Hangzhou G20 Postmortem: Obama Snubbed, Putin Busy

President Obama received an especially cold reception at the G20 Economic Forum being held in China for the past two days. The Chinese did not provide stairs for Air Force One, forcing Obama to disembark the plane through an emergency exit where he was met with a loud verbal altercation between Chinese officials and security. The geopolitical tensions between the US and China represented by these petty displays are only a snapshot of the great shifts in regional power and alliances happening right now. The G20 summits serve as a forum for member nations to negotiate and coordinate monetary, fiscal, and structural reforms to encourage economic cooperation and sustainable growth. Given the fact that the leaders of the West are looking at a looming currency war with Russia and China, each party was attempting to shore up support for their own side.

President Obama spent a lot of time at the forum offering assurances, attempting to mend fences, and putting out fires. Since there are only five months remaining in his term of service, the President’s priority is to seek short -term stability on the international stage to paint a rosier picture for the Democrats in the upcoming elections. That means a very limited form of compromise, but no more new policy formation from the administration. Consequently, the US has no alternative deal to offer to Central Asia and the Pacific Rim nations to answer China and Russia’s recent economic projects like the New Silk Road Initiative, Siberian oil and gas development, and economic unions in Eurasia and the South China Sea. The main effort of Obama’s trip to Hangzhou centered on the proxy war zones of the Ukraine and Syria, where Obama and Secretary Kerry met with Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov to discuss cease-fires in both nations.

Putin: Russia & US may reach agreement on Syria ‘within next few days’

Although no agreement was ultimately reached, the article spells out the negotiations between the US and Russia. Although both leaders agreed that they had found common ground, the US refused to lift economic sanctions on Russia for the Crimean invasion and stipulated a return to the Minsk agreement which was broken days after it was signed. Putin accused the West of being unwilling to compromise, and the talks ultimately failed.

Dealing with the irascible Chinese, the President managed to work out an agreement on environmental reforms and avoiding competitive currency devaluations, promising not to manipulate exchange rates for their own benefit in a currency war.

After Snubbing Obama, China Gives Putin Red Carpet Treatment, Warns Against Protectionism At G-20

However, when the issue of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea was brought up, China was unapologetic and remained focused on economic discourse to avoid the topic. One participant in that discourse was Australia, with China leveling accusations of protectionism and market interference after two large Chinese buyouts of Australian businesses were blocked. The Chinese also expressed displeasure at Australian surveillance flights over island chains in the South China Sea. Pressure on Australia has been building to pick one side over the other, with China offering potential economic benefits only if the influence of the US is pushed out of the Pacific Rim.

Obama also had his work cut out dealing with the sensitive situation with Erdogan in Turkey. Still seeking the extradition of alleged coup plotter Fethullah Gulen, Erdogan was preparing more evidence and further consultations with American counterparts to push for Gulen’s return to Turkey. Whether or not the Globalists are willing to offer up Gulen, rumored to be a Clinton asset, to a dictator who has recently pledged to reinstate the death penalty is an interesting dilemma presented to the Globalists by the Turks. Obama also pressed for a cessation on the Turkish campaigns against the Kurds, another regional cultural/ethnic group friendly with the US who have had a long, tumultuous history with the Turks.

G20 in China: Syria, Brexit on Obama’s agenda

Putin & Erdogan discuss Syria and Turkish Stream at G20 summit

Russia used the talks as an opportunity to advance their agendas throughout Asia. The oil pipelines connecting Russian oil production with European markets running through the Black Sea and Turkey were a priority, as Russia is attempting to strengthen the Ruble by controlling the world energy market. The two countries also talked about removing barriers to trading agricultural exports, with Russia investing billions into agricultural production to compete with American GMO crops. After overcoming the downing of a Russian jet and the killing of the pilot in Turkish territory in November of last year, Russia and Turkey are quickly on their way to normalizing relations.

Putin talks relations with Turkey, US, Saudi Arabia & China at G20 final presser

Russia also engaged in talks with Saudi Arabia, who have traditionally been wary of the Russians. The two agreed on cooperation to keep the oil market afloat, another piece of Putin’s plan to use Russian oil sales to back the Ruble.

