Interesting news this morning: the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaia Pravda has interviewed a man who claims to have been a witness to the take-off of three aircraft one of which allegedly shot down MH17.  Thanks to the incredible work done by Kazzura the full video with English subtitles is already available today.  Check it out:

I will notice that there are several mutually contradictory versions circulating out there.  For example, one version spoke of a Polish pilot, this one speaks of a Ukrainian (with a very Russian last name), some versions speak of one aircraft, other of two and this one even three, some speak of a SU-25, others of a MiG-29 or even a SU-27 (such as the alleged satellite photo from the student at MIT).  There are several reasons for such discrepancies.

For one thing, coming up with a “testimony” is a surefire way to make money.  Second, some witnesses might have seen something but not paid attention at the time and then “reconstructed” what they saw.  Finally, witnesses are like the folks holding different parts of the elephant – they see only a part of the bigger picture.

I have to say that I still am basically sticking with the version I put forth on August 4th: MH-17 was shot down by a single SU-25, guided towards its target by the long-range “Kupol” radar of a BukM1 battery who engaged MH17 with a single R-60 infrared-guided air-to-air missile which hit one of the engines and then who “finished off” MH17 with a volley of gunfire from its canon.  Still, I have to add two things:

a) it is possible that even though only one SU-25 engaged the MH17 there were other two loitering nearby to make sure to intercept MH17 because the problem with flying an SU-25 at high altitude is not that it cannot get high enough, but that at high altitude the engines of the SU-25 (which are designed for close air support or “tree hugging”) cannot provide much speed thus the flight envelope of a SU-25 at altitudes around 7’000m-10’000m is very narrow.

b) I am aware of the version that Kolomoisky had hired Ukrainians pilots to shoot down Putin’s Presidential Aircraft, but I cannot imagine why they would not have been aware that the transponder of MH17 was signaling that this was a totally different aircraft regardless of the fact that the two aircraft externally appeared similar.  Unless that is explained to me I cannot endorse this version.

One thing I am 99% sure of is that MH17 was not downed by a surface-to-air missile like the BukM1 because of the highly visible column of smoke left by such a missile which lingers on for a long time (up to 30min depending on wind conditions).  The launch is also very noisy.  So while we have seen the recent testimony of a Ukrainian solider who confirmed that the Buk # 312 allegedly belonging to Russia was, in fact, Ukrainian, I do not believe that this Buk was actually used to shoot down MH17.

What is absolutely certain is that the US, the UK, Holland and pretty much all the parties involved are busy covering up what happened and trying to delay any possible relevant findings as much as possible.  The only country which is still demanding an independent investigation is Russia which, by itself, tells me all I need to know about “who done it”.

The Saker

by Federico Pieraccini

[dropcap]There are two central issues[/dropcap] related to the devaluation of the ruble and the dollar depreciation to keep in mind: the preservation of American hegemony and the speculative bubble of derivatives linked to industry of Shale Gas. Without these elements, it is impossible to understand what are the reasons and the consequences of these artificial economic actions.

This case must therefore necessarily be addressed from different perspectives, a geopolitical one and a purely economic one.

The depreciation of oil seems to be a strategy implemented by mutual agreements between the US State Department and the Royal House of Saudi. As you can read in the article, the meetings in September 2014, between Kerry and Prince Abdullah laid the foundations for a decline in crude oil prices (compared to the market value) and at the same time a denial in the reduction of daily production. An artificial manipulation of oil prices in all means. This seems to be the central reason why, despite a collapse inside the stock market in the UAE (losses between 8% and 20% in a single day on the 16th of December), there aren’t any short-term intentions to decrease the daily output of oil production.

The US public debt amounts to 18 trillion dollars. The derivatives markets, of JUST the six largest banks in America, amounts to almost 16 times the US debt!

