Re: geopolitical machinations, Jon Rappoport nails it. Current example: Henry Kissinger’s unctuous advice to Ukraine.

If you read these posts in the order I present them, you might see the Kissinger piece in a strange, new light.

Ukraine: the end game

March 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

On one level, the struggle over the Ukraine is a deadly US/EU/Russian game of territory, involving governments, intelligence agencies, corporations, and banks.

But at a higher level, as usual, sit the elite Globalist players. And their motives are different. They see every conflict as an opportunity to negotiate the aftermath.

And that negotiation produces a codified structure of cooperation between the enemies that is larger than the previous structure.

For example, there were banks and corporations (Standard Oil, ITT, IBM, etc.) who were aiding both sides in WW2. And in the aftermath, a much larger market for goods (Europe-US) was created.

The US government, in its European rebuilding efforts, made sure of that.

Post WW2, Europe itself started on the road toward creating the current European Union, which is a vast bureaucracy that sits over the entire continent.

This is the Globalist principle: instigate conflicts, in order to build larger cooperative structures in the aftermath. And control those cooperative structures.

That way, you put more people, land, resources, and labor under the umbrella.

There is only one exception. If either of the conflicting parties, in the aftermath, refuses to build those cooperative bridges, the Globalist scheme doesn’t work.

So, vis-a-vis the Ukraine conflict, if Russia or the US, in the aftermath, says no to building new cooperative structures (either out in the open, or behind closed doors), that “defector” is now a Globalist target for further chaos and destabilization.

Until it relents and joins the Club.

Above the saber rattling and angry accusations, and characterizations of “a new Cold War,” Ukraine is a pawn in the Globalist game of bringing Russian and US power players into closer accord—kicking and screaming, if necessary.

In accord, but not in a good way. In a Globalist way.

Because the Globalist agenda is a planet of One Nation, where all borders are ultimately erased, and the ruling class of money and corporate power and political torque is enthroned.

This program is neither Left nor Right. It hides behind exacerbated conflict between Left and Right.

It engenders a reality in which Left vs. Right appears to be the only political game in town.

But it isn’t the only game.

You could call the Globalist agenda socialism, Communism, fascism, corporatism, liberal, conservative, and other names. And each one of those names would contain a kernel of truth. But in fact, Globalism is simply Control. From above. Period.

Yes, there must be certain issues on which the Left and Right disagree. There must be differences. And these issues must be hot. Hot enough to rally supporters who scream at each other across the barricades.

Because that is the kind of distraction Globalism needs to do its methodical work in secret.

If Ukraine follows the blueprint, at the end of the conflict, the US and Russia will be seething at each other. And then…a mediating figure will appear, perhaps from the Rockefeller camp.

And in a private meeting, he will say, “Boys, cool down. We have a plan. And in this plan, everybody wins. You’ll all go home with something. Look. Look at this. And this. And this.”

The peacemaker.

And then the new structure of cooperation will be larger than the previous structure.

And it will look good.

But the motive behind it will be: the taking of yet another step in the direction of welding together Planet Earth in one vast management system.

At the top of which sit the rulers.

As David Rockefeller wrote in his 2003 Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

How the Ukraine crisis ends

March 5, 2014

by Henry A. Kissinger

wapo

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.The Ukrainians are the decisive element.They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin andHitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

This entry was posted in 2014, unity consciousness, Uranus square Pluto, visions of the future, waking up, zone zero zero. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *