EU-Ukraine trade pact paves way for brutal austerity

[newthinking]

EU-Ukraine trade pact paves way for brutal austerity

By Mike Head
22 March 2014

Amid intensifying US and European Union sanctions and military provocations against Russia, the EU and the Western-backed government in Ukraine yesterday signed a pact that paves the way for brutal austerity measures and free market “reforms.”

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is based on the deal that former President Viktor Yanukovych’s Ukrainian government rejected, leading to the US- and EU-instigated protests and violence that ousted him last month.

The pact, signed in Brussels, declares that the Ukrainian government must “embark swiftly on an ambitious program of structural reforms” and submit to “an agreement with the [International Monetary Fund].” The plans being drawn up are based on the “Greek model”—the savage cuts imposed on Greece by the IMF and the EU that have produced a massive growth in unemployment and poverty.

For all their claims of a “democratic revolution,” the EU leaders and Ukraine’s unelected regime of former bankers, fascists and oligarchs announced that they would delay finalizing the economic clauses of the EU association pact—and hence unveiling the austerity measures—until after elections in May.

MORE: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/22/ukra-m22.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. The “Greek model”

which may finish up making Greece look like a picnic.

[malaise]

33. As one of the songs says

"Can't say mi never did a warn dem"!

[dipsydoodle]

37. Nice one

[malaise]

40. Back at you bro

[reformist2]

2. The eastern provinces of Ukraine may yet vote to secede as well... and I wouldn't blame them!

[Earth_First]

4. I read via Twitter this morning the Donetsk region in southeast Ukraine

is very pro-Russian annexation.

This isn't over yet methinks.

[LittleBlue]

3. Wait until the "wealth tax" like they did in Cyprus

According to ZeroHedge, the IMF are planning to take 1.5% of all deposits.

Wonder if they'll still want this after the austerity and deposit thieving measures are passed.

[Catherina]

5. Have you listened to Michael Hudson's analysis?

Here's the main video but there's a great thread in the Video forum with more information and another interview. It's very good and talks to your point.

[LittleBlue]

6. Thank you

Watching it now

[Catherina]

11. Let me know what you think. I thought it was fascinating

I liked the interview I posted in that same thread, in post 3, too. Both were very thoughtful and raised important points that should be getting more attention than they are.

[LittleBlue]

13. That was very interesting

I didn't know about the offshore drilling rights bidding between Exxon and Gazprom.

Great video.

[Catherina]

19. Great!

Thanks for listening to it. I like listening to him because there's always a lot to learn.

[woo me with science]

12. This is excellent.

Thank you.

[Catherina]

18. Glad you thought so too. I'll be looking for more of his stuff. n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

55. I don't usually miss much on TRNN, but I had missed this

thanks for pointing it out! I'll surely watch it later on. Does it mention the 1,4 trillion of outstanding loans by EU banks to Ukraine? (which is a rather baffling number)? So this could turn into saving "Ukraine" (read: local and EU banks) at the expense of ordinary Ukrainians and EU taxpayers. This is getting ridiculous.

In Greece, 80 cents of every euro of "greek bailout" went to Greek, German and French banks and pension funds. Le Monde.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Notice the pattern by now?

Destabilize, remove any gov't objecting to getting finacially raped, then feed off carcass

We saw it in Greece, and in cyprus and in Italy and in Spain. the carcass feeding was done by the IMF.
In Iraq and Libya it was done by Big Oil. with major contractors getting paid from our tax dollars to "fix"
what we destroyed.
In Africa, Mali and sudan and several other countries have devolved into sectarian wars, well on the road to
destabilizing, being prepared for future "saving" at a price.
thank god the USA now has Africa-Com, eh?

[Catherina]

9. +1 Britain is expanding its role in Mali now for the same thing. How many more countries?

First step : destroy a country, economically and if necessary, militarily or by coup.

Second step : send the vulture companies in to "reconstruct" what they destroyed in the first step, with loans to put the entire population of that country in debt for generations.

Rinse and repeat with every country you can intimidate at the barrel of a gun.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. No, it's not; a committee of MPs just suggested that it ought to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26668665

Parliamentary committees are not the government; their suggestions are not national policy.

[Catherina]

20. They've already sent in more troops. That's to send even more.

This is dated back in January, earlier than your recent link, but it shows how Cameron is planning on doing this. I think the working committee is just there to support what Cameron already decided. In the second excerpt you can see what the UK recently sent.

Tuesday 29 January 2013

Mali: Britain prepared to send 'sizeable amount' of troops to support French
David Cameron says UK will support French mission to drive Islamists out but insists forces will not engage in combat

Britain is prepared to take the risk of sending a "sizeable amount" of troops to Mali and neighbouring West African countries as David Cameron offers strong support to France in its operation to drive Islamist militants from its former colony.