The immediate effects of this situation are tangible in countries where the break-even point (“The break-even point is a value that indicates the amount, expressed in volume production and sales, product sales required to cover the costs previously incurred, in order to close the reference period without profits or losses.”) for extraction of crude oil varies over 90$ a barrel. From Iran to Venezuela, passing through Russia, all these countries are affected by the collapse in the value of crude oil. Riyadh is less effected, since it’s break-even point is around 65$.

It’s a situation that for some countries is not sustainable for much longer, of course we are not speaking about Russia that has a good economic base (low debt, high gold reserves, much foreign currency liquidity), but rather about countries like Venezuela ( break even in a range 140-160$) which receive much of their income from gains on oil export. Combining this situation with the sanctions imposed on Caracas and we could be facing an economic collapse in Venezuela (Zero Hedge has placed at 93% the chance of a default ). Not to mention that even the Iranian oil is affected by these declines (break-even between 120- 140$), with great satisfaction of Riyadh, the regional competitor.

Flood the market with something that has a very low demand ( are we at the peak for demand of oil ?) and what you get is deflation and this is tangible even to the less attentive observers. If the world economy slows, thus also the need of energy will fall contextually. If this decline is not matched by a decrease in production (as required at OPEC two weeks ago), then the price will collapse to the current value. In a sense, the ordinary citizen could argue that the price per barrel today is much more in line with market values ​​at this stage of the global economy .Unfortunately, it is only one of many points of view from which to observe this scenario and certainly does not offer a complete explanation.

Undoubtedly there is a strong correlation between the fall in crude oil prices and the collapse in the value of the ruble. But this theory does not offer a sufficient explanation. There are other factors that cannot be ignored.

The economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union prevent lending to Russian companies, with payment terms beyond 30 days. Given that Russian companies get cheap money from the West banks since the end of the Cold War, the sanctions currently prevent a restructuring of previous loans and refinancing more of the same. The consequences are that these companies must now buy Euros and Dollars to take care of their loans, thus creating more demand for foreign currency in the Russian market and thus weakening the ruble. From a purely business point of view, the Russian companies would like to see a different behavior of the Russian central bank, as explained by Alexander Mercourius:

“What I suspect, about what is happening, is that major speculators against the ruble are just the banks and Russian companies that have a large amount of dollar loans to be repaid before the end of the year. Instead of paying these debts with their reserves, they are putting pressure on the government and the central bank converting rubles into dollars and speculating against the ruble. And this aspect is much more important than any other factor that caused the recent defeat of the ruble. Judging from what Ulyukaev says, the government and the Central Bank have essentially capitulated and decided to help banks by giving them some of the reserves of the Central Bank. This may explain why the rate increase on the 15th of December was so ineffective and why in the last days the ruble has strengthened.”

Indeed analyzing the side effects of the Bond issued by Rosfnet on December 12th, 2014 (625 billion rubles – amounting to 11 billion dollars to 15/12), it seems that in the end the Russian central bank bought this bond, letting Rosfnet refinance loans, with Western banks. One could argue that the United States applies the same tactics using the Fed to simply print money and give them out to American business in trouble, in change of bond emissions. The behavior of the Russian central bank, similar to the Fed’s, has been an obligated one. The problem is that the global system is calibrated on the Dollar, not on the ruble. Russia used a Western method to create money and pays the consequences. These same consequences are the mother of all frightens for Americans with the process of De-Dollarization and the Dollar losing credibility.

“We could of never imagineed what is happening, it is the materialization of our worst nightmares. And in the next few days I think the situation could be comparable to the most difficult period of 2008 ” – Sergei Shvetsov, First Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Russia.

The most interesting question to ask is: could of the Russian authorities predict this combined attack oil-ruble-sanctions? The answer is yes and they did. Too bad no one could of imagined a so immediate acceleration of this strategy. Not even in the deepest nightmares of the Russians, in 6 months, the oil would be reduced to half of its value and the ruble of more than 50% in 12 months. This American tactic requires an extremely high risk factor and that endangers the ‘entire global economy, as we shall see .

