U.S. Sanctions on Russia & The EU Market for Liquified Natural Gas

Russia's undersea Nord Stream pipeline, which carries LNG (liquified natural gas) to north European markets. The Nord Stream opening ceremony in November 2011 featured Angela Merkel, Dmitry Medvedev, Mark Rutte and François Fillon. Nord Stream 2, an expansion project that would double Nord Stream's original capacity, was agreed to and signed in June 2015 (source; click to enlarge).

by Gaius Publius

Are the U.S. sanctions on Russia just another pipeline war?

Like all large developed regions, the nations of the European Union are hungry for energy. Like all resource-rich countries, the Russian Federation is hungry for markets. One of the resources Russia is most rich in is oil and natural gas. Thanks in part to the Paris climate agreement, but also to the existing desire of Western European nations to transition from coal and oil to the so-called "bridge fuel" — methane or "natural gas" — there is an obvious interest in both parties, Russia and the EU, in reaching agreements for the sale of Russian natural gas to the west, and also agreements on funding and building pipelines to deliver it.

The graphic below shows the extent of those pipelines, both built and proposed, for delivery of LNG (liquified natural gas, its most transportable form) to European markets.

Major existing and planned natural gas pipelines supplying Russian gas to Europe (source; click to enlarge)

Three things are clear from looking at the map above. First, Russia is Western Europe's nearest neighbor, and energy purchases from Russia would by nature be less costly than purchases from farther way, from North America, for instance. LNG purchased from North America would have to be shipped by tanker.

Second, all pipelines from Russia to Western Europe go though NATO territory — except Nord Stream. Thus Nord Stream frees Russia from worrying about NATO threats to its land-based pipelines. Note also that if tensions between NATO (a U.S. proxy) and Russia heat up, Nord Stream gives Russia an alternate source of LNG revenue from Western Europe should the status of pipelines to and through Eastern Europe fall into dispute.

Third, Russia is almost completely surrounded by NATO nations on its western border, the two exceptions being Belarus and Ukraine. NATO has been steadily moving east since the breakup of the Soviet Union, and Ukraine, an ethnically divided nation with a large Russian minority population, is strongly considering joining the NATO alliance. The U.S. is currently considering arming Ukraine with U.S.-made anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, so tensions are clearly escalating, and the U.S. is a player in those escalations.

Is Nord Stream 2 the Target of the Latest Anti-Russia Sanctions?

One of the outcomes of the recently enacted sanctions on Russia is the closing off of Western funding and penalization of support for a major expansion of the Nord Stream pipeline (all emphasis mine):

Nord Stream (former names: North Transgas and North European Gas Pipeline; Russian: Северный поток, Severny potok) is an offshore natural gas pipeline from Vyborg in the Russian Federation to Greifswald in Germany that is owned and operated by Nord Stream AG. The project includes two parallel lines. The first line was laid by May 2011 and was inaugurated on 8 November 2011. The second line was laid in 2011–2012 and was inaugurated on 8 October 2012. At 1,222 kilometres (759 mi) in length, it is the longest sub-sea pipeline in the world, surpassing the Langeled pipeline. It has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres (1.9 trillion cubic feet), but its capacity is planned to be doubled to 110 billion cubic metres (3.9 trillion cubic feet) by 2019, by laying two additional lines.

The expansion mentioned above has been labeled "Nord Stream 2," and the latest sanctions threaten to shut down further work on it. From the Financial Times (paywalled; quoted here):

Brussels [EU headquarters] has stepped up its diplomatic offensive against the US moves, warning that several oil and gas projects involving Shell, Eni and BP are at risk.

On Tuesday, officials said Brussels was “activating all diplomatic channels” in an effort to persuade lawmakers to dilute the bill’s impact on European companies and the continent’s energy security.

Note that Shell, Eni and BP are Dutch, Italian and British companies, respectively.

EU officials are concerned that the sanctions could damage multibillion-euro pipeline and infrastructure projects straddling Russian territory and beyond in areas as far apart as the Baltic and Black seas.

A list prepared for EU commissioners shows that projects at risk include the proposed Baltic liquefied natural gas plant on the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea, in which the Anglo-Dutch group Shell has a stake alongside Russia’s Gazprom. The list also includes Blue Stream, the gas export pipeline linking Russia with Turkey in which Eni of Italy has a 50 per cent. The threat to this pipeline centres on penalties against the maintenance and repair of pipelines on Russian land or waters.

Documents seen by the Financial Times also state that BP “would not be able to engage” in its activities with Rosneft if the US penalties hit operations by European companies to maintain, repair or expand pipelines in Russia.

The last point is important. U.S. sanctions would penalize European companies that engage in projects to "maintain, repair or expand pipelines in Russia." This includes financing as well as construction:

The text of the Senate amendment, which was passed with 97 votes to 2 against, requires the imposition of sanctions against those who make an investment or sell, lease or provide "goods, services, technology, information, or support" to projects for the export of energy from Russia.

