657 IMF imposes Privatization & Austerity on Ukraine - Michael Hudson

IMF imposes Privatization & Austerity on Ukraine - Michael Hudson

Newsletter published on 28-04-2014

(1) The CIA: Photoshopping a Crisis into a War  - Wayne Madsen
(2) "Letter to Jews", which Kerry cited, is a fake. It bears the stamp
of the FORMER mayor
(3)  Unity Coalition For Israel says "Obama's Appeasement Leads to War"
(4) Ukraine: Who are the Puppet Masters? by Neil Clark
(5) Crimea: whose land is this? by Sergei Khrushchev
(6) The Real Battle For Ukraine: Jewish America vs Christian Russia -
Brother Nathanael
(7) IMF imposes Privatization & Austerity on Ukraine - Michael Hudson

(1) The CIA: Photoshopping a Crisis into a War  - Wayne Madsen

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:29:58 +0900 - From: chris lancenet
<chrislancenet@gmail.com>

The CIA: Photoshopping a Crisis into a War

Wayne Madsen

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/04/24/the-cia-photoshopping-a-crisis-into-a-war.html

A major Central Intelligence Agency conspiracy operation is currently
playing out in Eastern Ukraine where, in an age of Photoshop and mail
order credentials and military patches, photographs of the same bearded
Russian "special forces" commando in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk in Ukraine
this year and Georgia in 2008 are being successfully parlayed to the
corporate media and by the Ukrainian ambassador to the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) headquarters in Vienna. The
conspiracy operation follows closely on the heels of CIA director John
Brennan’s visit to Kiev where he provided intelligence advice to the
unelected junta now governing the country…

The idea that an active duty Russian Special Forces soldier would have a
long beard is laughable. No one in the Western corporate media has
mentioned that long beards for any actual special forces commando is a
strict taboo because any long hair can be detrimental in close
hand-to-hand combat. Long hair of any type is not permitted for special
forces unless a disguise is required for special missions, such as the
beards grown by U.S. special forces personnel who entered Afghanistan
after the 9/11 attacks to make common cause with various anti-Taliban
guerrilla forces. The U.S. Special Forces personnel were permitted to
wear beards and grow their hair long because to have appeared in the
tribal areas without such hair would have made them stand out as
foreigners. Generally, however, the potential vulnerabilities inherent
with any length of hair that can be pulled by an opponent, including
facial hair, is why the Navy SEALS, Green Berets, and the Russian ALFA
Group have strict standards barring any long hair among their active
duty military personnel except in unusual circumstances like
Afghanistan. In 2010, U.S. Special Forces units in Afghanistan were
ordered to shave off their beards and conform to military regulation
haircuts.

The mysterious Russian commando in Ukraine and Georgia is yet another
ridiculous "conspiracy operation" that was obviously engineered by the
CIA-backed Ukrainian government to garner points with the OSCE in
Vienna. If the Russian military deployed long-haired and bearded Special
Forces in Ukraine or Georgia, they certainly would not be wearing
Russian military patches. The bearded U.S. Special Forces deployed to
Afghanistan wore local clothing and rode horses in order to blend in.
The so-called bearded Russian commando in what are likely Photoshopped
pictures is certainly not trying to blend into the local population.

Photographs were also provided the OSCE and media showing what is
purported to be the same masked Russian commando in Crimea and
Slavyansk. As far as the Russian Spetsnaz patch featuring the bat emblem
seen worn by the bearded "commando" is concerned, they can easily be
purchased on E-Bay for $4.99. Other Russian Special Forces patches can
also be purchased from E-Bay, including the Maroon Beret "Werewolf"
patch, the "Typhoon" unit patch, the paratrooper patch, the "Mongoose"
special warfare unit patch, the electronic warfare unit patch, the
Caucasus mountain warfare unit patch, the "Scorpio" unit patch, the ALFA
unit patch, and the OMON special police patch.

It is all another patent CIA conspiracy because that is what the CIA
called such opposition operations in its 1985 destabilization manual, a
manual that has been brought out of mothballs by the CIA and is being
used in full force in Ukraine today.

The January 1985 CIA manual, titled "Indications of Political
Instability in Key Countries," provides quantifying indicators on how
opposition "conspiracy planning" can help topple targeted regimes. The
manual was produced by the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence. At the
time the report was issued, William Casey, the master of criminal
conspiracies like the Iran-contra caper and the 1980 counter-"October
Surprise" operations, was the CIA director.

It is obvious that the CIA is using conspiracy operations in Ukraine to
help advance the longevity of the coup factions that seized power in
Kiev. Among the instability operations cited in the CIA manual are
"demonstrations and riots". The CIA placed and continues to place great
importance on demonstrations and this was seen in the large amounts of
money the U.S. spent on fomenting the Euromaidan demonstration in Kiev.
The CIA manual states that demonstrations are successful destabilizing
influences when they gradually increase in size and intensity, spread to
other cities, increase in the number of days they take place, and when
government repression of the demonstrations escalates.

The CIA manual also places emphasis on the media becoming either more
supportive or critical of the demonstrators. In Kiev and western
Ukraine, the media was rallied to support the demonstrations against the
Viktor Yanukovych government. However, in eastern and southern Ukraine,
the Western media has been urged to be critical of the pro-Russian
demonstrations. The CIA also sees media devoting more or less time to
covering demonstrations as critical in destabilizing a government. The
media attention on Euromaidan was excessive because the CIA believed
that favored the anti-Yanukovych forces. In eastern and western Ukraine,
however, there has been scant attention paid to pro-Russian
demonstrations by the Western media.

The CIA also desires that it is important to highlight cases in which
elements of the security forces ally with the demonstrators. However,
the inverse is also true. When elements of the Ukrainian military and
security services began allying with pro-Russian federalists in eastern
Ukraine, the media remained either mum on the reports or cast them off
as "conspiracy theories". It is important to remember that the CIA
manual only puts faith in conspiracy operations over which it maintains
total control.

When the CIA seeks to maintain national unit, the CIA manual states that
it is important for the central government to ensure that central
authority outside the capital not be eroded. One way to ensure this is
to implement directives for local authorities to "perform services, such
as tax collection". On the other hand, when the CIA seeks to fracture a
targeted country, it promotes opposition to the central government
changing the "political or social status" of groups by advancing
religious intolerance and/or suppressing the use of a minority language
or culture. Ironically, the CIA-backed government in Kiev is doing
exactly what the CIA finds necessary to fracture a nation in repressing
the language and other minority rights of Russian speakers in eastern
and southern Ukraine.

The CIA manual insists that it is important to mobilize religious
figures against a targeted government and involve such «priests, nuns,
or other clerics" in antigovernment activities. Pitting Ukrainian
Orthodox Church leaders against their Russian Orthodox counterparts has
been part of the CIA game plan in Ukraine.

A key factor in destabilization of targeted nations is the CIA’s stated
use of «IMF-imposed austerity measures". The use of the International
Monetary Fund to pressure the Yanukovych government was an important
ingredient in toppling his government as food, energy, and other rising
costs helped drive the Ukrainian middle class to support the coup
leaders. The IMF, which is itself a corrupt organization, began
demanding that the Yanukovych government put a halt to endemic public
corruption. It was one of the pressure points used by the coup leaders
to undermine support for the democratically-elected government.

