<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Obama’s Attempt at Intimidating Russia</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:01:27 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>David Sladky <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tanstl@hotmail.com"><tanstl@hotmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/10/obamas-attempt-at-intimidating-russia/">http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/10/obamas-attempt-at-intimidating-russia/</a><br>
<br>
<font style="font-size: 16pt;" size="4">Dispatching B-2 Stealth
Bombers to Europe</font><br>
<font style="font-size: 20pt;" size="5"><b>Obama’s Attempt at
Intimidating Russia</b></font><br>
by MIKE WHITNEY<br>
<br>
"This deployment of strategic bombers provides an invaluable
opportunity to strengthen and improve interoperability with our
allies and partners."<br>
<br>
– Admiral Cecil Haney, commander, US Strategic Command on
the deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to Europe.<br>
<br>
"Against stupidity, no amount of planning will prevail."<br>
<br>
- Carl von Clausewitz<br>
<br>
Less than 24 hours after Ukraine’s new president Petro
Poroshenko announced his determination to retake Crimea from
Russia, US Admiral Cecil Haney confirmed that the US Air Force
had deployed two B-2 stealth bombers to Europe to conduct
military exercises. The addition of the multipurpose B-2, which
is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, is intended to send a
message to Moscow that the United States is prepared to provide
backup for Ukraine’s fledgling government and to protect its
interests in Central Asia. News of the deployment was reported
in the Russian media, but was excluded by all the western news
outlets.<br>
<br>
The B-2 announcement was preceded by an inflammatory speech by
Poroshenko at the presidential "swearing in" ceremony in Kiev.
In what some analysts have called a "declaration of war",
Poroshenko promised to wrest control of Crimea from Russia which
annexed the region just months earlier following a public
referendum that showed 90 percent support for the measure.
Here’s part of what Poroshenko said:<br>
<br>
"The issue of territorial integrity of Ukraine is not
subject to discussion…I have just sworn ‘with all my deeds to
protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine,’ and I will
always be faithful to this sacred promise…<br>
<br>
"Russia occupied Crimea, which was, is and will be Ukrainian
soil…Yesterday, in the course of the meeting in Normandy, I told
this to President Putin: Crimea is Ukraine soil. Period. There
can be no compromise on the issues of Crimea, European choice
and state structure…" (New York Times)<br>
<br>
On Thursday, the day before Poroshenko was sworn in, "President
Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron set a deadline
for Russia to comply with its demands or face harsher economic
sanctions that would be imposed by members of the G-7. Once
again, the threat of new sanctions was largely ignored by the
western media but was reported in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Here’s an excerpt from the article:<br>
<br>
"To avoid even harsher sanctions.. Putin must meet three
conditions: Recognize Petro Poroshenko’s election as the new
leader in Kiev; stop arms from crossing the border; and cease
support for pro-Russian separatist groups concentrated in
eastern Ukraine.<br>
<br>
"If these things don’t happen, then sectoral sanctions will
follow…"<br>
<br>
Obama said the G-7 leaders unanimously agree with the steps
Cameron outlined." (Haaretz)<br>
<br>
The United States is ratcheting up the pressure in order to
widen the conflict and force Russian president Vladimir Putin to
meet their demands. It’s clear that the threat of sanctions,
Poroshenko’s belligerent rhetoric, and the steady buildup of
military assets and troops in the region, that Obama and Co.
