US Pays Half Of Gazprom's Overdue Invoice With $1 Billion Ukraine Loan Guarantee

Zerohedge ^ | 3-14-2014 | Tyler Durden

[1rudeboy]

They decry evil Russia who is “annexing” Ukraine.

Noting your choice of quotation marks. How would you describe what Russia is doing? Or is the use of quotation marks your indication that Russia is acting in a "globalist" fashion?

[PieterCasparzen]

Why the hell is all this money going to other countries?

Victoria Nuland of the US State Department is caught on a youtube video giving a speech where she brags that the US has spent $5 billion on helping Ukraine reach its "European aspirations".

The global financiers of the world (headquartered in the UK/US and Europe) want every nation to not just do business with them, but to submit to globalist legal authority.

To illustrate:

The country of Greece is a member of the EU. It recently could not afford to make payment on it's government bonds (borrowings), that are issued through the international banking syndicate.

The EU then proceeded to DICTATE to Greece what kind of "austerity" programs it would need to institute domestically to cut domestic government spending, so it would have more tax money with which to pay it's government debt with interest back to it's bondholders. All the nice government spending on the sheeple, all those government "programs", had to be cut.

The Greek sheeple are, therefore, tax/debt slaves.

This is why international bankers want nations to join international governmental bodies that supersede their own elected national government. The elected national government can't politically be that harsh on its citizens, or they will unelect them.

In the case of the EU, it has over two dozen member countries. So the EU can dish out harshness to individual member countries, since any individual country - especially the small ones - don't have significant influence over the entire EU.

Bond issuers must pay back principal and interest; if they default, the banking syndicate who floats their bonds (underwrites the sale and sells them into the marketplace) won't be able to make much of a market for them. Goverment bonds are quite a desireable investment, because governments can collect taxes at the point of a gun. Thus, there is a revenue stream from which to repay the bond. The trouble is with small corrupt countries where the politicians opt to default on their bonds. International bankers tend to want to depose such political leaders and replace them with those who will do whatever it takes to pay off their government bonds.

The globalist elite financiers are "men without country" in truth; though they may be citizens of this country or that, their loyalty is to their own wealth and power, which spans national borders.

They in essence rule over the UK, US and Europe, since they have so much control over politicians, news, capital markets, education, etc. Any time they want, they can stir up the US to send its military into a war. The nice part is, it's not all their money that's being used. Controlling government means they get to use "other people's money", taxpayer dollars in this case, to achieve their private goals.

This is why the US government spends billions "spreading democracy" around the world.

[PieterCasparzen]

The Russian Federation, the European countries and the US and UK are all co-investors in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to the tune of billions of Euros.

http://www.ebrd.com/pages/about/who/shareholders.shtml

The EBRD website shows several billion euros invested in Ukraine.

http://www.ebrd.com/pages/country/ukraine.shtml

This is more of a partnership squabble than “annexing”.

Russia wants to keep its naval port clearly under its control, while the US/UK/Euro nations, at the behest of financial elites, want to bring Ukraine under the EU legal and financial umbrella. Though already doing massive amounts of business in Ukraine, the financiers of course want to have the options of forced austerity, EU tax/legal regimes, etc., at their disposal.

Obviously the financiers are trying to get political support in the West for a civil war to break Ukraine in two, which would give Russia its port and the rest to the West.

Otherwise, it has to be a black op, and US politicians, if the truth comes out later, would have blame for the op laid at their feet, instead of being able to blame the public outcry for war to help the “beleagured Ukrainians” with their $5 billion worth of “European aspirations”.

The pro-any-war part of the American political scene is leaking members.

It doesn’t make much sense for Ukrainian oligarchs and politicans to “go rogue” on the international financiers and have their own civil war without planning and financing from the US, which brings with it the certainty of planning and financing for post-war reconstruction and organization.

Unplanned civil wars basically just don’t ever happen because there are so many more financial gains to be made if there is a plan instead of just chaos. Planning allows for selection of leaders, setup of logistics and financing, etc., and thus the financiers can plan out the limitations they’ll set up for the side they’d prefer lost.

The “arab springs” were nothing more than ugly demonstrations, so the vassal replacement was accomplished without even needing a civil war or revolution.

It’s quite evil how the elite financiers think of national borders and governments like a sick joke that enables them to impose their will on the sheeple.

[McGruff]

Let's get the American pay for it. They're stupid enough to.