The CIA manual also emphasizes the importance of destroying symbols of
the targeted regime and replacing them with «symbols of popular
nationalism". The destruction of statues honoring Russian and Soviet war
heroes by Ukrainian nationalists who sought replacing them with statues
of Ukrainian Nazi leaders like Stepan Bandera is all part and parcel of
the 1985 CIA tradecraft manual on destabilizing governments and nation
states.

Damaging a ruling leader’s credibility with the public is also part of
the CIA game plan. The 1985 manual cites the spreading of stories about
a targeted leader’s «erratic" behavior as a key method in undermining
his or her control. Examples cited are: «neglecting his duties [which
the Ukrainian coup leaders used as a reason to oust Yanukovych], falling
under the influence of persons outside the government (spouse,
astrologer or other fortune teller, lover, financial cronies, etc.),
drinking, taking drugs, etc.)

The CIA manual also states that it is critically impo rtant for
opposition leaders to be portrayed as «moderate at heart" and «able to
control the crazies". This has played out with CIA support for members
of the neo-fascist Svoboda Party of Oleh Tyahnybok and the neo-Nazi
«Right Sector" party.

Another factor the CIA uses in undermining a targeted leader is to
arrange for the media to openly criticize the leader through jokes and
other forms of satire.

In an age of Photoshop and on-line ordering of military patches, the CIA
appears confident that its dirty tricks in Ukraine will go unnoticed.
However, the joke is on the CIA as it old methods become new again

(2) "Letter to Jews", which Kerry cited, a fake. It bears the stamp of
the FORMER mayor

http://rt.com/news/fake-news-ukraine-russia-364/

"Letter to Jews", which Kerry cited, appears to be fake

Published time: April 18, 2014 12:07  Edited time: April 19, 2014 15:22

A letter urging the Jews of Donetsk to get registered, which the US
Secretary of State cited in Geneva, is a fake says a man whose signature
appears on the communication. ...

This is the document that John Kerry has just referred to - calling on
Jews in Donetsk to register. pic.twitter.com/6s5rnftKJ0  Kevin Bishop
(@bishopk) April 17, 2014

The letter was stamped and signed by Denis Pushilin, who was identified
on it as the "People’s Governor.”

However, Pushilin denied he had anything to do with the letter, claiming
it was a fake.

"There are similar letters not only addressed to Jews, but also to
businessmen, foreign students, people of certain other occupations,” he
told RT. "This is actually a fake, and not a good one. There’s a sign
"People’s Governor”. First of all, no one calls me by that title, no one
elected me. Secondly, the stamp is the former mayor’s. Everything’s
photoshopped.” [...]

(3)  Unity Coalition For Israel says "Obama's Appeasement Leads to War"

Reinventing The Cold War: The Meaning of Russia In Crimea and Beyond,
Part II

    Chuck Carlson <chuck@charlesecarlson.com>

  4 April 2014 06:58

http://whtt.org/the-meaning-of-russia-in-crimea-and-beyond-part-ii-reinventing-the-cold-war/

The Meaning of Russia In Crimea and Beyond, Part II Reinventing The Cold
War Posted by Charles E Carlson  April 1, 2014

Charles E. Carlson

President Obama has assured us that US intervention into the affairs of
Russia and its neighboring Ukraine will not affect or endanger us, and
that we have little economic stake in either country.  Yet, he is asking
Congress to appropriate more than one billion dollars for aid to the new
government of Ukraine, just installed by an armed coup led by the Maidan
People's Union.  Mr. Obama explained his reason:  to make the world a
better place and to punish Russia for its aggression.  This is much the
same argument used by his predecessors from the Bush family for going
into, first, Iraq, then Afghanistan.  President Obama has  a peace-based
campaign history, so he can only be yielding to the powerful war lobby.

This writer asserted some years ago, and has repeated often: "America's
economy is war- based, which is why we have so many."  This is the
beginning text from our film, Christian Zionism, The Tragedy and the
Turning, which has recently been awarded a best foreign film award at a
film fair in Iran, probably because everyone in the Middle East knows,
the business of the US is war. Tragedy and Turning exposes the American
Christians' role in it. (1)

Many before us have tried to warn of the war lobby.  Retiring President,
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, called it "The Military-Industrial
Complex."  He worked all his life for this establishment, but he exposed
it for the first time in his 1961, farewell address: "In the councils of
government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can
compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery
of defense with our peaceful methods and goals" (2)

George F. Kennan, did not wait to retire, he quit a distinguished
diplomatic career after the Korean war, resigning from the State
Department in disgust in 1950, over America's conduct in Korea and the
first Cold War.  Kennan wrote prolifically for the rest of his life, and
in his preface to Norman Cousins's 1987 book, The Pathology of Power, he
warned us: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of
the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to
remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be
invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American
economy."

Keegan also left insight into his soul and life purpose, as he wrote in,
At a Century's Ending:  "This habitat, the natural world around us, is,
as you know, the house the Lord gave us to live in.  It's the house we
were intended to live in.  It's the house in which man's struggle was
meant to take place and has taken place over the course of the ages.
And, it is the house in which God's purpose will be fulfilled...Now we
can not, of course, alone preserve peace.  Our Russian friends and
adversaries will have to make their contribution, too.  But what we can
do is to do all in our power to preserve it and promote it.  This we owe
to the preservation of civilization."(3)

We are indeed grateful to  Kennan who confirm that we live in a
war-based economy.  His words about Russia should shake us by the
collar.  It took fewer than five years after the Soviet Union collapsed
for the military-industrial (banking) complex to start its War On Islam,
the war To Replace The Cold War.  The powerful USA Military annihilation
of Iraq's pathetically primitive army in the desert of Kuwait in early
1991, started it.  Now, 23 years later, we are returning to face the
reconstructed Russia.

If Keenan and Eisenhower were alive today, they would likely tell us
America should offer nothing but diplomacy to the Eurasian conflict in
Crimea and Ukraine.  We have no more business interfering in Ukraine
than if China decided to sanction the USA because of a border or
immigration dispute we might have with Mexico!  Russia does have an
vital interest there, its trade with Ukraine is nearly equal to
Ukraine's trade with the rest of the world combined! (4)

USA trade with Ukraine is nominal, as President Obama correctly assured
us, in a speech on March 26, that Americans have nothing to win or lose
in Ukraine.  But we do have much to lose from the dollar cost of wars,
that have created more hatred of Americans around the globe.  Our
President seems to ignore what the USA is some $17 trillion in debt,
largely because his predecessors from both parties have yielded to the
war lobby.

  Israel and American Ziochristians' Role

We were not the first to use the term "Christian Zionism," but we
certainly  arrived at the first, best definition of it:  "It is the
belief that the State Of Israel is a Biblical promise from God,
fulfilling prophesy."  Those who practice this errant belief are
Ziochristians, conveying that they become Zionists first, with Christian
tagged on.

Many millions of Ziochristians have been influenced by Israel's lobby to
support every war Israel desires, as well as its occupation of the land
of the Philistines.  The blood of Iraqis, Afghans, Egyptians, Libyans,
Syrians and Philistines is on Ziochristian hands, and, on all of our
hands to the extent we knew, and did nothing.  Now we are being asked to
support a Neo-Cold War already beginning in Ukraine, with USA sanctions
against Russian people.

