Excellent Russia-Georgia Analysis from George Friedman

[Chui]

Bart, Russia supplies 50% of EU's LNG and they (i.e., Gazprom) is expanding it's business in Ireland. The BTC pipeline is an attempt to take Azerbajiani oil and bring it to Israel. I think Ashkelon and/or Eilat are the two places it's ultimately supposed to go. That will involve taking land from Lebanon and Syria believe it or not... so look for more intense conflict in the Middle East in the near term.

GlobalRearch.ca has some phenomenally well-researched articles that support what I've written and if you look up some of the key words and phrases you'll find that they are not the only ones who make the same claim. Some of the sources may surprise you but I find it frustrating that none of this makes the mainstream news sources so we, the people, remain ignorant.

But this is why I returned to this thread:

Russia Tells US: Days of Deference are Over
By By Christopher Boian
8/15/2008
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=130145

Going to battle in the Caucasus, Russia has now directly challenged US pre-eminence in world affairs, serving notice that the days of automatic deference to Washington’s desires are over, experts said. Russia has long complained about US “double standards” it says allow the United States to act as it chooses in world affairs with impunity while demanding others respect rules of conduct written by Washington anyway.

In the current crisis, Russian officials have evoked terms like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” to justify their country’s actions that unmistakeably echo US language in past dramas from the Balkans to Iraq.

And in doing so, the Kremlin has telegraphed a calculated message to the United States that Moscow will henceforth feel free to pursue its interests in the world in precisely the same way that Washington does, analysts explained.

“The US push for Kosovo independence, for NATO expansion and other issues all faced Russia’s vehement protest,” said Maria Lipman, a political analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Centre, the Russian branch of a US-based think tank.

“But the US always went ahead anyway and ignored Russia. Putin has tried to use harsh rhetoric, including the Munich speech, to send a message, but the US would not pay attention.”

She was referring to a speech in February 2007 given by then-president Vladimir Putin in Munich in which he strongly attacked US international behaviour.

“Now Russia has acted in this conflict... to show that it is strong again and that Russia must be reckoned with,” Lipman said. Russian diplomacy on key issues spanning the globe has become increasingly adversarial with Washington. On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the Georgian leadership as a “special project” for the United States.

“At some time it will be necessary to choose between the prestige of this relatively virtual project and partnership on questions that require collective action,” he added. “Yes, this is a message for the United States,” commented Sergei Markov, a Russian lawmaker and political expert whose views tend to reflect Kremlin policy.

“The message is that the West has reached the limit beyond which Russia will not back down,” he said.

Like others in Moscow, Markov believes that Russia holds the moral high ground, having repelled Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, and that gives it the right to go head-to-head with Washington.

“It is not Russia’s behaviour that is scandalous but that of the United States,” he said.

For independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, Russia’s military intervention in Georgia was aimed squarely at blocking any further encroachment by NATO into what Moscow has for centuries regarded as its backyard.

“Russia’s war in Georgia was aimed at expelling the Americans and NATO from the southern Caucasus,” Felgenhauer explained. “It was provoked by Georgia’s decision to join NATO,” a goal fervently supported by the United States but which has been approached far more cautiously by some of the group’s powerful member states in Europe.

In addition to bristling at the steady expansion of the US-led alliance, the Russia has been deeply alarmed by Washington’s plans to set up a new missile defence system on its doorstep in eastern Europe.

This too has contributed greatly to a view among Russia’s ruling elites that the United States, despite its denials, harbours ulterior motives as it rapidly collects new allies near Russia among states once firmly in Moscow’s control.

“The US and its allies have far-reaching plans,” Igor Yavlyansky, a commentator on political affairs, wrote Thursday in the daily Izvestia.

“They want not only to take control of the territory between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, but also to spread their influence through Central Asia all the way to Mongolia.

“This ‘corridor’ would boost control of ‘rogue states’ Iran and North Korea and — far more importantly — of Russia and China,” Yavlyansky wrote.

THIS IS BEST EXPLAINED BY ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI'S 1997 BOOK THE GRAND CHESSBOARD. IT CAN BE DOWNLOADED HERE: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

But Russia’s decision to behave on the same terms as the United States is flawed both in theory and practice, analysts said.

In logical terms, Russian leaders have in recent years harshly criticised US actions: but that makes it harder now for Moscow to argue that it is entitled to behave in the same way. And in concrete terms, while the United States has been criticised for unilateralism and intervention without UN approval, its actions have not cost it allies and it remains a global “centre of attraction.” “Russia has no allies,” Lipman said. “And nobody is accepting the notion that Russia has acted as a ‘good nation’.”

