I agree. Totally useless or, rather, self-interested politicians.

However, I think the story is a bit more complex than that and it's got to do with the same multinational corporations.

Remember that the European Union (EU) aimed to expand eastward into Eastern Europe and southwards into North Africa and the Mid East.

The Enlargement of the European Union was based on the Europe Agreements signed with the Central and Eastern European countries in the 1990s and to the Association Agreement with Turkey, and the Union for the Mediterranean based on the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of EU and Arab Foreign Ministers, 1995:

Europe Agreements

EU-Arab Conference 1995

Union for the Mediterranean – Wikipedia

For that objective, the EU and its US partners had to get rid of all the "dictators" (some real, some perceived) that presented any opposition to EU expansion. This is what created the big mess you see in North Africa and the Mid East.

And, of course, Russia and Turkey have taken advantage of the chaos, and China is never far behind ....

However, I think the story is a bit more complex than that and it's got to do with the same multinational corporations.

Remember that the European Union (EU) aimed to expand eastward into Eastern Europe and southwards into North Africa and the Mid East. — Apollodorus

Did the EU aim to expand Southwards??? I know Turkey was a possibility, but I've not heard about Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt or Libya anytime being on the line to be member states.

The only potential would be Israel and yes...that really isn't going to happen.

(Although the Israelis have participated in, won and hosted the Eurovision Song Contest, btw)


The EU having a get-together club with it's neighbors is another thing and a totally fine thing to do. But notice from the description from Wiki the last sentence:

The Union has the aim of promoting stability and integration throughout the Mediterranean region. It is a forum for discussing regional strategic issues, based on the principles of shared ownership, shared decision-making and shared responsibility between the two shores of the Mediterranean. Its main goal is to increase both north–south and South-South integration in the Mediterranean region, in order to support the countries' socioeconomic development and ensure stability in the region. The institution, through its course of actions, focuses on two main pillars: fostering human development and promoting sustainable development. To this end, it identifies and supports regional projects and initiatives of different sizes, to which it gives its label, following a consensual decision among the 42 countries.

Yeah, this is a conversation club.

And do notice one very, very important thing both when talking about EU membership or talking about NATO membership: the countries themselves wanted to join. Far too much emphasis is giving for example to Clinton wanting the votes of Americans with ties to Eastern Europe and far less on how much the countries themselves wanted NATO (or EU) membership. There was this window of opportunity, because some (very ignorant people) even talked about Russia joining the NATO.

When it comes to EU membership, both Norway and Switzerland held membership talks with EU, but came to the conclusion that nah, they are better out. With NATO, some countries like Sweden and my country has not formally requested membership as it would be politically a hot potato in these countries. And when Western countries asked about there being a possible defence coalition among Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States (that NATO wouldn't have to be involved), both Sweden and my country were absolutely horrified. Once the Baltic countries did join the NATO (and EU) there was a sigh of relief if Finnish military officials immediately noticed that NATO didn't raise a finger to do anything actually to defend the Baltic states...until the annexation of Crimea by the Russia (far later).

For that objective, the EU and its US partners had to get rid of all the "dictators" (some real, some perceived) that presented any opposition to EU expansion. This is what created the big mess you see in North Africa and the Mid East. — Apollodorus

Hm. I accept that there was this neocon moment when the Global War on Terror was rolling and the idea was to do this. But that's it. The Eastward expansion of EU/NATO happen with quite rosy feelings: the Czech, the Poles and other Warsaw Pact countries joined very nicely. Belarus was never in the picture.

To topple the dictators is this American idea, which one commentator called Donald Trump extremely well portrays in his 2011 commentary on why Libya should be invaded by the US:



Americans thinking like Trump above is the real problem.

Correct. American corporations led by the Rockefellers' Harvard Management Company and Goldman Sachs. And their European partners.

I didn't say all the countries that were expected to join were hostile to the idea. But definitely Serbia's Milosevic and some Arab leaders.

The EU needed to get its hands on Arab (North African and Mid Eastern) oil. The Mediterranean Union aimed to achieve economic, cultural, and political union. European technology and investment were to be exchanged for Arab migrant workers to make up for the EU's declining population.