"It sanctions those who . . . invest or support the construction of Russian energy export pipelines," Mike Crapo, a senator from Idaho who co-authored the amendment, told the Senate.

Needless to say, more than just the Russians are upset about these sanctions. European foreign ministers are opposed as well (h/t Naked Capitalism for the link).

Germany issues stinging rebuke of US sanctions against Russia
By Johannes Stern
17 June 2017

Germany’s Foreign Ministry published a sharply-worded press release Thursday from Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democrats, SPD) and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern (Social Democrats, SPÖ) denouncing the United States’ foreign and economic policies.

Note the American stated justification in the paragraph below, then the German and Austrian foreign ministers' rejection of that justification as describing what the bill was "really about":

Republicans and Democrats agreed almost unanimously, by 97 votes to 2, to impose new sanctions on Russia in the Senate on Wednesday. The Senate justified the measure as a punishment for Moscow’s alleged meddling in the US presidential election, the annexation of Crimea and its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ...

Gabriel and Kern brusquely rejected the US Senate’s measure. The bill was really about “the sale of American liquefied gas and the sidelining of Russian gas supplies in the European market,” according to the two social democratic politicians. That emerges from the text “particularly explicitly.” The goal was “to secure jobs in the American oil and gas industries.”

Angela Merkel stands behind her foreign ministry's statements: "German Chancellor Angela Merkel explicitly backed her Foreign Minister on Friday. There was 'very strong agreement in terms of content with Gabriel’s statement,' stated government spokesman Stefan Seibert. 'It is, to put it mildly, an unconventional action by the US Senate.' It was troubling that European businesses were being targeted by sanctions to punish Russian behaviour. 'That cannot be allowed,' added Seibert."

"Europeans Targeted to Punish Russia"

Whichever way the (sorry to say it, but highly propagandized) U.S. public sees the sanctions bill, European leaders — including Angela Merkel — see it quite differently. For them it's not only an economic attack on Europe by the U.S. It's also a cynical attempt to prop up a struggling U.S. sector of the U.S. energy industry at Europe's expense. That sector, of course, is the inventory-swollen, over-leveraged U.S. oil and gas sector involved in the recent fracking boom.

(A note about the "heavy propagandization of the U.S. public": Consider that, after all the screaming in the U.S. press about how Russia "hacked the DNC" to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, forensics on that supposed "hack" now show it to have been a leak after all. For more, read this definitive and completely underpublicized piece in The Nation by Patrick Lawrence. It's one thing to get rid of Trump; it's another to falsify the trail of evidence to do it.)

There's More Here Than Meets the Eye

The bottom line in all this isn't simple, since as usual with U.S.-Russia relations, there's much more here than meets the eye.

On the U.S. side, the attempt to punish Russia may play well in the national press, but it's driving a wedge between American and European leaders. Already in the articles about European reactions, one can hear strains of "we did what you asked in your other fights with Russia — like Ukraine and Crimea — so why are you hurting us now?"

In fact the conflict with Russia over the Ukraine and Crimea was never black-and-white to begin with. One aspect of the Ukraine story is that, unlike what was reported in the U.S. press, the U.S. was a major instigator of the internal conflict, and the EU had to be dragged to support it.

Amy Goodman in 2014 (emphasis mine)

A New Cold War? Ukraine Violence Escalates, Leaked Tape Suggests US Was Plotting Coup

A short-lived truce has broken down in Ukraine as street battles have erupted between anti-government protesters and police. ... At least 50 people have died since Tuesday in the bloodiest period of Ukraine’s 22-year post-Soviet history. While President Obama has vowed to "continue to engage all sides," a recently leaked audio recording between two top U.S. officials reveal the Obama administration has been secretly plotting with the opposition....

The top State Department official has apologized to her European counterparts after she was caught cursing the European Union, the EU, in a leaked audio recording that was posted to YouTube. The recording captured an intercepted phone conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe. Nuland expresses frustration over Europe’s response to the political crisis in Ukraine, using frank terms.

VICTORIA NULAND [on tape]: "So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it. And, you know, [bleep] the EU."

Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, is a well-known neocon who during the campaign "figure[d] prominently among her current advisers" and is well known for her strong anti-Russian views. Her husband is Robert Kagan, another strong Clinton supporter during the campaign and co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, the neocon think tank that strongly advocated for the 2003 Iraq War.

The U.S. was a major player fomenting or adding to the conflict in Ukraine. However strongly the EU was in their public support, this current attack on Russia via the sanctions is too much even for them. Quoting the German Foreign Minister again:

the threat to impose extraterritorial sanctions which violate international law on European companies participating in the expansion of European energy supplies” could not be tolerated. Europe’s energy provision was “a European affair, and not one for the United States of America!”

