Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Gocka]

It is about superpower interference, but it went into a side show about corporations - namely Gocka and Victor think that corporations control governments and governments orchestrated the protests in Ukraine to topple Yanukovich for the benefit of their corporate puppet masters who supposedly stand to make billions but that is yet to be demonstrated as the only examples provided would actually lose out in any conflict. At the end of the day, its all about money - like you said.

Anyway, it'll be a tomorrow job.

I think your taking a few liberties there.

The argument was about many things. You were saying corporations couldn't have any real influence and some of us were saying that is false and that corporations have a very large influence, but no one said that they have sole influence over governments.

You were even denying that the US was behind the coup in Ukraine, and now it is openly being admitted that the US was in fact behind it and that the phone tap that I posted was not "business as usual" but was actually the behind the scenes orchestrating of the coup.

Trying to over simplify this entire argument to one sentence is wrong, because I thought this was a good spirited debate with many good points from everyone.

[vicsinad]

Good posts, Gocka and RTG.

US and Russia are competing for access and control of Ukraine's market and resources. That access and control primarily benefits multi-national corporations. The corporations themselves are not necessarily doing the "dirty" work of aiding in revolution and helping change the political climate. However, they certainly have public officials that are either directly working for their aims, or indirectly for them through aims that are "theoretically" good for the American people and the country.

Anyway, the next few days are going to continue to reveal that involvement of US and Russia in Ukraine's internal problems. Now, this is business as usual for US and Russia. However, I'm saying, it shouldn't be business as usual. It needs to stop.

[vicsinad]

Still coming down to money and energy. Chevron, welcome to the mix.

“It’s all about money in the end. Natural gas is a huge portion of the Russian economy. It is almost all their export. They don’t make that much money on vodka.”
Pipeline politics

Russia supplies Ukraine with half its natural gas to heat homes and power the economy.

The pipelines cut straight through Ukraine, and go onward to Western Europe to supply the continent with 40 percent of its gas needs.

So to “blackmail” and control Ukraine “without firing a shot,” Petriw said Putin started building in 2012 a $77 billion pipeline that would go around Ukraine.

Map of Russian natural gas pipelines - Gazprom

This "Southstream" Gazprom pipeline (shown on the map in red) -- would carry the gas from the Arctic Sea, south to an area near the Olympic city of Sochi, then under the Black Sea, and westward to Europe.

“It’s a $77 billion gamble that doesn’t sell an additional cubic metre of gas – this is an expenditure that isn’t economically justified. It is an expenditure for political reasons. Natural gas is a weapon.”

But Putin's pricey pipeline gamble failed, said Petriw.

“Recently, shale gas was discovered in western Ukraine. There’s a contract with Chevron. It’s a very large and significant shale gas field, which for one, will make Ukraine energy independent of Russia, so the whole multi-billion dollar plan to bypass Ukraine is now wasted.”

Then last fall, Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych asked Europe for a loan to help with Ukraine’s faltering economy.

“Then at the last minute, literally a week before the agreement was going to be signed [in November 2013], he makes a u-turn, he says ‘nope, I won’t sign the agreement, I’m going with Russia. I’ll get a loan from Putin.’”

The result was deadly chaos in Kiev – a popular revolt by a people not keen to reunite ties with their former imperial masters in Moscow. The pro-Russian president in Ukraine was ejected from power.

“So Putin has absolutely no choice, but to go to ‘plan B’ which is the military option,” said Petriw.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/confused-ukraine-crisis-it%E2%80%99s-about-russian-natural-gas-and-empire-expert

[vicsinad]

Gocka:

Read the entire article. It goes on about the depths of the neoconservative involvement in Ukraine and other areas. (I didn't quote the entire article, just select spots).

First, Parry reports how neocon organizations, like " National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. sources, played key roles in destabilizing and overthrowing the democratically elected president." Parry describes:

NED, a $100 million-a-year agency created by the Reagan administration in 1983 to promote political action and psychological warfare against targeted states, lists 65 projects that it supports financially inside Ukraine, including training activists, supporting "journalists" and promoting business groups, effectively creating a full-service structure primed and ready to destabilize a government in the name of promoting "democracy." [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Shadow US Foreign Policy."]

State Department neocons also put their shoulders into shoving Ukraine away from Russia. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan and the sister-in-law of the Gates-Petraeus adviser Frederick Kagan, advocated strenuously for Ukraine's reorientation toward Europe.

Last December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant into the West's orbit and away from Russia's.

... Nuland was soon at work planning for "regime change," encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn't seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev's Maidan square had hoisted a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.

By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government.

"Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister -- and who was committed to harsh austerity.

As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera's anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during World War II."

...

" The madness of the neocons has long been indicated by their extraordinary arrogance and their contempt for other nations' interests. They assume that U.S. military might and other coercive means must be brought to bear on any nation that doesn't bow before U.S. ultimatums or that resists U.S.-orchestrated coups.

Whenever the neocons meet resistance, they don't rethink their strategy; they simply take it to the next level. Angered by Russia's role in heading off U.S. military attacks against Syria and Iran, the neocons escalated their geopolitical conflict by taking it to Russia's own border, by egging on the violent ouster of Ukraine's elected president.

The idea was to give Putin an embarrassing black eye as punishment for his interference in the neocons' dream of "regime change" across the Middle East. Now, with Putin's countermove, his dispatch of Russian troops to secure control of the Crimea, the neocons want Obama to further escalate the crisis by going after Putin.


Some leading neocons even see ousting Putin as a crucial step toward reestablishing the preeminence of their agenda. NED president Carl Gershman wrote in the Washington Post, "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. ... Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
At minimum, the neocons hope that they can neutralize Putin as Obama's ally in trying to tamp down tensions with Syria and Iran -- and thus put American military strikes against those two countries back under active consideration. "

Parry's information about Kerry is informative. Here, a man he appointed, is sabotaging Obama's efforts. Kerry has traveled a long way since he protested the Viet Nam war-- a long way to the right.

I often have to restrain my reflex apology for Obama, that he's made mistakes. Deep in my heart I now believe that Obama doesn't make mistakes. He is cold and calculating. Given Parry's perspective, I would conclude that Obama is not a victim of neocons. He is a partner with them-- with Hillary and Bill Clinton, with Kagan, with the predators in the World Bank, with AIPAC.

If the neocons, including Obama, are targeting Putin, that should not be a surprise. Just consider it the same kind of treatment Obama has given to liberals, progressives and even Democrats. Remember Obama's "support" of the "public option" during the healthcare debate?

I drafted the title of this article before actually writing the article. Writing and researching it has taken me to a different set of questions, if not conclusions. Did Putin's interventions in Syria and Iran actually scuttle Obama's real agenda, which may have been to capitulate to Israeli and AIPAC pressures? Is Parry indulging his Obama mistake reflex?

And let's not forget Obama's intense lobbying for TPP and its Atlantic counterpart. It's always helpful to ask "qui bono?-- who benefits?" If the neocons get their man, bankster and austerity advocate Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed, that'll make a lot of corporate players and globalization one world corporate planet people very happy.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Ukraine-Crisis-Neocon-P-by-Rob-Kall-Neocon-Expansionism_Neocon-Military-Aggression_Neocon-neoliberal_Neocons-PNAC-140304-187.html

[Vangelovski]

I think your taking a few liberties there.

The argument was about many things. You were saying corporations couldn't have any real influence and some of us were saying that is false and that corporations have a very large influence, but no one said that they have sole influence over governments.

You were even denying that the US was behind the coup in Ukraine, and now it is openly being admitted that the US was in fact behind it and that the phone tap that I posted was not "business as usual" but was actually the behind the scenes orchestrating of the coup.

Trying to over simplify this entire argument to one sentence is wrong, because I thought this was a good spirited debate with many good points from everyone.

Were did I say corporations don't have any real infuence? My entire point was that they don't have sole influence over US Government decisions as there are many other factors in society that compete with them and that corporations themselves compete with each other over influence on the same issues. In fact, in many instances corporations don't even have the most influence and there are many examples of this. I also never denied that US had involvement in the coup - again, show me where I said this. I merely said that those sorts of conversations are business as usual Gocka, whether or not something is being orchestrated.

[Vangelovski]

Good posts, Gocka and RTG.

US and Russia are competing for access and control of Ukraine's market and resources. That access and control primarily benefits multi-national corporations. The corporations themselves are not necessarily doing the "dirty" work of aiding in revolution and helping change the political climate. However, they certainly have public officials that are either directly working for their aims, or indirectly for them through aims that are "theoretically" good for the American people and the country.

Anyway, the next few days are going to continue to reveal that involvement of US and Russia in Ukraine's internal problems. Now, this is business as usual for US and Russia. However, I'm saying, it shouldn't be business as usual. It needs to stop.

And without going too far back, here is Victor's latest claim...just one for the record in case he tries to back track later on. Oh yeah, Victor, you haven't really added anything that nobody (who follows Russian/Ukrainian affairs) didn't already know.

