Geopolitical thread

[Hari Seldon]

^^^ Sri George Friedman is a shill doggedly pussing an agenda. Like all shills (and academics), he highlights what suits his agenda and downplays all else. Strictly, IMHO, of course.

[Carl_T]

Hertitage foundation dispels the myths of BRIC becoming a challenge to the US. The point is that the very fact such articles are being written show that they are concerned.

Busting the Brazil/Russia/India/China (BRIC) Myth of Challenging U.S. Global Leadership

At the BRIC summit, China’s Hu Jintao, India’s Mammohan Singh, Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev, and Brazilian host Lula da Silva will seek to advance the impression that the BRICs are uniquely positioned to shape the global economic and political agenda. Such an impression is reinforced by the Obama Administration’s readiness to buy into the notion that America is declining in competitiveness, influence, and power as part of a transition to a “Post-American,” multi-polar world. Yet, there are five myths about BRIC that Americans should recognize before succumbing to Obama-inspired fatalism

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... Leadership

There are some people that are concerned, and they should be. I think China and Russia are indeed threats to US leadership. I don't think it is true in the case of India, but it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[csharma]

By itself India is not a threat but as a collective group BRIC could mount a challenge in the future. But as everyone know they are politically not cohesive and I do not think they intend to challenge the US.

One of the geopolitical goals of US is not to let Russia China and India come together. Of the three, the easiest to wean away is India.

[Carl_T]

I think the mistake is thinking of them as BRIC. I believe it is a term coined (or at least popularized) by Goldman Sachs analysts. Thinking about it as an investment designation might be useful but IMO no geopolitical rationale for doing so

[svinayak]

Zbigniew Brzezinksi, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (Basic Books, 2007), £15.99
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/books/06kaku.html


The Bush administration has either not read or not heeded Zbigniew Brzezinski’s previous book on US strategy, The Grand Chessboard. In his latest, Brzezinski complains: ‘Bush disregarded the three basic imperatives of imperial geostrategy. As I described them (using deliberately archaic terminology) in The Grand Chessboard, these are

“to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together”.’

Instead, according to Brzezinski, Europe is alienated, Russia and China are more assertive, Asia is organising itself, Latin America is becoming ‘populist and anti‑American’, and the Middle East is inflamed by religious passions and anti-imperial nationalisms. That isn’t the end of it. Iran is dominant in the Persian Gulf, Pakistan is volatile and has nuclear weapons, there is a global political awakening, and the tertiary‑educated youth of the Third World are now ‘the equivalent of the militant proletariat of the 19th and 20th centuries’. America has led, and been led, badly, not only by George Bush, but by every US president since the end of the Cold War.

Brzezinski is an important figure in the American foreign policy establishment: a professor at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, a member of the Trilateral Commission’s executive committee, and a former adviser to four US presidents. Most notably he advised President Carter, with whom he devised the policy of supporting the armed opposition to the pro-Russian regime in Afghanistan, in order to draw the USSR into a war which would be ‘its Vietnam’. One million Afghans died in the ensuing conflict, and the ‘terrorist threat’ that Brzezinski refers to was first forged with US arms and dollars, but on record he has no regrets. He later served on Bush senior’s National Security Advisory Task Force. A ‘realist’ in international relations, Brzezinski wastes no time moralising about the application of US power, and he derides the neoconservatives who do as promoting ‘an updated version of imperialism’. If morality has a place in international politics, it is only to the extent that US policymakers should pursue a strategy including ‘cultural appeal’, since military power is no longer ‘sufficient to sustain imperial domination’.

According to Brzezinski, Bush senior’s administration failed because it sought ‘traditional’ policy options in a world that was not traditional. Bush had successes in ‘cutting Saddam’s excessive ambitions down to size’, a security challenge that was ‘awe-inspiring’, and exploiting Mikhail Gorbachev’s weakness to manage the collapse of the USSR, which ‘deserves the highest praise’. However, these were marred by ensuing caution and the absence of a ‘burst of global architectural innovation like the one that followed World War II’.

-Brzezinski acknowledges that by August 1990, the month Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush senior had already decided to wage war on Iraq. To get a war, he had to out-manoeuvre not only Russian diplomatic initiatives aimed at producing a face-saving withdrawal for Iraq, but also those within his administration who said the sanctions had worked. Brzezinski’s only criticism of the venture is that Bush did not go boldly into Baghdad and topple Saddam. Brzezinski finds the lack of vision dispiriting—Bush senior promised a ‘new world order’, but instead offered ‘a reassertion of the more familiar old imperial order’.

Bill Clinton failed in Brzezinski’s eyes because he pursued a policy of ‘globalisation’ that was both self-indulgent and tainted with historical determinism. Concerned first and foremost with neoliberal ‘domestic renewal’, his foreign policy was ‘a continuation of domestic politics by other means’. His team was not given to ‘personal, bureaucratic or military assertiveness’. Unlike Bush senior’s top‑down approach to policy making, Clinton hosted discussion groups with much talk and little decision. Things only picked up in his second term with the more aggressive Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State. Brzezinski argues that Clinton failed to halt nuclear proliferation by going soft on North Korea and pursuing only one‑sided sanctions against Pakistan, while allowing India to pursue its nuclear programme freely. Further, despite maintaining healthy relationships with allies, he oversaw a groundswell of hostility to what was branded the ‘hyperpower’. Tax cuts for the rich and ‘social hedonism’ were pursued, instead of using America’s ‘moral and political capital’ for the wider ‘global commonweal’.

