After the latest provocation of three Ukrainian Navy boats in and around the Kerch Strait, separating the Sea of Asov from the Black Sea, the Ukrainian Army has been put into a state of alarm for the coming 60 days, and the Ukrainian parliament (Rada) decided for imposition of martial law for 30 days. The military events show all the markings of a well-planned operation; a video, taken on the Russian vessel "Don" and grabbed by western sources, showing the crash with the smaller Ukrainian tugboat "Yani Kapu", reinforces the impression of a bigger plan, including global media - and serving several goals at once:
- For Ukraine, the welcome result is the chance to introduce martial law, which helps a lot to control or even suppress justified unrest in the population against overwhelming corruption and overall decline of governability in all aspects and branches of government. Russian citizens in Ukraine face even tougher rules.
- The presidential election in Ukraine, set on March 31, 2019, which president Poroshenko, ranking fifth, appears unlikely to win - might be postponed. To Washington's taste, Poroshenko leans too much towards compromise. Further escalatory scheming requires a more obedient vassal in Kiev - Poroshenko can now prove his ruthlessness - and readiness to subordinate Ukrainian interests to escalatory plans from Washington.
- The Ukrainian population can be put in a state of anxiety about preservation of peace and risks of war, which usually stifles every opposition.
- Western media have used the occasion, to jointly and orchestratedly denounce Russian belligerence - without detailed analysis of the true chain of events.
- US and Western policy shapers have operatively challenged the legal situation at and around the Kerch straight, which had been already peacefully introduced into common Russian-Ukrainian practice. Certainly, a big step backwards for peace and understanding in the region.
- For the US, EU and NATO, opportunities for further use of the obviously well-liked sanction tool and other escalatory measures arise.
The Sea of Asov and the Black Sea are obviously earmarked for a showdown between Russian and NATO naval forces - of course and yet again against European interests.
Trump may slightly improve German relations over the need to muster German support for whatever he wants to do.
That US president Trump has cancelled his scheduled meeting with his Russian colleague Putin on the occasion of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. This move, against any rule of careful and constructive approach in times of crisis, underlines the fact, that this US president is not the master of his own generally positive approach and planning for improved Russia relations.
Both countries, Russia and Ukraine, have approached the United Nations Security Council to review the Kerch Strait incident - but given the NATO majority in this body, Russia might not receive fair treatment.
At this moment, when the stage for much bigger conflict is set, a wider analysis on the CIA role in US politics appears appropriate. Newcomers to the subject may watch the brilliant award-winning movie "JFK" (1991) directed by Oliver Stone, describing the events leading to the assassination of US president John F. Kennedy in 1963. Stone's much-discussed movie raises shocking amounts of facts, suggesting involvement of CIA, FBI, the military-industrial complex, and that president Lyndon B. Johnson was part of a coup d'état to kill Kennedy. The film quotes former US president Eisenhower, in his last speech in office (January 17, 1961) warning strongly against a take-over of policy control by the said military-industrial complex. In fact, Eisenhower's honest speech was no less than a proclamation of dangerous legacy. The old man knew about the intentions of his popular young and idealist successor JFK - and in hindsight his warnings may well have been intended to reach and warn him personally but publicly. The fact, that to this very day many documents about the events of 1963 remain shrouded in secrecy and denial - since more than half a century, makes it all the more noteworthy, that US president Trump has released important new documents by presidential order; and this latter fact alone may help support perception, that Eisenhower's analysis cum warning and Stone's movie deserve highest degrees of public attention to this very day. Little wonder, Russian president Putin picked Stone as interviewer for no less than four lengthy talks in 2017 - and that Stone agreed.
Yet another highly interesting CIA role in politics is based on a secret agreement between Pakistan and the US, dating back to 1974, enabling then Pakistani president Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, father of the later assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, to undertake a selling spree in a handful of Islamic countries, including Iran, Iraq and Libya for nuclear technology Pakistan was suddenly authorized to develop and purchase in western countries. In their brilliantly researched book "Deception", authors prove, that the CIA operated in full breach of the law inside the US to protect Pakistans famous project head A. Q. Khan's purchase team from being captured by the unwitting FBI. What the book does not mention and its authors (Levy and Scott-Clark) hotly denied to this author is the obvious conclusion, that the "Islamic bomb" sales plan opened up wonderful opportunities for unhindered US aggression and domination plans against all customers, Iran being the only one in the group to successfully thwart the intrigue of a "nuclear bait", much to the red-hot anger of policy planning teams, not only in Washington and Langley, Virginia.
