"I'm so confused!" That's the message I've read from a lot of people discussing the events in Ukraine. But, as it turns out, what's happened in Ukraine is really quite simple.
It was a Neoliberal coup.
But before I get to that, let me say that in order to understand the events in Ukraine, Russia or the world in general, one has to stop thinking like a child.
Group/Person A is bad.
Group/Person B opposes Group/Person A
Therefore Group/Person B must be good.
Do I really need to explain the illogicality of this syllogism?
Now, back to Ukraine. I will keep this short because, frankly, this story has repeated itself so many times over the last 40 years that it kind of bores me now.
There's a crowd of international banksters that have a vision. Some people call it a conspiracy. That's because they are idiots. What it really is is a political movement. It operates, in some respects, like all political movements do. It differs, however, in the respect that the people behind this movement have more money than God.
You can spend years researching this movement, its roots, its history, its aims. Or you can just read this fascinating little scoop from Matt Stoller, where he went digging through transcripts of committee hearings in the US congressional record. There he found basically the Holy Grail for anyone wanting a compact, clear understanding of the agenda of these so-called international powers. It was in the testimony of George Ball, former Undersecretary of State and architect of much of the trade regime that gave birth to the World Trade Organization, before the Joint Economic Committee in 1967:
But Ball’s idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. I’ve spoken with Froman about this history, and Froman himself does not seem to know much about it. But he is captive of these ideas, nonetheless, as is much of the elite class. They do not know the original ideology behind what is now just bureaucratic true believer-ism, they just know that free trade is good and right and true.
But back to the 1967 hearing. In the opening statement, before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind. He also foreshadows our modern world by suggesting that commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies should just be and will inevitably be handled by supranational organizations.
Here’s just some of that statement. It really is worth reading, I’ve bolded the surprising parts.
"For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peoples all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y - and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the abilityt o look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production… that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mankind.
But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries - or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.
To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course… by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.
Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business - sustained and reinforced by modern technology - has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies - and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations - will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions….
We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.”
It's fascinating that back in the 60s, people spoke openly about this agenda which, to put it in contemporary terms, was to create a new international structure, or set of international structures to allow the Vampire Squid to pretty much rule the world.
And that's what we now have.
So how does all this play out in Ukraine?
It's really quite simple:
The demonstrations began on the night of 21 November 2013, when protests erupted in the capital, Kiev, after the Ukrainian government suspended preparations for signing an Association Agreement and a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, in order to seek closer economic relations with Russia.[73]
This really explains it all. The Ukrainian government was being lured away from Russia to join the Vampire Squid - with Poland mostly brokering the deal. The government balked. Why?
The president had asked for 20 billion USD in loans and aid.[74] The EU was willing to offer [838 million USD] in loans,[75] however Russia was willing to offer 15 billion USD in loans.[75] Russia also offered Ukraine cheaper gas prices.[75] In addition to the money, the EU required major changes to the regulations and laws in the Ukraine; Russia, however, did not.[74] On 24 November 2013, first clashes between protesters and police began.
And there you have it. The same old story, over and over and over again. The V.S., usually in the form of the World Bank and the IMF, offers to loan money on the conditions of "structural adjustments" - deregulation, privatization of national assets, and poor little country finds itself being drained of its economic life blood.
This deal, though, is also part of the broader agenda to unite the former Soviet states into a Eurasian union that will further isolate Russia.
So Putin won. He made them a better offer. No altering their laws and regulations. And lots more money. And he also, probably, made some threats (higher gas prices) Suddenly, protesters storm the streets.
One could spend years trying to figure out whether or not the protesters were genuine opponents of Russia and really saw this EU trade deal as a path to a brighter future - certainly many did - or whether they were drummed up by Western powers. Many, no doubt, like my syllogism above, probably just hated ousted president Viktor Yanukovych and supported anything he was against.
Those who think that the protests were all engineered by the CIA or whatever should really get a grip. You can't manufacture a riot unless there's already something to work with.
But if you do have something to work with, and let there be no doubt that Russia is unpopular in the Ukraine, it's pretty easy for monied interests to stir things up. Is that what happened here? Based on prior experience, I have little doubt. And I have even less doubt that, regardless of the source of protests, the West has exploited, amplified, and distorted it to serve their interest. You have to be tone deaf not to hear the Wurlitzer playing on this one. And the real question is how this Wurlitzer resulted in removing the opponent of this EU deal from the presidency.
What happened to Viktor Yanukovych's allies in parliament? How did his fall transpire? If I had another life, I would love to get to the bottom of it. But I don't, and it really doesn't matter.
The bottom line is that, if this coup succeeds, it will just be one more notch in the belt of the banksters. They wanted Ukraine, and they got it. The only good thing about Putin is he's not part of the Neoliberal movement. But there are no good guys here.
Of course Putin's a scumbag asshole. Does anyone doubt that? But as bad as Putin is, he's nothing compared to the psychopaths behind the international banking cartel. It would take him decades to kill as many people, wipe out as many ecosystems, and generally cause as much global pain and suffering as these assholes.
So pick your poison. But make no mistake. When the Vampire Squid is done with Ukraine, they'll be selling their children in the streets.
In every story I've read from the Ukraine citing the protesters or defenders, it is always framed in binary: "Should we stay with Russia or should we join the EU?" But those are not the only choices. If you take nothing from my little analysis here, remember this: There is a third choice: Fuck Russia and fuck the EU. Neither serve the interests of the Ukrainian people. And while seeing that may take a major paradigm shift among Ukrainians, it can be done. Iceland can be a model for all these little European countries. Who knows?
I'm more concerned about the Vampire Squid's penetration into our own sociopolitical and economic system. What we're seeing here in the US, "austerity", selling off our roads and bridges, systematic wage deflation, privatization, trashing the environment and shocking inequality, these are all things we've been seeing for years in other countries where the neoliberal agenda has been allowed.
Support public banking. Support Elizabeth Warren. And speaking of coups, oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership.