Connect with us

News

Red Pill

Videos

Geo-political expert Dmitry Orlov explains how Crimea was going to be America’s big prize after the coup in Kiev

The Plane Truth interviews “Empire Collapse” expert Dmitry Orlov to discuss geo-politics, Russia and how taking over Crimea was the real goal of the US/EU coup in Ukraine.

Published

on

7 Views

In the Plane Truth’s podcast, “Permission to Steal Everything” with political expert Dmitry Orlov, the real intentions of the US/EU backed coup in Ukraine is brought into focus, revealing that the overthrow of the Yanukovich government had little to do with Kiev, and lots to do with placing Crimea firmly under NATO/US control.

No wonder the US and EU are so crazy livid about Crimea returning back to Russia. In short, Putin foiled their major Maidan objective.

Skip to the 5:00 minute mark to get to the good stuff on Crimea, Ukraine and America’s sneaky land grab.

Some comments and observations from Zerohedge users are worth noting…

I just listen to D. Orlov give a long interview about Ukraine. He pointed out that the main and first goal of the western coup was to snatch the Crimea as a military base as quickly as possible.

Euro Maidan troops left for Crimea the day After the coup succeeded in Kiev. They were followed next day by Urkainian Army troops. The Maidan crowd could not cross the border due to former Ukrainian security police guarding the crossing points.

By the time the Ukrainian army arrived, Cossacks loyal to Russian Crimea arrived in numbers and began mining the border and digging defenses. One try to break this line by the Madian failed, and a following attempt by the army to break a hole on a secondary road also failed.

Once Maidan could not enter Crimea, the USA was enraged that the coup had not reached there! Thus the extreme anger by the USA. The plan was to take Kiev, and within 5 days flood the Crimea with the entire Euro Maidan thousands, with Ukrainian Amry troops following. But it was too late. Russian Navy troops faced down the 20,000 Ukrainian troops in Crimea. Many of whom defected to the Russian army, the rest were allowed to leave.

Anyways. Orlov said that Crimea was what the west was really after, and events seem to back that up.

Another Zerohedge commenter clearly outlines the major benefits in the US’s plan to take Crimea.

D. Orlov is correct in his analysis.

I have written extensively in other posts on this topic, but to summarize, Crimea was the BIG prize that the USSA sought to capture for the following reasons:

  • World’s best Military Naval Base, with literally 100’s of billions in Dollar equivalents developing it.
  • Commanding control over the Black Sea, and thus countries bordering it.
  • Hundreds of Billions in offshore Oil and Gas resources
  • Gateway to the creation of the WhiteStream Pipeline, that would have transported gas from the ME, and connected into the Ukraine, displacing Gazprom
  • Loss of Crimea would have a huge psychological blow to the Russians, akin to losing Florida.

My favorite part of watching this unfolding drama is listening to the Neocon screeches after Putin gave them a huge poke in the eye, by taking the best part of the Ukraine (including Donbass), and leaving them with the Nazi losers. Once Odessa, Karkov and Nikolaiev leave, the ruin of the remaining rump of the Ukraine will be complete.

Meet Dmitry Orlov, via Wikipedia:

Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American engineer and a writer on subjects related to “potential economic, ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States,” something he has called “permanent crisis”. Orlov believes collapse will be the result of huge military budgets, government deficits, an unresponsive political system and declining oil production.

Orlov was born in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) and moved to the United States at the age of 12. He has a BS in Computer Engineering and an MA in Applied Linguistics. He was an eyewitness to the collapse of the Soviet Union over several extended visits to his Russian homeland between the late 1980s and mid-1990s.

In 2005 and 2006 Orlov wrote a number of articles comparing the collapse-preparedness of the U.S. and the Soviet Union published on small Peak Oil related sites. Orlov’s article “Closing the ‘Collapse Gap’: the USSR was better prepared for collapse than the US” was very popular at EnergyBulletin.Net.

Orlov’s book Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects, published in 2008, further details his views.

Discussing the book in 2009, in a piece in The New Yorker, Ben McGrath wrote that Orlov describes “superpower collapse soup” common to both the U.S. and the Soviet Union: “a severe shortfall in the production of crude oil, a worsening foreign-trade deficit, an oversized military budget, and crippling foreign debt.” Orlov told interviewer McGrath that in recent months financial professionals had begun to make up more of his audience, joining “back-to-the-land types,” “peak oilers,” and those sometimes derisively called “doomers”.

