Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review
The recent referendums in Catalonia and Kurdistan, while by no means crucial developments for Russia, have resulted in a lively debate in the Russian media and the Russian public opinion. The Kremlin itself has refrained from making any strong statements, possibly indicating that there might be several schools of thought on these issues in key ministries. Let’s look at these two situation from the Russian point of view.
Kurdistan:
This is the comparatively simpler one of the two: there is no way Russia is going to take the risk of alienating Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Furthermore, “independent Kurdistan” is so clearly a US-Israeli project that there is no constituency in Russia supporting this concept. Or is there?
Let’s not forget the for all the official smiles and declarations of mutual friendship, Erdogan is not, and will never, be trusted by the Kremlin. Furthermore, let’s not forget that Russia and Turkey fought 12 (twelve!) wars (1568-1570, 1672-1681, 1686-1700, 1710-1713, 1735-1739, 1768-1774, 1787-1791, 1806-1812, 1828-1829, 1853-1856, 1877-1878, 1914-1918). Neither should we forget the role Turkey played in supporting Takfiri terrorism in Chechnia. Or the fact that Erdogan himself bears a huge responsibility in the bloodbath in Syria. Oh and there is the issue of the Russian bomber shot down (with US assistance) over Syrian airspace. So, all in all, there is a lot in the past and the Russian will not ignore it. While it is most definitely not in the Russian national interest to fully support an independent Kurdistan anywhere (meaning not in Turkey, not in Iraq, not in Iran and not in Syria), a Realpolitik approach would strongly suggest that the Russian have an objective interest in keeping the Kurdish issue festering just to have a potential leverage against Turkey. Is that cynical? Yes, absolutely. I am not saying that this is morally/ethically right, only that there will be those in Russia who will make that case.
I think that the real issue for Russia is this: is peace between Russia and Turkey even possible? I personally believe that it is and, not only that, but I even believe that peace between Russia and Turkey is absolutely necessary. And that, in turn, means that it might even be inevitable. Let me explain.
First, 20th, 19th, 18th, 17thand 16th century dynamics are simply not transferable to the 21st century. If the geographical factors have not changed during the past centuries, military realities have. Yes, Russia and Turkey still can compete for influence or for the control of the Black Sea, but for the first time in history the outcome of a Russian-Turkish war has become absolutely predictable: Russia wins, Turkey loses or even disappears entirely. The Russians know that, and so do the Turks. This is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Second, I would argue that Russia and Turkey have common problems and common enemies. Sure, Turkey is still a member of NATO, I don’t think that will change anytime soon, but this membership is in the process of losing a lot of its substance. The attempted coup against Erdogan, which was fully backed and supported by the USA, is a stark illustration that with friends like the USA Turkey needs no enemies. So look at it from the Turkish point of view: what do Russia and the USA want for Turkey? The USA want Turkey to be a US colony and use against Russia, Iran and the Arab states in the region and in support of Israel. What does Russia want from Turkey? To be a predictable, reliable and truly independent partner with whom Russia can work. Now if you were Turkish, which option would most appeal to you?
Third, former enemies can become partners – just think of France and Germany for example. That can happen when objective factors combine with a political will and jointly “push” towards a fundamental transition from enemies to partners. I am increasingly inclined to think that this might be happening between Russia and Turkey.
I don’t think I am being Pollyannish here. And yes, there are still plenty of problems in Turkey which can flare-up, including Ergodan’s megalonania, neo-Ottoman imperial delusions, a nasty type of Ottoman Islamism, Turkey’s toxic policies towards Cyprus, Greece and Serbia, etc. But Russia cannot complain about the blind stupidity of East-Europeans who fail to grasp the fundamental differences between the old USSR and the new Russia while at the same time acting as of modern Turkey was the old Ottoman Empire. There are moments in history when what is required from wise leaders is to have the intellectual courage to understand that something fundamental has changed and that old dynamics simply do not apply. At the very least, Russia ought to do everything in her power to encourage Turkey to abandon its old ways and to follow Russia in her realization that her future is not with the West, but with the South, East and North.
Fourth, the Kurdish question also presents a serious indirect risk for Russia: even if Russia is not directly involved, any tensions or, God forbid, war between any combination of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq would be a disaster for Russia because all of these countries are, to various degrees, Russian allies. Any conflict between these countries would weaken them and, therefore, weaken Russia too.
For all these reasons, I am personally convinced that having a festering Kurdish problem is not in the Russian national interest. However, neither is it in the Russian national interest to try to become deeply involved in this issue. At most, the Russians can offer to act as intermediaries to help the parties find a negotiated solution, but that’s is about it. Russia neither an empire nor a world policeman and she has no business trying to influence or, even less so, control outcomes in this thorny issue.
