EU Increasingly Abandons Obama on Ukraine

Eric Zuesse

As reported on Saturday March 7th by both German Economic News, and Spiegel magazine, the ongoing lies and arrogance from U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration regarding Ukraine and Russia have finally raised to the surface a long-mounting anger of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Government. 

This is especially the case with Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who comes from Germany’s Social Democratic Party, which is far less conservative (and far less anti-Russian) than the Christian Democratic Union Party, Chancellor Merkel’s party. The CDU has traditionally been hostile toward Russia, but the SDP has instead favored an unprejudiced policy regarding Russia, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of communism there.

Steinmeier has always been skeptical of Obama’s intentions regarding Ukraine and Russia, but now it appears that even Merkel is veering away from the United States on these policies. 

“Resistance to the US strategy toward Russia is growing in the EU,” reports GDN, which names especially U.S. General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Commander, as the major source of this turn-about, because Breedlove has “exaggerated the military role of Russia in Ukraine.”

Spiegel provides the details on Breedlove, but especially blames Victoria Nuland, the Obama official who actually ran the February 2014 coup in Ukraine and who selected the person who would steer the new, post-coup, Ukrainian Government in the ways that President Obama wants.

Spiegel’s headline is “Breedlove’s Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine.” GDN’s is (as auto-translated by Google’s Chrome browser) “Ukraine Policy: First open conflict between Germany and NATO.”

Spiegel notes that, after the second — which was the Merkel-Hollande — Ukrainian ceasefire was reached at Minsk in late February, Breedlove announced that “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” had just been sent to the conflict-region, Donbass, from Russia. “What is clear,” Breedlove said, “is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.” All of that was fictitious. 

Spiegel continues: “German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency,” heard Breedlove lie and were shocked by it.

But Spiegel then goes on to subhead “The ‘Super Hawk’,” when describing Victoria Nuland’s role. Spiegel says there: 

“She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats. Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel’s diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine.”

Spiegel has always tried to portray U.S. President Obama as being trapped by conservatives, such as Breedlove and Nuland, who somehow became parts of his Administration and who are, supposedly, independent actors in the roles that they perform — as if they weren’t instead his employees. For Spiegel, Nuland’s (and they spell it out there, so I will here) “Fuck the EU” statement, was only speaking for herself, as if she weren’t Obama’s hire, though Spiegel does note there that, “Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.” Precisely why Mr. Obama selected Dick Cheney’s former chief foreign-policy advisor, Nuland, to become the person who would carry out his Administration’s polices regarding Ukraine and Russia, the ever-‘tactful’ Spiegel ignores. Instead, Spiegel goes on to say, “When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand.”

Throughout, Spiegel ignores that Obama has been driving his entire Administration to marginalize, weaken, and crush Russia, and that this overriding goal of his foreign policies does not originate with his hires but with himself: he chooses these “Super Hawks” regarding Russia, because this is who he secretly is. When he plays the good cop in the good-cop bad-cop routine on Russia, it’s an act, which is designed to fool the public. Obama bombed Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was friendly to Russia; he bombs Syria because Bashar al-Assad is friendly to Russia; he overthrew Ukraine’s Government because Viktor Yanukovych was friendly to Russia; and he has been and is squeezing Iran because Iran is friendly to Russia. Israel is no different than the U.S.: it’s rabidly anti-Russian (and most of the large political donations to there come from American billioinaires; Israel is America’s 51st state, which has lots more than one-fifty-first of the power over the American Government — it’s the most powerful of the 51 actual states, even though it has no fealty to the U.S. Constitution and no constitution of its own); and both the U.S. and Israel are allied with Saudi and other Arab royals because they’re all anti-Russian. America’s ally is Saudi Wahhabist jihadist Islam, not the EU. America created Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Everything else than the obsession to isolate and destroy Russia is just an act, for the American aristocracy (including the ones who own Israel) — and especially for all Republican politicians and for the top Democratic ones.

Maybe the EU will finally decide that they’ve had enough of it, and invite Russia to join with them, and will tell Ukraine that they’re a bit too American for European tastes, after all: Europe has had enough experience with fascism and nazism, so that they don’t want to invite it back in again.

But will Germany actually do this? Will France actually do this? Have they had enough of Sunni jihad, and of Christian nazism (both just aristocratic ploys), to decide that they want no part of either one? Maybe goodbye, U.S.; hello, Russia? What type of Europe would that be? Might it out-compete the U.S.? Would it be the best thing for Europeans?

That’s the big strategic question in our time. And it’s not America’s to answer. Either Europe will go with democracy and peace and abandon NATO (i.e., abandon the U.S. military), or else it will go with nazism and war and abandon democracy (like the U.S. itself has done, especially in Ukraine).