As news emerged that insurgents retreating from Timbuktu had set fire to a library containing thousands of priceless historic manuscripts, Downing Street said the prime minister told François Hollande on Sunday night Britain was "keen" to provide further military assistance to France.

Cameron despatched Sir Kim Darroch, his national security adviser, to Paris on Monday to discuss what help Britain could provide. Government sources said decisions on troop deployments were expected to be made in the coming days as France confirms its exact requirements. One source said that Britain could easily dispatch 200 troops if France requested such a number.

Britain is prepared to provide hundreds of troops to help the operation and is considering a few options:

• Forming part of an EU military training mission in Mali. The British contribution to this would be in the "tens", according to Downing Street.

• Training troops from the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) in neighbouring countries for possible operations on Mali. This is likely to be the main focus of Britain's contribution because Ecowas members include many countries with strong links to Britain. British troops could be used to train Nigerian forces.

• Providing "force protection" for the trainers. This would be armed protection but would not amount to a combat role.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/28/british-troops-mali-mission

29 January 2013 Last updated at 17:27 GMT

Mali crisis: 330 UK military personnel sent to West Africa


The UK is to deploy about 330 military personnel to Mali and West Africa to support French forces, No 10 has said.

French-led forces are continuing their offensive against Islamist militants who seized northern Mali last year.

International donors have pledged $455.53m (£289m) to tackle militants.

The 330 military personnel comprise 200 soldiers going to West African nations, 40 military advisers to Mali, and 90 support crew for a C-17 transport aircraft and a Sentinel R1 surveillance plane. None will have a combat role.

...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21240676

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. That's January *2013*

so, no, it doesn't show any plans. It's about what was planned and happened over a year ago.

[Catherina]

23. That's 61 days ago. Not over a year ago at all. <<(wrong)

Edit: Whoops, never mind. Bad day to deal with math and dates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. What year do you think it is?

There's a clue, on this page.

[Catherina]

25. Whoops! I SO stand corrected!

I'm on painkillers from surgery. Obviously not a good time to do math.

But I still consider that expanding. The French are drawing down and the Brits are picking up the slack from everything I've read.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Consider what was going on in January 2013

In Dec 2012, a unanimous UN Security Council resolution called for an African-led force to intervene against the Islamists. African countries were slow to commit their troops, and they supported the French going in, since the were ready. The British supplied a bit of transport, and training for African and Malian troops.

The French troops were largely successful, and the UN were then able to unanimously pass a peacekeeping resolution - African-led.

I'm not sure what you mean by the French drawing down and the British picking up the slack - your links were about supporting the French last year.

[Catherina]

30. The French - 60% troop cuts. UK increased, plans to be there "years even decades rather than months'

The French have been drawing down. 60% troop cuts. Cameron has been increasing support and declared he plans to be there a while. I don't see how else to interpret that.

Feb 07, 2013 01:00

Mali mission: UK troops may stay on even after French forces leave

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mali-mission-uk-troops-may-stay-1591079

9 April 2013

Mali crisis: French troops begin withdrawal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22079290

BBC News - Mali crisis: France announces big troop cuts

Dec 31, 2013 - France is to reduce the number of its troops in Mali over the next three months by 60%, the French defence minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25561019?

It boils down to this, which was my main point

Mali, Algeria, Libya and the New Front Line In 'Energy Diplomacy'

14 February 2014

With the start of 2013 the 'War on Terror' has burst back into the headlines. The attack on a BP gas plant in Algeria sparked declarations from David Cameron which identified North Africa as the new front line. Already the UK has backed military intervention in Mali and upgraded military support for Algeria and Libya. In Algeria, Cameron announced a strengthened 'military partnership' to combat terrorism and "improve security in the region", and in Libya he pledged more British training for security forces and support for securing the country's borders.

The reality of the never-ending War on Terror is that it is integrally bound up with an imperialistic drive for resources. Central to understanding David Cameron's rapid reaction to events in North Africa is a government document published in November last year to little or no fanfare. That document is the UK's Energy Security Strategy, released by the Department for Energy and Climate Change: the first time the UK has ever produced such a strategy. The document rings the alarm for the UK's future energy security, stating, "Declining reserves of fossil fuels in the North Sea are making the UK increasingly dependent on imports at a time of rising global demand and increased resource competition", which is leaving the UK "increasingly exposed to the pressures and risks of global markets".

