"Fuck the EU." (A quote)
- But that's not the point. The British- American finance empire makes Cold War on Russia for decades. The point is a) The EU doesn't realize the war is not in the EU's interest anymore. b) The EU is unable to do anything about it when NATO (U.S.) wants the war. c) The EU pays the war (bailing out Ukraine, Kosovo etc.)  The whole thing is about keeping Russia split off from Europe (to weaken both this way)  , about Gazprom, resources and sales markets for the FED and Blackrock billionaires for the next 90 years. After that time the game is over anyway. (There is no Gas anymore and Northern Siberia disappears under the rising sea level.) Today the war is not called "cold" anymore because it's the normal state now - everywhere, constantly - with different weapons clearly: pricing agreements (since Kissinger's oil deal '86), freezing bank accounts, stone age bombing of peripheral states, destabilisation, killing of privacy, killing of persons by drones in the streets - globally, daily, industrially ...
One hundred years ago it went wrong for Ger- many to rise to the second largest economy and not to bow to the UK- American rule in the world. First and foremost evil was the German militarism, the terrible German "" and the Idiot . They deserved to fall. But the greed of the big industry -the war guilt- was everywhere, in the U.S. and in the West-Euro pean empires. They were keen on something to happen. - No one in 1914 did expect the war would not only stop the German economy but . After the Treaty of Versailles the German Reich ended up in crazed action, declaring war on nearly the whole world and later on it became guilty of genocide and all kind of crime.
Today it's Russia that is targeted by the UK- America- ruled world.
But unlike Germany then Russia stays cool- headed and acts responsibly.
What happens instead (as always, for 65 years now) is to get the world only nearly to the brink of a world war. Today the most effective way to do so is to try to isolate Russia from Black Sea harbors and Mediterranean harbors - to destabilize Syria and Ukraine.
U.S.-ruled forces work on both for more than a decade, manically and with all (dirty) means.
Alexander Rodchenko (1891 – 1956), Cover for Mayakovsky's About This, 1923
Frank-Walter Steinmeier the long-prepared tinderbox was defused before it could set the region on fire, angry about this happy reunification and bloodless easing of tension. He threatened Russia with further escalation (and there is enough ethnic potential to fuel again).
Steinmeier is not a hasardeur but in fact he has no other chance than to execute psychotic American conflict-inflaming strategies instead of European ones. - In terms of Ukraine, Syria, Iran and what ever.
Addition: In May 2014, quite exactly 100 years after the begin of WW1, Merkel's gov. : the USA threaten the welfare of the German state Snowden case). – And nobody knows, is it farsighted diplomacy, failure or distorted perception when Merkel -invited into the White House Rose Garden- ignores Obama's humiliating arrogance. (in the NSA/
To compare something with the Nazi regime is always a bad idea. It never works. - But what is an "Ermächtigungs gesetz"? What do you think? Will TTIP tolerate an elected power above itself, a parliament that can declare exit from TTIP?
(A joke. Of course the purpose of TTIP is to make consumers happy.)
- WW1 memorials by young French and British artists
- Niall Ferguson on WW1
- Empires. - Claims that 1914 was a fight for freedom are absurd
- Erster Weltkrieg (in German radio)
- Arctic war (Ottawa’s claim to Arctic seabed)
- Crimea (German catch-up TV - the link is dead now)
- Russland-102 (Tagesschau.de - the link is dead now)
- Poroshenko 2014-05 (YouTube)
- Martin Schulz (SZ.de)
- Martin Schulz (SPIEGEL.de)
- Krone-Schmalz (NDR.de)
- Krone-Schmalz (German ARD - the link is dead now)
- They pulled the plug (NYT)
- Comment: meeting Merkel - Obama (German ARD - the link is dead now)
- Ministry of Truth
Footnote added 2015-02.
 Mittelmacht. – The Ukraine conflict was planned. - Who is slated for paying the bill?
It's not only about paying the money for the conflict. The USA have perfected their tactics not to send own troops but to mobilise volunteers from the targeted region (by binding supported governments and planning the conflict). - The Ukraine Association Agreement (2013, § 7) stipulated NATO cooperation. In other words it was planned to split Ukraine into parts or to suppress Russians in Ukraine completely. The war was factored in.
So, these US tactics work even in Europe and Europe has not only to pay with money and devastation of its own territory, it has to pay with lives of its own people. (Addition: I wrote this just days before G. Friedman said the same at .)
Ukraine isolated from the Russia business is economically unviable. Over the next decades it will cost hundreds of billions of Euro to stabilize Ukraine - costs as in losing a big war. -- Who pays? ( = Who loses this war?)
Germany labeled itself "Mittelmacht" during a congress in February 2015.
