Tag: foreign investments

The alliance of MI6, the CIA and the Banderites

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

After having shown that the war in Ukraine was prepared by the Straussians and triggered on February 17 by Kiev’s attack on the Donbass, Thierry Meyssan returns to the secret history that links the Anglo-Saxons to the Banderites since the fall of the Third Reich. He sounds the alarm: we have not been able to see the resurgence of Nazi racialism in Ukraine and in the Baltic States for thirty years, nor do we see that many of the Ukrainian civilians we welcome are steeped in Banderites’ ideology. We are waiting for Nazi attacks to begin in Western Europe before we wake up.

The alliance of MI6, the CIA and the Banderites

Jeffrey Sachs Discusses The War in Ukraine, ‘Shock Therapy,’ and More

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Jeffrey Sachs Discusses The War in Ukraine, ‘Shock Therapy,’ and More

Perhaps the most stunning bit of information in the interview comes from Sachs’s disclosure of the reason for the failure of “Shock therapy” in Russia. “Shock therapy” is the name given to the abrupt transition from the Soviet-style command economy to a market-oriented economy. It was a success in Poland, but a failure in Russia where it led to a depression deeper and more costly than our own Great Depression. Why? Sachs was an advisor to Poland and then Russia for the “therapy.” So he had witnessed a “controlled experiment,” as he put it elsewhere. At a certain point it the process, financial help from the outside was needed to revive the economy on a new basis. It was provided to Poland; but when Sachs called for the same help in Russia, it was refused by the West, specifically by the White House. This happened despite Sachs’s direct pleas to the White House. The depression that followed was neither accidental nor a surprise. Far from it. This was the first time that the US attempted to “weaken” post-Cold War Russia, an attempt that was eventually reversed under Putin.

Related:

Russian aid controversy:

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded a project by the HIID to help rebuild the Russian economy on the basis of western concepts of ethics, democracy and free markets. Jeffrey Sachs was said to have “packaged HIID as an AID consultant”. USAID were glad to accept help from Harvard, since they lacked expertise for such a project. The HIID oversaw and guided disbursement of $300 million of US aid to Russia with little oversight by USAID. HIID advisers worked closely with representatives from Russia, notably Anatoly Chubais and his associates. Once USAID accepted help from the HIID, HIID was in a position to recommend U.S. aid policies while being a recipient of that aid. It also put the HIID in a position of power overseeing some of their competitors. The project, which ran from 1992 to 1997, was headed by economist Andrei Shleifer and lawyer Jonathan Hay. HIID received $40.4 million in return for its activities in Russia, awarded without the normal competitive bidding approach.

Read More »

India taps oil, natural gas, coking coal in Russian Arctic region

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Russia is not only eyeing China as part of its outreach for the resource-rich Arctic region but is also engaging India on the Arctic route to increase bilateral trade and investments in oil, natural gas and coking coal sectors, ET has learnt.

India taps oil, natural gas, coking coal in Russian Arctic region

Related:

[2019] Narendra Modi launches ‘Act Far East’ policy: Here is all you need to know about proposed new trade ties with Russia

The United States wants a multinational armed force in Haiti BUT…

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)1 Comment

The United States wants a multinational armed force in Haiti BUT…

The Biden administration is discussing with other nations to form a multinational armed intervention force, but the United States refuses to send its own troops. They supported a resolution in favor of a “rapid armed intervention force”, but the resolution is still not voted on at the UN Security Council, encountering reluctance from Russia and China.

Related:

Haiti Still Needs Foreign Strike Force to Confront Gangs, Official Says

How the NED has Sabotaged Haitian Democracy and Sovereignty

Inside the Trilateral Commission: Power elites grapple with China’s rise

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Inside the Trilateral Commission: Power elites grapple with China’s rise (original)

Each new candidate for Commission membership is carefully scrutinized before being allowed entry. As a rule, members who take up positions in their national governments — which is uncannily common — give up their Trilateral Commission membership while in public service. Those include U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

This revolving door between the commission and senior government ranks has always been fodder for conspiracy theorists. Its first director in 1973, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later became U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. The very existence of the commission, meanwhile, seems predicated on the question of whether governing should be left to the people. It is a question the commission itself has tackled head-on since 1975: Is democracy functioning? Or does someone need to guide it?

That year, three scholars — Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington and Joji Watanuki — wrote a report for The Trilateral Commission titled “The Crisis of Democracy.” In it, Huntington wrote that some of the problems of governance in the U.S. stem from an “excess of democracy.”

Related:

The Crisis of Democracy – Trilateral Commission – 1975

Anti-China Protests in Thailand: Who is Behind them & Why? Searching for Asia’s “Zelensky”

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Nov 22, 2022 – As the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine destroys a nation and destabilizes a region, similar meddling that preceded the 2014 coup in Kiev is unfolding across Southeast Asia and in particular, in Thailand.

Who is the “Zelensky” of Thailand? Documented evidence exposes the Thai opposition as a product of years of US interference all in a bid to pivot Thailand aways from its largest economic and trade partner – China – and transform it into a belligerent proxy against Beijing on Washington’s behalf.

References:

Anti-China Protests in Thailand: Who is Behind them & Why? Searching for Asia’s “Zelensky” (Odysee) via The New Atlas

Previously:

Thailand: US-backed Opposition’s Violence Intimidates Critics, Paves Way for Regime Change

Macron rejects ‘confrontation’ as he relaunches Asia strategy

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Macron rejects ‘confrontation’ as he relaunches Asia strategy

“We don’t believe in hegemony, we don’t believe in confrontation, we believe in stability,” Macron said.

…

Macron said a coordinated response was needed to tackle the overlapping crises facing the international community — from climate change to economic turmoil triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“Our Indo-Pacific strategy is how to provide dynamic balance in this environment,” he said.

“How to provide precisely a sort of stability and equilibrium which could not be the hegemony of one of those, could not be the confrontation of the two major powers.”

The Indo-Pacific Strategy doesn’t sound as innocent as Macron makes it out to be:

The new US Indo-Pacific Strategy document released in February has two interesting components, one overt and one covert. The document overtly declares the US is an “Indo-Pacific power.” Covertly, its aim is to “tighten the noose around China.” Arguably, minus the military might, China’s nearly a decade-long “Belt and Road Initiative” cannot be perceived as a grand national strategy aimed at controlling Eurasia or the Asia Pacific or any region for that matter. Yet the BRI is mythologized into such a geostrategic game-changer that it has rattled the US and its allies in the Asia Pacific. The BRI, at best, is nothing more than a mere geopolitical overland and maritime “chessboard” based on trade and investment.

BRI and the ‘Indo-Pacific’ Strategy: Geopolitical vs. Geostrategic