...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/patrick-kane/mali-algeria-libya-energy-diplomacy_b_2687432.html

Just like for Libya, in Mali France took the lead with a massive aerial bombardment and sending in the Foreign Legion. But now they're drawing down. At the same time, after Belmokhtar's attack in Alergia in response to France's intervention in Mali, Cameron announced ,with messianic warmongering zeal, that the

North Africa terrorist threat 'could last decades'

David Cameron has warned the Algerian hostage crisis could be the start of a decades-long battle against Islamist terrorism in north Africa. ... "It will require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than months."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21112189

and the US, always a partner in crime with those two, established a drone base in Nigeria.

They work in tandem. The French take care of aerial, the UK sends in ground troops and the US sends in the drones. How many times have we seen this film before?

Jan 2013
UK intervention in Mali treads a familiar – and doomed – path

The government is going for gold in mission creep. Just a week ago David Cameron clearly indicated there would be "no boots on the ground" in Mali. His office declared there was "absolutely" no question of British troops entering the conflict "in a combat role". Britain would lend two C-17 transports and that was it.

To this was soon added a surveillance plane. Now there is to be a roll-on-roll-off ferry. France may be awash in nuclear bombs and aircraft carriers, but it cannot ship an army to a real war. Then, as French troops advanced on Timbuktu, the adrenaline of triumph drifted across the Channel and into the nostrils of Westminster. Could Britain play too?

...

Cameron then said that, "if there were a British contribution to (the war), it would be in the tens, not in the hundreds". His spokesman elaborated that it would be "at the lower end of that range", and just for training. By last weekend tens had indeed become hundreds, so far 350 "trainers" and an as yet undisclosed force protection unit.

None of these would, at this stage, have "a combat role". Indeed, it now appeared that 90 troops were already on the ground, for "logistics, intelligence and surveillance support". Everyone, said the defence secretary Philip Hammond yesterday, would be taking part for just "a short intervention to stabilise things on the ground". Very soon the local Africans would take over. No one would be "in combat". It was just a case of in-and-out, easy to handle, reasonable, no trouble.

...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/30/david-cameron-creep-speak-imperialism

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Again, look at the dates

They are, in order:
BBC Cameron quotes: 20 Jan 2013
Guardian commentary: 30 Jan 2013
Mirror 'British troops may stay beyond March 2013' 7 Feb 2013 (perhaps 40 in Mali, and 150 in neighbouring countries, training African troops, and 70 with spy planes)
Huff Post commentary: 14 Feb 2013 (not 2014; 'Posted: 14/02/2013 16:19')
Wash Post 21 March 2013 US has drone base in Niger (nothing about Britain)
BBC 'French troops begin withdrawal' 9 April 2013 (100 of 4,000; hopes to have 1,000 by end 2013; 6,300 African (non-Malian) troops there, UN hopes for 11,000 to replace French)
BBC 31 Dec 2013 French to cut their troops by 60% down to 1000 (UN force is under 6000)

(and we can add to that: AP 2 Feb 2014 French UN ambassador says UN peacekeeping force will reach 12,000 by July: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingworldnews/ci_25046489/mali-un-mission-reach-full-strength-by-july )

You just cannot pretend that is British troops replacing French ones. All the stuff about Britain is over a year old. What the British have had in Mali for the past 6 months is 21 soldiers training Malians, as the British part of the 23 state EU mission (notice that includes non NATO states such as Ireland, Sweden and Finland), which is there under the unanimous UNSC resolution:

“22. Welcomes the deployment of the European Union Training Mission (EUTM) in Mali which is providing training and advice for the Malian Defence and Security Forces towards contributing to strengthening civilian authority and respect for human rights and calls upon the EU, notably its Special Representative for the Sahel, to coordinate closely with MINUSMA, and other bilateral partners of Mali engaged to assist the transitional authorities of Mali in the security sector reform;

https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc10987.doc.htm

[Catherina]

44. Sorry Muriel, this is a matter of them working together to control N African oil, the original point

I didn't say the British troops are replacing the French troops. Their missions are totally different. The French come in, bomb the hell out of a place then the Brits send in ground troops protected by US drones.

I stand by my original statement that "Britain is expanding its role in Mali now for the same thing", the comment you pounced upon to pretend the UK isn't really involved. They are. Mali is just another front of the EU's unquenchable thirst for more oil dominion, which again, was the original point.

Would you be happier if I replaced "The French are drawing down and the Brits are picking up the slack" with "The French have been drawing down their troop numbers now that they've completed their mission of bombing the shit out of Mali and as the Brits have been increasing their ground support with plans to be there 'for years, even decades, rather than months'"?

