Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It’s Off To War MEE Go!
Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.
(Palmerston, who was no slouch when it came to Imperialism).
Let’s examine the evidence:
- Middle East in Chaos
- US Pushing NATO to Russian Borders
- US Oil & Gas Production rising sharply
- Russia major energy supplier to Europe & China
- Middle East Oil Production at or past peak
This is a theory, constructed to fit the set of facts listed, and to try to provide an Hypothesis which meets the facts, explains the US’ behavior, lists the possible outcomes and discusses the probabilities of those outcomes.
It’s about “MEE:” Money, Energy and, Empire.
Following Syria’s agreement to dismantle its poison gas arsenal (a wise decision given the potential blowback from the use of Poison Gas), and Russia’s help in removing that excuse for arming the “opposition” in Syria – who are also the “Opposition” to the Iraq Government, one of the US’ “interests,” countering the US’ Money and Empire – which the US likes to think is an irresistible force – is The Russian immovable object.¸
The US then appeared to pivot to expedite the overthrow of the elected, Russian-leaning Ukrainian Government, in February this year. One factor in the overthrow was after the Ukrainian Government considered financial rescue packages from the West and Russia, and rejected the West’s offer. A second factor would include removing Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence .
The Ukrainian Government at that time was considered a Russia-leaning Government, which was obviously not the US’ interests, and when in trouble, the US’ had no compunction in putting the boots to a democratically-elected Government which failed to agree with them, even though the Government, had less that 9 months left in its mandate. Despite its protestations to the contrary, democratically-elected governments make the US nervous. What would have happened, if the Russian-leaning Government had pulled off the financial rescue based on Russia’s aid package? Why, it may have been reelected. Can’t have that, can we? Better to remove such an uncertain ally, whose support came from an obviously-fickle electorate not beholden to the Neo-Liberal West, at the earliest opportune time.
A re-elected Ukrainian Russian-leaning government might not force Ukrainian Serfs into the arms of the Neo-Liberal Fascists of the West.
A consequence of the NATO invasion of Ukraine was Russia’s move to secure their only warm water port, a move which was inevitable, both from a study of Russian history, and the current investment in port expansion in the Crimea by Russia and China. Protestations of dismay from the US and other allied countries is deceit at its best. One has no doubt these actions were a part of their analysis of Russia’s response, and Russia’s action came as no surprise, especially after the provocation by the US in Ukraine (The government overthrow). If Ukraine came firmly into the US camp, Russia would be encircled by US allies, except on her Chinese border. Clearly, the goal was to be able to put irresistible pressure on Russia to follow the American Way.
As we analyze the American pressure tactics on Russia, it’s worth noting that Ukraine is also the route for many gas pipelines from Russia to Europe; if the US could engineer trouble in Ukraine, that might make Russia an unreliable supplier of Gas to Europe, enhancing offers from the US to “help solve Europe’s energy problem,” and potentially opening up the European market to Liquid Natural Gas from the US. No one asked the Europeans if they would prefer to be beholden to a different energy supplier, instead of Russia; if the US succeeds, Europe would be forced to acquiesce to US trade demands, instead of Russian demands. They’d still be beholden, but the US would be able to force TTIP and TISA on them, by threatening to withhold energy supplies if Europe fails to sign on the dotted line.
The US policy in the Middle East, where it appears to be funding a set of factions in one theater while also treating the same faction as enemies in other theaters. This appears to be a crazy and confusing policy, unless the objective is to cause chaos and keep regional powers at each other’s throats (Israel vs everyone, Saudi vs Iran, ISIS vs the Allawites, Sunnis (ISIS) vs Shia, Kurds declaring UDI, Turkey vs Kurds) just to name a few. That is, divide and conquer. Or at least, divide and render powerless to influence regional goals that might be different from US goals, and change the perception of the Middle East from stable suppliers to energy to uncertain suppliers of energy.
The US’ Energy boom from fracking is proceeding rapidly, and the best use of the US’ bonanza of Oil and Gas is to use the Oil & Gas at home over the long period. That would ensure energy self-sufficiency and security over the long term, There’s only one problem. Such a reasonable decision would have a significant impact on Quarterly Profits.
This the US-based Oil & Gas business, with a plan for profit to offset the current reduction of domestic prices due to overproduction. Overproduction would not be a problem if this strategic asset were managed rationally for domestic use, but the irrational desire for maximum Quarterly Profit demands opening up new markets to US-supplied (at least for a few years) Oil and Gas.
What markets you might ask, would want a potentially short-lived supply (if the short lives and high depletion rates from fracking are correct)? Surely those markets would prefer a stable supply from a country not riven by internal dissent, and which would be willing to be supportive of the energy needs of Europe’s peoples.
One country is doing its best to ferment uncertainty with other suppliers, in the Middle East, and with Russia, which supplies energy to Europe. If the US can eliminate its competition, it can demand monopoly prices. Surely the great champion of freedom and democracy would never do that? Let’s look a little further into the situation.
The US plan for Gas supply to Europe is competing with Gas from an existing pipeline to Russia. The US suppliers must build expensive Liquid Natural Gas facilities both in the US and at ports in Europe. The Russian Gas suppliers have established supply lines and very probably have much, much lower costs than the US Gas suppliers. The Russians could bankrupt the US Gas suppliers at any time during the capital-intensive construction phases of LNG delivery from the US just by cutting Russian Natural Gas prices.
Such a threat from Russia must be eliminated, and the European markets made safe for US Natural Gas. US GS would provide the additional benefit of a lever to force Europe to support US policies. Eliminating the Russian threat also provides the opportunity for the US to acquire the Russian Gas producers, and repatriate the profits from the Russian resources to US control – but not US taxes.
And isolates the Chinese by having a US controlled Russia on one side, and the TPP partnership on the other.
Russia has a history of resistance to control by outside parties; historically it values its sovereignty and independence, and has not been subjugated since the Mongol invasions, and will try to endure and patiently wait it out.
The US, because of its demand for ever-increasing quarterly profits is impatient, and irrational. There is a very great danger that the US impatience is heading directly towards war with Russia. The war drums are beating already, and the propaganda machine is in full production.
It’s all about MEE.
It’s not about you Ms. America, nor your sons, who’ll be slaughtered in the upcoming War.
China will come into the war on Russia’s side, because if they didn’t, THEIR border would become exposed to a US-controlled Russia, and TPP controlled partners in Asia. Observing how the US has inspired the encirclement of Russia, it’s pretty clear that China understands that having a US puppet on their border would be unpleasant.
WW III, here we come.