Russian experts have published four scenarios for the development of events in Ukraine. How will events develop in Donbass after the death of Motorola? Possible scenarios for the development of the situation in Ukraine
Illustration copyright RIA Novosti Image caption Alexander Zakharchenko (left) called the death of his “close friend” a challenge to the entire DPR
On Sunday, an improvised explosive device, also known under the call sign Motorola, exploded in the Donbass.
An explosive device went off near the elevator of the building where Motorola lived. The leader of the self-proclaimed "DPR" Alexander Zakharchenko called the death of the field commander "a challenge to the entire republic."
The BBC asked experts how events in eastern Ukraine might develop after Zakharchenko’s harsh statements, who regarded the murder of his “close friend” as a declaration of war by Kiev and threatened to avenge the death of his ally.
Roman Bessmertny, former representative of Ukraine in the Minsk trilateral contact group to resolve the crisis in Donbass:
To evaluate the statements of Alexander Zakharchenko, you need to clearly understand who he is. His reaction to events depends on how the Kremlin reacts to it. Therefore, the latest statements by the leader of the “DPR” only mean that these were the instructions from the Kremlin.
The murder of Motorola is most likely a consequence of the showdown that continues in the so-called “DPR-LPR”. Recently, the “Donetsk” began to interfere in the affairs of the “Lugansk”. In addition, Moscow is trying to restore at least some control over financial flows in this “gray zone”, which is the territory of the self-proclaimed republics. I think that here we should look for the answer to the question of the reasons for the death of Motorola.
Brigade disputes there have been going on for a long time, because this is not the first murder that has been attributed to the “activities of Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups.” And this is not accidental. I think the situation will only worsen, since Moscow does not provide money for the maintenance of these ersatz formations, and they do not have their own resources.
An escalation or détente of the situation in Donbass can only be expected taking into account the corresponding plans of the Kremlin. If a command is received from there, then such steps will be taken. If not, then despite Zakharchenko’s statements, which, by the way, are not made for the first time, this will not happen.
Illustration copyright EPA Image caption Roman Bessmertny believes that the situation in Donbass will only worsenSpeaking about the consequences for the demarcation zone, for the Minsk process, we should talk about a much broader context. Attempts to restore the effectiveness of the Normandy format have so far been unsuccessful. As a participant in the negotiations in Minsk, I can say that from the very beginning, neither the Russian side nor Donetsk and Lugansk had any intention of implementing the framework Minsk agreements. This "touchstone" failed from the very beginning.
Vyacheslav Gusarov, expert at the Center for Military-Political Studies (Kyiv):
I do not believe that the statements of the head of the so-called “DPR” Alexander Zakharchenko and other representatives of the self-proclaimed “republics” about revenge should be taken seriously. The leader of the “DPR” must somehow react to the murder of Motorola and scare Ukraine. But he is not an independent figure, and whoever was in his place would say the same thing.
I would pay attention to the statements made recently by Russian President Vladimir Putin. That Russia is ready to help Ukraine bring its economy out of “degradation.” And also that the Russian economy will help revive the Ukrainian military-industrial complex.
Somehow the statements of Putin and Zakharchenko do not fit at all.
The Kremlin has completely different intentions and goals. This is the implementation of "hybrid war". Russia has launched an information campaign aimed at reconciliation with Ukraine, pursuing a specific goal: not to finally leave it alone, but to take it under its influence, in a kind of “soft power” way. And armed escalation is no longer included in these plans.
Alexander Golts, military columnist for The New Times magazine:
Those who want war may well use this [the death of Arseny Pavlov, known under the call sign Motorola - BBC] as a reason. I think that on both sides of the front there are people who would like, based on their personal interests, to continue this conflict. As we understand, there are uncontrollable forces on both sides.
The question is whether the members of the Normandy Four have enough tools and will to stop this development. As we know, yesterday Russian President Vladimir Putin - coincidentally - spoke on this topic [peaceful settlement in eastern Ukraine - BBC], and did not express much enthusiasm.