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart, Russia supplies 50% of EU's LNG and they (i.e., Gazprom) is expanding it's business in Ireland.

Russia does supply Europe with a large amount of natural gas (LNG is traditionally used to refer to Liquified Natural Gas - Russia generally transports its natural gas through pipelines, not as LNG). This makes Europe somewhat dependent on Russia; but doesn't really have much to do with BTC, which moves crude.

The BTC pipeline is an attempt to take Azerbajiani oil and bring it to Israel.

The BTC pipeline brings crude to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan where it can be shipped to Europe or other local consumers. It does not go to Israel (though it is conveniently located if Israel needs to buy crude). The name BTC stands for "Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan" by the way.

I think Ashkelon and/or Eilat are the two places it's ultimately supposed to go. That will involve taking land from Lebanon and Syria believe it or not... so look for more intense conflict in the Middle East in the near term.

As noted, the BTC does not go to Israel or plan to go to Israel; but let's assume for a second that the intention is to get crude oil to Israel (though most of BTC's crude goes to Western Europe). Would it make economical sense to fight two wars (Lebanon and Syria) and expend all the infrastructure costs of extending the pipeline when you can already just ship it the short distance from Ceyhan to Israel?

I get the feeling you are a bit confused here.

 

[RangerHAAF]

The more that I look at the geographic location of Poland relative to Russia, the less convinced I am of US motives and the missle shield. Why would Iran want to attack Poland? Israel, I understand but Poland, Georgia or Ukraine? Putting those missles and US advisors into central Europe just doesn't make any kind of tactical sense.

 

[mushoot]

I have been trying to follow this on another board without much success. Your discussion is intelligent and very informative. Keep up the good work. John

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Locating the interceptors in Poland gives them a very good intercept window for any missile targeting Europe.

What mystifies me is why after the Cold War Russia couldn't just act like any other country?

Why not have the same relationship with us that Japan or Australia or Italy has?

Why continue the adversarial stuff? Why is it necessary?

Are they really afraid "The West" is going to invade them or something? Europe just doesn't do that stuff anymore. The Germans are getting rid of like 75% of their armored vehicle inventory.

Take into account Europe's shrinking, rapidly aging population and their tiny defense budgets and Russia is having a really hard time convincing me they have reason to feel "threatened" by the West.

And America? The Germans invaded Russia with something close to 350 divisions.

How many divisions do we have these days?

Russia's behavior simply isn't rational. It's like they need to be confrontational.

Overflights by TU-95 Bears? What the hell for?

Can't we just ignore them or something?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Are they really afraid "The West" is going to invade them or something? Europe just doesn't do that stuff anymore. The Germans are getting rid of like 75% of their armored vehicle inventory.

Give the Pat Buchanan article I posted earlier a read. It gives some nice examples of why the Russians feel concerned about this - particularly given their geographical location and history.

 

[RangerHAAF]

The eastern countries of Europe and Asia are made up of groups of people who have an entirely different mindset from the rest of the industrial world.

They are use to lording it over very large populations and huge armies; therefore whatever it takes to win their battles and accomplish their mission is their primary concern, no matter how many people are lost. They don't want to live in peace with the rest of the world, they want to control and keep their territories.

This mindset goes back thousands of years. Consider the Roman enemies from the east: Mithridates of Pontus(Armenia), The Parthians, etc. There can never be total peace with the east. So we should get use to it.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

I did read the Buchanan piece.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Sorry, but the Russians seemed just a bit "too" ready for this. The speed with which their cyberwar was executed, everything, strongly suggests the Russians had this planned well in advance.

Throughout history, when a Russian operation goes off this well it is because it was planned WELL in advance. Like when they overtook Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Russian operations that begin with them being caught totally flatfooted, like Barbarossa, show a characteristic "skeedaddle".

Ossetian rebels provoked at Georgian response at the behest of Moscow so that Moscow could then execute it's plan. It's just a variation of the old "the Poles just attacked our radio station!" line.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Sure, if you're just taking into account that ONE skirmish on the border. If you are considering oh, the last 40 years worth of rocket attacks and terrorist support originating out of Lebanon, the length of bombing makes perfect sense. How much year after year nickel and dime terrorist attacks would we tolerate before we did something similiar?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

There was this whole "ethnic cleansing" mass murder stuff going on, if Pat will recall. It was a little more involved than just a real estate dispute.

And what exactly were Russia's ethnic and historical claims to Lithuania? Remember when they sent in the troops there? Looks like a historical pattern of behavior to me...

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated.

Yes, we did. Along with most of the millions of people LIVING in those 15 nations who were tired of being treated like vassal states by Moscow, which also, btw, oversaw the elimination of their democratically elected governments and civil rights.

Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

I don't have any indignation over it. I just don't like obviously staged events leading to the old cliche of Russian tanks rolling into other people's capitol cities.

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

Show me any conservative speaker or pundit who's argument's central tenet is they demand Ossetia stay in Georgia.

But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

News flash. The Russians were the bad guys. You know, the guys who went into Afghanistan and seeded the ground with bombs disguised as toys so childrens' arms would be blown off? The guys who rolled through Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia univited and used tanks to "convince" all those people they would now surrender their private property and live as communists?

Yeah, those guys. Is not EASTERN EUROPEAN anger understandable? Doesn't it make sense they'd run from Russia to NATO as quickly as possible?

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

Gosh, wasn't that just so nice and voluntary on their part? That's like giving credit to the Germans for having the good manners and upbringing to intentionally lose WWII...

Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Actually, our pledge--in writing, which the Russians signed off on after reading--was that no NATO forces would NEVER occupy the former territory of East Germany.

And seeing as how Russia NEVER gave anybody the choice of whether or not to join the Warsaw Pact, don't you think those countries freely choosing to join NATO of their own accord is kind of....a refreshing change?

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

I guess they were under the crazy idea that those two countries could freely associate and make alliances with whoever they want.

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs.

Yep, and they still aren't trying to develop such ICBMs or bombs to this day. We should obviously wait until they've succeeded and THEN start working on defenses.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.

Revolutions? They looked like democratic elections to me. And how many pro-Moscow politicians did we attempt to kill with dioxin during all that? Oh wait, that was probably Russia...

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

First of all, we are not morally equivalent to Russia. Never have been. So comparing how we would feel to things they do doesn't work.

If Pat's paragraph had ran:

How would we have reacted if Australia had taken Western Europe and made it more like Australia...

It would be ridiculous, yes. America and Australia are more or less morally equivalent.

 

[S832]

The more I look into this the more I think America should help diplomatically but, the Georgia conflict is really not something we should be involved militarily in.

Europe should be the ones to handle it.

It's a bit hypocritical to dam Russia for what its doing while we have done, and are doing something very similar.

The whole things a mess,

 

[Chui]

As noted, the BTC does not go to Israel or plan to go to Israel; but let's assume for a second that the intention is to get crude oil to Israel (though most of BTC's crude goes to Western Europe). Would it make economical sense to fight two wars (Lebanon and Syria) and expend all the infrastructure costs of extending the pipeline when you can already just ship it the short distance from Ceyhan to Israel?

I get the feeling you are a bit confused here.

No, not confused at all. There are about 20 articles at GlobalResearch.ca for starters. Then google some of the references; go to the library to study other references and you'll come to a similar conclusion (if not the same) as I.

 

[Creature]

Russia did NOT invade as is being promulgated in the press. They RETALIATED and justly so.

I disagree. Russia annexed Georgia once before and they are doing it again.

 

[Benonymous]

He he!

Doncha just LOVE humans? They'll always find something to fight and kill each other over! What a laugh If it aint the Russkies it'll be the Chinese. Let's face it, were a pack of self destructive fools!

Maybe we won't get to wipe ourselves out with wars before Mother Nature steps in and snuffs out the eco-system we all depend on but let's face it.... what a hoot the whole thing's gonna be up until then.

So git yerself a jumbo box of popcorn 'cos the humin' beens aint finished yet! This war ain't over and when it is they'll be another along in a minute.

Hey! Ten wars, no waitin'

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I did read the Buchanan piece.

My bad. You seem to think the Russian behavior is indicative of paranoia, so I figured you were just missing some of the things that the U.S. was doing that they perceived as threatening. Instead, it seems you feel that the U.S. has the moral right to do things that Russia considers threatening and Russia has no moral right to complain or respond.

you'll come to a similar conclusion (if not the same) as I.

Doubtful.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

I question what they consider to be "threatening", now that the Cold War is over and the world is not caught between two different ideologies.

If it isn't ideology--Russia is supposedly democratic (cough, cough) and free market--then it must be somthing akin to paranoia, right?

