Veil Of Politics
DW: The situation in Ukraine is very volatile and has gotten increasingly violent over the last few days. Do you fear an outright civil war in the country?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: I think that is in fact threatening Ukraine. But I still am of the view that this issue can be resolved by compromise provided that the there is a firm stance by the West, provided that Yanukovych is willing to negotiate in good faith and provided that Putin realizes that it’s in Russia’s long-term interest to have this issue resolved by compromise. I am not sure that all three of these three conditions can be met and it increasingly appears that Yanukovych is altogether unreliable.
Zbigniew Brzezinski gives a lecture in ‘general terms’ in his home country of Poland 2012.
“We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans by candidates who appear out of nowhere, have no track record, but mouth appealing slogans”
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance [NSA] over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
“It is easier to kill one million people, than it is to control them.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski
Very interesting train of subject matter by Zbigniew. He is measuring ‘totalitarianism’ vs ‘freedom’ referencing ‘citizens’ as ‘ignorant’ that are ‘uncoordinated’. IOWs ~ To address ‘citizens’ or ‘public’ in this diminutive way, clearly reveals that he is using the barometer of ‘totalitarianism’ as the elite narcissistic motive form.
What do you make of Yanukovych’s role in this crisis so far? Do you think he can remain in office?
I think it’s increasingly doubtful. In the beginning one might have considered some arrangement that would involve him staying in as president for at least a while until the situation settles down and genuinely democratic elections for a president with fewer powers can be held. He appears to be either cowardly or indecisive or deceitful.
Couldn’t he simply alleviate the situation by stepping down now?
That would certainly be helpful. But I imagine that he is not only concerned about his position as president, but also about the personal wealth that he has acquired while in office and his son has also acquired since Yanukovych became president.
The West, that is the US and the EU, has been divided over how to deal with the situation in Ukraine. What is your sense of the West’s actions so far?
So far it has not been very impressive. It was slow to react to the sudden change in Yanukovych’s stance several months ago. It then didn’t step forward with any specific and immediate proposals to deal with the deepening socio-economic crisis in the country.
Only in the last week or so has it generated a more visible engagement. And I think the West is now increasingly conscious of the fact that it has to have a meaningful financial package as well as a clearly defined set of political objectives that give Ukraine the opportunity to remain a good neighbor to Russia, but at the same time expand its relationship with Europe; and that America itself can reassure Russia that a Ukraine that has freedom of movement towards Europe does not mean a Ukraine that becomes part of coalition that threatens Russia’s interests; and last but not least, that if Russia is not prepared to accept this it will find itself confronted in all probability by an increasingly hostile, bitter and perhaps altogether explosive Ukraine.
There has been a lot of talk about sanctions against Ukraine and the EU has just now agreed on sanctions against those responsible for the escalation of violence. Are you for or against sanctions against Ukraine?
I am neither for nor against sanctions by which I mean I would not make sanctions the principle tool of our policy which I have outlined in answering your last question. But I would not avoid applying sanctions against particular individuals who have financially benefitted from access to the West, but who are playing a negative role both in Ukraine and in Russia.
Let’s talk about the West a bit more. Has the Obama administration done enough in this crisis in your opinion?
It has been very slow, but it is doing much more now. It is becoming very seriously engaged. The United States has to be engaged indirectly in the negotiations between the EU and the Ukraine and much more directly on a bilateral basis in discussing the issue with the Russians, although the EU may wish to be engaged in these discussions as well.
But to the Russians in the long run a stable relationship with America which doesn’t slide into an increasing cold war negativism is of direct interest, as it should be to us as well.
Putin should be mindful of the fact that his support for Yanukovych – whom the Russian press increasingly describes as a totally unreliable crook – is not in Russia’s long-term interest because he is going to create in Ukraine a widespread anti-Russian sentiment, maybe not among all, but certainly among the majority of Ukrainians. And that is not in Russia’s interest.
Do you hope that Russia and Mr. Putin press Yanukovych to step down?
