Geopolitical thread

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 May 2010 05:34

One would need to be creative to explain the demurring to the NPT, FMCT, or to India's refusal accept the suzerainty of Western co-conspirators at the Doha round of global trade talks or the Copenhagen round of climate change talks; one would need to be creative indeed, in explaining how the corrupt elites of India have managed to secretly and paradoxically maneuver India's position in alignment with the West's secret bidding, be it over the non-aligned movement or negotiating defense deals with the Soviets/Russians.

Occasionally paranoia is just that.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 May 2010 05:47

sanjaykumar wrote:One would need to be creative to explain the demurring to the NPT, FMCT, or to India's refusal accept the suzerainty of Western co-conspirators at the Doha round of global trade talks or the Copenhagen round of climate change talks; one would need to be creative indeed, in explaining how the corrupt elites of India have managed to secretly and paradoxically maneuver India's position in alignment with the West's secret bidding, be it over the non-aligned movement or negotiating defense deals with the Soviets/Russians.

Occasionally paranoia is just that.

One cannot be too sudden with the process of subversion. The first steps might be to appoint depraved and amoral individuals onto the Election Commission, gain control of a large chunk of the print and electronic media, and appoint corrupt and pliant persons to constitutional posts like the Presidency.

Uncooperative people can be squeezed out gradually, like how Shyam Saran was forced out of the Global warming team.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 May 2010 05:51

Of course, in the West they call it lobbying and patronage; in India they are more frank and call it corruption (being third-worlders and all).

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 May 2010 08:34

Japan Relents on U.S. Base on Okinawa

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/world ... japan.html

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 May 2010 09:27

Thai Violence Exposes Social Division Widened by Thaksin Ouster

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 May 2010 09:58

Writing in The Guardian after his visit to New Delhi, Cameron wrote: "For most of the past half century we in the west have assumed that we set the pace and we set the global agenda. Well now we must wake up to a new reality. We have to share global leadership with India, and with China".

"And we must recognise that India has established beyond argument, through its economic and political success, its right to a seat at the top table. India, one of the great civilisations of the world, is truly great again". http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 954167.cms

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 May 2010 11:00

Anti-Islam Protests in Poland

Poland has 30,000 Muslims? Gee, that means they only need to wait a couple of generations to get to 3 million.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 May 2010 11:07

Korean Tensions Grow as South Curbs Trade to North

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 May 2010 12:10

>>Agendas of nations can often take more than one century to work out.

Is this the same as “National interests of nations can often take more than one century to crystallise in the minds of their elites”?

>>Why Anglo-Saxon? It may in fact be more accurate to call it Sabbatean-Frankist rather than Anglo-Saxon.

Actually you can call it pretty much anything – although Sabbatean-Frankist is new to me. Call it Tsarist, or Zionist (hmm... there’s a thought there)..

>>Why not anybody else - because there is no evidence for any other entity pursuing a similarly active and successful program.

You mean all the available evidence has been sifted and it has been concluded that the only world domination plan out there is Sabbatean-Frankist? Last I heard, the Islamists, controlling the world’s primary energy resource, has exactly this in mind. And they make no secret of it. They may be fairly incompetent in the way they go about it, but their attempt to influence our elite is as clear as anything – plain and simple money, and not just our elites but those of other powerful countries too. And a part of the Islamic Empire ruled India and laid waste to it for much longer than the West ever did...

>>Consider the possibility that you may be just as unaware of the answers as you were of Carroll Quigley.

I think you may have misinterpreted the Bangalore, Kerala comment (a standing BRF joke by the way), to extrapolate about things I may or may not be aware of. I was simply pointing out the irony of justifying a theory based on the writings of a person who claims to be a supporter of what the theory lays out.

>>Just because you are unaware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I see. Does it mean that it does?

>>One has to make judgments about various entities based on information available.

Exactly right. Hence, I believe, Sanku’s query about Swapan.

>> If interpretations of known data points are given, it need not lead to anguish and wailing. People are perfectly free put up their own interpretations.

Again, exactly right. Although “anguish and wailing” are your characterisations I don’t necessarily concur with.

>>Anyway, let's move beyond Swapan

Actually, no. Let’s not. You may choose to move “beyond” Swapan. But the allegation that he is a mentally colonised individual, something apparently he is unaware of, is a central one to this debate (the one which started it off on its now meandering course). And none of the specific questions I have asked have been answered.