If France worked out some kind of pipeline deal or whatnot with Canada, would we feel "threatened" in some way?

And twelve missile interceptors? That each have about a 50-50 chance of making an intercept?

Those are a threat?

If you can define Russia's rhetoric as stemming from rational thought, I'd surely like to hear it.

 

[mvpel]

I'm sure that if all the web of intrigue, corruption, payola, and graft were known, the actions in question could be perceived as perfectly rational.

 

[Chui]

Well, it is always "convenient" to not do the groundwork, i.e., research ALL of the public information available.

Using Georgia to Target Russia
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20080813&articleId=9816
By Stephen Lendman
8-13-08

After the Soviet Union’s 1991 dissolution, Georgia’s South Ossetia province broke away and declared its independence. So far it remains undiplomatically recognized by UN member states. It’s been traditionally allied with Russia and wishes to reunite with Northern Ossetes in the North Ossetia-Alania Russian republic. Nothing so far is in prospect, but Russia appears receptive to the idea. And for Abkhazia as well, Georgia’s other breakaway province. The conflict also has implications for Transdniestria, the small independent Russian-majority part of Moldova bordering Ukraine, and for Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

Tensions arose and conflict broke out in late 1991. It resulted in a 1992 ceasefire to avoid a major confrontation with Russia, but things remained unsettled. Moscow maintains a military presence in the province as well as in Abkhazia and exerts considerable political and economic influence. Throughout the 1990s, intermittent conflict erupted but nothing on the order of early August 7 when Georgia acted with aggression against the S. Ossetian capital, Tskninvali.

www.Russiatoday.com reported the early timeline:

• 22:50 GMT, Tskhinvali reported heavy shelling;

• 22:00 GMT – TASS news agency reported intensive Georgian firing on the capital’s residential areas;

• 21:27 GMT – Russia’s Vesti television reported that S. Ossetia’s military downed a Georgian attack plane;

• 21:25 GMT – Georgia announced plans to withdraw half its Iraq forces because of the conflict;

• 21:22 GMT – S. Ossetia claimed to be in control of Tskhinvali, but Georgian forces attempted to retake the city;

• 20:36 GMT – The UN Security Council began closed-door discussions on the conflict – initiated by Georgia and the second in 24 hours;

• 20:25 GMT – Georgia asked the US to pressure Russia to “stop (its) armed aggression;”

• 19:08 GMT – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said “Russia is taking adequate military and political measures” to end the violence;

• 18:56 GMT – S. Ossetia’s government said it controls Tskhinvali, but fighting in one city district continued;

• 17:35 GMT – Georgian President Saakashvili claimed that Georgia controlled Tskhinvali and most S. Ossetian villages and regions;

• 17:20 GMT – S. Ossetian leader Kokoity asked the world community to stop Georgia’s “genocide” and recognize the territory’s independence; he claimed 1400 deaths in the fighting;

• 16:46 GMT – thousands of S. Osettians fled the fighting;

• 16:14 GMT – Russia’s Air Force denied bombing a Georgian military base;

• 14:23 GMT – reports from Tskhinvali indicated mass fires in the city;

• 13:25 GMT – Russia’s Defence Ministry accused Georgian troops of shooting peacekeepers and civilians and denying them medical help;

• 13:16 GMT – Saakashvili accused Russia of waging war and asked for US support;

• 12:55 GMT – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov accused Georgia of ethnic cleansing Ossetian villages;

• 12:04 GMT – Russia’s Defence Ministry said it sent peacekeeping reinforcements to S. Ossetia;

• 11:25 GMT – reports indicated that Tskhinvali was completely destroyed;

• 10:33 GMT – Georgia announced a three-hour ceasefire to let civilians evacuate the conflict zone;

• 9:36 GMT – Russia’s Parliament cited Georgia’s aggression as a “serious reason” to recognize S. Ossetian independence;

• 8:18 GMT – firefights spread to Tskhinvali streets;

• 6:51 GMT – the UN Security Council failed to approve a Russia-sponsored ceasefire call; fighting intensified;

• 5:01 GMT – S. Ossetia sought Russian protection and help to stop the fighting; and

• 4:13 GMT – Georgian troops resumed attacking Tskhinvali in a continued act of aggression; things remained unsettled; fighting continued and at times with ferocity.

On August 8, The New York Times reported that Georgia officials “accused Russia (on August 5) of violating the country’s airspace and firing a guided missile...” Russia denied the charge, called it baseless, and said no Russian planes were in the area either August 4 or 5th. Georgia, on the other hand, said they were as a “provocation aimed only” to disrupt Georgia’s peace and “change the political course of the country.”

Earlier in March, Georgia accused Russia of launching missile attacks on Georgian villages in the volatile Kodori Gorge. Relations deteriorated markedly last year after Georgia arrested and deported four Russian Army officers, accusing them of spying. Moscow recalled its ambassador, cut air, sea and postal links, and deported several thousand Georgians in response. These events and others led up to the present conflict with considerable suspicions about what’s behind them. The New York Times reported (August 10) that conflict had been brewing for years but suggested Russia is at fault. Unmentioned by The Times are:

• Reasons behind the growing tensions between Washington and Moscow;

• The Bush administration’s unilateral abandonment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM);

• Its continued provocations around the world, including in areas sensitive to Russia;

• Its massive military buildup; its advocacy for preventive, preemptive and “proactive” wars with first-strike nuclear weapons;

• NATO’s role in serving America’s imperial interests;

• Enlarging it with new member states, including former Soviet republics;

• Encircling Russia with US military bases; situating them in former Soviet republics and regional states;

• The strategic importance of Georgia for the Anglo-American Caspian oil pipeline; its extension from Baku, Azerbaijan (on the Caspian) through Georgia (well south of S. Ossetia), bypassing Russia and Iran, and across Turkey to its port city of Ceyhan – the so-called BTC pipeline for around one million barrels of oil daily, adjacent to the South Caucasus (gas) Pipeline with a capacity of about 16 billion cubic meters annually;

• The regional stakes involved: Washington and Russia vying to control Eurasia’s vast oil and gas reserves;

• Israel’s role in the region; its interest in the BTC pipeline; its negotiations with Georgia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to have it reach its Ashkelon oil terminal and Red Sea Eilat port; its selling Georgia state-of-the-art weapons, electronic warfare systems and intelligence; its use of military advisors to train Georgian forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery tactics as well as instruction on military intelligence and security;

• Its refusal to freeze its Georgian military alliance; the dubious reliability of Ha’aretz citing an AP August 7 report that “Israel has decided to halt all sales of military equipment to Georgia because of (Russia’s) objections... to give Israel leverage with Moscow... not to ship arms and equipment to Iran” such as sophisticated S-300 air defense missiles; the Israeli Foreign Ministry refusing comment on an arms freeze and Georgian Cabinet minister Temur Yakobashvili saying “There has been no decision by Israel to stop selling (us) weapons;”

• Believe it, and here’s what Ha’aretz says Israel supplies: high-tech infantry weapons, artillery systems electronics, and upgrades for Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets as well as Israeli generals advising Georgia’s military; Israel also sells Hermes 450 UAV spy drones according to www.Russiatoday.com; according to some sources, it’s a virtual gold mine for Israeli defense contractors, but Ha’aretz[/I ]reports it’s much less at around $200 million a year – well below American and French sales;

• On August 10, the Israeli www.ynetnews.com highlighted “The Israeli Connection” and reported “Israeli companies have been helping (the) Georgian army (prepare) for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry and security advice;” it was helped by Georgian citizens “who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople,” and the fact that Georgia’s Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, “is a former Israeli fluent in Hebrew (whose) door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms;” deals went through “fast” and included “remote-piloted (Elbit System) vehicles (RPVs), automatic turrets for armed vehicles, antiaircraft systems, communications systems, shells and rockets;”

• Russia’s anger over Georgia and Ukraine seeking NATO membership and Washington’s pressuring other members to admit them;

• The planned installation of “missile defense” radar in the region – in Poland, Czechoslovakia and potentially other sensitive areas, all targeting Russia, China, and Iran;

• Its provoking Russia to retarget nuclear missiles at planned “radar” locations; and

• Targeting Russia for dissolution (as the US’s main world rival), diffuse its power, control Eurasia, including the country’s immense resources on the world’s by far largest land mass.

The New ‘Great Game’

What’s at stake is what former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. He called Eurasia the “center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.” He continued: “The most immediate (US) 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.” Dominating that part of the world and its vast energy and other resources is Washington’s goal with NATO and Israel its principal tools to do it:

• In the Middle East with its two-thirds of the world’s proved oil reserves (about 675 billion barrels); and

• The Caspian Sea Basin with an estimated 270 billion barrels of oil plus one-eighth of the world’s natural gas reserves.

