The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mike Whitney ArchiveBlogview
The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up on Empire
Photograph courtesy of Munich Security Conference, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license.
Photograph courtesy of Munich Security Conference, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license.

The main architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in The American Interest titled “Towards a Global Realignment” has largely been ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia. Brzezinski, who was the main proponent of this idea and who drew up the blueprint for imperial expansion in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, has done an about-face and called for a dramatic revising of the strategy. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the AI:

“As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture.

Five basic verities regarding the emerging redistribution of global political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East are signaling the coming of a new global realignment.

The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.” (Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

Repeat: The US is “no longer the globally imperial power.” Compare this assessment to a statement Brzezinski made years earlier in Chessboard when he claimed the US was ” the world’s paramount power.”

“…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.” (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997, p. xiii)

Here’s more from the article in the AI:

“The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene….. The decisive new global reality was the appearance on the world scene of America as simultaneously the richest and militarily the most powerful player. During the latter part of the 20th century no other power even came close. That era is now ending.” (AI)

But why is “that era is now ending”? What’s changed since 1997 when Brzezinski referred to the US as the “world’s paramount power”?

Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the “violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal. His comments on Islam are particularly instructive in that he provides a rational explanation for terrorism rather than the typical government boilerplate about “hating our freedoms.” To his credit, Brzezinski sees the outbreak of terror as the “welling up of historical grievances” (from “deeply felt sense of injustice”) not as the mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths.

Naturally, in a short 1,500-word article, Brzezniski can’t cover all the challenges (or threats) the US might face in the future. But it’s clear that what he’s most worried about is the strengthening of economic, political and military ties between Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the other Central Asian states. This is his main area of concern, in fact, he even anticipated this problem in 1997 when he wrote Chessboard. Here’s what he said:

“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)

“…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)

“…prevent collusion…among the vassals.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

The Obama administration’s reckless foreign policy, particularly the toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words, Washington’s enemies have emerged in response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only blame himself.

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has responded to the growing threat of regional instability and the placing of NATO forces on Russia’s borders by strengthening alliances with countries on Russia’s perimeter and across the Middle East. At the same time, Putin and his colleagues in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, Iran, China and South Africa) countries have established an alternate banking system (BRICS Bank and AIIB) that will eventually challenge the dollar-dominated system that is the source of US global power. This is why Brzezinski has done a quick 180 and abandoned the plan for US hegemony; it is because he is concerned about the dangers of a non-dollar-based system arising among the developing and unaligned countries that would replace the western Central Bank oligopoly. If that happens, then the US will lose its stranglehold on the global economy and the extortionist system whereby fishwrap greenbacks are exchanged for valuable goods and services will come to an end.

Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s more cautious approach is not likely to be followed by presidential-favorite Hillary Clinton who is a firm believer in imperial expansion through force of arms. It was Clinton who first introduced “pivot” to the strategic lexicon in a speech she gave in 2010 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Here’s an excerpt from the speech that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine:

ORDER IT NOW

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…

The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”

(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

Compare Clinton’s speech to comments Brzezinski made in Chessboard 14 years earlier:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… (p.30)….. 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. ….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)

The strategic objectives are identical, the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions. We have not yet reached the tipping point for US primacy, but that day is fast approaching and Brzezinski knows it.

In contrast, Clinton is still fully-committed to expanding US hegemony across Asia. She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world. She’s going to persist with the interventions until the US war-making juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks which, judging by her hyperbolic rhetoric, will probably happen some time in her first term.

Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka–The “dollar system”) But will bloodthirsty Hillary follow his advice?

Not a chance.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

(Reprinted from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Another insightful article, Sir.

    She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world.

    No, she doesn’t. She’s utterly blind, in typical narcissistic psychopath fashion, to anything beyond herself and that goes as well for those that support the degenerate harridan.

    However, if it becomes prez, then one of the benefits will certainly be the that “US war-making [murderous, extortionist] juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    You now need to pay at least 100 in fishwrap greenbacks to the Clinton Foundation (before the election, so hurry!) to atone for this egregious case of thoughtcrime!
    , @Joe Wong
    Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a true American, a die hard imperialist; she does not believe free lunch and everybody has to earn his keep, she is challenging the challengers to earn their keep. Or perhaps it is the rest of world misunderstood the American, they were hypnotized by the American's deadliest export, democracy, and ignored the true color of the American, a 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitor'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-up-on-empire/#comment-1541435
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Evidently Zbigniew Brzezinski has never heard of the British Empire if he believes that “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.”

    We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled. Britain’s mercantile economy worked when it was the world’s leading industrial power. It went to war … too many wars … to protect that advantage. It went bankrupt in the process. However, in its embarrassing fall from power and humiliating poverty, Britain learned a valuable, retrospective lesson:

    “The goal of major powers is to be able to fight major wars. However, their long-term survival depends on not fighting those wars.”

    Suffering from a fatal hubris, I fear the United States will also have to learn its lessons the hard way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your advice should be taken. However....

    Your proposition about what caused the end of the British Empire would look more plausible if you could show that its going to war in 1914 was to "protect that [its lead in industrialising] advantage". Only the 1914-1918 war contributed critically to ending the British Empire and I would be interested to know why you think that had anything to do with "that advantage". Unfair perhaps because Britain had long since lost "that" advantage, was the leading free trade exponent and I suspect that you are vaguely remembering some left wing theories as to Britain's defending its trade interests.

    , @DB Cooper
    "We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled."

    Actually for the longest time the United States styled itself as the un-British as far as foreign policy goes. People may not know but for historic reasons the Americans resentment towards the Brits didn't end until the beginning of the first world war in the last century. After all the Americans fought against the British for their independence and the Brits burned the White House and openly supported the Confederacy in the American civil war. When Britain was trying to carve Tibet out of China Lincoln's secretary warned the British to respect China's territorial integrity. When the British was colonializing US president Woodrow Wilson called for the self-determination of the people everywhere. When the Middle East became the playground for imperial Britain the Americans didn't grab any land aside from creating the American University in Beirut. If you look at the map the US didn't have any colony aside from the Philippines when the Britain and to a lesser degree France and others all have colonies in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    After WWII the US enjoyed goodwill from people everywhere because here is a Western country that didn't behave like the other colonial powers. But as Britain retreated and after the cold war when there is no Soviet Union anymore and the US became the unchallenged Superpower it gradually began to resemble the empire of old.
  3. brzezinski is still hoping that we will stay in the driver’s seat, the dollar system would stay. I highly doubt china would allow it. once that happens, we will be just another passenger on the world bus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    It is cultural things, Chinese believes harmony, give and take and mutual benefits; while the West believes confrontation, and winner takes all. China proposed big powers relation but the West under the American leadership see it as a challenge trying to have the cake and ear it too.

    The dollar system has its place in the world, but as a sole system of the world is not beneficial to everybody in this world at all including the American, the American must see it this way and accept the RMB system in such light.
  4. I’ve never considered Brzezinski very acute in his understanding of politics. He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. $4bn in military aid flowed to them. Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today’s ally might be tomorrow’s enemy.
    In 1997, as Brzezinski was presenting his idea of American Exceptionalism, Patrick Buchanan was writing his book, ” The Great Betrayal, ” which was published in 1998. The disastrous effects of Free Trade ( aka Globalisation ) on the American Economy; the destruction of whole industries, the massive trade deficits, the massive budget deficits were all laid bare. Mr Buchanan aptly argued that a state with a weak economy could not act as a major power, never mind a Global Hegemon. The position is very much worse now.
    Pat Buchanan was aware in the 1990s that the economic rug was being pulled from under America’s feet. Indeed, total economic collapse cannot be far off. Brzezinski’s partial admission that all is not well is ridiculously tardy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. " - But not after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but before it to provoke the Soviet intervention. This is what he is most proud of.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Did you pause before you wrote that B was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy?

    A highly educated person of Eastern European back ground didn't even remember that the Soviet Union had been a US ally? C'mon.
    , @MarkinLA
    Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today’s ally might be tomorrow’s enemy.

    He was aware, his Polishness overtook his Americanism and he thought doing something to end the USSR would outweigh whatever costs there were by inciting Islamic fundamentalism. This hatred of Russia caused him to look at the world through a skewed lens. If communism was doomed to failure then trying to help it along by putting radical Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan was the wrong approach since Russians consider themselves European and always wanted to be part of Europe. Russia was always going to be western, it was just going to take time for all the old party hacks who were around during WWII to die off. Islamic fundamentalism isn't going away nearly as quickly.
  5. @Verymuchalive
    I've never considered Brzezinski very acute in his understanding of politics. He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. $4bn in military aid flowed to them. Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy.
    In 1997, as Brzezinski was presenting his idea of American Exceptionalism, Patrick Buchanan was writing his book, " The Great Betrayal, " which was published in 1998. The disastrous effects of Free Trade ( aka Globalisation ) on the American Economy; the destruction of whole industries, the massive trade deficits, the massive budget deficits were all laid bare. Mr Buchanan aptly argued that a state with a weak economy could not act as a major power, never mind a Global Hegemon. The position is very much worse now.
    Pat Buchanan was aware in the 1990s that the economic rug was being pulled from under America's feet. Indeed, total economic collapse cannot be far off. Brzezinski's partial admission that all is not well is ridiculously tardy.

    “He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. ” – But not after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but before it to provoke the Soviet intervention. This is what he is most proud of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Not that Brezhnev and Co needed much provocation. As the economic rug was pulled under Soviet feet, they went on a bizarre series of military adventures in Africa and Afghanistan.
    As the economy collapses around them, the American Government has gone on a bizarre series of military adventures. Plus ca change.
    Edmund Burke said that he who does not understand history is destined to repeat it ( I paraphrase ). The Neocons are oblivious to how their actions mirror the very recent Soviet past. The difference between the Soviets and today's adventurism is that the Soviets' was in inconsequential 3rd World hellholes. The Americans' is in important areas of Eastern Europe and the Middle East where other Great Powers have interests as well as nuclear weapons. This is clearly very dangerous. The Neocons truly are ignorant arseholes
  6. “The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.” (Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

    Economically America is not the most powerful entity anymore. China’s GDP is far bigger than that of the US. Even by the World Bank’s numbers – which typically flatter the US at the expense of the competition – China’s economy is already bigger at purchasing parity ($20.9T vs 18.6T). In reality the gap is even larger – and growing every year.
    And since political influence and military might go hand in hand with the size of the economy, China will eclipse the USA in two other dimensions very soon. Within 5 years politically, and 10 years – militarily.
    The US government has a terrible habit of overestimating its capabilities, while underestimating its opponents – so Brzezinski’s views should serve as a proverbial cold shower.
    Nobody can accuse him of being anti-American.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    REALLY? This analysis is so yesterday. While appearing correct on the surface, it ignores the
    "Uber Powers" that are 100 - 1000 years ahead of everyone technologically speaking. Where do you think the missing DOD 6 plus Trillion went?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Those of us who saw the late 90s as the time for the US to begin coopting China into the management of the world (with India to be cultivated too) can only hope now for some major new saving developments in our future as a species. Hitler gave the anti-eugenicists all the running for 70 years but maybe now the Catholic Church has been crippled by scandal and indifference twin developments may begin to take off albeit at the 11th hour:

    1. serious attention to curbing poor people's fertility (in Africa, the ME and the subcontinent: it isn't difficult: you bribe the heads of families to keep the girls in education and without babies).

    2. Free and indeed subsidised eugenic** services. No more Huntington's Disease, Fragile X Syndrome, early onset Alzheimer's, etc. etc. etc.^50.
    **including lifelong gene/DNA based improvements (and let's not limit our imaginations. At 110 I won't mind if what appears to be my efficient Third World carer actually has a largely artificial brain, as long as someone teaches me which buttons to press).
  7. Personally I don’t believe Hillary will be starting new wars. For 4 reasons, at least.

    First, the US fiscal position is deteriorating badly – way ahead of schedule predicted by the CBO – and snowballing entitlements will eat away at the Pentagon. US military is in a death spiral already. And it’s irreversible.
    Second, the stock market is topping out, and nothing dents American morale like a bear market in equities, and the disappearance of funny money. At times like that, foreign policy moves into background. Managing domestic strife is a full-time business.
    Third, the abysmal demographic trends ( it’s worse than those of a supposedly dying Russia) don’t support military adventurism.
    And fourth, America is already mired in more conflicts than it can manage. The first priority will be to extricate itself from the existing boondoggles.

    Whether it’s Clinton or Trump, the policy will be roughly the same, because optionality for the USA is already gone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Possibly. But the unnerving part is that most of these problems can be papered over for a little while by going "really hot" on the war front. Like, you know, what got us "out of" the "Great Depression" ... the ringing bell of a "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor.

    of course, it didn't get us out of anything. It just absolved everyone from having to explain the 10-year-long utter failure in getting the Rooseveltian Inflationary Command Economy going.

    A short "air/land battle" with a "limited nuclear exchanges" over Russia's near abroad (with the Europeans onboard naturally), whereby NATO "is attacked w/o provocations" sounds just like the ticket. One could then insitute a "Marshall Plan II" (maybe most of the money will not go to Sweden and Greece like what happened last time).
    , @Alden
    What dismal demographic trends? Every day thousands of military age men swarm over our border with Mexico.

    And even more anchor babies are born every day We've got lots of cannon fodder. Women will have to register for the draft soon as well
    , @RadicalCenter
    The USA population is growing and has a large, increasing youthful cohort. This is in contrast to Russia, so you are mistaken there.

    The USA still will have difficulty fielding armed forces with the levels of competence, intelligence, cohesion, and loyalty that we need, however, because an ever-increasing percentage of that military-age population is Mexican (and, to a lesser extent, other mostly nonwhite Latinos).
    , @MarkinLA
    US military is in a death spiral already.

    There is realistically no limit to any country's military budget if it can print it's own money and people will still take it. Now it's true that one day the dollar may not be the world's reserve currency but there isn't anything the US needs to buy from anywhere else in the world - same for Russia and China.

    Stupid military spending wasn't what ended the USSR and it won't be the end of the US.
    , @Thomato
    Interesting that you credit these candidate clowns with being rational. Maybe it's the cloride or the exceptionalism, but America is a bought and paid off hit man fot the crazied.
  8. I’m not so sure about this because everyone knows that the goons never say what they really think and what they say in public is meant for public consumption.:

    “…the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions.”

    All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attonn
    "All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why."

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.
    , @Anonymous

    All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why.
     
    rats?

    ships?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Can you think of any important alternative to his having come to his senses, and doesn't want to be tagged with ridiculously out of date and indefensible ideas?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    #11 serms to suggest motive.
    , @Carroll Price

    All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why.
     
    Much like stock brokers who make money when stocks are bought an sold, political writers (like Brzezinski) make money by on books predicting upturns and downturns in the fortunes of nations. Rest assured that like all internationalist, he doesn't really care which side wins.
  9. @Jacques Sheete
    I'm not so sure about this because everyone knows that the goons never say what they really think and what they say in public is meant for public consumption.:

    "...the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions."

     

    All we really know is that he's talking about a course correction in public, and I'm wondering why.

    “All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why.”

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.
     
    Any blockhead has known that for some time.

    I'm wondering why the goof has decided to say these things in public at this time, especially given the fact that no matter what it says, we prols don't have a clue as to what it really thinks.

    The garbage spewing from its mouth has a purpose, and it isn't to speak the truth or enlighten the rest of us. What could it be?
  10. The USA will soon have its own “Suez Crisis”. Something relevant from my blog, which has links:

    Aug 21, 2016 – The TRIS Alliance

    A new alliance suddenly appeared to counter American expansionism. The unofficial Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance is too powerful for the world’s superpower to challenge. All four nations have similar interests, good relations, and are threatened by American imperialism. However, this dramatic change has not been recognized by American leaders nor reported in the western press. 

    Turkey’s shift is sudden but not surprising. All of Syria was part of Turkey until the Ottoman Empire was shattered a century ago. It seems Turkey had been promised a return of control of oil fields in Northern Syria once Assad was overthrown. This plan was thwarted by Russia and Turkey was left with three million refugees. Europe promised to take most of them, but stopped when their citizens objected. 

    Kurdish militia groups have fought Turkish troops for a century. The desperate Americans ignored this problem and provided more arms to the Kurds and encouraged them to fight in Syria. This spilled over into Turkey where 25% of its population consists of unhappy Kurds. Kurdish fighters increased attacks on Turkish troops while the Turkish military was expelled from parts of northern Iraq, where its Generals controlled the lucrative black market oil trade for the past two decades.

    The Turks were furious and began to withdraw support for Syrian “rebels” and increased attacks on Kurds. The Americans disapproved, and it seems the USA knew about the coup last month in Turkey and said nothing, and maybe organized it. What else could explain the evacuation of all American military and diplomat families from Turkey last March:

    “The mandatory departure order, announced by the State Department, affects nearly all Defense Department dependents assigned to Incirlik, as well as those at smaller bases in Izmir and Mugla. The families of U.S. diplomats in the same areas also are ordered to depart. On Monday Israel issued a new travel advisory for Turkey, warning Israeli citizens to leave the country as soon as possible and avoid any traveling there.”

    American Generals blamed ISIS, but the USA has been bombing “terrorists” in the region for over a decade and never considered families in Turkey at risk until just before the attempted coup. This and other evidence convinced most Turks that the Americans were behind the failed coup. The US government scrambled to convince Turkey otherwise, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and our Vice President promptly visiting Turkey amid rumors that Turkey might leave NATO. 

    In addition, most Turks consider the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a Turkish city, stolen by the British in 1918. Sunni rebels took over this city a couple years ago with quiet support from the Turks, who even established a military base near Mosul. Last year, President Obama pressured the Turks to withdraw their troops from Iraq and announced this large city must be conquered by the Shiite government in Baghdad. The Iraqi army is not motivated so the Americans brought in Kurdish troops to help. This may result in a bloody siege that kills thousands and leaves hundreds of thousands more refugees showing up at the nearby Turkish border.