Israel and the USA will do everything they can to prevent Turkey from integrating itself into regional partnerships with Russia or Iran, but this might not be enough to prevent the Turks from realizing that they have no future with the EU or NATO. In the AngloZionist Empire some are more equal than others, and Turkey will never be granted any kind of real partnership in these organizations. The bottom line is this: Russia has a lot to offer Turkey and I believe that the Turks are beginning to realize this. Russia can, therefore, do much better than to simply support Kurdish separatism as a way to keep pressure on Ankara. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is too primitive to be at the foundation of Russia’s policies towards Turkey.
For all these reasons I don’t see Russia supporting Kurdish separatism anywhere. Russia has nothing to gain by supporting what is clearly a US-Israeli project aimed at destabilizing the entire region. I believe that the Kurds themselves have made a huge historical mistake by aligning themselves with the USA and Israel and that they therefore will now reap the bitter fruits of this strategic miscalculation: nobody in the region supports a “2nd Israel” (except Israel, of course) and neither will Russia.
Catalonia
Catalonia is far away from Russia and the outcome of the crisis there will have no real impact on Russian national interests. But on a political level, Catalonia is highly relevant to the Russian political debates. See for yourself:
The case of Catalonia can be compared to Crimea: a local referendum, organized against the will of the central government. In contrast, when Kosovo was cut-off from Serbia in total illegality and without any kind of referendum the entire West gave this abomination a standing ovation. The Russians then issues stark warnings about the precedent this set and thereafter South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea happened. Is the secession of Catalonia not the next logical step? Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude for many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of separatism – let’s see how smart and “democratic” you guys truly are?! It is rather funny, in a bitter-sweet way, to see how ‘democratic’ policemen beat up peaceful demonstrators whose only “crime” was to want to cast a ballot in a box. A lot of Russians are now saying that Russia is now the only truly democratic and free country left out there. Needless to say, the way the Madrid government handled this situation further damage the credibility of the West, the EU and the entire notion of “civilized Europe” being “democratic”.
My feeling is that the way the central government handled this event alienated most Russian who are simply baffled by the utter stupidity and needless brutality of the police crackdown during the vote: what in the world were the cops trying to achieve?! Did they really think that they could prevent the vote? And what is the point in then denying that a referendum did take place? Or what about the praise on the police and its behavior? I have to say that for all my pro-Spanish biases, the way Madrid handled it all truly seems fantastically stupid and self-defeating to me.
Historically, the USSR was on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil war and there are still a lot of ties between Russia and Catalonia today. However, there is also a sympathy between Russia and Spain and the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony. Still, a lot of Russian commentator did speak about Madrid’s “Fascism” in handling the events in Catalonia, and footage of anti-separatists screaming Francist slogans did not help.
Some Russians, however, mostly liberal, caution about supporting separatism movements in Europe because Russia herself in multi-national and because of the risk of the separatist fad coming right back to Russia. I don’t think that this is much of a real risk for Russia. Not after Chechnia. I just don’t see any region in Russia really interested in trying to secede from the Russian Federation. If anything, I see more potential for various region on the other side of the Russian border wanting to join Russia (Novorussia to begin with).
The question which divides a lot of Russians is this: is Russia better off with a strong EU because a strong EU might be more capable of standing up to the USA or is Russia better off with a weak EU because a weak EU weakens the Western ‘front’ against Russia? My personal opinion is that EU is doomed anyway and that a collapse of the EU would be a good thing for the people of Europe as it would bring closer the inevitable decolonization of the European continent. This suggests to me that while the eventual outcome of the current crisis is probably irrelevant to Russia, the fact that a crisis is happening is to Russia’s advantage.
I think that most Russians have positive feelings towards both Spain and Catalonia. The only clearly negative feelings I have seen over the past couple of days are elicited by the brutal and dumb way Madrid handled this crisis: most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians. But other than that, the Kremlin’s position that “this is an internal Spanish issue” is probably supported by a majority of experts. Russia has nothing to gain by involving herself in this crisis and she therefore won’t do so.
Conclusion
Potentially, the recent referendums in Kurdistan and Catalonia have the potential to turn into the proverbial spark which will set off a major explosion. The Russians are aware of that risk and will do whatever they can to avoid such an outcome. Unlike the USA which thrives of crises, hence the overt support for the Kurds and the covert support for the Catalans, Russia’s “political model” (in the sense of “business model”) does not need crises at all, in fact the Russians dislike them intensively (yet another reason why the notion of a Russian invasion of any country, including in the EU, is just simply ignorant and plain stupid). There is a paradox here: the USA, whose military has not had a meaningful victory since the war in the Pacific, thrives on conflict, chaos and violence, while Russia, which probably has the most formidable military on the planet, seems to consider conflicts like a plague which needs to be avoided at all costs. In reality, there is no paradox here, these are simply to dramatically civilizational models which have fundamentally different visions of the kind of world they want to live in. Whatever happens in the future, the Russians will be observing these to conflicts with some trepidation, and they will hotly debate them. But I don’t see them trying to actively involve themselves in what is fundamentally not their problem.