Some of us served time in the military during the original anti-Russian
adventure.  We knew, we saw military waste, and some of us became
pro-peace!  The best place to find Americans who can help stop the
Neo-Cold war is in mainline churches where their faith calls them to
peace, if they will only listen to the words they say they live by. Some
40 to 50 million have not been misled to believe warring Israel is a god
figure, nor, are they influenced by the un-Christlike evil of
"Islamophobia." Christian Zionism is explained in the 32 minute video,
Tragedy and Turning.

The State of Israel's involvement in a new, Neo-Cold War will, I
suspect, be behind the scenes and largely hidden from view.   Israel may
already be involved in hidden terrorist acts to upset Ukraine. Because
Russians are historically thought of as "Christian," the USA-Israel team
will not be able to say they are starving and killing Russians (or
Ukrainians) because they are hated Muslims.  Israel's contribution to
the Military Industrial Complex has been to whip the American grass
roots into support of, what is perceived ,religious wars that are good
for Israel, the world's instructor for Islamophobia.

It appears Israel has changed its tactics in Ukraine.  We can already
see change by reading its daily newsletters, one of which is from Unity
Coalition For Israel (UCFI).  Its latest theme is that Obama is a
weakling who will not stand up to Russia, and needs to be goaded toward
war. UCFI's feature by Daniel Greenfield titled,  "Obama's Appeasement
Leads to War," states:  "Every liberal today wants peace. Every diplomat
wants to be a peacemaker. But their brand of peace, whether it is the
negotiations with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Palestinian
terrorists, is worthless. The only peace that counts is the one
protected by the men of the Strategic Air Command who live the knowledge
that the profession of peace can only be practiced with the tradecraft
of war." (5)

Unity Coalition For Israel scoffs at peace without war.  And, UCFI is
not just any organization of loud Zionists, it is an Israeli agency
masquerading as a volunteer organization.  It is the Godfather of
Christians United For Israel (CUFI), and its stated purpose is to
influence evangelical Christians.

The US-Israeli war machine should not influence Christ followers, who
should be seekers of peace. Jesus Christ's teachings are, blessed are
the peacemakers, love your brother, even your enemy, turn the other
cheek. There is no reprisal and retribution anywhere in Jesus' words.
There is no room for practicing "the tradecraft of war," that UCFI
teaches. It is the military-industrial (banking) complex, whose trade is
war.

Last week President Binyamin Netanyahu, speaking to Israel's Knesset
about a recent Israeli killing raid on a target in the Golan Heights,
boasted: "We hurt those who hurt us."  How different from Jesus words,
Love your brother, even your enemy, and "turn the other cheek."  In
Ukraine we need not do either, we just need to stay at home and look
after our own many problems, including economic ones.

As President Eisenhower warned us, "We should take nothing for granted."
Not from ambitious men including Obama, Bush and Clinton. Let us also
keep watch on how our supposed ally, Israel, markets its new message of
war through Christians United for Israel into the evangelical churches.

Foreign press has reported that Israeli military mercenaries will be,
and have already operated inside Ukraine.   It is also reported that US,
Backwater mercenaries are already in Ukraine. If so, Russia will have no
choice but to occupy or annex the Ukraine to protect its thousands of
miles of pipelines. If this vast pipeline system is occupied or
sabotaged.  Russia cannot back out.

Conclusion:

A typical Christian response to this story came from a young woman who
visited Russia seven years ago on a Christian mission trip.
Incredulously she asks, "Why would our President do that to Russia?"

Most of us have yet to accept that war is a business for those who
control our political leaders.  Ukraine is a new money game for them. No
one wants to believe Barack Obama would start sanctions that obviously
might lead to war for the sake of the war lobby.  To believe this
requires one to understand that our President is some sort of puppet
whose moves are called out for him like an NFL quarterback with a head
set in his helmet.  Obama is so forceful, seemingly so independent, why
would he allow himself to be used?

Yes, Americans have been marched into every war for three generations,
led by those who foment war for the sake of war itself.  Sad, but true
and as George Keenan told us, without war, our economy can no longer
exist in present form.  Understanding this, many of our pragmatist
friends will go along.   "I guess its better to have war than
depression," one said.  But in truth the financial bubble created by
each new war only forestalls the economic inevitable. Our economy is
held up by a froth of bubbles, and many of us will live to see it burst.
  The rest of the world knows it, even if we do not.

Charlie Rose grilled Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vilaly Churkin on
Rose's  PBS show last week.  Rose repeatedly challenged President
Putin's intent, and Russia's financial strength to withstand the new
sanctions being placed on Russia by our President and Congress. Churkin,
irritated by the repetitions, finally retorted with mild sarcasm:  "You
are scaring the hell out of me, Charlie...why don't you do something
about your national debt...this (USA) is a financial bubble...we
(Russia) do not have national debt." This exchange brought the interview
to an end!

Popular resistance to more serial wars is needed from a legitimate,
spiritual and morally fired up, anti-war movement.  It must place saving
lives and averting the eventual destruction of our way of life, ahead of
temporary comforts our war based system has provided to us. That means
sacrifice.  That resolve will be best found inside America's mainline
churches, perhaps as many as 50,000 of them.  Some are  beginning to
awaken to the tragedy of warring.  How about you?

NOTES: (1) 32 minute film: Christian Zionism:  http://vimeo.com/59933668)

(2)Wikipedia: Military-Industrial Complex - Eisenhower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

(3 ) At a Century's ending 1985-1997, George F. Kennan, 1982-1991,
http://books.google.com/books?id=60D6qQGjMdsC&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false

(4)Ukraine trade
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/ukraines-biggest-trading-partners-countries

(5) "Obama's Appeasement Leads to War," Daniel Greenfield, UCFI,
3/13/2014:  http://unitycoalitionforisrael.org/uci_2014/?p=6377

(4) Ukraine: Who are the Puppet Masters? by Neil Clark

Published at RT.com  on April 15, 2014

http://rt.com/op-edge/west-leaders-ukraine-democracy-600/

Pictures and Captions added by Lasha Darkmoon

Posted on her website on April 19, 2014 by Montecristo
http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/who-are-the-puppet-masters-by-neil-clark/

LD comment: Neil Clark reflects on the mindboggling hypocrisy and double
standards of the US and its NATO puppet states. Why are these
superbullies so intent on nation wrecking and chaos creation all over
the world? Can it be because they seek world domination under a small,
secretive elite of Puppet Masters?  (LD)

I’m confused.

A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying
government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we
were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were
"pro-democracy protestors”.

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force
against these ‘pro-democracy protestors’ even if, according to the
pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov
cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and
setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we’re told that people occupying government
buildings in Ukraine are not ‘pro-democracy protestors’ but ‘terrorists’
or ‘militants’.

Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good
thing in January, but a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of
force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in
January, but acceptable now?

I repeat: I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

{photo - Kiev} VICTORIA NULAND: "Let them eat cookies!” {end}

The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received
visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator
John McCain, and Victoria Nuland from the US State Department who handed
out cookies (pictured).

But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western
European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support,
either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor
have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State
Department.

Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in
Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of ‘democracy’, McCain and
Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in
Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John
Kerry who said, "You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts
in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing
just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.

Have I misremembered the ‘Iraq has WMDs claim’? Was I dreaming back in
2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every
day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the
threat posed by Saddam’s deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote
in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal,
murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of
up to 1 million people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media
‘experts’ that the Crimea referendum wasn’t valid because it was held
under "military occupation.” But I’ve just been watching coverage of
elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have
been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh
Rasmussen as a "historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for
"democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote
celebrated? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic
terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our
‘way of life’ in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to
be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless ‘War on Terror’
against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such
radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects
the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.