And you can't pretend the number of British troops is 21 soldiers training Malians when in May 2013, they admitted to sending a "40-strong infantry mission" to work as "Advisors". Everyone knows how that old advisor smokescreen works because the MO hasn't changed since Vietnam. The UK has been very cagey, very silent about how many troops it has down there. In 1 few years we'll learn it was a lot more than a few advisors and a few hundred soldiers that were announced before there was no more talk in the news.

he 40-strong infantry mission was sent to Mali to help train its troops who have been fighting a bitter war against Islamists militants.

More than 20 soldiers from 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment arrived in Mali’s capital Bamako from where they will train local forces.

They will be joined by elite troops from 45 Commando Royal Marines, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery and a handful of soldiers from the Irish Republic.

For months now the British RAF has been flying C-17 transport planes into the West Africa country to help French forces who are leading the battle against al-Qaeda.

The planes are laden with armoured vehicles heading for the front line, supplies and ammunition.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/british-troops-arrive-mali-help-1788944

30 Jan 2013 As the UK sends 330 personnel to assist France's military intervention in Mali, there are real concerns that, like Afghanistan, the UK will be mired in another intractable conflict.

https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C51093FC497623/

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. You said "The French are drawing down and the Brits are picking up the slack"

The French did not bomb the hell out of Mali; they sent in ground troops, up to 4,000. The British have never sent in ground troops. The British supplied some transport, and some trainers.

Britain is not 'expanding its role'; the figures we have show the precise opposite. 330 troops in February 2013 " in air capabilities, lift and surveillance"; by the end of March 2013, 40 trainers, and then, by the end of September 2013, 21 trainers, who were going to stay for 6 months (ie up till now). You can't pretend that 40 trainers in March 2013 shows that 21 trainers in September 2013 is incorrect, or that it was an 'expansion'.

And all this comes from unanimous UNSC resolutions, with a far larger UN force. It's absurd to say it's about the UK trying to control North African oil.

[Catherina]

51. Ok, *it's absurd*- the whole point of your interjections right? Gotcha. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Yes, it's absurd to claim that going from 330 to 40 to 21 is 'expansion'

and it's absurd to claim that those numbers, in Mali (oil production: 0 bbl/day), show the UK is trying to control North African oil. 21 military trainers help control the oil in a neighbouring country? Yes, that's absurd.

[Catherina]

58. Wow. Lol! Too funny! People can read those links and make up their own minds

You can twist and turn all you want. People can read those links and make up their own minds. WOW!

I'm sorry for disturbing the 10 Downing street attempt to pretend they're not rocking Mali and the rest of North Africa in their vicious quest for oil. NOT.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. They should read the links - since you still haven't corrected "14 February 2014", which was 2013

in reality, and so your post is quite misleading. But if people read them, they'll also see confirmation that British troop numbers have decreased, that most of the foreign troops in Mali are African, organised under the UNSC resolution, that Mali has no oil, and that Cameron said North African terrorism would be a threat for decades (well, it's been a threat in Algeria for 20 years already, so that's no great prediction), not that he wanted a war for decades.

All in all, I think I've rarely seen someone on DU misrepresent a situation quite as comprehensively as you have done about Mali.

[Catherina]

62. You're funny

"Whoops! I SO stand corrected!" about a date mistake doesn't do it for you because you're trying to rewrite what's going on in Mali and pretend the UK's contribution is just 21 Advisors. I'm letting you twist and pretend all you want that the UK, one of the most warmongering nations on the face of this earth, magically lost interest in all that oil. Or something lol. Too funny. You can have all the last words you want. Fare thee well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. After you said "Whoops! I SO stand corrected!", you claimed in #30 an article was from 2014

when it was from 2013. Your 'excerpt' reads

Mali, Algeria, Libya and the New Front Line In 'Energy Diplomacy'

14 February 2014

when the real article reads

Mali, Algeria, Libya and the New Front Line In 'Energy Diplomacy'

Posted: 14/02/2013 16:19

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/patrick-kane/mali-algeria-libya-energy-diplomacy_b_2687432.html

"Whoops! I SO stand corrected!" doesn't cover you for misleading dates after you wrote it. I pointed out the error in #42, but you haven't corrected it. So, yes, I urge people to read the links, rather than assuming you have copied things accurately from them.

And you're still pretending that 21 military trainers, among an EU training force of about 550, and an African peacekeeping force of 6,000, rising to 11,000, in a country that produces no oil whatsoever, is an attempt to control oil. In a different country. And you think I'm funny ...

[woo me with science]

10. [phone]

[sabrina 1]

32. Yes, to anyone with the slightest awareness, the pattern is clear. And it's been going on for

decades. I would love to see ONE country that has ever benefited from being enslaved to the IMF 'loans', which in reality are invented to be impossible to pay back and are really a down payment on a country's natural resources and all its national possessions. Those assets will go up 'for sale' on the pretext of 'paying back loans. The beneficiaries of these sovereign bargain basement 'sales' are the same old thieves who cash in on all of it.