    Turkey had enough! Turkish President Erdogan recently made a sudden trip to Moscow. A few days later, experts were shocked to see Russian bombers now based in Iran overflying Iraq to bomb targets in Syria. And now Turkey has agreed to allow the Russians to use its airbases! A few days later, Turkey signed an agreement with Iran to resolve the fighting in Syria. Then the Syrians conducted its first airstrikes and ground attacks against the Kurds in Syria!

    This indicates the biggest power shift since the end of the Cold War! An informal alliance, which I christen the Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance, has formed to counter the American-Israeli domination of the Middle East. The Kurds now face destruction as all its neighbors are united and hostile. They should retreat from Syria and the Mosul region and hope TRIS leaves them alone. This means the Americans will lose their best local ground troops and possibly its airbases in Turkey. Finally, the Americans may also be expelled by the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which is already allied with Iran and has conflicts with the Kurds too!

    These are interesting times. Will American diplomacy, bribery, and economic aid manage to unhinge TRIS? If not, will the American military manage a peaceful retreat from Iraq and abandon the Kurds, whose semi-official nation may be dismembered by Turkey and Iraq? Syria and Iraq might agree to cede some of their remote Kurdish areas to Turkey if the big Turkish military agrees to invade and destroy the Kurdish military, which it wants to do anyway. Or will the Americans go on the offensive and send airpower and troops to finish off Syria’s Assad, risking war with TRIS? This is a huge failure for Obama foreign policy and it’s not even covered in the American media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    This seems to be an excellent collection of info. Despite that, I apologize that I have no idea about what to think here and never will, except in very general terms, but you seem to be making a lot of sense.

    Would you offer your opinion as to why the so called expert, ZB, is saying what he's saying now when it's been obvious to anyone with a couple of functioning neurons for decades?

    In other words, what's your take on the game the clown is now playing? What is it hiding from us, or distracting us from, or setting us up for?

    Many thanks in advance.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    wow, how true/accurate is this? I knew edrogan was gonna be thrown under the bus, I just didn't realize it was gonna be this fast. if turkey joins the TRIS as you call it, usa just lost the lynch pin for the entire middle east.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You have reminded me to look into that apparently significant order in March to remove some US families which, predictably, is making a lot of Turks think the attempted coup was a US affair. (You seem to give that view some credence).

    I Googled "why were American families advised to leave Turkey" and, in summary, concluded that it was just unfortunate coincidence. Perhaps most important was that the order was limited and was far from extending, for example, to warning Americans to stay clear of Istanbul (although I haven't checked for any changes in State Department advice to tourists).

    Another item. While the Kurdish birthrate seems to be well above the Turkish average I noted your 25 per cent figure for "unhappy Kurds" in the total population as surprising even without quibbling over the number who are unhappy/disaffected. One estimate I found was over 20 per cent and one as low as 15 per cent but something like 18 or 19 per cent seems more probable.

    I remain, as I have been for 15 years or so, puzzled as to what case can be made for the US bothering about the Middle East in its own self interest. I set aside consideration of support for NATO and NATO's - Europe's - interest in Turkey and the Mediterranean and consider only what is in it for the US to have played any part in the ME since the breakup of the USSR and the definitive end of the Cold War. It's hard to put a precise date on it but oil hasn't been a sufficient national interest reason for a very long time. Israel? It would be No.1 on the shortlist of allied or aligned countries that the US could be counted on not to let down badly when it had the means to protect it. Fair enough but what more was needed than to make it clear that if enemies did better than in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 they would have to take on the US before they could destroy Israel? None of the expensive messing around with and in the ME could be justified - or have I missed the argument?
    What else? Well 5 to 18 million Coptic Christians in Egypt is a big potential lump of refugees that the US and EU might reasonably prefer to stay home even while Egypt descends further into failed state condition. So at least putting off the catastrophe by paying to keep Egyptians fed may make sense. After all some problems have no solutions. (Actually, let's be of good cheer. How about Europe inviting in 15 million Copts and no more Muslims?).

    , @Anonymous
    A correct analysis. If Russia ans Iran manage to steer Erdogan in the direction of his country's true interests, deterring him from pursuing his mad dream of a Turkic empire - at least for a few years more - then the US' Eurasian conquest dream will indeed be defeated...
    If not, and mad-hatter Hillary wins, then WWIII will surely come.
  11. ZB was/is the Donald’s FP advisor. When I saw ZB’s article some months ago, I stopped wondering whether Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements were for real.
    Obviously, the winds of change hit some DC neighbourhoods harder than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    ZB was/is the Donald’s FP advisor.
     
    Then why is his daughter slamming Trump every morning on national television? She seems to be carrying her share of the water in the PTB effort to bury him.

    She owes her overrated/overpaid job and entire lifestyle to her overrated father, so how could she possibly be doing anything without his approval?

    I hope you're right, that ZB is indeed an advisor to Donald, and I hope then that ZB is genuine and not just a mole in the candidate's camp. Personally, after all these years of continued US insanity -- invade/invite/dominate the world while things crumble at home -- I can't put much credence in anything the ageing, born-of-priviledge Pole says. He's part of America's century of misguided foreign entanglements.
  12. @Jacques Sheete
    Another insightful article, Sir.

    She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world.
     
    No, she doesn't. She's utterly blind, in typical narcissistic psychopath fashion, to anything beyond herself and that goes as well for those that support the degenerate harridan.

    However, if it becomes prez, then one of the benefits will certainly be the that "US war-making [murderous, extortionist] juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks."

    You now need to pay at least 100 in fishwrap greenbacks to the Clinton Foundation (before the election, so hurry!) to atone for this egregious case of thoughtcrime!

    Read More
  13. @attonn
    Personally I don't believe Hillary will be starting new wars. For 4 reasons, at least.

    First, the US fiscal position is deteriorating badly - way ahead of schedule predicted by the CBO - and snowballing entitlements will eat away at the Pentagon. US military is in a death spiral already. And it's irreversible.
    Second, the stock market is topping out, and nothing dents American morale like a bear market in equities, and the disappearance of funny money. At times like that, foreign policy moves into background. Managing domestic strife is a full-time business.
    Third, the abysmal demographic trends ( it's worse than those of a supposedly dying Russia) don't support military adventurism.
    And fourth, America is already mired in more conflicts than it can manage. The first priority will be to extricate itself from the existing boondoggles.

    Whether it's Clinton or Trump, the policy will be roughly the same, because optionality for the USA is already gone.

    Possibly. But the unnerving part is that most of these problems can be papered over for a little while by going “really hot” on the war front. Like, you know, what got us “out of” the “Great Depression” … the ringing bell of a “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor.

    of course, it didn’t get us out of anything. It just absolved everyone from having to explain the 10-year-long utter failure in getting the Rooseveltian Inflationary Command Economy going.

    A short “air/land battle” with a “limited nuclear exchanges” over Russia’s near abroad (with the Europeans onboard naturally), whereby NATO “is attacked w/o provocations” sounds just like the ticket. One could then insitute a “Marshall Plan II” (maybe most of the money will not go to Sweden and Greece like what happened last time).

    Read More
    • Replies: @attonn
    The difference between America of 1941 and 2017 is like between night and day. Debt was low, taxes low, budgets in surplus, people were mostly white Europeans with 5-7 kids per family, the country was the pre-eminent world exporter and by far the largest manufacturer of goods.

    Today it's all the exact opposite. There is no comparison.
  14. A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Nope, the "S" is South Africa.
    , @Erebus
    Nope, the "S" was capitalized when South Africa joined.
    , @RobinG
    He's right about the S for South Africa. (Remember Zuma at the BRICS meeting photo-op?)
    , @tx_progressive
    I thought the S was South Africa.
    , @denk
    I = the incredible shrinking Ielephant....

    BRICS => BRiCS => BR'CS...

    3 legs in nato, 1 leg in BR'CS, almost like an after thought,
    hehehehe

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/10/pers-j10.html
    , @Philip Owen


    40% of the BRICS are active participants in the Commonwealth at a much deeper level than membership in the BRICS has so far reached. And Hong Kong is a very active observer in the Commonwealth, hence the present high levels of interaction between China and the UK. The Commonwealth is about to become a lot more significant than it has been for 40 years. It already shapes the international agenda on obscure but important stuff like the legal status of digital money - bit coin, in which Hong Kong is the main driving force. By the time than sort of debate gets to the UN or other international legal body, 50 odd Commonwealth countries have an established position the matter. When a Commonwealth Prime Minister talks about international action on tax evasion almost half the countries in the world are signed up. BRICS are an instrument for Anglo-Chinese rule (Saker is wrong about half the membership of the world ruling class and he picked the wrong Anglos :-) )

    Brzezinski is a typical American and underestimates Western Europe's soft power. The chessboard was always the wrong analogy.
  15. Dear Mr. Whitney,

    Had only Mr B. come to this enlightened decision sixteen years ago, millions of innocent lives might not have been lost, hundreds of millions might not have been ruined , and tens of trillions of US dollars would still be on our balance sheet.

    What a total waste of time and treasure our policy decisions have proven themselves to be.

    Read More
  16. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jacques Sheete
    I'm not so sure about this because everyone knows that the goons never say what they really think and what they say in public is meant for public consumption.:

    "...the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions."

     

    All we really know is that he's talking about a course correction in public, and I'm wondering why.

    All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why.

    rats?

    ships?

    Read More
  17. @Xerxes
    A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    Nope, the “S” is South Africa.

    Read More
  18. @Xerxes
    A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    Nope, the “S” was capitalized when South Africa joined.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And how did it "join" if it's not too much trouble? My recollection was that "BRIC [s]" was coined by some individual and not derived from a formal real group.
  19. Coward european race realists bend over and paid Russia billions of dollars to be spared from liberation of their women and children. They remember Russia had liberated 2 millions of German women and millions of their children in their barracks and on German streets in near past!!

    So these coward pagans are abandoning the thoughts of empire specially on eastern front ???

    Read More
  20. @Xerxes
    A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    He’s right about the S for South Africa. (Remember Zuma at the BRICS meeting photo-op?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, South Africa was in later because Brazil insist on that.

    He is actually right but my first thought was exactly like yours.
    Initially was BRICs and it became BRICS.
  21. So, after he’s spent decades creating, enacting and inspiring the US global imperialism that now has us on the verge of a nuclear armageddon, Brzezinski finds Jesus and tells us that maybe it wasn’t such a great idea after all. Except these institutions built up over decades don’t just flip on a dime, they require decades of reorientation, or a major catastrophe, to change course. If ever there was a blatant example that our political leaders are absolutely clueless and untrustworthy, this is it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Just like McNamara. We should hang Brzezinski from a flagpole now so he doesn't get to quettly die in bed surrounded by his family like the mass murderer McNamara did..
    , @Anonymous
    Didn't Alan Greenspan, in aid of US world financial domination, do exactly the same to the economy?
  22. No wonder the Israel lobby hated this Polish dude.

    America’s leading foreign policy expert and Obama’s former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech at the event organized by the National American Iranian Council (NAIC) and the Arms Control Association in Washington on November 26, 2012 claimed that US administration is lead by the nose by pro-Israel Jewish groups like a stupid mule.

    “I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy,” said Brzezinski.

    “An attack on Iran would be an act of utter irresponsibility and potentially a significant immorality if the United States participated,” he said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/11/30/brzezinski-americans-are-stupid-israeli-mules/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Monty Ahwazi
    @Rahmat,
    Just remember Mr B plays both sides in the interest of Israel and his arguments have always been dependent on the wind direction in US!
    , @Carroll Price
    While making these bold statements concerning the US following Israel's orders, it sounds as if Brzezinski is unaware of who controls America's credit-based financial system. "The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender." Prov. 22:7
  23. @attonn
    "All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why."

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.

    Any blockhead has known that for some time.

    I’m wondering why the goof has decided to say these things in public at this time, especially given the fact that no matter what it says, we prols don’t have a clue as to what it really thinks.

    The garbage spewing from its mouth has a purpose, and it isn’t to speak the truth or enlighten the rest of us. What could it be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
    B is trying to renew his relevance and prepare a role for himself in the post-neoliberal order. The good news is mother nature will shortly see to it that he -- and Kissinger, another of my favorites -- both stop breathing, finally ending their bloody careers. The bad news is modern medicine has helped delay that good news for far too long.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I think Jeff Davis's reply is fair enough. And I think it worth being a bit more discriminating than to write dismissively of "the garbage spewing from their mouths" because you can count on them not wanting to hurt their current project (repositioning themselves for influence or desperately seeking to make sure their obituaries aren't all about things they got wrong in the 70s or whatever). So they will try to adhere to what will pass for truth and sound reasoning amongst peers and even objective later historians.

    I'm not suggesting this is an instance of it but there is a tendency on even the elevated UR for anonymous huffing and puffing which calls everyone from other commenters to successful politicians fools. Actually your raising the question wrt ZB of why and why now is a worthy cut above that.
  24. @El Dato
    You now need to pay at least 100 in fishwrap greenbacks to the Clinton Foundation (before the election, so hurry!) to atone for this egregious case of thoughtcrime!

    ;)

    Read More
  25. The instability around Russia is mostly of his own creation. This is particularly true in Ukraine after his theft of Crimea and his support of terrorists in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Odessa. Russia is going to be regional problem for many years to come, until he comes to the end of the Road Putin has placed the country on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    How do think Putin's unlawful grabbing Crimea ranks with other unlawful grabs? India in Goa comes to mind. Then Indonesia in West Irian and East Timor for a while. Turkey in Cyprus...
    When did the US stop doing it? Not counting Grenada of course because it got out again promptly.
    , @sejmon
    It is unbelievable how stupid /shortsighted those Trockyists/Neocons /Russophobe are..they never learn from history because they can not end up in NORIMBERG II.....
    , @annamaria
    "... theft of Crimea :"
    Here is a history lesson that is feared by all Ukrainian nationalists: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/banderite-hypocrisy-vice-pm-blames.html
    The linked article contains a picture that speaks mightier than thousand words - it shows a map of Ukraine' territorial augmentation for the expense of Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia plus the territories gifted to Ukraine by Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev.
    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-08MH01zREq4/V8HXy8WLv4I/AAAAAAAAECI/D9NXDI0jRFw4CenxJJ9dVDJrdpsNhJZ-gCLcB/s1600/20140504_3602.jpg

    "...the phenomenon of the Ukrainian nation is quite young and, if we’re dealing with its Galician version, only has around 100 years under its belt... The final formation of the Ukrainian nation myth occurred under Soviet rule. The Moscow communists (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Khrushchev) transferred lands to the Ukrainian SSR which had never been a part of Hmelnitsky’s Hetmanate or the Ukrainian People’s Republic. These were the lands of Donbass, Sloboda Ukraine, and part of the territory of the Don Cossacks, Tavrida (Crimea and adjacent lands), and the Odessa region.
    Just before and after the Second World War, Ukraine received even more new lands: Western Ukraine was taken from Poland, Northern Bukovina was taken from Romania, and Transcarpathian Rus was taken from Czechoslovakia while Crimea was taken from Russia. In addition to these territorial gifts to the Ukrainian USSR, the Soviet Union created and pursued cultural and language policies of Ukrainianization. Across the entire territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and in some territories of Soviet Russia, education was held exclusively in the Ukrainian language. Nevertheless, Ukrainianization still only yielded very superficial results."
    , @rakewind
    You actually need to acquaint yourself with Russian history. Russia is not the problem; the US is the problem - globally. It is not the Russians who have turned the entire Middle East into an abbatoir, nor am I aware that they have pursued a hegemonic role anywhere in particular, in contradistinction to the US. I just wish my country (UK), could politically grow a pair and get out from under the US. I've said it before and it will stand repeating: Europe's foreign policy is made in Washington and Washington's is determined in Tel Aviv. Once one understands this, the reasons underpinning the ongoing ME debacle become clear and whilst the slaughter continues unabated, absortbing the attention of the worlds politicians and MSM, Israel continues it's theft of what little remains to the Palestinians whilst progressing it's programme of slow-motion genocide against them. However changes are afoot and this will not end well for either Israel or the US.
  26. I am disappointed that he thinks solely in terms of power. It was entirely predictable that China would ascend, less so, but not infeasible that Russia would recover. What about the idea that monopolists rapidly become incompetent?

    We could have used our power to go for what Putin calls a ‘rules based’ world order where toppling governments is considered extreme and radical. Instead we opted for ‘America the Exceptional’ where we are judge, jury, and executioner. It is quite ironic (don’t care if I am misusing word), that our foreign policy establishment frequently accuses Russia of rejecting a rules based world when in reality it is just the opposite. To them ‘rules based’ means Pax Americana which was and is an untenable position.

    Pax Nation X is only possible if one acknowledges that Nation X is an empire that brings peace to the territory that it rules with an iron fist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "It was entirely predictable that China would ascend..."- No, it was not unless you were in the know. China would not ascent much above N. Korea level w/o huge capital and technology transfer. The fate of Chine was decided in the West and more precisely in NYC by Rockefeller and Co. in 1970s-1980s. The question is why. What were they thinking?
  27. @utu
    "He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. " - But not after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but before it to provoke the Soviet intervention. This is what he is most proud of.

    Not that Brezhnev and Co needed much provocation. As the economic rug was pulled under Soviet feet, they went on a bizarre series of military adventures in Africa and Afghanistan.
    As the economy collapses around them, the American Government has gone on a bizarre series of military adventures. Plus ca change.
    Edmund Burke said that he who does not understand history is destined to repeat it ( I paraphrase ). The Neocons are oblivious to how their actions mirror the very recent Soviet past. The difference between the Soviets and today’s adventurism is that the Soviets’ was in inconsequential 3rd World hellholes. The Americans’ is in important areas of Eastern Europe and the Middle East where other Great Powers have interests as well as nuclear weapons. This is clearly very dangerous. The Neocons truly are ignorant arseholes

    Read More
  28. @TheJester
    Evidently Zbigniew Brzezinski has never heard of the British Empire if he believes that "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.”

    We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled. Britain's mercantile economy worked when it was the world's leading industrial power. It went to war ... too many wars ... to protect that advantage. It went bankrupt in the process. However, in its embarrassing fall from power and humiliating poverty, Britain learned a valuable, retrospective lesson:


    "The goal of major powers is to be able to fight major wars. However, their long-term survival depends on not fighting those wars."
     
    Suffering from a fatal hubris, I fear the United States will also have to learn its lessons the hard way.

    Your advice should be taken. However….

    Your proposition about what caused the end of the British Empire would look more plausible if you could show that its going to war in 1914 was to “protect that [its lead in industrialising] advantage”. Only the 1914-1918 war contributed critically to ending the British Empire and I would be interested to know why you think that had anything to do with “that advantage”. Unfair perhaps because Britain had long since lost “that” advantage, was the leading free trade exponent and I suspect that you are vaguely remembering some left wing theories as to Britain’s defending its trade interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    The British Empire was done for well before 1914 - like the Romans, it expanded past the point where there was a net benefit to the Empire as a whole, and got to the point where the aggregate costs outweighed the aggregate benefits.

    The problem for Empires is that the benefits from expansion are always captured privately (by a clique of cronies), but the costs are (mostly) borne by the tax base.

    That means that the 'crony' cost-benefit calculation is still strongly positive at the point at which aggregate cost-benefit calculation would require stopping the expansion.

    Plus, nobody was scared of the British after about 1850: sure, they still had a big navy.

    However they had gotten their butts kicked in 3 campaigns -
    -- the American colonies;
    -- Afghanistan; and
    -- the Maori Wars in New Zealand (Kia Ora, ).

    I always compare those three to
    -- Varus at Teutoberger Wald;
    -- Crassus at Carrhae; and
    -- Hadrian's Wall in Caledonia (this was really just a pre-emptive acknowledgement of the likely military failure of any further action... that equals defeat if you're a soi-disant superpower).

    Once you are shown to be vulnerable to an insurgency, you're finished as a power. And all expansionist Empires are vulnerable to insurgencies because taking ground is no good unless you hold it, and holding it without genociding the indigenes is not possible.

    If your aim is resource extraction (rather than lebensraum), genocide makes no sense - because you then have to import a bunch of labour, which is costly. And if you don't genocide, then resource extraction costs increase due to the requirement to secure the resources and the capital and labour being used for the resource extraction.

    Plus, the whole 'Rules the waves' schtick is now irrelevant, because you can't administer territory from a boat.

    Before anti-shipping missiles existed, big ships were useful in wars of (near-)equals.

    Now, they are just gigantic metal coffins that dare not park inside the range of any known anti-shipping missile - which means that a CBG must park outside the range of their own carrier-based aircraft. The first exchange of any 21st century naval battle, will be an aircraft carrier being destroyed by an incoming volley of anti-shipping missiles (like the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts which I first wrote about in 2004), and the Navy will cease being relevant.


    So where are we now?

    The US has already had 4 instances where it got handed its hat - in the last 2, the opposition had no 'great power' backing it (I'm leaving out Somalia, because it wasn't big enough to be a proper test)...
    -- Korea
    -- Viet Nam
    -- Iraq and
    -- Afghanistan

    There was also one big instance where its trillion-dollar security-theater apparatus got a bloody nose dealt by a bunch of people who were supposed to be primitive halfwits...
    -- 9/11.

    (The US also reacted to 911 - at a national level - like a teenage girl, with self-absorbed histrionics: being shown that your sense of invulnerability is misplaced, is probably a terribly stressful thing)

    So nobody is scared of the US anymore. Only the US seems unaware of this fact - outside its own self-absorbed exceptionalist echo chamber, everyone knows that the US Empire is dead in the water.

    Some third-rate countries (e.g., Australia, England) have politicians of such low calibre that they still want to be friends with the 'big guy' - but that was the case for Oz pollies when the English were on the wane, too: Australia's parasite classes never met a fading power that they wouldn't fellate. There's probably still high-value scraps for those vermin to scarf, too.

    However everybody now knows that the US can't get the job done (to be fair, nobody can: information is much freer now, so everyone knows where the soft underbelly is).

    -- ambush and irregular warfare beats well-drilled and equipped professionals, especially if the latter are actively ignorant of terrain and its implications for the logistical chain;
    -- domestic 4G insurgency doesn't need to outfight or outwit the invader - it just needs to outlast them while imposing low levels of casualty - which is easy (and the stress on the invaders' soldiers will bear further fruit when it morphs into PTSD when they get home).

    The US is done as a global power. It should pull in its horns and try to trade its way out of the mess it's made. Of course it could still do a lot of damage as it has its death throes.

    Meanwhile, China's trading its way to global supremacy without invading anybody.

  29. @Verymuchalive
    I've never considered Brzezinski very acute in his understanding of politics. He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. $4bn in military aid flowed to them. Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy.
    In 1997, as Brzezinski was presenting his idea of American Exceptionalism, Patrick Buchanan was writing his book, " The Great Betrayal, " which was published in 1998. The disastrous effects of Free Trade ( aka Globalisation ) on the American Economy; the destruction of whole industries, the massive trade deficits, the massive budget deficits were all laid bare. Mr Buchanan aptly argued that a state with a weak economy could not act as a major power, never mind a Global Hegemon. The position is very much worse now.
    Pat Buchanan was aware in the 1990s that the economic rug was being pulled from under America's feet. Indeed, total economic collapse cannot be far off. Brzezinski's partial admission that all is not well is ridiculously tardy.

    Did you pause before you wrote that B was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today’s ally might be tomorrow’s enemy?

    A highly educated person of Eastern European back ground didn’t even remember that the Soviet Union had been a US ally? C’mon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Just my impression -- the Polish ZB's key driver was seething hatred for USSR. It follows from that that he didn't care about what otherwise disinterested parties were hurt, nor the long term impacts on USA; his visceral agenda was to harm Soviet Russia.

    Also, ZB as "highly educated" might be giving more credence than is prudent to self-promotion. Zbig has a lot of letters after his name but he's really not that smart -- not smart enough to check his own passions, for example.
    , @Verymuchalive
    As a former academic myself, I can assure you very many universities today have professors and lecturers, who, had they been around 30,40,50 years ago, would have struggled to get a post-graduate degree never mind a teaching post.
    So what does " highly educated " mean for a Polish arriviste with a violent sense of Russophobia.
    Back to Edmund Burke again. " It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
  30. @Jacques Sheete
    I'm not so sure about this because everyone knows that the goons never say what they really think and what they say in public is meant for public consumption.:

    "...the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions."

     

    All we really know is that he's talking about a course correction in public, and I'm wondering why.

    Can you think of any important alternative to his having come to his senses, and doesn’t want to be tagged with ridiculously out of date and indefensible ideas?

    Read More
  31. @Jacques Sheete
    I'm not so sure about this because everyone knows that the goons never say what they really think and what they say in public is meant for public consumption.:

    "...the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions."

     

    All we really know is that he's talking about a course correction in public, and I'm wondering why.

    #11 serms to suggest motive.

    Read More
  32. @Carlton Meyer
    The USA will soon have its own "Suez Crisis". Something relevant from my blog, which has links:

    Aug 21, 2016 - The TRIS Alliance

    A new alliance suddenly appeared to counter American expansionism. The unofficial Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance is too powerful for the world's superpower to challenge. All four nations have similar interests, good relations, and are threatened by American imperialism. However, this dramatic change has not been recognized by American leaders nor reported in the western press. 

    Turkey's shift is sudden but not surprising. All of Syria was part of Turkey until the Ottoman Empire was shattered a century ago. It seems Turkey had been promised a return of control of oil fields in Northern Syria once Assad was overthrown. This plan was thwarted by Russia and Turkey was left with three million refugees. Europe promised to take most of them, but stopped when their citizens objected. 

    Kurdish militia groups have fought Turkish troops for a century. The desperate Americans ignored this problem and provided more arms to the Kurds and encouraged them to fight in Syria. This spilled over into Turkey where 25% of its population consists of unhappy Kurds. Kurdish fighters increased attacks on Turkish troops while the Turkish military was expelled from parts of northern Iraq, where its Generals controlled the lucrative black market oil trade for the past two decades.

    The Turks were furious and began to withdraw support for Syrian "rebels" and increased attacks on Kurds. The Americans disapproved, and it seems the USA knew about the coup last month in Turkey and said nothing, and maybe organized it. What else could explain the evacuation of all American military and diplomat families from Turkey last March:

    “The mandatory departure order, announced by the State Department, affects nearly all Defense Department dependents assigned to Incirlik, as well as those at smaller bases in Izmir and Mugla. The families of U.S. diplomats in the same areas also are ordered to depart. On Monday Israel issued a new travel advisory for Turkey, warning Israeli citizens to leave the country as soon as possible and avoid any traveling there.”

    American Generals blamed ISIS, but the USA has been bombing “terrorists” in the region for over a decade and never considered families in Turkey at risk until just before the attempted coup. This and other evidence convinced most Turks that the Americans were behind the failed coup. The US government scrambled to convince Turkey otherwise, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and our Vice President promptly visiting Turkey amid rumors that Turkey might leave NATO. 

    In addition, most Turks consider the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a Turkish city, stolen by the British in 1918. Sunni rebels took over this city a couple years ago with quiet support from the Turks, who even established a military base near Mosul. Last year, President Obama pressured the Turks to withdraw their troops from Iraq and announced this large city must be conquered by the Shiite government in Baghdad. The Iraqi army is not motivated so the Americans brought in Kurdish troops to help. This may result in a bloody siege that kills thousands and leaves hundreds of thousands more refugees showing up at the nearby Turkish border.

    Turkey had enough! Turkish President Erdogan recently made a sudden trip to Moscow. A few days later, experts were shocked to see Russian bombers now based in Iran overflying Iraq to bomb targets in Syria. And now Turkey has agreed to allow the Russians to use its airbases! A few days later, Turkey signed an agreement with Iran to resolve the fighting in Syria. Then the Syrians conducted its first airstrikes and ground attacks against the Kurds in Syria!

    This indicates the biggest power shift since the end of the Cold War! An informal alliance, which I christen the Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance, has formed to counter the American-Israeli domination of the Middle East. The Kurds now face destruction as all its neighbors are united and hostile. They should retreat from Syria and the Mosul region and hope TRIS leaves them alone. This means the Americans will lose their best local ground troops and possibly its airbases in Turkey. Finally, the Americans may also be expelled by the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which is already allied with Iran and has conflicts with the Kurds too!

    These are interesting times. Will American diplomacy, bribery, and economic aid manage to unhinge TRIS? If not, will the American military manage a peaceful retreat from Iraq and abandon the Kurds, whose semi-official nation may be dismembered by Turkey and Iraq? Syria and Iraq might agree to cede some of their remote Kurdish areas to Turkey if the big Turkish military agrees to invade and destroy the Kurdish military, which it wants to do anyway. Or will the Americans go on the offensive and send airpower and troops to finish off Syria's Assad, risking war with TRIS? This is a huge failure for Obama foreign policy and it's not even covered in the American media.

    This seems to be an excellent collection of info. Despite that, I apologize that I have no idea about what to think here and never will, except in very general terms, but you seem to be making a lot of sense.

    Would you offer your opinion as to why the so called expert, ZB, is saying what he’s saying now when it’s been obvious to anyone with a couple of functioning neurons for decades?

    In other words, what’s your take on the game the clown is now playing? What is it hiding from us, or distracting us from, or setting us up for?

    Many thanks in advance.

    Read More
  33. “Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia…”

    A glance at any globe of the world will show that America has never been IN Eurasia. It is a separate continent, thousands of miles away from Europe and Asia whether you go East or West. (True, there are short hops across the Bering Straits and between Maine and Norway, but the main body of the continents are very far apart and separated by oceans).

    The USA spent most of the 19th century colonizing all of North America between Canada and Mexico (and stealing more than half of Mexico in the process, just because it felt like it). When the tide of migration, propelled by “Manifest Destiny”, reached the West Coast, Americans were not prepared to let the Pacific Ocean stop their irresistible expansion. Armed with a spanking new navy, they saw no reason why they should not just keep rolling Westward until they reached Europe again from the East. After all, there was no one in Asia except a bunch of primitive (or decadent – the story varied) peasants who were thoroughly uncivilized (in the sense of lacking machine guns, bombs, armoured battleships and, soon, military aircraft). Clearly such people would be just as easy to conquer, and just as much fun to exterminate, as the Native Americans.

    Quite early, the decision was taken (by Theodore Roosevelt among others) to co-opt the Japanese as “honorary Aryans” (Roosevelt’s exact words, so don’t blame me). The idea was to use them as a lever against China and the rest of Asia, and in the process to “borrow” their islands as a sort of giant American military base. There was a bit of a hiccup when the Japanese tried to go into the empire business on their own account, but a couple of atomic bombs took care of that. With the proper master-servant relationship duly restored, the USA continued with its plan to spread “democracy” (i.e. American rule) everywhere it could. Unfortunately, the Chinese and the Russians have twigged, and others like the Indians, Pakistanis and Iranians are also angry and frightened enough at American aggression to join them. Bad luck, Yanks – meet Fortress Asia!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    That is a 5 star summary of US expansion!

    I'd like to add that the US did go beyond Mexico and the story of its meddling in S America is amazing, particularly the devious methods it used to gain land for the Panama Canal.

    Also, I find it curious that some still defend the idea of the Monroe Doctrine for the US, but don't quite feel the same about the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere...
  34. @Carlton Meyer
    The USA will soon have its own "Suez Crisis". Something relevant from my blog, which has links:

    Aug 21, 2016 - The TRIS Alliance

    A new alliance suddenly appeared to counter American expansionism. The unofficial Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance is too powerful for the world's superpower to challenge. All four nations have similar interests, good relations, and are threatened by American imperialism. However, this dramatic change has not been recognized by American leaders nor reported in the western press. 

    Turkey's shift is sudden but not surprising. All of Syria was part of Turkey until the Ottoman Empire was shattered a century ago. It seems Turkey had been promised a return of control of oil fields in Northern Syria once Assad was overthrown. This plan was thwarted by Russia and Turkey was left with three million refugees. Europe promised to take most of them, but stopped when their citizens objected. 

    Kurdish militia groups have fought Turkish troops for a century. The desperate Americans ignored this problem and provided more arms to the Kurds and encouraged them to fight in Syria. This spilled over into Turkey where 25% of its population consists of unhappy Kurds. Kurdish fighters increased attacks on Turkish troops while the Turkish military was expelled from parts of northern Iraq, where its Generals controlled the lucrative black market oil trade for the past two decades.

    The Turks were furious and began to withdraw support for Syrian "rebels" and increased attacks on Kurds. The Americans disapproved, and it seems the USA knew about the coup last month in Turkey and said nothing, and maybe organized it. What else could explain the evacuation of all American military and diplomat families from Turkey last March:

    “The mandatory departure order, announced by the State Department, affects nearly all Defense Department dependents assigned to Incirlik, as well as those at smaller bases in Izmir and Mugla. The families of U.S. diplomats in the same areas also are ordered to depart. On Monday Israel issued a new travel advisory for Turkey, warning Israeli citizens to leave the country as soon as possible and avoid any traveling there.”

    American Generals blamed ISIS, but the USA has been bombing “terrorists” in the region for over a decade and never considered families in Turkey at risk until just before the attempted coup. This and other evidence convinced most Turks that the Americans were behind the failed coup. The US government scrambled to convince Turkey otherwise, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and our Vice President promptly visiting Turkey amid rumors that Turkey might leave NATO. 

    In addition, most Turks consider the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a Turkish city, stolen by the British in 1918. Sunni rebels took over this city a couple years ago with quiet support from the Turks, who even established a military base near Mosul. Last year, President Obama pressured the Turks to withdraw their troops from Iraq and announced this large city must be conquered by the Shiite government in Baghdad. The Iraqi army is not motivated so the Americans brought in Kurdish troops to help. This may result in a bloody siege that kills thousands and leaves hundreds of thousands more refugees showing up at the nearby Turkish border.

    Turkey had enough! Turkish President Erdogan recently made a sudden trip to Moscow. A few days later, experts were shocked to see Russian bombers now based in Iran overflying Iraq to bomb targets in Syria. And now Turkey has agreed to allow the Russians to use its airbases! A few days later, Turkey signed an agreement with Iran to resolve the fighting in Syria. Then the Syrians conducted its first airstrikes and ground attacks against the Kurds in Syria!

    This indicates the biggest power shift since the end of the Cold War! An informal alliance, which I christen the Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance, has formed to counter the American-Israeli domination of the Middle East. The Kurds now face destruction as all its neighbors are united and hostile. They should retreat from Syria and the Mosul region and hope TRIS leaves them alone. This means the Americans will lose their best local ground troops and possibly its airbases in Turkey. Finally, the Americans may also be expelled by the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which is already allied with Iran and has conflicts with the Kurds too!