[Vangelovski]

Gocka:

Read the entire article. It goes on about the depths of the neoconservative involvement in Ukraine and other areas. (I didn't quote the entire article, just select spots).




http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-...40304-187.html

The only problem with this particular opion piece is that its about a decade late. The neoconservatives (people like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) are no longer in power in Washington and to try to paint Obama and the Clintons as neo-cons is just delusional. As usual, there's a lot of claims made here, no evidence provided, no logical explanation of why the author believes what he does. Its more of this sounds right to me and I believe it.

[Gocka]

The only problem with this particular opion piece is that its about a decade late. The neoconservatives (people like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) are no longer in power in Washington and to try to paint Obama and the Clintons as neo-cons is just delusional. As usual, there's a lot of claims made here, no evidence provided, no logical explanation of why the author believes what he does. Its more of this sounds right to me and I believe it.

I dont think Obama is a Neocon, nor is anyone in his cabinet. There a few left in the senate like John McCain for example.

Calling Clinton a Neocon is a stretch but I have to say what he did to Serbia still bewilders me. It was so unlike the democrats during that time and unlike Clinton himself.

Hillary on the other hand, I dont know about her, she does strike me as a Neocon type in disguise.

[Gocka]

Were did I say corporations don't have any real infuence? My entire point was that they don't have sole influence over US Government decisions as there are many other factors in society that compete with them and that corporations themselves compete with each other over influence on the same issues. In fact, in many instances corporations don't even have the most influence and there are many examples of this. I also never denied that US had involvement in the coup - again, show me where I said this. I merely said that those sorts of conversations are business as usual Gocka, whether or not something is being orchestrated.

Fair enough. I misunderstood you then.

[Gocka]

GOP lawmakers urge administration to counter Russia by boosting gas exports

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/04/gop-lawmakers-urge-administration-to-counter-russia-by-boosting-gas-exports/

So impose sanctions on Russia, possibly on their gas exports, and fill the void with your own gas exports. Sounds like a good way to make a quick buck.

Yea that is how we are going to solve the Ukrainian crisis.

Bunch of ass clowns.

[Vangelovski]

I dont think Obama is a Neocon, nor is anyone in his cabinet. There a few left in the senate like John McCain for example.

Calling Clinton a Neocon is a stretch but I have to say what he did to Serbia still bewilders me. It was so unlike the democrats during that time and unlike Clinton himself.

Hillary on the other hand, I dont know about her, she does strike me as a Neocon type in disguise.

From memory, Clinton was drawn into the whole Kosovo saga by Tony Blair who saw it as his own personal crusade. I think Clinton resisted American involvement for a while before Blair made it impossible for him not to get involved. While some will argue that it was in the making all along and that the US wanted Kosovo so that they could build Camp Bondsteel there as some sort of strategic base against Russia, I think that consideration came later - it was originally built for the KFOR protection force and its still fairly temporary in its design, using mainly wooden huts.

I'm sure some here would go as far as arguing that Coca-Cola made the US get invovled so they could secure the market and kick out Macedonia's Cockta. The whole world is, afterall, working around the clock to keep those industrious Macedonians down and out.

[Vangelovski]

GOP lawmakers urge administration to counter Russia by boosting gas exports

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...g-gas-exports/

So impose sanctions on Russia, possibly on their gas exports, and fill the void with your own gas exports. Sounds like a good way to make a quick buck.

Yea that is how we are going to solve the Ukrainian crisis.

Bunch of ass clowns.

I'm pretty confident that this would have happened without the crisis in the Ukraine. Europe was getting sick of Russia's gas shutdowns to make the Ukraine pay its bills and was likely to look for alternative sources anyway. With American shale coming online and it becoming a net exporter of gas and oil, it was only a matter of time before they replaced the Russians as a key supplier. But it will still be a while before they get all the necessary infrastructure in place to be able to become a major supplier to Europe.

[vicsinad]

I'm sure some here would go as far as arguing that Coca-Cola made the US get invovled so they could secure the market and kick out Macedonia's Cockta.