However, it is the ‘catastrophic’ administration of the younger Bush that draws Brzezinski’s most cutting criticisms. His scorn for a regime of ‘hubris’ and ‘arrogance’ is unadulterated. Brzezinski derides Bush’s ‘dogmatism’, ‘manicheanism’, ‘swaggering’ and ‘Islamophobic demagogy’. He describes a breakdown in the machinery of the state in which the National Security Council failed to convey unwelcome intelligence to the president, in which Cheney pressured CIA analysts to offer hypotheses as fact, and in which the Pentagon created its own intelligence office on Iraq. The war on Iraq has ‘caused calamitous damage to America’s global standing’. It has been a ‘geopolitical disaster’ in ‘diverting resources and attention from the terrorist threat’, and has actually ‘increased the terrorist threat to the United States’. Without a clearly defined enemy and with ‘strong anti-Islamic connotations’, the ‘war on terror’ unifies Muslim opinion against the US, threatening ‘moderate Muslim elites’.

Brzezinski’s amoral realism allows him to perceive and state bluntly what most of Bush’s apologists cannot, but his analysis is nevertheless flawed in several respects. First, little attention is paid to the role of capital. There is a bluff acknowledgment of ‘interests’, but the treatment is glancing and superficial. As with most foreign policy ‘realists’, the state’s primacy as a unit in international relations is tautologically assumed. The global projection of ad hoc military power is reduced to a matter of statecraft. Second, Bush’s decision to wage war on Iraq is reduced to hubris and arrogance. There is little attempt to understand the strategic reasons for the decision. For instance, while the administration’s gamble on Iraq was arguably reckless, the strategic advantages of creating a pro-American regime with its hands on the oil spigot in Iraq were sufficiently compelling that most of the US political class and business press vocally supported the war, not just the hardcore of neoconservatives and energy capitalists supportive of Bush. Even in the midst of failure, most Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to withdraw, fearing a Saigon moment. Third, while critical of the failure of any US president since 1990 to press meaningfully for a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict along the lines of officially espoused support for UN Resolution 242, Brzezinski offers little in the way of analysis as to why this is so. He credits domestic ‘lobbies’ with a distorting influence that takes no account of how the policies advocated by, for instance, the ‘Israel lobby’ resonate with pre-existing strategies. Aside from this analytical vacuity, the book suffers from a surfeit of cliches. We are reminded that the British also had an empire, that there may be comparisons made with the Roman one, that democracy cannot be imposed on traditional societies overnight (here Brzezinski derides ‘shortsighted American efforts’ in Palestine, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) and that nemesis follows hubris.

The ‘second chance’ of the book’s title is offered by Brzezinski to a post-Bush executive. A Clinton or Obama might ‘restore America’s legitimacy as the major guarantor of global security’ if it can be identified with ‘the quest for universal human dignity’ and a recognition that ‘persisting injustices in the human condition must be remedied’. Brzezinski argues that there is a ‘global Balkans’ stretching from Suez to Xinjiang, an angry and volatile region resentful of outside domination—for the US to prevail in its interests on military power alone would require a ‘total national mobilisation’ that is untenable given domestic politics. He might have added that the deployment of such brutal force would be less than admirable, but again, such considerations do not loom large in Brzezinski’s purview. He advocates a response that combines what Joseph Nye calls ‘soft power’ with traditional military sanctions.

However, the measures offered to restore America’s global prestige are tepid at best. It is true that America could become more attractive by becoming more socially just, but it is not clear that compulsory national service would assist this. It is surely good in itself to develop an electorate better educated about global realities, but the recommendation involves an incongruous faith in the representative nature of American governance. And to share global leadership with China, encourage Sino‑Japanese reconciliation, reduce the deficit, deepen cooperation with Europe and reform some global institutions may all be geopolitically savvy, but it remains unclear how all of this will result in ubiquitous respect and admiration for the United States. Brzezinski’s passionate plea for an incoming president to save the American empire contains passages of genuine clarity and brutal honesty. It is a serious critique from within the establishment of Bush’s failures. However, it is also myopic, callous and superficial—for that reason alone it is certain to become a New York Times bestseller.

[svinayak]

A War in the Planning for Four Years
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP111B.html
by Michael Ruppert
[NOTE: Michael Ruppert is compromised and is now in peak oil lal la land. He has turned his back on Indira Singh and is starting to have the demeaner of a FutureWorld clone]

From The Wilderness Publications, November 2001

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) at globalresearch.ca 11 November 2001

Zbigniew Brzezinski and the CFR Put War Plans in a 1997 Book -- It is "A Blueprint for World Dictatorship," Says a Former German Defense and NATO Official Who Warned of Global Domination in 1984, in an Exclusive Interview With FTW.

