Battlefield Eastern Europe: The Anglo-American Alliance VS. The Eurasian Project

Small Logo By: J.V Capone

Battlefield Eastern Europe: The Anglo-American Alliance VS. The Eurasian Project

Paul Plane interviews Joaquin Flores – recorded March 30th 2014


Audio.  Run-time approximately 2 hours

*Correct Predictions and forecasts regarding Ukraine and Russian strategy

*Correct Predictions and forecasts regarding EU and US strategy and tactics

* Further Predictions about upcoming events including Ukrainian secession and independence referendum vs. illegal elections

248227777_679812a8ac_mMr. Flores also discusses meta-politics, Putin’s thinking, Eurasianism, and related areas: Alexander Dugin and Schmittian Geostrategy


Touches also on Spirituality, 4PT, Traditionalism

Alexandr Dugin, political scientist, philosopher. 2008 Alexander Dugin



Short discussion on US Disintegration and factors behind it – an elite out of touch.

Also covered are the Situations of Turkey, Syria, and Iran, KSA, Egypt, Israel: past, present, future are also touched on.  This includes brief discussion of Turkish situation with Ergenekon reversal of convictions and Dogu Perencek.  Possibilities of Iran-Turkey collaboration along pro-Eurasianist lines.

dogu-perincekDoğu Perinçek



6 thoughts on “Battlefield Eastern Europe: The Anglo-American Alliance VS. The Eurasian Project

  1. Joaquin,

    Thanks again for your time. And keep up the good work on Morris’s channel. Big things look like they may be within days.

    By the way, just let me know if you want to come on some time for a show that would be put up within a couple of days.


  2. I was following your interviews on morris and recently in other places where I could find them and I consider your views interesting and quite well informed. So I was kind of baffled about your opinions on Romania in this discussion. I’m Romanian so probably I am biased on certain things but I believe I also know a few things pretty well, from the inside so to speak.

    Leaving aside your views, granted summarily expressed, about the, let’s say, ethnic and cultural background of Romania which aren’t up to your other insights on various issues, I was quite surprised about your belief that if some country breaks from EU it will certainly be Romania. I’m wondering on what is your point of view based on ? Living here I can assure you that on a political level or from a remotely coherently expressed popular discontent Romania is probably the farthest from breaking away as you can get. I’m strongly against EU and I’d be happy to notice some kind of organised euro-skepticism here but there isn’t any.

    In the same vein, in the political class here, the media, the academics you won’t find a bit of anti-EU meaningful ideas, let alone action. On the contrary, the pro-EU propaganda is very strong. Even if the US would be interested to separate Russia from Germany centered EU and would like to have a swath of land (Poland, Romania+Moldova, Ukraine, the Baltic states) firmly under their control they still want the countries which are in EU to remain there, even as Trojan horses, if you like. I repeat, I can’t notice any meaningful anti-EU current in Romania so I’d be glad to know on what you were relying when you made such a drastic assertion. (The bus bombing was in Bulgaria, btw. And I honestly believe that in some other respects you are mistaken Bulgaria with Romania.)

    Thank you.

    • Hello Conumishu,

      Yes, your comments about what I have said are valid, and yes in the bus bombing incident I was mistaken. I am sure that Romania has gone through almost a several hundred year long process of de-Slavicization, looking towards France and to a lesser extent Italy. It has been explained to me that there had been a series of language reforms to remove some slavic words from the vocabulary, and introduce increasing use of latin, including the end of using Cyrillic script. If I am not mistaken (I have been before) Ceausescu would go on to claim that in fact Latin comes from Romanian (and not that elements of Romanian had come from Latin). That is the context of the peripheral statements I’ve made about Romania; despite most people being secular but Orthodox culturally, there is long standing Russophobia for both exaggerated and real reasons. .

      Why would Romania break from EU? I have not said that they would or that it is likely. I was clear that setting aside Greece, if ‘any’ would break from the EU, it would be Romania. But it is not my view that countries breaking off the EU is a likelihood. My statements were made in answer to a question about the EU and its present form.

      The EU will not exist for long in its present form, but it will continue to exist. Indeed, labels and symbols aside, the entire EU will soon go through an entire re-organization in terms of its orientation towards BRIICS on the one hand and the US on the other. This in short can be termed a de-Atlanticization of Europe.

