by Jerry Alatalo
s someone who admits to being interested in the taboo-in-public subjects of politics and religion, it was only natural to come across geopolitical analyst William Engdahl – at least for the politics part. Since coming late to the “internet dance” in 2011 and obtaining a computer for the first time, Mr. Engdahl has become a source of information on what is occurring in the world unreported by corporate media. He comes across as an honest, serious man who has developed a loyal attachment to discussing the truth of world events. He talked to Sean Stone a few weeks ago and that interview makes up the body of this post.
In response to recent years’ global transition from unilateral, dominated by United States/western nations to multilateral, more-evenly distributed economic power reality, William Engdahl sees that American oligarchy is losing its influence everywhere, and using destabilization through violence to regain power. His view is that the so-called Arab Spring became designed to create disorder in the Middle East and militarize the region as an effort to regain influence, economic power, and banking/corporate control in that land of energy riches.
The most astonishing statement made by William Engdahl during the interview conveyed his perception that World War III has already begun and being fought. In line with historical wars and violence, today’s wars are all about power and wealth, namely control and profit of Earth’s abundant natural resources. In 2015 the world’s most powerful businessmen and women compete for markets, sales, and profits in all nations and regions, and, unfortunately – because war has yet to become eradicated as a business tool, strategy and tactic – the competition still at times becomes very ugly. And so coinciding with history innocent men, women and children make up the highest percentage of victims.
The theory that wealth-concentrating institutions – the largest banks and those who own them – are the nerve/epicenters from which final decisions on war and peace originate has in recent years and decades become more widely accepted – especially since the internet has freed human beings by providing them access to sources with relevant information. Mr. Engdahl illustrates that growing awareness in describing the 2011 NATO destruction of Libya, suggesting that Libyan leader Gaddafi, killed shortly after the NATO air bombing campaign, was planning with other Middle East / African leaders to set up an Islāmic bank independent of the dollar.
Engdahl’s analysis is that Libya, before the country’s destruction and Gaddafi’s death, had one the continent’s highest standards of living and that “reports” of its citizens’ impending slaughter was a cover for military operations focused on stopping the planned Middle East/Africa independent-of-the-dollar banking system from becoming reality. He perceives what happened in Libya (“bombing Libya into the stone age”), along with war and violence in Syria begun after a $multi-billion pipeline deal was struck in 2011-12 between Iran, Iraq and Syria to transport Iranian natural gas to Europe, as the results of “mental breakdown of an élite who thought they were gods”.
Sean Stone asked Mr. Engdahl for his thoughts on Russia and the Rothschild “international financial octopus”. Engdahl responded by pointing out that Vladimir Putin is “not a friend of Rothschild”, that during the time of Boris Yeltsin the Russian central bank went from state-owned to private-interest owned, and that Putin’s push for state-control of Russia’s central bank is a major cause for sanctions against Russia, including pressure and International Monetary Fund (IMF) “shenanigans” applied to major Russian companies like Gazprom. So, Russia’s movement to create a public/state central banking system, a choice for self-generated credit issuance and away from Wall Street and City of London control of credit through international currency exchanges, should, in Engdahl’s view, be seen as a major reason for economic warfare in the form of sanctions.
Engdahl went on to say that Russia needs to “clean house with all the US-educated finance ministers and bureaucrats” left over from governments before Putin became elected president, and focus on refining the country’s basic financial infrastructure. After Sean Stone brought up Crimea Engdahl responded, saying that Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet has been in Crimea for 200 years (Russia’s only warm water base and access to the Mediterranean), and that “if lost, a catastrophic military defeat”. The interview didn’t get into examining how the situation in Ukraine came about, why, and/or what factors fueled the events starting in November 2013. Early 2014 Maidan protests, then violence and sniper killings in February 2014 led to Viktor Yanukovich fleeing the country and a transition government, civil war resulting in (some estimates as high as) 50,000 deaths, and one million internally displaced or leaving the country.
Can Crimea tensions become resolved? A proposal for a solution.
Engdahl suggests the Russian naval base as a factor, implying a plan to remove Russia’s military entirely from Crimea and establishment of a NATO base in its place. As Crimea remains a source of significant tension, and each “side’s” narrative out of the discussion, a personal reflection related to possible resolution of the Crimea issue came to mind. Without clear understanding of exactly how large a factor Russia’s centuries-old naval base in Sevastopol/Crimea was and/or remains in the Ukraine situation, Ukraine leader Petro Poroshenko has stated in recent remarks that regaining Crimea is a goal of his government. Therefore war over the peninsula remains as a threat to peace.