BTW, personally, I think that the (unofficial) plan extended to Ukraine and even Russia. Again, tin order o supply the EU with Russian gas and oil. Of course, Putin couldn't allow that to happen. So, his government is on the EU-US hit list and this may ultimately drive Russia into the arms of China. The West is in a self-inflicted catch-22 situation and it isn't looking good.

I didn't say all the countries that were expected to join were hostile to the idea. But definitely Serbia's Milosevic and some Arab leaders. — Apollodorus

Milosevic is a bit different issue because that started totally from the incapability of the Yugoslav states, mainly because of Milosevic, to break up as peacefully as the Soviet Union did. A long story of Yugoslav making. Not something like Bush deciding to invade Iraq because...why not?

We actually don't give credit enough to the Soviet era politicians who could dissolve the Union without larger violence. The events in Ukraine clearly show that the possibility of a similar bloody civil war as in Yugoslavia was a real possibility in the Soviet Union. That could have been a war in the millions of deaths and not so nice to me, as my summer place (where I'm now,actually) is only 10 kilometers from the Russian border.

The EU needed to get its hands on Arab (North African and Mid Eastern) oil. — Apollodorus

The EU is such a loose entity that it really doesn't itself have such imperial aspirations.

BTW, personally, I think that the (unofficial) plan extended to Ukraine and even Russia. — Apollodorus

Not likely. Only if the Russia emerging from the Soviet Union would have been controlled by strong and resolute Zapadniks. Yet the Zapadniks didn't take power. Putin, the FSB and the Siloviks took power in reality.

If they would have taken and new Russia would have taken a divide with it's past, then perhaps the most awesome alliance would have happened: The US-Russian bond in fighting the Global-War-on-Terror. I can imagine the horror of the liberals in the US. But Republicans? They would have loved it!

When you think of it, a pro-western Russia would be a dream ally for the US: has ample military strength and the willingness to use it. Doesn't get scared of Russian casualties. Is totally OK in fighting a dirty war anywhere. Would be truly willing to fight a Global-War-on-Terror (even now hinted at that). Has a great intelligence network. Would be lucrative market for military joint ventures, just think about Lockheed joining up with Sukhoi or Mikoyan-Gurevich. Those cheap Russian aeronautic engineers would be great for US defence contractors.

And furthermore, the Chinese would be absolutely scared shitless about US-NATO on their northern borders.

Union means union, economic, cultural, and eventually, political. Read the official EU documents. Oil extraction and distribution would be done by Western companies that have the know-how and the technology and some of which are co-owners of the oil fields.

It doesn't matter if the EU is a "loose entity". What matters is that it represents the interests of the banking and industrial corporations that founded it in the first place. And it has the economic and military power to implement its plans. Unfortunately, the Arab uprisings instigated by EU and US intelligence didn't quite work out as expected, Turkey's Erdogan had his own plans to rebuild the Mid-Eastern and North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Russia sided with Erdogan, Germany's economy became dependent on Russian gas and exports to Turkey (and now on exports to China), and the plan unraveled.

Now they have to do it gradually and by the backdoor through sanctions on Russia, etc. and with uncertain results.

I agree that Europe should have sided with Russia and both of them with America. But the EU, NATO, and US wanted to do it on their own terms and this was not possible. Now we've got a fine mess to deal with. China is building an economic corridor through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to Iraq, Mid-East oil, and on to Africa's resources on which Europe depends. This means the end of Europe as a power and the process is being accelerated through ever-closer economic cooperation with China.

The Russians said, "you mess with us, we mess with you". They sided with Turkey, took over Syria, and messed up the whole Mediterranean Union plan that could no longer be implemented without a major war. And no one wanted that.

It doesn't matter if the EU is a "loose entity". What matters is that it represents the interests of the banking and industrial corporations that founded it in the first place. And it has the economic and military power to implement its plans. — Apollodorus

EU having military power? NATO is different from the EU.

Unfortunately, the Arab uprisings instigated by EU and US intelligence didn't quite work out as expected — Apollodorus

You should perhaps prove here that they really instigated the uprising. You see, it's one thing to favor an uprising, even help it. Another thing to instigate it from scratch.

Now we've got a fine mess to deal with. — Apollodorus

Well, the Middle East is the ultimate American disaster movie.

It just gets worse and worse.

Imagine the time when there was CENTO, the so-called Baghdad-Pact, when Nasser asked the CIA if it would be OK for him to do a military coup? Then when Iraq had it's revolution and opted for the Soviet assistance there were US "Dual Pillars" of Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Afterwars there was the Iranian revolution and you got "Dual Containment" as a US policy. Then brief unity when Saddam tried to snatch Kuwait with even the Syrians being part of the US lead alliance. But then came Dubya with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How well those went we all know.

The final scene of the train wreck would be if the "next Iran" would be Saudi-Arabia with the Saudi monarchy being overthrown. The Americans would just enthusiastically love to loath and hate the Saudis. Would fit in perfectly there with Iran and Pakistan.

EU having military power? NATO is different from the EU. — ssu

France and England had enough military power to deal with any Arab state. Even more so, with NATO involvement.

You should perhaps prove here that they really instigated the uprising. — ssu

You should perhaps start by reading the EU documents on the Mediterranean Union. Or talk to yourself.

France and England had enough military power to deal with any Arab state. Even more so, with NATO involvement. — Apollodorus

But they surely won't do it as an EU force on behalf of the EU. They will either do it a) as part of NATO, b) as part of a US lead alliance or c) own their own.

You need to start by understanding the Mediterranean Union project.

The primary intention was to do it by economic means. You start with economic cooperation agreements; you follow up with credit and investment; you tie their economy as close to, and make it as dependent on, your own, as possible; you promote the election of cooperative political leaders; you encourage capitalism dependent on international finance and intergovernmental institutions like World Bank, IMF, IFC; you liberalize and westernize their society as much as possible; you bind them to the West through legal agreements; and you gradually proceed with political integration.

You deploy your intelligence and other special operation services in collaboration with local opposition, criminal elements, and "useful idiots" to encourage or assist regime change, strictly if, when, and where necessary.

Military intervention is kept to the absolute minimum and only applied when absolutely necessary. It is never done except as a Plan C, i.e., after Plan A and Plan B have failed. And even then you first use proxies like local or foreign militias, etc.

It is a very gradual and carefully calibrated process that is designed and implemented by an army of experts. It is not really meant to get to Plan C as this can go horribly wrong and blow up in your face.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke of the integration of Russia and the Ukraine back in 2007:

So we should take the European Neighbourhood Policy a step further … we must offer access to the full benefits of the single market …. The first step would be the accession of neighbouring countries – especially Russia and the Ukraine – to the WTO. Then we must build on this with comprehensive free-trade agreements …”

- David Miliband Speech at College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium, November 15 2007

David Miliband Archive: Europe 2030: Model power not superpower

He also called for the use of both “soft power” and “hard (i.e. military) power”, etc. Of course, Russian and Ukranian integration into the EU economic sphere never happened because of the Russian-Georgian War in 2008 and US-EU involvement in other former Soviet republics.

So the EU had to focus on the Mid East and North Africa (MENA) region. But that failed too:

The trade agreements between the European Union and Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, part of a broader effort to integrate the north and south shores of the Mediterranean and the Near East, have disappointed many who believed they could transform North Africa.
The political context clearly has not helped. The vision of the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, signed by EU, North African and other Mediterranean nations was to create an “an area of shared prosperity,” but two decades on it was acknowledged that this vision had not been realised and the Barcelona Declaration could not have predicted the destabilising impact on North Africa “of al-Qaeda… and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; the political immobility and lack of reforms and improvements in governance in many Mediterranean Partner Countries…; the instability caused by the Arab Spring since 2011…; the migration and refugee crises; or the emergence of Islamic State terrorism”

Policy-Report-3-Towards-EU-MENA-Shared-Prosperity.pdf

But there is no doubt that the ambitions and expectations were very high:

The UfM has introduced a new logic in Euro-Mediterranean relations and an ambitious institutional framework for regional cooperation. However, due to political obstacles chiefly as a consequence of the Middle East conflict, it has until now struggled to deliver results to meet the high expectations at the moment it was launched.