Why then have the United States and its partners come to take this path so full of unknowns? Even in this case there are multiple answers. Certainly the main thrust concerns the geopolitical strategy of ‘regime-change’ in countries such as Venezuela, Iran and Russia ( in fact the most affected by the collapse of the price of oil). If using normal methods of softpower obtained not very significant results (Iran is heading to the agreement 5 + 1, Assad is increasingly solid in Syria, Putin is becoming increasingly popular at home and Maduro was able to regain the reins of the country after a period of instability following the death of Chavez and the artificial protests in the summer), in this way the key is an economic leverage. Never the less, there are many risks in this strategy. The collapse of the currency, the decrease in revenues from crude oil, rising prices, rising inflation, declining purchasing power and so on are the weapon with which America is convinced that it can continue its role as a hegemon in the world. The order is to lead to a collapse of domestic rival nations thanks to a combination of factors: sanctions, oil and currency.

After analyzing the motives and methods used to pursue this Kamikaze strategy, we can analyze certainly a more interesting but also more disturbing issue: the risks that these methods implemented by the west could trigger. The crisis in Ukraine, the Eurasian Union, the de-dollarization and the mega agreements between BRICS countries led to a backlash in Washington, with a game of risking everything.

The factor that carries the major unknowns but also the major concern is the market of the Shale Gas in America. Raised as a banner of American energy independence, coveted as a weapon to transit from the Middle East towards Asia (part of the strategy of “Asian Pivot”), it has undeniably played (and still plays) a primary role in the plans of policy makers in Washington.

Yet what is cleverly concealed by the mainstream media are the side effects that the market of shale gas suffers at the current low oil prices. The break-even point for these new methods of extraction is between a range of 60-80$ per barrel. Given this, it is easy to understand that with a prolonged period of low prices, the effects will be devastating for the whole market of Shale gas in the US (the first case of this kind has already happened, the Red Fork Energy Australia yesterday went into controlled administration ). If these were the only consequences, we could simply consider them irrelevant. The problem comes when we focus on the lending process to these companies that fail to return the credits to banks if they go bankrupt. A default in this industry sector could trigger a cascade mechanism which would ultimately affect the mother of all bubbles: the derivatives well hidden in Western banks.

The big global risk that the United States are taking to maintain their global hegemony is not much different from a preemptive nuclear attack (seems a doctrine of first strike in an economic sense). If the price of oil (artificially manipulated) drags into the abyss the Shale Gas Industry of America, all loans that should be repaid to the US banks would go up in smoke. With them, potentially, all the derivatives:

Let’s give some the numbers to these words and see how many of these crazy financial instruments, the US banks have:

JPMorgan Chase 

Total Assets: $ 2,520,336,000,000 (about 2.5 trillion dollars)

The total exposure to derivatives: $ 68,326,075,000,000 (more than 68 trillion dollars)

Citibank

Total Assets: $ 1,909,715,000,000 (just over 1.9 trillion dollars)

The total exposure to derivatives: $ 61,753,462,000,000 (more than 61 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs 

Total Assets: $ 860,008,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

The total exposure to derivatives: $ 57,695,156,000,000 (more than 57 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America 

Total Assets: $ 2,172,001,000,000 (a little ‘more than 2.1 trillion dollars)

The total exposure to derivatives: $ 55,472,434,000,000 (more than 55 trillion dollars)

Morgan Stanley 

Total Assets: $ 826.568 billion (less than a trillion dollars)

The total exposure to derivatives: $ 44,134,518,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars)

A useful comparison to fully realize what numbers we’re talking about: the US public debt amounts to 18 trillion dollars. The derivatives markets, only of the six largest banks in America, amounts to almost 16 times the US debt!

We are faced with yet the same dilemma already of the 2008 financial crisis: let banks fail or save them? Can the banks fail or are they “to big to fail”? In this case there are two possible ways: Print money (the Feds way of solving every problem) without worry of the increasing public debt (the example used so sustain this theory is Japan with 300% of debt) or let banks fail.

Taking for granted that the manipulation of the oil market and consequently the ruble affair are geopolitical moves, then what is the winning strategy that Washington hopes to obtain, without causing a collapse of the global economy? Foster a regime change in Venezuela, Iran and Russia in a short time or compel these nations to come to terms with the dictates of the West. It’s important to note that the time is NOT on the side of the West. The reason is related to the arguments set out above: an oil price so low would send down the drain the market of Shale gas, causing a chain reaction that would destroy the major US banks and could trigger the biggest speculative bubble in human history, the derivatives, which would cause an economic crisis in the face of which what happened in 2008 would be remembered as something easy.

There is one factor that matters more than any other and is considered by the US as the real key to this strategy. If the market of the Shale came to collapse and US banks have to be saved again ( as they are asking the government since December 11th ), the solution would be to simply print more money from the Fed and increase the US public debt. One might object that this would decrease significantly the credibility of the dollar itself. It’s a matter of debate and no one has a definite answer. Surely in the US, they are convinced that if this tactic would be successful and lead to a regime change and economic collapse of Russia, China would be forced to “return to the fold” (having lost here number 1 ally), thus ensuring the good solidity of US Treasury (the credibility of the dollar is very dependent on China because of the amount of American Treasury Bonds detained by the Chinese) and confirming the credibility of the dollar itself (even in a situation where the public debt were to move from 16 to 36 trillion dollars).

The basic problem remains geopolitical. The hegemonic view that the US need and want to keep . They currently have no other means to fight a global change that is transiting humanity in a stage no longer unipolar (in which the Americans is the only super-power) but multipolar (more actors on the world stage). We are reckoning and current drift presents an incalculable risk for the entire global economy … it really worth it?

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]Some will love it.  Lew Rockwell went as far as to say that he would hand Elvira Nabiulina the award of “Central Banker of the Year”.  Not everybody agrees.  For example, Victor Gerashchenko, a former Chairman of the Central Bank, declared that if he had been in the position of Nabiulina today he would have “asked for a gun to shoot himself”.

I have to admit that I personally am dismayed by Putin’s apparent beliefs in market economics.  I say ‘apparent’ because there might be things going on which I am not aware of.  For example, while Putin speaks of “market forces” China seems to get heavily involved in the Russian economic crisis.  For those interested in these developments, please check the following sources:

First, check out the latest CrossTalk: Dumping the Dollar.
Go West, Young Han.
Finally please read this article in Zero Hedge.

The Chinese friend who sent me the article in the People’s Daily made a particularly interesting comment.  He wrote:

I think that he is spot-on here.  It is very much in the Russian strategic interest to have China applying some “Yuan diplomacy” in the EU not only because China is a close ally, but mainly because China is “not the USA”.  At this point in time, *anything* which can weaken the total control of the USA over its EU colonies is welcome.  Any Yuan invested in the EU is one Dollar which is not.

This is just an example.  Putin probably knows a lot of things which we don’t and he probably cannot say everything he thinks or plans.  But my purely subjective impression is that Putin simply does not have the power needed to confront the Atlantic Integrationists head on.  Mikhail Khazin, who knows a lot, recently even declared that there were Atlantic Integrationists in the “power ministries”.  And since I am pretty sure that he was not referring to the Ministry of Defense that leaves either Internal Affairs or State Security.  If true, that is not good.  Either that, or Putin sincerely believes in liberal market-economics.  I most definitely don’t believe in them at all.

There are, in my opinion, two major problems with Putin’s logic.  First, Russia needs not less, but more regulation and more state control.  At the very least, I really believe that the very institution of the Central Bank is a toxic one: it was created by the US-controlled Yeltsin regime to subordinate Russian politics (and politicians) to the international banking cartels and we see that it works perfectly.  Putin can send bombers to the Gulf of Mexico, but he is unable to remove Nabiulina, nevermind take control of the Central Bank.  Nikolai Starikov has even said that there is a joke going around now saying “Putin, send the troops into the Central Bank!”.  That is how disgusted many Russians have become with this supra-national institution which is accountable to nobody.  But there is even worse.

The choice of a free-market non-regulated “solution” basically leaves Russia fully enmeshed into the Anglo-American/NATO bloc controlled financial system.  How can Russia free herself from the “Dollar yoke” while remaining fully part of the Dollar-dominated international system?!

I have to tell you that while I gratefully posted Peter Koenig’s excellent “Free Fall of the Ruble – A brilliant ploy of Russian economic Wizards? Whose chess game” this was one of those instances when I post something I find very interesting but which I do not agree with.  I just don’t get the sense that Putin is about to pull some clever judo-move on the western plutocrats.  I most sincerely hope that I am wrong here, but that is my gut-feeling.

Generally, Putin was clearly defensive when asked questions about the Central Bank and the Government.  Especially in contrast to the absolutely magnificent way he handled the questions about the Ukraine, even when asked by a very hostile Ukrainian journalist.  Again, as I so often say this, I am not a mind-reader or a prophet.  I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do.  But I think that many years of studying the man give me a pretty decent gut feeling about him and that gut feeling tells me that while he has a clear and strong vision on international politics in general, and especially about the Ukraine, he lacks such a vision for economic problems.

For the Ukraine his position is crystal clear: “Crimea is ours forever, we will not let you crush the Donbass, we want a united Ukraine in which the rights of all people and regions are respected and you will have to negotiate with the Novorussians who have a right of self determination” (which leaves open the possibility that while Russia might “prefer” a united Ukraine, the Novorussians have the right to decide otherwise).  Clear, direct and, I would argue, perfectly reasonable.  In contrast, in economics I get a sense of faith-based politics: “market forces will correct the current artificial situation and within 2 years the crisis will be over”.  The problem with that is that the very same Putin ALSO says that the West is completely manipulating the markets and not allowing them to act.  So what he is really saying is this: “the Empire does not have the means to artificially skew the markets for more than two years”.  Oh really?  I am not so sure of that at all.  In my book the Empire has been skewing the markets for many years already (I would argue since 1971).

Bottom line, what I hear from Putin is “more of the same” and since I don’t like what I have seen so far, I can only add “only worse”.

Can this nightmare be averted?

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]till, the situation is not necessarily hopeless.  While I think that Putin’s economic policies are wrong and while I believe that the Russian Central Bank is very much part of the problem and not the solution, this is not a black and white binary kind of choice: playing by the wrong rules or on the wrong field does not necessarily mean that you will lose, only that you have made the wrong initial choice.  For one thing, you can make the argument that the Ruble is a much more credible currency than the Dollar.  Second, I do agree that market forces are resisting the US distortion and that the integration of China and Russia will inevitably contribute to help the Russian economy.  Third, the EU is already in recession and if that gets worse, and it will, this will start pulling down many US banks who are heavily linked to the EU market.  Fourth, in objective terms, Russia is sitting on a tangible fortune of natural resources and she has full access to the gigantic Chinese market.  In these conditions, it is going to be awfully hard for the Anglo-American/NATO bloc to “isolate” Russia.  So, objectively, Putin is right about one thing: even if it does get worse before it gets better, it will inevitably get better.

So is Putin a genius chess player?  That is not quite how I would put it.  He definitely has a record of absolutely brilliant moves, but right now he is clearly struggling.  I am like everybody else, I would like him to pull yet another brilliant “chess move” and stick it to the Empire but I don’t see how we could do that, at least not at this point in time.

What I saw today is a Putin clearly on the defensive who had to invest a lot of his personal capital of popularity and trust.  He honestly admitted that things might get worse and that there is no quick fix to the current crisis.  He did commit to a time frame of 2 years which is both very short and very long.  It is plenty enough time to lose his popularity and very little time to turn around such a huge country like Russia.

The most poignant moment of the entire 3 hours came when Putin explained what was at stake today.  He said:

Amazing words which fully confirm one of the most important facts of the current situation: the Anglo-American/NATO bloc Empire and Russia are at war, a war in which either the Russian Bear will be “stuffed and that’s all” or the Anglo-American/NATO bloc Empire will crumble.  This is an existential war for both sides, for the Anglo-American/NATO bloc Empire and the Russian Civilizational Realm – one of them will defeat the other.

This is not the first time that Putin explains this, but this time I felt an urgency in his voice which I have not heard before.  He was both warning the Russian people and asking for their support for him personally.  My guess is that he will get it, I just don’t know for how long.

—The Saker

---

---

---

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here is one specific aspect of the recent thaw between the US and Cuba which nobody has mentioned and that bothers me a lot.

Rolando Sarraff Trujillo

We have all heard about the Cuban 5, the last three of which were now freed and we heard about the Jewish American spy Alan Gross who has now returned to the USA.  The media has also revealed the name of the top US mole in Cuba who had provided the USA with information about the Cuban 5 which led to their arrest: Rolando Sarraff Trujillo who is now in the USA.  So all is well, and everybody is back home, right?

Wrong.

Amongst the people whom Trujillo’s betrayed was Ana Belen Montes, who was the top DIA analyst for Cuba and who, after observing from the inside the hypocrisy and outright evil of the US policy towards Cuba decided to betray the USA and become a spy for Cuba.

You could say that Ana Montes was Rolando Trujillo’s counterpart in the USA.

Except that Trujillo is free, while Montes still rots in jail.

And, apparently, the Cuban government made no effort to get her freed.

I don’t personally care much about moles primarily because most of them end up breaking an oath to their country, and that bothers me a lot.  Unlike an intelligence agent, whether under diplomatic immunity or clandestine, a mole takes a formal oath to the country he/she betrays, something which intelligence agents don’t do.  But if there is one thing which even the prosecution admitted in the case of Ana Belen Montes is that she acted purely on political/ideological grounds, because she believed in her heart that what she was doing was right.  She got no money from the Cubans, she was not entrapped in some sordid sex scandal and she was no acting out of petty revenge or resentful ego problems, as so many traitors typically do.

She knew the risks better than anybody else, but she took them because she believed that this was the right, honorable, thing to do.

And now the Cubans have apparently turned away from her (while the US did get Trujillo free).

I cannot see any excuse for the Cuban government’s willingness to release Trujillo for anybody else but Montes.  The plight of the Cuban 5 was not nearly as dramatic as Montes’ and Trujillo was directly responsible for her arrest.  And yet the Cubans seem to have forgotten her.

David Rovics wrote an absolutely beautiful song for Ana Belen Montes and I hope that she will get to hear it one day.  You can listen to it here:

I can only imagine how Montes feels today knowing that Trujillo is free while she is forgotten.  And I don’t blame the USA for jailing her.  But it bothers me a great deal that the Cubans have apparently turned away from a lady who gave her life for Cuba.—TS

Listening to Obama’s speech about Cuba I was stunned by the following statements:

After all, these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked.  It’s time for a new approach.  (…) I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result.  Moreover, it does not serve America’s interests, or the Cuban people, to try to push Cuba toward collapse.  Even if that worked -– and it hasn’t for 50 years –- we know from hard-earned experience that countries are more likely to enjoy lasting transformation if their people are not subjected to chaos.

You get that? Obama admits that 50 years of sanctions and attempts to isolate a small island right off the coast of Florida has not worked.  And then he announces that he will impose more sanctions on Russia, the biggest country on the planet, and that he will isolate Russia, even though Russia now has full access to the biggest economy on the planet?!

Is that not the height of stupidity and self-delusion?

The Saker

by Lev Igorevich 

Dollars for borsch