I think that would be a very healthy contribution and that would enable Putin, indirectly of course, to influence who would replace him. Not all of the oppositionists – probably at this stage most of the responsible oppositionists are not anti-Russian. But these events, clearly occurring under Russia’s protection, are likely to turn the Ukrainians into very intensely anti-Russian nationalists.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Monday February 24, 2013:
“Today I see no legitimate Ukrainian partners for a dialogue. If people crossing Kyiv in black masks and Kalashnikov rifles are considered a government, it will be difficult for us to work with such a government,” he said, calling it “the result of a mutiny.”
What then do you see as the role of the EU, whose lack of engagement has been criticized very vocally recently by the US?
I am glad that the EU is actively involved and that prominent foreign ministers of some leading EU countries are in fact right now in Kyiv. <= Interesting admission right there right now.
But the bottom line is – and this is particularly pertinent to Germany – if the EU is to be serious, it has to put up some money. It’s very easy to talk about democracy and long-term cooperation, but the fact is that money is also needed right now to stabilize Ukraine. List of Eurozone Countries
But let me emphasize my key point. If we want a solution that’s constructive it has to be based on compromise. And I can envisage Ukraine evolving in the context of a constructive compromise into a country whose domestic and foreign policies will be somewhat similar to that of Finland.
You mentioned Germany’s role in the Ukraine crisis. What do you make of Berlin’s stance so far?
I think it’s good that Germany is involved, but I think that Germans have to take the lead in an area which they resent having to do so – which is putting up some money.
You cannot have a compromise for the present problem that is acceptable and constructive and which is good for the West as well as for Russia without some serious financial involvement by the EU.
And the fact is that Germany is the most prosperous and economically most successful member of the EU.
Zbigniew Brzezinski served as National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and is regarded as one of the preeminent US foreign policy scholars. He is currently professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.
The sociopath’s military: CIA ~ pose as al-Qaeda, Mossad, & Muslim Brotherhood
A gold repatriation movement has sprung up in Finland just two weeks after such a movement arose in Poland:
The Finnish movement’s Internet site is here —
Gold is a strategically important asset and insurance for the country to use to ensure its currency system. During earlier currency crises, time after time gold has been the tool used to stabilize the currency’s value.
This stabilization restores trust in the currency. It is impossible to print more gold as you do with paper money and this is why gold is a perfectly solid way to stop the currency system from collapsing.
Finland has 49.1 tons of gold. This national heritage is spread all over the world but mostly kept at the Bank of England. Most of Finland’s gold is kept outside of Finland.
Venezuela and Germany recently have made the decision to bring their gold back home and many other countries are seeing initiatives to do the same. This tells us that governments are getting ready for a currency crisis.
Germany is bringing back its gold assets kept in the United States, which will take approximately seven years. Why delivery should take so long has not been explained but it could be a sign of difficulties.
The Criminal Component:
The gold markets are leveraged so much that if all people who hold contract claims to gold decided to convert their contracts into physical gold, there would not be enough gold to go around. There are far more claims to gold than there is gold itself. If more governments decide to bring their gold back to home soil, the last ones to do so could end up empty-handed.
The only way for a country to use gold as insurance for its currency is if the gold is actually in its possession. When Finland’s gold is kept in Finland there will be no counter-party risk. When the gold is held in another country there will always be the risk of that country seizing the gold in case of an emergency. Gold is needed more than ever in case of an emergency.
The people of Finland have never been asked whether Finland should keep and hold its gold on its own. This is relevant now as the gold markets are changing significantly and the performance of currencies is unsure.
The Nordic state is battening down the hatches for a full-blown currency crisis as tensions in the eurozone mount and has said it will not tolerate further bail-out creep or fiscal union by stealth.
“We have to face openly the possibility of a euro-break up,” said Erkki Tuomioja, the country’s veteran foreign minister, one of six that make up the country’s coalition government.
“Our officials, like everybody else and like every general staff, have some sort of operational plan for any eventuality.”