• “New World Order” strategy aims to secure them. Russia, China, and Iran have other plans. India allies with both sides. Former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics split this way:

• NATO members include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania;

• Georgia and Ukraine seek membership; while

• Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgystan ally with Russia.

Georgia now occupies center stage, so first some background about a nation Michel Chossudovsky calls “an outpost of US and NATO forces” located strategically on Russia’s border “within proximity of the Middle East Central Asian war theater.” Breakaway S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, though small in size, are very much players in what’s unfolding with potential to have it develop into something much bigger than a short-lived regional conflict.

 

[Chui]

Part II:

In 2003 with considerable CIA help, Georgia’s President Saakashvili came to power in the so-called bloodless “Rose Revolution.” Georgia held parliamentary elections on November 2. International observers called them unfair. Saakashvili claimed he won. He and the united opposition called for protests and civil disobedience. They began in mid-November in the capital Tbilisi, then spread throughout the country. They peaked on November 22, the scheduled opening day for parliament. Instead, Saakashvili-led supporters placed “roses” in the barrels of soldiers’ rifles, seized the parliament building, interrupted President Eduard Shevardnadze’s speech, and forced him to escape for his safety.

Saakashvili declared a state of emergency, mobilized troops and police, met with Shevardnadze and Zurab Zhvania (the former parliament speaker and choice for new prime minister), and apparently convinced the Georgian president to resign. Celebrations erupted. A temporary president was installed. Georgia’s Supreme Court annulled the elections, and on January 4, 2004, Saakashvili was elected and inaugurated president on January 25. New parliamentary elections were held on March 28. Saakashvili’s supporters used heavy-handed tactics to gain full control, but behind the scenes Washington is fully in charge. It pulls the strings on its new man in Georgia and stepped up tensions with Russia for control of the strategically important southern Caucasus region.

On January 5, 2008, Saakashvili won reelection for a second term in a process his opponents called rigged. Given how he first gained power and the CIA’s role in it, those accusations have considerable merit.

After the outbreak of the current crisis, Russia’s NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, accused the Alliance of “encourag(ing) Georgia to attack S. Ossetia and called it “an undisguised aggression accompanied by a mass propaganda war.” Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, called attention to Georgia’s “massive arms purchasing... during several years” and its use of “foreign specialists” to train “Georgian special troops.”

In his August 10 article titled – “War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?” – Chossudovsky notes how “attacks were timed to coincide with the Olympics largely with a view to avoiding front page media coverage” and to let saturation Beijing reports serve as distraction.
Now after days of fighting, headlines cite 2,000 or more deaths (largely civilians), huge amounts of destruction, Tskhinvali in ruins, and many thousands of refugees seeking safe havens. Accounts of Georgian atrocities have also surfaced, and according to Chossudovsky they’re part of a planned “humanitarian disaster (against civilian targets) rather than (an impossible to achieve) military victory” against a nation as powerful as Russia. Had Georgia sought control, a far different operation would have unfolded “with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial institutions.”

So why did this happen, and what can Washington hope to gain when it’s bogged down in two wars, threatening another against Iran, and thoroughly in disrepute as a result? It’s part of a broader “Great Game” strategy pitting the world’s two great powers against each other for control of this vital part of the world.

Bush administration plans may come down to this – portray Russia as another Serbia, isolate the country, and equate Putin and/or Medvedev with Milosevic and hope for all the political advantage it can gain. “The war on Southern Ossetia,” according to Chossudovsky, “was not meant to be won, leading to the restoration of Georgian sovereignty over (the province). It was intended to destabilize the region while triggering a US-NATO confrontation with Russia.”

Georgia is its proxy. Its attack on S. Ossetia is a made-in-Washington operation. But not according to George Bush (on August 10) who “strongly condemned (Russia’s) disproportionate response,” and Dick Cheney (on the same day) saying its military “aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community.” An EU statement agreed. It expressed its “commitment to the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Georgia” and pretty much accused Russia of aggression.

Russia’s response and capabilities are unsurprising. It counterattacked in force, battered Georgian troops, inflicted damage at will, reportedly overran the Gori military base in Senaki, moved south into Georgia proper, and largely attacked military targets with great effect. It also wants an emergency meeting with NATO and issued an ultimatum for Georgian troops to disarm in the Zugdidi District along the Abkhazia – Georgia border. For its part, Georgian officials said Russia’s “wide-scale assault (is) aimed at overthrowing the government.”