The Future of Euro-Mediterranean Regional Cooperation: The Role of the Union for the Mediterranean : IEMed

The modern Russian state and the EU came into existence at practically the same time — the former in late December 1991 and the latter in February 1992 — and they soon laid the groundwork for their mutual relations. The two parties signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 1994 — and ratified it in 1997 — that made their relations so close as to be considered “strategic” at one point.
This differs significantly from the slogan of a “Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok” that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev coined in 1989 to connote a common European homeland that, in reality, had no document or agreement to back it up.
In contrast, the Russian-EU partnership was based firmly on the idea of integration. While Brussels never offered Russia full EU membership, it offered general, though indefinite assurances that its eastern neighbor would play a suitably substantial role in the “Greater Europe” that was then being built.
At the core of this “Greater Europe,” as it was then envisioned, was a rapidly expanding European Union that wound up more than doubling in size from 1992 to 2007 — and which, it was expected, would eventually include Russia as well as other Soviet republics. A sort of pan-European space was created, although Russia’s status in that new entity was never described or even discussed. Both sides simply assumed that Russia would be part of Europe.

Is Russia's Dialogue with the EU Coming to an End? - The Moscow Times

So, you can see that the plan for Russian integration into the EU was hatched at the same time that Russia was being opened up to Western capital and it was part of the larger EU expansion to the east and south. The Barcelona Process (BP), the precursor to the 2008 Mediterranean Union, was initiated in 1995, at the same time as the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was signed ....

The PCA aimed to achieve “Russia's progressive integration into the open international trading system” and “the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

EUR-Lex AGREEMENT ON PARTNERSHIP AND COOPERATION

It is a very gradual and carefully calibrated process that is designed and implemented by an army of experts. — Apollodorus

And what YOU should try to understand that who make integration happen are those who really desire it ARE THE COUNTRIES THEMSELVES. Not only their elites, but the people also. Then integration and EU enlargement happens. Then even trade deals happen. If there is suspicion and bad relations, nothing but empty talk will happen.

Perhaps you cannot understand it, but I surely can. I come from a remote part of Europe which is dominated by Russia. And I know that if the Soviet Union would have annexed us in 1939, absolutely nobody would have cared a shit about it. On the contrary, it would have been seen as nearly inevitable. Hence their was always an extremely popular desire to somehow integrate with the West, but we had to do it extremely carefully as not to anger the bear. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, Finland (and Sweden) didn't waste time in joining the EU (EEC).

For the Warsaw Pact countries it was absolutely necessity to integrate to the West after all that they had endured under the Soviet regime. For them NATO was even more important.

Or think about the integration of Spain and Portugal to the EU. Franco's Spain was one thing, but so was Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar also. Integration to the EU is seen also in a positive light in the countries that have integrated into it. In the EU, perhaps only Germany, France and the Benelux countries feel like they are in the heart of Europe and EU, other countries feel as they are on the fringes and don't think that they are in the heart of Europe.

So, you can see that the plan for Russian integration into the EU was hatched at the same time that Russia was being opened up to Western capital and it was part of the larger EU expansion to the east and south. The Barcelona Process (BP), the precursor to the 2008 Mediterranean Union, was initiated in 1995, at the same time as the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was signed ....

The PCA aimed to achieve “Russia's progressive integration into the open international trading system” and “the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”. — Apollodorus

Yes, and that went nowhere, because a) no Zapadniks in power and b) the Kosova war left a very bad taste for Russia and Russians. In the early 1990's Russians were genuinely open at the idea of integrating to Europe. At the end of the decade, the feeling was over. Even before Putin came to power the honeymoon had ended.

If there is suspicion and bad relations, nothing but empty talk will happen. — ssu

That depends. Just because Finland and Sweden were keen to join, it doesn't mean it applies to all European countries.

The idea of a united Europe comes from the 1947 European Recovery Plan (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan according to which European states that wanted US aid to reconstruct their countries after the war had to commit themselves to economic cooperation leading to political union.

Of course, this was in the interest of US business as they needed a Europe with a strong economy to serve as a market for US goods and give the US economy a boost.