Arkady Dubnov, political scientist, expert on CIS countries:
When commenting on this situation, one has to be extremely cynical. So, in my opinion, the liquidation of the most famous militant or field commander of the Donetsk separatist movement that happened yesterday is beneficial to everyone. First of all, it is beneficial to Moscow, as well as Kyiv, and Donetsk and Lugansk.
I proceed from simple conspiracy, political logic. The movement to return to the “Normandy format,” which they are again trying to revive, presupposes certain concessions from both Moscow and Kyiv. But making these concessions for a number of reasons is very difficult for both Moscow and Kyiv. The most in a simple way[to solve this diplomatic problem] would be to explain to the city and the world that it is not the fault of these two opposing sides that the Normandy format is not working again. Like, something third is happening and it’s supposedly not their fault.
[Leader of the self-proclaimed DPR Alexander] Zakharchenko commented on the liquidation of Motorola extremely transparently. Astonishingly simple, like a brand new penny coin, he immediately found the person responsible for the murder of Motorola and blamed Kyiv for it.
And then everything is very simple. Zakharchenko promises universal revenge. Kyiv cannot leave this unanswered. Even if [Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko himself turns a deaf ear to this, Ukrainian radicals will answer for him. And in the worst case scenario, some kind of military escalation is quite possible. This means that the “Normandy format” is being put aside again.
And the figure of Motorola itself is no longer interesting to anyone. All field commanders are slowly being shot.
Andrew Foxall, director of the Center for Russian Studies at the Henry Jackson Society think tank
First of all, the murder of Motorola is not the first murder of a separatist field commander. In recent years, there has been a whole series of such murders; several well-known commanders died in explosions. An example is the murder of Alexey Mozgovoy in May 2015. Like the Motorola murder, it was widely discussed as a possible crucial moment in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The separatists' response to Motorola's murder was quite aggressive. As you know, Alexander Zakharchenko, the leader of the Donetsk rebels, accused Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of violating the truce associated with the Minsk agreements and declaring war on representatives of the separatists in eastern Ukraine.
It seems to me that it is unlikely that Zakharchenko’s comments will lead to real action. His response, like that of other separatists - their leaders or movements - is aggressive, but, it seems to me, it is designed to hide their real doubts about their own safety, about the safety of other separatists and about the security of the territories they control.
For example, if Motorola can be killed in his own home using an explosive device with remote control- which means it seems that no one can feel protected, and any other separatist leader could be killed in exactly the same way.
And the reaction from both the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics was a reaction not only to the murder of Motorola, but also to the murder of other well-known separatist leaders. It is intended to demonstrate an aggressive attitude towards Ukraine, towards Kyiv and, in particular, towards President Petro Poroshenko.
But in reality, given the fact that Last year Since several well-known separatists have already been killed, it is now more logical for the leaders of the separatists and the formations controlling Donetsk and Lugansk to spend more time ensuring their own security than making similar statements about Kyiv and Ukraine.
It is more logical for them to try to stay alive in order to be able to be at least somehow useful to Moscow, rather than making meaningless accusations against Kyiv because of what it did or did not do.
Like the others killed, Motorola was not just a person, but in some way a symbol for the pro-Russian rebels. Of course, he was the leader of the Sparta battalion, he participated in a large-scale offensive against the Ukrainian government forces, and let’s not forget about his role in the battles for the Donetsk airport.
But he is still only one of the famous separatist warlords killed in recent years.
True, if previously, in most cases, friends, colleagues and relatives of the killed blamed other separatists or Russian special services for their deaths, then Zakharchenko accused Kyiv of trying to kill Motorola back in June. Then the explosion occurred near the hospital where Motorola was being treated. Now the separatists place responsibility on the Ukrainian special services, on Ukrainian saboteurs, and on pro-Ukrainian citizens.
But what's interesting about the Motorola case is that there are also statements from a little-known group, the so-called "Misanthrope Division" - an allegedly neo-Nazi group that claims responsibility for what happened. I would recommend treating these statements with extreme caution. And I don't think that, at its core, the propaganda surrounding the murder of Motorola is significantly different from the propaganda surrounding the murders of all other known separatists.
