Is the Ukraine a Shock Doctrine example?

[Ichingcarpenter]

The shock doctrine in Ukraine
Naomi Klein, in her book, The Shock Doctrine, told how the global banking system took advantage of crises, and sometimes created crises, in order to force national leaders to accept policies against their will. This seems to be what is going on in Ukraine.

Ukraine has beem in gave financial difficulties. Last fall the International Monetary Fund offered Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich a bailout, under conditions that reportedly included a doubling of prices for gas and electricity to industry and homes, the lifting of a ban on private sale of Ukraine’s rich agricultural lands, a sale of state assets, a devaluation of the currency and cuts in funding for schools and pensions to balance the budget. In return, Ukraine would have got a $4 billion loan, a small fraction of what was needed.

Then the Russian Federation offered a $15 billion loan and a 30 percent cut in gas export prices. Naturally Prime Minister Yanukovich accepted. Then all hell broke loose.


A mysterious sniper killed peaceful demonstrators in Maidan square in Kiev and, as has happened with mysterious sniper attacks in Venezuela, Thailand and other countries, the killings sparked a violent uprising.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said in a leaked telephone conversation with the Ukraine ambassador that “we” want the former banker, Arseny Yatsenyuk, installed at Yanukovich’s replacement, rather than some more popular politician. And that’s what happened.

Yatsenyuk said he will do whatever it takes to get IMF financing, even though this probably will make him the most unpopular prime minister in Ukraine history. He in fact has little choice. The Russian offer has understandably been withdrawn, and Ukraine is in a much more desperate plight than it was six months ago.

Elections are scheduled for May, but that’s plenty of time for Ukraine to be locked into binding commitments to the IMF.

Ukraine is a country rich in natural resources but poor in money — an inviting target for financial speculators. Based on what has happened in other countries in like situations, I look for Ukraine’s resources and assets to be sold off at bargain prices.

I don’t see what business a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State has trying to name the head of a foreign government, or how this in any way benefits the American people. It seems to be an example of the workings of Wall Street as a component of Michael Lofgren’s deep state.


With permission

http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/the-shock-doctrine-in-ukraine/

About Deep State

All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

Shock Doctrine
"The only book of the last few years in American publishing that I would describe as a mandatory must-read. Literally the only one."
-Rachel Maddow

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

[dipsydoodle]

1. Careful - you'll be labelled a Putin supporter

by those whose knowledge of economics is even less than sfa but major in the use of childish names.

[uhnope]

11. if it walks and talks like a Putin supporter, maybe it is

[Igel]

2. Sure. And you see the result.

Putin managed to trigger a bit of a nationalist and economic crisis and they had elections that made things very nice for the appointer: Putin.

That was years ago. Successful application of Klein's heuristic "shock doctrine."

When that didn't work and the guy that Putin liked ran with his tail between his legs, it was a bit awkward.

So Putin took it to the next level: he applied the Putin "shock troops doctrine." Mass media campaign + disinformation campaign, bribes, threats, and 30k troops on the streets of Crimea. Perhaps that, finally, will achieve the desired long-term result.

The threats, both economic, legal, and military are made against Ukr in conjunction with the "model" of the Crimea. At the same time, very few suspect that there's no Russian mischief in eastern Ukraine. It's easy to forget that the RT agitprop is intended for the West; but what's in Russian is far more gory, far more intense, and while we keep saying it's intended for Russians we forget that for many Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine their primary source of information are sources from Russia. So that more intense, gorier agitprop that we *don't* see is beamed straight into the living rooms of the people that go out and have an "anti-Maidan" and, say, stab two supporters at the "One Ukraine" protest yesterday.

(Which is actually a tongue-in-cheek name. It was denounced as fascist, nationalist, insulting to any ethnic minority. However the name of the protest, "One Ukraine" is precisely the name of "Russia United" in Russian, Yedinaya Rossia, with "Ukraine" substituted for "Russia"--Yedina Ukraina. So Putin's party is "One Russia", which, apparently, is "fascist, nationalist, and insulting to any ethnic minority." Ahem.)

[JDPriestly]

10. Essentially this is an economic decision for the Ukrainians to determine themselves.

My first question is how did a land so rich in agricultural resources and, in addition, has a gas pipeline from Russia to Western Europe running right through it, become such a fiscal mess.

