The Ukrainian Crisis: The EU Isn’t a Happy Paradise

THIS is the sort of hate spread by the oppos… any questions?

______________________________

German journalist Andrea Seibel wrote in Die Welt, “The Ukraine’s division is fatal for it”. She added that the nationalist Western Ukraine seeks self-determination within the EU, whilst the Eastern Ukraine wants to share paths with Russia. Of course, for Seibel, Russia symbolises everything that isn’t free. So far, the attitude of most European and American media outlets is equally one-sided… the West is good and the East is bad. Yes, indeed, the Ukraine has deep divisions; this fact is visible from the different reactions found in various Ukrainian regions to the tragic events in Kiev. In the Western city of Lvov, so-called activists attacked a military base and blew up a munitions depot. In the eastern cities of Kharkov and Donetsk, the local population thwarted attempts to attack local government offices, as they don’t want nationalist Western Ukrainians ruling over them.

The question is, “Who’s teaching Ukrainians unity?” During the last ten years, the EU has seen divisions such as those not seen since the time of the religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries. The animosity between Europe’s formerly Protestant North and its formerly Catholic South is visible; it sometimes reaches beyond the limits of decency. In our times, this animosity centres over different countries’ attitude to budget policies and the problems of public debt. Germany, Holland, Finland, and other countries with balanced budgets and good credit ratings happen to be Northern and Protestant; they often indulge in what people now euphemistically call “anti-Mediterranean rhetoric”. For example, Stephan Richter, the editor of The Globalist, said that the first Protestant, Martin Luther, would’ve never agreed to include Italy and Spain in a monetary union. Herr Richter explained his stance by these countries’ Catholic past and their, I quote, “fiscal sins”.

Therefore, even the EU isn’t a happy paradise with no divisions. Nevertheless, Russia and the Ukraine don’t try to play on these divisions. On the contrary, the Ukrainian and Russian élites made efforts for many years to integrate themselves into this European entity. The whole conflict in the Ukraine started with the pretext that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich was unwilling to go along that road fast enough. Yet, let’s not forget…  Yanukovich didn’t cancel his country’s association agreement with the EU. He just postponed it for financial reasons. Still, this was enough for the EU to declare a propaganda war against him, declaring him Russia’s stooge and a representative of the presumably “unfree” Eastern Ukraine. “Divide and Rule”… this ancient Imperial Roman tactic seems to be in vogue now more than ever. However, Russia and Ukraine abuse this norm much more rarely than some other political entities… on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

20 February 2014

Dmitri Babich

Voice of Russia World Service

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_20/Ukraine-crisis-European-Union-is-not-a-happy-paradise-6117/

Advertisement

5 November 2013. From the Russian Web… A Picture IS Worth a Thousand Words… the Recent “St Jude Storm”

******

******

_______________________________

Now, aren’t you glad to have missed all the excitement? The older I get, the less “excitement” I need. I have plenty of company…

BMD

14 December 2012. Sergei Yolkin’s World. What Does the Gulf Stream Have in Store for Us This Winter?

What Does the Gulf Stream Have in Store for Us This Winter?

Sergei Yolkin

2012

______________________________

A rise in the average temperature of Atlantic currents such as the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current has led to an increase in the intensity of the movement of air masses from west to east, increasing precipitation in European Russia.

4 December 2012

Sergei Yolkin

RIA-Novosti

http://ria.ru/caricature/20121204/913349722.html

The Malvinas: Is a Compromise Possible?

Argentine vet José Bratulich in front of the Argentine War Cemetery in Darwin ISLAS MALVINAS (currently under British occupation). About half of the crosses bear the inscription, “Soldado Argentino Solo Conocido Por Dios” (An Argentine Soldier Known Only Unto God)… they “stand vigil” until the day when the islands will bear their proper name, yet again.

______________________________

It’s highly unlikely that the UK will ever comply with Argentina’s demands for the return of the Malvinas. This territory is a most important strategic point, giving access to Antarctica, with reserves of oil, gas, and other minerals. Juan Recce, Director of the Argentine Centre for International Studies, and founder of the movement “For the Malvinas” expressed his point of view in an exclusive VOR interview.

******

Maria Dunayeva

This year, the problem of the Malvinas has once again become topical. How does Argentine society perceive the war with the UK today?

Juan Recce

The war over the Malvinas has had an influence on Argentine foreign policy. In 1982, when the war began, it became a turning point. During the last 30 years, a process of acknowledging this event and turning our foreign policy in the direction of peaceful initiatives in Latin America was under way in Argentina. The war over the Malvinas is still a hot topic, because it concerns the strategic agenda of the future of the real economy of Great Britain and the real economies of Argentina and South America. The Malvinas consist of only two main islands, but they are part of the larger system of the South Atlantic, which gives access to Antarctica.