On August 10, the London Guardian reported that the Caucasus conflict “spread to Georgia’s second breakaway province of Abkhazia, where separatist rebels and the Russian air force launched an all-out attack on Georgian forces.” Abkhazia’s leader, Sergei Bagapsh, said “around 1,000 Abkhaz troops” engaged in a major “military operation” to force Georgian forces out of the strategic Kodori gorge. Russian army spokesman, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told Interfax: “We do not intend to take the initiative in escalating the conflict in this region. We are primarily interested in” stabilizing Abkhazia.

On August 12, AP reported that “Russian President Dmitri Medvedev ordered a halt to military action in Georgia (today), saying it had punished (the country) and brought security for civilians and Russian peacekeepers.” Nonetheless, reports are that fighting continues, and Medvedev ordered his military to quell “any emerging hotbeds of resistance or any aggressive actions...” Foreign Minister Lavrov added that Moscow won’t talk to Saakashvili and said he’d “better go.”

The latest AP August 13 report is that Georgian officials claim Russian tanks “seized a (Georgian) military base (and) also held onto ground in western Georgia, maintaining control of the town of Zugdidi.” For its part, “Russia accused Georgia of killing more than 2000 people, mostly civilians, in South Ossetia.” Witnesses confirmed that hundreds had died there, and expectations are that the death toll will rise “because large areas of Georgia (are) too dangerous for journalists to enter (to assess) the true scope of the damage.”

On the Attack – The Corporate Media React

Despite the Olympic distraction, the dominant media jumped on this story and are unsurprisingly one-sided in their reports. On August 11, a New York Times editorial headlined “Russia’s War of Ambition” in which it lamented that Saakashvili “foolishly and tragically baited the Russians – or even more foolishly fell into Moscow’s trap...” It accused the Kremlin of “bull(ying) and blackmail(ing) its neighbors and its own people.” It stated “There is no imaginable excuse for (invading) Georgia” and defended “Saakashvili’s ‘democratically elected’ government.”

It accused Vladimir Putin of “shoulder(ing) aside (Medvedev) to run the war (and) appears determined to re-impose by force and intimidation as much of the old Soviet sphere of influence as he can get away with.” The US and its European allies “must tell Mr. Putin in the clearest possible terms that such aggression will not be tolerated.” They’ll also “need to take a hard look at their relationship with Russia going forward... Russia needs to behave responsibly. And the United States and Europe must make clear that anything less is unacceptable.”

The Los Angeles Times’ op-ed writer Max Boot (noted for his hard-right views) was just as one-sided in referring to the “Red Army” and saying the West must “Stand up to Russia.” It must protect Saakashvili and prevent Moscow from “replac(ing) him with a pro-Kremlin stooge.” Its leaders must “stand together and make clear that this aggression will not stand.” He called Russia’s “excuses” for its “aggression... particularly creepy” and said they mirrored Hitler’s when he “swallow(ed) Czechoslovakia and Poland.” He added that “the lesson” of the 1930s must be heeded because the “cost of inaction” is too high.

David Clark in the London Guardian was also hostile in his op-ed headlined “The west can no longer stand idle while the Russian bully wreaks havoc.” He described “Russian policy (as) uniquely destructive in generating instability and political division in the Caucasus” and excused Saakashvili for his actions. He referred to “Georgia’s role in maintaining the only east-west pipeline route free of Russia’s monopolistic grip....” He called Georgia’s security concerns “real, and Russia is the cause.” David Clark is a former government adviser and now chairman of the pro-West Russia Foundation.

The Wall Street Journal covers this story daily in news reports and commentaries. On August 11, it gave Saakashvili a half page for his op-ed headlined “The War in Georgia Is a War for the West,” and he didn’t mince words. He accused Russia of “waging (all-out) war on my country (that’s) not of Georgia’s making (nor its) choice. The Kremlin designed this war... (it’s) a war about (Georgia’s) independence and future (and) about the future of freedom in Europe.”

On August 12, writers Gary Schmitt and Mauro De Lorenzo headlined “How the West Can Stand up to Russia,” and they were just as hostile. They accused Moscow of “cutthroat politics... at home and abroad” and asked “What can the West do?” First they urge “rush(ing) military and medical supplies to Tbilisi (and) Washington should lead.” It should then tell Moscow that the West has a “greater capacity to sustain a new Cold War (and aim) to put Mr. Putin and Dmitry Medvedev on their back foot diplomatically.”