Summary

"THE GRAND CHESSBOARD -- American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

These are the very first words in the book, "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power." -- p. xiii. Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics. And the key to controlling the Central Asian republics is Uzbekistan. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Uzbekistan was forcefully mentioned by President George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of Congress just days after the attacks of September 11 as the very first place that the U.S. military would be deployed.

As FTW has documented in previous stories, major deployments of U.S. and British forces had taken place before the attacks. And the U.S. Army and the CIA had been active in Uzbekistan for several years. There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan -- at least four years in the making -- and that, from reading Brzezinski's own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.

FTW, November 7, 2001, 1200 PST -- There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco -- and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report -- is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."

Some Americans do read. So do Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin Americans.

World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and -- as their architects would like to believe -- controlled. The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan -- the plan of the CFR -- Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.

This position is corroborated by Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. On November 6, he told FTW, "The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission ( founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller -- and the Bliderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."

Brzezinski's own words -- laid against the current official line that the United States is waging a war to end terrorism -- are self-incriminating. In an ongoing series of articles, FTW has consistently established that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks and chose not to stop them because it needed to secure public approval for a war that is now in progress. It is a war, as described by Vice President Dick Cheney, "that may not end in our lifetimes." What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.

These are the "terrorists" the U.S. now fights in Afghanistan and plans to soon fight all over the globe.

Before exposing Brzezinski (and those he represents) with his own words, or hearing more from Dr. Koeppl, it is worthwhile to take a look at Brzezinski's background.

According to his resume Brzezinski, holding a 1953 Ph.D. from Harvard, lists the following achievements:

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81), Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission, International advisor of several major US/Global corporations, Associate of Henry Kissinger Under Ronald Reagan, member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy Under Ronald Reagan, member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations 1988, Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bliderberger group -- a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

The Grand Chessboard

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries -- almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 -- March 31, 2001)

An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

"The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power) (p. xiii)

"But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia) Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival -- would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America `manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. 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 geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent 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 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above." (p. 40)

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan -- with its much more ethnically homogeneous population of approximately 25 million and its leaders emphasizing the country's historic glories -- has become increasingly assertive in affirming the region's new postcolonial status." (p.95)

"Thus, even the ethnically vulnerable Kazakhstan joined the other Central Asian states in abandoning the Cyrillic alphabet and replacing it with Latin script as adapted earlier by Turkey. In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration." (p.114)

"Hence, support for the new post-Soviet states -- for geopolitical pluralism in the space of the former Soviet empire -- has to be an integral part of a policy designed to induce Russia to exercise unambiguously its European option. Among these states. Three are geopolitically especially important: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine." (p. 121) "Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict ( describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]

The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region's diverse national awakenings." (p.130)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130) "Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people. (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival -- already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia -- is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian -- and hence infidel -- control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan -- and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan -- and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Moreover, sensible Russian leaders realize that the demographic explosion underway in the new states means that their failure to sustain economic growth will eventually create an explosive situation along Russia's entire southern frontier." (p.141) [This would explain why Putin would welcome U.S. military presence to stabilize the region.]

"Turkmenistan has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea" (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"the Eurasian Balkans -- threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry." (p.195)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy" (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of...

a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) [Emphasis added]

The Horror -- And Comments From Someone Who Worked With Brzezinski

Brzezinski's book is sublimely arrogant. While singing the praises of the IMF and the World Bank, which have economically terrorized nations on every continent, and while totally ignoring the worldwide terrorist actions of the U.S. government that have led to genocide; cluster bombings of civilian populations from Kosovo, to Laos, to Iraq, to Afghanistan; the development and battlefield use of both biological and chemical agents such as Sarin gas; and the financial rape of entire cultures it would leave the reader believing that such actions are for the good of mankind.

While seconded from the German defense ministry to NATO in the late 1970s, Dr. Johannes Koeppl -- mentioned at the top of this article -- traveled to Washington on more than one occasion. He also met with Brzezinski in the White House on more than one occasion. His other Washington contacts included Steve Larabee from the CFR, John J. McCloy, former CIA Director, economist Milton Friedman, and officials from Carter's Office of Management and Budget. He is the first person I have ever interviewed who has made a direct presentation at a Bliderberger conference and he has also made numerous presentations to sub-groups of the Trilateral Commission. That was before he spoke out against them.

His fall from grace was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world dictatorship. "In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power.

"All we have now are pseudo-democracies."

Koeppl recalls meeting U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald in Nuremburg in the early 80s. McDonald, who was then contemplating a run for the Presidency, was a severe critic of these elites. He was killed in the Russian shootdown of Korean Air flight 007 in 1985. Koeppl believes that it might have been an assassination. Over the years many writers have made these allegations about 007 and the fact that someone with Koeppl's credentials believes that an entire plane full of passengers would be destroyed to eliminate one man offers a chilling opinion of the value placed on human life by the powers that be.

In 1983, Koeppl warned, through Op-Ed pieces published in Newsweek and elsewhere, that Brzezinski and the CFR were part of an effort to impose a global dictatorship. His fall from grace was swift. "It was a criminal society that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish anymore in the so-called respected publications. My 30 year career in politics ended.