    These are interesting times. Will American diplomacy, bribery, and economic aid manage to unhinge TRIS? If not, will the American military manage a peaceful retreat from Iraq and abandon the Kurds, whose semi-official nation may be dismembered by Turkey and Iraq? Syria and Iraq might agree to cede some of their remote Kurdish areas to Turkey if the big Turkish military agrees to invade and destroy the Kurdish military, which it wants to do anyway. Or will the Americans go on the offensive and send airpower and troops to finish off Syria's Assad, risking war with TRIS? This is a huge failure for Obama foreign policy and it's not even covered in the American media.

    wow, how true/accurate is this? I knew edrogan was gonna be thrown under the bus, I just didn’t realize it was gonna be this fast. if turkey joins the TRIS as you call it, usa just lost the lynch pin for the entire middle east.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Lurch Kerry & Joe Biden will not let it happen without a fight.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-will-attempt-to-smooth-relations-with-turkey-1472027057

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/syria-talks-kerry-and-lavrov-to-thrash-out-deal-on-defeating-isis

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/08/john-kerry-sergey-lavrov-fatal-attraction-160825135526782.html

    I wouldn't characterize these as "charm offensive."

    Kerry & Biden are working feverishly to peel Russia away from Iran.

    Iran is to the Anglo-zionists what Jews were to Hitler -- a fulcrum.
  35. Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka–The “dollar system”) But will bloodthirsty Hillary follow his advice?

    “…AVOID A NUCLEAR CONFLAGRATION…”

    That’s the trick. We need to accept that the smaller players are going to set off a few, maybe a few hundred, but we need to avoid a full-scale exchange between the maj0r powers.

    Bio war will vastly reduce the world’s population. Life will go on, probably even get better if things go as they did after the Black Death and the Thirty Years War.

    Read More
  36. We’ve always been much more like Russians than the Europeans in many ways. We were large, insular ,rural societies . Russians make for lousy socialists but perfectly acceptable capitalists as can be seen from their living quarters with the common areas being dilapidated, while their private areas are quite well maintained much of the time. It really wasn’t their idea. The religious divide as both societies secularized is also gone. Russia was a piece of cake to absorb into the basics of American and Western culture. All the hostility from the West and letting necons run amok is what made them flee to a strongman. That Russia is in China’s orbit at this point is truly astounding.

    Read More
  37. @Wizard of Oz
    Did you pause before you wrote that B was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy?

    A highly educated person of Eastern European back ground didn't even remember that the Soviet Union had been a US ally? C'mon.

    Just my impression — the Polish ZB’s key driver was seething hatred for USSR. It follows from that that he didn’t care about what otherwise disinterested parties were hurt, nor the long term impacts on USA; his visceral agenda was to harm Soviet Russia.

    Also, ZB as “highly educated” might be giving more credence than is prudent to self-promotion. Zbig has a lot of letters after his name but he’s really not that smart — not smart enough to check his own passions, for example.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    See #69 and allow me to point out that ZB not really being "that smart" was not the issue. But far be it from me to seek to impose a pedantic rule of strict responsiveness or even relevance on fellow UR commenters.
  38. @Astuteobservor II
    wow, how true/accurate is this? I knew edrogan was gonna be thrown under the bus, I just didn't realize it was gonna be this fast. if turkey joins the TRIS as you call it, usa just lost the lynch pin for the entire middle east.

    Lurch Kerry & Joe Biden will not let it happen without a fight.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-will-attempt-to-smooth-relations-with-turkey-1472027057

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/syria-talks-kerry-and-lavrov-to-thrash-out-deal-on-defeating-isis

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/08/john-kerry-sergey-lavrov-fatal-attraction-160825135526782.html

    I wouldn’t characterize these as “charm offensive.”

    Kerry & Biden are working feverishly to peel Russia away from Iran.

    Iran is to the Anglo-zionists what Jews were to Hitler — a fulcrum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I wonder if Iran's leaders are stupid or smart. do they like bending over? because that is what they will have to do if they choose usa over russia + china.
  39. @Tom Welsh
    “Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia..."

    A glance at any globe of the world will show that America has never been IN Eurasia. It is a separate continent, thousands of miles away from Europe and Asia whether you go East or West. (True, there are short hops across the Bering Straits and between Maine and Norway, but the main body of the continents are very far apart and separated by oceans).

    The USA spent most of the 19th century colonizing all of North America between Canada and Mexico (and stealing more than half of Mexico in the process, just because it felt like it). When the tide of migration, propelled by "Manifest Destiny", reached the West Coast, Americans were not prepared to let the Pacific Ocean stop their irresistible expansion. Armed with a spanking new navy, they saw no reason why they should not just keep rolling Westward until they reached Europe again from the East. After all, there was no one in Asia except a bunch of primitive (or decadent - the story varied) peasants who were thoroughly uncivilized (in the sense of lacking machine guns, bombs, armoured battleships and, soon, military aircraft). Clearly such people would be just as easy to conquer, and just as much fun to exterminate, as the Native Americans.

    Quite early, the decision was taken (by Theodore Roosevelt among others) to co-opt the Japanese as "honorary Aryans" (Roosevelt's exact words, so don't blame me). The idea was to use them as a lever against China and the rest of Asia, and in the process to "borrow" their islands as a sort of giant American military base. There was a bit of a hiccup when the Japanese tried to go into the empire business on their own account, but a couple of atomic bombs took care of that. With the proper master-servant relationship duly restored, the USA continued with its plan to spread "democracy" (i.e. American rule) everywhere it could. Unfortunately, the Chinese and the Russians have twigged, and others like the Indians, Pakistanis and Iranians are also angry and frightened enough at American aggression to join them. Bad luck, Yanks - meet Fortress Asia!

    That is a 5 star summary of US expansion!

    I’d like to add that the US did go beyond Mexico and the story of its meddling in S America is amazing, particularly the devious methods it used to gain land for the Panama Canal.

    Also, I find it curious that some still defend the idea of the Monroe Doctrine for the US, but don’t quite feel the same about the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere…

    Read More
  40. Thanks, Jacues! Though I ought to have acknowledged that most of it is nothing more than a digest of material from James Bradley’s fabulous book “The Imperial Cruise”. I couldn’t believe that people like Roosevelt (and everyone who mattered in late 19th century USA) said and even wrote things that sounded exactly like Hitler and Rosenberg. Strongly recommended.

    I should have mentioned Panama, and how it was “broken off” from Colombia (how similar in some ways to recent events in Crimea, although the US government takes a very different line about that).

    As I recollect, the “flip side” of the Monroe Doctrine was some kind of promise to avoid meddling in Europe. Of course, that was just because the USA was far too weak to do any such thing in those days – it took two World Wars to put it in the drivers’ seat in Europe. That promise expired long ago; like the verbal promise given to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t move “one inch” East of the German border.

    Read More
  41. Anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    How Zbigniew Brzezinski created Al-Qaeda and Taliban. (ISIS)

    Read More
  42. @Erebus
    ZB was/is the Donald's FP advisor. When I saw ZB's article some months ago, I stopped wondering whether Trump's foreign policy pronouncements were for real.
    Obviously, the winds of change hit some DC neighbourhoods harder than others.

    ZB was/is the Donald’s FP advisor.

    Then why is his daughter slamming Trump every morning on national television? She seems to be carrying her share of the water in the PTB effort to bury him.

    She owes her overrated/overpaid job and entire lifestyle to her overrated father, so how could she possibly be doing anything without his approval?

    I hope you’re right, that ZB is indeed an advisor to Donald, and I hope then that ZB is genuine and not just a mole in the candidate’s camp. Personally, after all these years of continued US insanity — invade/invite/dominate the world while things crumble at home — I can’t put much credence in anything the ageing, born-of-priviledge Pole says. He’s part of America’s century of misguided foreign entanglements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    I hope you’re right, that ZB is indeed an advisor to Donald,
     
    I think I may have blown that one.

    An article I remembered reading analyzed (Trump's official FP advisor) Carter Page's writings and his speeches in Moscow. The author, whose name escapes me, suggested that Page was channeling Brzezinski’s (& Kissinger's) recent thinking, but I cannot state that he outright made the claim that Brzezinski was officially involved. Anyhow, over the last year or two, both of the latter have made a point of publicly announcing that the growth of American power has hit its end stops, and to warn that to pretend it hasn't is to court catastrophe.

    This has nothing to do with either of them "mellowing in their old age". These men mastered the calculus of power, and this calculus continues to provide the "theory of everything" within which they work. It is the world they write about. If they seem to be interested in something apparently tangential, you can be sure it is because the calculus becomes more finely tuned when that new variable is entered into its equations.

    Both have noted that when newly emergent variables are loaded, the calculus clearly indicates that America has gone past Peak Power. Ergo, its strategies and policies must now pivot to focus on making the right, declining side of power curve as smooth and shallow a slope as possible, and that attempts to create a "double top" are mis-guided. They will inevitably result in a steep and jagged decline, or worse. If the attempt to create a double top is founded on hubris driven, simplistic ideologies, "worse" is what we'll get. America either learns to sit respectfully at a round table with its peers, or it'll crash 'n burn as those emergent variables bury its attempt to cling to exceptionalism.

    If any are interested, Carter Page can be read in his own words:
    http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/author/carter-page
    I found the following particularly illuminating on where Mr. Page (and by extension the Donald), is coming from...
    http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/02/2015/new-slaves-global-edition-russia-iran-and-segregation-world-economy
  43. @Jacques Sheete
    Another insightful article, Sir.

    She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world.
     
    No, she doesn't. She's utterly blind, in typical narcissistic psychopath fashion, to anything beyond herself and that goes as well for those that support the degenerate harridan.

    However, if it becomes prez, then one of the benefits will certainly be the that "US war-making [murderous, extortionist] juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks."

    Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a true American, a die hard imperialist; she does not believe free lunch and everybody has to earn his keep, she is challenging the challengers to earn their keep. Or perhaps it is the rest of world misunderstood the American, they were hypnotized by the American’s deadliest export, democracy, and ignored the true color of the American, a ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘inquisitor’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a true American, a die hard imperialist
     
    Oh, it's certainly that!

    And also a degenerate, arrogant, blood thirsty, lying, greedy, narcissistic psychopath, but don't get me started!

    Or perhaps it is the rest of world misunderstood the American, they were hypnotized by the American’s deadliest export, democracy,
     
    Make that ersatz democracy imposed at gunpoint, please.
    , @rakewind
    I take it that you're indulging in irony.
  44. @Wizard of Oz
    Did you pause before you wrote that B was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy?

    A highly educated person of Eastern European back ground didn't even remember that the Soviet Union had been a US ally? C'mon.

    As a former academic myself, I can assure you very many universities today have professors and lecturers, who, had they been around 30,40,50 years ago, would have struggled to get a post-graduate degree never mind a teaching post.
    So what does ” highly educated ” mean for a Polish arriviste with a violent sense of Russophobia.
    Back to Edmund Burke again. ” It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Brzenski is about 90 years old and he earned his PHD from Harvard around 1950, long before silly liberal arts courses. He taught at 2 top ten universities Harvard and Columbia and also in another top school Johns Hopkins.

    He's not the standard racism studies PHD we get today. Did you know that one woman wrote her PHD thesis on how central gas heating was discriminatory against women? Central heating meant the men and boys of the house no longer had to go off into the forest, bring wood home, chop it up stack it up and bring it into the house So it helped men but not women. But I digress

    Brzenski did get a PHD from a very prestige university 60 years ago so he is intelligent.
    Like most Americans of Eastern European descent he probably hates the Soviet Union, communism and all the useful idiot intelligentsia who worshipped and adored communism

    And finally he got the opportunity to begin the destruction of the Soviet Union AND AND stuck it to all those generations of communism worshipping liberals who ingested every presidential administration from 1933 to 1980.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You might reflect that to revive a nit with a blood transfusion is a very precise operation and to do it with manufactured blood is asking for a Nobel Prize. After all ZB only had to be "much schooled", "ordinarily well read" or "still with most of his marbles" to ensure he had learned of and remembered radical changes in alliances.

    Be aware: I not only pick nits but leave the small ones poisoned and the bigger ones with IEDs :-)
  45. It seems the U.S. actually has the bones needed to be a leading power. We have energy in abundance while China has fast, cheap hands for production. If we would play to our strength in technology and shrink our defense perimeter to the U.S. proper their numbers would be much less impressive. Instead we fritter away our strength and advantage in meaningless foreign encounters.

    Louie IV to Churchill bellicosity produced a greatly diminished state and loss of wealth throughout the state.

    Read More
  46. @Astuteobservor II
    brzezinski is still hoping that we will stay in the driver's seat, the dollar system would stay. I highly doubt china would allow it. once that happens, we will be just another passenger on the world bus.

    It is cultural things, Chinese believes harmony, give and take and mutual benefits; while the West believes confrontation, and winner takes all. China proposed big powers relation but the West under the American leadership see it as a challenge trying to have the cake and ear it too.

    The dollar system has its place in the world, but as a sole system of the world is not beneficial to everybody in this world at all including the American, the American must see it this way and accept the RMB system in such light.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I intend no apology for America's many defects and bad policies but what you write sounds like brainwashed BS. Setting aside the overinclusiveness of your attributions of beliefs to China or the Chinese a few facts stand in the way of your comparison.

    The West (which countries? when?) believes in "winner takes all" in contrast to China which seeks "give and take and mutual benefits".

    So where is the give and take of China in relation to the South China Sea in respect of which it has totally failed to respect third party adjudication despite having signed the relevant Law of the Sea Convention? What give and take with weaker neighbours like Vietnam, Cambodia, Tibet, or the population of Hong Kong that wants to elect its own legislature and chief executive?

    I take it by the way that you are only referring to post Mao China with fanciful resurrections of what Confucianism and Taoism might have commended.

    China shows every sign of becoming as much of a self-centred bully as the US when it has the power to, or can you refute that gloomy impression?

  47. @Joe Wong
    Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a true American, a die hard imperialist; she does not believe free lunch and everybody has to earn his keep, she is challenging the challengers to earn their keep. Or perhaps it is the rest of world misunderstood the American, they were hypnotized by the American's deadliest export, democracy, and ignored the true color of the American, a 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitor'.

    Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a true American, a die hard imperialist

    Oh, it’s certainly that!

    And also a degenerate, arrogant, blood thirsty, lying, greedy, narcissistic psychopath, but don’t get me started!

    Or perhaps it is the rest of world misunderstood the American, they were hypnotized by the American’s deadliest export, democracy,

    Make that ersatz democracy imposed at gunpoint, please.

    Read More
  48. The undoing of the USA: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/26/the-high-cost-of-american-hubris/
    The High Cost of American Hubris:
    “Most Americans will accept stepping down off messianic pedestal if they have gained the true confidence that an increase in their standard of living would provide and if they are not manipulated and fed a constant diet of propaganda by politicians and corporate media on behalf of the interests of a craven and militaristic oligarchy.
    Instead, Americans and their leaders would be working together to implement practical and concrete policies to improve Americans’ lives and foster the cooperation and stability in the international arena that will translate into genuine long-term security for the US.”

    This sounds very nice but there are no democratic mechanisms to convert the outlined make-belief into reality.
    Also, while the author lists point by point the looting of the US citizenry by the psychopaths-in charge, the greatest problem — leading to all other problems — is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Empire of Federal Reserve.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @alexander
    Anna,

    After 9-11, I signed off on our government going after the perpetrators responsible,and bringing them to justice, NOT bombing, invading and decimating seven countries that NEVER attacked us.

    This policy of global empire is completely unhinged from reality. It certainly flies in the face of the original mandate of the American people...

    Lets face it,.....these people are totally off the rails..... and have been since 2003.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I don't understand the obsession of so many on UR with the Federal Reserve which has been left in the lurch and holding the baby by politicians refusing and neglecting to design and implement needed fiscal policy.
  49. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I didn’t quite finish ”Grand Chessboard…” but, I thought ZB had a grand idea there, even though it didn’t leave much room for good faith diplomacy because it was a blueprint for reckless empire building on steroids. That boiled down to US would foment Chaos enough to destabilize all the other players, enough so that the prize of Eurasia would fall into the lap of US.

    I think it was a pretty nifty idea, but, the execution of that plan has been terrible. Amateurs were allowed free reign! I mean… Look at what they’ve have done!

    Like a true Intillectual, ZB was all up in the clouds with Grand Ideas, and forgivably, didn’t realize the low caliber of (collectively, concentratedly, of this generation of US world affairs operations) egomaniac low brows, who would be pushing his stuff.

    Not trying to criticize unfairly, but the diplomatic ones are so far over their heads, and the generals, seem to be unrestrained and trashing about making chaos, but not the right kind of chaos!

    No wonder Zbig is walking it back a little, maybe he can dust himself off a little and persever some semblance of dignity. If there is any There there, he will want to be well thought of in the history books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rakewind
    Leaving aside all the maniacal delusions about what was possible by way of US hegemony, ZB's major theses were all driven by his -perhaps historically understandable - Russophobic paranoia.
  50. @annamaria
    The undoing of the USA: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/26/the-high-cost-of-american-hubris/
    The High Cost of American Hubris:
    "Most Americans will accept stepping down off messianic pedestal if they have gained the true confidence that an increase in their standard of living would provide and if they are not manipulated and fed a constant diet of propaganda by politicians and corporate media on behalf of the interests of a craven and militaristic oligarchy.
    Instead, Americans and their leaders would be working together to implement practical and concrete policies to improve Americans’ lives and foster the cooperation and stability in the international arena that will translate into genuine long-term security for the US."

    This sounds very nice but there are no democratic mechanisms to convert the outlined make-belief into reality.
    Also, while the author lists point by point the looting of the US citizenry by the psychopaths-in charge, the greatest problem -- leading to all other problems -- is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Empire of Federal Reserve.

    Anna,

    After 9-11, I signed off on our government going after the perpetrators responsible,and bringing them to justice, NOT bombing, invading and decimating seven countries that NEVER attacked us.

    This policy of global empire is completely unhinged from reality. It certainly flies in the face of the original mandate of the American people…

    Lets face it,…..these people are totally off the rails….. and have been since 2003.

    Read More
  51. @Chris Chuba
    I am disappointed that he thinks solely in terms of power. It was entirely predictable that China would ascend, less so, but not infeasible that Russia would recover. What about the idea that monopolists rapidly become incompetent?

