.

[Catherina]

116. Which is why the educational fight posters like MadFloridian and StarryMessenger

are leading is so important. We're at the point where the MSM brazenly rewrites history, and most people don't even bat an eye. Our leaders aren't interested in an educated citizenry anymore. Even in Europe, which used to pride itself on its educational systems, they've been dismantling it for the working class to turn out obedient corporate drones.


So, so fucking sad.

[Junkdrawer]

109. PS: Unless I miss my guess, I think you'll find this very interesting:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_2k8LghCnEAJ:mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~gel115/115ch13oil.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I found it about ten years ago and read it carefully, on the beach, during my summer vacation.

I'm a weird, weird man.

[Catherina]

115. Thanks, I opened it and will read it tonight

It looks like something right up my alley

[Junkdrawer]

140. Extremely chewy, IMHO. Hence why I read it on a beach...

took me days and days to give it justice. But maybe that's me. And it was the first time I encountered many of the facts which are now more public.

[malaise]

120. Bookmarked

Thanks for that

[Junkdrawer]

121. Best, most detailed in outline, treatment I've ever found of the, say, 1920 thru 1979 period....

Achnacarry Agreement....The redlining of Iraq (who, what, why, how)....Rockefeller's role in the formation of OPEC

And that's just the surface. Start reading between the lines....

I may have mentioned my wife is a teaching PhD theater historian. She read the paper, did her own independent research verifying the points raised, and said it was instrumental in changing her opinion of the era.

The things that Google dredges up from time to time...

[ProSense]

117. Here's why this theory is stupid.

So, the upheaval in Ukraine is really about the U.S. trying to weaken Syria’s patron, Russia. If Russia is weakened, Syria is weakened. If Syria is weakened, Iran is weakened. If Iran is weakened, the U.S. has a better chance of seizing control of the world’s largest reserves of oil. That is the Great Game that is going on here.

The problem is the risk of escalation. It’s not at all fanciful to imagine some ambitious Ukrainian colonel firing at Russian forces. Russia fires back, decisively. This puts Ukraine at risk for its European suitor, the EU. So NATO intervenes to try to intimidate Russia. Russia retaliates to blacken NATO's nose. And before anyone knows it, the U.S. is dragged into a shooting war where no one can understand how it ends. This is almost exactly how World War I started.

So it's about oil and an attempt to "weaken" Syria?

The notion that this is an attempt to "weaken" Russia in order to "weaken" Syria is fairly moronic. The U.S. could have simply bombed Syria and dispensed with the "risk of escalation." Does anyone really believe that Syria isn't already weakened? Wasn't the Syria disarmament deal worked out with Russia?

I mean, how does any of that explain Putin's invasion of the Ukraine?

Iran is "weakened" if Syria is "weakened"? Isn't the U.S. involved in historic diplomatic negotiations with Iran?

Given that Russia just hosted the Olympics, and given its hate laws and violence against the LGBT community, the U.S. and other countries could have simply boycotted the games. That would have weakened Russia.

A Triumph for Putin, if Not for the Rest of a Sagging Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/world/europe/russias-economic-malaise-casts-specter-over-games.html

Ukraine is damaging Russia's $50 billion Olympic makeover
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-03-04/ukraine-damaging-russias-50-billion-olympic-makeover

Oh...

Stand with Big Vladdy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024633791

[JI7]

119. great point about the olympics

they could have even tried to get the games moved to some other place .

[grahamhgreen]

149. It's simply about us paying for another war for big oil & gas. Iraq was 3+ trillion, let's just

build out our wind, solar, tidal, and hydro instead

That way, we can all sleep at night

[Cali_Democrat]

122. This is some serious craziness

Thanks for the laugh!!!

[2banon]

133. Putin Expressed his Objection to NATO membership in 2008

Another thing at issue but of more urgent concern, I think, is the EU/NATO membership problem, that was apparently expressed back in 2008 according to this NYT report:

(emphasis mine)

As long ago as 2008, when NATO leaders met in Bucharest to consider whether to invite Ukraine to begin moving toward membership, Mr. Putin bluntly warned that such membership would be unacceptable to Russia, presaging the strategy that appears to be unfolding now.

According to a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, Mr. Putin even questioned the legality of the Soviet Union’s transfer of the region to the authority of what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. “If we add in the NATO question and other problems, the very existence of the state could find itself under threat,” Mr. Putin said, according to the cable, written by Kurt Volker, the American ambassador to NATO at the time.

[Catherina]

139. +1 n/t

[Oilwellian]

145. Of course it's about oil

Reading what the deniers are saying in this thread is just so, Oilwellian.

[Catherina]

147. As our politics lurch further to the right, with the lunatic rich rearranging the world

for their personal game, inconvenient facts are becoming increasingly irrelevant for people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and desperately trying to follow the official corporate script so flimsy it's transparent.

...

The rotten state of affairs becomes all too obvious whenever a president threatens action against another country. Reporters act more like press agents and spring into action shielding and protecting the aggressors. They make it clear to those few who gain access that questions, criticisms or anything else that smacks of independent thought will not to be tolerated. The American decision to use Ukraine as a means of attacking Russian influence is the latest effort to prop up the empire, and the corporate media obligingly show their approval.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was so eager to fly the American foreign policy flag that she pointedly took a colleague to task on air when he was guilty of nothing more than doing his job. Wolf Blitzer is a corporate media stalwart himself so he and everyone watching was surprised when Amanpour jumped down his throat when he quoted a Russian official.

"You heard Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the U.N. Security Council, saying earlier today that at fault for all of this are what he called fascists and anti-Semites in Ukraine right now...’ said Blitzer.

‘You know, you've got to be really careful by putting that across as a fact,’ Amanpour said.

‘That's what Vitaly Churkin said,’ Blitzer replied.

‘He may have done," Amanpour said. ‘Are you telling me, are you saying that the entire pro-European ...’

‘Of course not,’ Blitzer defended, explaining that he was presenting what Churkin had said.

‘Right, and we have to be very careful,’ Amanpour cautioned.

Blitzer tried to interject, offering to play Churkin's comments again.

‘I heard it,’ Amanpour said. ‘We just as a network have to be really careful not to lump the entire pro-European Ukrainians into, which some may well be, nationalistic and extremist groups.’

‘We're not, I'm not,’ Blitzer insisted.”

Amanpour had lots of company at other networks. Gwen Ifill of PBS Newshour also stuck to the White House script with her guest, professor Stephen F. Cohen. Cohen informed viewers that American presidents going back to Bill Clinton have been playing a very dangerous game in their attempt to pry Ukraine from the Russian orbit.

Ifill was contemptuous of Cohen throughout and stuck to the Putin is evil meme. Her questions lacked even a pretense of a thoughtful search for facts. Nonsense such as “What is Putin’s endgame here?” was all she could muster. When Cohen gave a simple and understandable explanation of why western meddling posed a danger to world peace Ifill decided to ignore him. “Why is any of this important to anyone who is not in Russia or Ukraine?” Cohen, who also suffered through the Amanpour/Blitzer contretemps, gave Ifill as much contempt in return. “I told you at the top. I mean, you and I are old enough to have lived through divided Europe in Berlin.”

...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/09-5