The winner of the TV show “Battle of Psychics” Alexander Litvin offers his vision of how events will develop in Russia and in the world as a whole next 2018.
Let us clarify that the forecast of this researcher is very interesting because Litvin is not just a psychic and an astrologer, he is a talented scientist who has developed his own original system of intuitive perception peace of mind. Businessman, lawyer, historian, physician, chemist, physicist, biologist, politician - this person, possessing a huge amount of knowledge and cosmic energy, has long surprised the world with his accurate forecasts .
Politics
Russia is on the verge of big changes for the better. They were prepared in previous years, but only in 2018 many interesting and fundamental laws will come into force. Unfortunately, problems in foreign policy cannot be ruled out, including possible military conflicts, although in the Third World War, about which there has been so much talk lately, this is by no means the case ae will not spill out.
Economy
An economic crisis awaits almost all countries of Western Europe, and the USA is a real disaster. Only India and China will prosper in the world next year. As for Russia, it will remain afloat, and its economic recovery directly depends on the unity of the people, but not on the merits of the leader whom we will elect in March. next year
Society
The Year of the Yellow Earth Dog is interesting because this is a time of transformation of civil consciousness, and therefore in 2018 all the falsehood of Russian officials and businessmen will appear in full how beautiful,” and therefore they will fail both local, small, and large-scale deceptions. Such a “cleansing” of Russian society will manifest itself especially clearly in the second half of the year. Russian society will begin to change radically, people will realize their mistakes and begin to work on them. But success will again depend on the diligence and integrity of everyone, and not on who will occupy the presidential chair
Russia and Ukraine
The coming year as a whole will be favorable for Ukraine, in which a coup d'état will take place and pro-Russian forces will come to power. This will bring long-awaited positive changes to the country, and will also reconcile Ukraine with Russia. Although the beginning of 2018 will most likely be marked by an intensification of military actions with the aim of capturing the DHP and LHP republics by the current leadership of the country.
Chaos in the world and light in the soul
The world, according to Alexander Litvinov, is increasingly plunging into chaos. In this case, every person must find the strength to ignite the light of love and kindness in their soul. This will be salvation for him and his family, his immediate environment. And if the Russian people follow this advice, then Russia as a whole will soon rise from its past obscurantism and nightmare, and 2018 will be for it the time of awakening - awareness and great enlightenment...
Last night my friend Giulietto Chiesa visited me.
Naturally, we talked about a lot of things. Now there is only one story.
What is the goal of this government (and indeed all Western European governments)? Since no American president can announce to Americans that from now on their incomes will not grow, but only fall, compensating mechanisms must be found. One of them is to reduce all types of social spending in the EU countries. To do this, gradually, one after another, EU countries will be brought to bankruptcy. After which they will be imposed the same programs that have already been adopted in Greece and Italy.
The announced prospect of such an austerity regime is future economic growth. But this cannot happen, since salaries, pensions, all social benefits, etc. will be reduced. Accordingly, demand will fall. Therefore, there can be no economic recovery.
Sooner or later, large-scale social protests will begin in the EU countries - unrest, strikes, riots, etc.
Ultimately, there is only one way out - war. Not as a panacea, but as a distraction. The main target for today is Iran. Which, of course, will answer. But for the medium term this will be enough.
I repeat - I am reproducing the logic of the development of events that Giulietto Chiesa outlined to me.
Here are some of the audit results that became known in the summer of 2011 and were shocking to members of Congress and all those who read the audit report.
Between December 2007 and June 2010, the Fed issued $16 trillion in loans. These transactions were not reflected in the Federal Reserve's balance sheets or other official financial statements. Consequently, the operations were secret. To understand the scale of the operations, note that the US gross domestic product last year was about 14 trillion. dollars, and the total US national debt today is estimated at 14.5 trillion. dollars.
Extradition decisions were made without the consent of the US President, Congress or the US government. The country's leaders were not even informed about these operations.