    We could have used our power to go for what Putin calls a 'rules based' world order where toppling governments is considered extreme and radical. Instead we opted for 'America the Exceptional' where we are judge, jury, and executioner. It is quite ironic (don't care if I am misusing word), that our foreign policy establishment frequently accuses Russia of rejecting a rules based world when in reality it is just the opposite. To them 'rules based' means Pax Americana which was and is an untenable position.

    Pax Nation X is only possible if one acknowledges that Nation X is an empire that brings peace to the territory that it rules with an iron fist.

    “It was entirely predictable that China would ascend…”- No, it was not unless you were in the know. China would not ascent much above N. Korea level w/o huge capital and technology transfer. The fate of Chine was decided in the West and more precisely in NYC by Rockefeller and Co. in 1970s-1980s. The question is why. What were they thinking?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Senator Feinstein's husband Richard Blum had a lot to do with the movement of American investment to China as well.

    That's how he went from multi millionaire to billionaire
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I think you are indulging in a bit of American exceptionalism. China would have risen once it began on the path Deng Xiao Peng set in about 1978. It could have been slower but Japan did it much earlier and it didn't need US corporations to set up in China or even Most Favoured Nation status for exports to the US.
  52. @Xerxes
    A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    I thought the S was South Africa.

    Read More
  53. @El Dato
    Possibly. But the unnerving part is that most of these problems can be papered over for a little while by going "really hot" on the war front. Like, you know, what got us "out of" the "Great Depression" ... the ringing bell of a "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor.

    of course, it didn't get us out of anything. It just absolved everyone from having to explain the 10-year-long utter failure in getting the Rooseveltian Inflationary Command Economy going.

    A short "air/land battle" with a "limited nuclear exchanges" over Russia's near abroad (with the Europeans onboard naturally), whereby NATO "is attacked w/o provocations" sounds just like the ticket. One could then insitute a "Marshall Plan II" (maybe most of the money will not go to Sweden and Greece like what happened last time).

    The difference between America of 1941 and 2017 is like between night and day. Debt was low, taxes low, budgets in surplus, people were mostly white Europeans with 5-7 kids per family, the country was the pre-eminent world exporter and by far the largest manufacturer of goods.

    Today it’s all the exact opposite. There is no comparison.

    Read More
  54. @JL
    So, after he's spent decades creating, enacting and inspiring the US global imperialism that now has us on the verge of a nuclear armageddon, Brzezinski finds Jesus and tells us that maybe it wasn't such a great idea after all. Except these institutions built up over decades don't just flip on a dime, they require decades of reorientation, or a major catastrophe, to change course. If ever there was a blatant example that our political leaders are absolutely clueless and untrustworthy, this is it.

    Just like McNamara. We should hang Brzezinski from a flagpole now so he doesn’t get to quettly die in bed surrounded by his family like the mass murderer McNamara did..

    Read More
  55. @attonn
    Personally I don't believe Hillary will be starting new wars. For 4 reasons, at least.

    First, the US fiscal position is deteriorating badly - way ahead of schedule predicted by the CBO - and snowballing entitlements will eat away at the Pentagon. US military is in a death spiral already. And it's irreversible.
    Second, the stock market is topping out, and nothing dents American morale like a bear market in equities, and the disappearance of funny money. At times like that, foreign policy moves into background. Managing domestic strife is a full-time business.
    Third, the abysmal demographic trends ( it's worse than those of a supposedly dying Russia) don't support military adventurism.
    And fourth, America is already mired in more conflicts than it can manage. The first priority will be to extricate itself from the existing boondoggles.

    Whether it's Clinton or Trump, the policy will be roughly the same, because optionality for the USA is already gone.

    What dismal demographic trends? Every day thousands of military age men swarm over our border with Mexico.

    And even more anchor babies are born every day We’ve got lots of cannon fodder. Women will have to register for the draft soon as well

    Read More
    • Replies: @attonn
    Mexicanization and Africanization of America is not a great recipe for maintaining first-world military, R&D and infrastructure.

    White non-Hispanics are dying out and hordes of incoming welfare moochers not only don't contribute, but subtract from the equation.

    Focusing on sheer numbers is a wrong way of looking at the problem, IMHO.
    , @artichoke
    Yeah the best thing we can do is get rid of the lower part of the new generation. It's worse than the lower part of any prior US generation, by a lot.

    But the demographic strength for further economic leadership? Obama's done his best to make sure we don't have that. Affirmative action everything, cut our brightest students off at the knees for the sake of diversity, corruption of science in support of nonsense agendas. We still have a lot of strength, but it's weakened.
    , @Anonymous
    A conflict that eliminates millions of enlisted young Mexicans here in the former USA would be welcome in that respect. Sorry to say that, but there it is,

    Problem is that
    (1) good white Americans would die pointlessly along with their mestizo comrades

    (2) although there are dregs and even gang members joining the us military, there are also decent, patriotic, and sometimes mostly-white/European Mexicans joining;

    (3) the Mexicans who didn't join the military, no better a class of people than those who join the military and probably worse, would continue popping out children they (we) can't afford and

    (4) loading the military with Mexicans is a great way to ensure that we cannot defend our territory and resources and people when Mexicans finally push for secession.

    In short, the USA will be able to field a much larger military, in terms of personnel, than Russia, but our quality will likely be increasingly suspect and loyalty itself will be in question.
  56. @utu
    "It was entirely predictable that China would ascend..."- No, it was not unless you were in the know. China would not ascent much above N. Korea level w/o huge capital and technology transfer. The fate of Chine was decided in the West and more precisely in NYC by Rockefeller and Co. in 1970s-1980s. The question is why. What were they thinking?

    Senator Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum had a lot to do with the movement of American investment to China as well.

    That’s how he went from multi millionaire to billionaire

    Read More
  57. @Verymuchalive
    As a former academic myself, I can assure you very many universities today have professors and lecturers, who, had they been around 30,40,50 years ago, would have struggled to get a post-graduate degree never mind a teaching post.
    So what does " highly educated " mean for a Polish arriviste with a violent sense of Russophobia.
    Back to Edmund Burke again. " It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

    Brzenski is about 90 years old and he earned his PHD from Harvard around 1950, long before silly liberal arts courses. He taught at 2 top ten universities Harvard and Columbia and also in another top school Johns Hopkins.

    He’s not the standard racism studies PHD we get today. Did you know that one woman wrote her PHD thesis on how central gas heating was discriminatory against women? Central heating meant the men and boys of the house no longer had to go off into the forest, bring wood home, chop it up stack it up and bring it into the house So it helped men but not women. But I digress

    Brzenski did get a PHD from a very prestige university 60 years ago so he is intelligent.
    Like most Americans of Eastern European descent he probably hates the Soviet Union, communism and all the useful idiot intelligentsia who worshipped and adored communism

    And finally he got the opportunity to begin the destruction of the Soviet Union AND AND stuck it to all those generations of communism worshipping liberals who ingested every presidential administration from 1933 to 1980.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ZB's father was Polish Ambassador (of pre WWII government) to Berlin, Moscow and Canada. ZB is married to Emilie Benes (grand-niece of the second Czechoslovak president, Edvard Beneš).

    I do not think he ever had a reputation of a hawk. I do not believe that his Russophobia is real. I think he is rather on a liberal side. His real boss is Rockefeller.
    , @Verymuchalive
    It still doesn't alter the fact that Brzezinski let his violent Russophobia warp his judgement with disastrous results. We wouldn't be in this position if the likes of Brzezinski hadn't acted as intellectual cover for the Neocons.
  58. Eurasia might be a prize but no one has ever rules Eurosia and I doubt anyone ever will. It’s just too big, too many people etc. and a biggish chunk is very Muslim and supported by the oil money of Saudi and Iran.

    Our government can’t even turn the crime ridden city of DC into a place where a congress critter can safely come and go or God Forbid live and send the kids to school so how can our government rule Central Asia?
    There’s a Chinese response to busybodies and activists, first clean up your own house.

    Women’s rights in Afghanistan, how about an American woman retail clerk’s right to take the bus home after her shift ends at 10/pm without getting raped or robbed a block from the Capitol building in DC?

    Read More
  59. @Jacques Sheete

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.
     
    Any blockhead has known that for some time.

    I'm wondering why the goof has decided to say these things in public at this time, especially given the fact that no matter what it says, we prols don't have a clue as to what it really thinks.

    The garbage spewing from its mouth has a purpose, and it isn't to speak the truth or enlighten the rest of us. What could it be?

    B is trying to renew his relevance and prepare a role for himself in the post-neoliberal order. The good news is mother nature will shortly see to it that he — and Kissinger, another of my favorites — both stop breathing, finally ending their bloody careers. The bad news is modern medicine has helped delay that good news for far too long.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Agree. And I'd like the chance to say a few words to the goof who fixed Cheney's pumper too...
  60. @Alden
    Brzenski is about 90 years old and he earned his PHD from Harvard around 1950, long before silly liberal arts courses. He taught at 2 top ten universities Harvard and Columbia and also in another top school Johns Hopkins.

    He's not the standard racism studies PHD we get today. Did you know that one woman wrote her PHD thesis on how central gas heating was discriminatory against women? Central heating meant the men and boys of the house no longer had to go off into the forest, bring wood home, chop it up stack it up and bring it into the house So it helped men but not women. But I digress

    Brzenski did get a PHD from a very prestige university 60 years ago so he is intelligent.
    Like most Americans of Eastern European descent he probably hates the Soviet Union, communism and all the useful idiot intelligentsia who worshipped and adored communism

    And finally he got the opportunity to begin the destruction of the Soviet Union AND AND stuck it to all those generations of communism worshipping liberals who ingested every presidential administration from 1933 to 1980.

    ZB’s father was Polish Ambassador (of pre WWII government) to Berlin, Moscow and Canada. ZB is married to Emilie Benes (grand-niece of the second Czechoslovak president, Edvard Beneš).

    I do not think he ever had a reputation of a hawk. I do not believe that his Russophobia is real. I think he is rather on a liberal side. His real boss is Rockefeller.

    Read More
  61. @Alden
    Brzenski is about 90 years old and he earned his PHD from Harvard around 1950, long before silly liberal arts courses. He taught at 2 top ten universities Harvard and Columbia and also in another top school Johns Hopkins.

    He's not the standard racism studies PHD we get today. Did you know that one woman wrote her PHD thesis on how central gas heating was discriminatory against women? Central heating meant the men and boys of the house no longer had to go off into the forest, bring wood home, chop it up stack it up and bring it into the house So it helped men but not women. But I digress

    Brzenski did get a PHD from a very prestige university 60 years ago so he is intelligent.
    Like most Americans of Eastern European descent he probably hates the Soviet Union, communism and all the useful idiot intelligentsia who worshipped and adored communism

    And finally he got the opportunity to begin the destruction of the Soviet Union AND AND stuck it to all those generations of communism worshipping liberals who ingested every presidential administration from 1933 to 1980.

    It still doesn’t alter the fact that Brzezinski let his violent Russophobia warp his judgement with disastrous results. We wouldn’t be in this position if the likes of Brzezinski hadn’t acted as intellectual cover for the Neocons.

    Read More
  62. @Jeff Davis
    B is trying to renew his relevance and prepare a role for himself in the post-neoliberal order. The good news is mother nature will shortly see to it that he -- and Kissinger, another of my favorites -- both stop breathing, finally ending their bloody careers. The bad news is modern medicine has helped delay that good news for far too long.

    Agree. And I’d like the chance to say a few words to the goof who fixed Cheney’s pumper too…

    Read More
  63. Another war criminal for Clinton: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/paul-wolfowitz-says-he-will-likely-vote-for-clinton-a-1109639.html

    This time it is the ugliest, and most dishonest, Mr. Wolfowitz, the main machinator of initiation the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. He shows not a whiff of a sense of responsibility for the massive loss of life and treasure both in the US and Middle East. And yes, he is a zionist.

    “According to a retired CIA analyst, new evidence has emerged revealing the full extent to which Israel was involved in the direct planning of America’s aggressive war on Iraq:” http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cia_analyst_reveals_263.html

    “The job of finding WMD [in Iraq] and providing justification for the attack would fall to the intelligence services, but “Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believed that, while the established security services had a role, they were too bureaucratic and too traditional in their thinking.” As a result “they set up what came to be known as the ‘cabal’, a cell of eight or nine analysts in a new Office of Special Plans (OSP) based in the U.S. Defense Department.” … the OSP “was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.” Within months of being set up, the OSP “rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

    Wolfowitz fits perfect a definition of enemy of humanity.
    A lot of people think about Wolfowitz’ mother that same way people think about Hitler’s mother.

    Read More
  64. @Rehmat
    No wonder the Israel lobby hated this Polish dude.

    America’s leading foreign policy expert and Obama’s former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech at the event organized by the National American Iranian Council (NAIC) and the Arms Control Association in Washington on November 26, 2012 claimed that US administration is lead by the nose by pro-Israel Jewish groups like a stupid mule.

    “I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy,” said Brzezinski.

    “An attack on Iran would be an act of utter irresponsibility and potentially a significant immorality if the United States participated,” he said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/11/30/brzezinski-americans-are-stupid-israeli-mules/

    @Rahmat,
    Just remember Mr B plays both sides in the interest of Israel and his arguments have always been dependent on the wind direction in US!

    Read More
  65. @Alden
    What dismal demographic trends? Every day thousands of military age men swarm over our border with Mexico.

    And even more anchor babies are born every day We've got lots of cannon fodder. Women will have to register for the draft soon as well

    Mexicanization and Africanization of America is not a great recipe for maintaining first-world military, R&D and infrastructure.

    White non-Hispanics are dying out and hordes of incoming welfare moochers not only don’t contribute, but subtract from the equation.

    Focusing on sheer numbers is a wrong way of looking at the problem, IMHO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    Mexicanization and Africanization of America is not a great recipe for maintaining first-world military, R&D and infrastructure.
     
    You may want to add that neither are tattoos, piercings, and a lousy "work" ethic; deformities all too popular amongst the "vaunted" dumbass, naive 'Merkin cracker population.
  66. >>the “welling up of historical grievances” (from “deeply felt sense of injustice”) not as the mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths.<<

    Eh, 'mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths' is much closer to the truth than 'welling up of historical grievances' – they happily attack countries and people with whom they have no conceivable historical grievance. But it's not irrational, it's a rational quest for global domination not that different from Liberalism's own quest to dominate the planet.

    Read More
  67. @TheJester
    Evidently Zbigniew Brzezinski has never heard of the British Empire if he believes that "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.”

    We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled. Britain's mercantile economy worked when it was the world's leading industrial power. It went to war ... too many wars ... to protect that advantage. It went bankrupt in the process. However, in its embarrassing fall from power and humiliating poverty, Britain learned a valuable, retrospective lesson:


    "The goal of major powers is to be able to fight major wars. However, their long-term survival depends on not fighting those wars."
     
    Suffering from a fatal hubris, I fear the United States will also have to learn its lessons the hard way.

    “We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled.”

    Actually for the longest time the United States styled itself as the un-British as far as foreign policy goes. People may not know but for historic reasons the Americans resentment towards the Brits didn’t end until the beginning of the first world war in the last century. After all the Americans fought against the British for their independence and the Brits burned the White House and openly supported the Confederacy in the American civil war. When Britain was trying to carve Tibet out of China Lincoln’s secretary warned the British to respect China’s territorial integrity. When the British was colonializing US president Woodrow Wilson called for the self-determination of the people everywhere. When the Middle East became the playground for imperial Britain the Americans didn’t grab any land aside from creating the American University in Beirut. If you look at the map the US didn’t have any colony aside from the Philippines when the Britain and to a lesser degree France and others all have colonies in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    After WWII the US enjoyed goodwill from people everywhere because here is a Western country that didn’t behave like the other colonial powers. But as Britain retreated and after the cold war when there is no Soviet Union anymore and the US became the unchallenged Superpower it gradually began to resemble the empire of old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm sure you would agree on reflection that your somewhat oversimplified account could be fleshed out with respect especially to American inconsistencies, not to say hypocrisies.
    1. The extension of Manifest Destiny externally to parts of Mexico;
    2. The opening up of Japan;
    3. Joining in the taking of Concessions in China;
    4. Puerto Rico
    5. The consequences of the Spanish-American War of 1898 including Guantanamo Bay;
    6. Pacific Islands;
    7. Acquiring a large Russian colony and its Inuit indigenes;
    6. Outsourcing depredations in Latin America on the analogy of the East India compani es.
    7. Taking bases in British Empire territories in return for Lend-Lease.

    That's all just off the top of my head.

    No doubt good PR covered up the emerging reality for quite a while after WW2 though Iranians might have woken up early.

    , @rakewind
    I'm not entirely sure that "we know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire etc". I would suggest that anyone looking for a more detailed and nuanced account of the BE, it's origins, working and undoing, read John Darwin's "Unfinished Empire". The picture it presents is somewhat more intriguing, rather more informative, than the cliched simplicities that usually pass for an understanding of the British Empire.
  68. @SolontoCroesus
    Lurch Kerry & Joe Biden will not let it happen without a fight.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-will-attempt-to-smooth-relations-with-turkey-1472027057

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/syria-talks-kerry-and-lavrov-to-thrash-out-deal-on-defeating-isis

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/08/john-kerry-sergey-lavrov-fatal-attraction-160825135526782.html

    I wouldn't characterize these as "charm offensive."

    Kerry & Biden are working feverishly to peel Russia away from Iran.

    Iran is to the Anglo-zionists what Jews were to Hitler -- a fulcrum.

    I wonder if Iran’s leaders are stupid or smart. do they like bending over? because that is what they will have to do if they choose usa over russia + china.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Many non-brainwashed American lawmakers, academics, and authors have admitted that Iranian leaders are very honest and more smarter than their western counterparts when it comes to Iran's national interests.