The Germans, for example, were not even asked as they were under Allied occupation. They were ordered to team up with France, Italy, and the Benelux countries and get on with it.

The British were never very happy about joining and only did so under pressure and after a massive propaganda campaign by pro-EU groups. And, of course, with the 2016 referendum, they decided to get out. Others may follow the British example, China may take over Europe's economy, etc. It isn't quite as simple as you think.

That depends. Just because Finland and Sweden were keen to join, it doesn't mean it applies to all European countries. — Apollodorus

Umm...yes.

Norway and Switzerland. Now the UK. And that's basically it.

Others have been quite OK to join. Perhaps added to the three above is Serbia, because NATO bombed it. Even if the US really and openly supported the Serbian opposition that finally ousted Milosevic (not done by CIA, but the State Department), now Serbia is an ally of Russia. Just an example how flawed the US foreign policy can be...

Others have been quite happy with the EU. One really shouldn't forget this as one reads or hears these specific narratives of just how rotten the EU is.

The USSR had the second-fastest growing economy at the time — Oppyfan

The real power of the conservative party is not in their economic growth, but in their superior alignment to the desires of the natural human being within us all.

Others have been quite happy with the EU. One really shouldn't forget this as one reads or hears these specific narratives of just how rotten the EU is. — ssu

Well, if you are a Finnish farmer living on EU subsidies then I suppose you would take a pro-EU stance.

But I think a more objective approach is preferable if we want to get to the bottom of it. In any case, when we analyze something it is important to take all the known facts into consideration, not cherry-pick stuff that we like and ignore stuff that we don’t.

The EU did not start as the “EEC”, it started as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established in 1951 through the Treaty of Paris.

As shown by its name, the project was about coal and steel. Coal and steel were the basis of European industry and, by extension, of European economy. Europe’s economy depended on coal and iron mines and steel plants that processed the coal and the iron ore.

The main continental countries that produced coal, iron, and steel were Germany, France, and the Benelux countries Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg, to which they added Italy.

The Italians and the Germans had been allies during the war. The industries of the Benelux countries were interlinked with that of Germany. But the French and the Germans were long-time enemies, so why would France want to merge its economy with that of Germany?

Moreover, Germany was divided into East and West, with the Eastern half under Russian control and the Western half under US control.

The truth of the matter is that European unification was a precondition of US aid.

Why would America invest 13 billion dollars in Europe in addition to more billions in loans? Obviously, the Americans wanted Europe as a market for American goods and wanted to exert as much influence on European economy, finance, and politics as possible.

The European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) was devised, promoted and implemented by elements linked to Rockefeller interests operating within the US State Department.

The Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) became official part of the State Department in the early 1940’s and by the time Truman became president in 1945 it was literally making America’s foreign policy. The CFR developed the idea of the “reconstruction of Western Europe” in 1946, this was announced in 1947 by State Secretary George Marshall and it was passed by Congress in 1948 as the European Reconstruction Program (ERP) a.k.a. “Marshall Plan”.

To promote their plan, the Rockefellers launched a massive propaganda operation to overcome public opposition. This was spearheaded by the Committee for the Marshall Plan, chaired by Henry Stimson, a Rockefeller lawyer who had ran the US War Department during the war, and consisted of other Rockefeller lawyers, directors of the Rockefellers’ CFR, the chairman of the Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank, and was funded by John D Rockefeller and his business associates.

NONPARTISAN UNIT HEADED BY STIMSON TO BACK EUROPE AID - New York Times

All the agencies that operated the Plan and through which money was funnelled to fund pro-unification organizations in Europe were run by Rockefeller people.

The whole Marshal Plan and associated European unification were a Rockefeller project.

This is why the Russians rejected the Plan as “economic imperialism”. The British took the money but refused to join the ECSC and its successor EEC on the grounds that it was unacceptable for the UK economy to be “handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody”.

Germany was run by US military governor John McCloy, a Rockefeller lawyer and trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, who was in charge of the Economic Cooperation Administration (through which the Marshall Plan was operated) in Germany, and who by his own admission, had “the powers of a dictator”.