Nor has anyone suggested any ideas that can have a resonance with the majority of individuals across our country on what to DO about the problems that we are facing, different than what we are doing now.

And that is certainly part of the overall problem, the lack of a clear, reasonable, worldview which a majority of the population can subscribe to without making them feel uncomfortable, or that they have to abandon their attachment to stability of families, neighbourhoods, districts and the country - in other words, uncomfortable about disruptions to daily life, and about revolutionary change. While the proponents of the change that is supposedly going to make us more “Indic” are sidetracked by discussions about mental colonisation and ideological or civilisational fidelity.

So no, let’s not move “beyond” Swapan.

>>Let us also recognize the law of nature that corrupt, incompetent and credulous nations are the "low-hanging fruit" for other powers to pick off and wipe out.

I suppose you mean that India is corrupt, incompetent and credulous. I don’t agree. I don’t think it is sufficiently more corrupt, incompetent and credulous than other powers for them to simply pick us off and wipe us out.

>>Then we can discuss what we should be doing about it.

An interesting position which, going by the developments over the last two decades, suggests a fairly indefinite wait, because if anything has happened and we were ever “low hanging” over the past 60 years, over the past 20 we have become a little less low-hanging. And it does not look like we are going to get lower in the near future.

Another question: Do these elites have no agenda against Russia, China or Brazil (for instance)? Or is it only against India?

Meanwhile, somebody please attempt to answer some of the questions I have asked in previous posts, because I don’t see universal concurrence about India being “low hanging fruit” ready to be picked off happening anytime soon.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 May 2010 12:10

>>Poland has 30,000 Muslims? Gee, that means they only need to wait a couple of generations to get to 3 million.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 May 2010 14:35

JE Menon wrote:>>Agendas of nations can often take more than one century to work out.

Is this the same as “National interests of nations can often take more than one century to crystallise in the minds of their elites”?

Hmm ... what you are saying is different, but it does have validity.

>>Why not anybody else - because there is no evidence for any other entity pursuing a similarly active and successful program.

You mean all the available evidence has been sifted and it has been concluded that the only world domination plan out there is Sabbatean-Frankist?

Yes, the only one that, at the present time, is active and has a fair amount of success.

Last I heard, the Islamists, controlling the world’s primary energy resource, has exactly this in mind. And they make no secret of it. They may be fairly incompetent in the way they go about it, but their attempt to influence our elite is as clear as anything – plain and simple money, and not just our elites but those of other powerful countries too. And a part of the Islamic Empire ruled India and laid waste to it for much longer than the West ever did...

Yes, you are right that the Islamists have such an agenda and that they are not going about it competently.

I was simply pointing out the irony of justifying a theory based on the writings of a person who claims to be a supporter of what the theory lays out.

No reason why Carroll Quigley cannot be a source. Although he is only one amongst the thousands of sources that we have.

>>Just because you are unaware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I see. Does it mean that it does?

It might!

>>Anyway, let's move beyond Swapan

Actually, no. Let’s not. You may choose to move “beyond” Swapan. But the allegation that he is a mentally colonised individual, something apparently he is unaware of, is a central one to this debate (the one which started it off on its now meandering course). And none of the specific questions I have asked have been answered.

Nor has anyone suggested any ideas that can have a resonance with the majority of individuals across our country on what to DO about the problems that we are facing, different than what we are doing now.

Several posts back I gave a succinct summary of the information available, and my interpretation thereof. As to what to DO - yes that's what we need to move on to.

And that is certainly part of the overall problem, the lack of a clear, reasonable, worldview which a majority of the population can subscribe to without making them feel uncomfortable, or that they have to abandon their attachment to stability of families, neighbourhoods, districts and the country - in other words, uncomfortable about disruptions to daily life, and about revolutionary change.

Ahaa! Congratulations my dear JEM, this is a delicious paragraph. A fear of instability. A threat to one's mental model of the world, the certitudes that one has been brought up with since infancy.

That is precisely why so many Americans feel so deeply threatened by the "conspiracy theories" that suggest that the elites controlling the US were themselves involved in the 9/11 attack. The natural reaction is to lash out with vehement scorn and ridicule. Yet, for anybody with a little curiosity, who isn't totally brainwashed by the controlled media, the evidence is overwhelming.

For most of the population, comfortable delusions are preferable to uncomfortable reality!

>>Let us also recognize the law of nature that corrupt, incompetent and credulous nations are the "low-hanging fruit" for other powers to pick off and wipe out.

