Does that make sense to you, dear reader? Why would Obama suddenly opt to change the rules of the game when he knows it will increase supply and push prices down even further? Why would he do that? Certainly, he doesn't want to inflict more pain on domestic producers, does he?
Let's let Obama answer the question for himself. Here's a clip from an NPR interview with the president just last week. About halfway through the interview, NPR's Steve Inskeep asks Obama: "Are you just lucky that the price of oil went down and therefore their currency collapsed or "is it something that you did?
Barack Obama: If you'll recall, their (Russia) economy was already contracting and capital was fleeing even before oil collapsed. And part of our rationale in this process was that the only thing keeping that economy afloat was the price of oil. And if, in fact, we were steady in applying sanction pressure, which we have been, that over time it would make the economy of Russia sufficiently vulnerable that if and when there were disruptions with respect to the price of oil -- which, inevitably, there are going to be sometime, if not this year then next year or the year after -- that they'd have enormous difficulty managing it." (Transcript: President Obama's Full NPR Interview)
Am I mistaken or did Obama just admit that he wanted "disruptions" in the "price of oil" because he figured Putin would have "enormous difficulty managing it"?
Isn't that the same as saying that it was all part of Washington's plan; that plunging prices were just the icing on the cake for their asymmetrical attack on the Russian economy? It sure sounds like it. And that would also explain why Obama decided to allow domestic producers to dump more oil on the market even though it's going to send prices lower. Apparently, none of that matters as long as the policy hurts Russia.
So maybe the US-Saudi oil collusion theory isn't so far fetched after all. Maybe Salon's Patrick L. Smith was right when he said:
"Less than a week after the Minsk Protocol was signed, Kerry made a little-noted trip to Jeddah to see King Abdullah at his summer residence. When it was reported at all, this was put across as part of Kerry's campaign to secure Arab support in the fight against the Islamic State.
"Stop right there. That is not all there was to the visit, my trustworthy sources tell me. The other half of the visit had to do with Washington's unabated desire to ruin the Russian economy. To do this, Kerry told the Saudis 1) to raise production and 2) to cut its crude price. Keep in mind these pertinent numbers: The Saudis produce a barrel of oil for less than $30 as break-even in the national budget; the Russians need $105.
"Shortly after Kerry's visit, the Saudis began increasing production, sure enough -- by more than 100,000 barrels daily during the rest of September, more apparently to come...
"Think about this. Winter is coming, there are serious production outages now in Iraq, Nigeria, Venezuela and Libya, other OPEC members are screaming for relief, and the Saudis make back-to-back moves certain to push falling prices still lower? You do the math, with Kerry's unreported itinerary in mind, and to help you along I offer this from an extremely well-positioned source in the commodities markets: 'There are very big hands pushing oil into global supply now,' this source wrote in an e-mail note the other day." ("What Really Happened in Beijing: Putin, Obama, Xi And The Back Story The Media Won't Tell You," Patrick L. Smith, Salon)
Vladimir Putin: Public Enemy Number 1
Let's cut to the chase: All these oil shenanigans are really aimed at just one man: Vladimir Putin. There are a number of reasons why Washington wants to get rid of Putin, the first of which is that the Russian president has become an obstacle to US plans to pivot to Asia. That's the main issue. As long as Putin is calling the shots, there's going to be growing resistance to NATO's push eastward and Washington's military expansion across Central Asia which could undermine US plans to encircle China and remain the world's only superpower.
Here's an excerpt from Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, which helps to explain the importance Eurasia is in terms of Washington's global ambitions:
"...how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31) (Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book)
Get it? Prevailing in Asia is the administration's top priority, which is why the US is rapidly moving its military assets into place. Check this out from the World Socialist Web Site:
"Under Obama's 'pivot to Asia,' the Pacific Command will account for more than 60 percent of all US military forces, up from 50 percent under the Bush administration. This includes new US basing arrangements in the Philippines, Singapore and Australia, as well as renewed close military ties to New Zealand, and ongoing US military exercises in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan...(as well as) large troop deployments in Japan and South Korea, including nuclear-armed units." (The global scale of US militarism, Patrick Martin, World Socialist Web Site)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).