The French were fighting a losing war in Indochina and aside from Marshall funds and loans, they depended on US military and financial assistance in their war and had no choice but to comply.

So I think that the whole project was far from being a democratic enterprise. It was more like US monopolistic capitalism working hand-in-hand with Europe’s own big bankers and industrialists and their political collaborators for their own ends.

What actually happened on the ground is that US goods and services were acquired by European countries with American taxpayers’ money from the corporations that had promoted the plan, and that most of Marshall Plan business went through banks controlled by the Rockefellers and their associates, viz., Chase National, J P Morgan, and Bankers Trust.

Additionally, by the 1960’s American corporations in Europe dominated the market in petroleum, farm machinery, telecommunications equipment, and other key sectors. Then came the oil crisis of the early 1970’s, also largely engineered by the Rockefellers, who used it to expand their global oil and banking empire; the Rockefeller-instigated East-West rapprochement; Rockefeller-spearheaded credit, investment, and business with China that facilitated China’s rise to major economic power, etc. ....

The real power of the conservative party is not in their economic growth, but in their superior alignment to the desires of the natural human being within us all. — hope

I think @Oppyfan is currently on vacation. But I tend to agree with your statement.

So do you think there is anything lacking in the Nordic countries, from the perspective of a capitalist, or are they not capitalist enough, or actually are they preferrable even from a capitalist perspective? And yes, I did have those countries in mind, but I could also talk about different aspects of lots of european countries.

I actually do think that the capitalistic element of those countries would ultimately win out, but that is because they are living in a capitalist world. Right now, they are arranged in a mixed manner between capitalism and something like socialism.

I think if you think that most of "those who call themselves" socialists "hate" social democracy, then you haven't talked to a wide enough section of socialists. I happen to think that social democracy is better than nothing but doesn't go far enough, but that doesn't mean I hate it. Admittedly, the often belicose language of some socialists and communists may given that impression overall!

Also, on the earlier comments about the USSR being reliant on trade with the US, how does this sqaure with what is related on the wikipedia article on "Foreign Trade in the Soviet Union"? According to that, trade between the two countries averaged 1% a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union#United_States

Was most of the transference aid? I can see that was significant during WW2, but was it for the entirity of the history of the USSR?

Well, the USSR was a secretive dictatorship, so finding exact statistics is difficult if not impossible.

Trade need not have been massive, only sufficient to keep the system going and it did increase later. However, it is important to bear in mind that the main reliance on the West was not trade but credit, investment, technology, and technical assistance.

In 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, Ford started mass-producing Fordson tractors. Because of the Civil War in Russia, it could only start selling them in 1920 after which it exported tens of thousands of Fordsons to the Soviets. That was when Lenin introduced his New Economic Policy (NEP) based of state capitalism. After 1924 Ford licensed the production of tractors and trucks in Russia itself.

From then on, there was a steady transfer of US cash and technology to Russia into the 1980s. The groups involved were the Rockefellers and associates through banking and industrial corporations like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Manufacturers Hanover, and Ford Motor Company.

The weaknesses of centrally-controlled economy became apparent in the 1950’s and by the early 1970’s the USSR economy began to stagnate and this is when the regime became increasingly dependent on foreign investment and credit.

In 1960, a series of US-Soviet conferences (Dartmouth Conference) were initiated that included members of the Soviet government and American businessmen like David Rockefeller.

In 1973, the Rockefellers opened a Chase Manhattan branch in Moscow and in the same year the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC) with Rockefeller as chairman of the nominating committee, was established to promote US-Russian economic cooperation.

Loans were granted by the US government via the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) and by private banks controlled by the Rockefellers and their associates.

For example, in 1974, Eximbank granted a loan of $180 million to Russia to buy goods and services from US corporations in addition to private loans from US banks in the same amount.

180‐MILLION LOAN TO SOVIET UNION IS MADE BY U.S. - The New York Times

In 1978, the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan was also involved in financing the Orenburg gas pipeline from Russia to Europe.

In the 1980’s the USSR was forced to import growing quantities of food for which it had no hard currency.