He continues to write regularly on his “Club Orlov” blog and at EnergyBulletin.Net.

References:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-21/no-longer-quiet-eastern-front-part-2

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Peter Strzok testifies, reveals partisan warfare (VIDEO)

Partisan bickering main event as FBI Agent Peter Strzok is used as the pawn to prove legitimacy of RussiaGate investigation

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Peter Strzok appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his part in regards to the improper handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation and Robert Mueller’s RussiaGate investigation. The hearing was so contentious and partisan that it stalled at this point for quite a while.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The Republicans went one way with this, and the Democrats went the other. All the while, Agent Strzok sat there as all this happened. Representative Bob Goodlatte was furious with the situation, as one can see.

Vox News reported on this as well, calling the event a “ridiculous circus.” 

FBI agent Peter Strzok’s testimony before Congress on Thursday collapsed into a full-on partisan circus, with Republican and Democratic members shouting at each other, House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte threatening to hold Strzok in contempt, and Democrats staging an over-the-top political stunt…

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Strzok exchanged a series of text messages with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having an affair, that were critical of Trump. In one particularly controversial exchange, Page texted Strzok that she was worried Trump might win. “No. No, he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok reassured her.

Trump and many of his Republican allies have seized on these text messages as proof of anti-Trump bias in the FBI and to discredit the Mueller probe — the investigation Trump calls a “Rigged Witch Hunt.”

His appearance before a joint session of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees on Thursday was the first time he had publicly testified before Congress since the revelations about his texts.

It was bound to be a contentious hearing — and so far, it has been.

Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, immediately accused Reps. Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chair of the House Oversight Committee, of deliberately trying to interfere with the special counsel investigation after Mueller obtained five guilty pleas from people associated with the Trump campaign in recent months.

And Cummings brought along some pretty spectacular signs to make the point.

As he spoke, Democratic staffers held huge signs with the names and photos of the five people affiliated with the Trump campaign who have already pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, London lawyer Alexander van der Zwaan, and Richard Pinedo, a California man who committed identity theft as part of the Russian election interference campaign.

Republicans first objected to the sign-holding, but seemed to back off when Democrats asked them to cite which rules the signs violated. The signs stayed up as Cummings listed what Flynn et al had pleaded guilty to and slammed Republicans for interfering with the advancement of the Trump-Russia probe.

As the hearing continued, lawmakers fought over what kinds of questions Strzok should be obligated to answer.

Gowdy’s very first question for Strzok — about how many witnesses he had interviewed in the opening days of Russia probesparked a huge debate. Strzok responded that he was not permitted to answer the question based on instructions from the FBI. Then Goodlatte threatened to hold Strzok in contempt for not answering the question.

“Mr. Strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question,” Goodlatte said.

Democratic lawmakers interrupted Goodlatte and objected loudly in defense of Strzok.

“This demand puts Mr. Strzok in an impossible position,” Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, responded. “If we have a problem with this policy we should take it up with the FBI, not badger Mr. Strzok.”

Strzok then asked to speak to the FBI general counsel before answering the question.

When Goodlatte responded that Strzok could only consult “with your own counsel,” that set off another testy exchange. Per CNN:

At one point, Strzok suggested that his removal from the special counsel’s Russia investigation was driven by optics. “It is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias … it was done based on the appearance,” Strzok said, adding that he “didn’t appreciate” the way Gowdy was framing the issue.

Gowdy replied, “I don’t give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok.”

“I don’t appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016,” Gowdy added.

The stakes are high here, which may explain the tense nature of the hearing. If Strzok’s defense of his past actions is received well by the public, he could potentially deal a serious blow to the power of right-wing narratives about FBI corruption.

But if he comes off looking bad it will do damage to the credibility of the Mueller probe — and Mueller’s ability to investigate the full extent of Trumpworld’s relationship with Russia.

Continue Reading

Latest

COLLUSION: Peter Strzok reveals THREE different versions of the ‘Trump Dossier’

FBI Special agent caught hiding fact of multiple versions of dossier during questioning by House Judiciary Committee

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The salacious “Trump Dossier” that was spread as an amazing example of “fake news” being treated as real, received a further blow to its own credibility by none other than FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok on Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee hearing. Fox News notes that Mr. Strzok indicated that there was not one dossier, but three variations of this document – one held by Senator John McCain, a second by Mother Jones writer David Corn, and Fusion GPS owner Glenn Simpson.

