EU sanctions on Russia will hit UK economy’–Frign Secrtry

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Jul 2014, 14:23

http://rt.com/uk/176696-eu-sanctions-russia-economy/

Our government is preparing us, then, for a negative impact of these sanctions against Russia. And that's just in terms of the sanctions themselves. If Russia decides to play really rough, they could always stop selling us their gas, though that might hurt them a bit as well.

The question is: Why are these sanctions being really imposed, given we know and our government knows that the reason the Crimeans voted for cessation (they were not annexed, no matter how many times that lie is put out by our MSM and government) and the reason the East of Ukraine is up in arms is due to a US orchestrated neo-fascist coup which ousted a democratically elected leader of a European country. They also know Russia had bugger-all to do with the downing of that plane. Or, at the very least, they have no evidence whatsoever to indicate that is the case. Nor, even that the rebels did it either. What scant evidence does exist in the public realm is pointing to Kiev.

The answer to the above must be one or more of the following:

The Yanks will not immediately feel a negative feedback from the sanctions and they are able to bully the Europeans into imposing them and taking the economic backlash. In which case, why the F--k don't the Europeans stand up to the Yanks and simply refuse. What have the Yanks threatened Europe with?

and/or

The European elites have no more allegiance to Europe itself than do the Yanks. That is to say, these modern global elites are effectively stateless and they have co-opted regional government to do their bidding so totally that those government will enact policies directly in contradiction to their national interest.

and/or

A very much bigger long term strategic game is being played and many of the pieces being moved around the board right now, only seem inexplicable because the great unwashed (of which I am a member) are not privy to that game. Or, at least, we are certainly privy to it's consequences, just not it's aims and objectives.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 30 Jul 2014, 15:20

Both the US and Russia are facing oil production peaks. Both administrations probably realise this, and both will want a bogey man to blame when prices go through the roof some time in the next 2 years, and/or Russian economy tanks due to falling export revenue.

The question is, are they play acting in secret agreement, like the '73 OPEC embargo, or are they really stupid?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Jul 2014, 15:42

PS_RalphW wrote:Both the US and Russia are facing oil production peaks. Both administrations probably realise this, and both will want a bogey man to blame when prices go through the roof some time in the next 2 years, and/or Russian economy tanks due to falling export revenue.

The question is, are they play acting in secret agreement, like the '73 OPEC embargo, or are they really stupid?

I have no illusions about the internally anti-democratic nature of the Russian administration in general and of Putin in particular. However, let’s just put this into some proper perspective.

Over the last decade or two, the Russians have not had their troops engage in various illegitimate military adventures on the back of blatant lies. When if comes to the above and the invention, on a regular basis, of various bogey men to justify such actions, the USA beats the Russians and everyone else hands down. And, even to the extent that Russia certainly did have illegitimate boots on the ground all over Eastern Europe during the Soviet days, this is at least in part explainable, in my view, by a the very real and ongoing threat from the USA. This is not to excuse Russian atrocities where they occurred and they certainly did occur. Nevertheless, I shall be plain here and state clearly that if I was forced to choose between an Eastern facing Europe or a Western facing one that choice would not be a difficult one to make. I believe in the right of people to self determination, which is why I do not believe in a top-down imposed united states of Europe. I am, however, a realist and know full well that we will always be a part of a loose federation/group of countries to some extent. The USA is a dangerously sick country and culture and is going to go down all guns blazing and the sooner we and the rest of Europe cut ourselves loose from it the better.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 30 Jul 2014, 16:25

In the last couple of decades, we have seen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80 ... ssetia_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Transnistria

The Chechen wars were particularly bloody and led to some of the most brutal and long lived Islamic fighters. I think it is where suicide bombers became standard practice. The widows of Chechen fighters frequently resorted to this.

I do not know the full background of all these conflicts, but they all involve regions which wanted autonomy or independence from Russia seeing military invasion and differing levels of oppression.

There are no good guys in global geopolitics.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Jul 2014, 16:53

PS_RalphW wrote:In the last couple of decades, we have seen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80 ... ssetia_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Transnistria

The Chechen wars were particularly bloody and led to some of the most brutal and long lived Islamic fighters. I think it is where suicide bombers became standard practice. The widows of Chechen fighters frequently resorted to this.

I do not know the full background of all these conflicts, but they all involve regions which wanted autonomy or independence from Russia seeing military invasion and differing levels of oppression.

There are no good guys in global geopolitics.