President Obama also met with British Prime Minister Theresa May, a supporter of the Brexit decision to leave the EU. Although Obama publicly criticized the decision, he reaffirmed the US’s support of the ally. May’s administration has been making attempts to normalize relations with Russia as well, attempts that have been reciprocated.

 

Talking about the prospects for cooperation between Moscow and London, the Russian leader said the Kremlin is “ready to restore relations with the UK and go in this as far as they want us to.” While Russia is ready to work on the matter, Putin said that British Prime Minister Theresa May had just taken office and “needs to deal with domestic issues.”

Putin is correct, as the “domestic issues” May is dealing with involve the backlash from the Brexit. EU head bureaucrat Jean-Claude Juncker again refused to provide Britain access to the European Common Market until the British reverted their position on immigration policy. Interestingly, Australia called for a trade agreement with Britain to keep markets open between the two countries, short circuiting the EU’s punitive measures against the UK. These two countries were part of the old British Empire, and if there are further attempts to coordinate economic cooperation between the UK and its former colonies, we could be seeing a revival of the British commonwealth in response to the EU’s monopoly over continental Europe.

The recent G20 summit resembles a microcosm of the recent geopolitical shifts around the world, and the brewing currency war between the Western allies and Russia and China cast a long shadow over the discussions. Considering how President Obama is nearing the end of his term, restoring relations and “perception management” was the priority for the Globalist front man. Putin, Theresa May, and Erdogan, the three populist leaders turned political pariahs by the Globalists they stood up to, seemed to have benefited the most from G20, taking time to normalize relations with others and forming new agreements with new allies. If anything, the recent events in Hangzhou point to big changes and a lot of uncertainty on the global stage.

When Oligarchs Get Hacked: The George Soros Leak

After covering Putin’s plans for Russia last week, it would only be appropriate to take a look at what the Western leaders of the Globalist faction have been up to. The recent hack into billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has conveniently given us such an opportunity. But before we can get into the leaks, a brief review of George Soros, and exactly what his role is among the rest of the Western leadership is in order.

George Soros started his career in investment finance trading in European stocks, working with the burgeoning European Economic Community, a predecessor for the EU. Throughout the 70’s, Soros would successfully go on to developing and managing several of his own lucrative hedge funds, including the Quantum Fund, the most profitable hedge fund in history. As with many of the idle rich, Soros would then fall into meddling with world affairs, specifically in the areas of press and news media. In the mid to late 80’s Soros cut his teeth on the Globalist game by spreading the appeal of Capitalism to the ailing Communist Bloc nations. As of 1994, Soros financed over 40 radio and TV stations and press outlets in Eastern Europe, and gave $10 million to Russian news outlets in 1998. After the fall of Communism, Soros’ control over Russian state organs became more direct. If you’ll recall from last week’s William F. Engdahl article, it was advisors with financial ties to Soros who formed the Yeltsin economic team, which privatized Russian state assets and sold them to Western investors at wholesale prices. It was also Yeltsin who gave into pressure from the West to privatize the Russian State Bank and tie the value of the Ruble to the Dollar.

In American business, Soros is an investor of media conglomerate Viacom and through his various foundations, has funded and given grants to dozens of news programs from NPR and televisions shows on MSNBC to blogs like ThinkProgress and Alternet. He has even sponsored journalism awards. If this is the first time you are hearing about this leak, those might be a few reasons why.

As for Soros’ Open Society Foundations, they are anything but. The organizations are literally at the bottom of the list for transparency, making these leaks all the more telling.

The self-proclaimed purpose of these foundations is to “seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments…” and many other righteous causes in the name of Western democracy. The latest hack and dump of 2,576 of the foundations’ internal documents and memos show that the Open Society Foundations are actually major purveyors of the Western soft power culture revolution. One function of these foundations is to serve as a global clearing house for rich investors to assemble and push exploitative business arrangements and for-profit loans along with IMF loans to distressed nations, and as a nexus to coordinate and manifest said deals and arrangements via public policy through monetary grants and funds to agreeable NGO’s and politicians. The foundations also serve to buy up media outlets and sway public opinion on social issues as well as political candidates. With that much chicanery and charlatanism on display in these leaks, the lack of transparency would seem necessary.

