Mr. George Soros has weighed in on the growing implications of the Ukrainian mess - which he helped foster - for Europe. And this has to be truly read to comprehend the depth to which the current western finance elite has boxed itself into its own Matrix reality:
The heart of Mr. Soros' argument is - as usual - that Russia is all to blame for the mess in the Ukraine, and that the West has no blame, but was only responding to Russian aggression. But there is more in Mr. Soros' comments, and they have to be read carefully:
"Europe and the United States—each for its own reasons—are determined to avoid any direct military confrontation with Russia. Russia is taking advantage of their reluctance. Violating its treaty obligations, Russia has annexed Crimea and established separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. In August, when the recently installed government in Kiev threatened to win the low-level war in eastern Ukraine against separatist forces backed by Russia, President Putin invaded Ukraine with regular armed forces in violation of the Russian law that exempts conscripts from foreign service without their consent.
"In seventy-two hours these forces destroyed several hundred of Ukraine’s armored vehicles, a substantial portion of its fighting force. According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, the Russians used multiple launch rocket systems armed with cluster munitions and thermobaric warheads (an even more inhumane weapon that ought to be outlawed) with devastating effect.* The local militia from the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk suffered the brunt of the losses because they were communicating by cell phones and could thus easily be located and targeted by the Russians. President Putin has, so far, abided by a cease-fire agreement he concluded with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on September 5, but Putin retains the choice to continue the cease-fire as long as he finds it advantageous or to resume a full-scale assault."(Emphasis added)
Thermobaric warheads is another name for fuel air bombs, and in this one instance, Mr. Soros appears to be corroborating videos circulated on YouTube showing large explosions in the eastern Ukraine, with large blast waves and small mushroom clouds, which could be signatures of thermobaric weapons. And, for once, Mr. Soros is right: fuel air bombs can be made to be quite large, and pack the punch of small nuclear weapons, with none of the nasty radioactive aftereffects. With precision guidance, their small-scale "mass destruction capability" are a temptation to the powers that have them, to use them (and they are the "usual suspects"). We'll get back to this point in a moment.
Then follows a curious admission:
"In September, President Poroshenko visited Washington where he received an enthusiastic welcome from a joint session of Congress. He asked for “both lethal and nonlethal” defensive weapons in his speech. However, President Obama refused his request for Javelin hand-held missiles that could be used against advancing tanks. Poroshenko was given radar, but what use is it without missiles? European countries are equally reluctant to provide military assistance to Ukraine, fearing Russian retaliation. The Washington visit gave President Poroshenko a façade of support with little substance behind it.
"Equally disturbing has been the determination of official international leaders to withhold new financial commitments to Ukraine until after the October 26 election there (which will take place just after this issue goes to press). This has led to an avoidable pressure on Ukrainian currency reserves and raised the specter of a full-blown financial crisis in the country.
"There is now pressure from donors, whether in Europe or the US, to “bail in” the bondholders of Ukrainian sovereign debt, i.e., for bondholders to take losses on their investments as a precondition for further official assistance to Ukraine that would put more taxpayers’ money at risk. That would be an egregious error. The Ukrainian government strenuously opposes the proposal because it would put Ukraine into a technical default that would make it practically impossible for the private sector to refinance its debt. Bailing in private creditors would save very little money and it would make Ukraine entirely dependent on the official donors."
In other words, this is a tacit admission that the Ukraine has been caught in the vice-grip of Western "austerity", and that a de facto default is in store for that country, unless it caves in to the "private creditors" Mr. Soros mentions; shades of Argentina's problem. This backhanded admission is, in fact, also an admission that much of the Ukraine's problems are ultimately of the West's making, and if Mr. Putin has responded in kind by the annexation of the Crimean, or support for the Ukraine's eastern rebels, one must ask what world the western leadership was living in if they thought, irrationally, that he would do nothing?