Fox goes on to say:

Rudy Giuliani on Thursday slammed the “totally phony” Russia probe after anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok refused to identify the individuals who apparently handed the bureau three different copies of the salacious Trump dossier.

“Isn’t that called collusion or conspiracy to gin up a totally inappropriate, totally illegally wire based on national security? And doesn’t it taint the entire Russian probe?” Giuliani told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle.”

“That’s a disgrace, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller should be ashamed of himself. Those Democrats trying to protect that liar, Strzok, should be ashamed of themselves. And every FBI agent I know wants to see this guy drummed out of the bureau,” he said.

Giuliani said the dossier led to fake news and the “national intelligence wiretap” of the Trump campaign officials.

“So how much of it is infecting the investigation today? We may never know, which is why I think the investigation is totally phony,” he added.

The inquiry into the dossier occurred during a fiery exchange earlier between Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Strzok, who appeared before a joint House committee about his role in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Jordan pressed Strzok about an email he sent to his colleagues, including FBI lawyer Lisa Page with whom he had an extramarital affair, indicating that he has seen different versions of the infamous Trump dossier from three different sources.

Jordan said he had the email the he sent to Page and several others with the subject: “BuzzFeed is about to accomplish the dossier.”

“It says this, ‘Comparing now the set is only identical to what (Sen. John) McCain had, parentheses, it has differences from what was given to us by (Mother Jones’ David) Corn and (Fusion GPS founder Glenn) Simpson.’ Did you write all that?” Jordan asked.

Strzok refused to answer and declined to confirm whether there were three copies of the dossier the FBI had its hands on, saying he can’t answer under the directive of the bureau.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trump THREATENS to pull US out of NATO – Germans in favor?

Answering quesitons at a press conference during the second day of the NATO summit in Brussels, US President Donald Trump said he “thinks” he can pull the US out altogether from the military alliance without US Congressional approval.

Vladimir Rodzianko

Published

on

US President Donald Trump in Brussels for a two-day NATO summit.

US President Donald Trump threatened to break with NATO and conduct American security unilaterally if the allies did not immediately increase their military spending targets, according to NATO officials and diplomats.

One NATO official said Trump wants a plan from alliance members by January on how to reach the spending target.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The US president made the statement when asked if he had threatened to pull out of the historically anti-Russia alliance, and whether he thought he could do so without first consulting Congress.

Trump ignored the first question, but on the second question, he said, “I think I can.”

According to Politico, Trump warned his allies behind closed doors that they would need to radically increase defense spending or the US “will do our own thing.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg then reportedly shifted the meeting to an allies-only emergency session, requiring European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to leave the room.

WATCH: Trump CRUSHES NATO Secretary General with massive truth bomb rant

As Trump threatens to pull out of the military alliance,  a new poll shows that Germans would actually be in favor of an American troop withdrawal from their country, which has been present since the end of the Second World War.

Via The Independent:

The finding comes on the first day of a NATO summit in which the US president is urging Europe to spend more on defence if it wants to continue to receive American military protection.

But far from being seen as a threat, a YouGov poll for the dpa news agency found that more Germans would welcome the departure of the 35,000-strong American force than would oppose it.

42 per cent said they supported withdrawal while just 37 per cent wanted the soldiers to stay, with 21 per cent undecided.

Last month the US media reported that the US government was in the process of assessing the cost of keeping troops in Germany ahead of a possible withdrawal, citing Pentagon sources.

But the policy of actually pulling out of the country has not actually reached the negotiating table in his week’s Brussels summit and is not expected to be discussed as a possibility – for now.

The cause of US withdrawal enjoys significant support from across the political spectrum in Germany but is particularly strong with the supporters of certain parties.

Voters for the left-wing Die Linke are particularly in favour of withdrawal, with 67 per cent backing it, as are supporters of the far-right AfD, on 55 per cent. Greens also back withdrawal by 48 per cent.

Less supportive of withdrawal are voters for the centre-right CDU, at 35 per cent, the SPD at 42 per cent, and the FDP at 37 per cent.

The same poll also found significant opposition to militarism in general in the country. Just 15 per cent of all Germans agree with Angela Merkel that the country should increase its military spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2024, with 36 per cent saying the country’s already spends too much on its military.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!

The Duran Newsletter

Trending