I suppose you mean that India is corrupt, incompetent and credulous. I don’t agree. I don’t think it is sufficiently more corrupt, incompetent and credulous than other powers for them to simply pick us off and wipe us out.

>>Then we can discuss what we should be doing about it.

An interesting position which, going by the developments over the last two decades, suggests a fairly indefinite wait, because if anything has happened and we were ever “low hanging” over the past 60 years, over the past 20 we have become a little less low-hanging. And it does not look like we are going to get lower in the near future.

Another question: Do these elites have no agenda against Russia, China or Brazil (for instance)? Or is it only against India?

Meanwhile, somebody please attempt to answer some of the questions I have asked in previous posts, because I don’t see universal concurrence about India being “low hanging fruit” ready to be picked off happening anytime soon.

I would say we have definitely become more "low-hanging" over the past decade. These elites do have Russia, China and Brazil on their agenda. But the top leadership of these countries is far less compromised than the top leadership of ours. In that sense we are worse off on the corruption, incompetence and credulity metric.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 May 2010 14:56

>>Ahaa! Congratulations my dear JEM, this is a delicious paragraph. A fear of instability....For most of the population, comfortable delusions are preferable to uncomfortable reality!

And the point remains - unless the uncomfortably "realistic" worldview that is being recommended as an alternative to the current "brainwashing" is able to articulate itself in a clear, reasonable, and broadly digestible manner that is at least to some extent able to withstand rational questioning, it hasn't got a hope in hell. I have yet to see the compromises that are necessary for these changes being made, mostly floundering on the illusionary notions of ideological purity or civilisational fidelity.

This is why it is so difficult to articulate any real practical measures about what we can actually DO that is substantially different from what we are doing now ... and still maintain the prospects for prosperity and incremental growth in strategic autonomy.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 May 2010 15:04

JE Menon wrote:>>Ahaa! Congratulations my dear JEM, this is a delicious paragraph. A fear of instability....For most of the population, comfortable delusions are preferable to uncomfortable reality!

And the point remains - unless the uncomfortably "realistic" worldview that is being recommended as an alternative to the current "brainwashing" is able to articulate itself in a clear, reasonable, and broadly digestible manner that is at least to some extent able to withstand rational questioning, it hasn't got a hope in hell. I have yet to see the compromises that are necessary for these changes being made, mostly floundering on the illusionary notions of ideological purity or civilisational fidelity.

This is why it is so difficult to articulate any real practical measures about what we can actually DO that is substantially different from what we are doing now ... and still maintain the prospects for prosperity and incremental growth in strategic autonomy.

Clear, reasonable, rational material is certainly available. For Americans interested in the 9/11 attack, for example, the works of people like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are highly recommended.

Some of the good material is harder to read - Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman and Quigley fall into that category.

The majority, however, cannot make the mental effort necessary to evaluate anything that falls outside their programming. Progress is being made, but slowly.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 May 2010 17:33

Who is articulating such a view for the Indians?

In his own humble, SDRE, way, Swapan is one of them. He may not be doing it "exactly" as the as yet unnamed, unidentified, self-appointed and therefore almost certainly unworthy judges of civilisational fidelity would like, but then again it's a free country, relatively speaking.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 May 2010 17:41

Pranav wrote:Clear, reasonable, rational material is certainly available. For Americans interested in the 9/11 attack, for example, the works of people like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are highly recommended.

Conspiracy theorists?
The controlled demolition nonsense?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 May 2010 18:32

Gerard wrote:
Pranav wrote:Clear, reasonable, rational material is certainly available. For Americans interested in the 9/11 attack, for example, the works of people like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are highly recommended.
Conspiracy theorists?
The controlled demolition nonsense?

I guess you are a believer that "Osama did 9/11". Good luck. Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion into that direction. Some other time, maybe.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 May 2010 18:37

There are fora elsewhere on the Internet more suited for discussions of that nature.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 May 2010 18:43

Gerard wrote:There are fora elsewhere on the Internet more suited for discussions of that nature.

I had mentioned that topic only in the context of understanding the psychology of people unable to process information that falls outside their "programming".

Am not pursuing that now.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 May 2010 21:02

>>No reason why Carroll Quigley cannot be a source. Although he is only one amongst the thousands of sources that we have.