It sounds like he means it.

The Players and the Game

As this evolves, keep the players and their interests in mind. The major players are:

• The U.S. foreign policy establishment, many of them Democrat-supporting neocons, most of them hardliners on Russia for decades

• Democratic Party leaders, eager to tar Donald Trump with the blackest brush they can find, in hopes that this will absolve them of the 2016 loss without having to make substantive policy changes going into 2018 and 2020

• The U.S. natural gas industry, desperate to open markets for product they are vastly oversupplied with

• The mainstream U.S. press, eager help the U.S. ruling establishment be rid of Trump, but also eager to cash in on the ratings that a years-long slow-motion Mueller-fueled train wreck will provide

• European leaders, turning away from U.S. international leadership as each day goes by — the Paris climate agreement and Trump's childish bellicosity toward North Korea are just two example of many — just as the U.S. is threatening Europe's right to make its own energy decisions

• Russia, which seems willing to patiently let all of this play out, knowing it doesn't need to drive a wedge between the U.S. and EU if the U.S. foreign policy establishment will drive that wedge for them

It's unlikely the U.S.-Russia conflict in Europe will end well. All of the American players listed above will continue to benefit from a ratcheting up of conflict with Russia over these sanctions, including the profit-hungry U.S. press.

Democratic Party leaders in particular will find an additional benefit to strong anti-Russia rhetoric and action — they can use it to further damage their strongest and most hated domestic opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was one of just two senators to vote against the sanctions bill. The mainstream Democratic Party, it seems, is determined to give just lip service, if that, to progressive policies while trying to position themselves as the only policy alternative to the Trump regime.

(In my view, their latest attempt at triangulation will fail in 2018, just as it did in 2016. There is more than one policy alternative to the Trump regime — the "Sanders wing" alternative — and the public knows it. If the Party won't offer that alternative, the public may just vote with their feet, by not voting.)

In the U.S. press, one hears a doubling down on worries that increased Russian LNG sales to Europe will make Western Europe "dependent" and vulnerable to Russia. Clearly the Europeans define independence differently than the U.S. establishment does. With Trump in the White House and both Merkel and Macron openly distrustful of U.S. world leadership, I don't see either side backing down.

The irony is that even if the U.S. foreign policy establishment succeeds in forcing Europe to buy LNG from American companies, the price is unlikely to rise enough to save those companies — though the added revenue may buy them a bit more time before the next round of bankruptcies. Stay tuned.

GP
  

Trump-- Already Making America Less Safe With His Adderall-Fueled Twitter Feuds

Wednesday, Mexico's president, Enrique Peña Nieto, announced he was thinking about canceling his meeting with Señor el Presidente Trumpanzee in Washington next week, as a matter of Mexican national pride. Within hours, Thursday morning, he tweeted that he canceled the meeting with the deranged, Adderall-addicted orange orangoutang. Trumpanzee, a pathological liar unable to control himself even at this high a level, claims the idea to cancel the meeting was his own since Peña Nieto was once again refusing to pay for Trump's foolish and absurd wall.

Today's Wall Street Journal slammed Trumpanzee as a pathetic and dangerous amateur: "The world is not a Republican primary. President Trump’s Twitter broadsides against Mexico have unleashed a political backlash that has now become a diplomatic crisis with a friendly neighbor." The editorial board tried to remind the idiot that "With a population of 128 million, Mexico is America’s second-largest export market for goods. Some six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico."

Trump, in a freak-show display of his brand of twitter-diplomacy tweeted that "The U.S. has a 60 billion dollar trade deficit with Mexico. It has been a one-sided deal from the beginning of NAFTA with massive numbers of jobs and companies lost." Moments later, Josh Rogin reported that the entire senior management team at the State Department had just resigned en masse, unwilling "to stick around for the Trump era." He was still at it this morning, tweeting that "Mexico has taken advantage of the U.S. for long enough. Massive trade deficits & little help on the very weak border must change, NOW! Maybe it wasn't just because of Trumpanzee's twitter diplomacy; aftern all, T-Rex had just spent Wednesday meeting with them the day before.

Undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy, Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, handed in their resignations. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. A few days earlier Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, quit as well.

“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”

Several senior foreign service officers in the State Department’s regional bureaus have also left their posts or resigned since the election. But the emptying of leadership in the management bureaus is more disruptive because those offices need to be led by people who know the department and have experience running its complicated bureaucracies. There’s no easy way to replace that via the private sector, said Wade.

“Diplomatic security, consular affairs, there’s just not a corollary that exists outside the department, and you can least afford a learning curve in these areas where issues can quickly become matters of life and death,” he said. “The muscle memory is critical. These retirements are a big loss. They leave a void. These are very difficult people to replace.”

Or maybe they didn't like the idea of advocating for the illegal use of torture. Was this part of the Resistance? Trumpanzee, of course, claims he fired them all... the same way he claims it was his idea it cancel the meeting with the President of Mexico.