Shock Doctrine describes it perfectly.

Good luck holding on to Ukraine when the people see their pensions and salaries and jobs disappear, and their social programs, THAT money is for the wealthy. And next, their national assets, like Greece.

I cannot for a minute understand how ANYONE would be cheering for that coup, IF they cared at all about the people there.

[dixiegrrrrl]

47. worse yet, when Ukraine joins the EU

all of its unemployed people have the right to go to any other EU country seeking work
which will only increase the current loud complaintsof other EU countries about the current number of
unemployed people wandering around other EU countries seeking work.

[sabrina 1]

64. Yes, that is true. One of the major issues causing outrage in EU countries. As if things aren't bad

enough in Europe, once first world nations, now robbed of their sovereignty and assets and controlled by oligarchs from Goldman Sachs et al.

I doubt the EU is thrilled with US intervention in this situation.

Especially after hearing Nuland's leaked phone conversation in which she said, responding to a statement that the EU might not be happy with her plans 'Screw the EU'!

[MattSh]

66. There is no plan in place for Ukraine to join the EU.

This is an association agreement, not a process for eventual EU membership. All the benefits (for current EU members) with few of the pitfalls that one might expect from integrating the basket case of Europe into the EU.

[sabrina 1]

67. Ukraine is about to become idebted to the IMF. Can you outline the benefits of being enslaved to the

IMF and the World Bank? I mean for ordinary people. I KNOW the benefits for the 'investors' in countries that end up losing their sovereignty and their assets, see Argentine eg.

[malaise]

39. Chile, Argentina

Jamaica, Guyana, T&T - and a gazillion more countries.

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine website has a classic resignation letter by a Grenadian technocrat who worked with the IMF - Davidson Budhoo. He resigned after the Fund presented bogus statistics to fugg up Trinidad and Tobago in the 1980s. It's a classic letter.

[Catherina]

8. Huge protests in Donetsk & Kharkov today. They refuse this austerity theft and want to secede also

"We're dealing with a new kind of a class war...(too long to transcribe). The IMF is in a new class war and it's almost as if Ukraine was militarily invaded except Finance now does what the military used to do. It's Finance that grabs property, it's Finance that grabs the land, it's Finance that comes in and levies a tribute by saying the Ukrainians have to now pay taxes to pay the IMF for the money it's given the Kleptocrats to say we're going to join Europe instead of Russia because it means billions of dollars in our pockets." (minute 6:45 of the video in post 5) - Michael Hudson, Economist

[KoKo]

22. Recommend...Interesting how this will sort out.

I still think it will be like Egypt in some ways with Ukrainian "coup" remorse. But, given the powerful interests of US and EU...more complicated with the igniting of the Cold War II...which is a fascinating distraction here at home...and perhaps in GB.

I wonder what London Bankers and the Russian Oligarchs who are financing the Housing Boom in London will be thinking about USA's efforts to put restrictions on those very same bankers and oligarchs who are fueling the great City of London Financial Recovery while the rest of GB faces more austerity and attacks on its NHS? That's a complication that might backfire. But, then, we know Wall Street pretty much runs DC these days so it's hard to know what was behind Kerry/Obama's strategy except to promote our Fracking under the guise of increasing our exports.

Interesting days ahead...

[Catherina]

26. I think the EU is going to be kicking itself soon, especially Germany

For instance, Russia buys 48% of Germany's cars and now Russia will just buy them from Japan instead. Russian Oil is already flowing eastwards to China from the Caspian sea after a $5billion dollar pipeline was constructed. It provides China with 15% of its oil and China would love to have more especially since Venezuelan oil could in theory be embargoed by the US and China is more interested in stability than cost, so they'll just build more.


Time will tell on possible remorse.

[KoKo]

43. one would think...yet..

surely they knew this might happen. How could they not have seen it coming? That's the puzzle. And, with this bellicose language coming from Kerry seeming to dare Putin?

Some writers have said the effort is being made to destabilize Russia from within by weakening the country economically so that Putin's polls drop and he gets bogged down with insurrections. NeoCon madness that they think they can pull this off? Or will they be successful in causing mayhem in the Russian Federation the way they have every where else they've had their hand/ops in?

[dixiegrrrrl]

48. Koko..I think internal collapse of Russia will not happen

at least not until WE have collapsed ages before then.
Russia and China are getting along very nicely, and dumping the dollar to do so.
THAT is what is pissing off our Gov't.

