The next day, Russia Today reported that the IMF had approved a 17 billion dollar “aid” package to “stabilize” the economy of Kiev. RT wrote:
“The International Monetary Fund has approved a two-year $17.1 billion loan package for Ukraine. The immediate disbursement of $3.2 billion will allow Ukraine to avoid a potential debt default.
The IMF’s 24-member board agreed to the two-year program to aid Ukraine’s troubled economy on Wednesday.
The approval gives the green light for the immediate release of $3.2 billion to Ukraine, which will allow the nation not to fall into default, Reuters reports. More than half of that money will be dedicated to supporting the country’s budget.
The package will open up loans from other donors totaling around $15 billion. The goal is for Ukraine to use the money to stabilize its economy.
“The authorities’ economic program supported by the Fund aims to restore macroeconomic stability, strengthen economic governance and transparency, and launch sound and sustainable economic growth, while protecting the most vulnerable,” the IMF said in a statement.
IMF managing director Christine Lagarde commented on the aid package, stating that the plan may come with geopolitical and implementation risks.
“On the implementation front, we are taking all the precautions we can in order to mitigate those risks,” Lagarde told reporters on Wednesday. “On the geopolitical front, clearly the bilateral international support, and the cooperation of all parties, will be extremely helpful to reinforce the position of the economy of Ukraine.”
Amazingly, this “aid” is simply the same plan of IMF shock doctrine we have seen over and over, as Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (former chief economist of the World Bank) revealed back in 2001. That revelation first appeared through BBC reporter Greg Palast’s famous article, “The Globalizer Who Came in From the Cold. The documents summarized there outline the multi-layered plan the IMF takes to attack, destabilize and reorganize (ie, loot) through “aid” packages that result in extensive debt slavery and privatization. Palast explains of the IMF plan in regard to Russia in the 90s:
“Each nation’s economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.
Step One is Privatization – which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders – using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics – happily flogged their electricity and water companies. “You could see their eyes widen” at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.
And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest ‘briberization’ of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. “The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don’t care if it’s a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin” via kick-backs for his campaign.
Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Chairman of the President’s council of economic advisors.
Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia’s industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.
After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the “Hot Money” cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.”
The Western axis has now implemented the latest installment of the bankster attack pattern in Ukraine, with the approval of 17 billion fiat dollars, reminiscent of the 18 billion that took down the Russian economy in 1998. The 2000 fas.org online text of the US House of Representative’s “Russia’s Road to Corruption” noted of the 1990s Clintonista plan:
“On March 23, 1998, five months before the Russian government’s default on its international and domestic debts led to the nation’s complete economic collapse, Viktor Chernomyrdin was fired as Prime Minister. The allegations of corruption against him had only reinforced the public impression that the policy of a handful of powerful Russian officials was not the construction of a free enterprise system, but rather the subversion of the public good through crony capitalism.
The unexpected firing of Chernomyrdin, Vice President Gore’s partner in the highly visible Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, unnerved Clinton administration officials. They were just as unprepared for the appointment of the little-known Sergei Kirienko to replace Chernomyrdin. Lawrence Summers, then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, had inauspiciously dubbed the outgoing Prime Minister’s deputies, Boris Nemtsov and Anatoly Chubais, “the Dream Team.”1 Summers’ characterization epitomized the wishful thinking of the administration, and its willful blindness to the worsening reality in Russia.
As late as the summer of 1998, the Clinton administration still failed to grasp the fundamental error of its policy of funneling enormous amounts of money into a corrupt central government. Despite widespread rumors that Kirienko, too, would soon be fired, the administration proposed nothing more than pouring still more loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into Russia’s central government. Vice President Gore, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Summers set to work on an additional $18 billion U.S. commitment to the IMF chiefly intended to support new lending to Russia.
The reality of the situation, however, was that the Russian economy had already begun to collapse. The stock market was plunging. The day before Rubin’s letter to the Speaker of the House and the IMF’s blindly upbeat assessment, the market had suffered a 9% drop. “It’s looking ugly,” said one Western economist on July 27. Said another Western investment strategist: “We’re sitting and watching this in shock and horror.”3
Over the next two weeks, the deterioration continued. Finally, on August 17–one month after the latest bailout–the roof caved in.
The Russian government announced that it would no longer be able to pay its official debts. The ruble was devalued at the same time. The default, coupled with the devaluation of the ruble after years of promises that this would not occur, led to Russia’s total economic collapse–a cataclysm by all measurements worse than America’s Crash of 1929.
The end of Soviet Communism had afforded the United States its greatest foreign policy opportunity since the Allied victory in World War II. Barely six years later Russia’s economy lay in ruins–an opportunity lost.”
It doesn’t take a genius to see that the same plan of “aid” that collapsed the Russian economy of the 90s will not assist Ukraine, unless by “assist” one means assist in its destruction. Criminals operate with the same modus operandi making it relatively easy to notice the pattern of destruction the western axis will inevitably unleash as it seeks to implement its version of the new world order. The austerity introduced into EU nations like Greece will now be the norm for Ukraine. RT continues:
“Lagarde argued that Ukraine has already shown its ability to undertake “comprehensive reforms,” listing a few of the sacrifices that have been made.
“Whether it was a question of letting the exchange rate float, whether it was a question of reforming the procurement law, whether it was a question of modifying the price of gas to customers or to corporate. They’ve (Ukrainian government) done all these things to demonstrate their determination to endorse a very bold program of reforms,” Lagarde stated.
The IMF money comes with stringent terms, asking for various cuts and economic reforms. In the case of Ukraine, the requirements include a 50 percent increase in the price of gas for households, as well as a quick pension reform and lower government spending.” Palast’s article elucidates the attack pattern in its next stages, as readers can expect to see the same in the Ukraine for the near future:
“At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, “The IMF riot.”
The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, “down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up,” as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples – the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You’d almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.
And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, “confidential,” “restricted,” “not to be disclosed.” Let’s get back to one: the “Interim Country Assistance Strategy” for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states – with cold accuracy – that they expected their plans to spark, “social unrest,” to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.
That’s not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador’s currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank “Assistance” plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, “political resolve” – and still higher prices.
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it’s bright side – for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.”
As veteran researcher Dr. Paul Craig Roberts explains, the propaganda will certainly increase, characterizing Russia as the invasive aggressor:
“With Obama’s incompetent White House and State Department having botched Washington’s takeover of Ukraine, Washington has been at work shifting the blame to Russia. According to Washington and its presstitute media, the protests are orchestrated by the Russian government and have no sincere basis. If Russia sends in military units to protect the Russian citizens in the former Russian territories, the act will be used by Washington to confirm Washington’s propaganda of a Russian invasion (as in the case of Georgia), and Russia will be further demonized.”
I was able to call the IMF plan because the IMF plan is always the same. The Anglo global elite must destroy any and every nation to implement their global socialist technocracy. The technocracy is the friend of no tribe or peoples, and the bankers and looters who propagate this system are blind to their own good, as well as that of their posterity. But when you’re an economic hit man (or woman) brimming with hated and narcissistic self-interest, international looting scams are euphoric.