      Rather, Russian strategy is to promote center-right political parties with either a soft-euro-Skeptic line or a euro-skeptic under-current in the base of support of a nominally pro-EU party. The idea is to keep them in the EU, but to break the EU from the US and this un-named economic counterpart which is militarily represented by NATO

      With Russia acquiring Transdniestra and Odessa oblasts together, this changes Russia’s approach to both Moldova and Romania.

      The media in Romania isn’t showing these signs, and the public face of the elites seem to tow the Brussels line. Presently we have only the euro-skeptics on the hard left and nationalist (anti-liberal) right representing this. But let’s not forget Bascescu’s initial attempts some years ago to increase the relationship with Russia, and even issues which are both symbolic and real such as aims towards resolution of the issue of Romania’s national treasure ‘stored’ (stolen?) at Moscow.

      But more concretely there are some serious pressing matters, such as Romania’s struggling to fulfill the fiscal terms of a 4 billion-euro bailout from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union.

      Also the unstable farmland profiteering, the increase of over 2000% of farmland prices, with Italian colonizers buying up land, and the long-term effects this will have on other real estate; the reliance on the export of bread/grain had initially indicated a stabilization of bread prices in the export economy, but as demand has decreased relative to the over supply paradigm created by the grain bubble, farmers will be up in arms.

      I view agriculture as critical. While it’s only 6-8% of GDP, low mechanization results in it being where 30% of the workforce finds employment. Also the value of lands behind the land value bubble is going to seriously affect construction, which is about 10% of the economy, and employing another sizable portion of the economy, especially once one includes electricians, plumbers, and all of the crafts and trades involved with completion of construction projects. .

      Critically also I see changes in Ukraine as affecting Romania, with grain production in the west of Ukraine being increased to compensate for the loss of the more productive south and central-eastern oblasts. Because grain production under the Russian gained territories will not fall, the overall production of grain will increase all together. But Monsanto (whose soldiers are fighting in Ukraine today under the banner Academy) will have further influence upon the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and will likely be able to expand beyond producing grain for livestock using GM, and will continue to create legal loopholes around the EU’s ostensibly stringent regulation of GM foods. Acquisition prices for wheat had dropped sharply, from a near stable high of about about EUR 227 per tonne to EUR 140 per tonne.

      With agribusiness, Romanian distributors (middle-men) today are asking about 170 euros per tonne to small consumers (orders as low as 100 to 500 tonnes). This means the actual sale price is closer to the low of 140 euros, and possibly below that when dealt in larger quantities.

      Ukrainian weapons manufacturing (about 4 or ) in the world) will now become Russian weapons manufacturing, placing Romania in the top-ten weapons manufacturers in the world. There will be significant increase in push from this sector of the economy to sell to Russian distribution firms in order to work around the EU ban on sales directly to China.

      Tying back to de-Atlanticization, in Romania, means the untangling of some of the large US invested agribusiness conglomerates such as Ameropa Grains.

      This was connected to the US plans to corner the perishable goods market, in particular grains, when it used QE-1 in 2007 and 2008 to do that. These were used to push the food-price index above stable levels, well over the index marker of 270 which creates instability politically when coupled with ‘regimes’ that are lacking credibility (see arab spring, color revolution).

      Ameropa Grains, major in Romania, saw Egypt as its most significant customer. With the overthrow of the US puppet, and the rise of Sisi and a total realignment of the region there, this will affect Romanian export markets.

      This spells further catastrophe for Romania. The real estate bubble will eventually burst, I believe soon as the market will undergo a series of self-corrections. Ponta and Bascescu will have to reinvent themselves (again); Crin Antonescu will be Romania’s next President. The speculative market which has created a growing ‘middle class’ will collapse on itself; naturally fixes and band-aids will be put into places which will re-orient this ‘collapse’ into a ‘gliding descent’, which will be more politically controllable and in ‘slower motion’ than would otherwise be without government intervention.

      Real estate prices for agriculture will eventually return to prices seen ten+ years ago.

      What this all means is an increasing growth of political space for soft EU skepticism, and an increase in three directions – increase trade with Turkey and the other Black Sea access states, increase with the rest of the Balkans if other EU Balkans state can assert some control over their trade, but also Serbia who is not in the EU for another 10 years at least (if ever), and increase with Russia.