"The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people. Therefore what we need is education for politicians, a form of training that instills in them a higher sense of ethics than service to money. There is no training now for world leaders. This is a shame because of the responsibility that leaders hold to benefit all mankind rather than to blindly pursue destructive paths.

"We also need education for citizens to be more efficient in their democracies, in addition to education for politicians that will create a new network of elites based upon character and social intelligence."

Koeppl, who wrote his 1989 doctoral thesis on NATO management, also authored a 1989 book -- largely ignored because of its controversial revelations -- entitled "The Most Important Secrets in the World." He maintains a German language web site at www.antaris.com and he can be reached by email at [email protected].

As to the present conflict Koeppl expressed the gravest concerns, "This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."

-------------

MORE: http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html

[svinayak]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/ ... mmit-cubs/

Obama Under Fire for 'Superpower' Comments
Thursday, 15 Apr 2010 01:54 PM Article Font Size
By: Dan Weil
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/bara ... /id/355838

President Barack Obama says America's superpower status is a burden -- a remark that is beginning to draw fire from Republicans.

At the close of the two-day nuclear weapons summit in Washington, D.C., Obama was asked Tuesday how the summit would affect peace efforts in the Middle East.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower,” he responded.

“When conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

The comments received little attention in the mainstream media, but several conservative bloggers blasted the president for putting America's superpower status in negative terms.

On Thursday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., begged to differ with his opponent from the 2008 presidential campaign.

The remark represents a "direct contradiction to everything America believes in," he told Fox News. "That's one of the more incredible statements I've ever heard a president of the United States make in modern times."

McCain, a Vietnam War veteran and former prisoner of war, also said: "We are the dominant superpower, and we're the greatest force for good in the history of this country, and I thank God every day that we are a dominant superpower."

McCain isn't the only person to take a dim view of Obama lately, as the president's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent in numerous polls.

[Gerard]

World has benign view of India's rise: PM Manmohan Singh

"Unlike China's rise, the rise of India does not cause any apprehensions," Manmohan Singh said when asked whether there was a unique Indian approach compared to the Beijing consensus.
"We should take advantage of it. This benign mood cannot last," the Prime Minister said.

[JE Menon]

That last sentence in the direct quote was unfortunate IMHO. But what can you do? Not everyone can be chankiyan 100% of the time. A very strong realistic statement about China btw. Not something one would expect of a prime minister, even if it is only an articulation of the reality.

[Manu]

Or Perhaps, India is not really rising at all?
Afterall, another Congress Stalwart uttered the following, not too long ago:

New York Times

Jairam Ramesh, told an audience here Monday that Indians would do well to stop racing with the Chinese and start admiring. "We are not in a race," he said at a seminar sponsored by the Confederation of Indian Industry. "They have already won the race."

[sanjaykumar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... power-role


Interesting and more searching analysis for India's seeming diffidence.

[svinayak]

That last sentence in the direct quote was unfortunate IMHO. But what can you do? Not everyone can be chankiyan 100% of the time. A very strong realistic statement about China btw. Not something one would expect of a prime minister, even if it is only an articulation of the reality.

I agree with it. That statement is more like an analysis instead of a ruling regime trying to maximize the benefit for the country

[Karkala Joishy]

Why do Germans dislike India?

http://blog.livemint.com/the-developmen ... out-india/

I understand Pakis and Cheenis.

[abhishek_sharma]

What's the matter with the world today?

[Hari Seldon]

Why do Germans dislike India?

http://blog.livemint.com/the-developmen ... out-india/

I understand Pakis and Cheenis.

Many possible reasons -> the N-weapons factor, the space program, now the plan to field CBGs and so on, all somewhat outside the "international system of institutions led by the US that Germany signed up for".

Another possible reason could be the open, non-self-conscious use of the swastika in India, banned forever in Germany. (Jus' kiddin')

[Carl_T]

I believe in Germany some of that is directed towards Indian immigrants. I don't know how reliable these surveys are because I really doubt India registers on most average peoples' radars as we are not in the news as much as some other nations. May be a small sample size effect.


What I found most interesting was that 70% of the population of Turkey had a disfavorable opinion of US. Ahh a longtime US ally!

[shiv]

the Germans cannot tolerate the fact that a country outside their own little world vision is making progress. imo, you will see a lot of the same across West-Central Europe. this region feels frustrated b/c just 70 years ago, they were the center of the world; they were masters of empires with lands across the globe. they had successfully colonized the entire planet for more than 300 years. now they are nothing. Economic powers they are yes, but have lost the dynamism of previous centuries. and to add fuel to the fire, the US, whom they consider a barbaric culture, is much higher on the food chain and provides them the security that allows them to spend vast amounts of welfare programs and nanny-statism. their entire prosperity is based on the assumption that the US will continue to pay for their defense.

Don't forget to check that "Germans" include at least 20% immigrants from Arab lands and their whores Pakistan

[Carl_T]

Not Araps, I believe many of them are Turkish.

[Mort Walker]

It will matter less in 7 years or so when India's GDP exceeds that of Germany.