True, be wary of zio lapdogs who are double crossers, their actions speak louder than words … kudos to russia for being pursued by the zio yankee lunis … cos russia is doing everything right and transparent for world peace
Please , don´t compare catalans with crimeans. In Crimea they made a referendum with the goal to restore an old historical situation which was disrupted after 1991. In Catalonia they made a referendum with the goal to destroy the oldest (modern) state (Spain) in the world.
Still, in the end it is a state within a state acquiring sovereignty. It’s meaning might not be the same BUT in the international law it is a precedent.
Since when is spain the oldest (modern) state of the world? Also the catalonians have been repressed for a long time, it is no wonder they want souveranity.
Please , if there is opression , it is for those people who want to speak openly in spanish and feel themselves first as spanish , and second as catalans. In every state you have an official language to use in the administration and in the school. Or do they speak Gaelic at a courtroom in Cornwall? Is it an “oppression” for the people in Wales when they speak english at the administration or at school? Don´t make the mistake and be critic when you read MSM about US-America or world politics but at the other hand take for face value all the propaganda the same MSM tell you about “opressed catalonians”.
Both Spain and Catalonia have abortion rights, so the main issue is removed, as in Crimea, so one has to wonder what is left to fight over. But if Catalonia is rich and wants to stop paying for welfare for Spain’s poor, that is among the worst reasons to demand independence, that is unless Catalans earn their wealth by having fewer kids than the Spanish.
Since you are so concerned about abortion rights, you should hold your mother accountable for your birth, even if it was a rectal birth.
No, I’m talking about Franco. It’s a while ago but as your names sound Spanish you should know him. Also, you should know that Catalonia never was really happy by being ruled by Spaniards. But my main reason why I answered your post is that I do not think that Spain is the oldest modern state in Europe ^^
And for all your hate against MSM on these websites… I just want to remind you that believing everything on this or on other sides is the same than believing everything on “alternative media” sides. I personally did not like the media in Germany because it only says something about victims in all the wars in the world. If I look on this side I have a clear pro-Russian view. (but at least some war news) So you only get pieces by every side and you have to look on both sides to understand the real story, not only to Russian or US propaganda.
Please , don´t buy the bullshit about opression of the catalans by Franco. The catalans enjoyed (or suffered) the same Franco as all the rest of Spain. When Catalonia had “Special treatment” it was in the positive way. Catalonia under Franco had strong preference for infrastructures , installation of factories etc etc. That way the average wages in Catalonia become higher than in the other spanish regions. By the way , catalonians are the same spaniards as andalusians and castilians or gallegos. When you see the names of the members of the different governments under Franco and later in democracy you see a whole bunch of catalonian ministers who stayed in spanish governments.
Do not buy that stuff?! What shall I buy? Only the view you think is right or only the view that some eastern media or western media is right? You know that Catalunya has always been strong in their thinking about an own state. As it looks like the Catalonians do not see themselves so deep with Spain that they should be one state. Also only because a nation conquered some land in the 15 hundreds and had a royal marriage, that all the people see themselves as one nation.
Modern Europe should be an assembly of European regions without to cares about the Nationalities, EC is failed because of it !
The Swiss system should be inspirational, it’s in fact a small Europe with 26 different States and Cultures living peacefully togethers since “Ever”
Catalonia is a nation, tho. Madrid and its courts can go f*** themselves.
Catalognia is a region with their own “Occitan” language, it was also South of France language before. It disappeared 100 years ago. Switzerland has 4 languages and two Religions since hundred’s years without to need any separations. Spain should develop more their existant federalism and consensus, but Rajoy is really an clumsy Nationalist authoritarian with Franciste stenches… instead to have an iron hand with velvet gloves
Sorry but it is not so simple. We have in Spain one of the most developed federal system. Our Autonomias have more rigths than those of Switzerland. They handle most of the taxes!! In Spain we are starting to live an evolution of the orange revolutions. I don’t agree with the way my government is handling the problem, but analyze how the media is presenting the info, and probably you will recognize the same manipulation techniques used in the US presidential campaign or in the Syrian civil war.
I have been many times in Spain. All European and the World Medias are heavily manipulated. Color Revolution and Arab Springs were run by CIA/NATO/Mossad and paid by the Saudi… I didn’t know Spain was in the “Package”
Giulio Andreotti was Italy 35 times President or PM, on the same time the Mafia supreme leader… The Spanish situation shouldn’t be far from that… ==========================================
Great Nuclear Manoeuvres in the Italian House.
by Manlio Dinucci http://www.voltairenet.org/article198175.html
19 September, the day before the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Arms had opened for signature in the United Nations: the House of Representatives [“Camera dei deputati”], approves by a large majority (296 against 72 and 56 abstentions) a Partito democratico [Pd] motion signed by Moscatt and others. This motion will bind the government to:
• “continue to pursue the aim of a world rid of nuclear weapons through the vehicle of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
• assess whether the possibility of becoming a party to the Treaty to ban nuclear weapons, approved by the UN General Assembly is compatible with Italy’s obligations as a member of Nato.