    That's why they try to be friendly with many countries around the world including the US, Russia, China, France and Germany - without submitting to foreign pressure.

    Islamic Republic doesn't belong to any of the power blocks. It has trading and diplomatic relations with all UN members with the exception of the US, Egypt and the Zionist entity.

    Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei has commented on several occasions that co-operation with United States is against the interests of the Iranian nation.

    Last month, Khamenei said that the recent carnage in Turkey, Iraq, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia were the work of the intelligence agencies from the US, Israel and Britain with the evil agenda to consign Palestine into oblivion.

    “In Baghdad, several hundred families saw the loss of their loved ones at the hands of criminals and terrorists and those who want to promote a fabricated and fake Islam among people at the order of their masters. Also in Istanbul, in Bangladesh and elsewhere in some other countries, people fasting during the month of Ramadan came under terrorist attacks. This is the result of terrorism nurtured by security services of America, the Zionist regime and England,” the Leader said during Eid al-Fitr prayers in Tehran Wednesday.

    Ayatollah Khamenei said Muslim countries are the target of a scheme to turn certain political differences into civil wars.

    “The enemies are trying to consign the Palestinian issue into oblivion. They want to have the Islamic world preoccupied with internal problems so that the Palestinian issue is forgotten and the Zionist regime is given a chance to pursue its wicked goals,” said Khamenei....

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/06/khamenei-muslims-are-victims-of-us-israel-uk-terrorism/
  69. @Verymuchalive
    As a former academic myself, I can assure you very many universities today have professors and lecturers, who, had they been around 30,40,50 years ago, would have struggled to get a post-graduate degree never mind a teaching post.
    So what does " highly educated " mean for a Polish arriviste with a violent sense of Russophobia.
    Back to Edmund Burke again. " It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

    You might reflect that to revive a nit with a blood transfusion is a very precise operation and to do it with manufactured blood is asking for a Nobel Prize. After all ZB only had to be “much schooled”, “ordinarily well read” or “still with most of his marbles” to ensure he had learned of and remembered radical changes in alliances.

    Be aware: I not only pick nits but leave the small ones poisoned and the bigger ones with IEDs :-)

    Read More
  70. @SolontoCroesus
    Just my impression -- the Polish ZB's key driver was seething hatred for USSR. It follows from that that he didn't care about what otherwise disinterested parties were hurt, nor the long term impacts on USA; his visceral agenda was to harm Soviet Russia.

    Also, ZB as "highly educated" might be giving more credence than is prudent to self-promotion. Zbig has a lot of letters after his name but he's really not that smart -- not smart enough to check his own passions, for example.

    See #69 and allow me to point out that ZB not really being “that smart” was not the issue. But far be it from me to seek to impose a pedantic rule of strict responsiveness or even relevance on fellow UR commenters.

    Read More
  71. @Xerxes
    A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    I = the incredible shrinking Ielephant….

    BRICS => BRiCS => BR’CS…

    3 legs in nato, 1 leg in BR’CS, almost like an after thought,
    hehehehe

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Nothing to be happy about...
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Are you implying in your jumble of words that India's economy is going to let it or make it slip out of BRICS?

    From what I see that would need a lot of substantiation with hard evidence. Your link, though much more clearly written than your post reads as pro China left wing propaganda that engenders no trust.

    India's problems are huge but it has a very much younger population than China. What do you make of that?

  72. @Jacques Sheete

    Because maintaining the present course is impossible.
     
    Any blockhead has known that for some time.

    I'm wondering why the goof has decided to say these things in public at this time, especially given the fact that no matter what it says, we prols don't have a clue as to what it really thinks.

    The garbage spewing from its mouth has a purpose, and it isn't to speak the truth or enlighten the rest of us. What could it be?

    I think Jeff Davis’s reply is fair enough. And I think it worth being a bit more discriminating than to write dismissively of “the garbage spewing from their mouths” because you can count on them not wanting to hurt their current project (repositioning themselves for influence or desperately seeking to make sure their obituaries aren’t all about things they got wrong in the 70s or whatever). So they will try to adhere to what will pass for truth and sound reasoning amongst peers and even objective later historians.

    I’m not suggesting this is an instance of it but there is a tendency on even the elevated UR for anonymous huffing and puffing which calls everyone from other commenters to successful politicians fools. Actually your raising the question wrt ZB of why and why now is a worthy cut above that.

    Read More
  73. @denk
    I = the incredible shrinking Ielephant....

    BRICS => BRiCS => BR'CS...

    3 legs in nato, 1 leg in BR'CS, almost like an after thought,
    hehehehe

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Nothing to be happy about…

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    happy definitely not !

    but im rather puzzled lots of folks dont seem to notice
    what that 'eIephant in the room' is doing, or is that a
    trojan ?
    hehehe
  74. In case you don’t know, Brzezinski has long been associated with the US – Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.

    Take a look: https://www.usacc.org/about-us/leadership/honorary-council-of-advisors.html

    Along with Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker etc. The whole gang.

    And lo and behold, Neo-con Richard Perle is a member too:

    https://www.usacc.org/about-us/leadership/board-of-trustees.html

    All these people are out for NATO expansion, oil and gas, and personal gain by allying themselves with a corrupt, sadistic regime in Azerbaijan.

    So these people have not changed one iota. By the way, Israel has supplied Azerbaijan with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons. Israel – Azerbaijan. What a nice couple, huh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { Israel has supplied Azerbaijan with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons. Israel – Azerbaijan. What a nice couple, huh?}

    Perfidious Israel is selling weapons to nomads of Turkbaijan knowing full well their goal of wiping out the last remaining Armenians in their homeland in Caucasus.

    [Israel Must Not Sell Arms to the Azeris]
    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.622701
    {The sale of weapons to a government committing genocide is like the sale of weapons to Nazi Germany during World War II. }

    Russia also sells weapons to Azerbaijan, but sells the same or better weapons to Armenia at cost or sometimes free.

    During a surprise invasion by Turkbaijan into Nagorno-Karabagh in April 2016 (the '4-day-war'), the largest losses on the Armenian side were due to the Israeli Harop suicide drones and Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles that Azerbaijan had bought.

    Since Harop is so new and very sophisticated, it was suspected by Armenians that the drones were in fact being controlled by Israeli technicians in Baku, and not by Azerbaijanis.
    , @Jacques Sheete
    Thanks for that info. I have a friend who is works for the EU as an interpreter and English instructor. He's been teaching English to Azerbaijanis for some years now and thinks everything is just peachy.

    He simply will not listen to reason and it'll be fun to see his response to that info even tho I know what he'll say.
  75. @Solemnity
    In case you don't know, Brzezinski has long been associated with the US - Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.

    Take a look: https://www.usacc.org/about-us/leadership/honorary-council-of-advisors.html

    Along with Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker etc. The whole gang.

    And lo and behold, Neo-con Richard Perle is a member too:
    https://www.usacc.org/about-us/leadership/board-of-trustees.html

    All these people are out for NATO expansion, oil and gas, and personal gain by allying themselves with a corrupt, sadistic regime in Azerbaijan.

    So these people have not changed one iota. By the way, Israel has supplied Azerbaijan with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons. Israel - Azerbaijan. What a nice couple, huh?

    { Israel has supplied Azerbaijan with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons. Israel – Azerbaijan. What a nice couple, huh?}

    Perfidious Israel is selling weapons to nomads of Turkbaijan knowing full well their goal of wiping out the last remaining Armenians in their homeland in Caucasus.

    [Israel Must Not Sell Arms to the Azeris]

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.622701

    {The sale of weapons to a government committing genocide is like the sale of weapons to Nazi Germany during World War II. }

    Russia also sells weapons to Azerbaijan, but sells the same or better weapons to Armenia at cost or sometimes free.

    During a surprise invasion by Turkbaijan into Nagorno-Karabagh in April 2016 (the ’4-day-war’), the largest losses on the Armenian side were due to the Israeli Harop suicide drones and Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles that Azerbaijan had bought.

    Since Harop is so new and very sophisticated, it was suspected by Armenians that the drones were in fact being controlled by Israeli technicians in Baku, and not by Azerbaijanis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Around every corner , a boogyman .
    Behind every boogyman ,3 Turks.
    Such is Avery's reality..........
  76. @annamaria
    Nothing to be happy about...

    happy definitely not !

    but im rather puzzled lots of folks dont seem to notice
    what that ‘eIephant in the room’ is doing, or is that a
    trojan ?
    hehehe

    Read More
  77. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @attonn
    "The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.” (Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

    Economically America is not the most powerful entity anymore. China's GDP is far bigger than that of the US. Even by the World Bank's numbers - which typically flatter the US at the expense of the competition - China's economy is already bigger at purchasing parity ($20.9T vs 18.6T). In reality the gap is even larger - and growing every year.
    And since political influence and military might go hand in hand with the size of the economy, China will eclipse the USA in two other dimensions very soon. Within 5 years politically, and 10 years - militarily.
    The US government has a terrible habit of overestimating its capabilities, while underestimating its opponents - so Brzezinski's views should serve as a proverbial cold shower.
    Nobody can accuse him of being anti-American.

    REALLY? This analysis is so yesterday. While appearing correct on the surface, it ignores the
    “Uber Powers” that are 100 – 1000 years ahead of everyone technologically speaking. Where do you think the missing DOD 6 plus Trillion went?

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    I don't know. But last time a big chunk of money went missing, the Twin Towers came down. Not much win there.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Save our little grey cells. Tell us what IMNAHA stands for so we can understand the refined aspects of your joke.
  78. @Astuteobservor II
    I wonder if Iran's leaders are stupid or smart. do they like bending over? because that is what they will have to do if they choose usa over russia + china.

    Many non-brainwashed American lawmakers, academics, and authors have admitted that Iranian leaders are very honest and more smarter than their western counterparts when it comes to Iran’s national interests.

    That’s why they try to be friendly with many countries around the world including the US, Russia, China, France and Germany – without submitting to foreign pressure.

    Islamic Republic doesn’t belong to any of the power blocks. It has trading and diplomatic relations with all UN members with the exception of the US, Egypt and the Zionist entity.

    Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei has commented on several occasions that co-operation with United States is against the interests of the Iranian nation.

    Last month, Khamenei said that the recent carnage in Turkey, Iraq, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia were the work of the intelligence agencies from the US, Israel and Britain with the evil agenda to consign Palestine into oblivion.

    “In Baghdad, several hundred families saw the loss of their loved ones at the hands of criminals and terrorists and those who want to promote a fabricated and fake Islam among people at the order of their masters. Also in Istanbul, in Bangladesh and elsewhere in some other countries, people fasting during the month of Ramadan came under terrorist attacks. This is the result of terrorism nurtured by security services of America, the Zionist regime and England,” the Leader said during Eid al-Fitr prayers in Tehran Wednesday.

    Ayatollah Khamenei said Muslim countries are the target of a scheme to turn certain political differences into civil wars.

    “The enemies are trying to consign the Palestinian issue into oblivion. They want to have the Islamic world preoccupied with internal problems so that the Palestinian issue is forgotten and the Zionist regime is given a chance to pursue its wicked goals,” said Khamenei….

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/06/khamenei-muslims-are-victims-of-us-israel-uk-terrorism/

    Read More
  79. @Alden
    What dismal demographic trends? Every day thousands of military age men swarm over our border with Mexico.

    And even more anchor babies are born every day We've got lots of cannon fodder. Women will have to register for the draft soon as well

    Yeah the best thing we can do is get rid of the lower part of the new generation. It’s worse than the lower part of any prior US generation, by a lot.

    But the demographic strength for further economic leadership? Obama’s done his best to make sure we don’t have that. Affirmative action everything, cut our brightest students off at the knees for the sake of diversity, corruption of science in support of nonsense agendas. We still have a lot of strength, but it’s weakened.

    Read More
  80. @Anonymous
    REALLY? This analysis is so yesterday. While appearing correct on the surface, it ignores the
    "Uber Powers" that are 100 - 1000 years ahead of everyone technologically speaking. Where do you think the missing DOD 6 plus Trillion went?

    I don’t know. But last time a big chunk of money went missing, the Twin Towers came down. Not much win there.

    Read More
  81. @Carlton Meyer
    The USA will soon have its own "Suez Crisis". Something relevant from my blog, which has links:

    Aug 21, 2016 - The TRIS Alliance

    A new alliance suddenly appeared to counter American expansionism. The unofficial Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance is too powerful for the world's superpower to challenge. All four nations have similar interests, good relations, and are threatened by American imperialism. However, this dramatic change has not been recognized by American leaders nor reported in the western press. 

    Turkey's shift is sudden but not surprising. All of Syria was part of Turkey until the Ottoman Empire was shattered a century ago. It seems Turkey had been promised a return of control of oil fields in Northern Syria once Assad was overthrown. This plan was thwarted by Russia and Turkey was left with three million refugees. Europe promised to take most of them, but stopped when their citizens objected. 

    Kurdish militia groups have fought Turkish troops for a century. The desperate Americans ignored this problem and provided more arms to the Kurds and encouraged them to fight in Syria. This spilled over into Turkey where 25% of its population consists of unhappy Kurds. Kurdish fighters increased attacks on Turkish troops while the Turkish military was expelled from parts of northern Iraq, where its Generals controlled the lucrative black market oil trade for the past two decades.

    The Turks were furious and began to withdraw support for Syrian "rebels" and increased attacks on Kurds. The Americans disapproved, and it seems the USA knew about the coup last month in Turkey and said nothing, and maybe organized it. What else could explain the evacuation of all American military and diplomat families from Turkey last March:

    “The mandatory departure order, announced by the State Department, affects nearly all Defense Department dependents assigned to Incirlik, as well as those at smaller bases in Izmir and Mugla. The families of U.S. diplomats in the same areas also are ordered to depart. On Monday Israel issued a new travel advisory for Turkey, warning Israeli citizens to leave the country as soon as possible and avoid any traveling there.”

    American Generals blamed ISIS, but the USA has been bombing “terrorists” in the region for over a decade and never considered families in Turkey at risk until just before the attempted coup. This and other evidence convinced most Turks that the Americans were behind the failed coup. The US government scrambled to convince Turkey otherwise, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and our Vice President promptly visiting Turkey amid rumors that Turkey might leave NATO. 

    In addition, most Turks consider the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a Turkish city, stolen by the British in 1918. Sunni rebels took over this city a couple years ago with quiet support from the Turks, who even established a military base near Mosul. Last year, President Obama pressured the Turks to withdraw their troops from Iraq and announced this large city must be conquered by the Shiite government in Baghdad. The Iraqi army is not motivated so the Americans brought in Kurdish troops to help. This may result in a bloody siege that kills thousands and leaves hundreds of thousands more refugees showing up at the nearby Turkish border.

    Turkey had enough! Turkish President Erdogan recently made a sudden trip to Moscow. A few days later, experts were shocked to see Russian bombers now based in Iran overflying Iraq to bomb targets in Syria. And now Turkey has agreed to allow the Russians to use its airbases! A few days later, Turkey signed an agreement with Iran to resolve the fighting in Syria. Then the Syrians conducted its first airstrikes and ground attacks against the Kurds in Syria!

    This indicates the biggest power shift since the end of the Cold War! An informal alliance, which I christen the Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance, has formed to counter the American-Israeli domination of the Middle East. The Kurds now face destruction as all its neighbors are united and hostile. They should retreat from Syria and the Mosul region and hope TRIS leaves them alone. This means the Americans will lose their best local ground troops and possibly its airbases in Turkey. Finally, the Americans may also be expelled by the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which is already allied with Iran and has conflicts with the Kurds too!

    These are interesting times. Will American diplomacy, bribery, and economic aid manage to unhinge TRIS? If not, will the American military manage a peaceful retreat from Iraq and abandon the Kurds, whose semi-official nation may be dismembered by Turkey and Iraq? Syria and Iraq might agree to cede some of their remote Kurdish areas to Turkey if the big Turkish military agrees to invade and destroy the Kurdish military, which it wants to do anyway. Or will the Americans go on the offensive and send airpower and troops to finish off Syria's Assad, risking war with TRIS? This is a huge failure for Obama foreign policy and it's not even covered in the American media.

    You have reminded me to look into that apparently significant order in March to remove some US families which, predictably, is making a lot of Turks think the attempted coup was a US affair. (You seem to give that view some credence).

    I Googled “why were American families advised to leave Turkey” and, in summary, concluded that it was just unfortunate coincidence. Perhaps most important was that the order was limited and was far from extending, for example, to warning Americans to stay clear of Istanbul (although I haven’t checked for any changes in State Department advice to tourists).

    Another item. While the Kurdish birthrate seems to be well above the Turkish average I noted your 25 per cent figure for “unhappy Kurds” in the total population as surprising even without quibbling over the number who are unhappy/disaffected. One estimate I found was over 20 per cent and one as low as 15 per cent but something like 18 or 19 per cent seems more probable.

    I remain, as I have been for 15 years or so, puzzled as to what case can be made for the US bothering about the Middle East in its own self interest. I set aside consideration of support for NATO and NATO’s – Europe’s – interest in Turkey and the Mediterranean and consider only what is in it for the US to have played any part in the ME since the breakup of the USSR and the definitive end of the Cold War. It’s hard to put a precise date on it but oil hasn’t been a sufficient national interest reason for a very long time. Israel? It would be No.1 on the shortlist of allied or aligned countries that the US could be counted on not to let down badly when it had the means to protect it. Fair enough but what more was needed than to make it clear that if enemies did better than in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 they would have to take on the US before they could destroy Israel? None of the expensive messing around with and in the ME could be justified – or have I missed the argument?
    What else? Well 5 to 18 million Coptic Christians in Egypt is a big potential lump of refugees that the US and EU might reasonably prefer to stay home even while Egypt descends further into failed state condition. So at least putting off the catastrophe by paying to keep Egyptians fed may make sense. After all some problems have no solutions. (Actually, let’s be of good cheer. How about Europe inviting in 15 million Copts and no more Muslims?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    How do we know that someone claiming to be a copt isn't actually a Muslim, when they are genetically identical / look the same?