still think they can draw Putin into the conflict and make him
look like a dangerous aggressor who can’t be trusted by his EU
partners. Fortunately, Putin has not fallen into the trap. He’s
resisted the temptation to send in the tanks to put an end to
the violence in Donetsk, Lugansk and Slavyansk. This has
undermined Washington’s plan to deploy NATO to Russia’s western
border, assert control over the "bridgehead" between Europe and
Asia, and stop the further economic integration between Russia
and the EU. So far, Putin has out-witted his adversaries at
every turn, but there are still big challenges ahead,
particularly the new threats from Poroshenko.<br>
<br>
If Poroshenko is determined to take Crimea back from Moscow,
then there’s going to be a war. But there are indications that
he is more pragmatic than his speeches would suggest. In a
private meeting with Putin at the D-Day ceremonies in France,
the Ukrainian president said he had a plan to "immediately stop
the bloodshed"<br>
<br>
Here’s how Putin summarized his meeting with Poroshenko:<br>
<br>
"Poroshenko has a plan in this respect; it is up to him to
say what kind of plan it is… I cannot say for sure how these
plans will be implemented, but I liked the general attitude, it
seemed right to me, so, if it happens this way, there will be
conditions to develop our relations, in other areas, including
economy.<br>
<br>
"It’s important to stop the punitive actions in the
southeast without a delay. That’s the only way to create
conditions for the start of a real process of negotiations with
the supporters of federalization. No one has yet said anything
concrete to the people (living in the southeast of Ukraine) and
nothing practical has been offered to them. People there simply
don’t understand how they’ll live in the future and what the
parameters of the new Constitution will look like." (Poroshenko
tells Putin of plan to immediately stop bloodshed in Ukraine,
Itar-Tass)<br>
<br>
If the report is accurate, then there’s reason to hope that
Poroshenko is moving in Russia’s direction on most of the key
issues which are; greater autonomy for the people in East
Ukraine, Constitutional provisions that will protect them from
future abuse by Kiev, and an immediate end to the violence.
Putin has sought assurances on these issues from the very
beginning of the crisis. Now it looks like he might get his way.
Of course, it is impossible to know, since Poroshenko is sending
mixed messages.<br>
<br>
So why is Poroshenko sounding so conciliatory in his private
meetings with Putin, but so belligerent in public?<br>
<br>
It could be any number of things, but it probably has a lot to
do with Monday’s scheduled tripartite meetings of
representatives from the European Union, Ukraine and Russia.
These meetings will have incalculable impact of Ukriane’s
economic future. They will resolve the issues of price for
future gas purchases as well as a plan for settling all previous
claims. (Russia says that Ukraine owes $3.5 billion in back
payments for natural gas.)<br>
<br>
On April 1, Gazprom cancelled Ukraine’s discount and raised the
price of gas to 485.5 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters nearly
doubling the rate of payment. (It had been $268.5 per 1,000
cubic meters) It is impossible to overstate the impact this will
have Ukraine’s economy. Even Ukrainian hardline Prime Minister
Arseniy Yatsenyuk was candid in his dire assessment of the
situation. He said, "I could have made a populist statement but
it is not true. We cannot refrain from using Russian gas."<br>
<br>
If Poroshenko sounds conciliatory, this is why.<br>
<br>
Putin refused to discuss the gas issue with the media, but
implied that political developments in Ukraine would factor
heavily into any decision by Gazprom.<br>
<br>
"Russia will be compelled to enact economic protection measures
to defend its market if Ukraine signs the association agreement
with the EU. "As soon as that accord is signed, we’ll start
taking measures to defend our economy," Putin said. (Itar-Tass)<br>
<br>
In other words, if Ukraine doesn’t play ball, it’s going to have
to go-it-alone. Kiev cannot expect "most favored trade
partner-status", gas discounts, or other perks if they’re going
to stab Moscow in the back and jump into bed with the EU. That’s
just not the way things work. Putin is merely warning Poroshenko
to think about what he’s about to do before taking the plunge. (
"Average gas prices for Ukrainian households began rising by
more than 50 percent in May, and heating prices are expected to
climb by about 40 percent, starting in July." World Socialist
Web Site)<br>
<br>
This is a much more important issue that most analysts seem to
grasp. Many seem to think that IMF, EU and US loans and other
assistance can buoy Ukraine’s sinking economy and restore it to
health. But that’s a pipedream. In a "must read" report by the
Brookings Institute, authors Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W.
Ickes spell it out in black and white, that is, that "Ukraine is
a prize that neither Russia nor the West can afford to win."
Here’s a clip from the text:<br>
<br>
"It is clear to most observers that the West would not be
able to defend Ukraine economically from a hostile Russia…The
simple fact is that Russia today supports the Ukrainian economy
to the tune of at least $5 billion, perhaps as much as $10
billion, each year…<br>
<br>
When we talk about subsidies, we usually think of Russia’s
ability to offer Ukraine cheap gas — which it does when it wants
to. But there are many more ways Russia supports Ukraine, only
they are hidden. The main support comes in form of Russian
orders to Ukrainian heavy manufacturing enterprises. This part
of Ukrainian industry depends almost entirely on demand from
Russia. They wouldn’t be able to sell to anyone else…<br>
<br>
If the West were somehow able to wrest full control of
Ukraine from Russia, could the United States, the other NATO
nations, and the EU replace Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine?