No, Coca-Cola only spends $4 million a year lobbying... it has other aims and means:

Blue-Gold: Water Wars
Blue Gold : World Water Wars (Official Full Length Film) - YouTube

The Cost of a Coke

http://www.sprword.com/videos/costofacoke/

Coke's Assault on Tap Water

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-bellatti/coke-cap-the-tap_b_4269607.html

Government Parternship: Coke's New Formula for "Water Stewardship"
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/coca-cola-usda-water-partnership-watersheds"]http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/coca-cola-usda-water-partnership-watersheds[/URL

Africa: Coke's Last Frontier

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_45/b4202054144294.htm

The Privatization of Water: Coke is Sucking us Dry

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/02/coca-cola-and-nestle-are-sucking-us-dry-without-us.aspx

killercoke.org

Oh shoot, but this is about Ukraine. Okay...so Coca-Cola and Ukraine:

Coke currently has a 31 percent value share of the Ukraine soft drinks market, and is expanding that percentage every year. It is number one in all its categories, except water and juice, where it holds the number two position.

http://ukraineatacrossroads.com/coca_cola.htm

Nah, not plausible for Coke to really be involved in this one. They wouldn't risk the Russian market for the Ukrainian market. But surely they would benefit from Ukraine continuing to open itself to the West, no?

Ah, but Coke can also surely take advantage of a war to profit, can't they?

The Coca-Cola Company's tale of questionable wartime conduct would thus be comparatively insignificant and not worth the effort of dwelling upon, were it not for the fact that its product, namely Coca-Cola, was and is a luxuary item whose commercial success is inseparably tied to a public image created through advertising. Like all other companies in the business of selling goods nobody really needs, the Coca-Cola Company's advertisements must reflect the desires of the times in order to defend its share of the mass-market. How Coca- Cola chose to define itself through advertising was crucial to its success during the war years in the United States and is the story of the previous chapter. Thanks to a relentless barrage of war-supportive advertising built upon the Company's credo that "It isn't what a product is, but what it does that interests us," Coca-Cola after December 1941 convinced Americans at the front and at home that drinking Coca-Cola was somehow synonimous with fighting against the enemies of freedom and democracy. Coke wanted to be understood as a morale- booster for the American effort.

There was a moral price attached to this sort of advertising, because Coca-Cola's managers failed to couple the new patriotic image with a correspondent curbing of its contradictory activities in Germany, the company's second biggest market. While Coke-drinking GI's and other U.S. citizens had their carbonated soft-drink sweetened with patriotic statements like the 1943 slogan "Universal Symbol of the American way of Life," German Coca-Cola men had been busy quenching the thirst of the Third Reich and its conquered territories for years. To say the least, catchwords like Universal and American Way of Life were at odds with the Nazis' pursuit of their own "universalist" goals.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~class/coke/coke2.html

Still, no evidence of Coke in Ukraine. I maintain it's the energy corporations.

[Vangelovski]

Good posts, Gocka and RTG.

US and Russia are competing for access and control of Ukraine's market and resources. That access and control primarily benefits multi-national corporations. The corporations themselves are not necessarily doing the "dirty" work of aiding in revolution and helping change the political climate. However, they certainly have public officials that are either directly working for their aims, or indirectly for them through aims that are "theoretically" good for the American people and the country.

Anyway, the next few days are going to continue to reveal that involvement of US and Russia in Ukraine's internal problems. Now, this is business as usual for US and Russia. However, I'm saying, it shouldn't be business as usual. It needs to stop.

Victor, just another reminder of this one. We'll come back to this one soon, once this has had a few weeks/months to play out. We'll also have a look at the previous ousting of Yanukovic, the reasons behind it and whether or not (or to what extent) multinational corporations were behind those events and why, them been so powerful and influential, Yanukovic was able to regain power only to be ousted again.

Re the coca cola article, you're now just posting irrelevant comments. Noone suggested that multinational corporations would not try to take advantage of the situation or war profits. That is just a straw man of yours with no relevance whatsoever. Further, most of the articles you posted are completely irrelevant to any of the discussions and my post in particular, so I'm not sure (though I am confident you aren't either) what your point was...?

[vicsinad]

Tom,

You're the one who brought up Coca-Cola. More than once, I believe. So as to relevance, I redirect.

And as for your emphasis placed on my quote, remind yourself that the second phrase you placed in bold is an either-or, and to just bold one of the possibilities and not the other does not do anything for any point that you're trying to say about a point that I'm supposedly making, other than you're fashioning my point to be something other than it is.

The evidence is already out on Gazprom's involvement. But sure. Wait and see. You'll find a way to believe that, just like with the Iraq war, multi-national corporations had nothing do with it. And because you're already starting from the viewpoint that multi-national corporations aren't that influential, you'll refute, deny and/or discredit any possible evidence so that you can maintain your premise. I think the word for that is conservative, but I don't have a dictionary at hand so I'm just going off of observations.