Dismantling Nord Stream Means Cutting Putin’s “Arteries of Power”: Agitator Manifesto
eugyppius – September 30, 2022
Back in August, before the Nord Stream attacks, it was possible even for dim Green journalists to see that destroying the pipelines would be to Russia’s disadvantage.
Felix is a 31 year-old reporter for Welt with Green tendencies and very little intelligence or knowledge. He’s responsible for a string of ridiculous articles about how the German “gas panic” is exaggerated and why he should be allowed to donate money to arm Ukraine. Back in August, this ridiculous man wrote a long editorial about why Germany should “Dismantle the pipelines” because “That would be the ultimate sign of strength against Putin.” Reading this today, after the very pipelines Eick deplores have been destroyed, is instructive indeed:
The energy crisis hurts … But we must not lose sight of the big picture. Shifting away from Russian fossil fuels remains the most important thing. … The West should … turn the tables … with an ultimate sign of strength – and start pipeline demolition wherever it can. Every kilometre less pipeline means more freedom. …
Basically, with greater or lesser reduction in prosperity, we will succeed in destroying the greater part of this autocrat’s business model, and in freeing ourselves from the grip of his blackmail. As for Putin, he has fallen into a trap of his own making: Russian soil is full of oil and gas, but the leader of the self-declared energy superpower will be able to do less and less with it. Already, gas pipeline exports to Europe are at a 40-year low.
Above all, however, the gas emperor Putin must no longer be able to use gas as a political weapon. That is why we must take the decisive step. Too often, the sweet smell of the Kremlin has lured Germans in particular back again and again, despite all their political and ideological reservations. We should decide today to protect ourselves more strongly from Russia, also at an economic level. It is not enough to conclude treaties with other states and replace Russian oil and gas. Nor is it enough to rely more on renewable energies, even if energy sovereignty is still the best means against despots and madmen.
Germany and Europe should send a tougher signal to the Kremlin – one that hits Putin’s system at the root. We should decide today to dismantle the pipelines as far as possible, and we should start as soon as possible. Even if it’s only the few kilometres of pipeline on German soil. …
The two Nord Stream pipelines run through areas that cannot be assigned to any territory, but but rather belong to the so-called “exclusive economic zones” of Finland, Sweden and Denmark. These countries would presumably be in favour of dismantling at least Nord Stream 2, if only because the ailing Nord Stream 2 AG is unlikely to be able to pay enough for maintenance. …
The exit from the pipeline system would be worthwhile, because without pipelines, Putin’s system is nothing. In 2021, 45 per cent of Russia’s state budget was financed by revenues from oil and gas, and about 80 per cent of their exports flow through pipelines. About three quarters of natural gas exports go to the EU, as well as about half of oil exports, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Gazprom has also failed to invest in LNG technology and instead has always relied only on pipelines. Without these arteries of power, the system faces extinction. Even a declaration of intent would make Putin shudder, much as his threat of a nuclear strike made us shudder. …
“Away with the pipelines” does not mean “Never again Russia.” Russia, however, would have to accommodate the West as a consumer of its primary economic product. Reduced pipeline capacity simply means more independence. Gazprom would have to invest in liquid natural gas and build appropriate terminals. Sourcing gas and oil from Russia would become one possibility among many – without anyone being able to turn off the tap overnight.
Two months ago, even arrant fools like Felix Eick could see that destroying Nord Stream would hurt Russia. Now that somebody has actually destroyed Nord Stream (or the better part of it), we have to read harebrained theory upon harebrained theory about why Russia is actually responsible and how the end of these pipelines confers an overwrought twelve-dimensional chess advantage to Putin or helps Gazprom escape hypothetical lawsuits or permits Russia to escape sanctions. I wonder what Felix Eick thinks about all these theories. Perhaps he’d like to thank Putin for bringing about the reforms he has long demanded?
Western economic warfare backfired, new depression likely to come
What awaits Europe with Nord Stream pipelines possibly gone forever?
By Uriel Araujo | September 30, 2022
Now that the Nord Stream pipeline might have been sabotaged by Washington, as promised by US President Joe Biden on January 7, and is possibly gone forever (according to German authorities), it is time to consider the possible impacts.
The energy crisis in the EU has always been pushed by American interests. Moreover, the US has been engaging in economic warfare and even weaponizing the dollar for too long, but it has been clear for months now that its current economic and financial war against Russia has backfired – and once again, mostly upon Europe. Such economic wars in fact may dangerously spiral out of control, and are considered to be one of the causes of the 1929 crisis in the post-Versailles world.