No reason indeed. However, Quigley has been picked as a source. It must be done with the full knowledge and disclosure that he is someone who explained and supported this theory that is being promoted only up to a point. And not in the way that it is being promoted. Note:

---------------------------------------------
Quigley was later dismissive of authors who used his writings to support theories of a world domination conspiracy. Of W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist he stated:

"Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. I'm not an 'insider' of these rich persons, although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940."[25]

On Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy he said:

"They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything. For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that. Further, None Dare Call It Conspiracy insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940, when they became less influential than monopolized industry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
---------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, I first read Quigley a couple of years ago, I believe on Ramana's recommendation. He is a cogent and engaging writer, very much a product of his times - and brave enough to explore the road less travelled by. But his writing has been used often as justification for some rather outlandish claims. And he says so himself, above.

Like I said before, the problem with much of this is that there is little in the way of ideas about what to actually do about it.

However, an idea is a funny thing. Once it is out there, it is out there. As Fox/Sculley say: "The Truth is Out There"... but much depends on the sequel phrase "I Want to Believe".

BTW, there's this chap called Bob Lazar. Read him up. Very very engaging and convincing stuff. But, the question is, do you want to believe. Here, knock yourselves out:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Bob-Laza ... =firefox-a

Technically, above is not OT because if it's true, we need to wholly reconfigure our geo-political strategy...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2010 21:20

Guys can we get back to topic? Lets agree to disagree. If we don't have two opinions its a group think and that was what India's support for non-alignment even after FSU collapse. Its easy when there are two groups. When there is a sole hyper power and others its more difficult. What we are doing here is to understand how things worked and try to interpret events as they happen. We are too miniscule to make an impact. The max we can hope for is we get better understanding of events as they happen and be informed.

And if we had Indian thinkers we wouldn't be arguing about Quigley/Wigley. And original revolutionary Indian thinkers have not yet emerged.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 May 2010 21:34

Absolutely. And the next time anyone feels like making arbitrary allegations about mental colonisation and grand agendas guided by unknown figures, I suggest a revisit of this thread and the posts on the past few pages. It will save a lot of regurgitation.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 May 2010 22:07

JE Menon wrote: "They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything. For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that. Further, None Dare Call It Conspiracy insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940, when they became less influential than monopolized industry

We do not rely on Quigley alone. As regards funding the Bolsheviks, there are other reliable sources that show that Jacob Schiff of New York contributed a large amount. Members of Warburg clan from Germany were also involved. It is to be noted that the Schiff and Rothschild families used to share a house in Frankfurt's Judengasse. There are many matrimonial connections between these families.

As regards bankers being "much divided" ... it would probably be more accurate to say that there have been conflicts in which they have funded both sides.

As regards whether the "bankers" were much reduced in power post 1931, these words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (written in 1933, I believe) are worth pondering over:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House (President Wilson's handler)

Another quote, this time from 1950:

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

James Paul Warburg, in the United States Senate, on February 17, 1950

James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany.

Incidentally, Paul Moritz Warburg was one of the leading figures behind the formation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Corporation, which at present issues the US dollar.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 May 2010 06:49

JE Menon wrote:However, Quigley has been picked as a source. It must be done with the full knowledge and disclosure that he is someone who explained and supported this theory that is being promoted only up to a point. And not in the way that it is being promoted.

It is known that efforts were made to suppress Quigley's book (see http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14629). Therefore it would not be surprising if he felt constrained to do some back-pedaling, to put a more innocuous spin on the subject.

Let's take a closer look at Cecil Rhodes, who Quigley mentions as being part of the syndicate. Rhodes' ventures in Southern Africa were being financed by the Rothschilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild ... of_England). (Important to note such connections)

Now let's look at what Rhodes was saying about the plans of the syndicate: He wanted "a scheme to take the government of the whole world" and felt that "the only thing feasible to carry out this idea is a secret society gradually absorbing the wealth of the world, to be devoted to this object". These quotes of Rhodes are from a front page biography in the New York Times of 9 April 1902, entitled "Mr Rhodes's idea of Anglo-Saxon Greatness". (See http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HQFZ ... ct&f=false and also http://bioleft.tripod.com/rhodes.htm)

Despite Quigley's back-pedaling, he does not appear to have ever recanted his view that

The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences (p. 324, Tragedy and Hope, 1966)

Compare with the views expressed by the famous historian Arnold J. Toynbee in 1931:

I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be — perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited.

