For a world of peace & justice...


Replies to Jeremy's Tweets

16/11/2022:  Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn

"I condemn the Russian invasion, the war against Ukraine and the illegal occupation. Today, I asked the Foreign Secretary what role the UN can play in bringing about a process of peace to prevent any further loss of life."

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course right in asking this question. At the popular level it makes sense. However what is happening in Ukraine is, in reality, not what has so far surfaced in the media because of a blanket censorship imposed by government. Therefore, Jeremy's question needs to be set within the reality of this hidden background context.

Below we have provided a factual brief on the background to the Ukrainian affair. But looking at the long list of responses and counter positions the levels of misunderstanding and fundamental reason this was promoted by NATO is not understood.

The fundamental reason was that the Russian-German collaboration has resulted in Germany gaining the world's highest balance of payments in the world, based on very cheap Russian gas.
If what is stated here is true,
Why has the German government supported NATO actions?

Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor has been advised by German industry of what is going on but he is hampered by the German Minister of Finance and vice Chancellor Habeck, who has no understanding of industrial affairs, and remains unresponsive to appeals by industrialists to the collapse of leading corporations, and by Annalena Baerbock the Foreign Affairs Minister who actively supports NATO actions in Ukraine. Both are committed to supporting the USA. It is not known what the hold the USA has over these two people but it is evident that this government will fall as an increasing number of the German population realizes their role in Germany's downfall.
Anthony Blinken let the cat out of the bag in his book "Ally versus Ally" where he describes clearly the concern of the USA over the Russian Siberian pipeline placing the USA at a disadvantage in terms of global competition.

On this question, since the 1970s both the USA and UK have lost exports of goods as a result of monetary policy/globalization causing de-industrialization. By 2000 the USA had the world's worst balance of payments for goods (negative) and the UK the second worst (negative).

The State Department has therefore been working to correct this situation by a strategy to undermine existing global competition. They have not adopted "the American way" of fair competition but have resorted to using sanctions and in many cases military interventions under various guises. China is of growing concern to the USA but the current target is Germany. Since Germany is a NATO member and an "ally" the USA has set out to undermine the Germany economy in an indirect manner. To achieve this they have promoted the idea of "Europe's dependency on Russian gas" as being a strategic security issue. They therefore, under this banner, set out to stop the flow of cheap gas to Germany and Europe. Therefore NATO has been used to make Ukraine a proxy to begin to undermine Russia.

Because Russia, in spite of sanctions, was still offering cheap gas on the basis of long term contracts and Germany industry was pressuring to open Nord Stream 2, the USA and it is alleged UK, blew up the Nord Stream pipelines to get rid of this option. What is remarkable is that in spite of such action represents the fact that NATO members see the USA, in fact in an economic war with Germany in particular, the EU and the UK, the main media effort is still a destraction strategy focussing of a range of imaginary evils of Russia in order to maintain popular support for Government actions. At the same tims this maintains pressue to undermine the image of Russia and to support USA's economic strategy.

As reality sets in, it is unlikely that NATO can survive as the backfiring of NATO's economic sanctions against Russia are creating a devastating depression in Europe and UK as a result of this US strategy.

  While we select replies from this Tweet thread, the APEurope Correspondent' Pool has suggested that because of the extremes in position found in the Tweet threads it is evident that there is a good deal of disinformation concerning the background to this Ukrainian crisis. We have therefore prepared a brief, below, to clarify facts concerning its development. Everything in the brief below is based on factual evidence and we leave readers to drawn their own conclusions concerning "who is to blame" or "who started it" and "who acted in an unreasonable or illegal fashion"
  1. In 2014 the USA State Department was instrumental in organizing a violent coup against a democratically elected Ukrainian government;

  2. The USA installed a puppet government with its membership being discussed by Victoria Nuland of the US State Department, via a mobile telephone call, which was intercepted and during which she made the now notorious comment, "..and F*ck Europe"

  3. The USA State Department involvement was openly admitted/confirmed by Victoria Nuland who stated, in a Washington speech, that the US government had spent some $5 billion to bring this about;

  4. This US State Department installed Ukrainian government expressed particularly racist views concerning the large ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine as a result of important ministerial positions being occupied by neo-Nazi militia members or people closely associated with them.