Philip Pilkington, an Irish economist who works in investment finance, famous for his contributions on the empirical estimate of general equilibrium and other fields, has made quite interesting observations about the possible deindustrialization of Europe as a consequence of economic warfare. He remarks on how in the post-pandemic world debts in the West have been accumulating and, on top of that, the current conflict in Ukraine has brought extra energy costs.
After the conflict ends – or becomes a “frozen conflict” – or after good diplomacy is reestablished, Russia could start to once again supply gas to Europe as usual – this is how many analysts reasoned. However, now that the pipelines are gone, the price of energy in the continent is to remain tremendously high for years to come. With permanent high energy prices making manufacturing not economically viable anymore (thus decreasing European purchasing power), one should expect to see the bloc shutting out exports to revive an uncompetitive industry while increasing energy investments. These are Pilkington’s main points and it might be worth delving into them.
Pilkington argues that high energy costs will make the European industry largely uncompetitive because manufacturers will have no choice but to also raise the price of goods, which in turn, will not be able to compete with cheaper foreign goods. The economist goes on to argue that, in this scenario, with many manufacturers out of business, the result will be the loss of key jobs, with less employed people spending money and a new economic depression.
Thus, Pilkington reasons, the United States will not be able to “reshore” European manufacturing for too long because there simply won’t be anyone in the continent to buy the products the US ships to European shores. This crisis will thus affect Americans too, because as exports to Europe fall, US workers also lose their jobs. What could EU states do in such a scenario? The Irish economist writes quite convincingly that a tariff solution would be the most obvious one: by raising tariffs, these countries will be able to “render international products as expensive as the domestic products suffering from energy cost inflation.”
The result of that can only be more economic chaos for the West, while Europe “shuts itself off” and becomes a kind of a “black hole”, in a repetition of the 1920 events which resulted in the Great Depression, writes Philip Pilkington.
However, the global situation today has changed much, with the BRICS+ alliance, apparently aimed at “decoupling from the Western economy.” For a while, the rise in commodity prices has been perceived as a result of Western sanction policies, and this has forced the global south to look for parallel mechanisms and alternatives. Therefore, these emerging powers have the potential to build a “separate economic bloc”, which means the West would suffer the most from the economic chaos, as BRICS+ “has a relatively clean bill of economic health”.
All of this is a quite likely scenario and one should also consider the political implications. The economic crisis will in all likelihood bring back protectionism, and it might come accompanied by a 1930-like political climate. This in turn can only strengthen the populist camp in Europe. Populist and so-called “far-right” tendencies have been growing in the continent for years and the time seems to be just right for speeding up this phenomenon.
One remembers defeated French Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen promised to pull France out of NATO during this years’ elections. Meanwhile, in August, Hungary had once again the lowest energy prices in the EU. Over 8,700 sanctions have been imposed on Moscow, and yet they have hurt Europe more than Russia as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been a strong critic of such sanctions. In fact, whether one likes the man or not, he has oftentimes been the voice of reason in the bloc. Now, the German eurosceptic Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) political party is heavily focusing on attacking European elites and opposing the German government’s sanctions against Russia. This trend is everywhere across the EU.
It is about time Europe assert its sovereignty, however such a political stance is largely marginalized in the continent. Thus, although a European populist wave should increase skepticism about NATO and the EU itself, it will also increase political instability and turmoil. To sum it up, in the worst post-Nord Stream scenario, one can then expect a deindustrialized and isolated Europe going through a serious political and economic crisis.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
Who wins from demolishing the EU’s gas lifelines?
By Rachel Marsden | Samizdat | September 29, 2022
Speculation abounds since both Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, designed to carry cheap Russian gas to Europe, were damaged this week in what officials widely describe as deliberate acts of sabotage. Who could be responsible? Incidents buried in the past may provide a clue.
Speculation abounds, and typically in a direction colored by the preexisting biases of the person speculating – which is hardly helpful.
Let’s start with the end result and work backwards. The outcome ultimately means that Europe’s economic impetus for ever seeking peace with Russia has been seriously undermined, if not literally destroyed. Someone has taken it upon themselves to demolish the remaining bridges between the two. Until now, there was always a chance of reconciliation. Russian President Vladimir Putin said himself recently that all the EU needed to do to pull itself out of its self-imposed energy crisis was to push the button on its gas supply from Russia and drop the anti-Russian sanctions that prevent it from doing so.
People in the streets of German cities protesting against Berlin’s blind following of Brussels’ anti-Russia sanctions also knew that was the answer. But now that option has been taken off the table. The EU is now adrift amid a deepening energy crisis and someone burned its last sails. It’s clear that Europe itself wouldn’t benefit from that. Nor does it benefit at all from any of its own anti-Russian sanctions. But who gave Brussels that idea, to harm its own economy in the first place?
At the onset of the Ukrainian conflict, it was Washington that egged on the EU to mirror measures that Washington itself had adopted in an effort to deprive Moscow of revenues to fuel its interests and objectives in Ukraine. The problem is that the EU’s economy was far more entwined with Russia’s than America’s. Any sense that US President Joe Biden and his administration may have given EU leaders, that they’d be there to help the bloc soften the blow of its self-sacrificial sanctions, has since been replaced by a harsh, pragmatic reality. US shale executives have explained to Western media that they simply lack the capacity to ramp up production for Europe’s winter crunch, even amid the growing rationing, deindustrialization, and risk of blackouts.
So, pressure has recently been increasing on EU member states to achieve a rapid diplomatic, peaceful resolution. But any reconnection of Nord Stream gas would have been a blow to US economic ambitions, which eventually include turning the EU into a dependent liquefied natural gas client. To that end, US officials have even tried to market their natural gas in the past as “freedom molecules,” in contrast to the “authoritarian” Russian gas.
Biden himself said of Nord Stream 2 during a press conference on February 7, before the Ukraine conflict had even popped off, that “we will bring an end to it,” despite it being out of American control. But even long before that, the US was sanctioning and bullying European companies into halting construction on Nord Stream 2 under the pretext of saving Europe from Russia. It’s worth noting that Europe didn’t really have problems with Russia this century until the US decided to make Ukraine an outpost for the State Department.
Not only did Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned operator of the pipeline, persist against all odds to finish it, but it’s really the only leverage that Moscow has in Europe. Attributing to Moscow the recent sabotage of their own economic interests in Europe seems absurd. The damage done to the pipelines now means that to prevent them from being completely filled with sea water and destroyed, Russia is forced to keep pumping gas through them and into the sea at their own expense. What exactly does Moscow gain from any of this? Conversely, what does Washington gain? Nothing less than Brussels’ full dependence, which proved elusive when Europe could split its interests between the east and west.
As for who possesses the technical ability to execute underwater pipeline sabotage, both Russia and the US do. Much has been made in the past of the potential for cutting undersea cables – defined as an act of war by UK defense chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. The US actually has a history in such operations, having tapped into undersea cables to spy on the Soviet Union in the 1970s Operation Ivy Bells, according to public records about Operation Ivy Bells. Washington also has sabotaged Soviet gas pipelines before, albeit indirectly – according to Thomas C. Reed, a former Air Force secretary who served on the National Security Council in 1982, when then-US President Ronald Reagan allegedly approved a plan for the CIA to sabotage components of a pipeline operated by the Soviet Union. The objective was to prevent Western Europe from importing natural gas from the Soviets. Sound familiar?
Time and inquiry will uncover the culprit eventually – if we’re lucky. EU officials are vowing to get to the bottom of it. “All available information indicates leaks are the result of a deliberate act. Deliberate disruption of European energy infrastructure is utterly unacceptable and will be met with a robust and united response,” Tweeted the bloc’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell. Perhaps investigators could pay a visit to Radoslaw Sikorski, European Parliament member and former Polish foreign minister, who tweeted a photo of the disaster aftermath along with the note, “Thank you, USA.”
But if it indeed turns out that Washington committed what some consider to be an act of war against Europe’s economy, will Brussels have the heart to really confront it? Or will Brussels continue to find justifications to remain complicit in its own demise?
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English. rachelmarsden.com
Western withdrawal of citizens from Russia may be a provocation
This act looks like a threat of attack and could generate responses.
By Lucas Leiroz | September 29, 2022
The US and some other Western countries announced the evacuation of their citizens from the Russian territory. In a context of tensions between Moscow and NATO, this type of attitude sounds like a threat, further worsening the scenario of global security crisis.
The US State Department has asked Russia-based American citizens to leave the country immediately. The appeal was posted on the website of the US Embassy in Russia. The justification for the advice was that Moscow could mobilize citizens who have dual nationality, which is why foreigners based in Russia should flee as quickly as possible, before they are mobilized for combat on Ukrainian soil. The statement also highlights that there are currently a limited number of flights from Russia to other countries, and tickets for the next dates may not be available, so US citizens residing in Russia should hurry to leave.