US policies cannot be analyzed fully without taking into consideration, who wields the power. Not the president, not the average citizen, says a Princeton university study, dated 2014 - but the top rich class. The study quickly earned the popular title: "America is an oligarchy". And the foremost Swiss elite university, "Eidgenössisch-Technische Hochschule" (ETH), points out, that all banks worldwide form ONE cartel, and 147 companies control 40% of global trade (2011). Both studies were questioned by other scientific research later on - that appears as inevitable, given the sensational findings. When this author traveled to Washington in 2005 to hold interviews with the leading think tanks (CFR, CIS etc.) on the question, who decides on a possible war against Iran, one of the best, maybe THE best specialist at that time pointed out, that all depended on the CIA, which had the unquestionable lead in shaping opinion. And that statement came just two years after the devastatingly crazy US decision to invade Iraq, breaking all the rules, lacking UN support, leading a "coalition of the willing". Democratic institutions in Washington? In replacement of an answer, the professor in Washington smiled. "Ceremony", was the term coined for democratic procedures in western countries, especially in the US, as declared by a close friend to the then Pakistani President Parvez Musharraf over formidable Chinese dinner in Islamabad with this author in 2004.
Rule is being wielded in Washington through two separate channels, stemming from, among others, undisclosed but likely top decision makers from the ranks of high double-digit billionaires. Trump is low single-digit - at best, Obama was a singe-digit millionaire, in Washington terms is an utterly dependent pauper.... There is a structure grouping global branch leaders into branch cartels - and cartel leaders into an unofficial, unconstitutional decision taker "panel". Five top cartels are, ranked by influence power: finance, media, energy, arms industry, pharmaceutics and chemical. The usual channel is direct influence on the top office holder - and before that, on each and every candidate in the presidential election. What most outsiders do not fully understand is, that the real power-wielding authorities NEVER allow anybody even into a presidential candidacy, who has not sufficiently proved his cartel authority compliance. Bernie Sanders' hotly contested decision to finally run on Hillary Clinton's ticket can only be explained this way. At the political top, no unnecessary risks are taken. Alternative and second line of control is the so-called "deep state", defined as cartel control of decision and events directly within rank and file of the state and government apparatus. Thus the first Kennedy assassination (John F., 1963) is to be counted as a rare combined two-pronged, direct cartel politician's (Lyndon B. Johnson) hand plus "deep state" activity; the second, Robert: June 5, 1968, as deep state only, with Johnson rather less or maybe even uninvolved.
Thus any decent political analysis better starts with assessment of what cartel leaders might need or wish for: In a time of a wildly overgrown cash bubble, they certainly seek to build up crisis or even war scenarios to divert public attention from systemic failure as represented among others by private money creation ("fiat money economy") and interests on that kind of "bank-invented" funds.
In recent months, the public has witnessed a newly elected US president Trump, who has made it very clear from the start, that he wished better relations with Russia, including openly stated plans for a visit by president Putin at the White House. Trump has been hunted and punished by huge media campaigns against him, unprecedented in US history. It took Trump full 18 months to finally meet his Russian colleague in the famous Helsinki summit meeting in July 2018. And the media barrage was so heavy afterwards, that Trump, under pressure of the upcoming midterm elections, later retreated from some of his more positive remarks. To this very day no date is fixed yet for Putin's appearance at the White House. Moreover, it appears quite unlikely, that Trump has authorized a potential war entry scenario like the present and strongly exploited incident in the Kerch strait.
That in turn leads to pointing out, that, as yet another example for CIA unruliness, ordering the Khashoggi murder was impossible without knowledge of the number one overall controlling institution in Ryadh: CIA. Meaning: The Khashoggi execution could have been prevented and stopped - but obviously wasn't, since Khashoggi's publications stirred major and unwanted (untimely) unrest in the kingdom. Since then, a leading Saudi media executive, Turki Aldakhil, has warned, that any retaliation against the kingdom might lead to very painful oil price hikes up to 200 US$ "or even double that figure". Insiders are fully aware, that this single decision could cause the biggest financial and economic crash in mankind's history. Under these circumstances, announcing "findings/analysis" that crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) had authorized the murder, poses a grave threat to the situation and reminds the analyst of the time, when, during the transit time frame between Obama's election November 2008 and his inauguration in January 2009, the financial circles (cartel) decided to let down Lehman Brothers and cause a global system crisis, while putting Obamas presidency into a very awkward situation from the very beginning, thus ensuring obedience and discipline from the White House. Trump intervened in the Saudi case by direct personal statement retracting from any direct accusation against his partner MBS - though he is aware, that this step will be held against both, MBS AND himself (Trump), whenever power holders see fit. This is already the byline in many media publications trying to undermine Trump's political standing.
Who authorized the CIA to interfere in governmental US foreign policy shaping by unauthorized and uncalled-for statements about findings/analysis? Why has nobody in the hierarchy been sacked for transgressing his/her competences? This little incident with repercussions in Mideast US foreign policy appears today as just a little warm-up for the Kerch Strait incident, this time involving military forces of two countries with already well-developed political differences.
The only conclusion possible at this stage is: US president Trump apparently is not the master of US relations with Russia - and increasingly faces "lessons" directing the limelight of public attention to this unhappy fact. That in turn urges yet another conclusion: In assessing potential war scenarios, a study of Trump intentions does not yield the strongest factors, as the US president obviously isn't the strongest and last decision taker. President Kennedy successfully stopped a world war threat stemming from the Cuba crisis, with yet another brilliant Hollywood movie ("Thirteen Days") pointing out some details of the background. President Trump appears much less equipped to do so, as the extra-governmental power structures appear so much stronger more than half a century later.