Zero Hedge is the latest of many finance reports to spot the problems:

Russia threatened to dump its U.S. treasuries if America imposed sanctions regarding Russia’s action in the Crimea.
But veteran investor Jim Sinclair argues that Russia has a much scarier financial attack which Russia can use against the U.S.
Specifically, Sinclair says that if Russia accepts payment for oil and gas in any currency other than the dollar – whether it’s gold, the Euro, the Ruble, the Rupee, or anything else – then the U.S. petrodollar system will collapse.

Indeed, one of the main pillars for U.S. power is the petrodollar, and the U.S. is desperate for the dollar to maintain reserve status. Some wise commentators have argued that recent U.S. wars have really been about keeping the rest of the world on the petrodollar standard.

The theory is that – after Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard, which had made the dollar the world’s reserve currency – America salvaged that role by adopting the petrodollar. Specifically, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia agreed that all oil and gas would be priced in dollars, so the rest of the world had to use dollars for most transactions.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-21/forget-russia-dumping-us-treasuries-%E2%80%A6-here%E2%80%99s-real-economic-threat

[Catherina]

50. They've been trying to destabilize Russia for years

John McCain, who's apparently our Secretary of State, as he travels around the world promising billions for *regime change* and then delivering those billions, has taken particular delight in taunting Russia with his little tweets to Putin like "Dear Vlad, The #ArabSpring is coming to a neighborhood near you".

If you look at the PNAC plans, they're not about Iraq, or Syria... those are sub chapters, the whole plan is about destabilizing and isolating Russia so the US can be the "sole superpower" and to discourage the emergence of any rival superpower (China). This is why we were sputtering mad when Putin disbanded the NGOs we were using to rile up the people and cause mayhem. It's why we hated Chavez when he threw us out with "Ya Basta, Yanquis de Mierda!"

and we hate Rafael Correa and Evo Morales for throwing out USAID and taking their press back from the US-backed *freedom 'n' democracy* agitators.

Putin's rating is at an all-time high right now because after that drunk Yeltsin gave all of Russia's resources away and the people paid for it with homelessness, unemployment, high food costs, Putin got that under control and their living conditions have shot up. His ratings are at a 5 year peak right now (76%).

I don't think they'll be successful. Some may call this propaganda but I call it education, they know how their standard of living has been going up and the West's has been going down. 50% pensions cuts in the Ukraine, reduction of medical and social services, higher taxes for little people (etc) courtesy of the US/EU/IMF isn't going to do anything to change their opinion.

[ProSense]

14. Hilarious.

All the people who were pushing the Russian meme that the sanctions were a joke are now worried about the Russian economy.

More hilarious, the attempt to imply that war is still likely.

US President Barack Obama this week formally denied any plans for outright war with Russia over Crimea, after its people voted to join Russia. However, Washington and its European allies are continuing to exploit the crisis they created in Ukraine by targeting the Russian economy and conducting military exercises along Russia’s borders.

The U.S. is not going to war over Crimea so the author needs to stop fantasizing.

[newthinking]

16. Did you comment against the wrong OP? This talks about Ukraine and the bailout mostly?

[ProSense]

17. Did you read the entire article? It devotes a significant chunck to the sanctions. n/t

[sabrina 1]

34. What are our interests in that country? Billions, five billion was spent already helping the

coup to take place. And we're planning on spending billions more. Who will benefit from this 'investment' and how does it affect the American people at all?

Is there an accounting somewhere of all this money, who will profit from it, what it is for?

Who eg, benefited from our 'investment' in Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else we've spending money supposedly we don't have, on wars etc?

It's time for some accounting of all that money, especially when we are told we can't afford school lunches.

Got any info on why we are spending that money?

[djean111]

28. I think that we are making this some sort of Putin personality thing and forgetting that the

Crimeans - the people who will actually be brutalized by the austerity - do not have many other choices.
I think they would have voted to leave no matter who is in charge of Russia, and I don't feel that I would wish to have Greek-style austerity inflicted on anyone at all. Hopefully this is some sort of object lesson for the EU and IMF - people will vote for the lesser evil, if you want to characterize it that way - and they get to decide which thing is the lesser evil.

[Iterate]

29. Russian government implements austerity as economy falters

Russian government implements austerity as economy falters

By Andrea Peters
10 July 2013

Russia’s minister of finance, Anton Sulianov, announced Thursday that the state budget is in a crisis. According to official estimates, there is a one trillion ruble ($33 billion) shortfall for 2013 alone, requiring a “budgetary maneuver” (i.e., cuts) in state expenditures over the next three years.

The government proposes to plug the “holes” by deep attacks on the working class, including cutting payments to the state pension fund, decreasing state procurements by five percent, and cutting spending on health care, education, and utilities.