[sanjaykumar]

Elementary, the rise of India negates all notions of European, especially 'Teutonic' primacy. It negates their self-importance and negates the munificence of their god. They go from being the golden-haired to the yellow-haired.

The rise of India, which was civilised, in the European idiosyncrasy, by Euros will have world-shaking ramifications. I am rather looking forward to it.

[rsingh]

Germans are suppose to obey written rule and not question it...................same as Chinese. So they do not like free thinking. Result...................... no creativity. In China people are forced to obey. In Germany they are educated to obey. Germans are less open to foreign news media and cultural exchange. They read about poverty in India and take 15 different tablets before landing in Delhi while any German hiker/climber can expect to get first class treatment from Baki fauz while going for K2. And last but not least......................English language. Germans have inferiority complex with people who speak English. You can look at it from any angle..............it is true. Any SDRE Haydrabadi guy can force 20 Germans to keep low by muttering few sentences in English in bus,tram,pub ityadi. I haveen living in Europe for almost 20 years now..........but I find easy to deal with American,British and French. Living next to Scandinavians and Germans is an punishment

[Neshant]

Living next to Scandinavians and Germans is an punishment

What negative experiences have you had with these folks?

Of my very limited experience with swedish people, I have found them to be easy going.

It may be a cruel thing to say but whenever I hear a German accented person, the only thing that jumps into my mind are piles of skeleton-like bodies shown in WWII documentaries on concentration camps. I feel a sense of fear/discomfort with the person and automatically assume he must be of an evil mindset (even though its certainly untrue).

Perhaps I am remembering something from a past life or perhaps I've been watching too many WWII documentaries. Whatever the case, the anglos have certainly drilled into the head of the average person that the German race is a cruel and evil one even though the unpublicised attrociaties commited by the british give the nazis a run for the money.

[Philip]

Germans have a v.high regard for India and Indians.They ackowledge the scientific and mathematical expertise of India from ancient times and are easy to get along with if you understand that they like order and discipline in everyday life.They dislike chaos and confusion and do not suffer fools easily! I honestly haven't come across many modern young Germans with a chip on their shoulders.It is the Brits who are more obsessed with "the War",rather than the Germans.German heroes today are the likes of Becker,Beckenbauer and Schumacher,rather than the likes of Hitler,Goering and Himmler!

[RamaY]

Just want to remind all of us that -

Increasing the GDP to >$5T or being 2nd largest economy will not be sufficient for India. Then the scale will change to per-capita GDP. So no matter what India will be running behind some goal or other.

IMO It is better to look inward and strengthen internal social, civic, industrial and military infrastructure.

[rsingh]

Philip wrote:

Germans have a v.high regard for India and Indians.They ackowledge the scientific and mathematical expertise of India from ancient times and are easy to get along with if you understand that they like order and discipline in everyday life.They dislike chaos and confusion and do not suffer fools easily! I honestly haven't come across many modern young Germans with a chip on their shoulders.It is the Brits who are more obsessed with "the War",rather than the Germans.German heroes today are the likes of Becker,Beckenbauer and Schumacher,rather than the likes of Hitler,Goering and Himmler!

Sar I used to think on your line. Max Mular 's Aryan hypothesis, frequent visit to Max Bhavan (German cultural centre in Delhi in eighties) had painted a very rosy picture of aam modern German. Used to go to Modern Talking concerts...etyadi etyadi. But try to live with them. There used to be a guy called LARS..............red as tomato,neither happy nor sad. Over the fence I just mentioned that I broke my lawnmower and advised me to look in yellow page for repair shop. American guy would come to me with his lawnmower and we would have few drinks together. SHQ was cooking Chiken tikka masala and this guy started praising the khusbu. Moi being an Indian invited him for lunch and all. If I were a sweedish..........I would have advised him to look for an Indian restaurant in yellow page. When the invite you for lunch you are treated with rubbish class white-product that they sell in discount stores. Then all those daily complains...........my dog barks,kids are noisy, cant use garden machines on Sunday, what was that noise last night at 2 oclock. Why those Indian friends of mine bang car doors so loudly etc etc.

[negi]

Well firstly coming to BBC's poll , it is a pleasant surprise to see India being viewed favorably despite the fact that in last year or so we received a pretty bad media in Unkil as well as West as the Indian economy did not get as much affected by the meltdown as the G-8 . Also important thing to note is as per the article Germany's perception of India has actually improved as compared to the previous year .

While views of India were fairly negative in Europe in 2009 there has been something of a warming trend. Among the French, positive views have grown by nine points (now 38%, up from 29%). Germans‘ favourable perceptions have increased by ten points (now 32%, up from 22%). Among Portuguese, negative attitudes have fallen by 11 points (now 35%, down from 46%). But in all three cases, views are still predominantly negative. Italians‘ unfavourable views have fallen by nine points (now 34%, down from 43%), shifting them from a divided view in 2009 to leaning positive in 2010.

And did you guys check Australia ? 44% favorable as against 27% negative. (Not bad considering the recent reports of attacks on Indians in Australia)

Btw BBC as usual tried their best to do an equal equal , look at the sample size of people interviewed from TSP(2000+) vs other countries (1000 or so per country).