First things that comes to my mind are that a) there has been a lot of corruption with the wealthy and politically well connected stealing from the rest of the population; b) some other country is stealing the Ukrainians blind. With that in mind, I ask myself how much Russia is paying the Ukraine for the privilege of running its gas through the pipeline on Ukrainian soil. That pipeline is a bit of a risk for the Ukrainians. If you think about our pipelines and how often there are spills, etc., the Ukrainians should be receiving a handsome revenue from that pipeline. Then I ask myself to whom the Ukraine is most likely selling its agricultural surplus (assuming there is one if the land is really productive).

My suspicion is after considering the most likely answers to those questions that in addition to the corruption and payoffs, etc. the Ukraine is being taken advantage of by the big bear to its east, RUSSIA. Not paying enough to run its gas through the Ukraine and then buying Ukraine's agricultural production at low prices. I have no proof of that, but I look at history. I remember a Polish woman who said they had a joke that if they went to the store and bought potatoes, they could see a barrel. They bought one potato for themselves and then had to put one potato in the barrel for the Russians. That's just an anecdote, but it reflects how East Europeans saw Russia.

Then I look at the deal offered by the IMF and the deal offered by Russia. At first glance, the deal from Russia looks best. But if the Ukraine decides to join the Russian Federation's economic group, it risks losing out because the economic future of Russia depends on Russia's own exploitation of its resources and cunning in selling them for good prices. Very iffy considering the poor management and extremely hierarchical structure of the Russian society and economy. Then there is the IMF and the opportunity to join Western democracies but for an almost meaningless bail-out.

The Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place, and to a great extent because of corruption, dishonest, untrustworthy, uncaring, undemocratic leadership.

I wish the Ukraine luck, but I could not say for sure which of their choices is best. I would slightly lean toward Western Europe although the immediate suffering that would result from choosing the IMF deal might mean that a Ukraine helplessly bound to and dominated by Russia is inevitable.

It's really up to the people of the Ukraine. They have a really tough decision to make.

If only we had the gift to see into the future. But we don't. Neither the offer from the IMF or from Russia is very good. Good luck, Ukraine.

[geek tragedy]

3. ony if you ignore the profound corruption in Ukraine, including the theft of billions of dollars

by its pro-Russian ruling class, as well as Russian efforts to keep it underdeveloped and ergo dependent on Russia.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. The 2012 IMF/Ukraine Negotiations

These are the reform the IMF wanted for a 4 billion dollar loan:

the IMF demanded that Ukraine double prices for gas and electricity to industry and homes, that they lift a ban on private sale of Ukraine’s rich agriculture lands, make a major overhaul of their economic holdings, devalue the currency, slash state funds for school children and the elderly to “balance the budget.”


This is what the IMF does to your country. Note that 4 billion doesn’t even come close to covering Ukraine’s debts. Moscow offered 15 billion and a one-third reduction in natural gas prices.


I'm not really happy with what the IMf
does to nations....

[geek tragedy]

6. Moscow offered to buy the country for $15 billion.

Do you think that was charity they were offering?

Moscow's goal was to keep Ukraine economically underdeveloped so it would be forever dependent on Russia.

There's a reason Ukraine was needing to go around begging for massive sums of money every few years--it couldn't afford or maintain its current economic arrangements.

the IMF gets blamed for a lot of stuff where what's really going on is that a state's economy is simply unsustainable in its current form.

if they don't need the money, don't borrow it. if they do need to borrow that kind of money all the time, something needs to change

[zeemike]

8. Same shit, different country.

And one by one they fall into the hands of the powerful elite.

Putin has been declared the evil one, so case closed, don't look any further than that.

[malaise]

4. Is the Pope Catholic?

Confessions of an Economic Hitman is the other most read book.

[Denzil_DC]

7. Russia's an even clearer example. n/t

[Catherina]

9. Excellent article. Thanks n/t

[cthulu2016]

12. Yes, on the Russian side

The crisis created out of nothing to then exploit is the claim of peril to Russians within Crimea.

[uhnope]

13. gobbledygook conspiracy theory to not oppose a dictator's invasion of Crimea

[joshcryer]

14. Timing is off about the snipers and violence.

It became violent in Kiev a few days before the anti protest law went into effect, as people built barricades and armed themselves with mostly handheld weapons and helmets and makeshift shields.

So once the law went into effect it was violent from day one. With protesters trying to fend off stormtrooper advances.

The first deaths were protesters who were taken to remote locations mafia style and beaten and left to fend for themselves. Others happened when protesters stormed official buildings and people got beat to death.

The first official death after stormtroopers descended was actually an accident. The sniper deaths happened days later.

As far as Venezuela, the first two murders were done by SEBIN. With so much video and picture evidence the government had no choice but to arrest those men. Since then the vast majority of deaths are protesters or bystanders not the police as you would expect from an armed uprising.