In addition, the ministry may also drain 300 billion rubles from Russia’s Reserve Fund (a state-run sovereign wealth fund), and divert income normally used to build up the Reserve Fund to meet budgetary goals. The last time this occurred was during the 2008-2009 economic crisis, when the Kremlin used the money to bail out Russian oligarchs and big businesses.

Though Russia is home to 11 of the world’s top 100 billionaires, the government insists that austerity measures are the only solution to Russia’s faltering economy. Growth rates have never recovered from the 2008 economic crisis. This year they will hit a low of 2.4 percent, down from a projected 3.6 percent. Prior to the world financial meltdown in 2008-2009, Russia’s economy had grown by as much 8-9 percent in some years. Many economists now predict further weakening.

MORE: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/10/rbud-j10.html

[sabrina 1]

35. Just like here, no? Same thing all over the world. Because a bunch of Wall St criminals crashed

the world's economies, see Europe also, made off with the profits, and GOT AWAY WITH IT. Except in Iceland, the only country doing better these days. Proof that applying the rule of law WORKS.

Have you see the huge protests in Spain this week?

And I heard that Venice wants to secede from Italy, another victim of the Wall St Crash.

Imagine if all of the crooks had been arrested, as in Iceland, all the money they hid offshore had been confiscated and returned to the respective countries they stole it from?

If Russia is emulating this country and letting the Big Banks off the hooks, no wonder their economy is in trouble, like all the others that refused to prosecute the criminals. Worse, they BAILED THEM OUT.

[Iterate]

68. No, it is not like "here". Every country is different.

I don't care for the now universally used term "austerity", because the ground truth is different in different places. In the EU, with national variants on the right to housing, healthcare, subsistence, education, and access to participation in the economy, it does not mean "the possibility of freezing to death under bridge" as it does in the US.

The core problem in Spain was the lack of a democratic negotiation of power, which led to massive, massive overbuilding in wrong ways and in the wrong places during the boom as each power center was appeased. It doesn't matter who financed it, because the projects didn't make sense to begin with. That doesn't excuse the roll of banks in the recovery.

The non-binding Venetian vote was largely over two topics. First, who would manage and benefit from the management of the lagoon. That long-simmering question predates Wall Street itself by centuries. Second, how much should wealthy Venetians pay in taxes, which they see as supporting the rest of Italy. Beware of anyone who says "It's just like Crimea".

Finally, I don't think Russia needs a role model, as you can see that after a century now of living under three very different systems and ideologies the result has been the similar: extreme, rapid, and corrupt concentration of wealth and power. If anything it suggests that the million acres of text arguing ideology and dogma were a waste.

...every unhappy family..., but corruption and concentration of wealth do seem to be a common theme.

[freshwest]

69. Thanks for the thought provoking perspective. n/t

[sabrina 1]

70. Have any Wall St. Criminals been arrested in this country? I'm far more concerned about what

goes on here than in Russia or Europe, I live here. Seems to me we worry about every country in the world, except our own, which isn't doing so great for a whole lot of people.

The problems in Spain, Greece, here and everywhere else where Wall St. thieves gambled with the people's money, installed oligarchs in Europe to cover up the crimes, passed the bill on to the people, and destroyed the livliehoods of millions of people.

Speaking of 'corrupt concentration of wealth'. I don't think we have to look at ANY OTHER nation to see an obscene example of that right here in the US.

[newthinking]

41. It's everywhere. But Ukraine is going to get hit particularly hard unfortunately.

[Catherina]

45. +1 Ukraine is going to get hit particularly hard because it's being imposed on them by outsiders

after a group of violent people in the capital decided they didn't like the results of the last election and couldn't wait a few more months for the results of the next one, so they took matters into their own hands with US State Department backing, and violently installed an illegal putsch regime that doesn't speak for the country. The putschists in Kiev don't even have the benefit of a referendum as they sign a bunch of agreements with the EU and IMF that the people repudiated at the last elections. The Ukrainians repudiated the fake "Orange Revolution" at the polls. Now it's being imposed on them by an unelected, illegitimate government that's using neonazis and White Power racists to impose *order*.

If this were an honest uprising with no Western backing and for the good of the country, this would have gone to the polls following democratic principles. At the very least, the unelected so-called *interim*government would be willing to wait a few weeks for the scheduled elections before signing away their country to the IMF.