When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and
innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders:
their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which
is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media
commentators are desperate to have toppled. I’m confused. Can anyone
help me?

Then there’s gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and
backward country because it has passed a law against promoting
homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter
Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where
homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the
rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.

Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a
law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are
genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and
not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I’m confused. Can
anyone help me?

We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian
ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause
of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or
likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in
the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West
enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key
role in the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in
February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West.

Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary
but very acceptable in Ukraine?

I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that
NATO’s concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’.

But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of
countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the
US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many
countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to
America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian
military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or
close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’.

I’m confused. Can anyone help me? ___

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning
blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.

(5) Crimea: whose land is this? by Sergei Khrushchev

http://www.voltairenet.org/article183288.html

Crimea: whose land is this?

by Sergei Khrushchev

Sergei Khrushchev, the son of Nikita Khrushchev, who is in charge of
research in a U.S university, argues that Crimea was never a part of
Ukraine except for bureaucratic reasons. The land has actually been
Russian for centuries and Washington is wrong to make it a major bone of
contention with Moscow.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | WASHINGTON D.C. | 16 APRIL 2014

On March 16, the Crimean referendum took place without any fighting or
clashes, which Kiev and Washington were hoping to use to discredit the
process.

As a result, the referendum was conducted without major problems; 83
percent of the population cast their vote and 96.7 percent of them -
Russians, Ukrainians and even some Tatars - voted for secession from
Ukraine and annexation to Russia. The vote was observed by 135
representatives of 23 countries and 240 observers represented the
Crimean civic society and political parties.

They unanimously confirmed that there were no significant violations and
that everyone could vote freely, without any pressure.

All night, people on the squares of the Crimean capital Simferopol and
others were celebrating, laughing, hugging, dancing, and firing
fireworks. In Kiev, all were sulking.

In Washington DC, the best minds of the Obama administration were
feverishly thinking how else to make it more difficult for the
recalcitrant citizens of Crimea. They will definitely think of something
since they have a lot of experience in doing so. After all, Iraqis,
Iranians, Syrians, Libyans and the Lebanese have long stopped celebrating.

Illusionary connections

Crimean’s main goal was to break up the illusionary connections with
Ukraine. Crimea’s divorce from Ukraine was bumpy: In the last 20 years,
there were constant tensions and it ended with a scandal, which
gradually involved a number of countries. Some took Ukraine’s side,
others did not. Who is right, and who is not, it is difficult to say.

However, as a result of this scandal, Crimea and Ukraine have become
household conversation and yet few people know what the matter was
really about.

That is why, I will begin with history. Crimea is a peninsula on the
north coast of the Black Sea, connected to the European continent
through a narrow strip of land. Some 2,500 years ago, the ancient Greeks
founded a colony there, including in the western part of the peninsula,
where they built the port Chersonesus, which is the present location of
Sevastopol.

Remember this name, we will get back to it later. Then the Romans took
over from the Greeks and after them the peninsula was uninhabited for
some time.

In the meantime, in 854 the Vikings set up an outpost on the river banks
of Dnepr, which crosses the European continent from North to South. They
thought it would be easier to use the river to get to the riches of
Byzantium than to go around Europe in the stormy seas.

They gradually subordinated the local tribes and this is how the ancient
kingdom of Kievan Rus was born. It gradually expanded its rule and
reached Crimea. However, everything collapsed overnight in 1240, when
the Mongols captured Kiev and turned it into ruins for many decades.

These lands on the banks of the Dnepr river were orphaned, while the
Genovese settled in Crimea. After a century, the newly rebuilt Kiev came
under the rule of the rising power of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth. This continued until the 15th century. During this time,
in the North-East, the state of Moscow emerged which incorporated the
leftovers of the Mongol Empire.

In Crimea, Tatars invaded in 1428 displacing the Genovese and settled
there permanently. But who are the Tatars? This is one of the
inheritances of the Mongol expansion. Genghis Khan preferred not to risk
his own Mongol soldiers and therefore, on the front lines, he would put
men from the conquered peoples.

One of the first people he conquered were the Tatars. Since then, he
dragged them into battle around the world. After the break-up of the
empire, some Tatars returned to their homeland, while others stayed
where they found themselves: On the Volga river - The Astrakhans and
Kazan Tatars; and in Crimea - the Crimean Tatars.

The Crimean Tatars were closely cooperating with the Ottoman Empire and
fought Russia and Poland, which at that time were controlling the
territory of today’s Ukraine.

In the meantime, fugitive Russian and Polish serfs settled on the island
of Hortitsa in the river Dnepr, and started calling themselves Cossacks.
They provided for themselves through plundering, attacking at times the
Tatars, at times the Poles. Gradually their power increased and the
Cossacks became a serious organised force, always in conflict with Poland.

Two Ukraines?

In the second quarter of the 17th century, the Cossacks, under the
leadership of Bogdan Khmelnytsky, once again attacked Poland. Towards
the end of the campaign, they suffered a defeat. Khmelnytsky found a way
out of the dead-end: In 1654, he signed a treaty with the Russian tsar
putting East Ukraine under the protection of Moscow.

The Western part of Ukraine was left to the Poles which then came under
Austria-Hungary and then again to the Poles. As a result, the Ukrainian
people were split between two branches: Eastern and Western.

Independently from Russia, but not from the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean
khanate existed until 1783, when it was conquered by the army of Russian
Empress Catharine II, who set up a port at the old location of
Chersonesus to host the Russian Black Sea fleet.

The new port was called Sevastopol. Since that time, Ukraine and Crimea
were part of the unified Russian Empire. Crimea, with its warm climate
and pebble beaches, was a favourite holiday-destination for all
Russians, whether Tsars, aristocrats, and even simple people, if they
had the means.

It continued this way until World War I or rather 1917 specifically,
when the revolution was destroying the old regime and taking down its
laws. And when everything was possible. The periphery took advantage of
that, including Ukraine, which declared independence.

On the map of Europe, there were in fact two Ukraines: An Eastern one
with capital Kiev and a western one - on the territory reclaimed from
Austria-Hungary during the war. But already in March 1918 all changed.
The Bolsheviks signed a peace treaty with Germany, through which Ukraine
was conceded.

It is impossible to occupy a territory, which doesn’t have borders. The
German generals drew in their own understanding the borders of Ukraine,
including Crimea. They ushered in their army, killed Ukrainian
independence in its cradle and were preparing to settle for a long time.

However, in November 1918 Germany suffered a defeat from the Entente and
its army was forced to leave Ukraine. Ukraine then became a Soviet
Republic and it took part in the founding of the Soviet Union, but
without Crimea, which joined the Russian Federation.

After World War II, Ukraine acquired the Western lands and it acquired
its present borders. On the river Dnepr, the construction of
hydroelectric plants began, one after the other. In 1950, the works
reached the lower part of the river. It was decided that the last
cascade of the Kakhovka Hydropower Plant will be used not so much for
electricity, but for irrigation of the dry lands of Southern Ukraine and
Crimea.

At the end of 1953, when the five-year plan for 1955-1960 was being
prepared, two irrigation canals included: South-Ukrainian and North-Crimean.