Almost all the money went to buy out the so-called “toxic” assets of borrowers. In other words, the secret emission of dollars was carried out against papers representing ordinary waste paper (we speak figuratively: often “assets” turned out to be electronic records that have nothing to do with the material world). The "theory" means that the "assets" will eventually be bought back by the debtors from the Federal Reserve, and the giant money supply of 16 billion will eventually be cancelled. This is in "theory". But in practice, not a single dollar, not a single cent of the debt has yet been repaid. Yes, no one is going to pay off debts.
Now comes the fun part. Who was the money distributed to? They dispersed to various private banking and financial institutions. The Fed bailed out financial crooks with their toxic assets - both in America and in all parts of the world. As a result of the audit, all the main banks close to the global financial elite were actually “exposed”, through which the “blood” of the economy - money - enters the circulation channels of all countries of the world. The Fed is the top floor of the global financial system, and the banks that receive Fed loans are the second floor. Other floors follow. Russian banks are located somewhere at the very bottom of this financial pyramid or tower (one might even say - in the basement). Here is a list of those who are close to the Fed (the amount of Fed loans received in parentheses, billion dollars):
Citigroup (2500); Morgan Staley (2004); Merrill Lynch (1949); Bank of America (1344); Barclays PLC (868); Bear Sterns (853); Goldman Sachs (814); Royal Bank of Scotland (541); JP Morgan (391); Deutsche Bank (354); Credit Swiss (262); UBS (287); Leman Brothers (183); Bank of Scotland (181); BNP Paribas (175).
Saved
If there is war tomorrow... How will events develop in the event of a direct clash with Turkey?
When, in my distant childhood, I served in military service in the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR, on the predecessor of the "Topol" and "Yars" mobile missile complex medium-range RSD-10 “Pioneer” (SS-20, according to NATO classification), we had three types of combat readiness:
- “constant”, when the duty crews are in the barracks, ready for twenty minutes to go to the field area;
- “military danger”, when the duty crews are in a stationary position, directly in the equipment, in immediate readiness to enter the field area;
- “full”, when the regiment secretly deployed in the field area, which increased its chances of surviving the first enemy strike.
At the same time, the regiment managed to launch its missiles in any case, since the installations of the launch divisions (regardless of the location and level of combat readiness) were in constant readiness for launch, which, according to the standards, was carried out within 2 minutes (flight time of the Pershings and “Tomahawks” lasted 5-6 minutes), but in reality, 40 seconds was enough for the prepared calculations.
That is, the increase in the level of combat readiness was carried out not in order to have time to respond (they had time in any case), but in order to increase the chances of their own units to survive by deploying them in advance battle formations. Let me remind you that one of the main reasons (although not the only one) of the Soviet defeats in the summer of 1941 was that the enemy forestalled the Soviet command with operational deployment. The result was lost border battles, the loss of thousands of units of equipment (not inferior to German in quality and superior in quantity), as well as almost the entire personnel of the Red Army and a retreat thousands of kilometers deep into the territory.
The army and the country must be ready for war even at a time when there seems to be no one to fight with. Moreover, it is necessary to be prepared when a hybrid war with a geopolitical enemy has been going on for more than one year and at any moment a hot conflict can break out with several neighbors, who are carefully pushed to war with us by that same geopolitical enemy.
I have already written that all the conflicts in which Russia is involved today, in one form or another, are interconnected. Until now, the fronts have intensified in turn: Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, Syria again. But now we have come to a radical turning point.
Türkiye, having shot down a Russian bomber in the skies of Syria, found itself in a strategic trap. If it accepts the current state of affairs, with the Syrian sky closed to it and the border closing, then the Erdogan regime is losing the geopolitical game it started a decade ago. Ankara, which laid claim to the first role in the Middle East and almost to recreate (in a new format Ottoman Empire) even loses its status as a regional power.
At the same time, we must understand that Erdogan has an extremely difficult domestic political situation. To put it mildly, a significant part of the Turkish elite does not like him. The extent to which the purges he carried out in the army protected him from traditional Turkish surprises with the military is also not clear. In any case, the military does not need a weak (losing) leader. Meanwhile, politicians who lost the political struggle in Turkey were hanged back in the seventies. And much less stained with blood than Erdogan.
