Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

Kiev regime may be trying to knock off Georgian mercenaries responsible for Maidan massacre

News reports suggest the coup regime is trying to tie up loose ends by eliminating anyone who might talk

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

0 Views

(New Eastern Outlook) – It is not hard to read between the lines of recent news articles in the Georgian press about so-called Georgian fighters in Ukraine fighting on the side of Kiev. Apparently a cleanup operation is going on, not to eliminate the alleged pro-Moscow “separatists” in the East of the country but with some elements within the ranks of those who came to fight in Ukraine—on the side of Kiev.

Along with former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, they entered Ukraine to get another go at the Russians, closer to their home territory. Their presence there has nothing to do with Ukraine itself. The cleanup operation is a reflection of Georgian internal politics and overall US plans for the region, which Ukraine can do without being the theatre for.

Set up to be taken out

We are told by the above-mentioned Georgian link that a number of troops walked straight into an ambush, and that their Ukrainian commanders set them up to be eliminated by the separatists. This would be entirely consistent with previous developments in this story, as it is not new. We have been following it since 2014, and NEO and Veterans today were the first to report on the nexus between the indiscriminate murders in Maidan and Georgian-trained snipers, who mysteriously moved from Maidan Square to Syria, as if they would be interested in that conflict, on fake Georgian passports.

Those links were established, with supporting evidence, even before Gian Micalessin‏, an Italian journalist, claimed to have first broken the story. The lid had already been blown off through contact with Georgian army personnel who had been involved in training those snipers, and even one of the Maidan snipers himself. As Jim Dean of Veterans Today wrote, Micalessin’s story merely confirmed VT’s earlier reports of how outside mercenaries had been brought in to shoot up both demonstrators and security police in a classic Cold War psyop.

There has long been a practice of governments paying snipers to shoot people indiscriminately in Eastern Europe. Prior to August 2008, before the Georgian-Russian war, snipers operating in Georgia (some of whom were the same people), who had been trained by a US contractor, Archangel, were employed to kill civilians in South Ossetia. The important thing to remember is that “Often the people who do these whack jobs are “disappeared” afterwards to tidy up the official version of the event”. This explains what almost went down in Ukraine.

Ambush also a US operation

If these troops were set up by their own commanders, having been imported there by the US to begin with, that makes the ambush also a US operation. When such operations are alleged elsewhere we always find individual Americans suddenly appearing in ill-defined “support roles” and getting out after the dirty deed has been done. This is exactly what has happened in this case too, as we can identify at least two of these mysterious figures who suddenly took an interest in Ukraine.

There is a very big nexus with the “soldier of fortune” John Giduck, who claims to be a second generation Ukrainian-American who has travelled, worked and studied extensively in Russia and the former Soviet Union for almost twenty years. Many of his stories and tall tales have been debunked in recent years; much of his CV has been demonstrated to be faked, despite the high powered spin offered by some who are part of such schemes in response to the respected Washington Monthly in its March/April 2011 issue. But though various groups have proved Giduck a con-artist, he keeps showing up in places associated with the shedding of innocent blood, as in Georgia and Beslan, and this may be more than coincidence.

We should also notice the activities of a certain Brian Christopher Boyenger, who claims to be a former American paratrooper, joined the Ukrainian army’s Georgian National Legion and took part in active combat missions in the war-torn Donbass Region. As an Italian Journalist wrote,

“A few days before the Maidan massacre, Mamulashvili presented to the selected shooters a guy in uniform … he introduced him and told us he was an instructor, an American soldier. The US military man is called Brian Christopher Boyenger, a former officer and shooter of the 101st Airborne Division. “We were always in touch with this Brian – he was Mamulashvili’s man. It was he who gave us the orders; I had to follow all his instructions.””

An article in the US-controlled English language press in Georgia also describes Boyenger as a retired officer and former sniper from the US Army’s elite 101st Airborne Division, and further claims that he is the first US citizen to formally join the Ukrainian military in an official combat role since hostilities broke out against Russian forces and their ‘separatist proxies’ in April 2014.

Nor is the ambush the only strange involving Georgian troops in Ukraine. It has been reported that Georgian volunteers who have been fighting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine since 2014 have accused their commander of betrayal and abandoned the brigade they belonged to in the Ukrainian military.

“All but three of approximately 40 Georgian volunteers have walked away from the Foreign Brigade of Ukraine’s Armed Forces … and now “vow not to leave the war zone but instead merge with some other military unit,” said commander of the Georgian Legion Mamuka Mamulashvili.

Knowing your enemy

The infamous Mamuka Mamulashvili is a story in himself, which has been well documented. It involves Georgian snipers, the Georgian Brigade, and a bunch of CIA-sponsored hired killers who have attached themselves to him in some way. NEO partner organisation Veterans Today has even contacted Mamulashvili, giving him an opportunity to respond to an earlier article about him and the activities of Georgians in Ukraine, but not received a response, unsurprisingly.