The Pd motion “on which the government has expressed a favourable opinion” is a smokescreen hiding the fact that Italy is now happy to tap its foot in time to the rhythmical increase of USA/Nato nuclear weapons, by hosting, in complete violation of the NPT, US B-61 nuclear bombs that from 2020 will be replaced by the B61-12 bombs which are even more dangerous.
The real position of the Gentiloni government only emerged the following day when, through the North Atlantic Council, to which Italy belongs with the other 28 governments of Nato states, it completely rejected and attacked the UN treaty [1]. The parties that voted for the PD motion in the House of Representatives were: Forza Italia, Fratelli d’Italia, Scelta Civica, Alternativa Popolare, Democrazia Solidale and Gruppo Misto. The Lega Nord, absent from the Chamber at the time of voting, made its own motion calling on the government “not to give up the guarantee offered by the US’s readiness to protect Europe and our own country, with nuclear weapons if necessary, though not necessarily pointed at Russia”. As if Italy were capable of establishing which sovereign state the US nuclear weapons must point their nuclear warheads at.
The Italian Left and Article 1, in their motions, both of which were rejected by the House, made two identical requests:
– 1. in reliance on the NPT, US nuclear weapons must be removed from Italy; and
– 2. Italy must become a party to the UN Treaty.
However, neither the Italian Left nor Article 1 voted against the PD motion, preferring instead to abstain from voting. In sharp contrast, the Movimento 5 Stelle voted against the PD motion. Yet, its motion, which was also rejected, refrained from chorusing the request (the legal basis for which lies in the NPT) for the government to remove the US nuclear weapons from Italy. Nor either did the motion ask for Italy to become a party to the UN Treaty. Its resolution was a call to:
• “report to Parliament on the presence of nuclear weapons in Italy, and stop shielding itself with a non-existent Atlantic secrecy pact which US citizens and parliamentarians do not comply with” and
• “declare that Italy is not willing to use nuclear weapons, nor even to purchase the necessary components to make the F-35 airplanes suitable for transporting nuclear weapons”.
The motion of M5S reflects Luigi Di Maio, the aspiring Premier’s position:
• “we do not want to leave Nato” (as he declared last April in a conference held in the US); and
• “we want to stay in Nato, but we want to democratize a large part of the choices” (as he declared in an interview last June).
Illusion or worse. In the North Atlantic Council, according to Nato norms, decisions are taken “not by vote nor by majority decision-making. Instead “decisions are taken unanimously and by consensus”. This equates to decisions being taken by the US which is automatically allotted the office of the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe and the other key commands, including Nato’s Nuclear Planning Group. To promise that the F-35 planes, conceived for nuclear attack especially with the B61-12, can be used by Italy with a kind of security that use of nuclear arms prevents, is tantamount to a fairy tale you’d tell to children to put them to sleep, undisturbed by nightmares.
Manlio Dinucci
Translation
Anoosha Boralessa
Source
Il Manifesto (Italy)
[1] Source : “North Atlantic Council Statement on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons”, Voltaire Network, 20 September 2017. Analysis : “A Nato attack on Nuclear Disarmament”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Il Manifesto (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 26 September 2017.
Breaking News
The Mediation in-between Catalugna and the Dumb Donkey Rajoy will be done by Switzerland(lol)
This useless sad controversy has to be easily solved, hopefully !
“We have in Spain one of the most developed federal system. Our Autonomias have more rigths than those of Switzerland”
If looking at what went on, Democracy and Federalism isn’t yet Cultural in Spain, but a Royalist Nationalism with some Franquismo stench belonging to Museum’s is borderline in the XXI century
Spain and Humanity happiest and dreams time was under the Omeyyades(lol)
O Tempora O Mores
Occitan is only spoken in a remote region of Catalonia called “Vall d’Aran”. In Catalonia people speak both Spanish and Catalan. Both are latine languages.
I have been many times in Barcelona, Madrid and Andalusia… during my childhood we had Spanish workers at home, it would be easy for me to learn Spanish.
So is Occitan
Europe is a continent. It is a geographical terminus. The different states which exist on this continent can have more or less cooperation and trade and better or worse relations one with another. But that is a matter every government in every state has to decide independently and in coordination with international law and its own national interests.
Europe should be united from Gibraltar to Oural with strong cooperation’s in Asia and Mediterranean Countries… The Sik-Road has to be reestablished !
The US warmongers have to go home(lol)
humans are pushed into war by our imaginery systems, that favour the rich mostly
“Modern Europe should be an assembly of European regions”
That is an original nazi plan , divide and conquer.
It’s Denis de Rougemont !
it is not true check out her: Ulrike Guérot
agree completely!!
If anything the UK is the oldest modern state in Europe. It’s institutions have survived unscathed since medieval times. Basically every other European country has gone through political upheavals that have significantly changed the nature and/or borders of their state. In Spain’s case several revolutions, dynastic upheavals, a socialist republic followed by a fascist one. If anything modern Spain only exists since 1975.