Many articles, discussions, and studies have manifested since the situation in Ukraine has developed and become a major international news story. Those who have followed events in Ukraine are well aware of the verbal agreement over East Germany between Gorbachev and Bush that “NATO will not move one inch to the east”. The same men and women who have followed events are aware that the verbal agreement was broken, that NATO has moved to the east, and by a lot more than one inch. Is it possible that a treaty signed – not verbal – between Russia and Ukraine guaranteeing permanent maintenance of Russia’s navy fleet in Sevastopol would resolve the Crimea issue? Such a proposal, negotiated in good faith with the expressed goal of creating an agreeable compromise on Crimea could, depending on the real threat to peace Crimea presents now, lead to great reduction or total elimination of tensions holding the potential for developments leading to war.
Since the Russian naval base has existed and operated in Crimea for 200 years, is there any reason for the government in Kiev, the European Union, or the United States to oppose talks between Ukraine and Russia focused on a peaceful compromise agreement over Crimea? If all parties support talks toward that end, Russia – if actions leading to the Crimean people voting to rejoin the Russian Federation were completely motivated by belief that loss of the naval base was a real possibility – becomes satisfied by keeping the naval base. Ukrainians are accustomed to having the base in Crimea after 200 years, so essentially for them it’s life as normal – a satisfactory condition most Ukrainians would like to return to.
Perhaps a compromise on Crimea has become unachievable, beyond the point of no return – the way things are and will remain. It could be the best people can hope for is that Mr. Poroshenko lets Crimea and its people go their own way – that he wisely chooses peace over war.
“Neocons are stupid people, pardon me for being blunt. Stupid in the sense that neocons don’t think through their actions”. Mr. Engdahl asserts that the United States, Israel and other factions are using the Islāmic State – “certainly no caliphate” – to get back into Iraq militarily, and to get into Syria militarily – “which hasn’t been possible up until now”. He sees creation of the Pentagon’s Africom/African command in 2008 as an explicit effort to “get the Chinese out of Africa by hook or by crook”. Destabilization of Sudan led to the break off of Southern Sudan into the Republic of Southern Sudan, and “fabricated terrorism” became used to wrest control of oil the Chinese were pumping out of the ground there. Engdahl told Stone the Chinese aren’t naive, and, after traveling to China ten times in recent years, “they have many problems, but certainly aren’t naive when it comes to protecting Chinese interests”.
He sees a relationship between Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Chinese being very active in making deals with the Goodluck government, which was just replaced by a former military general. He links other destabilization operations in Africa as “directly to do with strategic denial of stable long-term economic relations with China, with Russia, with other countries, and the EU partly as well”. At this point in the interview, William Engdahl shared his view that “we’re in World War III”, responding to Sean Stone’s question “Do you (predict) hot war with China and Russia, or will it just remain proxy wars, which people see as local?”
“It’s (World War III) in its early stages – how that’s resolved, that’s the next question the world has to address”. He describes the economic and financial sanctions against Russia as “a form of de facto declaration of war”, and the coup d’état in Ukraine as (quoting a Rand official) the “most brazen coup d’état in U.S. history”. In his view, Ukraine’s crisis was engineered to bring about chaos leading to severing of ties between Russia and Germany, France, Italy along with other nations in the EU, in response to increasing isolation of the United States, Wall Street and the military industrial complex.
After more revealing talk on Monsanto, GMOs, China’s ignorance in welcoming agribusiness methods of food production, its eventual “waking up”, color revolutions directed at China and related details, Mr. Engdahl ended the interview by saying that a coup d’état has taken place in America, Americans have become “hypnotized”, and that an outside force is needed to snap them out of it.
Listening to analyst William Engdahl as he shares his viewpoint on world events could be described as an almost masochistic form of activity. His view that World War III is in its early stages and underway, and that resolving it is the world’s next challenge to address, is painful to consider. Perhaps banning the use of war, destruction, and killing our brothers and sisters to conduct business on this Earth is a good place to start.
(Thank you to TheLipTV at YouTube)