As for MMS on India's image , well what can you say ? He has always exhibited 'log kya kahenge' syndrome .

[anjan]

Just want to remind all of us that -

Increasing the GDP to >$5T or being 2nd largest economy will not be sufficient for India. Then the scale will change to per-capita GDP. So no matter what India will be running behind some goal or other.

IMO It is better to look inward and strengthen internal social, civic, industrial and military infrastructure.

Only if we're doing it for approval of others. Otherwise they are worthy goals in themselves. The metrics I believe represent economic production and productivity. I don't think getting it or any other metric higher, or aspiring to do so, are bad at all. They translate to real changes on the ground.

[Sanjay M]

Hard to know whether this news is more economic or strategic:


India, Brazil Back US Position on Yuan

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... eting.html

[Neshant]

But try to live with them. There used to be a guy called LARS..............red as tomato,neither happy nor sad. Over the fence I just mentioned that I broke my lawnmower and advised me to look in yellow page for repair shop. American guy would come to me with his lawnmower and we would have few drinks together. SHQ was cooking Chiken tikka masala and this guy started praising the khusbu. Moi being an Indian invited him for lunch and all. If I were a sweedish..........I would have advised him to look for an Indian restaurant in yellow page. When the invite you for lunch you are treated with rubbish class white-product that they sell in discount stores. Then all those daily complains...........my dog barks,kids are noisy, cant use garden machines on Sunday, what was that noise last night at 2 oclock. Why those Indian friends of mine bang car doors so loudly etc etc.

Perhaps thats the way they treat one another - everyone keeping a distance from everyone else, not doing any favors and not expecting any. It may be how their society/culture has evolved. In caveman days, in the dead of winter.. it was probably every man from himself in western Europe - hence the individualistic culture.

What surprised me however is how they manage to avoid conflict with one another given that circumstance. You'd think such a culture would breed animosity and break down social bonds in a hurry. Yet western society functions very cohesively towards any objective and does not degenerate into chaos that is the hallmark of the east (minus japan).

I have found generosity is neither appreciate nor reciprocated as a general rule. Perhaps this is less true in north america and more so in western Europe.

Personally I don't go out of my way to meet neighbours and hope they keep on their side of the fence so to speak. Its a waste of time and I'm too lazy anyway. I don't really need anything from them and vice-versa nor do I think I have much in common with their lifestyle. Keep it strictly business and professional and you won't go wrong.

[rsingh]

I have found generosity is neither appreciate nor reciprocated as a general rule

Yep thats the rule. Hear you all Brites. This single sentence explains Europeans best. Although there are exceptions such as Italians....

[Philip]

The Eurabian threat to Europe.Good analysis why there is a massive influx of would be immigrants to Europe especially from Islamic countries.

Irfan Hussein.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... threat-740

EXcerpt:

The Eurabian threat By Irfan Husain

Wednesday, 07 Apr, 2010 Although the number of Muslim women in Europe affected by the law of banning a Islamic veil is tiny, this shift away from the generally tolerant attitudes of the past is an indicator of the mounting resentment the local population is feeling about the millions of Muslims in their midst. –Photo by Reuters More and more, references to ‘unsustainable immigration’ in Europe are code for rising concerns about the ever-expanding Muslim presence there. Recently, Belgium passed a law banning any Islamic veil that covers the face. The logic is that those who can see other people’s faces should not be concealing their own. France is about to pass similar legislation, and no doubt other countries will do so as well.
Although the number of Muslim women affected by these laws is tiny, this shift away from the generally tolerant attitudes of the past is an indicator of the mounting resentment the local population is feeling about the millions of Muslims in their midst. Last year, a YouTube video called “Muslim Demographics” was viewed by over eleven million people. The video contrasts low European birth rates with the rapid growth of European Muslims, and then indulges in demographic fantasy by extrapolating concocted figures to conjure up a scenario in which locals in many cities would be outnumbered by Muslims.

[Philip]

More exposes on how the shameful "annexation" of Diego Garcia was accomplished and how there has been a conspiracy between the British and US to keep the islanders from returning to their homelands.

Excerpts: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 104266.ece

Study into return of Chagos islanders was manipulated, consultant claims

Catherine Philp and Dominic Kennedy

A supposedly independent study on the feasibility of letting the exiled Chagos islanders go back to their homes was manipulated to reflect the British Government’s opposition to their return, a Times investigation has revealed.

The 2002 feasibility study lies at the centre of the Government’s case to the European Court of Human Rights on the islanders’ right to return to the archipelago four decades after they were deported from Diego Garcia to make way for an American military base.

In its submission to the court the Government contended that the study, “which was prepared and adopted by all the independent experts involved, clearly indicated that resettlement is not feasible”. However, one of those independent experts, Stephen Akester, said his conclusions that the islands could be resettled were erased from the study amid political pressure.

Mr Akester, whose consulting firm MacAlister, Elliott and Partners won the joint contract with Posford Haskoning, sketched out three scenarios by which Chagossians could resettle outer atolls nearly 200 miles (322km) from Diego Garcia without damaging ecosystems or compromising the operations of the military base.