Look on a map at where Chechnya is in relation to Russia. Look on a map at where South Ossettia is in relation to Russia.

Then take a look on a map at the location of the innumerable places where the USA has either directly invaded or been directly involved in levering puppet regimes into power, often violently fascist regimes, and then look at those locations in relation to the USA.

Notice anything?

I am not excusing anything the Russians have done and I am well aware there are no good guys at the level of geo-politics. But, what the Russians have done in the examples you have provided is explainable in rational, if brutal, terms of maintaining the security/integrity of their borders. What the Yanks have done is and always has been about persistent expansionist attempts at the creation of a completely world dominating empire by any means necessary due to an underlying sickness of exceptionalism in their culture.

In short, I am suggesting that in a choice between the lesser of two evils the choice, for me at least, is not difficult.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 30 Jul 2014, 18:53

PS_RalphW wrote: or are they really stupid?

Yes.

The major part of history can be accounted for by people in positions of power and influence being really stupid.

another_exlurker · Post by **another_exlurker** » 31 Jul 2014, 00:52

As regards South Ossetia, the BBC discovered evidence of war crimes by Georgia.

The report is crucial, asserted BBC journalist Tim Whewell, because the South Ossetian version of events "has barely been heard in the west". Such ignorance was created by the delibrately misleading coverage of western media outlets and the anti-Russian bias promoted by western governments, especially those in Washington and London. Consequently many people wrongly believe that Russia precipitated the conflict by invading Georgia.

The stubborn fact remains that it was Georgian military forces, no doubt following consultation with American military "advisers", who bombarded South Ossetia's small town capital Tskhinvali. At the time very few journalists, most notably Thomas de Waal, were prepared to tell the truth about Georgian aggression.

Original article.

Same propaganda and slightly improved, no Russian "invasion" but rather "annexation".

And we're back to Einstein's definition of insanity.

As for creating a bogyman, well, the Islamic terrorist-bogyman hasn't worked too well, so they conjure up an old spectre.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Jul 2014, 08:32

The greater the fear that Russian gas supplies are insecure, the greater will be the acceptance of fracking in the UK. That is in the interests of those who derive profit from investment in the industry.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 31 Jul 2014, 08:47

biffvernon wrote:The greater the fear that Russian gas supplies are insecure, the greater will be the acceptance of fracking in the UK. That is in the interests of those who derive profit from investment in the industry.

Now there's a point I had not considered

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 31 Jul 2014, 12:06

It might even be that the Frackers (and hence HMG) want Russian gas supplies to be insecure...

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 31 Jul 2014, 14:02

Now that is a conspiracy theory I wouldn't put past Cameron.

I notice there are calls from the usual suspects to raise defense spending to counter the new (old) threat from the Russian Bear.

Unfortunately a new cold war would could turn very cold indeed at the turn of valve.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Jul 2014, 14:26

Fracking supporters are forever talking of our 'energy security' and 'Russian gas', and they never talk about the Russians being dependant on our market or that the greater the interdependence the less the risk of war.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 31 Jul 2014, 14:58

Considering the North sea decline and the fact that Russia has peaked while the UK population continues to grow through immigration, it is pretty clear that you will soon need both all the Russian NG they can sell you plus fracked NG produced in the UK. Not a question of if but when.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 31 Jul 2014, 15:05

Unfortunately we are likely to remain dependent on Russian gas exports longer than Russia is dependent on us as customers. Mutual trade dependency was the key factor in the post WWII economic trade model to prevent future wars. Of course the model breaks down when the resources start to get scarce.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 31 Jul 2014, 15:14

vtsnowedin wrote:Considering the North sea decline and the fact that Russia has peaked while the UK population continues to grow through immigration, it is pretty clear that you will soon need both all the Russian NG they can sell you plus fracked NG produced in the UK. Not a question of if but when.

I'm not sure that Russian NG production has peaked, although it seems their oil has. It is as much a matter of building pipelines to get the gas to market that has been limiting Russian supply. Also 2008 cut European demand for a while, as have a couple of mild winters . Ukraine has been siphoning off large quantities of Russian gas from their pipelines at well below market rates for at least a decade. That is what started off this Ukranian revolt in the first place. Of course, the US are keen to get their claws into the Ukrainian shale gas plays (even if their economic potential is far from certain) and one of the two plays is in the rebel held east (very close to the downed airliner).

Ukraine could be seen as a straight East West resource war.

We could save ourselves so much bother if we just built wind turbines instead.