The concentration of Turkish troops on the Syrian border (albeit under the plausible pretext of fighting ISIS at the request of the United States), in the context of confrontation with Russia, creates conditions for a sudden escalation (which may even be accidental, or may masquerade as accidental). In any case, for Erdogan now war is a preferable solution than retreat under Russian pressure. This is even without taking into account the Kurdish factor, which is an additional irritant for Turkey.
In the war, he can count on the hidden (and not so hidden) support of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The war gives him the opportunity to not disguise his alliance with ISIS. He may try to stimulate the defrosting of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and, in principle, play to destabilize the Caucasus.
Of course, the war will also stimulate the consolidation of the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance and, perhaps, even the formalization of relations with the Kurds. But, on the other hand, it will require certainty from NATO as well. Yes, Greece has dreamed all its life of fighting with Turkey, and not with Russia. Yes, in the Balkans, in principle, pro-Russian sentiments are strong and, taking all this into account, NATO cannot take the side of Turkey. But in the event of a military conflict between a NATO member and Russia, against which the bloc has always been directed, NATO will not be able to remain silent (then the Alliance will lose its raison d’être). A compromise option could be attempts at peacekeeping on behalf of the EU and NATO, under the threat of increasing sanctions and even providing military-technical assistance to Turkey (without engaging in direct military action on its side).
The West (USA and EU) will have an ideal opportunity, during mediation during negotiations, to win back positions in the Middle East that were lost during fruitless attempts to remove Assad by military means.
It is clear that if politicians in the Caucasus are quite cautious and will be wary of getting involved in an open conflict with Russia over Turkey even under US guarantees (they know the value of these guarantees well), then the situation for Ukrainian leaders is even worse than Erdogan’s. The Minsk process has already led to the isolation of Ukraine from the leading EU countries, to the loss of financial support from the West, without which the country cannot live even a year. The frozen conflict in the Donbass against the backdrop of the complete collapse of the economy and the impoverishment of the broad masses made Poroshenko, the Yatsenyuk government and even the Rada, consisting of one-third “heroes of the Maidan” and “heroes of the ATO”, hated not only by Nazi militants (who always believed that the overthrow of Yanukovych was only the first stage of their Nazi revolution), but also for the liberal-European integration mass of “creative” hamsters of the Maidan, who are already ready to merge in ecstasy with the Nazis in the rebellion against Poroshenko, as they recently merged with them in the rebellion against Yanukovych.
Of course, such a rebellion will finish off Ukraine. But this does not make it any easier for Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk, since he will finish them off first. The only way to push back the danger of a rebellion is to intensify hostilities in the Donbass. In fact, break the Minsk truce and start new war.
Until now, Kyiv was restrained only by the danger of instant military defeat, with the complete indifference of the West (Paris and Berlin were quite clearly opposed to violating the Minsk agreements). But, if you enter into a conflict simultaneously with Turkey, as a military ally of Erdogan, then you can count on being stretched out on all fronts Russian forces They won’t finish off Ukraine fast enough. Moreover, Russia may not immediately translate civil war in Ukraine into the format of an interstate conflict, and the Donbass militia is not capable of a deep breakthrough to Kyiv due to sufficient numbers. Kyiv can count on becoming, along with Turkey, an object of Euro-American peacekeeping. In the end, Ankara and Kyiv can only guess about Moscow’s plans, but they are confident that Washington, which is losing along with them, will bless any provocation against Russia and will try to use this factor in its own interests.
During the new stage of the war in Donbass, Poroshenko will try to dispose of another part of the Nazi formations and weaken the rest as much as possible. Then, in the course of Western peacekeeping, exchange part of the territories (even if not two, but three or five regions) for peace guaranteed by NATO. This is his long-time dream. Moreover, he already needs and will need NATO peacekeepers not to attack lost territories (NATO will not fight Russia because of him), but to protect power from the Ukrainian Nazis, to disarm their gangs and stabilize the regime.
In this regard, a simultaneous or close-in-time attack by Turkey and Ukraine in the form of a series of increasing provocations that quickly turn into open hostilities is not only very likely, but is perhaps the only way for the political survival of the regimes and the physical survival of their leaders.