The Ukraine

From the Open Society leak, we have a document from Soros concerning the ongoing conflict with Russia over the Ukraine in particular.

A short and medium – term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine[pdf]

In the document, Soros himself lays out strategic goals for the West with an aim of reversing Putin’s recent gains in the Ukraine. He first suggests a rearmament program for the Ukrainian military, then prioritizes the defense of the National Bank of the Ukraine, the primary recipient and distributor of IMF loans (and Ukrainian debt) in the country. Soros’ solution to bolstering the current pro-Western regime is to develop yet another loan program, this time borrowing directly from the EU common market and EU budget, to prop up the stagnant Ukrainian economy. He then plans to encourage investment in the war-torn country, stating “To turn the tables on Putin, Ukraine needs to be converted from a source of political risk to an attractive investment destination.” Soros even appoints a Minister Abromavičius to coordinate a donor and investor conference with the Soros-backed Project Management Office.

Once the insurance is available, I am prepared to invest up to $1 billion in Ukrainian businesses. This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine must become an attractive investment destination. The investments will be for-profit but I will pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am advocating policies in search of personal gain.

With Eastern Europe still reeling from the iron fist of Communism, the Ukraine ought to be fertile ground for Western influence, but a stagnant economy threatens to ruin all of that. Considering the fact that China and Russia, and the Stolypin Club, are contemplating the establishment of economic unions throughout Eurasia and the South China Sea, the West needs to sweeten its deal despite the fact that Ukraine has not been granted membership into the EU or NATO. Now that Putin has played his hand in the invasion, the groundwork to “fast track” said membership processes is being established by the West.

Europe

Moving onto Europe, another leaked Open Society Foundations document shows the group’s efforts to manipulate public opinion towards immigration policies.

Migration Governance and Enforcement Portfolio Review[pdf]

If you’ve been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the EU and Europe, the immigration crisis has proven to be a political powder keg, being the primary motivation for the Brexit referendum and a key to the geopolitics of Eurasia. Of note is the EU’s, and specifically German Chancellor Merkel’s, relentless push for control over Europe’s immigration policy and the dispersal of Syrian refugees across the region. Looking at the Learnings/Conclusions portion of the document, the foundation makes its agenda very clear:

Accepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react

Observing our partners as they respond and adjust to the new reality in light of the crisis in Europe and the Mediterranean, we see little attention given to long-term planning or fundamentally new approaches to advocacy.

Observing such a popular resistance to Globalist policies should be no surprise to the foundation, yet the plan is to continue pushing forward with their agenda by “reexamining methods of influencing and experimenting with framings and argumentation, both at elite and popular levels.” Soros is a major donor to the Center for American Progress, also subject to the leak, who have recently targeted and tracked organizations and individuals opposed to the spread of the Islamic ideology, applying the blanket label of racist and bigot. The following is found on page 32 of the Center for American Progress leaked documents.

Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civic Discourse[pdf]

CAP will research and track the activities of the most prominent drivers of Islamophobia, including Stop Islamization of America, led by Pamela Geller; the Center for Security Policy, led by Frank Gaffney; David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, which sponsors Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch; the Middle East Forum, led by Daniel Pipes; the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, led by Cliff May; and Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney. In addition, CAP will examine the role played by right-wing media, the Tea Party movement, prominent politicians, pundits, and conservative donors in spreading anti-Muslim hysteria.

So much for an open society with “a diversity of opinions.” Mr. Soros doesn’t have a problem with your opinions as long as they conform to his own. Yet, if you disagree with his immigration policy, and are not “[a]ccepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react,” you will be labeled a bigot and shamed. Unfortunately for Mr. Soros and the rest of the Globalist elite, the people of Europe are not so willing to hand over the power to legislate who will and will not be allowed in their country. The geopolitical dilemma the Globalists have blundered into with Erdogan in Turkey will garner zero sympathy from the people, as it was the Globalists who originally wanted regime change in Syria.

The US

In the US, Soros has been busy attempting to sway the election towards his candidate and fellow Globalist, Hillary Clinton, whose campaign he has already donated $8 million to.