Mob rule in one city is not a democratic process.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

57. assuming a proper election happens

i wonder if the new government would be able to basically declare the agreement null and void as the person who signed it had no legal standing/authority to actually make such an agreement on behalf of the country. (I have a strong feeling though that if one of their politicians were to even hint at such an idea the EU/US would not look upon the idea kindly)

[Catherina]

60. I sure hope so. If the rightwing had carried out a violent coup like this when Obama won

I would have been out in the streets every day, even more than when the Supreme court gave it to Bush in 2000.

The US and UK for sure wouldn't look upon that favorably and that's when our coverage of Ukraine will drop, just like it did for Iraq, Libya and the other places where people rebelled. That's also when the supporters of these coups blissfully move on to their next IMF *democracy* target or kitten stories. I fully expect what you wrote to happen. It's our job not to let them move on with their cupcakes and ponies. I sure won't.

[MattSh]

65. What everybody overlooks here is...

The May 25 election is for one office. The President. Parliament is not up for election. So 99% of the government will remain exactly where they are.

Besides, compared to the Imperial Presidency of Yanukovich, the new President has greatly decreased powers compared to before. Not exactly a figurehead, but greatly reduced powers. Of course, once they get their man into power, who's to say that they won't go ahead and return Imperial powers to the President?

[jazzimov]

31. Again with the "US- and EU-instigated protests and violence"

and yet no evidence that the protests were instigated by the US and/or the EU.

But I never trust anything posted in WSWS anyway.

[MNBrewer]

36. Cookies!

[sabrina 1]

38. State Dept officials and US Senators handing out cookies to the 'protesters' last Dec, phone

recordings leaked proving the involvement, kind of makes it hard to deny.

Nuland, eg, was very busy orchestrating things over there. Hard to refute our involvement when it is caught on tape.

[freshwest]

71. I don't believe 'teh gubermint' did it, either. Certain elements like Nuland and McCain are part of

private groups that go about making deals and stoking up trouble.

It's ironic that the finger of blame always goes to the government, of the people, trying to destroy it and seldom goes after the libertarian and neo-con think tanks and highly profitable outfits that profit from the wars. The NRA is one such organization that actually has international associations to affect legislation and deny oversight for profit which fuel small conflicts and stoke dissensions that will eventually build up to be so dangerous that nations and their pockets are required to stop wholesale slaughter.

Two sides of a game, with the traditional winners, none of whom are government but the private forces that seek to starve the governments that are created by millions of people trying to improve their lives, which doesn't benefit said private groups. So they demonize it and blame it for being forced to bailout the misadventures they instigate not at the peak of crisis, but on a daily basis in their pursuit of profit and power.

Those are the ones that need to be taken to the woodshed, not every leader or government that ends up cleaning up their mess. Patrice did a good job of documenting the links on DU and someone recently posted on the group that Nuland and others are associated with. I wish I could find that link.

These are rogue agents who do not work for the American people or our government, but a cabal of oligarchical interests that push governments into doing things they would not choose to do by generating crisis. Since they also own the means of information, they are free to point the finger of blame away from themselves.

And people fall for it and want all institutions generations fought to preserve to protect their rights, their environment and future generations disempowered, and which will give even more power to the oligarchs. Because those institutions don't have the ability to run from one nation to another to escape accountability. They are the agency that ends up having to deal with consequence, as they are nation based.

May be a bit off topic to the purpose of your post, but that's what I'm coming to think now. I get tired of the knee jerk reactionary reflex of blaming the slow target of government, and democratic institutions always are, as the pirate nature of these rogue actors can act quickly, and our leaders who were not elected to deal with the additional burden of combating their mischief as they are already overburdened just trying to take of the people.

[stevenleser]

49. Wsws will attack the US whenever possible and if not Western Europe as a proxy.

All one has to do is compare the former warsaw pact countries and regions that completely broke with Russia after 1994 versus those that didn't.

I don't agree with austerity, but they are still going to make out better working with Western Europe than being aligned with Russia.

[mike_c]

52. so now the bankers will run Ukraine....

Not sure I'd call that progress.

[Catherina]

53. Please see posts 5 and 11 for more about this *progress*

By the way, I love your posts

[mike_c]

56. thanks for the link, that was fascinating-- and pretty much what I expected....

The economic hit men have arrived.

[Catherina]

59. Glad you appreciated it. I knew you would. They sure have

"We're dealing with a new kind of a class war...(too long to transcribe). The IMF is in a new class war and it's almost as if Ukraine was militarily invaded except Finance now does what the military used to do. It's Finance that grabs property, it's Finance that grabs the land, it's Finance that comes in and levies a tribute by saying the Ukrainians have to now pay taxes to pay the IMF for the money it's given the Kleptocrats to say we're going to join Europe instead of Russia because it means billions of dollars in our pockets." (minute 6:45 of the video in post 5) - Michael Hudson, Economist