For the past several months, the Ukraine-Crimea crisis has simmered as a volatile flashpoint that could erupt into all-out war, with potential for dire global ramifications. At least that’s how it has been presented to us by President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, establishment Republicans, and the usual talking heads of the mainstream media. Massive aid, they say, is urgently needed and must be rushed to the new government of Ukraine (which is largely composed of “former” communists and pro-Kremlin oligarchs) to enable them to stand up to Russian bully Vladimir Putin. (See also here and here.)

The U.S. Congress and the International Monetary Fund have responded with alacrity — and with billions of dollars and SDRs (Special Drawing Rights, the IMF’s “currency”). But, as the smoke clears, it turns out that billions of dollars/SDRs fast-tracked to Kiev to help the new regime defy Bully Putin will actually be going to ... (surprise!) Bully Putin.

Yes, as The New American reported in an online article for May 20 entitled “U.S. Taxpayers Funding Putin via IMF Bailout of Ukraine,” much of that “anti-Putin” funding will be used by Ukraine to pay Russia for past, current, and future deliveries of natural gas. And, as to be expected, a considerable portion of the IMF’s more than $17 billion worth of SDRs will go to bail out the Russian, European, and U.S. banks and hedge funds that encouraged the reckless policies of Ukraine’s previous regimes. The details of those bailouts to the Western banking mafias may dribble out over the next few months, but we can rest assured that the MSM mavens will find plenty of Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber distractions to divert public attention from these “mundane” matters.

Speaking of diversions, one might pause to consider that Putin’s entire opposition to Ukraine’s independence and acceptance of the IMF deal was an enormous charade, the purpose of which was to seal the deal he pretended to oppose. Think about it: American and European taxpayers were not about to support another bank/country bailout scheme (after Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Iceland, Spain, Ireland, etc.) — unless, of course, it could be dramatically and emotionally packaged. Putin could have nixed the IMF-Ukraine deal, which would have been a lot easier than all of the military showmanship and confrontation — but he didn’t, as The New American pointed out.

“Much of that growing debt to the Kremlin,” TNA noted, “will now be paid off using funds extracted from American and European taxpayers — making it easy to see why Putin backed the Ukrainian bailout at the IMF, but leaving pro-bailout Western politicians and officials looking like fools at best, or collaborators at worst. In other words, under the guise of helping Ukraine stand up to Moscow, Western taxpayers were just fleeced to bail out Putin and his government.”

Putin, you see, despite all of his theatrics to the contrary, is on board with the globalist insiders’ plans to transform the IMF into the new global Federal Reserve, with the ability to confiscate global wealth by spinning out infinite amounts of SDRs. He has supported the globalist efforts to “reform” and “transform” the IMF at the G20 and other forums.

We have written repeatedly over the past several decades about this ongoing push to “supersize” the IMF and endow it with unprecedented powers. That push is now intensifying, as the IMF and World Bank use events celebrating their joint 70th birthday to promote the transformation. During the final phases of World War II, from July 1-22, 1944, delegates from 44 nations met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, for the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. Out of that conference came the financial architecture of the post-war world, including the IMF and the World Bank Group, institutions that have had a profoundly destructive effect on the old economic and political order of the world. These same institutions have enjoyed a correspondingly profound role in the construction of a New World Order, one in which globalist elites have engineered the concentration and centralization of power and wealth — into their hands.

In a 1984 essay for the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs entitled “A Monetary System for the Future,” Harvard Economist Richard N. Cooper wrote, “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy.” (Emphasis in original.)

Cooper noted that his radical proposal would require a “pooling of sovereignty,” the end of independent nations, and a “convergence of political values” with totalitarian regimes. “This one-currency regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future,” he admitted. “But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from now.... It will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea.”

Are Americans now sufficiently “accustomed to the idea”? Or will we finally demand that Congress “Get Us Out of the United Nations” ­— and out of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and all other UN affiliates?

^{Photo of Putin: AP Images}