And speaking of torture, I was putting my shoes and socks on and switched on the TV. Andrea Mitchell was on with a former Bush Regime torture advocate and she asked him if Trump openly advocating torture-- not even calling it "enhanced interrogation" the way Cheney and Bush and their stooges used to-- was giving "the bad guys" a propaganda tool. Why are Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the media hacks unable to realize that Trump and his team of miscreants ARE the bad guys?

CAVEAT: Silver Lining

One of the State Department officials who resigned is Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, wife of notorious neocon Robert Kagan and one of the worst of the Cold War neanderthal hold-overs, someone Clinton was said to be considering for a top post.

U.S and U.K. Sending Planes, Troops to Romania and Poland

Reversing our initial promise to Gorbachev not to advance NATO to the east, we now have Russia almost completely surrounded. What do they think we're planning to do? (Source)

by Gaius Publius

Before you read this piece, ask yourself, how likely is it that Russia would invade, with tanks and troops, the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Would that not be the start of World War III? Yet that's the fear that's being passed around as an excuse for what you're about to read.

Reuters (emphasis mine throughout):

Britain, U.S. sending planes, troops to deter Russia in the east

Britain said on Wednesday it will send fighter jets to Romania next year and the United States promised troops, tanks and artillery to Poland in NATO's biggest military build-up on Russia's borders since the Cold War.

Germany, Canada and other NATO allies also pledged forces at a defense ministers meeting in Brussels on the same day two Russian warships armed with cruise missiles entered the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark, underscoring East-West tensions.

One, the U.S. is much more a threat to bomb or invade another nation than Russia is. Two, why shouldn't armed Russian ships sail in international waters? Ours do all the time. Three, again, do you really think Russia would be crazy enough to invade a first-world (read, ethnically Caucasian) country on Europe's eastern doorstep? First-world countries only consider moves like this in third-world (read, ethnically darker) countries, like Syria, or Iraq, or ... you name it, there are plenty of examples.

Speaking of Syria, this may be a reason for the latest threatening moves. From the same article:

In Madrid, the foreign ministry said Russia had withdrawn a request to refuel three warships in Spain's North African enclave of Ceuta after NATO allies said they could be used to target civilians in Syria.

The ships were part of an eight-ship carrier battle group - including Russia's sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov - that is expected to join around 10 other Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast, diplomats said.

(Did you catch that? Russia has one aircraft carrier, just one. One in its whole navy. Some military threat.)

This Baltic invasion stuff is nonsense. The article continues to announce even more Western military build-ups, including troops to be sent to Estonia — as "deterrence." The only thing I see being deterred is (a) Russian intervention in Syria, and (b) the sale of Russian natural gas to Europe, a market the U.S. wants to secure for U.S. companies.

Ginning Up Fear of a Baltic Invasion

The context, or excuse, for all this was laid down after the Russians retaliated for U.S. interference in Ukraine (for more on that, see here and here). And while we're on the subject of U.S. interference and Ukraine, watch for the name Victoria Nuland, the wife of neocon and Iraq War architect Robert Kagan, as the next administration's appointees are announced. Nuland was deeply involved in our Ukrainian adventurism and is expected to get a high-level appointment in the next Democratic administration, perhaps as Secretary of State or National Security Adviser.

Russia retaliated to Western interference in Ukraine by promoting a referendum in ethnically Russian Crimea that ended in Russian annexation. The West retaliated to Russian annexation of Crimea by ginning up fear of a Russian invasion in the Baltics.

Not kidding. Fears of a Russian invasion in Europe were widely circulated and carried for months in Western journals and papers. Newsweek, for example, from January 2016:

Counting Down to a Russian Invasion of the Baltics

Although Russia's economy is reeling and its military forces are increasingly engaged in Syria and Ukraine, NATO commanders, governments and analysts are concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin's adventurism has not run its course. Most anxieties focus on the Baltic states as Russia's next potential military target.

Russia has many advantages in the Baltics. The situation of Russians there, particularly in Estonia and Latvia where many Russians remain non-citizens, provides Moscow with an issue with which to stoke tensions. ...

Furthermore, Russia's conventional and nuclear deployments cover the entire Baltic Sea area. From its fortified base at Kaliningrad, Russia can project power not only into the Baltic Sea but also to Poland and even Germany.

By all accounts, Russia enjoys a wide margin of conventional superiority over NATO. Indeed, NATO commanders publicly and privately profess that given the strength of Russia's capabilities on land, sea and air, NATO would suffer enormous casualties in any effort to defend the Baltic states from attack.

And given the publicly discussed defects in NATO and individual Western intelligence cited in Western media, it would be relatively easy for Moscow to launch an invasion during one of its vaunted "snap exercises" without the United States detecting it in time.

"Counting down"? It reads as if it were dictated from the State Department.