The first canal was going through Ukrainian territory in its entirety,
while the second one began in Ukraine and ended in the Russian
Federation, in Crimea. The planners decided that this will necessitate
the splitting of construction authority, which will cause confusion in
the building process and slow it down. So they came up with a suggestion
to the government:

Since the canal passes mostly through Ukrainian territory, then the rest
of it should, along with the whole of Crimea, pass from the supervision
of Moscow to that of Kiev.

My father Nikita Khrushchev who headed the leadership of the Soviet
Union, agreed with this argument, especially that an anniversary was
approaching:

In February 1954, it was 300 years since Ukraine joined Russia. It was
said - it was done. The Higher Council of the Russian Federation decided
to pass Crimea over to Ukraine. In this way, Crimea came under the
jurisdiction of Kiev, but just formally. In fact, it remained part of
the Soviet Union and was our common holiday destination.

The end of the Soviet Union?

And now how did it end? By the end of 1991 in the Soviet Union there was
a revolutionary atmosphere. The Soviet republics, including Ukraine,
started talking about independence. They weren’t just talking about it,
in fact they decided to act, even if it were against the constitution.
Three presidents got together in the Bialowieza Forest: Boris Yeltsin
(Russia), Leonid Kravchuk (Ukraine) and Stanislav Shushkevich (Belarus).
They agreed on the fact that the then president of the Soviet Union,
Michail Gorbachev was wearing them down and they needed to get rid of
him and the Soviet Union.

Before the signing of the document, they decided to get lunch. But as
Leonid Kravchuk said in an interview, one thought worried him: What to
do with Crimea? Formally, it was part of Ukraine, but in reality? He
turned with this question to Yeltsin, but at that moment he was not in
the mood to deal with this matter. He couldn’t wait to get Gorbachev out
of the Kremlin.

He was sitting down and rushing through his drinks and there was
Kravchuk still pestering about Crimea. Yeltsin waved him off to go away.
Kravchuk calmed down and took off with Crimea, which became an
autonomous zone within the borders of independent Ukraine. The
peninsula, however, never completely entered Ukraine and it felt as an
outcast in the new state.

It could have continued like this forever, but then the "Maidan"
revolution happened. At the end of 2013, Western Ukrainians,
dissatisfied with President Viktor Yanukovych, gathered at Kiev’s Maidan
and overthrew the hated authority of the Eastern Ukrainians.

The president escaped, while they bypassed the constitution and
established their power. Crimea took advantage of these circumstances,
because since such unconstitutional takeover could happen in Kiev, why
not have it happen in Crimea too? Thus they announced a referendum for
secession from Ukraine.

According to the constitution, it is illegal, but according to the
constitution, the current government in Kiev is also unconstitutional.

In reality, however, everyone accepted it, even the US president. So
what makes the Crimeans worse than them? The Crimean referendum, too, in
reality won’t have less power/strengthen than the government in Kiev.

Crimea is by far not the first entity - and won’t be the last - to
achieve independence in this way. In the past, the US broke off the
British Empire, while Kosovo just recently left the borders of Serbia.
It is in this manner that many achieved their independence, whether
Abkhazia, Algeria, Nagorno-Karabakh, East Timor, South Ossetia,
Czechoslovakia (which split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia), and
maybe soon Scotland (due to hold its own independence referendum).

In 1991, in spite of the Soviet constitution, Ukraine itself acquired
its independence. The list goes on and it is a natural process within
the dynamic development of the world, when some announce independence
and others lose their colonial territories and subordinate lands. It is
a painful process, but we’ve gotten used to it. As the international
scandal around Crimea erupted, it sucked into its orbit countries which
until 2014 knew almost nothing about the peninsula.

Illusory theories

And this was all because the US decided it was so, taking up homegrown
illusory theories without considering international realities. For
example, at some point in the US, the domino theory was popular,
according to which, if they let go of just one country from their orbit
of influence, then the whole world would instantly fall apart. This
theory turned out to be not even a theory, but a fantasy, and yet,
because of it, the US and the world lost countless lives.

Now in the US, there’s another fantasy: If they let any of the former
Soviet states get closer to Russia, then the Soviet Union will be
reconstituted, marking a return to Cold War. The fact that such a
scenario is impossible, after 25 years of independence for these
countries, is not taken into account. For Americans, fantasy seems
stronger than reality.

And of course, one can see the US attempts to demonstrate that today’s
world is the American world: Washington decides on everything - who to
judge worthy or unworthy. This is how it was once in Pax Romana. Until,
of course, Rome fell.

And thus the US is dictating its will, which tends to be a product of
domestic interests and reflects internal struggles between its political
forces. It imposes its will on the rest of the world and does not back
down from its stance, not an inch, even if this position is completely
flawed.

One more component: President Barack Obama is somehow believed to be a
weak president, which gives the impression that anything that happens in
the world involves the US. I don’t know whether or not Obama is a weak
politician. Personally, I find him likeable, but a politician’s strength
or weakness is a very serious factor in world politics.

A strong politician and leader need prove, neither to himself nor to his
circle, that which is obvious to everyone. He feels free and
participates in negotiations with his opponents, trying to explain his
position and understand his partners; he is always ready to make a
reasonable compromise and in the end makes decisions even in impossible
situations. An example of that is how President John F Kennedy and the
head of the council of ministers, Nikita Khrushchev, both strong
politicians, behaved during the Cuban crisis and found a solution under
mutually acceptable conditions.

A weak politician always tries to prove to his circle and to himself
that he is not what others think of him; he has to prove his strength
which, in reality, turns out to be obstinacy rather than strength. After
making a statement, he would not change his position at all, or else he
would appear weak, and at the same time avoid negotiations in person
because he fears them.

Instead, he sends emissaries with rigid, uncompromising instructions,
draws red lines, resorts to threats and sanctions, and demands
capitulations from his partner, i.e. useless and counter-productive
negotiations. No self-respecting country would agree to capitulation.

As a result, the weak politician tends to quickly draw the situation
into a conflict rather than a solution. And all this is to prove his
power - to himself and others - and because of that he is ready to
sacrifice countless lives.

He is ready to impose sanctions, which will lead to the suffering of
millions of people, which will hurt not only the partner-opponent, but
also his own country. That is why, the sanctions will not only hit the
enemy, but also deprive the US from millions of potential customers. And
all this to prove one thing - that he is not weak.

Lesson from history

I repeat, I don’t know whether Obama is weak as a politician, but it is
precisely this sort of "uncompromising" situation that is being set up
around Crimea. The US president made effort to put together a coalition
which does not recognise the will of the people. And all this against
the principle which was declared by his own predecessors.

Let’s remember Woodrow Wilson, who declared the right of every nation to
self-determination and statehood. Or President Clinton, who was not
reluctant to use military force to try and convince Slobodan Milosevic
of the right of Kosovo’s Albanians to establish a state.

Now everything is happening in the opposite direction. Crimeans are
threatened by sanctions and by the direct enforcement of Kiev’s power
onto them. And for expressing support for Crimea, Russia is also
threatened with sanctions. Will such policies work? I doubt it. It would
rather have the opposite effect: It will stimulate the struggle for
independence inside Crimea and it will encourage Russia to assume an
even firmer position of support for this movement. Let’s remember how in
the 19th century, Russia held firmly its support for the liberation
movement of the Bulgarians from Turkish rule.

As for the sanctions, they of course are painful, but the use of such
pressure is insulting to the national self-consciousness and will only
provoke the Russians to undertake even more intransigent resistance.
This has happened more than once in history.