Note that for Russia, the activation of Ukraine will mean a threat to rear communications, which ensure not only communication with the contingent in Syria, but also deployment against Turkey (including for the purpose of protecting the Caucasus). Serious forces, including naval forces, will be tied up in guarding Crimea and ensuring communications with Transnistria, in case Kyiv decides to become more active in this direction (in order to drag Moldova into the conflict, and through it Romania, another NATO country).
Hence the consequence - it is necessary to be prepared for a new war in Donbass, which will take place in the context of the opening of a second front by Turkey or, at least, the presence of a constant threat from Turkish groups deployed on the border with Syria.
Well, a war, especially a war with several opponents, in the most difficult geopolitical conditions, requires unconditional unity of command. Until now, unity of command in the Donbass was ensured by the fact that various Russian departments that oversaw the processes taking place there focused on the president through their leaders. Putin received reports from the political vertical, the security vertical, the intelligence vertical, the army vertical, the Ministry of Emergency Situations vertical, as well as from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. and, if necessary, coordinated their actions.
The transition of Russian participation in the Syrian crisis from the political to the military phase, of course, required additional attention from the president, but, nevertheless, the operation in Syria was carried out in the format of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff, that is, it did not go beyond normal coordination.
If these two conflicts go into the phase of open war with the participation of Russia (for now these are formally civil conflicts), and even with the danger of involving new states (both on one side and the other), as well as with a sharp increase in military-political and diplomatic activity of the West, a new level of coordination will be required from the president. He will be too fully involved in the operational geopolitical game to quickly resolve issues of coordinating the actions of various departments in narrow areas. In the same Donbass and in the same Syria (where the number of Russian departments involved will sharply increase, and the operation itself will lose its predominantly military character, due to a sharp increase in its political and diplomatic component).
Under these conditions, there is a need to create an intermediate level of coordination. When in the Donbass, Syria (as well as in any other place where a new crisis with Russian participation arises), the coordination of the actions of different departments will drop to one level (from the presidential level). To give an example, this is something like the representatives of the Headquarters on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. They coordinated the actions of several fronts involved in parallel operations, and their actions were coordinated by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
The only difference is that now the main efforts are concentrated on political fronts. The war is hybrid; we are still “partners” with the main enemy. Consequently, coordination is primarily political.
In particular, it is clear that if Ukraine and Turkey act simultaneously or almost simultaneously, then our main task will be to eliminate the eventual threat to the deep rear from Ukraine. Considering the danger of disinterested Western peacekeeping, it is necessary to eliminate the Ukrainian threat militarily in a matter of days, or at most a week. Roughly speaking, it is not so important what identification marks will be on the soldiers who entered Lviv (even if there are no such marks at all - what can you take from the militias). The main thing is that they get in there.
But the process of political settlement (after the military phase) will be long and will stretch (as I wrote about it back in 2014) for more than one year. Just look at how difficult it was to bring Donbass into a state at least close to normal in two years. And here we'll talk about the whole of Ukraine, which is also filled to capacity with bandits and weapons and with a far from friendly population living compactly over large territories.
Moreover, now it’s too late to argue whether we need Galicia or not - we need to secure the rear of the Syrian operation from the Ukrainian authorities, who need the war like air (in conditions where the danger of Turkey’s attack is extremely high). And sitting on any piece of the remaining Ukrainian territory, the current government will claim the right to represent all of Ukraine (even Crimea).
The armed forces can only quickly defeat the army. Further, without prejudging the results of the final political settlement, it is necessary to create an administration (possibly in the form of several, connected in a weak confederation of people’s republics, possible in the form of a single central provisional government, possible in the form of several, not related friend with a friend of the regional administrations). It is not advisable to have only the occupying Russian administration there, since the Vienna and Geneva conventions prescribe that the occupying state bears responsibility for the population of the occupied territory, and this is such a breakthrough that it is easier to fight Turkey, Saudi Arabia and half of Europe at once than to support Ukraine alone.