- Arnold J. Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War," International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809

All of this aligns with the statement of James Paul Warburg, made in the US Senate in 1950, mentioned in the previous post.

So, the goals of the syndicate include (1) absorbing all the wealth of the world, and (2) a dictatorial system of world governance, to be achieved, if not by consent, then by conquest .

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 May 2010 07:21

U.S. Said to Order Further Clandestine Military Action

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 May 2010 21:05

Sharmine Narwani.Senior Associate, St. Antony's College, Oxford University
Washington Just Lost the Middle East In BIg Way

With no real cost to bear, the sympathy of the larger international community, and - now - a genuine compromise to wave in front of detractors, Iran is sitting pretty, leaving us to look like a churlish, patronizing bully that chooses to lead with club in hand.
In a rapidly changing Middle East, this fight with Iran is just churning up trouble for us and underlining our own shrinking relevance on the world stage. Iran's deal with Turkey and Brazil and our subsequent sanctions threat has demonstrated conclusively that the US is not necessary for brokering deals, and may in fact even be an impediment to conflict resolution.And this perception makes our regional allies uncomfortable enough to investigate their options - specifically, dealing with those we call our foes. Regional state and non-state actors will be taking note of the against-all-odds success of the tripartite deal, and wondering if they should look more locally for Arab-Israeli peacebrokering too.The US needs to take a page out of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's foreign policy playbook before taking another false step in the Mideast. This is geopolitical thought leadership the likes of which we haven't seen in more than half a century. Diplomacy 101 you could call it. I'd like to call it our "last chance to practice what we preach

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine- ... 86222.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2010 21:15

Iran has very useful geopolitical role.

Alone among the countries in Middle east it can attract a against it a coalition of Anglo-Saxon powers (US, UK, Canada and Australia), Sunni Arab powers: KSA and the little Sheikhdoms in Gulf.

Turkey is a fence sitter and so is TSP.

In favor of Iran will be Russia, PRC. France will be fence sitter so long as Iran whips up anti-Zionist propaganda.

India will be a fence sitter so long as US is on other side of the group. If US moves closer to TSP then India will change its stance.

The Iranians should do their outmost to survive and exist for by doing that they make the others weary and irrelevant.

I see the Turkey move as part of the Iranian strategy to survive.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 May 2010 00:28

It might be helpful for folks to go thru this site and understand the US

Uty of Virgina:

US Diplomatic History since 1914

and

Course Readings

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 May 2010 03:25

Anglo-Saxons are worried about Germany in Europe and Russia in Asia. All else is nautanki.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 May 2010 03:28

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 77148.html

U.S. Regains Favor in Parts of Asia
—The Obama administration's talks with China this week won few new commitments from Beijing on global security challenges, particularly when it comes to looming showdowns with North Korea and Iran. But Beijing's increasing diplomatic and military assertiveness is unnerving its Asian neighbors in ways that could bolster the U.S.'s strategic position in the region.Fears that China is siding with Pyongyang over the North's alleged sinking of a South Korean naval vessel in March has rattled South Korea's and Japan's governments and re-energized their commitments to military alliances with the U.S., according to officials from both countries.
Japanese Prime Minister ...

( Another Nautanki Since 70s)

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 May 2010 06:20

ramana wrote:Anglo-Saxons are worried about Germany in Europe and Russia in Asia. All else is nautanki.

Russian relations with the "Anglo-Saxons" are complex. For example, in the recent Georgia war over South Ossetia, the US and Israel did help the Georgian side. And Putin has cracked down on the oligarchs, who then got refuge in London and Israel. But that has not stopped Russia from doing business with Israel - in fact, Russia recently ordered some drone aircraft from Israel. Russia has also been delaying supply of the S-300 system to Iran.

The German Supreme Court recently banned electronic voting. So German democracy appears to be on a stable footing. The possibility is that Germany may eventually slip out of "Anglo-Saxon" hands, like Turkey.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 May 2010 07:17

Israel is not part of Anglo Saxon world.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 May 2010 07:20

ramana wrote:Israel is not part of Anglo Saxon world.

Israel's mentors are the elite of the "Anglo-Saxon" world, no?

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 May 2010 07:40

Support is "Blood money" for the holocaust...and a thank you for getting out of Europe.

This is only for short term. No one is more aware of this than the Israelis. Note that the paleo-cons have always had their reservations on this tactical alliance.