Related Links
Islanders' fury as UK creates marine reserve
Shameful story of Chagos Islands
Don’t forget the role of Chagos Islanders

His conclusions chime closely with those of the 2000 preliminary feasibility study, which concluded that “there is no obvious physical reason why one or both of the two [outer] atolls should not be repopulated”.

Between the two studies the political climate changed, with the war in Afghanistan and impending Iraq invasion throwing new onus on the use of Diego Garcia as a military staging post. At the same time, the Chagos islanders had begun legal action against the British and US Governments. Their case became possible only after the release of documents on the deportation issued under the 30-year rule.

A memo sent to Mr Akester and the other consultants in March 2002 by the Posford Haskoning project manager, Alexandra Holland, describes Alan Huckle, the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territories, opening a meeting “by reiterating the political importance of the forthcoming feasibility study report” which had been “heightened by recent events”, namely, the legal case.

By the time that the final study was released in June Mr Akester’s conclusions had been expunged. “We were told it did not survive the discussion with the client,” Mr Akester said. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that it had no surviving copies of the preliminary drafts.

David Snoxell, who served as British High Commissioner for Mauritius at the time, told The Times that Mr Akester’s revelations were “a clear indication that the study reached the conclusions that officials wanted to hear”. He added: “I do not think it was really intended to be an independent study, though FCO has ever since claimed it was.”

Mr Akester’s disclosure has prompted claims of vindication from John Howell, who carried out a feasibility study in 2008 on behalf of the Chagos Refugee Group. This also concluded that resettlement was viable.
----

Mr Akester’s preferred option for resettlement would have established an ecotourism resort, for which private investment would be available. During his study Mr Howell identified tourism operators in the Indian Ocean region keen to invest in any such venture, helping to mitigate the costs to the British Government. “To say, as the court submission does, that resettlement would entail ‘expensive underwriting by the UK for an open-ended period’ is just plain wrong,” he said.

If the Government loses the case in Strasbourg it may cost Britain more than any resettlement package. The islanders stand to win the right to return and damages that could potentially run into hundreds of millions of pounds. The FCO declined to

[Philip]

"The spoon is dear when lunch is near.."
Lovely quote from the article!

Russia and the new govt. in the Ukraine have agreed upon extentsion of the lease of the Sevastopol naval base for another 25 years for cheaper energy supplies.It is a major coup for both leaders and trashes the anti-Russian ambitions of the former disgraced leadership which was in cahoots with the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03836.html

Ukraine to extend Russia naval base lease, pay less for natural gas

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, left, and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych at a news conference in Kharkiv, Ukraine. (Vladimir Rodionov/associated Press) Network News

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 22, 2010

MOSCOW -- Ukraine's new president signed a deal Wednesday that allows Russia's Black Sea Fleet to stay in the country another 25 years, moving to ease a long-standing source of tension and giving Moscow its second foreign policy victory in the former Soviet Union this month.

Viktor Yanukovych and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, announced the breakthrough after a hastily scheduled summit in Kharkiv, Ukraine, saying that Ukraine will extend the lease on the Russian naval base in Sevastopol to 2042 in exchange for a steep discount on purchases of Russian natural gas.

"These issues are directly and unequivocally combined in the agreement," Medvedev said, describing the pact as "one of the first projects on the path of restoring good, neighborly relations between our countries."

Yanukovych's decision reverses the policy of his predecessor, who had vowed to expel the Russian fleet in 2017, when its current lease expires, and is the strongest sign yet that he will bring Ukraine closer to Russia after a five-year tilt toward the West.

Speaking by phone from Kiev, a senior Ukrainian diplomat sought to address any concerns in Washington about the move.

"We would like to assure our partners in the United States and other Western countries that the prolongation of the stay of the Black Sea Fleet on Ukrainian soil doesn't pose any threat to Ukraine's sovereignty, its independence or its European integration course," said Oleh Voloshin, director of information policy in the Foreign Ministry.

But the opposition in Ukraine denounced the deal as an act of treason and began mobilizing to defeat it. A parliamentary majority must ratify the pact, and the vote, scheduled for Tuesday, will be the first major test of Yanukovych's ruling coalition.

"The authorities have surrendered strategic national interests in order to get cheaper gas," said Boris Tarasyuk, an opposition party leader.

[Sanjay M]

The Russians naturally want their historic buffers, just like we don't want Nepal under China.
By your standard, why do the Ukrainians then have a right to expect subsidized gas?

Anyway, Yuschenko didn't use his power well when he had it, and neither did Timoshenko.
It's yet to be seen whether the parliament will ratify the treaty anyway. Hopefully they will, and a thorn in the side of relations will be removed.

[abhishek_sharma]

Helping Others Defend Themselves
The Future of U.S. Assistance

Robert M. Gates

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... themselves

In coming years, the greatest threats to the United States are likely to emanate from states that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory. The U.S. government must improve its ability to help its partners defend themselves or, if necessary, fight alongside U.S. troops.