Today, the British prefer not to talk about this, but the Malvinas are their logistic centre for access to Antarctica and the basis of their claims to part of the continent. The Malvinas as part of a single Antarctic system provide access to significant (according to preliminary estimates) oil and gas reserves. Although they’re hard to produce under such severe conditions, they have a sufficient value, taking into account the overall situation with oil and gas reserves in South America. There are also significant deposits of minerals. In the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean, there are complex ore deposits, containing manganese, cobalt ore, and other ore-bearing minerals that one can mine. In fact, the UK and the USA are already mining minerals at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Of course, when they have the technical and economic facilities, they’ll also start in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean.

A third very important aspect is the patenting of biological diversity, which is of great importance for pharmaceutical industry. This aspect includes biological diversity, not only of the ocean, but also of Antarctica as a whole. This, too, is connected with the Malvinas, as all British ships sail to Antarctica from there. These issues are of great importance in the long-term strategic agenda and give sense to political conjuncture, leading to verbal arguments between Argentina and the UK.

Maria Dunayeva

Under what conditions could Argentina and the UK agree to a compromise? For example, they could come to an agreement about the joint use of resources.

Juan Recce

I think that the UK isn’t going to return the islands. The UK, and the West in general, headed by UK and the USA, lost the race for control over the real global economy many years ago. Now, they don’t have control over resources, which are in the possession of developing countries… China, India, Brazil, and Russia… and they don’t control the industrial processes, because those have moved to south-east Asia or to South America. This leaves the Western powers with very little space for manoeuvre. Therefore, they need access to resources and control over them. From this point of view, the UK can easily control the Malvinas, which doesn’t entail a large logistic and military cost.

Most likely, I believe that they aren’t going to return the islands. On the other hand, they invented a humanitarian cover for the conflict, that is, the “kelpers”. This is an English-speaking community, of a very small population, that came to live on the islands. Most of them were born in the UK or one of the British overseas territories. From the UN legal criteria standpoint, they aren’t considered a nation, and, therefore, don’t represent a side of the conflict.

Argentina believes that, according to UN General Assembly resolution 2065, the negotiations between Argentina and the UK should be bilateral. However, Great Britain insists that three parties must take part in the talks… the UK, Argentina, and the inhabitants of the islands. That’s why I think that it’s very difficult to achieve something by means of dialogue. It seems to me that there’s a scenario, according to which the inhabitants of the islands (that is, the same third party not included by Argentina in the negotiation process) could appreciate the advantages of joining us under the Argentine Constitution.

In our country, strategic oil, gas, and other mineral resources don’t belong to the central government; they belong to provinces that make up the country. That is, if the inhabitants of the islands choose to join the Argentine Constitution in the capacity of a province, the oil and gas reserves would belong to them. Of course, Argentina would have a significant incidental benefit through a huge expansion of its continental shelf, which would include mineral reserves, biological diversity, and access to Antarctica. Namely, all these things are the basis of the calculations for the UK today.

2 April 2012

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_02/70357135/

******

“To the Heroes of the Malvinas”

______________________________

Editor’s Note:

Slobberin’ Ronnie shat all over the Monroe Doctrine when he aided the European aggressors in the Malvinas War of 1982. That tells you how far the Republican Party has fallen. They aided the European aggressors in a conflict where an American nation-state simply took back what a European imperialist seized in the 19th century. Under the Rio Pact, the USA had the obligation to come to the aid of an American nation-state under attack from an overseas aggressor. Its central premise is that an attack against one is an attack against all.

Interesting detail, that, isn’t it? However… the leadership element in the Anglosphere view themselves as Übermenschtumen (the concept of the Master Race actually arose in the slave-holding American South… fancy that, the Nazis only copied what the Anglo-Saxons invented), and all others must acknowledge this, or else. There’s an unmentioned codicil to the Rio Pact. That is, the USA would aid an American nation-state invaded by a third party, except when it’s the UK. The English-speaking world is superior to all others and it can attack whom it pleases without any damage to its pristine public image. That’s what they believe; I kid you not. These people brought us the Trail of Tears and the fire-bombing of Hamburg… but that doesn’t count… the Anglo-Saxons are the crème de la crème, dontcha know. No… the Anglo-Saxons are NOT the worst of the worst… but they’re not exemplars, either. They’re sinful-ginfuls, just like the rest of us.

However, the point stands… the USA had an obligation under treaty to have halted the British aggressors, but it didn’t. Let’s put it this way, if the “kelpers” were Italians, the Argentine flag would still fly over the Malvinas. Ponder that. None dare call it racism.

BMD