In history "Mittelmacht" means Central Powers (wedged between the West and Russia). Today it means allegedly something different: a medium-sized power. -- But to like the word says enough (especially these days when the constellation strikingly awakes bad memories in Europe).
Do these German "Mittelmacht" leaders deserve something different than to pay the conflict? (..than to be the losers in this war?) - If you ask me (or someone important, e.g. H. Kissinger): no, they don't. They are masochists and like to damage themselves for nothing.
Surely all will lose in this conflict (not only the classic Russia and Germany) -- -- except indeed the 5-Eyes alliance.
Footnote added 2015-03.
 What is the core objective of U.S. foreign affairs?
I added the passage 'to weaken both this way' after I watched this: The Chairman of STRATFOR George Friedman explains at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (2015-02-04) how splitting off of Russia from Europe is the core and strategic objective of US foreign affairs.
In detail he states (I reproduce it in my words and add my interpretations):
- For Europe it will be a return to normal when Europe will see wars within it's borders again. Europe will pay again with lives of its own people. Probably less than 100 million dead (as the number was in 1914-1945), but it will happen. (Friedman knows what he is talking about. He is a head of geostrategic plannings in the US.)
- There is no more a relationship USA - "Europe". But there are relationships with Romania, France etc. (including mil. agreements instead of NATO). Only this way the USA can enforce it's interests in Europe (resp. against Europe).
- The USA have always been able to support contending powers in a way those powers will fight each other (WWI, WWII, Iran-Iraq and so forth).
- We are back in the old game. - Poland, Romania etc., they all live in a totally different universe from Germany. There is no communality in Europe.
- These states shouldn't bank on "Europe" or Germany. They should let the Americans in.
- The US build a line (of states which do let the Americans in) from the Baltic to the Black Sea to prevent an economic zone Germany-Russia (resp. Eurasia).
- The future US tactics will be to throw Eurasia off balance -- not by sending troops but by selectively intervening. (To certify Friedman insane at this point for implying US crimes against Europe publicly is not indicated. Intervening means planning conflicts between regions -- and you may be sure, it will work.)
- For the US it's clear: Germany is the factor of uncertainty in Europe.
- Certain is what the US is going to do: drawing a line (as it always was) from the Baltics to the Black Sea to cut off Germany from the Russian Resources. Uncertain is the question what Germany will do.
Friedman hints it very neat and very quiet: the German question is (as it always was in Europe since 1871) a question of peace or war.
No doubt, in the latter case Germany will be the guilty one, as it always was.
The destructive scheme behind these statements is obvious. - Stratfor twists Germany's efforts of European Integration into its opposite.
But is that a bad thing? No. It's an eye-opener. The Germans should rather care about the Neiße border instead of their stupid Hindu Kush fantasies, instead of developing drones for the U.S. for free etc.
One year ago when I wrote the main part of this article (at the very top) I alleged that the USA have exactly these listed views and intentions. I felt at a loss and saw no one who would publicly share my opinion.
Now I see my theses were quite right, they are old hat for the US elite and it's no problem to talk about it. - The difference is I'm scared to witness the destruction of an Europe- Asian zone of prosperity while the US elite is proud of the destruction. (I know, it's not the US gov. when Friedman uses the word "we" - but the outcome is for sure the same. -- At least there are controversial discussions on Stratfor in the US.)
Knowing Friedman's attitude "the EU doesn't exist" you can be sure, when there are bad vibrations among EU citizens against US politics - that's intended by the US. Institutions like Stratfor plan and provoke that. They want to unleash something.
Footnote added 2019-07.
 Michael Klonovsky's congruent view on Wilhelm2 and the western imperial powers:
"Hitler was a welcome opportunity. The Britons saw it this way, at least since 1914 they wanted to overthrow the pretentious rival from continental Europe and they were luckily invited to do so by the biggest political bummer in German history.
Also the Amercans saw it this way. Thanks to Hitler they came into the inheritance of the British Empire. – And Hitler playing vabanque enabled Stalin to expand his Soviet empire up to the river Elbe."
And I would like to add, Hitler's crazed action (genocide) was the precondition for the Jews to enforce their claim to mandated territory in Palestine. (As it was addressed in the Hollywood movie 'The Believer'.)
Footnote added 2015-02.
 Does John Kornblum lie about the Ukraine conflict?
The Crimean referendum in March 2014 was based on the right to self- determination according to the Charter of the United Nations. - Quite similar to what happened in 1955 with Saarland.
The USA have, as expected, a different view of the Ukraine crisis. John Kornblum, former US ambassador in Germany, explained it in a political talk show in German TV in four points (actually with four lies):
- Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula unlawfully.
