October 15, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

Lest we forget, besides strange archaeo-paleographico-geopolitics and space recently, there is the ordinary financial malfeasance in high circles, epitomized currently by the growing problems of Deutschebank. However, now it seems that some sort of "cat" is out of the proverbial bag, as German politicians are now claiming that the USSA's fine on Deutschebank may be part of a wider economic war:

German Politicians Accuse US Of "Economic War" Against Deutsche Bank

The backdrop here is rather significant, for recall just recently the German chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness giant Bayer bought Mon(ster)santo, and had the cash to do it.

In any case the Germans are viewing this not as an attack on Deutschebank, but on Germany itself. Consider the implications of these paragraphs:

When we first heard the news that the US DOJ had slapped Deutsche Bank with a $14 billion settlement on September 15, a number that looked oddly similar to the $14 billion fine the EU slapped on Apple, we determined that this was likely nothing more than "blowback" on behalf of the US, saying "just a few weeks after the EU slapped Apple with a $14 billion bill for "back taxes," the U.S. has apparently responded with a $14 billion fine of their own to Deutsche Bank to settle an outstanding probe into the company's trading of mortgage-backed securities during the financial crisis."

Today, after three weeks of unprecedented volatility in the stock price of the German lender which sent its shares to all time lows as recently as Friday, Germany has latched on to this line of attack as German politicians accused the US of waging economic war against ­Germany as, in the words of the FT, "concern continues to rise among its political and corporate elite over the future of Deutsche Bank."

The German parliament’s economics committee chairman Peter Ramsauer, in an interview with Welt am Sonntag, said the move against Deutsche "has the characteristics of an economic war", adding that the US had a "long tradition" of using every available opportunity to wage what amounted to trade war "if it benefits their own economy", and the "extortionate damages claims" being made in the case of Deutsche Bank were an example of that. According to the German politician, the threat to force Deutsche Bank to pay a $14 billion fine over its mortgage-backed securities business before the 2008 global crisis “has the characteristics of an economic war.”“Extortionate damages claims” in the case are an example of that, said Ramsauer.

Another German politician, Merkel ally and MEP Markus Ferber suggested, as we did, that the Deutsche Bank investigation is a “tit for tat response” from the US Department of Justice after Brussels imposed a record €13 billion penalty against Apple’s tax misdoings in Europe. It's not just Apple however: earlier this year, Germany’s Volkswagen agreed to pay $16.5 billion in the US for cheating on American diesel vehicle air pollution tests between 2008 and 2015. The fines still risk growing by billions and VW needs to recall 85,000 vehicles.

Note that one implication of all of this is that if the US fines are in retaliation of EU fines against apple, then the US has retaliated not against the EU, but against Germany, revealing what everyone already knew anyway, and that is that Germany is in the driver's seat of the EU. No one else comes close. Add to this the fact that the TTIP is all but dead on the European side and as far as France and Germany are concerned, and it does indeed look like there is a trade war between the USSA and Europe, i.e., Germany.

The real question is, why? After all, Chancellorin Merkel has obligingly followed the Soros-Washington diktat to accept more and more "immigrants" and "refugees" to Europe and to Germany, and as a result, has had to pay a heavy political price not only in the rest of Europe, but in Germany itself with the recent devastating losses in local elections there, including in the German capital itself.

I suggest, in today's high octane speculation, that there is much going on behind the scenes here. Recall, firstly, that the big French and German armaments concerns merged some months ago. As I speculated at that time, this was probably in aid of advancing the project to create a common EU military, in order to standardize equipment and technologies. With the "Big Two" in Europe coordinating arms and technologies, any such pan-European military would, in effect, be dominated by the Franco-German alliance, and when Charlemagne push came to Karl der Grosse shove, by Germany. Such a military would be a convenient way to bypass NATO and hence end American influence not only within the alliance system, but to greatly curb its influence on the continent and in internal European, and particularly German, affairs. This was to be prevented at all costs for American planners concerned about the potentialities for a Russo-German/European accord. And with the Chinese silk road project going forward, and French and German (and British!) participation in China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, such a step had to be prevented at all costs. In Germany's case especially, with an economy in the top five tier of global economies along with the USSA, China, India, and Japan - countries with notably larger populations - it is easy to see why there is concern for the efficient industrial powerhouse in the center of Europe. Germany's economic future lies with the East and with participation in that project.

The answer is to make a pan-European military unaffordable, which for the moment appears to have succeeded, as the sanctions regime against Russia and the tit-for-tat fines regime for the moment appears to be working in the USSA's favor.

The other component of this now more visible "soft war" between the USSA and Europe/Germany is the rebasing of American forces to Eastern Europe, positioning them between Germany and Russia makes it easier to interdict any direct pipelines or other trade routes between the two countries, and making German and hence European participation in the Silk Road project problematic.

I suspect Washington has now miscalculated, and mightily so, for with all the war hysteria and wardrums being beaten in the District of Corruption, the effect and presence of those bases in Warsaw, Bucharest, and the Baltic States has to be causing some private discussions on the wisdom of having all those forces in those countries. After all, neither Romania nor Poland currently share any contiguous borders with Russia, and hence are not under any immediate threat of a Russian invasion, which in Romania's case would be problematical anyway, since any such route would have to be through the wartorn Ukraine, and a logistical nightmare. They have nothing to gain from the American presence, and now everything to lose in terms of economic advancement and their ability to cash in on China's project.

My high octane speculation and prediction? Eastern Europe, I suspect, will come to its senses eventually, and realize that it isn't Berlin or Moscow that's the threat or the problem. It's Washington. The real fun begins with those countries invite Washington to leave...

See you on the flip side...