Which will it be? Europe will need to choose between Russia and the United States. If it goes with the U.S., Europeans will become servants to America’s aristocracy — to the people who are now actually running Ukraine. If it goes with Russia, then perhaps a United States of Europe will become possible so that no nation’s aristocracy will have either the inclination or the ability to dictate to the governments of Europe.

Stay tuned. These are exciting times: the stakes for future history have never been higher.

It’s not really Obama who is on the fence. It is Europe. And the decision will be for Europe’s leaders — not for America’s, nor for Russia’s — to make.

They are in the driver’s seat, for Europe’s future — and for the entire world’s.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • DebL.

    Mr. Zuesse, you know damned well why Obama bombed Libya…Kadaffi wanted to get Libya off the pertodollar standard into a gold backed currency (just like Saddam did, just like JFK did…and like JFK, Kaddafi was assassinated for it). Just like Bush bombing Iraq–gold dinar. Just like Iran…get rid of petrodollar. Just like Russia–get rid of petrodollar. THAT is why Obama wants Ukraine as a vassal and Russia to be crushed…Russia and China are really the only two countries strong enough to challenge the petrodollar standard (and the US isn’t stupid enough to invade Russia or China…or is it?)

    And don’t give me this nonsense that Israel doesn’t rule the US! I guess you haven’t seen the videos of how the slaves in Congress did everything but kiss Benny the Yahoo’s butt!

    See, Israel rules the US,and the Rothschilds rule Israel, and Satan rules the Rothschilds.

  • Atmel

    Mr. Zuesse,
    I write from Russia.
    Today in the Russian media quoted your article, and I began to search for your
    publications, to read the original source. I was shocked at how accurately you
    repeat theses of internal Russian propaganda about the Nazis in Ukraine and that Obama made a coup d’etat in Kiev. I have not found in your article only one, namely the immediate causes of the coup in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the ousted President Yanukovych was this cause. If you consider yourself to be a historian, you should talk to the Ukrainians. They will tell you how
    Yanukovich usurped branch, as his clan engaged in corporate raids. And there is
    no another circumstance in your article. Yanukovich was promoted by Putin, ie Yanukovych actually prepared the country to merge with Russia.

    It seems to me that you are a communist. Or someone good pay you from outside. One thing is clear, you are showing the situation is very biased and one-sided.

    Sorry for my inglish.
    .

    • Rocky Racoon

      The economic deal that was offered by Russia to Ukraine was ten times better than anything you got from the EU which is going to destroy Ukraine economy you will just supply cheap labour and be a market for EU nothing in return and you cannot compete with them. Russia offered much better deal which is why Yanukovich took it it was best for Ukraine and yes he was crook but he was elected crook-not like today’s Nazi in Ukraine who could not win election fair and square . Tell your people that!

      • Atmel

        I have my
        doubts about the conditions to reduce the standard of living that puts the IMF
        but there is an important condition that the IMF puts among them
        to Ukraine.
        This condition is the abolition of corruption schemes. Russia had not
        put such conditions because the Russian government of all levels walk by this
        rule of corruption schemes. It is a chronic feature of the Russian economy and
        power. Strategically, this is the way the country’s suicide.
        Ask also how much money Yanukovych appropriated, and how he had brought from the country.

        And about second thesis. The opposition will never be able to win the election if the opposition does not get enough access to the media. Yanukovych squeezed opposition from all branches of government, and this led to the fact that the opposition is increasingly deprived of the opportunity to influence public opinion. This is something that absolutely has happened in Russia.
        Yanukovych had acted according to the schemes of the Russian authorities. He
        displaces people in courts, state security, in the executive branch, etc.

        • Rocky Racoon

          I guess you haven’t read the Moscow Times lately may as well be written by the US State Dept and probably is!!! And it seems the most corrupt oligarch’s in Russia end up in the City of London bad mouthing Putin with a hooker on each knee and a bowl full of coke on the end table IN public in the Strip Parlours-good for the GDP you know.

        • MC

          You think the IMF is looking out for your best interest? Observe the fate of other countries. Go there and look around. An “underdeveloped” or “developing” country is just a pseudonym for “overexploited”.

          • Atmel

            It seems to me now that the international blogs are accompanied by political services of Russia. Because this is the traditional rhetoric of the Russian (or Europen) Communists and supporters of the russian monarchical ideology “for faith, Tsar and Fatherland”, and now it is the ideologia of the neoPutinists. Can anybody explain to me two things?

            1) Why developing countries are asked to expand IMF quotas for their countries?

            2) Why preferential bank-rate loans from the IMF are not going good for the countries that received them?