Obama STABS Europe in the back

War, Oil And Gas Pipelines
Turkey Is Washington's Geopolitical Pivot
By F. William Engdahl
4-14-9


The recent visit of US President Obama to Turkey was far more significant than the President's speech would suggest. For Washington Turkey today has become a geopolitical "pivot state" which is in the position to tilt the Eurasian power equation towards Washington or significantly away from it depending on how Turkey develops its ties with Moscow and its role regarding key energy pipelines.

If Ankara decides to collaborate more closely with Russia, Georgia's position is precarious and Azerbaijan's natural gas pipeline route to Europe, the so-called Nabucco Pipeline, is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under US auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

For Washington the key to bringing Germany into closer cooperation with the US is to weaken German dependence on Russian energy flows. Twice in the past three wintersWashington has covertly incited its hand-picked President in Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko to arrange an arbitrary cut off of Russian gas flows to Germany and other EU destinations. The only purpose of the actions was to convince EU governments that Russia was not a reliable energy partner. Now, with the Obama visit to Ankara, Washington is attempting to win Turkish support for its troubled Nabucco alternative gas pipeline through Turkey from Azerbaijan which would theoretically at least lessen EU dependence on Russian gas.

The Turkish-EU problem

However willing Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan might be to accommodate Obama, the question of Turkish relations with the EU is inextricably linked with the troublesome issue of Turkish membership to the EU, a move vehemently opposed by France and also less openly by Germany.

Turkey is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey - which has considerable influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans - is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and German ties to Russia weaken considerably. If Turkey decides to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is dependent on Russian energy. Since it became clear in Moscow that US strategy was to extend NATO to Russia's front door via Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has moved to use its economic "carrot" its vast natural gas resources, to at the very least neutralize Western Europe, especially Germany, towards Russia. It is notable in that regard that the man chosen as Russia's President in December 1999 had spent a significant part of his KGB career in Germany.

Turkey and the US Game

It is becoming clear that Obama and Washington are playing a deeper game. A few weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues such as troops for Afghanistan or more economic stimulus that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled the trip to Turkey.

During the recent EU meetings in Prague Obama actively backed Turkey's application for EU membership knowing well that that put especially France and Germany in a difficult position as EU membership would allow free migration which many EU countries fear. Obama deliberately confronted EU states with this knowing he was playing with geopolitical fire, especially as the US is no member of the EU. It was a deliberate and cheap way to score points with the Erdogan government of Turkey.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed him because of his defense of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block Rasmussen. The Turks backed off the veto, and in return won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.
Turkey thereby boosted its standing in NATO, got Obama to vigorously defend the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United Statesdoes not belong to. Obama then went to Turkey for a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.



Obama has a Grand Strategy to use Turkey to isolate Russia via Nabucco pipelines through Georgia and Armenia to the EU


The Obama Erdogan talks were perhaps the most strategic of the recent Obama tour


The Russian Dimension

During US-Russian talks there had been no fundamental shift by Obama from the earlier position of the Bush Administration. Russia rejects Washington's idea of pressuring IUran on their nuclear program in return for a bargain of an undefined nature with Washington over US planned missile and radar bases in Poland and theCzech Republic. The US claimed it need not rely on Russia to bring military and other supplies into Afghanistan, claiming it had reached agreement with Ukraine to transship mililtary supplies, a move designed by Washington to increase friction between Moscow and Kiew. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea ofUkraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO. The key geopolitical prize for Washington remains Moscow but clearly Turkey is being wooed by Obama to play a role in that game.