During the 1853-1855 war, Sevastopol survived a long siege by the
combined forces of the English, French and Turks, while in 1941-1942 it
resisted the German army for almost a year. Should I also mention the
900-day siege of Leningrad? Then, too, those leading the siege were
driven by the logic that capitulation is inevitable, but the besieged
decided the opposite and in the end, they won. And now these sanctions…

Financial rewards for all?

But in all this unpleasant story, there is also a positive aspect: The
stormy clouds of Crimea poured a golden shower over Ukraine. It received
from the West more financial help than it ever dreamed of. It’s another
question whether the new government will be able to use it reasonably.
Or will they put it into their own pockets?

The White House did not waste time and it officially recognised the
self-formed revolutionary government of the Maidan and Obama even
welcomed its prime minister and showered him with kindness.

Crimea got lucky, too. Due to lack of investment in the past 20 years,
its infrastructure has become dilapidated. Now it’s Russia’s honour to
rebuild Crimea.

The Tatars got lucky, too. The Russian Parliament promised them maximum
political, cultural and other privileges, which they requested from Kiev
before, but to no avail. Of course, Tatar autonomy in Crimea is
impossible; they are only 12 percent, but an adequate presence in all
governmental institutions is guaranteed for them, as well as
legalisation of the lands, which they took over illegally and continue
to live on without any rights or guarantees.

And as for the accusations and insults thrown at President Vladimir
Putin, let’s think about them. Twenty-five years ago, his predecessor
Mikhail Gorbachev turned his face westward, declared his adherence to
Western values and friendship with the US. Boris Yeltsin followed the
same policies, and even Putin in his early years did so.

The US did not abide by any of its promises to Russia, neither the
written ones, nor the spoken ones. They promised that NATO would not
enter Eastern Europe, and what is the reality today? Russia supported
the US war on Iraq and even the intervention in Libya aiming at regime
change. As a result, Russian companies have been squeezed out of the
markets of these countries.

 >From Russia, they expect unconditional obedience, without any attempt
to defend Russian national interests. And on top of that, it’s
threatened by sanctions. It seems that they perceived the friendship
between Russia and the US to mean that Russia would remain a small
nation in the American orbit . Maybe Putin simply got tired of doing that?

Sergei Khrushchev

Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown
University. Advisor to the Cold War Museum. He is the son of former
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

(6) The Real Battle For Ukraine: Jewish America vs Christian Russia -
Brother Nathanael

    Brother Nathanael <bronathanael@yahoo.com> Date: 2 April 2014 14:20

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=921

April 1, 2014 @ 9:20 pm

The Real Battle For Ukraine

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

A clash of civilizations is taking place right before our very eyes in
the battle for Ukraine.

It’s a clash between two world systems:

The American-European system of Judengeist and the Russian system of
Orthodox Christianity.

A unipolar world is at its end and the clash has begun.

[Clip: "What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term,
at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one
centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

"It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign, one state
and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped
its national borders in every way.

"This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational
policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy
about this?”]

No one. Except for the Jews who rule America and Europe.

That’s why Russia is in the cross-hairs of International Jewry and Putin
is spun as a new Hitler.

Russia is the last holdout of Christianity and the only force strong
enough to oppose the Jewish agenda.

Christianity in America has long been destroyed by the Jewish Press,
Jewish Hollywood, and the Jewish Lobbies.

Europe has left its Christian roots by assenting to the EU’s dismissal
of European Church history. Hanukkah has become the ‘holy day’ of the EU.

It’s now a battle between the atheist west and the Russian east. And it
converges in Ukraine.

Historically, culturally, and economically Ukraine is tied to Russia.

But by Victoria Nuland installing ‘Yats the Yid’ as Ukraine’s prime
minister, Kiev has been pushed away from Russia and right into the
decadent arms of the EU.

The next step is to make Ukraine the "Sabbath Goy” of the Jewish-ruled IMF.

Ukraine’s getting a big loan…but with heavy strings attached.

[Clip: "Now the 14 to 18 billion dollars from international leaders is
not simply a loan it also comes with some of the harshest austerity
conditions we’ve seen yet.

"Heating costs will jump by some 50%, a 70% wage cut for public sector
workers, let’s move on and talk about pensions ’cause they’re set to be
slashed to half their current value.

"This means the elderly will have to make ends meet while paying for
those rising utility bills.”]

Look at what Yats the Yid, Nuland’s Yiddishe boy, has brought down on
the people of Ukraine.

With crushing debt, a lowered standard of living, and severed from
Russia, demoralized Ukraine will become yet another pawn in Jewry’s plan
for world hegemony.

But Russia and friends won’t take this sitting down.

Already, companies like Germany’s Siemens are saying ‘nein’ to the
threatened sanctions against Russia.

And Putin has said many times that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus will
form a three-fold cord that won’t be easily broken.

But the real strength of Russia is derived from her Christian roots.

If God is for a nation, who can be against her?

It’s no longer a unipolar world. The battle has just begun.

(7) IMF imposes Privatization & Austerity on Ukraine - Michael Hudson

http://michael-hudson.com/2014/03/crimea-geo-political-gas/

Crimea: Geo-Political Gas

March 22, 2014

By Michael Hudson

Who In Ukraine Will Benefit From An IMF Bailout?

Economists Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers discuss how provisions in
an IMF deal like cuts to gas subsidies and pensions will hurt the
average Ukrainian citizens and benefit kleptocrats - March 21, 14

Bio

JEFFREY SOMMERS is an associate professor and Senior Fellow of the
Institute of World Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He
is also visiting faculty at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga.
He is co-editor of the forthcoming book The Contradictions of Austerity.
In addition to CounterPunch he also publishes in The Financial Times,
The New York Times, The Guardian, TruthOut and regularly appears as an
expert on global television.

Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the
University of Missouri, Kansas City. His two newest books are "The
Bubble and Beyond" and "Finance Capitalism and its Discontents,"
available on Amazon.

Transcript

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm
Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

While much of the reporting on Ukraine has focused on the political
battles between the U.S., the E.U., and Russia, there's little coverage
on the economic consequences of such battles for the debt-ridden nation,
especially what this means for ordinary Ukrainians. The interim
government in Ukraine is currently negotiating a $15 billion IMF bailout
package, with talks set to conclude on March 21.

Also since the referendum and annexation of Crimea by Russia, the U.S.
and E.U. have imposed sanctions on several Russian and Ukrainian
politicians. That means visa bans and asset freezes for the elite. And
there could be more coming down the pipeline, according to U.S. Vice
President Joe Biden.

Joining us now to discuss the economic aspect of the situation in
Ukraine are our two guests.

Jeffrey Sommers is an associate professor and senior fellow of the
Institute of World Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Also joining us is Michael Hudson. He is a distinguished research
professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Thank
you both for joining us.

So I'm going to first start off with you, Jeffrey. My first question is
related to the conditions for a possible IMF deal. They include cuts to
gas subsidies, pensions, public sector employment, as well as
privatization of government assets, a deal that really sounds like it's
going to hurt ordinary Ukrainians. So my first question is: what
actually is behind them potentially accepting a deal like this? And why
would they risk losing their political power?

