Sahra Wagenknecht: EU policy has destroyed Ukraine and damaged Europe

«Sahra Wagenknecht: EU policy has destroyed Ukraine and damaged Europe»

Den uforlignelige Sahra Wagenknecht sier fra hvor skapet bør stå – og hvor det står nå. Hennes retoriske teknikk er ‘velinformert ærlighet’. Vi kan være glade for at en slik politiker finnes i EUs økonomisk sterkeste stat Tyskland.

Til Wagenknechts innledende bemerkninger – særlig til: «[T]he head of the influential think-tank Stratfor, with striking bluntness, explained the US interest in Europe: The chief interest of the United States is to prevent coordination between Germany and Russia, since, literally “united they are the only power that can threaten us,” i.e. threaten the US.» – om Ukraina og relasjonen USA/Russland, er følgende gode og klare analyse svært relevant, med dette utdraget sentralt:

«The U.S. position is clear and transparent. In the second half of the 1990s, Washington missed its only opportunity to reform the Cold War economy without any obstacles and thereby avoid the looming crisis in a system whose development is limited by the finite nature of planet Earth and its resources, including human ones, which conflicts with the need to endlessly print dollars.
After that, the United States could prolong the death throes of the system only by plundering the rest of the world. At first, it went after Third World countries. Then it went for potential competitors. Then for allies and even close friends. Such plundering could continue only as long as the United States remained the world’s undisputed hegemon.
Thus when Russia asserted its right to make independent political decisions – decisions of not global but regional import – , a clash with the United States became inevitable. This clash cannot end in a compromise peace.
For the United States, a compromise with Russia would mean a voluntary renunciation of its hegemony, leading to a quick, systemic catastrophe – not only a political and economic crisis but also a paralysis of state institutions and the inability of the government to function. In other words, its inevitable disintegration.
But if the United States wins, then it is Russia that will experience systemic catastrophe. After a certain type of “rebellion,” Russia’s ruling classes would be punished with asset liquidation and confiscation as well as imprisonment. The state would be fragmented, substantial territories would be annexed, and the country’s military might would be destroyed.
So the war will last until one side wins. Any interim agreement should be viewed only as a temporary truce – a needed respite to regroup, to mobilize new resources and to find (i.e., to poach) additional allies.»

Jf. http://thesaker.is/what-does-putin-want-a-major-analysis-by-rostislav-ishchenko-must-read/

Svar

3 KOMMENTARER

Ullern 27. april 2015 at 13:53

«Sahra Wagenknecht: EU policy has destroyed Ukraine and damaged Europe»

Den uforlignelige Sahra Wagenknecht sier fra hvor skapet bør stå – og hvor det står nå. Hennes retoriske teknikk er ‘velinformert ærlighet’. Vi kan være glade for at en slik politiker finnes i EUs økonomisk sterkeste stat Tyskland.

Til Wagenknechts innledende bemerkninger – særlig til: «[T]he head of the influential think-tank Stratfor, with striking bluntness, explained the US interest in Europe: The chief interest of the United States is to prevent coordination between Germany and Russia, since, literally “united they are the only power that can threaten us,” i.e. threaten the US.» – om Ukraina og relasjonen USA/Russland, er følgende gode og klare analyse svært relevant, med dette utdraget sentralt:

«The U.S. position is clear and transparent. In the second half of the 1990s, Washington missed its only opportunity to reform the Cold War economy without any obstacles and thereby avoid the looming crisis in a system whose development is limited by the finite nature of planet Earth and its resources, including human ones, which conflicts with the need to endlessly print dollars.
After that, the United States could prolong the death throes of the system only by plundering the rest of the world. At first, it went after Third World countries. Then it went for potential competitors. Then for allies and even close friends. Such plundering could continue only as long as the United States remained the world’s undisputed hegemon.
Thus when Russia asserted its right to make independent political decisions – decisions of not global but regional import – , a clash with the United States became inevitable. This clash cannot end in a compromise peace.
For the United States, a compromise with Russia would mean a voluntary renunciation of its hegemony, leading to a quick, systemic catastrophe – not only a political and economic crisis but also a paralysis of state institutions and the inability of the government to function. In other words, its inevitable disintegration.
But if the United States wins, then it is Russia that will experience systemic catastrophe. After a certain type of “rebellion,” Russia’s ruling classes would be punished with asset liquidation and confiscation as well as imprisonment. The state would be fragmented, substantial territories would be annexed, and the country’s military might would be destroyed.
So the war will last until one side wins. Any interim agreement should be viewed only as a temporary truce – a needed respite to regroup, to mobilize new resources and to find (i.e., to poach) additional allies.»

Jf. http://thesaker.is/what-does-putin-want-a-major-analysis-by-rostislav-ishchenko-must-read/

Svar
Sahra Wagenknecht: – Jag ikke AfD-velgerne inn i det rasistiske hjørnet | Steigan blogger 21. mars 2016 at 06:26

[…] Sahra Wagenknecht har vært en skarp kritiker av Angela Merkels utenrikspolitikk, ikke minst forbundskanslerens konfrontasjonspolitikk mot Russland. Se for eksempel dette oppgjøret med Merkel i Forbundsdagen. […]

Svar
EU-politikken har ødelagt Ukraina og skadet Europa | Steigan blogger 14. april 2016 at 07:01

[…] Du kan se talen på video her. […]

Svar