[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Obama’s Attempt at Intimidating Russia

[David Johnson via Peace-discuss]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Obama’s Attempt at Intimidating Russia
Date: 	Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:01:27 +0000
From: 	David Sladky <tanstl at hotmail.com>



http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/10/obamas-attempt-at-intimidating-russia/

Dispatching B-2 Stealth Bombers to Europe
*Obama’s Attempt at Intimidating Russia*
by MIKE WHITNEY

     "This deployment of strategic bombers provides an invaluable 
opportunity to strengthen and improve interoperability with our allies 
and partners."

     – Admiral Cecil Haney, commander, US Strategic Command on the 
deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to Europe.

     "Against stupidity, no amount of planning will prevail."

     - Carl von Clausewitz

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.

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:

     "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…

     "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)

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:

     "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.

     "If these things don’t happen, then sectoral sanctions will follow…"

     Obama said the G-7 leaders unanimously agree with the steps Cameron 
outlined." (Haaretz)

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.

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"

Here’s how Putin summarized his meeting with Poroshenko:

     "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.

     "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)

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.

So why is Poroshenko sounding so conciliatory in his private meetings 
with Putin, but so belligerent in public?

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.)

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."

If Poroshenko sounds conciliatory, this is why.

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.

"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)

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)

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:

     "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…

     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…

     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)

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.

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.

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)

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."

According to RT News, Oresharski stopped construction after meeting with 
John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria 
on Sunday.

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.

"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)

Once again, we can see how US meddling is damaging to Europe’s interests.

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.

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 fergiewhitney at msn.com.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140610/87ffc8af/attachment-0001.html>