This will not end well. The U.S. wants the Russians out of Syria, wants Western natural gas to flow to Europe, and is apparently willing to rattle many sabres to do it. Also cages. Some of those cages contain bears.

This will not end well.

GP
 

Who's More A Hawk-- Trumpy-the-Clown Or Hillary?

Are values-driven Democrats supposed to celebrate because Republicans are flocking to Hillary's banner? Well, sure. There aren't enough Democrats in the country to elect someone president and her appeal to independents is... shaky, at best. The problems with Republicans, of course, is that they're reading the whole lesser-of-two evils thing in such a way that makes their own party's candidate anathema, and that's a good thing, but if Hillary's building any kind of an enduring transpartisan coalition, Democrats ought to wonder what the basis of it is apart of Trumpophobia.

At heart she's always been a moderate Republican and getting her to take progressive stands has rarely been easy or natural. When Alexander Burns reported in the NYTimes yesterday that she's moved "to recast the 2016 race not as a conventional battle between left and right but as a national emergency that requires voters of all stripes to band together against a singularly menacing candidate," he was explaining her latest outreach to Republicans. Burns reported that Cato Institute executive David Boaz said Democrats' attacks on "Trump as an autocrat had the potential to resonate outside the Democratic base. 'I really don’t think that’s too over the top,' Mr. Boaz said. 'We have one candidate who’s not even pretending-- he is promising to be a one-man ruler.'"

Democrats recruited respected figures from outside the party to amplify their appeal: Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, who is a political independent, warned sternly that non-Democrats must rally with Mrs. Clinton to stop a “dangerous demagogue.”

John Allen, a retired four-star Marine general, thundered into an arena dotted with American flags that voters faced a choice between Mrs. Clinton and “a dark place of discord and fear.”

There is no recent precedent in American politics for such unrelenting and direct attacks on a presidential nominee’s commitment to the basic institutions of democracy.

...Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for Mrs. Clinton, said the campaign would hammer the message that Mr. Trump is “not a normal Republican.”

“He has an incredibly disturbing theory that at its core rejects the American values of both self-reliance, and the value of community,” Ms. Palmieri said.

Geoff Garin, a pollster for Priorities USA Action, the main pro-Clinton super PAC, said the race had entered a new phase. A defining goal for the group now, he said, was to ensure that voters “reckon with what it would mean to have a dangerous demagogue like Trump as president.”

OK, but on foreign policy, Hillary is still an utter nightmare for anyone looking for a peace candidate. No one has any idea where Trump would be on foreign policy issues-- no doubt, including Trump, although we have good reason to fear the worst. We do know where Hillary is-- and it isn't good. She's way to the right of Obama, let alone actual doves, when it comes to foreign policy. The foreign policy "experts" she closest with are already planning the wars they want to fight other peoples' kids to fight. First comes comes Syria. One of her top prospects for Secretary of Defense, Michele Flournoy, is calling for strikes against Assad, proveing, beyond doubt, no one has learned anything about the regime-change screw-up in Libya. Why not just make it official and have Netanyahu be Secretary of State?

Rana Khalek, writing for The Intercept a couple of days ago looked at some of the better known Republicans who are backing Clinton, hardcore neocons, not anyone she would be clueless enough to trot out on the stage.

As Hillary Clinton puts together what she hopes will be a winning coalition in November, many progressives remain wary — but she has the war hawks firmly behind her.

“I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group gathered around him, groupie-style, at a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser I attended last week. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”

As the co-founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, Kagan played a leading role in pushing for America’s unilateral invasion of Iraq and insisted for years afterward that it had turned out great.

Despite the catastrophic effects of that war, Kagan insisted at last week’s fundraiser that U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years has been “an extraordinary success.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s know-nothing isolationism has led many neocons to flee the Republican ticket. And some, like Kagan, are actively helping Clinton, whose hawkishness in many ways resembles their own.

The event raised $25,000 for Clinton. Two rising stars in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Amanda Sloat and Julianne Smith, also spoke.

The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East, and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention.

Sloat, the former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, boasted that Clinton will be “more interventionist and forward-leaning than Obama’s been” in Syria. She also applauded Clinton for doing intervention the right way, through coalitions instead of the unilateral aggression that defined the Bush years.

“Nothing that [Clinton] did was more clear than the NATO coalition that she built to defend civilians in Libya,” said Sloat, referencing the Obama administration’s overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. That policy, spearheaded by Clinton, has transformed a once-stable state into a lawless haven for extremist groups from across the region, including ISIS.

Kagan has advocated for muscular American intervention in Syria; Clinton’s likely pick for Pentagon chief, Michelle Flournoy, has similarly agitated for redirecting U.S. airstrikes in Syria toward ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Smith told the audience that unlike Trump, Clinton “understands the importance of deterring Russian aggression,” which is why “I’ll sleep better with her in the chair.” She is a former deputy national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Smith left the government to become senior vice president of Beacon Global Strategies, a high-powered bipartisan consulting group founded by former high-ranking national security officials.