Should a choice have to be made between arabs/turks and Israel....and that hour is fast approaching!!!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 May 2010 08:11

Paul wrote:Support is "Blood money" for the holocaust...and a thank you for getting out of Europe.

This is only for short term. No one is more aware of this than the Israelis. Note that the paleo-cons have always had their reservations on this tactical alliance.

Should a choice have to be made between arabs/turks and Israel....and that hour is fast approaching!!!

I don't know about that - The Israel project has had the support of western elites from its very inception. In fact, should a choice have to be made between America and Israel, western elites may well choose Israel!

Here is the "Balfour Declaration" of 1917:

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 26 May 2010 08:20

I wouldn't say it is just blood money, the newer generations of conservatives truly like and respect Jews. They have a different set of bad guys now. Note how Jean Marie Le Pen was pro Jewish and waxed about France's Judeo-Christian culture a few years earlier.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 26 May 2010 10:03

Since the revolution, Iran has been a thorn in the side of US grand strategy for Asia, because it prevents Anglo Saxon empire (ASE) from dominating a contiguoug region from Egypt to Pakistan.

(Libya was in the doghouse for so long for a similar reason. Since it has started cooperating with ASE, it has become 'civilized' in their eyes again.

Iran US rapproachment is IMpossible unless Iran submits to US geostrategic imperatives - which is impossible. Especially when Russia will enable Iran to resist the US.

Russia has two important concerns wrt US Iran relations - first is checkmating US domination of the region. The second is even more important - keeping Iranian oil out of the market, thus inflating energy prices to the benefit of Russia's energy-export dependant economy.

So expect the current imbroglio to continue.

---------

What is remarkable about the current situation is just how powerless the US is, and how unnoticed its impotency is around the world.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 May 2010 10:28

Paul wrote:thank you for getting out of Europe

=====

Pranav wrote:
Paul wrote:Support is "Blood money" for the holocaust...and a thank you for getting out of Europe.

This is only for short term. No one is more aware of this than the Israelis. Note that the paleo-cons have always had their reservations on this tactical alliance.

Should a choice have to be made between arabs/turks and Israel....and that hour is fast approaching!!!
I don't know about that - The Israel project has had the support of western elites from its very inception. In fact, should a choice have to be made between America and Israel, western elites may well choose Israel!

Here is the "Balfour Declaration" of 1917:

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 26 May 2010 11:29

About 7-8 years ago, I had made the assessment that a German-Russian alliance will be the biggest challenge ASE ever faces.

The reasons I gave then hold true today, and are the same as in the Stratfor article - namely a remarkable synergy between the two - raw materials, educated manpower, markets, technology, and investments - each has what the other needs.

An alliance between the two will make Eurasia the center of the world again, and will relagate the sea power based ASE into second class position. It was precisely this fear (Berlin Baghdad trainline) that triggered WW1, and has been a bone of contention between ASE and Germany ever since.

A German-Russian economic partnership will make both countries less dependant on the US for a variety of things and may end ASE influence in continental Europe eventually.

Its impact on India is likely to be ambibvalent - both positive and negative. Negative because we may loss some market share for low/medium tech goods (pharmaceuticals, etc) in Russia. Positive would be mostly in the form of increased political stability in Asia. What it would certainly do is increase US's dependance on local partners. How India benefits from that depends entirely on how we play our cards. I mean, look at the diplomatic fiasco wrt Iran that the MMS govt led us through. <<RANT START>> We enraged a country that has been very useful to us on a wide range of issues - from paki terrorism to energy security, and we walk over them for nothing expect because America asked so? Is there no end to MMS' stupidity? <<RANT END>>

----------

On the whole, a German-Russian alliance will create the fourth complete empire in the world - the other three being US, India, and China.
By a complete empire, I mean an economic superstructure that includes under one roof - raw materials, large market, technological capability, industrial capacity, and finance. German-Russian empire would be potentially stronger than others because these elements would be largely available inside its borders.

Managing this will be the real challenge for the other three in the coming decades.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 26 May 2010 13:25

Are you not exaggerating Germany's power a little bit? I think Empire is a huge stretch, considering that US GDP is 7x bigger than Germany and Russia put together. As for German-Russian alliance, how can that be possible when Germany's twin is France? A European consortium led by Germany, and friendly with Russia IMO would be more likely.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 26 May 2010 14:00

In this context:
empire==large economic system (not necessarily a military power)

India and China also have small GDPs, but I used the same world for them.