- In fact the Crimean population are Russians and even non-Russian Ukrainians would call the 1954 gift (of the peninsula itself) a bad and drunken Soviet joke. - Whatever. What matters is the referendum.
- The new Ukrainian government after the events of 2014 tried only to extend economic and democratic relations to Western Europe and nothing more. There was no reason for the Russian aggression.
- That's untrue. In fact (aside from NATO cooperation which was negotiated already before 2014), if Kornblum really would like democracy he would have said addressed to Poroshenko:
"You deny 17 percent of your citizens their right to cultural self- determination? The right to their own language and of sharing in administration? Instead you establish an economic blockade against this disenfranchised part of your own people to starve them out? - What if that would happen in Belgium or Switzerland? That's not only the opposite of democracy, that is a barbarian crime. Buzz off! Think. And try again."
But what can we expect. - The USA, Kornblum's home, solved their own domestic problems 150 years ago the same way for the whole continent.
- Kornblum's third statement: The Ukrainian crisis is an European affair. The USA are far afield and actually not interested. They would perhaps intervene if Europe wouldn't be able so solve its own problems.
- Indeed there are European institutions which do the dirty work in this case -the Polish intelligence agency, the Adenauer Stiftung and the Bertelsmann Stiftung for example- but Kornblum knows it: all they do is executing these destructive US interests, weaken Russia's economy and its cooperation with the EU. - WWI is called the seminal catastrophe of the 20th century. Exactly one century later another sea change happened: the split-off of Russia (I guess for ever) from Europe - the final splitting of Europe. (And dinosaurs like Adenauer Stiftung are too contracted to acknowledge their historical guilt.)
A Poster from 1918 shows Germany's plans of nation building for Ukraine at that time. It was wartime, so it's a strategic poster: how much (in percent) would it weaken Russia to split off Ukraine. - Today, 100 years later, the US strategists' way of thinking is accurate the same.
The Europeans' question today should rather have been how the Ukrainian national liberation can be pushed whilst Russia is NOT weakened but interested in a prospering region there. - But for some that's the worst case scenario.
- Do the 5Eyes forces sow the seeds of discord in Europe? Are they interested in dividing Europe, in acting anti-European? (Addition: Four weeks after I wrote this I viewed the Stratfor discussion  and I wouldn't have asked that naive.)
True at any rate is this: 'Europe, shut up!' - And Europe did.
- Kornblum's next lie: To weaken Russia's economy by sanctions and possibly deliveries of arms for Kiev are means to establish Ukraine as a state integrated with the West.
- The reverse is true. Ukraine with the West is a mean and a (welcome and induced) reason to weaken Russia (and its relations to the EU). - And if that works out the next step (perhaps in 15 years) will be to ask: Are Yakuts really Russians? No. Actually Russians have no place in Siberia. Siberia - that is tundra and tundra belongs to North America, clearly. etc. - perhaps a bit risky, but it's sports (some call it imperialism).
And Europe, impoverished and cut off from the abundance of Siberia (which will be a Canadian province then) will ask: how could it come to that?
In 2014 the course was set in the EU (and some call it Hochverrat -- act of high treason against Europe).
John Kornblum can perhaps tell the lies easily to the people in America - in Europe it's a bit more complicated. But he knows: to be barefaced (in lying) wins.
Footnote added 2015-02.
 TTIP - "Kauft nicht bei Juden" in a modern (inverse) form
Advantages in international trade exist only in relation to others, not absolute. It's just the same when you ask who is excluded from "advantages" - and that's what the infamous game is all about. It is politically intended - just as it was 80 years ago.
My article is about global dominance and about North America's fear of an independent and undivided Europe. Therefore the TTIP topic is just right here.
About my illustration: I know it is unfair on DADA to mix its idea with Nazi design. DADA was 20 years earlier and was itself a victim of Nazi politics. - But this is 21st century - you need knowledge to understand graphical art. And I needed both for my illustration: Dada and Nazi design to make clear what TTIP is:
- the Enabling Act for UK-American rules and interests over European law. - It is the abolition of democracy for many fields.
- economic war to ruin regions in the world that try to stay independent from US hegemony
- the Act of splitting (and weakening) Europe finally.
Web links - TTIP
- TTIP - research and campaigns by Corporate Europe Observatory
- TTIP: Eine transatlantische Verfassung der Konzerne? , 2014
- TPP and TTIP - discussion and WP article, 2015-02
- TPP - discussion and EFF article, 2015-10
- Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) , 1933
- The terror signs "Kauft nicht bei Juden" , 1933,
an early (and even more barbarian) example for the principle DON'T BUY FROM NON-TTIP (or from whatever)
- 150.000 people rallying in Berlin against TTIP (Photo) , 2015-10-10