When Robbie Martin, a filmmaker who recently produced a three-part documentary on the neoconservative movement, asked how Clinton plans to deal with Ukraine, Kagan responded enthusiastically.

“I know Hillary cares more about Ukraine than the current president does,” Kagan replied. “[Obama] said to me [that he wouldn’t arm Ukraine because] he doesn’t want a nuclear war with Russia,” he added, rolling his eyes dismissively. “I don’t think Obama cares about Putin anymore at all. I think he’s hopeless.”

Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, the Obama administration’s hardline assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. Nuland, who would likely serve in a senior position in a Clinton administration, supports shipping weapons to Ukraine despite major opposition from European countries and concerns about the neo-Nazi elements those weapons would empower.

Another thing neoconservatives and liberal hawks have in common is confidence that the foreign policy establishment is right, and the growing populist hostility to military intervention is naïve and uninformed.

Kagan complained that Americans are “so focused on the things that have gone wrong in recent years, they miss the sort of basic underlying unusual quality of the international order that we’ve been living in.

“It’s not just Donald Trump,” Kagan said. “I think you can find in both parties a very strong sense that we don’t need to be out there anymore.”

“If, as I hope, Hillary Clinton is elected, she is going to immediately be confronting a country that is not where she is,” he said. “She is a believer in this world order. But a great section of the country is not and is going to require persuasion and education.”

Sloat agreed, arguing that “it’s dangerous” for people to draw anti-interventionist lessons from Libya and Iraq.

The Clinton-neocon partnership was solidified by Trump becoming the Republican nominee. But their affinity for each other has grown steadily over time.

The neoconservative Weekly Standard celebrated Clinton’s 2008 appointment as secretary of state as a victory for the right, hailing her transformation from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen, more Margaret Thatcher than Gloria Steinem.”

But the fundraiser was perhaps the most outward manifestation yet of the convergence between the Democratic foreign policy establishment and the neoconservative movement.

Hannah Morris of the liberal pro-Israel lobbying group J Street celebrated this bipartisanship as a “momentous occasion.”

“We could not be more proud to have [Kagan] here today,” she said.

Leaving Trump out of the equation for a moment, which side are you on, dear reader?

Does A System Forcing A Choice Between A Trump And A Clinton Deserve Your Participation?

This is a real thing

There was a little brouhaha on Friday over Bernie supposedly telling CNN's Chris Cuomo that he wants a position in Hillary's administration. He doesn't. He's pushing for his policy positions-- not a position for himself. I don't want to see Donald Trump as president. And I don't want to see Hillary Clinton as president either. Unlike Bernie, I have no intention of voting for either one of them. Having known her personally and having watched her career unfold over the decades, I have no doubt that she's the wrong person for the presidency-- despite how unfit and utterly contemptible Trump is. Yes, he's worse than her. But, as I've said endlessly, the lesser of two evils, is still evil.

I'm pretty sure she's going to be president and, like everyone, I'll be glad that she shatters the ultimate glass ceiling for women. That means something; it means a lot. But, after that, every decision she makes will be a nightmare, starting with her personnel decisions. Friday the Platform Committee sessions ended in acrimony when the Clinton and Wasserman Schultz appointees blocked attempts to stop the TPP and to strengthen the party's position on a $15 minimum wage (watch the video below). AFSCME's Paul Booth, a penultimate party hack and Clinton appointee, helped kill the strong $15 minimum wage proposal. Yeah, AFSCME is a kind of union. I wonder if their members know Hank Paulson, Bush's Mr. TARP, has hopped into bed with them to make Clinton president.



At this point one can only imagine what kind of human garbage she has in mind for cabinet positions. Remember Victoria Nuland, the longtime neocon aide to Dick Cheney who seamlessly moved into Hillary's state department and who engineered the coup in Ukraine, putting in place a rouge's gallery of fascists and neo-nazis? She's rumored to be a top contender for secretary of state. Another victory for... feminism?

And if Nuland makes it into the cabinet, she's not going to be the only monstrosity-as-bad-as-anything-Trump-would-pick in there. Wall Street has already paid in advance for the Treasury Secretary position. Larry Fink (of BlackRock) has been rumored to be in position for the job. And nightmare rumors of her cabinet picks include Michele Flournoy as Secretary of Defense. It would be hard to find anyone worse. Glenn Greenwald:

Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense One calls “the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton,” this week advocated for “sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.” In an interview with that outlet, Flournoy “said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.” She had previously “condemned the Obama administration’s ISIS policy as ineffectual,” denouncing it as “under-resourced.”