The IMF, of course, would never countenance supporting these
dinosaurs the way the Russians have. So the support would have
to come in the way of cash transfers to compensate for lost
jobs. How much are we talking about? The only known parallel for
the amount of transfer needed is the case of German
reunification. The transfer amounted to 2 trillion euros, or
$2.76 trillion, over 20 years. If Ukraine has per capita income
equal to one-tenth of Germany’s, then a minimum estimate is $276
billion to buy off the east. (In fact, since the population size
of eastern Ukraine is larger than East Germany’s, this is an
underestimate.) It is unthinkable that the West would pay this
amount." (Ukraine: A Prize Neither Russia Nor the West Can
Afford to Win, Brookings)<br>
<br>
The authors go on to show that "a NATO-affiliated Ukraine — is
simply impossible under any real-world conditions" because it
assumes that Russia will either "become an enthusiastic EU and
NATO member itself" (or) "will it return to being the bankrupt,
dependent, and compliant Russia of the 1990s." In other words,
the Obama administration’s strategic objectives in Ukraine do
not jibe with economic reality. The US cannot afford to win in
Ukraine, that’s the bottom line. Even so, we are convinced the
aggression will persist regardless of the presumed outcome. The
train has already left the station.<br>
<br>
At the D-Day ceremonies, Putin and Poroshenko also met briefly
with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President
Francois Hollande although the content of their discussions was
not revealed. Public support for the two leaders’ Ukraine policy
is gradually withering as the fighting continues in the East
without any end in sight. An article in the popular German
newspaper Die Zeit indicates that elite opinion in Europe is
gradually shifting and no longer sees Washington’s Ukraine
policy as being in its interests.<br>
<br>
Here’s a brief summary from the WSWS: "It goes on to argue that
Washington’s aggression is laying the foundations for a
Chinese-Russian-Iranian axis that "would force the West to
pursue a more aggressive foreign policy to secure its access to
important but dwindling raw materials such as oil." In
opposition to this, the commentary insists that Germany’s
independent interests lie "with preserving and deepening
Europe’s relations with Russia," while pursuing similar ties
with Iran." (D-Day anniversary: Commemorating the Second World
War and preparing the Third, World Socialist Web Site)<br>
<br>
This is an important point and one that could put a swift end to
US aggression in Ukraine. Washington’s objectives are at
cross-purposes with those of the EU. The EU needs a reliable
source of energy and one, like Russia, that will set its prices
competitively without resorting to coercion or blackmail.
Washington, on the other hand, intends to situate itself in this
century’s most prosperous region, Eurasia, in order to control
the flow of oil from East to West. This is not in Europe’s
interests, but promises to be a source of conflict for the
foreseeable future. Case in point: Just last week Bulgaria’s
prime minister, Plamen Oresharski, "ordered a halt to work on
Russia’s South Stream pipeline, on the recommendation of the EU.
The decision was announced after his talks with US senators."<br>
<br>
According to RT News, Oresharski stopped construction after
meeting with John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during
their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday.<br>
<br>
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should
solve the South Stream problems in collaboration with European
colleagues," adding that in the current situation they would
want "less Russian involvement" in the project.<br>
<br>
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position
where it excludes anybody it doesn’t like from countries where
it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no economic
rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they
are looking for cheap energy resources – clean energy resources,
and Russia can supply that. But the thing with the South Stream
is that it doesn’t fit with the politics of the situation," Ben
Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT." (Bulgaria halts
Russia’s South Stream gas pipeline project, RT)<br>
<br>
Once again, we can see how US meddling is damaging to Europe’s
interests.<br>
<br>
Western elites want to control the flow of gas and oil from East
to West. This is why they’ve installed their puppet in Kiev,
threatened to levy more sanctions on Moscow, and moved B-2
stealth bombers into the European theater. They are determined
to succeed in their plan even if it triggers a Third World War.<br>
<br>
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be
reached at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fergiewhitney@msn.com">fergiewhitney@msn.com</a>.<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>