  5. Why Russia did not invade Crimea

    Starting in 1772, Russia has maintained troops and naval personnel in Sevastopol Crimea for some 250 years including under legally binding leasing agreements with all Ukrainian governments.

    In 2014 there were around 15,000 Russian military personnel stationed in and around Sevastopol with family members in Crimea, this is why the claims that Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 are factually incorrect. There was no invasion of Crimea and Crimea and Sevastopol became Russian without a single shot being fired.

    "The Russian Squadron on the Sebastopol Roads", 1846  By the Russian, Crimea born, marine artist, Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky
  6. In response to the coup and knowledgeable of the nature of the puppet regime's intent with respect to the ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine, Crimea and Sevastopol which are about 97% ethnic Russian, immediately declared their independence from Ukraine.

  7. Sevastopol has been the main naval station of Tzarist Russia, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation since construction began in 1772 (250 years ago) and finished in 1783 . Since that time the growth in the ethnic Russian population has steadily increased.

  8. At the time of the violent coup in 2014, there were about 15,000 active Russian marine and naval personnel based in Sevastopol, signifying that there was no "invasion" of Crimea by Russia; their military were already there.

  9. Crimean and Sevastopol leadership requested annexation by Russia. Russia responded by asking these authorities to confirm the wishes of the region's constituents.

  10. A referendum was soon held with the overwhelming majority, around 98% voting to be annexed by Russia.

  11. Russia then completed the formalities of having the Duma formalize the annexation.

  12. The Ukrainian government began to mobilize troops and cur off the water supply to Crimea.

  13. As separate movements the largely ethnic Russian population of the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk (Donbass region) also voted to become separated from Ukraine, fearing the intent of the puppet government.

  14. In Odessa Ukrainian militia murdered around 40 ethnic Russians in the Union House and set this ablaze, any escaping Russians were bludgeoned to death. The police and members of the public did not intervene to prevent this from happening the known perpetrators have never been brought to justice.

  15. Ukraine initiated military action on what were a Ukrainian minority in Donbass region in 2014.

  16. The population in Donbass only had local security forces who were poorly armed and initially Ukraine succeeded in bringing about a considerable loss of life of civilians and local Donbass militia, by 2015 this count had risen to around 15,000.

  17. Russian volunteers joined in this military action on the side of the ethnic Russian Donbass communities which led to a stalemate with the Ukrainians no longer able to continue their campaign of genocide.

  18. Negotiations to resolve this conflict began in 2014, resulting in Russia and Ukraine agreeing to the Minsk agreement under which there was a cease fire and agreement that the Donbass communities would remain as part of Ukraine under a devolved status (somewhat like United Kingdom's Scottish and Welsh assemblies).

  19. The notable fact is that Russia relied on the Minsk agreement to arrange a peaceful solution to this conflict and made no claims to either territory or desiring that the Donbass become part of Russia.

  20. Details concerning the Minsk Agreement were changed slightly in 2015 and France and Germany were guarantors.

  21. Rather than work to avoid any further conflict and deliver the Minsk Agreement as a peaceful solution and upon which Russia relied to resolve the situation it has since been admitted by ex-President Poroshenko of Ukraine that:

    • Ukraine had no intention to implement Minsk;
    • NATO began to supply arms to Ukraine;
    • NATO countries began to train Ukrainian militia and army;
    • Ukraine and NATO was doing this to prepare to continue the Ukrainian genocide directed against the ethnic Russian communities in the Donbass.

  22. Russian satellite intel and military intelligence observed the build up of Ukraine military around Donbass and the supply of arms and training to the Ukrainian troops

  23. The movement and nature of Ukrainian preparations cause the Russian government to conclude that the Ukrainians were preparing to attack the Donbass

  24. Knowing that this military build up and preparation was largely organized by the USA and through NATO, the Russian government, on 17th December, 2021, sent NATO and the USA a communique setting out the "red lines" concerning their position on Ukraine and NATO activities.
  25. The USA and NATO did not respond to this communique seriously but continued to supply arms, advice and training tho the Ukrainian military

  26. In the meantime Russia began to build up it own troops and equipment on the Donbass border in case there was an attack on the Donbass with the objective of protecting the ethnic Russian communities

  27. In February 2022, Ukrainian President Zelensky who had been voted in on a mandate to implement the Minsk agreement, declared he had no intention to implement this agreement.