This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called “limited military coercion” to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what he called “limited airstrikes in Iraq”-- and they’re still continuing almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy created-- “military coercion”-- for creating a “no-bomb zone” that would entail “a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force. ‘If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets,’” she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is guilty of “inaction” in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons, and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in Syria.

Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising-- which Hillary Clinton herself has previously advocated-- would risk a military confrontation with Russia. Obama’s defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last December that the policy Clinton advocates “would require ‘substantial’ ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces.” Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton’s defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no rational person should think that U.S. military action will be designed to “help Syrians.”

It’s long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far more militaristic path than even Obama forged-- which is saying a lot given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders’s appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel and Palestine, with Clinton’s supporters taking an even more hard-line position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.

Her past criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy were based overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: “That Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008... She favored supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt during the historic protests in Cairo.”

...But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline, completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders’ Secret Service costs to Hillary’s kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they’ve invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to ensure they don’t have to talk about it. But now Clinton’s almost-certain defense secretary is already-- months before she’s in power-- expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy-- at least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil-- much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.

Who Are The Bad Guys In Ukraine?

Russians have occupied more than a few NATO capitals including Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Bucharest, Berlin and even Paris. No one wants to see that happen again. And yet the West seems to be pushing Russia up against a wall right now with devastating sanctions that are crippling the Russian economy and roiling the country's politics. And nuclear-armed Russia is a lot stronger militarily than the U.K. Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Turkey and the rest of the European NATO allies combined.

After I broke a couple of ribs and punctured a lung, I had to have physical therapy to get back in some semblance of shape. Following a debilitating two week hospital stay I've been having a physical therapist come over twice a week to help with balance and strengthening exercises. He's an American, originally from Ukraine, and speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian. He also listens to the radio and reads reports on what's going on there in both languages. "It's been," he told me a couple weeks ago, "a brilliant move by the CIA to destabilize Russia at no cost to America." That's certainly not the perspective you get from U.S. media. The mainstream media in the U.S., for example, doesn't let on how hated the Kiev regime is in the eastern parts of the country, nor even attempt to provide any historical context. Most American media consumers probably think Ukraine was once a country. It never was. Is Ukrainian a real language? We'll... Ukrainian is to Russian kind of like what California English is to Australian English.

Last last year we looked at the mounting evidence that the whole mess in Ukraine started with a CIA coup on behalf of a claque of anti-Russian fascists and oligarchs. Eric Zuesse: "How many Americans know that the current regime in Ukraine was installed in a very bloody February 2014 coup d'etat, that was planned in the U.S. White House, and overseen by an Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, and run by the CIA, and carried out for the White House by one of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, whose founder and leader still controls Ukraine though not officially, even these many months after his coup, and which nazi party has been up to their elbows since then in a genocidal policy to exterminate the people in the region of Ukraine that had voted approximately 90% for the man whom Obama and those nazis overthrew in February?"

The video up top is former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) voicing his own distrust of the American role in Ukraine. "I'm not pro-Russia, I'm not pro-Putin," he said. "I'm pro-facts." Unlike the CIA-- or a large bipartisan contingent of irresponsible saber-rattling Members of Congress, who are demanding that Obama arm the crumbling Ukrainian army.

My physical therapist told me some of the Russian political analysts are absolutely brilliant and that it's a shame we don't get to hear them here in English. In October, though, The Guardian published a Russian perspective on the conflict with an interview of former Russian spy chief Nikolai Patrushev by Ivan Egorov for Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Egorov starts with a question: "The last few months have witnessed a coup d’état in Ukraine, military operations by the Ukrainian authorities against the people of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts and rabidly anti-Russian policies on the part of Kiev. Was it possible to predict this turn of events just a year ago?"

Nikolai Patrushev: Our experts warned that a worsening of the situation in Ukraine was likely under conditions of political and economic instability, particularly in the case of outside influence. But I have to admit that the possibility of a sudden seizure of power in Kiev, relying on armed units of self-proclaimed Nazis, hadn’t then been considered. It’s worth remembering that until that coup, Moscow fulfilled all its obligations to Kiev in full.

Without the material and financial help that we constantly supplied, Ukraine wouldn’t have been able to deal with its economic problems, which had become chronic. To help our neighbour, we marshalled material and financial resources worth tens of millions of dollars. For many people in Ukraine, this help came to seem so routine that they simply forgot how important it was for the survival of the country.

But if you’re talking about longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was a totally predictable outcome of the actions of the US and its closest allies.

For the last quarter of a century, these actions were designed to wrest Ukraine and other former Soviet republics away from Russia and to redesign the post-Soviet space in America’s interests. The US created the conditions and pretexts for the coloured revolutions and financed them lavishly.

Victoria Nuland, the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has said that her country spent $5bn between 1991 and 2013 “supporting the aspirations of the people of Ukraine for a stronger, more democratic government.” Even open sources, such as congressional documents, show that government spent no less than $2.4bn on various American “aid” programmes to Ukraine between 2001 and 2012. That’s comparable to the annual budget of some small states. The US Agency for International Development spent around half a billion dollars, the State Department nearly half a million and the Pentagon more than $370m.