However, since only the most naive of former Ukrainian leaders assume that Russia will liberate Ukraine so that they can govern it as before, in fact the Ukrainian elites have demonstrated a complete inability to work independently, control over the territory must be maintained regardless of the formally legalized system there management. Since there is experience in Donbass (government through local representatives, from whom slowly, through trial and error, a new elite is formed that is loyal, adequate to the tasks and capable of responding to a rapidly changing situation), the easiest way is to transfer it to the whole of Ukraine.
The sharp increase in geopolitical tasks requires informal political centralization of the management of controlled territories. Approximately, they should be managed according to the format of the federal district. And it is worth working out this scheme now based on the experience of the two republics, since tomorrow political headquarters will have to be set up on wheels, in an undeveloped structure and in a format not provided with the necessary resources.
Since the Ukrainian crisis is far from the last where, after a military settlement, informal schemes of political control will have to be applied, working out a “pilot project” on it can significantly make life easier in the future. In the end, a well-functioning army or front headquarters doesn’t care whether it takes Berlin or Harbin - it just needs to allocate troops and divide up the tasks.
Last night my friend Giulietto Chiesa visited me.
Naturally, we talked about a lot of things. Now there is only one story.
What is the goal of this government (and indeed all Western European governments)? Since no American president can announce to Americans that from now on their incomes will not grow, but only fall, compensating mechanisms must be found. One of them is to reduce all types of social spending in the EU countries. To do this, gradually, one after another, EU countries will be brought to bankruptcy. After which they will be imposed the same programs that have already been adopted in Greece and Italy.
The announced prospect of such an austerity regime is future economic growth. But this cannot happen, since salaries, pensions, all social benefits, etc. will be reduced. Accordingly, demand will fall. Therefore, there can be no economic recovery.
Sooner or later, large-scale social protests will begin in the EU countries - unrest, strikes, riots, etc.
Ultimately, there is only one way out - war. Not as a panacea, but as a distraction. The main target for today is Iran. Which, of course, will answer. But for the medium term this will be enough.
I repeat - I am reproducing the logic of the development of events that Giulietto Chiesa outlined to me.
Here are some of the audit results that became known in the summer of 2011 and were shocking to members of Congress and all those who read the audit report.
Between December 2007 and June 2010, the Fed issued $16 trillion in loans. These transactions were not reflected in the Federal Reserve's balance sheets or other official financial statements. Consequently, the operations were secret. To understand the scale of the operations, note that the US gross domestic product last year was about 14 trillion. dollars, and the total US national debt today is estimated at 14.5 trillion. dollars.
Extradition decisions were made without the consent of the US President, Congress or the US government. The country's leaders were not even informed about these operations.
Almost all the money went to buy out the so-called “toxic” assets of borrowers. In other words, the secret emission of dollars was carried out against papers representing ordinary waste paper (we speak figuratively: often “assets” turned out to be electronic records that have nothing to do with the material world). The "theory" means that the "assets" will eventually be bought back by the debtors from the Federal Reserve, and the giant money supply of 16 billion will eventually be cancelled. This is in "theory". But in practice, not a single dollar, not a single cent of the debt has yet been repaid. Yes, no one is going to pay off debts.
Now comes the fun part. Who was the money distributed to? They dispersed to various private banking and financial institutions. The Fed bailed out financial crooks with their toxic assets - both in America and in all parts of the world. As a result of the audit, all the main banks close to the global financial elite were actually “exposed”, through which the “blood” of the economy - money - enters the circulation channels of all countries of the world. The Fed is the top floor of the global financial system, and the banks that receive Fed loans are the second floor. Other floors follow. Russian banks are located somewhere at the very bottom of this financial pyramid or tower (one might even say - in the basement). Here is a list of those who are close to the Fed (the amount of Fed loans received in parentheses, billion dollars):
Citigroup (2500); Morgan Staley (2004); Merrill Lynch (1949); Bank of America (1344); Barclays PLC (868); Bear Sterns (853); Goldman Sachs (814); Royal Bank of Scotland (541); JP Morgan (391); Deutsche Bank (354); Credit Swiss (262); UBS (287); Leman Brothers (183); Bank of Scotland (181); BNP Paribas (175).