ROBERT M. GATES is U.S. Secretary of Defense.

[svinayak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKula50N09U
January 2010
The Secret Race - World
Whilst the world has been distracted by the financial crisis crippling the global economy, one trade has been quietly thriving. As weapons trading escalates, the international arms race is picking up pace.

[ramana]

Northern Mexico is turning into FATA/WANA badlands.

[rsingh]

Prad It is better if you read some history books before commenting here ( instead discovery documentary). Russia not playing games in Maxico,cuba or Canada. US is pinching Russia in her own backyard. Ukraina was part of Russia for long time. Weak neighbour should never undermine interests of bigger neighbour. Ukraine does not share border with US............so be careful.
Your arguments sound like CNN 's impartial specialists which give comment on events. They talk about situation in Russia,Russian foreign policy and its implications.........................and in the end warn that Russia is re-emerging. Why so? Russia does not have right to progress?When was the last positive news you heard on BBC or CNN? And Russia is there. How come Chechens are good fighters (as per BBC) and Talibans are bad?
I have lived in Poltava (Ukraina) and Moscow. I have visited Central Asian countries.....................And I tell you these parts are going back to dark ages........Russian did so much for them. It is one thing to speak about human rights blah blah from comfortable chair but one need courage to praise the good work.

region have no interest in going back under the Russians' thumb

What about people who want to be part of proud superpower again? How you came to this conclusion? Go and talk to any EX soviet and you will hear the truth.

[Sanjay M]

that is exactly my point: countries do what they must; they will do what they feel is necessary for their geopolitics. if Russia can directly meddle in Eastern Europe, then US can even more directly meddle in those areas especially considering the people native to the region have no interest in going back under the Russians' thumb. and just like Russia's behavior is rationalized as a need for buffer zones, America's behavior is rationalized as the need to prevent powerful Eurasian hegemons from rising.

Nonsense, it is Zbigniew Brzezinski who is the originator of this argument that the US must meddle in Europe to prevent hegemons(aka."Grand Chessboard"). This argument is an Atlanticist argument made by those with extra-territorialist motivations. Those who spout this argument invariably position their own real mother countries to benefit from this interpretation of so-called "pursuit of American national interest".
Notice that these same people don't advocate that the US meddle as intensively around Chinese borders to prevent the rise of a Chinese hegemon. When China was rising and hogging up ever larger shares of the US national debt, where were these same voices? Silent, obviously, since China is located nowhere near their precious European motherlands which are the real beneficiaries of their arguments and loyalties.

also, there is another question concerning Russian buffer zones here: how far can Russia go before Russians apologists start questioning Russian behavior? is killing 7 million Ukrainian people ok in the name of buffer zones? all this goes back to my point: Russia gets away with much more compared to US. if US did even a quarter of the things that Russia has done, there would be unanimous condemnations. but apparently committing genocide in the name of geopolitics by Russia is completely ok. history has completely ignored and forgotten Russian attrocities in its 'buffer' zones. whereas in reality, Russia's crimes should be listed in the same space as that of Nazi Germany.

Those Ukrainians starved to death because of Stalin, and not because of Russian nationalism or national institutions. Stalin was a minority Georgian, and not a Russian. Minorities always lean towards extreme ideologies like communism, where they can create over-sized institutions that will help them to amplify the leverage of their naturally smaller demographic. Minorities do that everywhere, including in India and the USA. Look at Brzezinski's support of Trilateralism. Look at Obama's buddy Rahm talking about creating a youth corps. Look at the Kaangress youth.
Note that Georgia suffered none of what Ukraine suffered during the previous century.

anyway, i'll stop now before i go completely OT. peace.

and i'm not sure where i was talking about subsidized gas.

I raised the issue of gas in response to what you said about Ukrainian independence. Independence cuts both ways - if you tell your family to go to hell and say you want to live your own life apart from them, then stop going back to them to ask for an allowance.

[Prem]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... arches-on/
concern.

There’s another connection. The United States increasingly favors the emergence of India as a world and regional power. In the context of the Middle East and Africa, Americans see India as a stabilizing, anti-extremist force. More broadly, while the United States isn’t (and shouldn’t be) operating a policy of containment against China, the growing prosperity and power of India in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is an important positive factor in maintaining the kind of international order the United States wants to see. That means, among other things, that the United States is likely to look with more favor on transfers of technological know how and the sales of advanced weapons systems from Israel to India than from Israel to China. This preference reinforces the ties between the two most successful democracies to emerge from British colonialism in modern Asia.

The growing Israel-India connection is only beginning to make itself felt. Long term, the relationship provides Israel with another great power ally to supplement its relationship with the United States. From both a geopolitical and an economic point of view, the relationship with India helps assure Israel of a long-term future in the region. As India develops and its power grows, the Gulf Arabs, Iran (a natural long-term ally for both India and Israel once it moves beyond the delusional and dead-end geopolitical agenda of its current government), and countries like Sudan and Somalia will increasingly feel its influence. India and Israel, with the quiet blessing of the United States, can also do more to promote economic development and democracy in East Africa — a region that has historically had close links to India and which is of great strategic importance to Israel.