I remember breathless reporting on Russia's imminent invasion of Ukraine, and then when it didn't happen Ukraine would escalate their shelling of the Donbas. This went on for a few weeks, and it definitely wasn't an attempt to provoke a Russian intervention. No way, Jose!
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I think it's fairly obvious that someone from the NATO aligned world wanted this conflict to happen, but I'll probably never know exactly who. Why did Zelensky go along with it? I don't know that either, but what immediately comes to mind is that maybe he wouldn't be prosecuted for financial crimes. What really astounds me is how severely this escalation backfired. I have to feel like the westerners that instigated this conflict must've thought they would actually collapse Russia, or does the outcome not matter at all and it's just an opportunity to grift and transfer massive amounts of public wealth into private hands?
However, in 2011, the Nord Stream pipeline became operational, delivering cheap Russian natural gas and enabled the European high tech manufacturing sector to recover at a rapid pace.
This moves the timeline of Ukraine project to 2004 when Yushchenko clique were propelled to power by US meddling too, and the most significant thing he did (except another round of shock therapy) was stealing gas from Russians, which was also one of the direct reasons for building Nordstream (and resulted in significant losses for Ukraine because Gazprom was selling them gas really cheap and now it ended). Which btw was first planned to go through Poland, but despite this being enormous opportunity, the talks were actually sabotaged by Poland undoubtly also at the wish of USA, so the more expensive variant of building under the sea was chosen ultimately.
I have a couple questions. Is it Ukraine or Russia that the EU regarded as a resource colony? Also, with Nordstream was Russia desiring to partially fulfill that role while also trying to maintain/develop their own economic sovereignty? I forget the particulars, but I know there was some aspect of partial Ukrainian integration into the EU that would have repercussions in Russia.
I new that the collapse of the USSR was an unprecedented disaster, but I had never considered all the ways it contributed to the dominance of finance in the west.
Is it Ukraine or Russia that the EU regarded as a resource colony?
Both countries fulfill the role of being large commodity exporters.
Also, with Nordstream was Russia desiring to partially fulfill that role while also trying to maintain/develop their own economic sovereignty?
Likely it was to get around piping gas through overland routes. You can see from this map that there were already pipelines into Germany, but as the attached paper describes, some of these lines have been shut off in the past due to political crises, which has fueled the creation of new overseas lines (such as the south stream)
I remember breathless reporting on Russia's imminent invasion of Ukraine, and then when it didn't happen Ukraine would escalate their shelling of the Donbas. This went on for a few weeks, and it definitely wasn't an attempt to provoke a Russian intervention. No way, Jose!
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I think it's fairly obvious that someone from the NATO aligned world wanted this conflict to happen, but I'll probably never know exactly who. Why did Zelensky go along with it? I don't know that either, but what immediately comes to mind is that maybe he wouldn't be prosecuted for financial crimes. What really astounds me is how severely this escalation backfired. I have to feel like the westerners that instigated this conflict must've thought they would actually collapse Russia, or does the outcome not matter at all and it's just an opportunity to grift and transfer massive amounts of public wealth into private hands?
Am I missing something?
deleted by creator
This moves the timeline of Ukraine project to 2004 when Yushchenko clique were propelled to power by US meddling too, and the most significant thing he did (except another round of shock therapy) was stealing gas from Russians, which was also one of the direct reasons for building Nordstream (and resulted in significant losses for Ukraine because Gazprom was selling them gas really cheap and now it ended). Which btw was first planned to go through Poland, but despite this being enormous opportunity, the talks were actually sabotaged by Poland undoubtly also at the wish of USA, so the more expensive variant of building under the sea was chosen ultimately.
Uh, sir, this is a Wendy's.
I have a couple questions. Is it Ukraine or Russia that the EU regarded as a resource colony? Also, with Nordstream was Russia desiring to partially fulfill that role while also trying to maintain/develop their own economic sovereignty? I forget the particulars, but I know there was some aspect of partial Ukrainian integration into the EU that would have repercussions in Russia.
I new that the collapse of the USSR was an unprecedented disaster, but I had never considered all the ways it contributed to the dominance of finance in the west.
Both countries fulfill the role of being large commodity exporters.
Likely it was to get around piping gas through overland routes. You can see from this map that there were already pipelines into Germany, but as the attached paper describes, some of these lines have been shut off in the past due to political crises, which has fueled the creation of new overseas lines (such as the south stream)
deleted by creator
I really appreciate what you put together here.
so the US blew up nordstream?
Almost certainly. Ukraine does not have the naval capacity to undertake something like that.
a) Zelensky is a comedian with zero political experience
b) Zelensky's administration is full of people he hired just because he knew them from the entertainment industry
He's basically Ukrainian Donald Trump
deleted by creator