No they haven’t English/British; continuity is a myth, just look at the number of flag permutations since 1603. Britain even had another civil war from 1919-1921, did you forget?
Well, feel free to enlighten me about that that 20th century civil war then.
That occurred between the English and Irish which was the Irish War for Independence, now someone like you should now that.
The Tan War, 1919-1921, obvious really.
Wasn’t that in Ireland?
It was in the UK of GB and Ireland. much of it was fought in Ireland and some on the mainland but either way, it was a civil war.
according to your logics russia did not exist before, beacuse has new flag and anthem :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
And now after we disagree about the age of the states , or when they start to be considered as states , can we go to the shower and compare our dicks?
spain is not the oldest stae in europe
Incorrect. Spain, as state, was founded by end of XV century, when Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon unified both kingdoms. Later they conquered the musilm kingdom of Granada and Navarra. If you look for a more modern fully unified state, you will go to beginning of XVIII century when the first Borbon king came from France and after the Secesion War.
The UK in its present state form exists since the Norman invasion of 1066 as the kingdom of England. Some may argue even before it. The union with Scotland changed nothing to the system other then enlarge it, its still the same state with a different name. France exists as a state since the 10th century when the schism between successor states of Charlemagne became permanent and the house of Capet took the trone. But since they do count the Carolingian and Merovingian dynasties as part of the kingdom of France that means it goes back to the fall of the West Roman empire. Which predates Spain by a thousand years.
I think the UK changed a lot since 1066. There have been a LOT of reforms!! ANd what are you trying to say with this anyway???
spain, too
sure do buddy, and the rest of the planet. The point is that it doesn’t matter wich country is older. Age does not create any rights, exept for a person to become adult mayebe
Actually you are wrong in that claim all the other regions were never part of the United Kingdom as England has had changed many hands since then. Kings from various houses etc. regional differences as Scotland and other regions were not part of that region as was Ireland which had continual rebellions. That all became unified when King James the VI of Scotland and the Isles etc. became King James I of England in 1603 , there were multiple civil wars for the crown until the 1800s.
A “modern state” that is naught but a corrupt cesspool! The best thing that can happen is that it doesn´t get any gibs from Catalonia!
the oldest (modern) state???? how do you define that one????
States, or Empires are Darwinians alike anything else, Religions included, they are born and will die…
NATO isn’t Europe, but an Anglo-American occupation Army Culturally RUSSIA is a part of Europe The US are warmongers since existed !
Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html
Seventy years of harassing political establishment and people of Europe
by Andrey Fomin
Contrary to appearances, the decision of the United States to investigate a possible Russian aid to anti-European parties is not intended to protect Europeans from foreign interference. This is quite the opposite. For 70 years, Washington controls the West European politics prohibiting all forms of genuine democracy.
According to a “sensational” article by The Telegraph, the US director of National Intelligence was recently instructed by Congress to “conduct a major review into Russian clandestine funding of European parties over the last decade.” [1] This disclosure —a classic “controlled leak”— is intended to warn disobedient yet popular political entities across Europe to scale back their ambitions to rebalance the roles and weight of their nation states within the European Union. Hungary’s Jobbik, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Italy’s Lega Nord, and France’s Front National are explicitly included in the US “warning list,” while other unnamed “parties” in Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands are being advised that they are “under a US security probe.” Even the new British Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is suspected of flirting with the Russians. So, according to the sponsor of The Telegraph’s story, any European politician who dares to question NATO’s eastward expansion, the policy of anti-Russian sanctions, or the current European stance on the Ukrainian conflict is essentially a witting or unwitting tool of “Russia’s hybrid warfare.”
Well, that would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. In fact, any impartial observer would pose some simple questions: Why the hell do US intelligence agencies care about challenges to Europe’s internal security? Aren’t they the same agents who finance, recruit, and control countless political organizations, individuals, and media outlets on the European continent? Why are they so brazenly revealing their dominion over Europe?
A politically correct challenger would argue that the United States saved Europe from the “Communist threat” after the end of WWII, facilitated its speedy economic recovery, and is still safeguarding the continent under its nuclear umbrella. Perhaps. But a review of the historical background should not begin with the Marshall Plan. First of all, that was launched in April 1948. Since the Nazis capitulated in May 1945, a misinformed reader might deduce that the United States had been drafting a massive investment program for Europe for as long as three years, and … he would be wrong. At the Second “Octagon” Quebec Conference in September 1944, President Roosevelt and US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. submitted to the British PM Winston Churchill their Post-Surrender Program for Germany [2]. That strictly confidential document envisaged the partition and complete deindustrialization of the German state. According to the plan, Germany was to be divided into two independent states. Its epicenters of mining and industry, including the Saar Protectorate, the Ruhr Valley, and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by France and Poland. Following are a few excerpts:
• The [US] military forces upon entry into [German] industrial areas shall destroy all plants and equipment which cannot be removed immediately.