As the Wikipedia article says:

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union needed considerable sums of hard currency to pay for food and capital goods imports and to support client states. What the country could not earn from exports or gold sales it borrowed through its banks in London, Frankfurt, Vienna, Paris, and Luxembourg.

The banks were Moscow Narodny Bank (London), Ost-West Handelsbank (Frankfurt), Donau Bank (Vienna), Banque Commercial pour l'Europe du Nord (Paris), East-West United Bank (Luxembourg).

When the USSR finally collapsed in 1991 it had a foreign debt of $70 billion.

Well, if you are a Finnish farmer living on EU subsidies then I suppose you would take a pro-EU stance. — Apollodorus

Finnish farmers actually got earlier more subsidies. I think the largest simple reason is that Finland without being attached in any way to the West would feel very precarious with Putin next door.

As shown by its name, the project was about coal and steel. — Apollodorus

And if you look at the EU budget in the past, basically it was largely an agricultural assistance program. But it morphed to something else.

The British took the money but refused to join the ECSC and its successor EEC on the grounds that it was unacceptable for the UK economy to be “handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody”. — Apollodorus

Hence there was the EFTA, don't forget that. And UK got out from the EU, so nothing new here.

The whole Marshal Plan and associated European unification were a Rockefeller project. — Apollodorus

You seem to stick to one narrative. Even if the bankers did there part, the idea that it's only them, no other things happened, no other agents, players and motivations were not involved, etc. simply doesn't cut it.

Then came the oil crisis of the early 1970’s, also largely engineered by the Rockefellers, — Apollodorus

Now you go to full tinfoil-hat territory. Yeah, obviously the Rockefellers created OPEC and started the Yom Kippur War...

Marshall Plan according to which European states that wanted US aid to reconstruct their countries after the war had to commit themselves to economic cooperation leading to political union. — Apollodorus

A plan that never existed in Spain... probably because Franco won and established a dictatorship? So ironic! Because later on US White House loved in the 60’s having Franco in Europe as a counter “socialism/communism” governor. This is why American government established a lot of military bases: Rota, Torrejón, Palomares, etc...

Even if the bankers did there part, the idea that it's only them, no other things happened, no other agents, players and motivations were not involved, etc. simply doesn't cut it. — ssu

I never said it was only the bankers, did I? It’s a combination of bankers, industrialists, business people and politicians.

Now you go to full tinfoil-hat territory. Yeah, obviously the Rockefellers created OPEC and started the Yom Kippur War... — ssu

OK, let’s take a look at your logic:

A. The statement S (“the Rockefellers created OPEC and started the Yom Kippur War”) is on T (“tin foil hat territory”).
B. Those who make statement S are on T.
C. You (@ssu) made statement S.
D. Therefore you (@ssu) are on T.

I think even someone from Finland must see that if the Rockefellers had a worldwide petroleum empire, then they must have had something to do with oil production and prices, hence it is wrong to say that they didn’t. But maybe not.

By your own logic, if you are a Finnish farmer selling sheep or goat meat to Sweden, you have no interest in raising meat prices, yes?

Anyway, the fact is that the energy crisis actually started in 1970 - 1971 when the US oil production had peaked which meant a fall in supply and a rise in prices.

In October 1973, the OAPEC which was controlled by Kuwait, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, announced an oil embargo on some Western countries including America. The OAPEC used its influence to increase world oil prices.

The Rockefellers’ part in it was that officials of the Rockefeller-controlled Arabian American Oil Co. (ARAMCO) actually encouraged the Arabs to raise their oil prices to justify the Rockefellers’ own price increase in the USA.

According to the Washington Post, ARAMCO (consisting of ESSO, Mobil, Standard of California and Texaco), not only encouraged the OAPEC to raise prices but also neglected to invest in the maintenance of Saudi oil wells in order to hamper production.

The Rockefelllers also profited from Arabs and Iranians depositing their oil dollars in Rockefeller banks. By 1978, Iranian deposits with Chase alone exceeded $1 billion.

And in 1999 Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company. But according to you, this is totally irrelevant.

Anyway, perhaps you should do some reading first before you start denying established facts.