      I view All of this is connected to a Eurasianization of the EU, and for EU to broaden its conception of itself and transforming in several major ways.

      While Bascescu was clear to re-state the Romanian and EU line about Putin having ‘imperial ambitions’ and expressing concerns along those predictable lines, critical in his statements since the start of this year was his clarity over the point that Romania would suffer from EU sanctions on Russia. Trade between Romania and Russia continues to grow.

      I realize I have touched on several issues which I view as being intimately related, but which may not strike everyone as being as connected as I do.



      • Thanks a lot for your reply. Very interesting. I’m in the process of assimilating all the info and connections you made. I understand very well your last paragraph and I fully agree some connections might be more important than they appear at first sight.

        If it’s ok with you I’ll try to comment or require a few more clarifications on some of the points you made.

        Before that, just a quick question: if you really think Crin Antonescu will be the next president (I mean you sounded pretty certain, more than a probabilistic weigh of electoral forces) does this belief relate to the Russian preference for a center-right mildly/undercurrent euro-skeptics you mentioned ? Especially considering his party electoral base is not so strong and his direct entourage is strongly connected with Soros and he constantly bows to the Germany’s (a bit too obvious) man Johannis. I mean, there’s no guarantee he would be a mild EU skeptic.The one question just multiplied: you place him in what camp – an EU unconditional or among those inclined to transform EU. Imo he is weak and too ambitious, prone to blunders. If the weak side would be a “plus” for puppeteers it’s also a two edged sword. (Sorry, as you see I tend to jump from connection to connection too, as they come).

        FIY, Ponta just decided the armament firms debt is going to be deleted.

        Thank you again and keep making those many connections, they don’t seem self evident all the time but my guess is you come closer to the (moment’s) truth than many other with a more “sequential” approach.

  3. The “Latinization” of the language concerned mostly orthography, setting a standard, in the 19th century, for the sounds specific to Romanian language. Some authors attempts to remove many of the non-Latin based words (entered directly or through other Romance languages like French) were purely experimental. The current language uses lots of words from a different root than Latin (Slavic, Turkish, Magyar), be it as synonyms or not, but the structure is fundamentally Latin and it is easy to observe. I can easily understand some of the Italian or Catalan without any studies in this regard. Less so French or Spanish (Castillian). Sometimes Romanian preserved older, more close to Latin, variants than other Latin-based languages, probably because we don’t have there major – and politically conflicting dialects – like it was in France between the northern and southern language. The spoken language presents continuity and can be verified with 3-400 years old texts written in Romanian albeit with Cyrillic characters.

    I don’t think Ceausescu came with the Proto-Latin idea. But it circulated at some point and gained even more momentum after his death among some aficionados of the purely-Dacian theory. The theory, not embraced by many, historians or laymen, postulates the Dacians spoke a language similar to Latin and since they were older than the Romans it makes sense the later ones borrowed it from the first. Don’t really know on what arguments it is based. The idea is to pretend the Dacians, conquered by Romans, had no need to learn and be assimilated into a Latin language since they already spoke a similar language. Doesn’t make much sense, there are quite a few examples of populations embracing the language of a conqueror or a culturally superior civilization or for otherwise convenient reasons. Sounds more cool to be Romanian straight from the Dacian lineage with the Romans a mere younger cousin who got lucky at some point? Maybe. The Dacians were a very interesting civilization on its own and some typology – a certain indifference to death, a certain withdrawn within individualism, certain forms of small communities organization – can be traced back to them, especially in some areas which were more protected from outside influence, be it an expression of force or culture. Anyway, the theory is the later-to-be Romanians were deeply entrenched in a Latin based language when waves of migrations came upon. The Slavs who lasted more than the Goths and ulterior Turkish or Mongol Asian tribes influenced the language, helped by the Slavic interface with the practices of Orthodox Christianity and by their longer political dominance, but the influence is considered similar to that of Goths in Spain or Francs in France, simply bringing a flavor to the Roman-Iberian or Roman-Gaul blend.