    Point 2: Coptic Egyptians are still Egyptians, and Semites and Africans do not belong in our society.
  82. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The elites are incredibly dumb. Now if they can “walk back” on globalism, oil, compulsory vaccines…etc. etc. maybe we’ll be on the road to a free energy, live and let live, healthy, peaceful world.

    The elites are DUMB.

    Just had to repeat it for emphasis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    They are so dumb that you don't even think they are good at looking after their own interests and preferences?
  83. Ho hum, more fundamentally unsound theories that make no mention of Israel’s preeminent position and influence on America.

    Read More
  84. @Anonymous
    REALLY? This analysis is so yesterday. While appearing correct on the surface, it ignores the
    "Uber Powers" that are 100 - 1000 years ahead of everyone technologically speaking. Where do you think the missing DOD 6 plus Trillion went?

    Save our little grey cells. Tell us what IMNAHA stands for so we can understand the refined aspects of your joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    One possibility is a tiny town in northeast Oregon, proximate to the Wallowa Mountains and Hells Canyon.
  85. Brzezinski
    part of Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Committee of 300 , The Golden Dawn. You think he wants to give up on the New World Order!??

    Jesuits have a saying it goes like this(Mossad) By Deception We Shall Do War.

    Read More
  86. @attonn
    "The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.” (Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

    Economically America is not the most powerful entity anymore. China's GDP is far bigger than that of the US. Even by the World Bank's numbers - which typically flatter the US at the expense of the competition - China's economy is already bigger at purchasing parity ($20.9T vs 18.6T). In reality the gap is even larger - and growing every year.
    And since political influence and military might go hand in hand with the size of the economy, China will eclipse the USA in two other dimensions very soon. Within 5 years politically, and 10 years - militarily.
    The US government has a terrible habit of overestimating its capabilities, while underestimating its opponents - so Brzezinski's views should serve as a proverbial cold shower.
    Nobody can accuse him of being anti-American.

    Those of us who saw the late 90s as the time for the US to begin coopting China into the management of the world (with India to be cultivated too) can only hope now for some major new saving developments in our future as a species. Hitler gave the anti-eugenicists all the running for 70 years but maybe now the Catholic Church has been crippled by scandal and indifference twin developments may begin to take off albeit at the 11th hour:

    1. serious attention to curbing poor people’s fertility (in Africa, the ME and the subcontinent: it isn’t difficult: you bribe the heads of families to keep the girls in education and without babies).

    2. Free and indeed subsidised eugenic** services. No more Huntington’s Disease, Fragile X Syndrome, early onset Alzheimer’s, etc. etc. etc.^50.
    **including lifelong gene/DNA based improvements (and let’s not limit our imaginations. At 110 I won’t mind if what appears to be my efficient Third World carer actually has a largely artificial brain, as long as someone teaches me which buttons to press).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, we need major financial incentives for Africans, Arabs, and Indians to voluntarily sterilize themselves by the hundreds of millions -- in those countries and in western countries where they have been foolishly imported. And an end to food aid and medical aid for those regions.

    The problem becomes much smaller, quickly.
  87. @Erebus
    Nope, the "S" was capitalized when South Africa joined.

    And how did it “join” if it’s not too much trouble? My recollection was that “BRIC [s]” was coined by some individual and not derived from a formal real group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    As a service to your research challenged self, I advise starting here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS.

    Do let us know how you get on, should you dig deeper than that.
  88. @Quartermaster
    The instability around Russia is mostly of his own creation. This is particularly true in Ukraine after his theft of Crimea and his support of terrorists in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Odessa. Russia is going to be regional problem for many years to come, until he comes to the end of the Road Putin has placed the country on.

    How do think Putin’s unlawful grabbing Crimea ranks with other unlawful grabs? India in Goa comes to mind. Then Indonesia in West Irian and East Timor for a while. Turkey in Cyprus…
    When did the US stop doing it? Not counting Grenada of course because it got out again promptly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    "India in Goa comes to mind. "

    When it comes to land grab nobody beats India. Practically every neighboring countries of India lost a bit of land to India. In some cases a whole country was annexed by India. Everybody knows Saddam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. But how many have heard of India invaded and annexed Sikkim fifteen years before Saddam did.
    , @Koolz
    woo there little man! Putin's unlawful grabbing of Crimea?

    Sorry people of Crimea voted to be with Russia and Crimea has always been part of Russia.

    you need to learn some history. www.tomatobubble.com

    you need to learn what's really going on in the world.
  89. @utu
    "It was entirely predictable that China would ascend..."- No, it was not unless you were in the know. China would not ascent much above N. Korea level w/o huge capital and technology transfer. The fate of Chine was decided in the West and more precisely in NYC by Rockefeller and Co. in 1970s-1980s. The question is why. What were they thinking?

    I think you are indulging in a bit of American exceptionalism. China would have risen once it began on the path Deng Xiao Peng set in about 1978. It could have been slower but Japan did it much earlier and it didn’t need US corporations to set up in China or even Most Favoured Nation status for exports to the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Your disinformation is oozing all over this article.
  90. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    In other news pertaining to the last roundup of warmongers via Hillary’s campaign, Wolfowitz says he may be forced to vote for Hillary because Trump is too dangerous-I cannot stop laughing at the irony.

    Read More
  91. @Joe Wong
    It is cultural things, Chinese believes harmony, give and take and mutual benefits; while the West believes confrontation, and winner takes all. China proposed big powers relation but the West under the American leadership see it as a challenge trying to have the cake and ear it too.

    The dollar system has its place in the world, but as a sole system of the world is not beneficial to everybody in this world at all including the American, the American must see it this way and accept the RMB system in such light.

    I intend no apology for America’s many defects and bad policies but what you write sounds like brainwashed BS. Setting aside the overinclusiveness of your attributions of beliefs to China or the Chinese a few facts stand in the way of your comparison.

    The West (which countries? when?) believes in “winner takes all” in contrast to China which seeks “give and take and mutual benefits”.

    So where is the give and take of China in relation to the South China Sea in respect of which it has totally failed to respect third party adjudication despite having signed the relevant Law of the Sea Convention? What give and take with weaker neighbours like Vietnam, Cambodia, Tibet, or the population of Hong Kong that wants to elect its own legislature and chief executive?

    I take it by the way that you are only referring to post Mao China with fanciful resurrections of what Confucianism and Taoism might have commended.

    China shows every sign of becoming as much of a self-centred bully as the US when it has the power to, or can you refute that gloomy impression?

    Read More
  92. @annamaria
    The undoing of the USA: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/26/the-high-cost-of-american-hubris/
    The High Cost of American Hubris:
    "Most Americans will accept stepping down off messianic pedestal if they have gained the true confidence that an increase in their standard of living would provide and if they are not manipulated and fed a constant diet of propaganda by politicians and corporate media on behalf of the interests of a craven and militaristic oligarchy.
    Instead, Americans and their leaders would be working together to implement practical and concrete policies to improve Americans’ lives and foster the cooperation and stability in the international arena that will translate into genuine long-term security for the US."

    This sounds very nice but there are no democratic mechanisms to convert the outlined make-belief into reality.
    Also, while the author lists point by point the looting of the US citizenry by the psychopaths-in charge, the greatest problem -- leading to all other problems -- is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Empire of Federal Reserve.

    I don’t understand the obsession of so many on UR with the Federal Reserve which has been left in the lurch and holding the baby by politicians refusing and neglecting to design and implement needed fiscal policy.

    Read More
  93. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    I think you are indulging in a bit of American exceptionalism. China would have risen once it began on the path Deng Xiao Peng set in about 1978. It could have been slower but Japan did it much earlier and it didn't need US corporations to set up in China or even Most Favoured Nation status for exports to the US.

    Your disinformation is oozing all over this article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    On whose behalf and in what cause do you understand the disinformation to be promoted? How is it aimed at the article when I have just replied to an individual comment?

    And if you think what I say is not correct in so far as it is factual information where is it wrong and what do you say the true facts are (with sources and reasons)?

  94. @Wizard of Oz
    How do think Putin's unlawful grabbing Crimea ranks with other unlawful grabs? India in Goa comes to mind. Then Indonesia in West Irian and East Timor for a while. Turkey in Cyprus...
    When did the US stop doing it? Not counting Grenada of course because it got out again promptly.

    “India in Goa comes to mind. ”

    When it comes to land grab nobody beats India. Practically every neighboring countries of India lost a bit of land to India. In some cases a whole country was annexed by India. Everybody knows Saddam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. But how many have heard of India invaded and annexed Sikkim fifteen years before Saddam did.

    Read More
  95. @DB Cooper
    "We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled."

    Actually for the longest time the United States styled itself as the un-British as far as foreign policy goes. People may not know but for historic reasons the Americans resentment towards the Brits didn't end until the beginning of the first world war in the last century. After all the Americans fought against the British for their independence and the Brits burned the White House and openly supported the Confederacy in the American civil war. When Britain was trying to carve Tibet out of China Lincoln's secretary warned the British to respect China's territorial integrity. When the British was colonializing US president Woodrow Wilson called for the self-determination of the people everywhere. When the Middle East became the playground for imperial Britain the Americans didn't grab any land aside from creating the American University in Beirut. If you look at the map the US didn't have any colony aside from the Philippines when the Britain and to a lesser degree France and others all have colonies in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    After WWII the US enjoyed goodwill from people everywhere because here is a Western country that didn't behave like the other colonial powers. But as Britain retreated and after the cold war when there is no Soviet Union anymore and the US became the unchallenged Superpower it gradually began to resemble the empire of old.

    I’m sure you would agree on reflection that your somewhat oversimplified account could be fleshed out with respect especially to American inconsistencies, not to say hypocrisies.
    1. The extension of Manifest Destiny externally to parts of Mexico;
    2. The opening up of Japan;
    3. Joining in the taking of Concessions in China;
    4. Puerto Rico
    5. The consequences of the Spanish-American War of 1898 including Guantanamo Bay;
    6. Pacific Islands;
    7. Acquiring a large Russian colony and its Inuit indigenes;
    6. Outsourcing depredations in Latin America on the analogy of the East India compani es.
    7. Taking bases in British Empire territories in return for Lend-Lease.

    That’s all just off the top of my head.

    No doubt good PR covered up the emerging reality for quite a while after WW2 though Iranians might have woken up early.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rakewind
    When my youngest son was about 14, c. 2004, I got involved with helping him with a personal school project. To cut a long story short, what we discovered was that during the period 1898-2000, the US was involved in somewhat over 130 'police actions', undeclared acts of war, invasion, conquest etc. involving nations/regions that they largely never left, virtually all these activities were in contravention of international law at the time.
  96. @denk
    I = the incredible shrinking Ielephant....

    BRICS => BRiCS => BR'CS...

    3 legs in nato, 1 leg in BR'CS, almost like an after thought,
    hehehehe

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Are you implying in your jumble of words that India’s economy is going to let it or make it slip out of BRICS?

    From what I see that would need a lot of substantiation with hard evidence. Your link, though much more clearly written than your post reads as pro China left wing propaganda that engenders no trust.

    India’s problems are huge but it has a very much younger population than China. What do you make of that?

    Read More
  97. @Wizard of Oz
    Save our little grey cells. Tell us what IMNAHA stands for so we can understand the refined aspects of your joke.

    One possibility is a tiny town in northeast Oregon, proximate to the Wallowa Mountains and Hells Canyon.

    Read More
  98. @Buzz Mohawk

    ZB was/is the Donald’s FP advisor.
     
    Then why is his daughter slamming Trump every morning on national television? She seems to be carrying her share of the water in the PTB effort to bury him.

    She owes her overrated/overpaid job and entire lifestyle to her overrated father, so how could she possibly be doing anything without his approval?

    I hope you're right, that ZB is indeed an advisor to Donald, and I hope then that ZB is genuine and not just a mole in the candidate's camp. Personally, after all these years of continued US insanity -- invade/invite/dominate the world while things crumble at home -- I can't put much credence in anything the ageing, born-of-priviledge Pole says. He's part of America's century of misguided foreign entanglements.

    I hope you’re right, that ZB is indeed an advisor to Donald,

    I think I may have blown that one.

    An article I remembered reading analyzed (Trump’s official FP advisor) Carter Page’s writings and his speeches in Moscow. The author, whose name escapes me, suggested that Page was channeling Brzezinski’s (& Kissinger’s) recent thinking, but I cannot state that he outright made the claim that Brzezinski was officially involved. Anyhow, over the last year or two, both of the latter have made a point of publicly announcing that the growth of American power has hit its end stops, and to warn that to pretend it hasn’t is to court catastrophe.

    This has nothing to do with either of them “mellowing in their old age”. These men mastered the calculus of power, and this calculus continues to provide the “theory of everything” within which they work. It is the world they write about. If they seem to be interested in something apparently tangential, you can be sure it is because the calculus becomes more finely tuned when that new variable is entered into its equations.

    Both have noted that when newly emergent variables are loaded, the calculus clearly indicates that America has gone past Peak Power. Ergo, its strategies and policies must now pivot to focus on making the right, declining side of power curve as smooth and shallow a slope as possible, and that attempts to create a “double top” are mis-guided. They will inevitably result in a steep and jagged decline, or worse. If the attempt to create a double top is founded on hubris driven, simplistic ideologies, “worse” is what we’ll get. America either learns to sit respectfully at a round table with its peers, or it’ll crash ‘n burn as those emergent variables bury its attempt to cling to exceptionalism.

    If any are interested, Carter Page can be read in his own words:

    http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/author/carter-page

    I found the following particularly illuminating on where Mr. Page (and by extension the Donald), is coming from…

    http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/02/2015/new-slaves-global-edition-russia-iran-and-segregation-world-economy

    Read More
  99. @Wizard of Oz
    And how did it "join" if it's not too much trouble? My recollection was that "BRIC [s]" was coined by some individual and not derived from a formal real group.

    As a service to your research challenged self, I advise starting here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS.

    Do let us know how you get on, should you dig deeper than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I was only conscious of the Goldman Sachs origin of the term BRIC(s) but not of the formation of a group of nations which would afford ministers excuses for ritzy travel while China added to its foreign policy leverage (and maybe India and Russia occasionally tried to emulate China rather than Brazil and South Africa).
  100. @anonymous
    Your disinformation is oozing all over this article.

    On whose behalf and in what cause do you understand the disinformation to be promoted? How is it aimed at the article when I have just replied to an individual comment?

    And if you think what I say is not correct in so far as it is factual information where is it wrong and what do you say the true facts are (with sources and reasons)?

    Read More
  101. @Wizard of Oz
    How do think Putin's unlawful grabbing Crimea ranks with other unlawful grabs? India in Goa comes to mind. Then Indonesia in West Irian and East Timor for a while. Turkey in Cyprus...
    When did the US stop doing it? Not counting Grenada of course because it got out again promptly.

    woo there little man! Putin’s unlawful grabbing of Crimea?

    Sorry people of Crimea voted to be with Russia and Crimea has always been part of Russia.

    you need to learn some history. http://www.tomatobubble.com

    you need to learn what’s really going on in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Obviously I shouldn't learn "what's really going on in the world" or history from you or your sources. Crimea was made part of Ukraine ratther than Russia under Kruschev and part of the legal settlement between Russia and Ukraine whereby Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on its soil was a guaramtee by Russia to respect its borders.

    What has the vote of all or some of the people of Crimea (after Russia had already taken control to the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces, or at all) got to do with it? If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?

  102. @Erebus
    As a service to your research challenged self, I advise starting here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS.

    Do let us know how you get on, should you dig deeper than that.

    Thanks. I was only conscious of the Goldman Sachs origin of the term BRIC(s) but not of the formation of a group of nations which would afford ministers excuses for ritzy travel while China added to its foreign policy leverage (and maybe India and Russia occasionally tried to emulate China rather than Brazil and South Africa).

    Read More
  103. @Anonymous
    The elites are incredibly dumb. Now if they can "walk back" on globalism, oil, compulsory vaccines...etc. etc. maybe we'll be on the road to a free energy, live and let live, healthy, peaceful world.

    The elites are DUMB.

    Just had to repeat it for emphasis.

    They are so dumb that you don’t even think they are good at looking after their own interests and preferences?

    Read More
  104. @Koolz
    woo there little man! Putin's unlawful grabbing of Crimea?

    Sorry people of Crimea voted to be with Russia and Crimea has always been part of Russia.

    you need to learn some history. www.tomatobubble.com

    you need to learn what's really going on in the world.

    Obviously I shouldn’t learn “what’s really going on in the world” or history from you or your sources. Crimea was made part of Ukraine ratther than Russia under Kruschev and part of the legal settlement between Russia and Ukraine whereby Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on its soil was a guaramtee by Russia to respect its borders.

    What has the vote of all or some of the people of Crimea (after Russia had already taken control to the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces, or at all) got to do with it? If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    "If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?"

    And what if they really did ? How many would you kill to keep them in something they do not want to belong ?
    , @Koolz
    No you need to learn
    go to the website www.tomatobubble.com

    your like this loud bubble that needs to be popped!

    Perhaps you are like the Wizard of Oz all smoke and mirrors full of Dis-info.

    or perhaps it is Oz as in the Gold Standard; Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

    Regardless you posting some serious BS.
    , @JustSayin
    ". . . To the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces. . ."

    Only trouble is, after the democratically elected Pres. was over thrown and a Russian hating neoNazi as a replacement. . . It's not hard to understand why the mostly russian residents would want rescuing. Not to mention the dirty trick was meant to deprive Russia of its naval base/port. It was probably the most transparent we've been in a long time.
    JustSayin
  105. @Wizard of Oz
    Obviously I shouldn't learn "what's really going on in the world" or history from you or your sources. Crimea was made part of Ukraine ratther than Russia under Kruschev and part of the legal settlement between Russia and Ukraine whereby Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on its soil was a guaramtee by Russia to respect its borders.

