“There is a war coming in Europe”

I was reading this Financial Times article about the landmark arbitration ruling on the Yukos situation.

Yukos shareholders face battle to claim $50 billion

Beleaguered shareholders of Yukos could scarcely have imagined when they launched arbitration in 2005 they would one day be awarded $50bn in damages – nor that the ruling would be released into the febrile atmosphere that exists between Russia and the west today.

The award is a landmark not just for its size – 20 times the previous record for an arbitration ruling. The tribunal also found definitively that Russia’s pursuit of Yukos and its independently-minded main shareholder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a decade ago was politically motivated.

More...

But what is really disturbing is this final quote found in the article:

But if Russian state businesses find themselves hit both by western sanctions and attempts to seize assets by Yukos shareholders, relations between the Kremlin and the west could sour further.

One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine. “There is a war coming in Europe,” he said. “Do you really think this matters?”

Sobering, isn't it?

I'd love to know who the person close to Putin is?

See also, Court orders Russia to pay investors over $50B for expropriation of Yukos oil company

The chatter for world war is higher than I've seen in a very long time.

The bankers want it........The corporations want it.....the elite want it....itll surely happen....

a reply to: loam

I believe he is correct there is war coming. Starting to look pretty obvious considering the tons of vindictive unsubstantiated accusations against Russia from the west.

And the US is gearing up for it fast. The question is what is the real motive?

How about this:

Senate Bill 2277

Sections 305 and 306 — “Expediting natural gas exports” and “European and Eurasian energy independence” — discuss the exploitation and exploration of natural gas and oil resources by America’s private sector.

Section 309 “Expanded broadcasting in countries of the former Soviet Union” discusses how, while the United States government is doing all this, there will simultaneously be a propaganda campaign aimed at these countries to “convey” the American government and public’s “perspective”.

The section begins, “Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Director of Voice of America shall provide Congress with a plan, including a cost estimate, for immediately and substantiallyincreasing and maintaining through fiscal year 2017 the quantity of United States-funded Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union.”

Senate Bill 2277 Isn’t Just about ‘Russian Agression’ — It’s Also about Oil, Gas and Propaganda

Another war of greed and misery. This time they may get more than they planned on.

How is this even possible? What I mean is, two major powers with however many thousands of nukes, likely to pull in the rest of the world's powers... I mean that is WW3. How is that possible to play out and have anything worth salvaging left? Is it possible to have a meeting beforehand on agreed upon terms of warfare, as in no nukes, everything else game on?

Look what the US did when it wasn't even about to be defeated, rather just didn't want it dragging out too long. They DID drop the bombs in the last WW. How can we expect not for a losing power to throw out whatever they got?

The only way someone could want this is if they have an out, and that out does not exist on this planet. . .

a reply to: loam

I'd love to know who the person close to Putin is?

Not saying it isn't true, but the statement carries about as much weight as the oft used.... [ "Insert controversial statement"] said an anonymous source.

Strategic thinking.

You don't see a lot of it in print.

Sobering? Ho indeedy!! If that's not the unmistakable sound of a saber being rattled, I don't know what is.

The energy industry has always carried major political clout. It's one of those business ventures which demand 'valid' government oversight ... like water, food, and a standing army.

$50B?? ... Control was taken away from somebody in favor of another.

originally posted by: stirling
The bankers want it........The corporations want it.....the elite want it....itll surely happen....

The People?

Don't want it.

What if someone held a war and no one showed up?

Peace

A peek down the rabbit hole...

www.nrdc.org...

i said to my friend tonight after watching news about gaza and the ukraine conflict that world war 3 will happen at some point,all we need is another nut case in charge like hitler and its going to happen.

his words were yeah like putin and for him to say that raised my level a bit cause hes not interested in any world news,even trying to debate to him about any world news hes like not interested,candy crush is more interesting to him than world affairs.

made me think.

a reply to: Bassago

unsubstantiated?

Makes me wonder what the hell it would take to convince you of anything unless it already fit neatly into your own paradigm?

Are you honestly going to tell me that Russia's hands are clean in the Ukraine? Can you do that with a straight face?

Just came across this:

Russians’ Test Called Breach Of Missile Pact

WASHINGTON — The United States has concluded that Russia violated a landmark arms control treaty by testing a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile, according to senior American officials, a finding that was conveyed by President Obama to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a letter on Monday.

It is the most serious allegation of an arms control treaty violation that the Obama administration has leveled against Russia and adds another dispute to a relationship already burdened by tensions over the Kremlin’s support for separatists in Ukraine and its decision to grant asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor.

At the heart of the issue is the 1987 treaty that bans medium-range missiles, which are defined as ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying 300 to 3,400 miles. That accord, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, helped seal the end of the Cold War and has been regarded as a cornerstone of American-Russian arms control efforts.