    While the language is pretty clearly part of the neo-Latin (Romance) family, for the political model the Slavs influenced the lower level of organization, village or small town level, local feudal lords – we have kept the Slav boyar title until the modern state. For the larger, centralized state, the ruler’s court model is of Byzantine origin, later influenced mostly by the Ottomans. Still, many military and political functions borrowed Slav terminology – like hatman for the army leader. Maybe a bit more in Moldova than in the southern state, due to being neighbors with the Polish state.

    Russians came closer late and some of the bad blood between us has purely historical reasons. But mostly is not Russophobia, even if there were serious feuds with the Tsarist Russia who acted like any big empire. The modern resentment is a mixture of historical and ideological, more a Bolshevikphobia who extended to Russians seen as the Soviet enemy. Being more recent and more significant in terms of territorial loss and blood spilled, the pre-WW2, WW2 confrontation and Soviet political occupation after the war left scars and open wounds (like Moldova republic or the Siberian hardship and death for many war prisoners or displaced people). The animosity can be fueled, and often is, but the Russian per se is not hated. A fear of Russia exists but I think people are more cynical about everything after experimenting more than 20 years of western colonialism. Anyway, friendship or hatred can be instilled, hatred faster, obviously.

    You are certainly right about agriculture, farming land, agro-business being pivotal not only for Romania’s economy but also for demographic stability. The “interface” between the native (very) small farmers/landowners and the important markets you mentioned operates independently though. Of course any diminishing margins of profit will hit the small landowner mostly. Some will have to sell the land and the increase in price is meant to entice them to do so (it’s about 30-40% higher than last year for the “final” price – meaning some is resold by speculators, sometimes after concentrating larger surfaces; “first hand” sellers, the true owners, usually sell for less but there’s an increase there too). Your prognosis for steep increase followed by a sharp decrease makes sense in an iffy cereals market. But the land is still much cheaper than in the west and of better quality so it really doesn’t matter how the market goes, the process of accumulating the land in fewer and often corporate hands will continue. This will have a devastating impact and probably force more to leave the country to work elsewhere. Already there are too many Romanians able to work outside the country and this messes up the entire economic and social fabric.

    You are right about agriculture, about a dangerous second wave increase (started recently) in real estate prices, which is typical disaster recipe (I doubt though it will reach the levels before the 2008 crisis), about the loan (forced upon Romania who had to change regulations in order to allow foreign banks to withdraw mandatory money reserves they sent then back to the metropolis – it was a lethal blackmail, the alternative would have been the intentional orchestrated collapse of all the banking system – 95% foreign owned). The loan was around 19 billion euros and I think around 14 billion went to replace the foreign banks deliberate theft. The rest was needed for paying pensions and other stuff, but since the central bank reserves, rather high, are intangible, you have to take into account the whole sum as debt – typical criminal banking terrorism. Not to mention no one really knows where the reserves and gold are and why would make sense to buy US bonds at, say, 4% and not repay the loan taken at, say, 7%. And yes it has to be repaid which puts a lot of pressure on the state.

    The weapons industry is not so important and it’s a kind of trade which can be terribly fluctuating. But let’s say it becomes more important. I can’t imagine how we could sell to intermediaries under uncle’s Sam nose. It would require not only a EU reorientation but a fundamental change in NATO, the later won’t happen or will happen only over US’ dead body, so to speak.

    The need to diversify and to trade with other partners, on a larger scale, is indisputable, but the political signal won’t come from Romania, the political class would rather let the country implode, like Greece, than attempt to rattle the chain. And the economic, foreign banks+corporations chain is really heavy.

    The only way out (but it would mean suicide unless all the western sham collapses) is to nationalize the main sources of profit which are now mostly in foreign hands. Otherwise, any independent political decision is an illusion.

    Basescu is a stranger by the day character, imo. My guess is he lost the “deep state” (there is such a thing even in a vassal country) connections. He is requested to do certain things but I believe he’s more often than not out of the loop. And he’s more and more subject to fits of temperament. So it is hard to say when he’s sending a message or rambling. The other two aren’t very stable either, at least not under pressure, so it is worrying, but Washington will decide for us. And even if, let’s say Antonescu – if you think he’s closer to a “lesser” euro-atlantic orientation – gets appointed he will dance to Washington’s tune sooner than one can imagine. Of course, there may be more than one Washington pulling the strings, but not sure this changes in any way Romania’s blatant incapacity to act on its own. A double frustration since we had our moments in recent history.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s