...[Egorov:] Some experts believe that the Ukraine crisis served simply as a pretext for the west to escalate relations with Russia. Is that true?

Nikolai Patrushev: Yes, if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not occurred, another pretext would have been found to activate the policy of “containment” towards our country. This policy has been followed religiously for many decades: only the forms and tactics by which it has been realised have changed.

It is well known that after the second world war, the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the west, headed by the US, took the form of a cold war. The military-political element of this conflict rested with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), which was established on 4 April 1949 at the initiative of the US. An analysis of Nato’s actions shows that, having created the alliance, the US pursued two main goals.

First, a military bloc formed under American leadership, aimed against the USSR.

Victoria Nuland-- a bridge too far

Second, Washington pre-empted the emergence in western Europe of an independent group of states that could have competed with the US. It is worth remembering that although, essentially, the US exerted unilateral control over its allies, its territory was not included in Nato’s sphere of responsibility.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, which united the socialist countries of Europe and whose very existence was regarded by Nato as a grave danger, the bloc was not only not dissolved, it grew further, both numerically and militarily.

...The coup in Kiev, which was clearly carried out with the help of the US, conformed to a classical model worked out in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. But never before had such a coup impinged on Russia’s interests so directly.

Analysis shows that by provoking Russia into retaliatory measures, the Americans are pursuing the very same goals as in the 1980s vis-a-vis the USSR. Just like back then, they are trying to define our country’s “weak points.” At the same time, of course, they are neutralising economic competitors in Europe who have grown too close to Moscow, as they see it.

It’s worth remembering that Washington always strived to exert leverage over Russia. In 1974, the well-known Jackson Vanik amendment was passed, limiting trade with our country. To all appearances, it became obsolete the moment the USSR fell but it nevertheless remained in force right up until 2012, when it was replaced by the so-called Magnitsky list.



The current sanctions are part of the same trend. The actions of the American administration during the Ukraine crisis are part of a new current in White House foreign policy designed to preserve America’s position of leadership in the world by containing the growing power of Russia and other centres of power. What is more, Washington is actively using the possibilities that Nato offers to exert political and economic pressure on its allies and partners and thereby prevent them from wavering.

[Egorov:] Why is the American elite pursuing the right to control foreign (countries’) raw materials so tenaciously at a time when experts in the west are stressing the importance of developing alternative sources of energy that are supposedly capable of replacing oil and gas in double quick time?

Nikolai Patrushev: Specialists are convinced, in fact, that a real alternative to fossil fuels as the basis of energy production won’t appear in the next few decades. What is more, the dominant belief in the west is that the combined power generated by nuclear, hydro, wind and solar can satisfy no more than a fifth of world demand.

Don’t forget another important point. In the world today, there is a growing shortage of food and drinking water for the planet’s rising population. Lacking the most basic means of survival, desperate people turn to extremism, terrorism, piracy and criminality. This accounts, in part, for the sharp disparities between countries and regions, as well as for mass migration.

A shortage of water and irrigable land often causes discord, not least between the republics of Central Asia. Water represents an acute problem for a range of other countries in Asia and, especially, in Africa.

Many American experts, including the former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, claim that Moscow ended up with such vast swathes of territory that it is incapable of exploiting it all: this territory does not, therefore, “serve the interests of humanity as a whole.” We continue to hear claims that (the world’s) natural resources were divided up “unfairly” and that (Russia) must grant foreign states “free access” to them.

The Americans are convinced that many other people reason in the same way, especially in the states bordering Russia, which are already banding together to support such claims on our country and will continue to do so in future. As in the case of Ukraine, they propose to solve problems at Russia’s expense and without taking its interests into account.

Even during periods of relative détente between Russia/USSR and the US, such statements always held true.

That is why, whatever the nuances of American behaviour, or that of its allies, this challenge will remain forever present before Russia’s leaders: to guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the homeland, to protect and multiply its wealth and to dispose of that wealth sensibly in the interests of the multinational people of the Russian Federation.

People ask how it's possible that so many Jews are in top positions in a Ukrainian government dominated by nationalists (and fascists) whose slogan is that they will drown Russians in Polish and Jewish blood.That they are Jewish or half Jewish takes a back seat to the corruption of oligarchy-- and the ability to loot the country-- which is what this whole mess, tragically, is really all about.




UPDATE: Victoria Nuland, A Dangerous Embarrassment To America

The Cold War throwback driving America's messed up policies in Ukraine is Victoria Nuland, Kerry's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Her husband is notorious neocon Robert Kagan. In her glory days she was principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Lately she's been in the news again for this phone call. CNN bleeped out "Fuck," as in "Fuck the E.U."