Germany will clearly not join Obama in blocking Russia. Not only does Germany depend on Russia for energy supplies. She has no desire to confront a Russia that Berlinsees as no real immediate threat to Germany. For Berlin, at least now, they are not going to address the Russian question.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia is shaping up. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The US Congress is considering a provocative resolution condeming "Turkish genocide" agianst Armenians. Turkey is highly sensitive to these charges, and Congressional passage of such a resolution would have meant a Turkish break in diplomatic relations withWashington. Now since the Obama visit Ankara has begun to discuss an agreement with Armenia including diplomatic relations which would eliminate the impact of any potential US Congress resolution.
A Turkish opening to Armenia would alter the balance of power in the entire region. Since the August 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict the Caucasus, a strategically vital area to Moscow has been unstable. Russian troops remain in South Ossetia. Russia also has troops in Armenia meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded.
Turkey is the key link in this complex game of geopolitical balance of power between Washington and Moscow. If Turkey decides to collaborate with Russia Georgia's position becomes very insecure and Azerbaijan's possible pipeline route to Europe is blocked. If Turkey decides to cooperate with Washington and at the same time reaches a stable agreement with Armenia under US guidance, Russia's entire position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe becomes available, reducing Russian leverage against Western Europe.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russiain the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia's junior partner.

The most important Obama speech in his European tour came after Turkey won key posts in the NATO political structure with US backing. In his speech Obama sided withTurkey against the EU and in effect showed Turkey Washington was behind her. Obama's speech addressed Turkey as an emerging regional power, which was well received in Ankara. The sweet words will cost Turkey dearly if it acts on them.
Moscow is not sitting passively by as Washington woos Turkey. Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a four-day visit to the Russian Federation this February, where he met with President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Putin, and also traveled to Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, where he discussed joint investments. Gul was accompanied by his minister for foreign trade and minister of energy, as well as a large delegation of Turkish businessmen. The stakes in this complex three-way Great Game for domination of Eurasia have been raised significantly following the Obama trip to Ankara. Turkey imports 65 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia. Therefore, Turkey is also developing a growing dependency on Russian energy resources, including coal.
On March 27, 2009, a memorandum was signed between the Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR and Russia's Gazprom. The memorandum includes a statement of deliveries, beginning in January 2010, of Azerbaijani natural gas to Russia.

Gazprom was particularly interested in signing such an agreement with Azerbaijan, not the least because Azerbaijan is the only state outside Iran or Turkmenistan, both of which are problematic, that could supply gas to the planned EU Nabucco pipeline, for transporting natural gas from Azerbaijan and the Central Asia states through Turkeyto south-eastern Europe. In reality, gas may come only from Azerbaijan. Russia has proposed an alternative to Nabucco project, South Stream, also in need of Azerbaijani gas, so in effect Russia weakens the chances of realization of Nabucco. Obama strategy is clearly not less confrontational with Russia. It is merely playing with a slightly different deck of cards than did Cheney and Bush.

Analysis of the Article by Chief Rabbi Sacks

The article yesterday by Chief Rabbi Sacks was one of the best articles I have read on the internet for a long, long time.

There was virtually nothing I could disagree with - except for this part ; "Multiculturalism has run its course, and it is time to move on. It was a fine, even noble idea in its time. It was designed to make ethnic and religious minorities feel more at home, more appreciated and respected, and therefore better able to mesh with the larger society. It affirmed their culture. It gave dignity to difference. And in many ways it achieved its aims. Britain is a more open, diverse, energising, cosmopolitan environment than it was when I was growing up."

Multi-Culturalism was never about making ethnic and religious minorities feel at home here, it was a political mechanism designed to undermine the existing social orders of nations and undermine nationalism as a political force. Multi-Culturalism as an ideology was first defined and applied in Canada as a way of undermining the power of both Quebeci French Nationalists and the British elite in Canada.

The Bi-Cultural Canadian society was felt by people like Paul Yuzyk to be discrminatory against people like him who were neither part of the French Candadian or British Canadian elites. 'Alienated 'sections of Canadian society could be assisted into becoming Canadian by 'absorbing' them into the mainstream of politics by removing their status as an alienated group in Canadian society under the Multi-Cultural model. The power that the French and British elites had in Canada was such that immigrants into Canada who were not British or French, even if they were Europeans, suffered disadvantage.

Only by creating a multi-cultural Canadian society, and breaking down the Bi-Cultural power elites, could a 'fairer' society be crated though Yuzyk. Multi-Culturalism as a political model was based on the work of Paul Yuzyk (24 June 1913 – 9 July 1986) who was a Canadian historian and Senator. He was an associate professor of Slavic studies and professor of history at the University of Manitoba and a professor of Russian and Soviet history at the University of Ottawa.