D. Rockefeller, Memoirs

J. Anderson, “Details of Aramco Papers Disclosed”, Washington Post, 01/28/1974

L. Rocks, The Energy Crisis

A plan that never existed in Spain... probably because Franco won and established a dictatorship? So ironic! Because later on US White House loved in the 60’s having Franco in Europe as a counter “socialism/communism” governor. This is why American government established a lot of military bases: Rota, Torrejón, Palomares, etc... — javi2541997

You are right. That’s a very interesting point.

But I don't think it was the Americans. Apparently, because Spain was regarded as “Fascist” it was Britain’s socialist Labour government and France (that was dominated by socialists and communists) that were opposed to Spanish participation in the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan and the Spanish postwar economy – ResearchGate

The Marshall Plan and the Spanish postwar economy – ResearchGate — Apollodorus

Thank you. This was a very interesting article to read. I learned a bit about what happened to my country in the 40’s. Sadly, the key word is isolation which led Spain in the completely misery...

Thank you. This was a very interesting article to read. I learned a bit about what happened to my country in the 40’s. Sadly, the key word is isolation which led Spain in the completely misery... — javi2541997

De nada.

Yes, isolation is never a good idea in a fast-changing world.

However, it was not just isolation. Once upon a time, Spain was a world empire with extensive colonial possessions.

What intervened was other European powers funded by commerce and trade: Portugal, France, Holland, England.

England managed to assert its supremacy and, by allying itself with America and other former colonies, became invincible.

Still, in the end, America took over and now China is on the rise.

The country with the most ruthless business and foreign policies wins.

Also, money tends to corrupt and when we gain money and material possessions we run the risk of losing our culture and our moral values.

So, isolation may have its own advantages after all. Just think what materialism, open borders, and unrestricted immigration can do to your country.

So, isolation may have its own advantages after all. Just think what materialism, open borders, and unrestricted immigration can do your country. — Apollodorus

Yes, I understand that an open country or world can be dangerous. But, in the end, it has more advantages than issues. European Union is a good example. Spain changed a lot thanks for being a member nation. Our GDP increased so fast and many people started to go more to university and learning languages. The incomes per year grew a lot too.
I guess it depends in the customs of each country. A mediterranean nation needs to be connected with others because it looks like it is our roots (i.e., many people here really love to make foreign friends, stay in the street, etc...) but I guess an Asian country as China does not have this kind of culture so it could be easier to establish a communist regime.

To be honest with you, I feel Spain disappoints me as a Spaniard. My country has a lot of opportunities around but it looks like our governors do not want to make important choices. Just cheap tourism... also we do not have a good image around the globe and I think it is unfair because we all are not the same...

The Rockefelllers also profited from Arabs and Iranians depositing their oil dollars in Rockefeller banks. By 1978, Iranian deposits with Chase alone exceeded $1 billion. — Apollodorus

Actually, the issue goes far further than just the Rockefellers.

That Saudi-Arabia sells it's oil in US dollars and uses American companies is one important issue for the whole status of the US dollar as the reserve currency. This was especially crucial for the US when it went off the gold standard. If you can buy oil with the money your central bank can create, that is one reason that the US has had the ability to be such a Superpower and fight all the wars it has fought.

Naturally Iran is out of this picture now after their famous revolution.

To be honest with you, I feel Spain disappoints me as a Spaniard. My country has a lot of opportunities around but it looks like our governors do not want to make important choices. Just cheap tourism... also we do not have a good image around the globe and I think it is unfair because we all are not the same... — javi2541997

As a general principle, I think that philosophers should be more independent-minded and not always go with the money.

But the difficulty seems to lie in finding the right balance. When you transition from isolation to openness and you open up your economy to foreign investment and credit, you may reap some benefits but you also become more dependent and more exposed to risk.

According to Santander, Spain “has high levels of private and public debt, a very negative net external position and a high level of structural unemployment.“

Government debt to GDP rose from 69% in 2011 to 100% in 2014 and 120% in 2020.

Compare that to Germany (69.8%) and Russia (17.8%) as of Dec/2020

Country List Government Debt to GDP - Europe

Obviously, China’s pandemic activities have not helped:

Informe Anual 2020 – Bank of Spain

By the way, what changes would you like to see?