It is not difficult to discover Mamulashvili’s history. One just needs to look at all the US and NATO-sponsored media outlets which write positive stories about him and how he got to Ukraine, where these stories are published and where they are not, and it becomes possible to build a picture of who his friends really are.

There is also the issue of where he gets his money from. As an irregular, Mamulashvili is not paid by the regular Ukrainian army, but nor is there any evidence that he has been hired as a mercenary, a paid combatant receiving a salary. As a volunteer soldier, he has to meet his own expenses, or get someone else to do that for him.

In Georgia Mamulashvili was not independently wealthy. Before going to Ukraine he worked for the Ministry of Defence as a paid advisor to Irakli Alasania. We know from previous press reports and documents this is the person the US wanted to take control in Georgia after Saakashvili crashed and burned, at least before Bidzina Ivanishvili became available.

But as the new government’s first Defence Minister, Alasania fired Mamulashvili and 30 other veterans during a so-called “reorganisation process” connected with either cleansing the department of the many involved in criminal procurements or bringing in new people whose pockets the minister wanted to line through another set of criminal procurements, depending on your point of view.

Mamulashvili has said publicly that he was not removed due to any reorganisation but because he was politically active. It is true that Alasania was not one to tolerate those he saw as threats, especially from within his own rank and file, so this is credible. However if we accept Mamulashvili’s own story, he was removed specifically for having connections with former president Saakashvili, and political and career objectives of his own which were somehow linked with Saakashvili.

If this is so, Mamulashvili is being paid by Saakashvili, or the tooth fairy, and supported by his media team. This in turn means that he is on the payroll of the Americans, as Saakashvili and the other wanted Georgians who were spirited to Ukraine made no secret of being on someone’s payroll.

Mamulashvili’s media connections clearly link him to the US Embassy, and to a team of foreign nationals based in Georgia who provide media support for the regime in Kiev – Vice News, VOA, former Peace Corp Volunteers and others working under the guise of running language clubs in Tbilisi and working for various NGOs.

Study in Scarlet – Enoch Drebber and Joseph Stangerson

Their names and connections are well known: Richard Delong, who was giving interviews with various German media outlets about Euromaidan, and had bragged about how some of his statements may end up in the film they are working on, and a French National, Remi Boissonnas, who is claimed to be the mastermind behind the Tbilisi cell that was involved with much of what transpired in Kiev and providing covering media support under the guise of Language Exchange Club Tbilisi, who were involved with Language Exchange Club Kiev, during the Putsch.

One member, the guitarist among this groups is perhaps a Mormon [well, he studied at their Brigham Young university in Utah] and he is VERY interested in Russian, linguistics, and his politics of Euromaidan, often quoted Saakashvili when he wrote to his friends.  “The people with you tonight are from the inner circle of Saakashvili and his team.”

We should remember that not that long ago there were plans for a pro-Saakashvili coup in Georgia, which was stopped thanks to friends in Turkish intelligence and the efforts of Veterans Today.

Knowing your friends and your enemies 

What has transpired in Ukraine is a threat to Ukrainian, Georgian, Russian and US national security, and for that matter, everybody else’s, but it has taken since 2014 for the full story to develop, even the extent of US involvement in these murders.

It is now clear, at least in retrospect, that Georgia should never have allowed its nationals to engage in Ukraine, a BIG mistake. However, it was an avoidable one. Those associated with Saakashvili’s rebels (boeviki) have actually been blessed until recently by the present Georgian government, which has always supported the Poroshenko regime in Kiev.

We know this because the US Embassy and State Department have approved of their activities, supported them financially and provided them with the necessary military hardware. Even if the Georgian government did not want this to happen, it wouldn’t have had a choice. This also explains how a number of young Georgians who didn’t have passports suddenly ended up fighting in Ukraine or Syria, and their families were told that the identity if the person who gave them their passport was classified.

Many of the individuals involved in supporting this conflict, they are complicit in the murders of these Georgian soldiers, worked in Kiev prior to being relocated to Tbilisi, and still move back and forth on a regular basis. It is easy to track them via their social media postings, Facebook, and those who know them personally. Not only the CIA uses Facebook and fake accounts.

As Jim Dean of Veterans Today best sums it up, “as for volunteers fighting in other people’s wars … most of them were like mercenaries everywhere, are in it for the thrill, the money, and stories to tell when [they] get home.” But a group of these volunteers have now found out the hard way that hard politics is a bigger driving factor in the Ukraine conflict, and the installation of the Kiev government, than any grievance anyone might have had which could lead to war.

It is easy to see why Georgians might want to fight in Ukraine, paid or not. Russia was seen by some of them as the common enemy, and the Poroshenko regime was presented as the popular response to alleged Russian attempts to dominate Ukraine through Yanukovych. The fact that Ukrainians themselves twice elected Yanukovych, and twice outside forces intervened to remove him, was not important. Georgians don’t place much credence in the results of elections, and with good reason given what they have seen back home.