• No longer than 6 months after the cessation of hostilities, all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action shall either be completely dismantled and removed from the area or completely destroyed.
• All people within the area should be made to understand that this area will not again be allowed to become an industrial area. Accordingly, all people and their families within the area having special skills or technical training should be encouraged to migrate permanently from the area and should be as widely dispersed as possible.
• All German radio stations and newspapers, magazines, weeklies, etc. shall be discontinued until adequate controls are established and an appropriate program formulated.
That was the original postwar recovery program for Germany, known as the Morgenthau Plan. The notorious Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067 (JCS 1067) addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Occupation Forces in Germany, which was officially issued in April 1945, was fully in line with that document [3].
Partition of Germany according to Morgenthau Plan, 1944
The Morgenthau Plan very quickly proved to be a strategic mistake. The United States underestimated the ideological and cultural impact the Soviets would have on European societies. Left to their own judgment, American strategists failed to understand the attraction that a socialist system held for the majority of the population of the liberated nations. A vast spectrum of pro-socialist and pro-communist politicians began winning democratic elections and gaining political influence not only in Eastern Europe, but also in Greece, Italy, France, and other European states (Palmiro Togliatti and Maurice Thorez are just a few who could be named here). Thus Washington came to understand that its forced de-industrialization of Europe could result in Soviet-style reindustrialization and eventual Russian dominance of the continent… Therefore the US had to promptly replace the Morgenthau Plan with one named after Secretary of State George Marshall… Over the course of four years it provided Europe with $12 billion USD in credits, donations, leases, etc., for the purpose of buying … American machinery and other goods. Although the plan undoubtedly revived the economies of Europe, its biggest positive effect was on … the US economy itself! Simultaneously a wave of political repression was launched throughout Europe, most notably in Germany.
The media has largely forgotten about a Soviet initiative, proposed in 1950, to withdraw from the GDR and to reunify a neutral, non-aligned, demilitarized Germany within one year of the conclusion of a peace treaty. As a matter of fact, the resolution adopted at the Prague meeting of the foreign ministers of the Soviet Bloc on Oct. 21, 1950 proposed the establishment of an all-German Constituent Council, with equal representation from East and West Germany to prepare for the formation of an “all-German, sovereign, democratic, and peace-loving provisional government.” Needless to say, the US government and West German administration in Bonn strongly opposed the initiative [4]. While a plebiscite on the issue “Are you against the remilitarization of Germany and in favor of the conclusion of a Peace Treaty in 1951?” was announced in both halves of the divided state, that referendum was held and officially acknowledged only in East Germany (with 96% voting “yes”).vtek The authorities in US-controlled West Germany failed to respond in a truly democratic manner. They refused to recognize the preliminary results of the referendum that had been held since February 1951 (of the 6.2 million federal citizens who had taken part by June 1951, 94.4% also voted “yes”) [5] and introduced the draconian cautious Criminal Law Amendment Act (the 1951 Blitzgesetz) on July 11. According to that legislation, anyone guilty of importing prohibited literature, criticizing the government, or having unreported contacts with representatives of the GDR, etc. was to be prosecuted for “state treason,” which was punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Consequently, between 1951 and 1968, 200,000 charges were brought against 500,000 members of the Communist Party and other left-wing groups in Germany under this law. Ten thousand people were sent to prison, and most of those who were “cleared” of charges never resumed their political activities. Additional legal amendments in 1953 actually abolished the right to freely hold gatherings and demonstrations, and in 1956 the Communist Party of Germany was banned.
More details can be found in Daniel Burkholz’s 2012 documentary “Verboten – Verfolgt – Vergessen” (Forbidden-Followed-Forgotten. Half a Million Public Enemies), which is surprisingly unavailable on YouTube.
The political repression that occurred in Germany from the 1950s to the 1980s, compared to similar events in other European countries during the same period, is a very taboo topic. Operation Gladio in Italy, the crimes of the regime of the Black Colonels in Greece, and the controversial assassinations of realistic European politicians who openly advocated for historical compromise with the Soviet bloc – such as Italian PM Aldo Moro (1978) and Swedish PM Olof Palme (1986) – all received far more media attention. The revelations made by a former correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Udo Ulfkotte, in his book Gekaufte Journalisten (“Purchased Journalists”) about the mechanism of media control in Germany (remember the Morgenthau Plan?) represent only the tip of the iceberg.
The almost complete lack of reaction seen in Berlin after Edward Snowden’s disclosure of the blanket electronic espionage routinely conducted against German leaders by the NSA means that in reality, Germany has acknowledged its loss of sovereignty over its own country and thus has nothing to lose.
So, after taking all these facts into account and rereading the article in The Telegraph, are you still so sure that the United States is truly the guardian of Europe’s sovereignty? Is it not more likely that by using the alleged “Russian threat” to control and harass the political establishment and civil society in Europe, Washington is making headway toward a simple and primitive goal – that of merely keeping its sheep within the fold?