  28. The Russian Presidential spokesman, stated that, "The Ukrainian side and Mr. Zelensky declare the discussion of the settlement in the southeast as the main goal. But we (Russia) are not a party to the conflict. And the discussion in the southeast should be between President Zelensky and the regionís representatives"

  29. On the morning of February 17, 2022, the Lugansk and Donetsk Peopleís Republics reported some of the most intensive shelling by Kiev forces in recent months was aimed at and destroying houses and civilian facilities. On Friday, 18th February, 2022 the leaders of the Lugansk and Donetsk Peopleís Republics announced the evacuation of the republics' inhabitants to Russia, citing the increasing threat to families and of increasing Ukrainian hostilities.

  30. On 24th February, Russia joined this ongoing military action to protect the threatened Donbass communities.

  31. Paraphrasing the declared intent of the Russian action described as: a Technical Military Action, was to protect the Donbass communities, demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine.

  32. Note: In Russian military terminology a technical action has a well-defined and limited objective or objectives. In this case there was no intent to occupy the country or, as some have suggested, to "expand the Russian Empire".

16/11/2022: Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn

" This year, bankers collected the biggest bonuses since the 2008 crash.

Rishi Sunak claims to understand people's hardships, but his predecessor's plan to lift the bonus cap remains in place.

1 in 3 children will go hungry this winter, but will nobody think of the bankers?"

Replying to @jeremycorbyn

Jeremy, there is another way. Please look at the recent article describing a workshop by APEurope Correspondents' Pool on "Economic Development Policy options for Britain" which describes a lesser known but totally rational approach to our predicament:

The link provides access to a report on a workshop where a policy referred to as Price Performance Policy (3P) is referred to. Unlike this unseemly battle between taxation and public services caused by inflation and the Bank of England raising of inflation through mortgage interest rates, 3P concentrates on reducing prices in the short run which raises wage purchasing power and sustaining rises in productivity in the medium to long run.

Lord Lennon of Bendigo... just call me Dave @Davelennonabc

Replying to @jeremycorbyn

(Copyright status not known please advise if known)

John Belton @Cybacity
Replying to @Cybacity and @jeremycorbyn

Having made BoE independent policy now does not pander to constituents but rather to banks, hedge funds, corporations i.e. the "market"

Matthew Hynes @matthewhyned

Replying to @jeremycorbyn

Wouldn't make any difference to the countries finances but may encourage wealth generators to come to the UK

John Belton @Cybacity

Replying to @matthewhyned and @jeremycorbyn

Wealth generators keep the wealth and share little - see "The constitutional crisis created by monetary policy"

The link provides access to a surprising document that explains how, by default, monetary policy, and in particular financialization and quantitative easing, drive up the wealth of asset holders and traders (a minority of constituents), and drains money away from wage-earners (the majority of constituents).

Very logical, transparent and scary analysis.

This is why monetary policy needs to change.

Veronika-Elizabeth @VeronikaEliz10

Replying to @matthewhyned and @jeremycorbyn

We live in a consumer society. The economy grows when people consume more. Put wages up, people shop, economy grows. And if govts invest, so build the hospitals they keep promising, put in better infrastructure, that all creates jobs so more money for consumers to use to consume.

This comment is largely correct and aligns with the aforementioned condition that the 3P (Price Performance Policy) is designed to achieve. For example lowering prices raises purchasing power and consumption grows as a result of multiplier effect driven by the price elasticity of demand. So lower prices not only raise purchasing power, they raise consumption. So demand is not a result of bankers waving money it arises from supply side production enterprises being competitive and paying good wages.

Henry Ford was once asked why he paid his workers such high wages, he explained that this way they could afford to buy his cars, Ford is still in operation.

There is a lot more to this and this line of thought although somewhat obvious, it differs radically from the standard schools of economics of Keynesianism, monetarism, supply side economics and modern monetary theory. These schools all have blank pages when it comes to supply side production from the angle of technological innovation raising productivity and wages. That is enough for now but we are preparing briefs on this which will be posted under resources later on in the week.