Mr. Soros gets to the nub of his argument here, and it's here, precisely, that one confronts his credibility crisis, for his own role in NGOs and "color revolutions" is well known, after all, he has boasted of them (though with this article, it would appear that the boast is coming home to roost):
First, note how conveniently Mr. Soros has glossed over, or brushed aside, the fact that Yankovich, prior to his ouster by US organized "forces" -some of whom, as we have pointed out repeatedly, have clear connections to World War Two ultra-Fascist elements - accepted an agreement brokered by Mr. Putin, to avoid the harsh conditions being offered by the IMF and the West; Mr.Yankovich saw a better deal, and took it. But secondly, note that the real concern being voiced here is the need to keep NATO alive, and through it, the EU, thereby admitting in yet another backhanded fashion what many Europeans already suspect, namely, that their national sovereignty and even cultural identity is under threat by the EU, and that the EU is, in turn, nothing but a front for NATO and American-Wall Street interests. It is also worth noting that Mr. Soros conveniently glosses over - once again by omission - that solemn assurances were given to Mr. Gorbachev during the final days of the Soviet Union, that NATO would not be expanded eastward. Indeed, some could argue that this expansion has itself destabilized the region, leading to the current mess. And Mr. Soros, by his own admissions, has, like many other billionaire busybodies, contributed to the mess. In short, Mr. Soros, and the West, have a credibility problem, a point perhaps underscored by the refusal of the Obama administration to provide arms to the Ukrainians in response to their request for aid against the Russian "incursion" and alleged use of those thermobaric bombs. Indeed, we're given no evidence that those bombs were Russian, we're merely supposed to believe that they were on bare assertion. If there was such detailed, irrefutable evidence, then I am bold to suggest that the public uproar in Europe against their use on fellow Europeans by Russia would be a constant feature of public debate, even without behind-the-scenes corporate manipulation of the western media driving it. Indeed, if one thinks of this allegation from Russia's point of view, why would Russia use such terrible weapons before the court of world opinion, and in a region where their use could damage or kill as many innocent Russians as Ukrainians, and especially if such use could be proven or at least argued as a prima facie argument? Russia would have little to gain from doing so, for this would jeopardize its hard-won gains in European trade and in diplomacy with Europe. To put it succinctly, the stock of credibility of the west's diplomatic and military experts is now so low that nothing less than complete transparency regarding the Ukraine and whatever weapons the Russians are allegedly using there is undertaken, then I, for one, remain skeptical. It is just as easy for the West to use thermobaric bombs in the Ukraine, and blame it on Russia, as it is for Russia to do so itself, and it would not be the first time we've seen the use of false flags, and independent groups, to drive events in the Ukraine. In short, Mr. Soros, if no one now believes your carefully stated concerns, you have only yourself to blame. See you on the flip side... (My thanks to Mr. S.D. and many others who shared this article.)
"It is easy to foresee what lies ahead. Putin will await the results of the elections on October 26 and then offer Poroshenko the gas and other benefits he has been dangling on condition that he appoint a prime minister acceptable to Putin. That would exclude anybody associated with the victory of the forces that brought down the Viktor Yanukovych government by resisting it for months on the Maidan—Independence Square. I consider it highly unlikely that Poroshenko would accept such an offer. If he did, he would be disowned by the defenders of the Maidan; the resistance forces would then be revived.
"Putin may then revert to the smaller victory that would still be within his reach: he could open by force a land route from Russia to Crimea and Transnistria before winter. Alternatively, he could simply sit back and await the economic and financial collapse of Ukraine. I suspect that he may be holding out the prospect of a grand bargain in which Russia would help the United States against ISIS—for instance by not supplying to Syria the S300 missiles it has promised, thus in effect preserving US air domination—and Russia would be allowed to have its way in the “near abroad,” as many of the nations adjoining Russia are called. What is worse, President Obama may accept such a deal."That would be a tragic mistake, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Without underestimating the threat from ISIS, I would argue that preserving the independence of Ukraine should take precedence; without it, even the alliance against ISIS would fall apart. The collapse of Ukraine would be a tremendous loss for NATO, the European Union, and the United States. A victorious Russia would become much more influential within the EU and pose a potent threat to the Baltic states with their large ethnic Russian populations. Instead of supporting Ukraine, NATO would have to defend itself on its own soil. This would expose both the EU and the US to the danger they have been so eager to avoid: a direct military confrontation with Russia. The European Union would become even more divided and ungovernable. Why should the US and other NATO nations allow this to happen?(Emphases added)