All of the signals are in the wrong direction.

Amazing how fast we slid back into our old relationship.

This is the WW3 forum, there is a need to make the case, you could argue that the US will stand with Western Europe in a WW3 scenario against Russia. However you also need to make the case that an already pissed off Europe as a whole is with the US. Thing is the article says, " Russia and the West"
Then there is also compliance with trade between Russia and Western Europe, which is quite strong. 'The Times' as good a paper as it is, is no less culpable in including rhetoric/spam like, "One person close to Mr Putin" in the wording than the tabloids.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Bassago

unsubstantiated?

Makes me wonder what the hell it would take to convince you of anything unless it already fit neatly into your own paradigm?

Are you honestly going to tell me that Russia's hands are clean in the Ukraine? Can you do that with a straight face?

I'm willing to look at all data.

While I understand Russia has an interest in Ukraine from what I've seen almost everything has been instigated by the west. From George Sores NGO's help destabilizing the original democratically elected government, NATO's slobbering desire to move onto Russia's doorstep and the IMF's desires to bleed the country dry with their austerity programs all the while sucking out the natural resources that should belong to the people of Ukraine.

Believe what you wish but I'm just going by what I see. That senate bill isn't helping either.

a reply to: loam

At the heart of the issue is the 1987 treaty that bans medium-range missiles, which are defined as ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying 300 to 3,400 miles

A missile need travel only 12,500 miles to reach any point on Earth from its launch site.

originally posted by: loam
Just came across this:

Russians’ Test Called Breach Of Missile Pact

WASHINGTON — The United States has concluded that Russia violated a landmark arms control treaty by testing a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile, according to senior American officials, a finding that was conveyed by President Obama to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a letter on Monday.

It is the most serious allegation of an arms control treaty violation that the Obama administration has leveled against Russia and adds another dispute to a relationship already burdened by tensions over the Kremlin’s support for separatists in Ukraine and its decision to grant asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor.

At the heart of the issue is the 1987 treaty that bans medium-range missiles, which are defined as ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying 300 to 3,400 miles. That accord, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, helped seal the end of the Cold War and has been regarded as a cornerstone of American-Russian arms control efforts.

All of the signals are in the wrong direction.

Amazing how fast we slid back into our old relationship.

fact is no one is going to do anything about it,north korea,russia can push the buttons and everyone backs off cause no one wants to start a war,all we keep hearing is more sanctions against them,do you think they really care?

a reply to: loam

Putin is taking advantage of the Obama leadership (or lack thereof).

Get a president in office that actually has a spine and maybe we can live in some semblance of peace.

a reply to: loam

America elected an African American Democrat for President (say what you will about his foreign policy failures, I think the man is a terrible president, personally), Russia elected a former KGB agent who is on record as stating that the greatest political tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Which nations people had progress in mind, in your estimation?

Putin turns a blind eye to gays being publicly beaten, jails pseudo rock protesters with inordinate sentences, and has a horrendous human rights record (look up his shady dealings with North Korea and their work camps in Russia, sometime). Yet somehow this man has become a sort of messiah for the hordes of the internet's anti-american conspiracy theorists. It's almost like they have forgotten that other nations and leaders might be capable of evil too, because of the evil the U.S has done. In their minds, there can be only one evil (the U.S). Putin can do no wrong, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


Are you honestly going to tell me that Russia's hands are clean in the Ukraine? Can you do that with a straight face?

Why just Russia?

originally posted by: Bassago

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Bassago

unsubstantiated?

Makes me wonder what the hell it would take to convince you of anything unless it already fit neatly into your own paradigm?

Are you honestly going to tell me that Russia's hands are clean in the Ukraine? Can you do that with a straight face?

I'm willing to look at all data.

While I understand Russia has an interest in Ukraine from what I've seen almost everything has been instigated by the west. From George Sores NGO's help destabilizing the original democratically elected government, NATO's slobbering desire to move onto Russia's doorstep and the IMF's desires to bleed the country dry with their austerity programs all the while sucking out the natural resources that should belong to the people of Ukraine.

Believe what you wish but I'm just going by what I see. That senate bill isn't helping either.

I think I would agree with most of those accusations. Would you say that Russia has responded proportionately and honestly? To say the conflict was initiated (at least clandestinely) by the west, would be accurate, imo. By equal measure, to state that Russia has been honest and forthright and doesn't have any blood on it's hands would be an outright lie.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


Are you honestly going to tell me that Russia's hands are clean in the Ukraine? Can you do that with a straight face?

Why just Russia?

I never claimed the west is innocent in any of this. There is plenty of blame to go around.