OPEN SOCIETY U.S. PROGRAMS BOARD MEETING New York, New York October 1-2, 2015[pdf]

On page 21 of this leaked report presented to an Open Society meeting, the foundation discusses the challenges of using “decentralized movements” to manipulate public opinion.

Heading into the 2016 Presidential election season, we’ve seen increased visibility from several burgeoning social justice movements, each vying to shape the nation’s political agenda.

Bringing up the point that they furnished the BlackLivesMatter movement with a $650,000 grant when it was still in its infancy, the foundation must have felt as though they’ve bought up the movement as the idea of manipulating and shaping the direction of BlackLivesMatter is proposed. This would allow the foundation an opportunity to further manipulate and shape public discourse under the guise of what was originally billed as a legitimate national conversation on race relations.

This begs the question of what is the appropriate role for philanthropy, in either supporting or defining policy agendas. Does philanthropy undermine the field when it advocates directly in spheres of political influence instead of empowering grantees to do the same?…

That support calls into question how we might most appropriately support such efforts; specifically whether we should seek to shape the movement as opposed to facilitate its direct action.

The point of all of this manipulation is already made plain by the very first sentence of the section “Heading into the 2016 Presidential election season…” A recent Pew Research report has placed a new emphasis on winning votes from the Hispanic and Black communities, a demographic that substantially helped Barack Obama reach office. If Soros is supporting these so-called social justice reforms and the BlackLivesMatter movement to sway voters towards his candidate of choice, then he is not acting in an altruistic manner at all. Instead, he merely wants the candidate he bought, that’s Hillary Clinton, to win so he can spread his influence further in the federal government and on the world stage. Yet another leaked document would support this assertion.

Voting Rights Portfolio Review: Outcomes Summary[pdf]

This document details the Open Society Foundations’ attempt to encourage policies that would bring members of the Black and Hispanic communities to the polls in greater numbers.

We outlined two critical points in time—the election of President Obama and the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder—that motivated us and the field to beat back conservative attempts to suppress the vote of people of color and other marginalized communities and, at the same time, push for affirmative reforms in election administration that would add voters of color to the rolls. [emphasis added]

Notice no talk of adding additional security measures to the actual electronic voting machines themselves, which are subject to fewer regulations and checks than Las Vegas slot machines. There is no mention of the open accusation made by Clinton Eugene Curtis, who stated under oath in front of the U.S. House Judiciary Members in Ohio that he was instructed by Congressman Tom Feeney to create software that could throw the 2000 election one way or the other. Mr. Soros, along with his conservative opponents on this issue, have no intention of protecting the electorate or the legitimacy of the election, they are just trying to influence, spin, and game the system to keep them, their political friends, and all of their toadies in positions of power. Whether the result has a racist outcome disproportionately disadvantaging “voters of color,” or, on the contrary, produces more equity and fairness in society is of little value as the motivation is not altruistic, but entirely self-serving. If this issue concerning race never interfaced with elections, what sort of return would Soros receive for his investment?

The value of Soros and the Open Society Foundations adopting the “social justice” equality approach is the seemingly unassailable nature of their position. By taking on the face of social groups like BlackLivesMatter and various “social progress” movements, Soros’ agents can masquerade as victims of ignorance, circumstance, and poverty. By identifying as both victim and aggressor, Soros can continue to manipulate public opinion from the shadows, using his victim thralls and social justice warriors to label and shame those who disagree with his narrative as racists and lacking virtue.

Whether race baiting, funding divisive rhetoric, adding names to the black list, or calling for armament programs for foreign armies, the Open Society Foundations are not the peaceful, altruistic organizations that Mr. Soros would have you think they are. The foundations don’t strengthen democracy, they subvert it all over the world. They don’t promote free speech or a plurality of opinions, they stamp it out and silence those who disagree. The Open Society Foundations are nothing more than a weapon in the Western soft power arsenal, in a struggle that the Nazis would have called “Weltanschauungskrieg,” or worldview warfare. This  weapon is becoming less and less effective as Soros’ lies and schemes are becoming more transparent every day, and this leak is not going to help one bit. But then again, if your global strategy relies on widespread ignorance, secrecy, and obfuscating the debate, don’t be surprised when the truth leaks out, eventually.