Then on to the larger issue of “break(ing) Russia’s “stranglehold on Europe’s energy supplies” and one other thing – building a “strong, prosperous and fully independent Georgia (heading for) NATO and EU membership” allied against Russia.

The Journal’s same day editorial headlined “Vladimir Bonaparte” after one day earlier accusing Moscow of “Kremlin (business) Capers” and admonishing investors against “putting money into Russia.” On the 12th, it warned that “Georgia is only the first stop for Eurasia’s new imperialist.” It referred to Putin “consolidat(ing) his authoritarian transition as Prime Minister with a figurehead president... Ukraine is in his sights, and even the Balkan states could be threatened if he’s allowed to get away with it. The West needs to draw a line at Georgia.”

It called on NATO to “respond forcefully... start today (and said) this is perhaps the last chance for President Bush to salvage any kind of positive legacy toward Russia (by) rally(ing) the West’s response.” Putin seeks to “dominat(e)... the world stage. Unless Russians see that there are costs for their Napoleon’s expansionism, Georgia isn’t likely to be his last stop.”

Welcome to the new Cold War and new “Great Game”, what a new administration will inherit next year, and the very worrisome thought that it will handle things no better than the current one no matter who’s elected or which party controls Congress.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Reasons behind the growing tensions between Washington and Moscow;

• The Bush administration’s unilateral abandonment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM);

I wonder how much of this is fueled by "fear" that with missile defenses in place, America can finally launch an effective first strike and eliminate democratic, free market Russia from the earth once and for all?

Kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

On the other hand, I wonder how much tension over this is derived from Russia needing to preserve as much of it's Soviet-era importance (i.e., "we're important because we have a treaty with America) as possible? Clearly, Russia is not content to have a role in the world comparable to that of, say, Canada.

This wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that Russian elections are beginning to look more and more rigged, the government owns most media outlets, and something like 15 Russian journalists critical of Putin, Chechnya, etc. were murdered.

Not the kind of stuff you find in Canada, to say the least...

They talk about preserving a strategic balance, as if this is still 1977 or something.

How is it that no other democratic, free market country in the world talks about the need to maintain a nuclear arsenal in order to maintain a strategic balance with America? Especially since we're an "empire" and all?

Why just Russia? China doesn't count. It's still openly despotic and totalitarian. One expects it of them.

• Its continued provocations around the world, including in areas sensitive to Russia;

This statement isn't at all vague.

• Its massive military buildup; its advocacy for preventive, preemptive and “proactive” wars with first-strike nuclear weapons;

No U.S. president has ever ruled out the use of nuclear weapons if necessary. Was Russia born yesterday or just not been paying attention?

• NATO’s role in serving America’s imperial interests;

If you didn't know you were getting your info from an objective, unbiased source, you should have known it by this statement.

We have an empire? Wow! Why wasn't I told? Hey, I want one of those tea plantations or something.

Having a lot of influence is not the same as having an empire. The Russians have far more imperial experience than America will ever have.

• Enlarging it with new member states, including former Soviet republics;

Those new member states falling over themselves to try and get into NATO doesn't suggest something to Russia?

Doesn't it kind of suggest that most everybody in Russia's "sphere of influence" neither likes or trusts them? And why do you suppose that is? Because they're eager to become part of "America's Empire"...or because they remember all too well what it was like living involuntarily in Russia's Empire?

• Encircling Russia with US military bases; situating them in former Soviet republics and regional states;

The bases in the "Stans" were obviously in support of operations in Afghanistan.

Again, does Russia really feel they're being set up for invasion or is it just a matter of them unable to grasp that the world has moved on and just doesn't consider them as important as they think they should be?

Besides, it looks like simple demographics will eventually take care of this problem. Russian fertility and death rates suggest that in 50 years Russia could have the population of current day Yemen.

 

[Chui]

Are You Sure?

Try downloading and studying this:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

Here is an article about same.

A War in the Planning for Four Years
HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?

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
by Michael C. Ruppert

[© Copyright 2001. All Rights Reserved, Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com.] May be copied or distributed for non-profit purposes only. Posting on any ".com" web site is prohibited without express written consent from the author.]

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 (Revised Jan. 21,2002) - 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 Bilderberger 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 Bilderberger 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)

It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"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, 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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

 

[Chui]

Continuation of Above Article

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 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 Bilderberger 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 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 e-mail at jbk@antaris.com.

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."