JEFFREY SOMMERS, INSTITUTE OF WORLD AFFAIRS, UWM: Well, you know, I
don't think they're going to risk losing their political power. Now,
you're absolutely right. This is going to be terribly painful for the
people of Ukraine. But what they're going to be able to do is just to
deflect and to put the blame on the Russians for this and somehow
suggest that this is all necessary and that there is a light at the end
of the tunnel. So just as with the, frankly, Soviet rulers in the past,
in terms of how they always promised a golden age off in the distance,
Ukraine's rulers will do the same, and this will be echoed by remarks
coming from the IMF.

Now, I would also say that they're also going to be pointing to Poland
and the Baltic states. And they are going to say that, look, these are
two places that went through the same kinds of conditions that we're
going to be imposing upon you, and you are going to come out like them.
Now, for people in Ukraine, Poland in particular will appear to be quite
appealing, because the per capita purchasing power of people in Poland
is literally twice that of Ukraine.

But we have to remember a few things. One is that literally one-third of
Poland used to be Germany, so there was a massive quantity of German
investment into Poland with its independence with the fall of the Warsaw
Pact. But also, because they were the first country that hinted that
they might exit the euro-rather, the Warsaw Pact, they got a much better
deal from the IMF and from the West. They got lots of grants, not loans.
So an entirely different set of aid that we'll see in Ukraine, with an
entirely different set of conditions.

DESVARIEUX: Alright. Michael, I want to ask you who aims to benefit from
this IMF deal.

MICHAEL HUDSON, PROF. ECONOMICS, UMKC: The money that has been given by
the IMF and the West in the past has been given to the kleptocrats that
run Ukraine. The UN and the World Bank have Ukraine right next to
Nigeria for the GINI coefficient of concentrated income. So, basically,
the Europeans have told the kleptocrats, the ten or 12 billionaires that
run the country, we will make you very, very rich if you join us. We
will give you a lot of IMF money, you can transfer it into your bank
accounts, send it abroad to your offshore banking centers, and the
Ukrainian people will owe it. So you can do the Ukraine what the Irish
government did to the Irish: you can take the public money, you can give
it all to the private bankers, and then you can tax your people and make
them pay.

But as soon as the IMF gives the loan to the Ukraine-Russia announced on
Monday-and you can read this on the Johnson's Russia List that has a
summary of all of the Russian official reports-Russia says that Ukraine
owes $20 billion, dating back to the Soviet Union era in exchange for,
in addition, to about $5 billion or $6 billion for the oil subsidies
that it's been given. Russia said it is going to charge Ukraine the
normal oil price, not the subsidized price. So all the money that the
IMF and the U.S. gives Russia says is immediately owed to it itself.

Whatever happens, either the Russian government will get the IMF money
for gas and imports or the kleptocrats will. None of the money-and I
think Jeff agrees-none of this money's going to go to the Ukrainian
economy any more than the IMF money went to the Irish economy or the
Greek economy or the other economies that are there. IMF money doesn't
go to the country and it doesn't go to the people. It goes to the
billionaires who run them to take the money and immediately send it back
to the West so it's a circular flow, and it goes in and out of Ukraine
in about 20 minutes.

DESVARIEUX: Michael, I'm glad that you brought up those countries as
examples, 'cause I think it's important for us to get some historical
context about the role of the IMF in the post-Soviet nations of Eastern
Europe. You both have written about the IMF bailouts in Latvia. So,
Michael, I'm going to ask you first: can you talk about the consequences
for the economy, particularly the working class people, whether they're
likely to see the same in Ukraine happen to them?

HUDSON: The objective of IMF loans is to deindustrialize the economy. It
is to force the economy-meaning the government when you say the
economy-the government has to pay the IMF loan by privatizing whatever
remains in the public domain. The Westerners want to buy the Ukrainian
farmland. They want to buy the public utilities. They want to buy the
roads. They want to buy the ports. And all of this is going to be sold
at a very low price to the Westerners, and the price that the Westerners
pay will be turned over to the Ukrainian government, that then will turn
it back to the Ukraine. So whatever the West gives Ukraine will
immediately be taken back.

But not only will the money be taken back, but the Ukrainian factories,
roads, infrastructure, bridges, farmland, and property will also pass
into foreign ownership, just like it did in Russia, just like it did in
Latvia, just like it does in all of the other post-Soviet countries. And
then this is going to lead to lower wage payments. Many Ukrainians say
they haven't been paid for two months. In Russia in 1994, during the
Yeltsin selloff, labor went ten or 12 months without being paid. You
can't pay labor and at the same time pay the IMF and pay the
kleptocrats. Something has to give, and what gives is going to be living
standards and labor.

So the result will be what it was in Latvia, Greece, and Ireland, where
20 percent of the population emigrated. Just like 20 years ago you had
an influx of Polish plumbers into London, you're now going to have
millions of Ukrainian plumbers pouring into Western Europe, saying, we
want jobs at anything; there are no jobs at home.

DESVARIEUX: Jeff, you're actually in Latvia right now. Can you speak to
some of what Michael raised, those issues?

SOMMERS: Well, I'm not in Latvia at present, although I spend quite a
bit of time there.

But much of what Michael says is correct. And just as I indicated, what
the differences were with Poland and the kind of deal that Ukraine is
going to get, we also have to remember that a country like Latvia will
also be presented as an example of what the Ukrainians can aspire to.
And we have to remember that they're just entirely different economies.
So even if one took the position that Latvia has somehow been
successful, even though its people have just suffered massively over the
past few years under the conditions of austerity, with huge numbers of
people exiting, some 10 percent of the population since 2000, and, as
Michael says, some, you know, almost 20 percent since independence in
1991, you know, these are very different economies that are based
largely on offshore banking. They're very small. They can fulfill this
kind of niche role that a big country like Ukraine just absolutely can't.

I mean, Ukraine's future is in grain production. And, as Michael says,
you're going to see foreign companies coming in, hoping to assert
control over that prime grain-producing land.

Now, also as Michael says, there's going to be a continuation of an
already existing trend with Ukraine, and that is to, again, emigration.
Now, the problem with this idea that somehow by joining the E.U.
everything is going to be good for the people of Ukraine is that what
Ukrainians are essentially seeing are the echoes of a social democratic
past which is being euthanized in the European Union. So this whole idea
of a social market, of a social Europe is one which they still can
experience when they go abroad, but what they don't really understand is
that structurally it's being destroyed. And so this is not the future,
unfortunately, that they're going to inhabit if they join the E.U. It's
more likely, again, to be just one of, unfortunately, some misery,
especially for the working and the middle classes, as the subsidies for
gas and for education and for the other necessities for reproducing a
middle-class standard of living are taken away.

Now, to get to the issue of maybe what should be done, of course, what
we need is an entire reassessment of the development model that we've
seen in both the former Warsaw Pact nations and the former constituent
parts of the Soviet Union. We need to look more at local production and
at creating and satisfying more of their demands internally, you know,
rather than thinking that just by being integrated into the European
Union, that somehow there's going to be a market for their goods.
There's not. The experience that we've seen in the past is that when
these fragile economies get opened up even more so to those of West
Europe, that their domestic industry really gets suffocated, and the
only thing that they get in return are cheap consumer products. So I
don't see much good coming out of this deal with the European Union or
the IMF.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about the
recent annexation of Crimea. Is there a serious economic loss here for
Ukraine, or even a substantial economic gain for Russia, Jeff, in your
opinion?