 

 

EU Leaders Caught on the Back Foot as Refugee Crisis Threatens to Intensify

The Brexit referendum may soon be known as the first loud, reverberating “No” to the dictates of the non-elected bureaucrats running the EU. Although immigration policy and the Syrian refugee crisis was the primary issue motivating the vote to leave, the EU continues to demand that Britain acquiesce to their own border policies to access the EU market.

EU Nations Demand Britain Keep Unlimited Immigration After Brexit

Even though many analysts see the lack of flexibility over migration rules as one of the key factors that made Britons vote for Brexit, there is little evidence EU states are willing to compromise. Only Denmark, Austria and Bulgaria said they shared Britain’s concerns about open borders.

The EU’s ultimatum effectively banishes the UK, as no political leader would immediately flip flop on the border issue (and disobey the Queen). The proposal highlights the European Union’s current geopolitical struggles, and their single-track mission to disperse the influx of refugees. This unreasonable demand may have tipped the EU’s hand, however, as Erdogan decided afterwards to issue his own ultimatum:

Turkey Threatens To Reopen The Refugee Floodgates To Europe

Realizing the EU’s quandary, Erdogan gives quite an ultimatum, as Turkey wants to advance its inclusion into the EU on its own terms. Erdogan’s recent public commitment to reinstating the death penalty, his post-coup consolidation of dictatorial power, and his rejection of Ataturk’s secularist Turkey flies directly in the face of the Europe’s policy and culture. By threatening to unleash an estimated 2 million refugees over the border, Turkey is attempting to strong arm the EU in what could only be seen as an open challenge to the EU globalists. Capitulating to Turkey means that the standards for entrance into the EU, and EU policy, can be waived or ignored at a convenient time, undermining the authority of the bankers and bureaucrats calling the shots. Refusing Turkey’s terms could be even worse, as Europe and the West will lose an important ally in Eurasia and potentially force a breach in the strategic wall that has contained the Russians since the end of World War II. With Denmark, Austria, Bulgaria, and also Italy, Greece, and Hungary now expressing fear and deep displeasure at the thought of an uncontrolled influx of refugees and migrants, the political disaster that awaits Merkel and the Euro-Globalists is very real. Refusing to compromise on immigration policy is creating a lose-lose situation for the leaders of the European Union.

Italy launches anti-refugee campaign to warn asylum seekers against coming to Europe

In wake of Turkey unrest, Greece grows nervous about a potential spike in influx of refugees

BRUSSELS CRISIS: Hungary set to REJECT migrant quotas in huge blow to EU project

The first defiant “No” that was sounded by the Brexit is growing into a cacophony as Southern Europe winces at the thought of bearing the brunt of a refugee influx, and the ensuing political, economic, and social upheaval that follows. Turkey’s open defiance of EU leadership is a stern rejection of the top-down management of the globalists. As the EU’s position appears to become more and more untenable by the day, will Mr. Global yield, for once?

After Rejecting the EU, Will Britain Reject Climate Change Too?

If the leaders of the Western world aren’t already stressed out about the Brexit decision a little over a month ago, they will be absolutely tearing their hair out at the possibility of the “Clexit.”

Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with ‘Clexit’

With widespread dissent against EU immigration policy already creating nasty geopolitical blow back with Turkey and Southern Europe, a wholesale rejection of the climate change argument is yet another potential sociopolitical contagion that the West is going to have to contain. Climate change acceptance is a crucial component of the soft power cultural revolution the West has been operating since the end of the Cold War, an operation that has began to seriously lose steam in the years following 9/11 and the Iraq War.

