I can't speak for America, but from an American, I do not approve of any aggression against peaceful peoples wishing to live in peace and harmony with other peoples. I am hoping to understand from your posts why this conflict exists. MSM tells us that the seperatists are loyal to communism and Putin. MSM tries to paint Putin as the enemy of America. I don't believe Putin to be a really good guy but I also don't see him as a true enemy. Is this conflict about territorial rights which enable the flow of natural resources to and from large Weastern markets?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think its about western banks wanting title to future tax revenue (rather than Russian banks). The inconvenient reality to such imperialism is that sometimes civilians are already there. Previously whole nations were butchered (Armenia, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay...all lost 50+% of their citizens), but now with the interwebs it doesn't really work anymore.
Press on Patrick! Its hard for us to realize that our desires for consistent relative wealth means a country needs to be digested every year. Maybe one day we'll stop, I don't know.
Full explanation is here from the murderous architect himself:
IMI- Analysis – Understanding the Grand Chessboard – Leading German Think Tank
http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/
IMI-Analyse 2009/013, in: IMI/DFG-VK: Kein Frieden mit der NATO
Imperial Geopolitics: Ukraine, Georgia and the New Cold War between NATO and Russia
von: Martin Hantke | Veröffentlicht am: 1. Januar 2009
Drucken
Hier finden sich ähnliche Artikel
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand current and future U.S., EU and NATO policy. Over ten years ago the former National Security Advisor gave a graphic description of the imperatives of imperial geopolitics. He argued that the U.S.A.’s position of supremacy should be preserved under all circumstances. To this end NATO, acting as a “bridgehead” of the U.S.A., should expand into Eurasia and take control of geostrategically important regions so as to prevent Russia’s resurgence as a powerful political force.
Brzezinski had in mind two countries or regions in particular: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.” “However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”1 Brzezinski argued further that there was an imperative need to gain control of the southern Caucasus, i.e. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, on Russia’s southern flank. The past master of U.S. geopolitics set out the aim and purpose of NATO policy with impressive clarity: “The United States and the NATO countries – while sparing Russia’s self-esteem to the extent possible, but nevertheless firmly and consistently – are destroying the geopolitical foundations which could, at least in theory, allow Russia to hope to acquire the status as the number two power in world politics that belonged to the Soviet Union.
In the years that followed, these words were systematically put into political practice with NATO taking its eastward expansion right up to Moscow’s borders. Furthermore, active Western support for the “colourful revolutions” in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004) led to the sitting pro-Russian or neutral governments and presidents being ousted by pro-Western candidates.
Russia regarded NATO’s policy as crossing the “red line”. As the war between Russia and Georgia in the summer of 2008 showed, Russia is no longer prepared to stand idly by in the face of further attempts at expansion. Nevertheless, the Western military alliance is doggedly pursuing its escalation policy, in which Ukraine and Georgia are now being offered NATO membership as a means of safeguarding the “successes” that have been scored. U.S. President Barack Obama is also in favour of these two countries joining NATO.4 The announcement that Michael McFaul, a hardliner on policy towards Moscow, is to be appointed senior director for Russian affairs at the National Security Council gives little cause for hope that Washington under its new president will abandon its aggressive, anti-Russian policy. This amounts to tacit acceptance that the New Cold War between NATO and Russia, invoked so frequently of late, will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.