Mr Tuomioja’s intervention is the bluntest warning to date by a senior eurozone minister. As he discussed the crisis, the minister had a copy of the Economist on his desk. It had a picture of Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, reading a fictitious report entitled “How to break up the euro”, with a caption: “Tempted, Angela?”
“This is what people are thinking about everywhere,” said Mr Tuomioja. “But there is a consensus that a eurozone break-up would cost more in the short-run or medium-run than managing the crisis.
“But let me add that the break-up of the euro does not mean the end of the European Union. It could make the EU function better,” he said, describing the dash for monetary union in the 1990s as a vaulting political leap in defiance of economic gravity.
Finland has emerged as the toughest member of the eurozone’s creditor bloc as it tries to hold together a motley coalition. It has insisted on collateral from both Greece and Spain in exchange for rescue loans.
The coalition government is on thin ice as voters peel away to euroskeptic parties. The True Finns shattered the political order in last year’s election with 19pc support. “Taxpayers here are extremely angry,” said Timo Soini, the True Finn leader.
“There are no rules on how to leave the euro but it is only a matter of time. Either the south or the north will break away because this currency straitjacket is causing misery for millions and destroying Europe’s future.”
“It is a total catastrophe. We are going to run out of money the way we are going. But nobody in Europe wants to be first to get out of the euro and take all the blame,” he said.
Like other member states, Finland has a veto that could be used to block any new bail-out measures. However, unlike some states, its parliament would have to approve each future measure of the eurozone rescue, including a full bail-out of Spain.
The issue of euro break-up may come to a head in October as EU-IMF Troika inspectors report back on Greek bail-out compliance. Pleas from Athens for two extra years to stretch out its austerity regime have run into fierce resistance from creditor powers.
“It is up to Greeks whether they want to stay in the euro,” said Mr Tuomioja. “We cannot force Greece out. We can cut off lending and that would lead to a default. Then we could speculate whether that would entail getting out of the euro.
Nobody knows if it could be contained,” he said. Mr Tuomioja said Finland would block attempts to strip the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) or bail-out fund of its senior status at the top of the credit ladder, a move that could greatly complicate efforts to lure investors back into Spanish and Italian bonds. “The ESM loans have priority. That is a red line for us. We are very concerned that the rules of the ESM seem to be changing.”
He voiced deep suspicion of plans by a “gang of four” EU insiders — including the European Central Bank’s Mario Draghi — to ensnare member states into some form of fiscal union. “I don’t trust these people,” he said.
Mr Draghi said two weeks ago that the issue of seniority would be “addressed” as part of his twin-pronged plan for the ECB and ESM to buy bonds in concert. A number of EU leaders and officials claimed there had been a deal on the ESM’s seniority status at an EU summit in late June. Finland, Holland, and Germany all deny this.
The warnings on the ESM were echoed by Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, chairman of the Finnish parliament’s Grand Committee on Europe, who said bail-out fatigue is nearing its limit.
“Our law passed this summer says the ESM has the same priority as the IMF. There was a clear understanding on this. Any change would require a new law passed by the whole parliament, and this would be very difficult because the risks would be much higher.”
The issue of EU senior status has become an extremely sensitive one for markets after the ECB and EU creditors refused to share losses from Greece’s debt restructuring, in which pension funds, insurers, and banks lost 75pc.
Critics say the Greek deal set a fatal precedent, triggering further capital flight from Spain and Italy.
Mrs Kumpula-Natri said Finland can be pushed only so far. “There is a feeling on the street that there has to be a limit. I can’t say whether it is 10pc of GDP, or what. It’s not written. But it is obvious that a small country can’t help big countries eternally.”
The Banking Cabal Invented State Zionism (State Of Israel) Usurping Judaism's (Jew) Non-State Identity.
Just As They Invented Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Nationalism, Socialism, Usurping Other Nation State Identities For Economic Upheaval So As To Institute Centralization Of Money To Their Banks. End Of NWO Story!