So what’s the problem with climate change? Well, there are a few red flags that are apparent from the outset to anybody who is paying attention. Without even looking at the facts or the reasoning, a close look at the language of the debate is somewhat revealing, if off-putting. One will notice a lot of alarmism, oversimplifications, divisive rhetoric, and silencing and shaming tactics. The actual academic, scientific argument, all of those scientific studies and whitepapers laced with technical terms and jargon, are not an actual argument, but an appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment as nobody but them can translate and comprehend their own theories and ideas. Without a real, understandable argument to convince the laymen, oversimplified rhetoric is needed. Hence the term itself “climate change,” which is a description of an ongoing process rather than something explicitly new. It is broadly similar to “Earth rotating,” or “moon orbiting” in its all-encompassing vagueness. No need to get bogged down in debate over the finer details, or any debate, really. The other oversimplification is the 97% scientific consensus figure. Notwithstanding the fact that referencing a poll is not a real argument but an appeal to popularity and the bandwagon approach, the scientists taking the poll were asked to simply acknowledge whether or not humans have had an effect on the climate of the planet. Fair enough. But none of the scientists were asked about how urgent or dire the threat of climate change is. If one were to poll the appropriate scientists for a consensus on “imminent climate change apocalypse,” there would not be a 97% consensus. So what’s up with the alarmism? How does the time metric factor into all of this? We’ll cover that later.

There are a few finer points that go unnoticed in the rancor of the debate. The very fact that there is a scientific consensus on any aspect of climate change is exceptional and worth noting on its very own. Considering the interpretation of the Greenland ice cores samples, the Earth has been through some dramatic, actually scary climate changes just in the past 20,000 years or so. Scientists have not reached a consensus, or even a solid theory on why the Earth entered, and just as abruptly exited, the last major ice age.

But the biggest anomaly in this mess of a cultural conversation is the question of why there is even a debate in the first place. If the rhetoric is true, and the threat of climate change is truly grave, why even wait for a consensus? Why not just ignore the naysayers and go save the world? The leaders of the Western world are not, and have never been, in the habit of justifying, let alone asking for consent, for their decisions and policies in response to strategic geopolitical realities. They never asked for consent on the war on terror and the surveillance state. They never asked for consent for the financial bailouts and the infringement of our civil liberties. They usually don’t care about what you think, so why do they care now?

The purpose of all of this consensus building is not as a means to an end, it’s the forming of a consensus itself that is the goal. In other words, the widespread rejection of oil consumption, and therefore, an end to buying and trading on the global oil markets, is the true geopolitical goal of this western soft power strategy. With Russia and China entering the oil markets, setting up the BRICS system, and threatening the petrodollar hegemony the US has enjoyed since the Nixon days, a change had to be made. In response, the western bankers dumped oil stocks from their portfolios and have begun funding alternative energy. Giving the oil industry away to China and Russia meant that the value of the dollar had to be pegged onto another commodity. I believe food was chosen as that commodity and the GMO process has sought to create crops that are hardier, longer lasting, and more bountiful than normal to make for a more stable trading commodity.

So why hasn’t this plan worked? It’s because the soft power strategy relies on actually having something that people want, IE the carrot rather than the stick. The GMO carrots of the West, and their bee-killing pesticides, have not gone over well. There are now 38 countries who have banned GMO food or products, compared to the 28 who have accepted them. Russia is also investing in agriculture to offer a regular alternative to GMO crops. Worse yet, the western bankers are prepared to leave oil but have no widespread alternative energy infrastructure or framework to offer to the world. Sure, electric-powered cars are common now, but the electricity powering your home probably comes from a massive coal-fired power plant. Maritime trade, a crucial component to every economy, still uses a huge amount of fossil fuels everyday. The globalists in Washington, London, and Berlin have painted themselves into a corner. For the first time in a long time, the music is going to stop and it will be the globalists who won’t have a chair to sit in.

This explains the alarmism, the decisive rhetoric, and the building of consensus for the sake of consensus. It’s clear that the West needs the climate change dialectic to work, otherwise Russia and China win the soft power game with their lucrative offers of oil exploitation and the eclipse of the petrodollar. Therefore, geopolitics demands that the “climate denier” be done away with, and the rhetoric is cranked up to the max setting. The very term “denier” denotes either a mental problem or ulterior motives, suggesting a lack of virtue or a lack or morality on those given the epithet. It’s a shaming tactic, and it is not scientific in any way as science has always valued a plurality of ideas. All of the shaming, intellectual bullyism, and mind games have the opposite of their intended effect. Rather than acquiescing, people have become suspicious and combative. And for good reason, in my opinion. Will climate change denial spread like a contagion in Europe? I seriously doubt it, but the response of the Western elites have shown just how desperate and out of touch they have become. Their only option is to spread divisive rhetoric in order to divide and obfuscate the argument, and hold what little ground they still have.