But Georgian volunteers can’t act as individuals in the service of an army. They are integral parts of a political scheme, and that is something that we are not supposed to be able to connect. It is clear that many of them have bitter memories themselves of from Saakashvili’s years of misrule and terror. Kiev at first may not have cared who was running their units, or why, but they do now. Hopefully Georgia as a nation will too realise it has to act differently, times have changed, and it too must try to extricate itself from sending its own citizens to be murdered by their own comrades fighting in a conflict which doesn’t help Georgia in the least.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Putin Keeps Cool and Averts WWIII as Israeli-French Gamble in Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called “de-confliction system” in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary ‘collateral damage.’

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to ‘damage control’

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing “sorrow” for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of “a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn’t shoot down our jet.”

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That’s because Russia, having just suffered a ‘friendly-fire’ incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria’s western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of “continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria.”

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel’s concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

De-Dollarization Tops Agenda at Russia’s Eastern Economic Forum

The Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) was held in Vladivostok on Sept.11-13. Founded in 2015, the event has become a platform for planning and launching projects to strengthen business ties in the Asia-Pacific region.

Published

on

Via Strategic Culture

This year, the EEF brought together delegations from over 60 countries to discuss the topic “The Far East: Expanding the Range of Possibilities”. A total of 100 business events involving over 6,000 participants were held during the three days.

1,357 media personnel worked to cover the forum. Last year, the number of participants was 5,000 with 1,000 media persons involved in reporting and broadcasting. The EEF-18 gathered 340 foreign and 383 Russian CEOs. Nearly 80 start-ups from across South-East Asia joined the meeting.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

This year, a total of 175 agreements worth of 2.9 trillion rubles (some $4.3 billion) were signed. For comparison, the sum was 2.5 trillion rubles (roughly $3.7 billion) in 2017.

They included the development of the Baimsky ore deposits in Chukotka, the construction of a terminal for Novatek LNG at Bechevinskaya Bay in Kamchatka and the investment of Asian countries in Russia’s agricultural projects in the Far East.

Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Mail.Ru Group, Megafon and Chinese Alibaba inked an agreement on establishing AliExpress trade joint venture. Rosneft and Chinese CNPC signed an oil exploration agreement.

The Chinese delegation was the largest (1,096 people), followed by the Japanese (570 members). The list of guests included the president of Mongolia and prime ministers of Japan and South Korea.

It was also the first time Chinese President Xi Jinping attended the event to meet his Russian counterpart. The issue of de-dollarization topped the agenda. Russia and China reaffirmed their interest in expanding the use of national currencies in bilateral deals.

During the forum, Kirill Dmitriev, the head of RDIF, said the fund intends to use only national currencies in its transactions with China starting from 2019. It will cooperate with the China Development Bank.

This “yuanification” is making visible progress with Shanghai crude futures increasing their share of oil markets up to 14 percent or even more. China has signed agreements with Canada and Qatar on national currencies exchange.

READ MORE: Eastern Economic Forum opens new chapter in US-Russia dialogue

De-dollarization is a trend that is picking up momentum across the world. A growing number of countries are interested in replacing the dollar. Russia is leading the race to protect itself from fluctuations, storms and US-waged trade wars and sanctions.

Moscow backs non-dollar trade with Ankara amid the ongoing lira crisis. Turkey is switching from the dollar to settlements in national currencies, including its trade with China and other countries. Ditching the US dollar is the issue topping the BRICS agenda. In April, Iran transferred all international payments to the euro.

The voices calling for de-dollarization are getting louder among America’s closest European allies. In August, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called for the creation of a new payments system independent of the US.

According to him, Europe should not allow the United States to act “over our heads and at our expense.” The official wants to strengthen European autonomy by establishing independent payment channels, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent SWIFT system.

Presenting his annual program, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called on Sept. 12 for the European Union to promote the euro as a global currency to challenge the dollar.

According to him, “We must do more to allow our single currency to play its full role on the international scene.” Mr. Juncker believes “it is absurd that Europe pays for 80 percent of its energy import bill – worth 300 billion euros a year – in US dollars when only roughly 2 percent of our energy imports come from the United States.” He wants the raft of proposals made in his state of the union address to start being implemented before the European Parliament elections in May.

70% of all world trade transactions account for the dollar, while 20% are  settled in the euro, and the rest falls on the yuan and other Asian currencies. The dollar value is high to make the prices of consumer goods in the US artificially low. The demand for dollars allows refinancing the huge debt at low interest rates. The US policy of trade wars and sanctions has triggered the global process of de-dollarization.

Using punitive measures as a foreign policy tool is like shooting oneself in the foot. It prompts a backlash to undermine the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency – the basis of the US economic might. The aggressive policy undermines the US world standing to make it weaker, not stronger.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending