Author Topic: The G8 is G7 again  (Read 1087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline iamusul

  • VIP
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • Karma: 9
  • New Member
  • Country: USA
  • Location: IN
The G8 is G7 again
« on: April 03, 2014, 08:52:09 PM »
28 MARCH 2014, Gateway House
The G8 is G7 again
A slumped arms industry and the U.S. shale gas sector will gain from NATO’s threat of stricter sanctions and suspension of Russia from the G8. BRICS has protested, but unless we consolidate alternate international financial structures, even other big economies like India can eventually be the targets of sanctions. BY Neelam Deo DIRECTOR, GATEWAY HOUSE

With Russia and NATO pitched in a contest over the fate of Ukraine and Crimea, it was inevitable for the [/color]G8 to be reduced to a group of seven. The ongoing military manoeuvres – protective (and provocative) NATO flights over Poland and the Baltic countries, Russia’s military exertions on the eastern border of Ukraine, and submarine exercises in the Arctic by the U.S. – are simultaneously reflecting and ratcheting up the tensions.[/font][/size]However, the noisy threats have smothered news of a more serious development with long-term consequences – on March 21, the prime minister of the interim government of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, signed the Association Agreement with the European Union (EU). Disagreements in Ukraine over whether the country should sign the agreement were, in fact, the trigger for the crisis which led, in short order to the ouster of an elected president, followed by the secession of Crimea.By going ahead and signing the Association Agreement, suspending Russia from the G8, and threatening stricter sanctions, including financial sanctions, the NATO powers have announced their intent to isolate Russia for a long time.The EU’s acceptance of the Association Agreement with an interim government stuffed with people placed there by the EU and the U.S., many of them with dubious ideological backgrounds, divests the NATO powers of all claims to the moral high ground – claims that anyway never had much credibility.Instead, they have legitimised a new practice in international relations: externally engineered regime change is fine, so long as the West does it, as in Iraq or Libya. But anyone else forcibly changing national boundaries is not acceptable. It is another matter that the same NATO countries carved out Kosovo from Serbia and enabled the breaking up of Sudan into two countries.So who gains from the churning of the situation in Ukraine? At the recently-concluded EU summit in Brussels, American President Barack Obama exhorted each NATO member to “step up and carry its share of the burden” of defence preparedness. That must have cheered a despondent arms industry, located largely in NATO countries, primarily the U.S. The military industrial complex was anticipating less happy times with the disappearance of around $150 billion in orders in 2014 due to the sequestration agreement in the U.S. Congress and the consequent cuts to the Pentagon’s budget, along with the continually falling defence outlays in Europe, aggravated by the Euro crisis.MUCH MORE AT LINK ABOVE, MORE ANALYSIS, AND LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 10:02:49 AM by icrcc »