 

 

 

US Military Bases Facing Expulsion, Has Trilateral Foreign Policy Failed?

Make no mistake, I love America. Even with all of our selfie sticks and deep-fried twinkies, I love this country. But I have to give credit where credit is due, and I have to seriously consider if Russia, and Putin in particular, has bested this country in the realm of geopolitics, for now. The petrodollar hegemony is under siege, GMO’s and trade deals are being rejected, the EU is in danger of disintegration, and our allies are turning to Russia. One of those allies is Japan, who has recently invested in the Russian oil project in the Irkutsk region of Eastern Siberia. Wary of an aggressive China, Japan has recently set off on a course of rearmament and military revival, rather than relying on the US as a guarantor of protection. Relations between the US and Japanese Okinawa have soured to the point that the US has agreed to move its base to a remote location, away from a local populace deeply angered over a history of criminal conduct involving members of the US military. The US wore out its welcome in Okinawa.

Abe, U.S. commander agree to carry out defense guidelines in steady manner

Due to a severe backlash against the refugee and migrant policy in the EU, which may have been the primary cause of the Brexit referendum, Turkey and its president, Recep Erdogan, were forced to capitulate to the Russians and end their effort to remove Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria. With the possibility that much of Europe could severely limit the amount of migrants and refugees entering their countries, Erdogan was facing the grave scenario of Syrian war refugees entering Turkey for asylum and having nowhere else to go. A massive influx of refugees staying in rather than passing through Turkey would have severe economic, political and social ramifications. Very shortly after Erdogan’s reversal of policy, a (possibly rushed) coup attempt failed to unseat him. Officially blaming the US, power to the Incirlik Air Base and thousands of US Airmen was cut off and no flights were allowed to take off from the base for two days. Last night, thousands of Turkish police officers have surrounded the base for a “security check” after local police were told of a second coup attempt. Nothing was found, but it is clear that the base, and the US, is no longer welcome in Turkey.

Report: 7,000 Turkish forces surrounded Incirlik air base overnight

US military bases are crucial to the projection of American power. With the ability to quickly form a military response, the US is able to establish and enforce treaties and agreements, protect allies, and deter rivals. When local opinion turns against the US, the military base and its inhabitants are often the first target of protests and enmity. The situations in Turkey and Japan, and the fact that this scenario is no longer an isolated incident, suggests that the foreign policy of the current administration has performed poorly.

The Obama administration belongs to the Trilateral Commission school of thought, with Zbigniew Brzezinski being the expert on foreign policy and a key founder of the group. There are clear parallels between current policy and Brzezinki’s policy during the Carter administration

• an aversion to unilateral policy and overt warfare
• a preference for covert armament and proxy wars, technological superiority and manipulation, and political and media pressure
• alliance building, support for the EU and control over Eurasia
• and most importantly, the abandonment of (Kissinger’s) balance of power strategy, as per Presidential Directive 18 on U.S. National Security, for a globalist, supranational hegemony led by Western financial elites, technocrats, and intelligence agencies.

Nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. – Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era, 1971

It should be noted that Brzezinski does not hold any official positions in the administration, and he has even criticized some of its decisions including the arming of rebels in Syria. Brzezinski even admitted that the US is “still the strongest, but we’re not necessarily the most respected or legitimate,” in 2014. This point, legitimacy and respect, is the linchpin of Brzezinski’s style of foreign policy, and the key failure of the Obama administration in implementing it. With the exposure of NSA surveillance, technological superiority and legitimacy are threatened. Due to unpopular economic policies and underhanded trade deals, our alliances and friendships are threatened. The policy of regime change, dubious support of “moderate” Muslim radicals in Syria, and drone warfare collateral damage degrades our reputation as a facilitator of peace.

There has been a schism in the leadership over these issues. Henry Kissinger, the purveyor of the balance of power strategy (AKA detente), has tacitly shown displeasure at the current state of affairs. In February, Kissinger met with Putin as the West was imposing sanctions and denouncing the Russian slow-mo invasion of the Ukraine. Kissinger even met with Donald Trump in May, answering Trump’s requests for help developing foreign policy.

