Jack Perry proposes one of the more cogent explanations for why the US government is trying to unseat Vladimir Putin: for Russia’s oil. It makes sense, though it doesn’t make it right. From Perry at lewrockwell.com:
I’ve gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the “end game” is in regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government does that, too, but they haven’t done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now. What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government knows that, but they can’t tell us this because it’ll create a panic. One would think this would motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting concessions in the global sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different “regime” in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world’s remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.
To continue reading: The Coming Famine
Pingback: http://straightlinelogic.com/2017/01/12/the-coming-famine-by-jack-perry/ | behindertvertriebentessarzblog
There is a biotic theory of oil creation (fossil fuels) and a abiotic theory of oil creation. It is more likely that the abiotic theory is correct. It seems the science is not as settled as public education thinks.
I’ve read about the abiotic theory and I have an open mind. However, what’s relevant for US policy towards Russia is what our government believes, which would be the biotic theory. If policymakers feel that the world is running out of oil, they will take steps, fair or foul, to secure supplies.
Although Jack Perry is almost always spot on, I have to call bullshit here. The motive for hostility towards Russia is not oil – if affordable oil was a real problem, and USG were genuinely concerned about its effect on the population, it would be far cheaper (and safer) to just do a deal – but to maintain the Big Scary Enemy without which there would be no justification for the existence of the whole National Security / Military Industrial Complex behemoth. And the whole ‘running out of oil’ notion is bogus, anyway. Even if you discount the abiotic theory – and until those who do convincingly answer the question: What about the helium? I discount them – the world total volume of oil which has been extracted to date (about a Lake Tahoe full) is so minuscule in geological terms that if it represented any more than the shallowest, easiest froth off the top of the amount of oil that actually exists in the earth, the presently known deposits could not possibly exist in the size and quantity that they do. If there is a conspiracy to hide the truth about oil reserves, I’m much more inclined to credit the idea that the hidden truth is those reserves are far larger than we have been led to believe.