In Canada, multiculturalism was first articulated by Progressive Conservative Senator Paul Yuzyk in his maiden Senate speech in 1964. It was officially adopted in 1971, following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec).

The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government should recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. This policy was Multi-Culturalism.

Paul Yuzyk was born on June 24, 1913, in Pinto, Sask., — a sleepy town on the Canadian prairies with which he became so familiar as he traversed the land working on behalf of Ukrainian causes and helping Canadians develop a national consciousness. Sen. Yuzyk's father, a coal miner who came to Canada in 1913 during the first of the three waves of Ukrainian immigration to Canada, eventually moved the family to Saskatoon where young Paul completed public school and graduated with top marks in 1932. After receiving a teaching certificate from a Saskatoon teacher's training college, Sen. Yuzyk had his first jarring encounter with anti-East European policies that would later lead him on a crusade for ethnic minority rights in Canada.

His first face-to-face encounter with discrimination occurred when the neophyte teacher joined the ranks of college-educated Canadians searching for employment. Considered a "foreigner" by local school officials — the majority of which were British — Mr. Yuzyk was told that they did not want him to "contaminate" their children. The job, he was told, was the exclusive privilege of the English. But after months of pounding the pavement searching for a school that would accept him. and 77 job applications later, Mr. Yuzyk was finally offered a teaching position in a Ukrainian community near Hafford, Sask.

After several run-ins with discrimination, Mr. Yuzyk formed close alliances with other Canadians who felt that something had to be done about the alarming lack of accommodation for non-British, non-French Canadian citizens. Said Sen. Yuzyk about his experiences as an unwelcome job-seeker: "They really did things like that. We are a!l being called bohunks and foreigners. The result was to strengthen my Ukrainianism. 1 said to myself that if they called me a foreigner when I had been born in Canada, it meant Canada needed some changing." Indeed, the senator's tireless efforts in fighting for ethnic minority rights in Canada brought him national recognition and earned him plaudits from ethnocultural leaders throughout the country.

Sen. Yuzyk's crusade for multiculturalism caught the attention of then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker — himself a western Canadian and of European origin — who decided to reward the young Ukrainian's efforts with a seat in the Canadian Senate. Sen. Yuzyk became the first Ukrainian ever to be appointed to the Canadian Parliament's upper chamber.

On March 3, 1964, he presented his maiden speech in the ornate Senate chamber; it was titled "Canada: A Multicultural Nation," The address, which was warmly received by his colleagues, voiced the concerns of several ethnic groups that Canadians must accept the fact that they live in a "multicultural nation" — not a country of two solitudes comprised of the British and French. Said Sen. Yuzyk in a 1983 interview with The Ukrainian Weekly: "1 came out with the idea that Canada is a bilingual, multicultural nation, and that all are equals, and that there should be no discrimination of any kind against anyone — regardless of his background, whether for religious purposes, no discrimination based on color, race, or creed of any kind. And so multiculturalism really made Canadians conscious that there are cultural values that should be recognized."

Sen. Yuzyk's campaign for multiculuralism was capped in 1971 when Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau told the nation that the government, after extensive deliberation, would introduce an official policy of multiculturalism. The policy, which committed the government to support ethnocultural endeavors, was endorsed by all parties.

The statement by the Chief Rabbi that Britain is a more "open, diverse, energising, cosmopolitan environment " than the one he knew when he grew up is also very interesting. Note he does not say 'Nation' instead of environment. This is because he recognises that under Multi-Culturalism Britain is not a nation. Multi-Culturalism is in fact ' Separate Development' such as under the Apartheid regime of South Africa. It has destroyed society by fragmenting it. Britain is certainly a more 'open' society, the numbers of immigrants and terrorists entering the country prove that is correct. It is certainly more diverse, as the numbers of immigrant groups prove though diversity is itself not a good thing and nor does he say it is. Energising is also true, as the people in all their respective communities all now work for the benfit of themselves and their communities and not the nation itself. It is certainly a more cosmopolitan environment as well, and this also is not a moral thing by itself.