Donald Trump to meet with Henry Kissinger, GOP’s foreign-policy eminence

“America first will be the overriding theme of my administration,” Trump said last month in a speech at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, where he also called globalism a “false song.”

 

Erdogan Ends War on Assad, Gets Toppled

Parts of the Turkish military have locked down Istanbul, deployed tanks and helicopters in the capital of Ankara, and are now seizing control of the country after Erdogan went on vacation to the beach.

Turkey coup attempt: Army group says in control

It’s not unusual for coups to take place while a dictator is away, but there is more to the picture and it has to do with Syria and the EU. Two days ago Erdogan reversed course completely on his policy towards Assad and Putin’s involvement in stabilizing the Syrian war. Yes, Erdogan was taking a lot of flak for his use of state-sponsored terrorism and aiding ISIS, but the shifting attitudes in Europe towards the flow of refugees and migrants from the area represents a major issue for Turkey.

The widespread criticism and rejection of the EU’s immigration and border policy was a, if not the, major factor of the Brexit referendum. With Italy now demanding the same reforms and threatening to leave otherwise, it’s clear the backlash could cause fewer refugees to be admitted into Europe in the future. As Turkey shares a border with Syria, that means that fewer refugees will be passing through Turkey and more will end up staying in the country instead. This will put considerable strain on Turkish politics, economy and infrastructure. Therefore, Erdogan’s best option was to end hostilities with Assad and help Russia stabilize Syria to stem the ride of refugees. Which is exactly what he did:

Shifting Allegiances: Did Turkey Just Give Up on Toppling Assad?

Which is exactly what America and the western powers didn’t want him to do. The Pentagon is dead set on Assad’s collapse, and have resisted any course of action that could lead to a stalemate with Assad still in power. The west, and in particular the EU, has also been trying to use Turkish oil pipelines to compete with Russia in the European oil market and fuel the oil glut that has hurt the Russian ruble. Now that Erdogan refuses to play ball, he’s on the menu.

Merkel’s Brexit Reprisals an Effort to Snuff Out a Contagion

As China is establishing their own economic union in the South China Sea, the economic union of Europe is still experiencing the aftershocks of the British referendum to leave. The EU’s response to the Brexit came from Angela Merkel:

Merkel throws down gauntlet to May: No free market access while curbing immigration

The immigration issue, particularly in relation to Middle Eastern refugees and migrants, was a major point of contention between the EU bureaucracy and British conservatives and possibly the royal family. The fact that Merkel continues to demand EU control over this policy is somewhat surprising considering that the Chancellor herself admitted that the immigration policies in contention undermined domestic security this past Monday. Other serious criticisms include loss of national sovereignty and rule by non-elected committees, but increasingly unpopular economic policies (and sanctions preventing trade with Russia in particular) are bringing the wealthier entrepreneurial classes into the dispute against the EU. The fact that many member nations are voicing identical grievances should be concerning as the Brexit could spur a contagion of new national referendums to leave. By withholding trade privileges from non-members, Merkel is attempting to establish additional consequences for leaving.

“We will make sure that negotiations will not be carried out as a cherry-picking exercise. There must be and there will be a palpable difference between those countries who want to be members of the European family and those who don’t,” [Merkel] said.

And those additional consequences may be necessary as Italy has rejected the renewal of the Russian sanctions that have affected the Italian economy as much as Russia. Italy’s pro-EU prime minister may be ousted in a fall referendum, and Italian ministers have stated that they will let the EU disintegrate further if there are no reforms.

‘The Unthinkable Is Happening’: Italy Demands EU Reform, Warns Over Full Collapse

Judging from Merkel’s reaction, the fall of the EU, albeit unlikely, is a very real possibility. If Italy leaves, you can expect other southern European nations to leave as well. Both Greece and Spain were subject to repressive austerity measures and both are major trade partners with Italy, and their departures could easily spell the end of the union. The Italians may have forced the EU into making a concession or two, but if we were to see it all come crashing down around the head of Merkel and the European bureaucrats, expect to see Germany picking up the pieces to start over again.