Andrey Fomin
Source
Oriental Review (Russia)
[1] «Russia accused of clandestine funding of European parties as US conducts major review of Vladimir Putin’s strategy. Exclusive: UK warns of “new Cold War” as Kremlin seeks to divide and rule in Europe», Peter Foster & Matthew Holehouse, The Telegraph, January 16, 2016.
[2] “Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany”, F. D. Roosevelt, September 1944.
[3] “Directive to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Occupation Forces (JCS 1067)” (April 1945)
[4] “Notes for Eastern Element’s Briefing of General Mathewson”, February 15, 1951. Published in Foreign Relations of the United States 1951, Volume III, Part 2, European Security and the German Question (Document 341).
[5] “Flusslandschaft 1951. Frieden”, Protest in München. http://www.voltairenet.org/article190171.html
blablablablablaaah, and europeans have always been soooooo PEACEFULL! What a tragedy for the wonderfull and civilized europeans….
Good analysis but save us the bias. Russia is a bit far from being the <>. Is southfront Russian? If so I can understand the bias, it is natural. But if not, why ruin such good articles with claims like that and <>. I understand that you stated that is your personal opinion but things like that deserve hours upon hours of discussions or at least a dedicated article with facts. Don’t misunderstand me, as an orthodox Greek I’m a bit pro-Russian too (even if the bitter truth is that due to our goverment’s mistakes we are geopolitical rivals currently) but articles like this are a rarity on the web please don’t ruin their credibility with biased statements. Keep up the good work! Cheers!!
No, Southfront is not Russian, and this article is by the Saker.
it is some kind of self hate actualy, they hate the culture where they grew up, not without any understanding ofcourse
The Saker is a foremost military analyst in Europe so his assessment is accurate , the US is losing some of it’s lustre as top military it happens when you are at constant war equipment becomes too stressed and requires more maintenance over time. This is an issue within many NATO countries constantly paying for wars does take it’s toll on the military budget.
Yeah I agree with you for the most part BUT losing some of it’s lustre as top military is a bit different from losing the top military status. Yes they are overstreched and yes they have major issues with NATO BUT still USA is the current military leader. It may change in the coming decades but Russia has some way ahead to match up to USA. Russia is currently winning in middle east while USA is giving ground but Russia for example cannot support a war away from it’s borders like US can. Anyway what I pointed out isn’t that the analyst was wrong it is that claims like these deserve articles upon articles and cannot be said that lightly as it can misguide may people who are just starting their research at geopolitics. I am 20 years old and I’ve been interested in geopolitics for 4-5 years now, for the most part I’ve been swayed left and right by claims like these as I lacked (and still do) the experience and the critical thinking to read between the lines. So I wanted to express my opinion on the matter for the analyst to see in order to help other people like me to reduce the amount of misinformation they get.
Well he never gives really the wrong information , problem is like most of the world they are fed a Hollywood style version of the US military. The facts in history is against them and their military is getting bogged down in wars it can’t win. The US suffered heavy losses against a fast hitting group, which is against ISIS. They have lost their effectiveness being at war for too long. so they are lacking Lustre as they have very low morale.
And what makes you believe that a boots on ground operation from Russia would fare any better? US defeats are caused not by a weak military but by outdated tactics. You cannot fight with conventional ways an unconventional enemy like the taliban or ISIS. That doesn’t mean that your military has lost it’s effectiveness. Those are two different things. That’s for the 1st part. For the second part, saying half the truth I believe is misinformative. EU is not doomed to fail because it is colonized. EU is getting closer and closer to it’s doom because it strayed away from it’s original purpose. The road to failure began when EU members divided themselves. Northern EU members being the <> and southern being the <>. Not because US somehow wanted EU to fail or because EU is somehow a protectorate of US because of their close economical and military co-ordination. Of course US had a bigger say in things than EU but that doesn’t mean that EU was some kind of slave. Don’t forget that both EU and USA belong in the West and that means they share some major geopolitical interests. P.S i don’t want to sound offensive in any way just saying my opinion on the matter
The US plays divide and conquer games they are the masters of manipulations , they play everyone against one another. That is why all within the US orbit are easily manipulated and become slaves to their wishes.Many nations need a place to send their goods for a good price. The US military trains in large combat operations , problem is no one else trains that way. Most nations are better trained than the US in small arms operations.The US spends less on real training and you can tell when they lose soldiers, just bad training and they pass that onto those they train.
Russians train with a smaller budget and stick to what works the combat brigades meant for rapid deployment. These are self contained fighting units able to meet today’s battlefield , they even adapted to fight the Chechens terrorists. How long has the US really fought them, just Arab fighters and Anarchy brigades fighting them now.That’s reason why at Raqqa they negotiated for them to fight the Russians and SAA alliance.They are better at fighting them those are just facts of the situation.