The Chief Rabbi makes two fundamentally important observations ;

1) The divides that had driven politics hitherto, especially class and wealth, became less salient after the 1960s. Other, more “lifestyle” issues took their place. At first these were construed in terms of the individual, but eventually they came to be framed in terms of groups: first Jews, then African-Americans, then women, then gays. It was not merely that these groups sought equal rights. The real change was that they defined themselves as oppressed. This was a seismic shift.

Here he says that the politics of the Group allied with the politics of victim status as used by those groups as collectives has damaged our nation and society. As a Jew he is making a direct attack on the Jewish individuals in the past who have used their group identity as a way to promote themselves and at the same time falsely promote their own sectarian political and social interests as representing the 'interests of the Jews as a group' above that of our society and the nation. This is a groundbreaking admission.

It reflects the reality that certain members of the Jewish groups took advantage of their minority status to damage the rights of the majority. What the Jews who did this have done is in fact damage the interests of all the British Jews as a community as a result. It is many of the Liberal Jews who have been the appeasers of Radical Islamists and who have primarily called those who warned of the dangers of Islamism as 'racists'.

It was many prominent Leftist Jews, such as researched by Kevin McDonald in his groundbreaking book The Culture of Critique
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
who supported mass immigration, Communism and Islamism as a way to undermine the powers of the British state and the White British indigenous community. The Jews who took the lead in this process, were then followed by the Blacks and homosexual groups who also employed the victim status dynamic for their own advantage, and they bear much of the burden for creating the nightmare situation we all face today.

The prospect of Eurabia is the greatest threat the Jews have ever faced in European history. If the immigration from Islamic nations is not stopped and reversed then the White indigenous people of Europe will be a minority by 2050. Before this point will have been reached Islamist insurgents in every European nation will have begun the Jihad via civil wars and the struggle to impose Sharia Law in our nations. When they succeed then we, both Jews and indigenous Europeans, will be under the control of Dhimmitude and Sharia Law.

As stated in the Times article below ;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.

Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. "

The views of Muhammad Taqi Usmani explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.

A book published by Le Seuil in Paris imay further Western understanding of this reality. Written by the Swiss investigative reporter Sylvain Besson and not yet available in English, it publicizes the discovery and contents of a Muslim Brotherhood strategy document entitled "The Project," hitherto little known outside the highest counter-terrorism circles.

Besson's book, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), recounts how, in November 2001, Swiss authorities acting on a special request from the White House entered the villa of a man named Yusuf Nada in Campione, a small Italian enclave on the eastern shore of Lake Lugano in Switzerland. Nada was the treasurer of the Al Taqwa bank, which allegedly funneled money to al Qaeda. In the course of their search of Nada's house, investigators stumbled onto "The Project," an unsigned, 14-page document dated December 1, 1982. Copies of the Project can be found here ;

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID={61829F93-7A81-4654-A2E8-F0A5E6DD3DC4}

The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;

Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;

Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;

Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;

Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;

Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;

Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;

Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;

Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;

Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world; Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;

Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;

Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;

Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;

Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation; Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;

Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;

Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;

Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;

Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;

Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;

Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;

Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them; Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;

Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;

Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/704xewyj.asp?pg=2

http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2004/July_27/2.html

http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=view&id=12921&Itemid=47

First the Islamists will come for the Jews, then they will come for the nationalists and the patriots who will form the nucleus of the nationalist resistance to their plans for Sharia Law and the Global Caliphate, and then they will come for the Christians that refuse to pay the Jizya and wear the Zunnar.

The Jewish supremacists and the political Jews who used their ethnicity and Jewishness as a mechanism to subvert our society and culture have enacted the greatest of evils upon their own people. These short sighted fools have placed their own people under the threat of Eurabia.

This article by the Chief Rabbi is the basis of a new understanding as regards the threat to the Jews themselves by the actions of their so called 'leaders' in the past.

The Chief Rabbi has understood that the Jewish people have been misled, decieved, exploited and abused by their own people.

The fools who led them have led them almost directly into catastrophe.

We must thank the Rabbi for his brave and prescient words.