It is interesting to analyze the communiqué issued by the Embassy when the reality of the mobilization promoted by Russia is not only partial but also absolutely moderate. The call-up of combatants has been promoted in a balanced way, with no urgency for foreign citizens to flee in a hurry to avoid being mobilized. Moscow has shown no interest in forcing foreign nationals with Russian passports to serve in the special military operation, which makes the American narrative weak and unsubstantiated.
However, some other countries also took measures similar to the one of the US. Poland and Bulgaria, for example, called on their citizens to leave Russia immediately. Commenting on the matter, spokespersons for the Polish Foreign Ministry released a note stating: “In case of a drastic deterioration of the security situation, the closure of borders or other unforeseen circumstances, evacuation may prove significantly impeded or even impossible (…) We recommend that the citizens of the Republic of Poland who remain on the territory of the Russian Federation leave its territory using the available commercial and private means”.
Also, Poland’s foreign minister Zbigniew Rau was more explicit in his words and stated that if Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, NATO’s response will be “devastating”, which is why Polish citizens should leave Russian territory as soon as possible. In fact, his words were just an endorsement of what had already been previously announced by the US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who threatened Moscow by stating that “if Russia crosses this line (the use of nuclear weapons], there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia”, adding that “the United States will respond decisively”.
In fact, evacuating citizens is an elementary measure usually taken by states that are planning some kind of attack or invasion. It is the most direct and simplest way to prevent putting the lives of innocent citizens on enemy soil at risk when a war is breaking out. In this sense, any attempt at a massive withdrawal of Western citizens from Russia sounds like a threat to the Eurasian country at this point, as the Western military alliance has constantly warned of “consequences” against Moscow in the event of an escalation in Ukraine.
The problem is that the situation in Ukraine only tends to escalate because of the attitudes of the western countries themselves, which continue with their provocative military programs against Russia, supporting the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev with lethal weapons and large amounts of money. Moscow has already issued communiqués warning of what it considers a “red line” in the Ukrainian conflict, which is Russia’s sovereign territory. Russian forces are unwilling to tolerate attacks on the Federation’s territory and make it clear that they will respond harshly if such attacks occur.
With the positive result for the integration of the liberated territories into Russia, the new oblasts will become part of the Federation and thus will be under direct protection of Moscow, not being tolerable Ukrainian attacks in these regions. The West, however, insists on not recognizing the referendums and encourages Kiev to attack these regions. This is precisely where an eventual nuclear escalation could happen. Russian military doctrine establishes that nuclear weapons should only be used as a last resort in the event of an existential threat to the Russian state. Moscow may consider Western-funded attacks an existential threat if the targets are within the Federation – including the new territories – which is why there is currently a nuclear danger.
So, it is the West itself that fosters the conditions for a nuclear escalation. And it is also the West that threatens to react to such an escalation by directly attacking Russia and starting a third world war. By evacuating its citizens, the US and its allies are once again provoking and threatening Russia, sending “red alerts” that something is “about to happen”. The objective is to act preemptively and justify a Western response.
In fact, the West seems to be acting in an anti-strategic manner. There no longer seems to be any military realism in the thinking of NATO leaders, who are willing to escalate tensions more and more, even though there are no winners in a possible scenario of world war.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Second energy protest roils Czechia

Protest against the Czech government at Wenceslas Square in Prague, Czechia, September 28, 2022. © Lukas Kabon / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Samizdat | September 28, 2022
A crowd numbered in the tens of thousands gathered in Prague on Wednesday to protest against the Czech government, NATO, and the European Union. Demonstrators called for Czechia’s neutrality and protested Prime Minister Petr Fiala’s policy of sanctioning Russia, which has driven up energy prices.
Meeting on St. Wenceslas’ Day – a public holiday celebrating Czech statehood – the crowd took to Prague’s main square, named after the medieval saint, and chanted slogans against the EU, NATO and Fiala’s cabinet. Prague police would not give a specific figure of the estimated crowd size, calling it only “tens of thousands.”
The protest was organized by a group called ‘Czech Republic First,’ which Reuters described as a coalition of “far-right and fringe groups and parties including the Communists.” CRF opposes the EU and NATO and has called for Czechia’s military neutrality.
“A government has two duties: to ensure our security and economic prosperity. This government does not fulfill either of these duties,” said one unidentified speaker at the rally, according to Reuters.
A demonstrator named Pavel Nebel accused the government of being “absolutely anti-Czech” and serving only the EU, NATO, and “American power” at the expense of Czech interests.
The organizers called for another protest on October 28 and said they intend to ask President Milos Zeman to disband the government and call for early elections, according to Lidove Noviny. It was the second such rally this month, after some 70,000 people took part in the September 3 protest, according to police. Similar rallies in other Czech cities drew hundreds of participants.
“People should not be taken advantage of by manipulators who offer simple but unrealistic solutions in the squares,” Interior Minister Vit Rakusan told Lidove in response to the protest.
Fiala had dismissed the September 3 demonstrations as “pro-Russian,” accusing their organizers of listening to “Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns.” His government has diligently followed the lead of Brussels in imposing trade embargoes against Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine, which has translated into skyrocketing prices of energy normally imported from Russia.
Czechia had joined NATO in March 1999, just days before the US-led bloc attacked Yugoslavia. It became a member of the EU in May 2004.
Germany secures just one tanker of LNG from UAE
Samizdat | September 27, 2022
German utility RWE has inked a deal with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) for delivery of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the company announced on Sunday.
The deal so far covers only one tanker: a shipment amounting to 137,000 cubic meters of LNG to be delivered by Abu Dhabi National Oil company to RWE in late December or by early 2023, Bloomberg reported, citing the company’s announcement. Separately, RWE also announced it will partner with UAE-based company Masdar to explore offshore wind energy projects and supply 250,000 tons of diesel per month in 2023 to Germany’s fuel distributor Wilhelm Hoyer.
The deal also includes a memorandum of understanding for more LNG deliveries next year, but the document is non-binding and it is unclear how many more LNG deliveries Germany may expect.
The agreement was signed during German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s trip to Abu Dhabi during a tour of the Gulf countries.
“We need to make sure that the production of LNG in the world is advanced to the point where the high demand that exists can be met without having to resort to the production capacity that exists in Russia,” Scholz told reporters prior to the deal’s announcement.
After the UAE, Scholz visited Qatar. However, according to Scholz’s statement issued after the meeting with the Qatari emir, no agreements on LNG supplies have been made there. The two countries have been in talks over LNG supplies for several months now, so far to no avail, as Berlin is reluctant to enter into long-term contracts with Doha.
Industrialist: ‘The Americans control everything in the background’
Free West Media | September 26, 2022
German industrialist Wolfgang Grupp, the CEO of textile giant Trigema, does not understand why Germans suddenly see Vladimir Putin as a mortal enemy. He believes that the US is controlling everything in the background and are the only winners of this war.
The head of the textile manufacturer has taken a stand on the Ukraine war in an interview with BW24.de. Grupp told the portal, “I don’t understand how you can be best friends with Mr Putin for 20 years, be 100 percent dependent on him and within two months you are mortal enemies! That doesn’t make sense.”
Something must have been going on for some time, Grupp suggested. The company patriarch believes that “the Americans are controlling everything in the background so that it remains a world power.” The US, he said, was the only winner in this war.
Grupp: ‘Supplying weapons to Ukraine with great fanfare’
Grupp goes on to say in the interview: “If we deliver weapons to Ukraine with great fanfare for billions and at the same time say: No problem, the citizens and the economy have to pay for it. These are statements that I cannot understand.” He said he had never experienced “ending a dispute by giving one a bigger knife and the other a bigger axe.”
Grupp instead insists on negotiations with Putin. Otherwise, he said, the war could not be ended. His company, said the entrepreneur, has a high financial burden due to the war. Recently he said in an interview with FOCUS online that his costs for gas had increased tenfold in the past two years. He told BW24.de that he was being “punished” for switching to gas.
No slave labour
The textile industry has been mired in controversy because it uses slave labour, overseas sweatshops and a “fast fashion” business model that encourages huge waste and unsustainable consumption. Grupp has avoided these issues through a long-term commitment to manufacturing textiles entirely in Germany – and more specifically, in Burladingen, Schwabia, where its factory is based.
Unlike the vast majority of other textile firms and international clothing brands, Trigema does not outsource any of its production overseas and only imports responsibly sourced cotton. Trigema has been wholly owned by Grupp for more than 50 years.
Grupp is free to voice such an opinion because being the sole owner using 100 percent of his own capital means Grupp is not beholden to any influence from banks or shareholders. It is Germany’s largest manufacturer of t-shirts, sweatshirts and tennis clothing.
‘Old values’
Grupp is considered a man of conservative values such as responsibility, respect and decency. He is personally liable for Trigema – which is somewhat of a rarity these days.
With reference to current corporatist notions, the company patriarch, who turned 80 this year, explained: “Cash in when things are going well and leave losses to the taxpayer in difficult times, that certainly shouldn’t be done!
“Our world is so crazy. I appreciate the old values, I’m traditional. I am responsible for everything, I guarantee jobs.”
Greens bring ‘war and poverty’
The Scholz administration is clinging to its ideological aberrations. In a bill intended to implement an EU directive, the Treasury Department earlier underwrote a 66 billion loan authorization for KfW to provide support to energy companies.
The KfW is a German state-owned investment and development bank, based in Frankfurt. As of 2014, it is the world’s largest national development bank and Germany’s third largest bank in terms of its balance sheet.
Martin Reichardt, AfD state chairman of Saxony-Anhalt and member of the federal executive board, exposed the government’s justification for the additional credit authorization as scandalous: “The credit authorization is necessary so that the confidence of business and the public in the federal government’s packages of measures is not damaged.” The damage to citizens however is huge.
“Those who vote for the Greens choose war and poverty,” according to Reichardt.
The crisis is picking up speed
Fifty percent of trading companies are threatened by the government’s policies. Every second company in Germany is now facing existential hardships. This was the result of a recent survey by the German Retail Association (HDE) among 900 companies in the retail sector.
The main reason for the development is energy costs, which have risen by an average of 150 percent since the beginning of the year. Stefan Genth, General Manager of the HDE, explains: “On the one hand, energy prices are rising enormously, on the other hand, most of them cannot simply pass the costs on to customers due to the tough competition.”
In addition, there are the additional cost increases due to the Russia sanctions – they too are a direct consequence of the policy of the federal government.
Only 14 percent of those surveyed can add some or all of the rising energy costs to consumer prices. Almost a quarter of the survey participants expect to have to close their own business within the next twelve months. The situation is particularly tense among bicycle dealers, dealers in household appliances and consumer electronics.
Meanwhile, the food industry is already warning of the acute danger of food shortages. “There are significant supply gaps in the daily food supply for people in Germany. The situation is more than serious,” an open letter from the industry warned, which was initiated by the German Frozen Food Institute (DTI) and the Association of German Cold Stores and Cold Logistics Companies (VDKL). Five other industry associations signed the letter, which was addressed to Chancellor Scholz, Federal Minister of Economics Habeck and Minister of Agriculture Özdemir.
The companies now fear that production lines will soon come to a standstill and that refrigerated logistics centers for food distribution will be closed. “The food industry is currently experiencing the worst crisis since the end of the Second World War,” it continued. “The situation is tense and the load limit has been reached, so the companies have to reduce their ranges in an emergency.”
Here, too, the dramatic rise in prices for electricity and gas supply due to sanctions is cited as the reason for the catastrophic situation.
From Suicide to Dead and Buried… Germany Now Provokes China
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 23, 2022
Not content with committing its nation to economic suicide from deteriorating Russian relations, the German government now wants to bury the corpse by sabotaging trade relations with China.
Robert Habeck, Germany’s trade minister, has riled Beijing by telling a G7 summit last week that Berlin was aiming to adopt a new China policy to “reduce economic dependency”. Habeck said Germany would strive to take tougher controls over Chinese foreign investment and move away from German reliance on China for key commodities such as semiconductors, batteries and other electronics.
Sounding tough in front of other Western members of the G7 forum (a redundant elite club if ever there was one), Habeck said, “the naivety towards China is over”. He said that trade relations would no longer be viewed in isolation from alleged human rights violations and other international concerns, presumably meaning China’s alleged hostility towards Taiwan.
Beijing slammed Habeck’s remarks and retorted that he was the one who is being “naive” in seeking to damage mutually beneficial bilateral relations.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz doubled down on the provocation at the weekend when he was asked about China’s position on Taiwan. Scholz implied that Beijing was the hostile party in recent tensions over the breakaway island territory. He cautioned China: “It is important that we ban violence from international relations.”
It was another red flag being waved by Berlin in China’s face. Scholz doesn’t seem to realize, or doesn’t want to realize, that Taiwan is a sovereign part of China. That is the legal fact of treaties at the United Nations and the internationally accepted One China Policy. It is the United States, Britain, Australia, France and Germany that are increasingly deploying military forces in China’s territorial waters that are causing dangerous tensions and obliging Beijing to take a tougher position on defending its sovereignty, including its rightful claims over Taiwan.
What are the German leaders playing at? The recklessness of their stance and the damage being inflicted on the nation’s economy make you wonder whose interests are they serving. Certainly, it would seem, not the interests of the German population.
Germany, the economic engine of the European Union, is crashing headfirst from its insane sabotage of energy trade with Russia. It reminds you of those slow-motion car crash tests where dummies are flung into the windscreen. Now it’s heading for a Chinese wall.
The self-imposed cutting off of gas supply from Russia is wrecking German industry and plunging the population into a winter of misery of untold poverty and hardship. Many observers including Russian President Vladimir Putin are baffled by the willful embrace of economic suicide that the German government is rushing into.
For decades, the German export-led economy has been driven by a copious supply of low-priced Russian natural gas and oil. The coalition government in Berlin, which took over from Angela Merkel’s administration at the end of last year, has cut off links with Moscow as part of its support for Washington’s policy to isolate Russia. Germany has gone all in to support the U.S.-backed Kiev regime with heavy weapons supplied to Ukraine in a war with Russia.
So much for Scholz’s admonition to China to “ban the use of violence in international relations”. Berlin is fueling the conflict in Ukraine and along with the U.S. and other NATO powers is preventing any diplomatic process to find a peaceful resolution with Russia.
If the death blow to the German economy was not bad enough from the reckless policy toward Russia, now Berlin wants to kill relations with Beijing.
China is Germany’s top trading partner for the past six years. Bilateral trade has grown steadily. This year’s commerce is heading to surpass the 2021 record high of over $240 billion in Chinese-German trade.
With its 1.4 billion population, China is a vital market for Germany’s exporters, especially the all-important auto industry that drives the German economy. Nearly 40 percent of global sales for Volkswagen, Audi, BMW and Mercedes are in China, spurred by the latter’s phenomenal economic development.
The Berlin government is putting its economic lifeline with China at risk by adopting a policy of wantonly provoking Beijing. In this, the German “leaders” are following Washington’s bidding. They have done this with regard to sabotaging Russian relations. Now they are bent on repeating the folly toward China.
It is notable that Habeck, the German trade minister, is a member of the Greens in the coalition government with Scholz’s Social Democrats. The other senior Green in the coalition is Annalena Baerbock who is the foreign minister. Both of them are pushing an irrational ideological position of damaging Russian and Chinese relations. The Greens want to convert Germany to renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. That’s how they justify doing away with Russian hydrocarbons. But the calculation is woefully misplaced. German industries and the wider population need Russian gas to run their factories and heat their homes. The folly of cutting off Russian energy is backfiring big time. The absurdity is that Germany is now going back to dirty fuel from coal in order to desperately fill the power vacuum that has been self-inflicted by Green ideologues.
More than Green ideology, however, is the real underlying ideology of Russophobia and Sinophobia. Habeck and Baerbock are blinded by their subservience to Washington’s transatlantic agenda of dividing Europe from having normal neighborly relations with Russia and China.
Washington’s agenda is to promote U.S. hegemony and its presumed unipolar dominance in international relations. In short, American imperialism.
An extension of that agenda is to incite antagonism toward China. The encirclement of Russia goes hand in hand with the encirclement of China. It is no coincidence that as Washington escalates tensions with Moscow over Ukraine and NATO encroachment, it is also feverishly inciting tensions with China over Taiwan and dubious allegations of human rights violations by Beijing.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration and Congress are pumping weapons into Ukraine and Taiwan in a deliberate and one could say criminal bid to provoke military confrontation. The U.S. capitalist economy needs tensions and conflict to sustain its military-industrial complex, the beating heart of American capitalism.
If Germany’s Chancellor Scholz had any independence of thought, he would be better to remonstrate with Washington over the use of violence in international relations.
But there is no chance of Scholz and his government ever doing that. They are lackeys for Washington and are hopelessly brainwashed with ideological nonsense, Russophobia and Sinophobia.
This winter is already coming with dread for Germany and the wider European population over the policy choice to trash the cornerstone of Russian energy relations. With the further damage to German-Chinese relations, the Berlin political elite are shooting Germany and Europe in the head – twice.
German industries, businesses and workers are incensed by the stupidity of their so-called government which is more accurately described as a Washington-backed regime in Berlin. Angry protests on the streets witnessed in recent weeks in Germany and elsewhere across Europe against self-inflicted economic misery are but a foretaste of the explosive social unrest brewing.
And It Finally Hit The Fan…
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 21, 2022
Veteran observers of the way Western democracies function are familiar with the routine. When it is not distorted, information is hermetically sealed and deliberately kept inaccessible in order to mislead the public or simply keep it in the dark. This process may take one of two forms. Facts vital to arriving at an informed opinion may literally be locked away in a safe for several decades or longer, with harsh punishments provided should it occur to anyone to violate the secrecy regime.
The second method only appears to be more liberal, but in practice it tends to the same effect. The media monopoly ignores evidence that contradicts the official narrative and denigrates anyone who questions it. Technically, in most democracies there is no “secrecy act” (which actually does exist in Great Britain and is used as a legal tool to punish violators) but to suggest publicly anything that diverges from the official version is viewed as a grave breach of political correctness, with attendant harsh consequences. The result in both scenarios is therefore nearly the same. Evidence to the contrary is suppressed and discordant voices are effectively silenced. The public are deprived of information lacking which reasonable assessments are impossible and rational political decisions cannot be made. In an environment shaped by a deliberately orchestrated disinformation endeavour, it is safe to let “democracy” flourish. Allowing a deceived and benighted populace to form an “opinion,” and even to vote, obviously presents little danger to the system which is manipulating and keeping it in the dark.
On rare occasions when in spite of the suppression regime accurate information about an event does eventually surface, that usually occurs with such delay that the newly disclosed facts no longer matter. They are nonchalantly dismissed as “water under the bridge,” which is not an entirely inaccurate description of what they are. Facts which had they been honestly disclosed at the appropriate time might have made a political difference no longer have any impact whatsoever.
Copious examples can be cited of this sleight of hand played by the cynical rulers on their unsophisticated and trusting subjects. The Kennedy assassination comes readily to mind. A huge amount of evidence that if properly examined might have answered key questions, challenged the immediately established narrative, or could have generated uncomfortable implications, was immediately secreted away and has been kept under lock and key for over 50 years. Long ago, the Presidential assassination was supplanted by numerous other concerns. The opening of the remaining files, if and when it should occur, will cause few waves, except in the ranks of a handful of academics.
Evidence pertaining to what happened in Srebrenica in July of 1995 similarly has been locked away for decades. The official pretext in this as in other cases – “national security” – is of course shamelessly bogus. With very few exceptions, in a democracy national security is best served by keeping the public thoroughly informed and by vigorously debating all important issues. Armed with facts, instead of disoriented by the elite’s self-serving fabrications, the people would be empowered to make intelligent political decisions, as we are told in theory that it is their sovereign right to do. Perish the thought that such a thing should ever come to pass.
Were their minds not poisoned by ignoble sentiments against their Russian neighbours, Poles should be up in arms right now at how their leaders and their foreign masters ruthlessly deceived and manipulated them following the 2010 plane crash near Smolensk that killed President Lech Kaczynski and 95 other prominent Polish government officials aboard as their aeroplane was attempting to land in dense fog. Polish public opinion was encouraged from the start to believe that the crash was not an accident but an act of sabotage for which the Russian side was to be blamed. The already existing rift between two neighbouring Slavic nations was aggravated by this perception.
It appears nevertheless that facts about the crash that occurred in 2010 may have been misrepresented or swept under the rug but are finally beginning to emerge. As reported by the Indian news platform Republicworld.com an expose by the Polish television broadcaster Fakty TVN24 on September 12, 2022, has called into question the conclusions of the Polish government commission which studied the crash and which dutifully confirmed the official narrative of a Russian assassination plot.
Republicworld.com reports that, contrary to the official Polish version, “a professional commission for investigating aviation accidents found the April 10, 2010 crash of the Tu-154 aircraft near the rudimentary airport was an accident caused by human errors in adverse weather and technical conditions.”
The Indian source alleges that “in its report aired late Monday, private broadcaster TVN24 said the Polish government team intentionally ignored or manipulated facts presented by outside experts that negated its findings that intentional explosions aboard the plane caused the crash.”
The principal motive behind evidence manipulation may well have been political because “the head of the [government investigative] team, former Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz, is an associate of ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski. The assassination theory helps to consolidate the right-wing Law and Justice’s nationalist base and is supported by Kaczynski.”
The Polish government and political establishment have turned out to be quick learners and eager acolytes of their Western democratic paragons. After transitioning to the simulacrum of democracy, they did not miss a beat when an opportunity presented itself to mislead their own citizens by deliberately massaging facts about the tragic plane crash. The aim of these fledgling democrats apparently was to exacerbate enmity toward Russia and consolidate support for their nationalist agenda, by whipping up xenophobic fervour with deliberately falsified evidence.
With a twelve-year delay, the proverbial organic matter has finally hit the fan, as they say in America. It is doubtful that these disclosures will significantly alter the perceptions of the passionately anti-Russian Polish audience. But in view of the position that Poland has taken vis-à-vis the turbulence which currently surrounds it, these disclosures are illuminating and deliciously timely.