SOMMERS: Well, it's really too early to tell at this point, but there is
one prospect that's on the horizon that could suggest that there is a
loss for Ukraine and a gain for Russia, and that is that there are
offshore gas fields just offshore of Crimea. Exxon put a rather
substantial bid in for those. They're going to lose that. It's going to
go to Gazprom. And this could be fairly significant in terms of a gain
for the Russian economy and a loss for the Ukrainians. So that's the
only major area of gain for Russia.

Another potential loss for Ukraine is that the Crimea is a tourist
destination, so it does receive some tourist revenue. But on balance, at
present, I don't see any immediate harm being done to the Ukrainian
economy but, again, with that medium- to long-term prospect of losing
some gas revenues.

DESVARIEUX: Michael, let's turn to you. I want to talk about the effects
of these sanctions and what sort of effect they'll have on the Russian
economy. What are we likely to see play out in terms of Russia's
relationship with the G7, and in particular the G8 summit that's planned
to take place in Sochi in June?

HUDSON: Nothing has happened at the last G8 summit or the summit before
that or the summit before that. These are sort of, like, just
get-togethers for public relations. There's already been a separation of
interest.

I want to say one thing about what Jeff pointed out, quite correctly,
about the oil and gas. The kleptocrats in the Ukraine were about to sell
the oil and gas rights to American gas companies. This is precisely what
led Putin in Russia to finally move against Khodorkovsky when he was
going to sell the Yukos oil to Exxon, which would have given America
control of Russia's oil to sell to itself at $0.02 on the gallon and
keep everything above it for itself. This-Russia is now going to claim
that these are Crimean rights. Crimea is going to sell these rights to
Gazprom, basically, to the Russian companies, to keep them out of the
Western control. So Russia is going to basically say, well, look, we've
been providing you, the West, with oil.

The Ukrainians' right-wing party that the Americans are supporting
yesterday announced that if they were not allowed to go and just begin
killing the Russians, they were going to blow up all the pipelines.
Russia announced that if the pipelines and gas lines are blown up,
fine-Europe won't get any gas. And without gas, its industry is going to
slow down.

Russia has just completed the pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and is
shifting its trade very rapidly towards China and towards the other
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation group. So there's going to be a shift.

Regarding the economics of the Crimea for Russia, one of the reasons
that Yeltsin [inaud.] [Soviet] Union countries was Russia was losing
money on them on the balance sheet. The Ukraine costs much more than it
returns economically.

Obviously, the reason Russia moved in to Sevastopol wasn't because of
economic reasons. It was for military reasons. It couldn't let NATO put
hydrogen bombs 20 miles from Russia, because then somebody in the
neocons would have said, hey, we'll never have a better chance to blow
up Russia and the world than we have right now; let's do it. So Russia's
decisions here are cultural and military. It's not an economic decision
to take the crimea. It's a basic military, national security decision
that it's done.

But economically, I think Russia sees that Western Europe is pretty much
what Donald Rumsfeld said: old Europe. Western Europe is so neoliberal,
I think, that it's doing to its own populations in France, Greece,
Spain, Italy exactly what Jeff was pointing out that it's so far only
done to Latvia and the Eastern European countries. Latvia was a dress
rehearsal for Western Europe. So Western Europe is drying up. So of
course Russia's going to turn towards an economy that's not destroying
itself. It's going to turn towards China and other Asian economies. And
we're seeing a vast shift. That's the effect of the neocon plan that
Obama has embraced in pushing the coup d'état.

Russia also has pointed out that there's something called the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994 that bans all foreign countries from interfering in
the domestic politics of the Ukraine. And it's-Russia pointed out that
it was the West that had violated the Budapest memorandum in blocking
the terrorism and the coup d'état. And what they said was literally (and
I'm quoting from the Russian website): how should we qualify the U.S.
and E.U. statements that they are-no longer regard the legally elected
head of state as a legitimate partner, unlike the new leaders appointed
in the square, in a breach of all the constitutional procedures?

So Russia is going to say, a debt is a debt, you owe us the $20 billion
you owe us from before, you owe us the money for the gas. If you don't
pay us, you don't get the gas, and if you don't pay us for the gas, the
gas can't get to Europe. So Europe is going to be facing a very, very
cold summer. Its cost structure will go way up, much for the benefit of
the United States.

So from the U.S. point of view, you have to look at the U.S. and Europe
and Russia together when you ask about Russia's economy. This is just a
deadly blow to Europe, much helping the United States, which has much
lower energy costs if it wishes. And Europe has been suckered into
supporting a plan that it's being sacrificed for.

Russia is going to be able to survive by turning to the east.

DESVARIEUX: Alright. Jeff, I want to get your take. What is America
going to be facing with these sort of sanctions that are placed on
Russia, as well as just the tension that is developing between the two
countries?

SOMMERS: Well, kind of complementing Michael's remarks, and then I'll
specifically address the issue with the United States. I mean, Michael
was absolutely right. Russia has the potential to begin selling more oil
and gas to the east. They're already doing so. So the United States in
effect had zero leverage over Russia in this situation.

Also, this is not about economic gain for Russia, or even for Ukraine,
for that matter. I mean, it's about, again, that NATO issue. That NATO
isse is crucial. I wrote a short piece in The New York Times about a
month ago on this specific matter. And it goes back, of course, to the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. The Soviets felt
that they were given assurances from the United States that NATO would
not encroach upon the Warsaw Pact or the former Warsaw Pact nations. And
lo and behold, what does the United States do over the past two decades?
They take in the Warsaw Pact, and then they move even into the former
Soviet Republics themselves, the Baltic states, moving towards Georgia,
and now tentatively towards Ukraine. Fortunately, Ukraine has been
saying that they're not interested in NATO, but I think it's very, very
clear that the pattern has been established. And that's what led the
Russians to act in the way that they did.

With regards to the United States, the United States actually has the
potential to see both great losses to itself and great benefits to its
energy industry if the crisis continues in the fashion that it has. So
we see several U.S. politicians, both in the Democratic and in the
Republican parties, advocating for the construction of terminals to
liquify the United States's natural gas reserves, export them to East
Europe, thus diminishing the power of Russia in the region, not just in
East Europe, but selling it to West Europe as well.

Now, in principle this might all sound good that it's extra business for
the United States, it weakens the hand of Russia in Europe. But we have
to understand that it's not so simple. If we begin liquifying these
reserves, because natural gas is not global as a market in the way that
oil is, because one has to liquify it in order to ship it across vast
quantities if there are no pipeline routes, it means that there are very
different price structures in place in terms of a market for it. What
this will mean is that the American consumer is going to pay much higher
prices for gas. So, in other words, heating bills will go up. And of
even more consequence, to my mind, is the fact that it will reduce the
competitiveness of American manufacturing. So American industry will
have to pay more for natural gas, thus reducing some of the newfound
competitiveness that it has been getting with this surplus of gas that
we have identified and found here. And the next is it will actually
increase pressures for even more fracking. And, of course, we know that
that comes with some environmental consequences that are not necessarily
beneficial for the environment, and, you know, especially for our water
tables.

So I think that we have a lot of foolish proposals that are being
bandied about that really will not help the average American or the U.S.
economy, frankly. And that's my great concern. I just do not think we
should be exporting this gas. I think we should be using it domestically
to keep our gas prices down for the American consumer and for helping to
build up our industry.

DESVARIEUX: Alright, Jeffrey Sommers and Michael Hudson. Thank you both
for joining us.

And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End