I’m afraid you are losing the point there. I’m not arguing about the tactics and choices of the US military but it’s sheer might is ahead of Russia as of yet. In the next few decades I believe that won’t be the case. It’s one things saying that US is doing what you say and a whole other to support that EU is actually a protectorate with no free will. I think the world is underestimating the power and ambition of Europe. Europe and only Europe is to blame for the <> of the union. Take for example the huge debt of Greece. EU knew exactly the kind of the problem and the economy of Greece when they added us to the Eurozone. US didn’t force EU to do so. The handling of the refugee crisis that divided EU wasn’t forced by US etc etc. USA have meddled with a great amount of states but the failure of EU (if it fails) is not their responsibility. Dumping every blame on one side because of it’s huge amount of influence without concrete proof makes me cautious about the reasons. And I’m extremely cautious about the next moves in the coming years from Russia now that her status of global superpower is officially restored. So let’s limit ourselves to facts and not to assumptions when we inform other people.
I completely agree with the author about non sense of police charges during last weekend. It’s absurd and only help separatist into their victim speech. Anyway, Russia has a bigger problem with separatism, and I assume that in Chechenia a police charge would have been welcomed instead of a war with thousands of victims.
Kurds are just tool of evil Israel Western Power.
motto: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” A Winston Churchill’s quotation, made in a radio broadcast in October 1939. Being ethnic Russian I always think about mr. Churchill’s quote, from the motto above, when I see a foreigner trying to explaine Russia’s current and future strategy. Maybe mr. Saker has some inside info but still I am not suggesting to somebody take this kind of analysis even as a half true. To say sincerely, the strategy of my govt is unclear for me too. I mean, I can understand some general strategy, because I am watching Russian MSM were narratives are told from the initial source, but can not forecast the strategy in details. So, if anyone is interested in my advice, do not take as 100% truth any forecast about Russia’s intentions, made even by ethnic Russians, including myself. Just remember that forecasting guy is not smarter than mr. Churchill. The only truthful forecast is forecast made by official Russian authority.
“Forecasting guy is not smarter than Churchill”? Please re-read this “But Russia cannot complain about the blind stupidity of East-Europeans who fail to grasp the fundamental differences between the old USSR and the new Russia while at the same time acting as of modern Turkey was the old Ottoman Empire. There are moments in history when what is required from wise leaders is to have the intellectual courage to understand that something fundamental has changed and that old dynamics simply do not apply.”
Churchill was only stating his not understanding USSR (baffled) but do not forget he was a zionist in the most blatant manner and person. Consider the following and remember you think he is the smartest person in the room (are you zionist?).
“Churchill sees Jewish rage over the fact that it is not possible to bleed the German Reich dry, since Germany has freed its lands from parasites, as a decisive factor in politics, and therefore unintentionally reveals the extent to which Englanders and Americans have become unable to govern their nations themselves, making their fate and their activities — the “heavily-arming United States” — dependent on the rage and opinions of big Jewish financial parasites and Bolshevist agitators”.
“This careless statement by Mr. Churchill shows in which direction, and on whose orders, Great Britain’s current prime minister is directing his policies. It is occasionally healthy and good to look at what a war criminal once wrote, and later gathered together in a book. They reveal that his war crimes were systematically planned”.
The second world war was planned and sealed in the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. Negotiated among the Allied powers with little participation by Germany, its 15 parts and 440 articles reassigned German boundaries and assigned liability for reparations. The liabilities assigned were designed in such a manner (and was warned at the time) that it would lead to another WW. This only benefited those who truly sought world domination for an apartheid world government. We know who financed this in Africa, the same group who dictated Treaty of Versailles. Hint it was not the Germans, reread the above.
Russia and Sakur are right about Catalonia, who’s independence will not effect abortion rights, enabling abortion rights defending Russia to stay neutral. But if Irbil fails to defend abortion ABORTION RIGHTS then BILLIONS of Muslims will invade Russia as they have Europe. Russia MUST defend ABORTION RIGHTS in Irbil to to prevent that!
It is not the way the goverment handle the situation. It is the way the media has present the information. This site has very good information about Siria and most of the conflicts but not about Spain. The media are lying!! Get up!! If we can make a comparison Spanish government is being treated as Syrian government! Most of the readers of this site are quite intelligent to look for true info. You should have to notice a suspicious uniformity in the way all the media are presenting the information! Where are the injuries? In which hospital? Create a civil war in Spain is the next steep to set the New World Order because they need to create chaos to prepare the terrain to their NWO… In Catalonia at least half of the people one to keep being Spanish, you can find out that by looking for the result of the last elections not by the result of a fake referendum. Go to the Spanish local media, the little ones, and you will find out which kind of people are those how present themselves as democrats. They are adoctrinating childrem at the public school! People is calling to the Guardia Civil barracks to offer their houses to the police because they are scared! The CUP, a comunist party has created bands to control the streets!! And all this things are being told by the media in Europe or in Russia? Not at all!!
P.D: Spain never recognized the independence of Kosovo