    What has the vote of all or some of the people of Crimea (after Russia had already taken control to the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces, or at all) got to do with it? If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?

    “If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?”

    And what if they really did ? How many would you kill to keep them in something they do not want to belong ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    “If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?”

    That was Olde Wizzer's disingenuous pretense of an analogous question, sans the relevant parts:

    1) Are the bodies of cops and protesters piled up on the National Mall?
    2) Has the U.S. gov't. been overthrown in a violent coup?
    3) Has [what's the US equivalent of Pravi Sektor?] the KKK, Bundy family, NRA, Michigan Militia, or ? taken over DNC headquarters on the Hill and installed [XXXPuppet???] an 'interim' President?

    etc. etc. A little hard to make analogies that fit. (Has the coup regime proposed banning the Inuit language? Condemned trade with Canada?)
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Well that would be a way of keeping the conversation going at dinner after the boringly obvious point about the legal consequences of the vote was conceded all round. And the answer would be

    1. Oh none. If you shared all Sarah Palin's guns around they'ld do all the necessary culling themselves, but

    2. You'ld promise them more of their potential oil revenue than they could hope to get from Russia

  106. @attonn
    Personally I don't believe Hillary will be starting new wars. For 4 reasons, at least.

    First, the US fiscal position is deteriorating badly - way ahead of schedule predicted by the CBO - and snowballing entitlements will eat away at the Pentagon. US military is in a death spiral already. And it's irreversible.
    Second, the stock market is topping out, and nothing dents American morale like a bear market in equities, and the disappearance of funny money. At times like that, foreign policy moves into background. Managing domestic strife is a full-time business.
    Third, the abysmal demographic trends ( it's worse than those of a supposedly dying Russia) don't support military adventurism.
    And fourth, America is already mired in more conflicts than it can manage. The first priority will be to extricate itself from the existing boondoggles.

    Whether it's Clinton or Trump, the policy will be roughly the same, because optionality for the USA is already gone.

    The USA population is growing and has a large, increasing youthful cohort. This is in contrast to Russia, so you are mistaken there.

    The USA still will have difficulty fielding armed forces with the levels of competence, intelligence, cohesion, and loyalty that we need, however, because an ever-increasing percentage of that military-age population is Mexican (and, to a lesser extent, other mostly nonwhite Latinos).

    Read More
    • Replies: @attonn
    The only population that matters is white non-Hispanics. You know, the people that made the USA into what still is a marvel of a country.

    Those people are dying off. For a fourth year in a row the deaths exceed the births.
    196 million non-Hispanics in the US produce 1.99 million babies, 145 million Russians produce 1.86 million. So it's definitely worse in America than in Russia.

    The growth of the rest of the US population is strictly due to Hispanics, Asians and immigration. And because there is no surplus of white folks anywhere in the world, the imports consist entirely of non-whites.

    And no, there is no "increasing youthful cohort". The number of overall births is stuck well below the 2007 peak, while the number of retirees is growing every year.
  107. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Alden
    What dismal demographic trends? Every day thousands of military age men swarm over our border with Mexico.

    And even more anchor babies are born every day We've got lots of cannon fodder. Women will have to register for the draft soon as well

    A conflict that eliminates millions of enlisted young Mexicans here in the former USA would be welcome in that respect. Sorry to say that, but there it is,

    Problem is that
    (1) good white Americans would die pointlessly along with their mestizo comrades

    (2) although there are dregs and even gang members joining the us military, there are also decent, patriotic, and sometimes mostly-white/European Mexicans joining;

    (3) the Mexicans who didn’t join the military, no better a class of people than those who join the military and probably worse, would continue popping out children they (we) can’t afford and

    (4) loading the military with Mexicans is a great way to ensure that we cannot defend our territory and resources and people when Mexicans finally push for secession.

    In short, the USA will be able to field a much larger military, in terms of personnel, than Russia, but our quality will likely be increasingly suspect and loyalty itself will be in question.

    Read More
  108. @Wizard of Oz
    You have reminded me to look into that apparently significant order in March to remove some US families which, predictably, is making a lot of Turks think the attempted coup was a US affair. (You seem to give that view some credence).

    I Googled "why were American families advised to leave Turkey" and, in summary, concluded that it was just unfortunate coincidence. Perhaps most important was that the order was limited and was far from extending, for example, to warning Americans to stay clear of Istanbul (although I haven't checked for any changes in State Department advice to tourists).

    Another item. While the Kurdish birthrate seems to be well above the Turkish average I noted your 25 per cent figure for "unhappy Kurds" in the total population as surprising even without quibbling over the number who are unhappy/disaffected. One estimate I found was over 20 per cent and one as low as 15 per cent but something like 18 or 19 per cent seems more probable.

    I remain, as I have been for 15 years or so, puzzled as to what case can be made for the US bothering about the Middle East in its own self interest. I set aside consideration of support for NATO and NATO's - Europe's - interest in Turkey and the Mediterranean and consider only what is in it for the US to have played any part in the ME since the breakup of the USSR and the definitive end of the Cold War. It's hard to put a precise date on it but oil hasn't been a sufficient national interest reason for a very long time. Israel? It would be No.1 on the shortlist of allied or aligned countries that the US could be counted on not to let down badly when it had the means to protect it. Fair enough but what more was needed than to make it clear that if enemies did better than in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 they would have to take on the US before they could destroy Israel? None of the expensive messing around with and in the ME could be justified - or have I missed the argument?
    What else? Well 5 to 18 million Coptic Christians in Egypt is a big potential lump of refugees that the US and EU might reasonably prefer to stay home even while Egypt descends further into failed state condition. So at least putting off the catastrophe by paying to keep Egyptians fed may make sense. After all some problems have no solutions. (Actually, let's be of good cheer. How about Europe inviting in 15 million Copts and no more Muslims?).

    How do we know that someone claiming to be a copt isn’t actually a Muslim, when they are genetically identical / look the same?

    Point 2: Coptic Egyptians are still Egyptians, and Semites and Africans do not belong in our society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I suppose you may be right about them being genetically the same but what is your authority for that? Their community, like that of Jews, survived the Arab conquests from the 600s on and may well preserve more of Ancient Egypt than the Muslims.

    No trouble telling them apart. You ask them
    1. To spit on a crucifix
    2. To copy an offensive cartoon of Mahomet....
  109. @Wizard of Oz
    Those of us who saw the late 90s as the time for the US to begin coopting China into the management of the world (with India to be cultivated too) can only hope now for some major new saving developments in our future as a species. Hitler gave the anti-eugenicists all the running for 70 years but maybe now the Catholic Church has been crippled by scandal and indifference twin developments may begin to take off albeit at the 11th hour:

    1. serious attention to curbing poor people's fertility (in Africa, the ME and the subcontinent: it isn't difficult: you bribe the heads of families to keep the girls in education and without babies).

    2. Free and indeed subsidised eugenic** services. No more Huntington's Disease, Fragile X Syndrome, early onset Alzheimer's, etc. etc. etc.^50.
    **including lifelong gene/DNA based improvements (and let's not limit our imaginations. At 110 I won't mind if what appears to be my efficient Third World carer actually has a largely artificial brain, as long as someone teaches me which buttons to press).

    Yes, we need major financial incentives for Africans, Arabs, and Indians to voluntarily sterilize themselves by the hundreds of millions — in those countries and in western countries where they have been foolishly imported. And an end to food aid and medical aid for those regions.

    The problem becomes much smaller, quickly.

    Read More
  110. @neutral
    "If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?"

    And what if they really did ? How many would you kill to keep them in something they do not want to belong ?

    “If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?”

    That was Olde Wizzer’s disingenuous pretense of an analogous question, sans the relevant parts:

    1) Are the bodies of cops and protesters piled up on the National Mall?
    2) Has the U.S. gov’t. been overthrown in a violent coup?
    3) Has [what's the US equivalent of Pravi Sektor?] the KKK, Bundy family, NRA, Michigan Militia, or ? taken over DNC headquarters on the Hill and installed [XXXPuppet???] an ‘interim’ President?

    etc. etc. A little hard to make analogies that fit. (Has the coup regime proposed banning the Inuit language? Condemned trade with Canada?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What a lot of waffle to disguise the fact that a perfectly simple proposition of law was being ilustrated. The vote by the people of Crimea had no more legal effect at the time than would a vote by the people of Alaska to become part of Russia. End of.
  111. @Quartermaster
    The instability around Russia is mostly of his own creation. This is particularly true in Ukraine after his theft of Crimea and his support of terrorists in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Odessa. Russia is going to be regional problem for many years to come, until he comes to the end of the Road Putin has placed the country on.

    It is unbelievable how stupid /shortsighted those Trockyists/Neocons /Russophobe are..they never learn from history because they can not end up in NORIMBERG II…..

    Read More
  112. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Carlton Meyer
    The USA will soon have its own "Suez Crisis". Something relevant from my blog, which has links:

    Aug 21, 2016 - The TRIS Alliance

    A new alliance suddenly appeared to counter American expansionism. The unofficial Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance is too powerful for the world's superpower to challenge. All four nations have similar interests, good relations, and are threatened by American imperialism. However, this dramatic change has not been recognized by American leaders nor reported in the western press. 

    Turkey's shift is sudden but not surprising. All of Syria was part of Turkey until the Ottoman Empire was shattered a century ago. It seems Turkey had been promised a return of control of oil fields in Northern Syria once Assad was overthrown. This plan was thwarted by Russia and Turkey was left with three million refugees. Europe promised to take most of them, but stopped when their citizens objected. 

    Kurdish militia groups have fought Turkish troops for a century. The desperate Americans ignored this problem and provided more arms to the Kurds and encouraged them to fight in Syria. This spilled over into Turkey where 25% of its population consists of unhappy Kurds. Kurdish fighters increased attacks on Turkish troops while the Turkish military was expelled from parts of northern Iraq, where its Generals controlled the lucrative black market oil trade for the past two decades.

    The Turks were furious and began to withdraw support for Syrian "rebels" and increased attacks on Kurds. The Americans disapproved, and it seems the USA knew about the coup last month in Turkey and said nothing, and maybe organized it. What else could explain the evacuation of all American military and diplomat families from Turkey last March:

    “The mandatory departure order, announced by the State Department, affects nearly all Defense Department dependents assigned to Incirlik, as well as those at smaller bases in Izmir and Mugla. The families of U.S. diplomats in the same areas also are ordered to depart. On Monday Israel issued a new travel advisory for Turkey, warning Israeli citizens to leave the country as soon as possible and avoid any traveling there.”

    American Generals blamed ISIS, but the USA has been bombing “terrorists” in the region for over a decade and never considered families in Turkey at risk until just before the attempted coup. This and other evidence convinced most Turks that the Americans were behind the failed coup. The US government scrambled to convince Turkey otherwise, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and our Vice President promptly visiting Turkey amid rumors that Turkey might leave NATO. 

    In addition, most Turks consider the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a Turkish city, stolen by the British in 1918. Sunni rebels took over this city a couple years ago with quiet support from the Turks, who even established a military base near Mosul. Last year, President Obama pressured the Turks to withdraw their troops from Iraq and announced this large city must be conquered by the Shiite government in Baghdad. The Iraqi army is not motivated so the Americans brought in Kurdish troops to help. This may result in a bloody siege that kills thousands and leaves hundreds of thousands more refugees showing up at the nearby Turkish border.

    Turkey had enough! Turkish President Erdogan recently made a sudden trip to Moscow. A few days later, experts were shocked to see Russian bombers now based in Iran overflying Iraq to bomb targets in Syria. And now Turkey has agreed to allow the Russians to use its airbases! A few days later, Turkey signed an agreement with Iran to resolve the fighting in Syria. Then the Syrians conducted its first airstrikes and ground attacks against the Kurds in Syria!

    This indicates the biggest power shift since the end of the Cold War! An informal alliance, which I christen the Turkish-Russian-Iranian-Syrian (TRIS) alliance, has formed to counter the American-Israeli domination of the Middle East. The Kurds now face destruction as all its neighbors are united and hostile. They should retreat from Syria and the Mosul region and hope TRIS leaves them alone. This means the Americans will lose their best local ground troops and possibly its airbases in Turkey. Finally, the Americans may also be expelled by the Iraqi government in Baghdad, which is already allied with Iran and has conflicts with the Kurds too!

    These are interesting times. Will American diplomacy, bribery, and economic aid manage to unhinge TRIS? If not, will the American military manage a peaceful retreat from Iraq and abandon the Kurds, whose semi-official nation may be dismembered by Turkey and Iraq? Syria and Iraq might agree to cede some of their remote Kurdish areas to Turkey if the big Turkish military agrees to invade and destroy the Kurdish military, which it wants to do anyway. Or will the Americans go on the offensive and send airpower and troops to finish off Syria's Assad, risking war with TRIS? This is a huge failure for Obama foreign policy and it's not even covered in the American media.

    A correct analysis. If Russia ans Iran manage to steer Erdogan in the direction of his country’s true interests, deterring him from pursuing his mad dream of a Turkic empire – at least for a few years more – then the US’ Eurasian conquest dream will indeed be defeated…
    If not, and mad-hatter Hillary wins, then WWIII will surely come.

    Read More
  113. @Quartermaster
    The instability around Russia is mostly of his own creation. This is particularly true in Ukraine after his theft of Crimea and his support of terrorists in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Odessa. Russia is going to be regional problem for many years to come, until he comes to the end of the Road Putin has placed the country on.

    “… theft of Crimea :”
    Here is a history lesson that is feared by all Ukrainian nationalists: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/banderite-hypocrisy-vice-pm-blames.html
    The linked article contains a picture that speaks mightier than thousand words – it shows a map of Ukraine’ territorial augmentation for the expense of Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia plus the territories gifted to Ukraine by Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-08MH01zREq4/V8HXy8WLv4I/AAAAAAAAECI/D9NXDI0jRFw4CenxJJ9dVDJrdpsNhJZ-gCLcB/s1600/20140504_3602.jpg

    “…the phenomenon of the Ukrainian nation is quite young and, if we’re dealing with its Galician version, only has around 100 years under its belt… The final formation of the Ukrainian nation myth occurred under Soviet rule. The Moscow communists (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Khrushchev) transferred lands to the Ukrainian SSR which had never been a part of Hmelnitsky’s Hetmanate or the Ukrainian People’s Republic. These were the lands of Donbass, Sloboda Ukraine, and part of the territory of the Don Cossacks, Tavrida (Crimea and adjacent lands), and the Odessa region.
    Just before and after the Second World War, Ukraine received even more new lands: Western Ukraine was taken from Poland, Northern Bukovina was taken from Romania, and Transcarpathian Rus was taken from Czechoslovakia while Crimea was taken from Russia. In addition to these territorial gifts to the Ukrainian USSR, the Soviet Union created and pursued cultural and language policies of Ukrainianization. Across the entire territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and in some territories of Soviet Russia, education was held exclusively in the Ukrainian language. Nevertheless, Ukrainianization still only yielded very superficial results.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    All nations are myths. You follow a Russian nationalist one. There is much territory in Muscovite Russia that is or was Little Russian speaking (how may Little Russian speaking universities are there in Russia?). Why is Muscovy any more legitimate than they are. The Russian Orthodox Church was a state backed breakaway from the Constantinople for very similar reasons to the Church of England (Foreign influence Spanish/Turkish), King with iffy marriage/divorce plans (although Ivan locked his up in a nunnery rather than actually divorced her), seizure of Church wealth etc. What is now Ukraine was under a variety of jurisdictions at the time. None of them Muscovite but early Medieval Ukraine was the core of the Rus, the ancestor state. Why should that claim be ignored in your myth?
  114. @RadicalCenter
    The USA population is growing and has a large, increasing youthful cohort. This is in contrast to Russia, so you are mistaken there.

    The USA still will have difficulty fielding armed forces with the levels of competence, intelligence, cohesion, and loyalty that we need, however, because an ever-increasing percentage of that military-age population is Mexican (and, to a lesser extent, other mostly nonwhite Latinos).

    The only population that matters is white non-Hispanics. You know, the people that made the USA into what still is a marvel of a country.

    Those people are dying off. For a fourth year in a row the deaths exceed the births.
    196 million non-Hispanics in the US produce 1.99 million babies, 145 million Russians produce 1.86 million. So it’s definitely worse in America than in Russia.

    The growth of the rest of the US population is strictly due to Hispanics, Asians and immigration. And because there is no surplus of white folks anywhere in the world, the imports consist entirely of non-whites.

    And no, there is no “increasing youthful cohort”. The number of overall births is stuck well below the 2007 peak, while the number of retirees is growing every year.

    Read More
  115. @Wizard of Oz
    Obviously I shouldn't learn "what's really going on in the world" or history from you or your sources. Crimea was made part of Ukraine ratther than Russia under Kruschev and part of the legal settlement between Russia and Ukraine whereby Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on its soil was a guaramtee by Russia to respect its borders.

    What has the vote of all or some of the people of Crimea (after Russia had already taken control to the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces, or at all) got to do with it? If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?

    No you need to learn
    go to the website http://www.tomatobubble.com

    your like this loud bubble that needs to be popped!

    Perhaps you are like the Wizard of Oz all smoke and mirrors full of Dis-info.

    or perhaps it is Oz as in the Gold Standard; Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

    Regardless you posting some serious BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Instead of dealing with the allegations that you are in error you just wave your hands, shout "BS" and cite - without quoting - some wayout alternative reality website. Why don't you deal with your errors about Russia and Ukraine? I wonder if you even knew that Ukraine was a member of the UN when Russia handed over Crimea to it under Kruschev. .
  116. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Avery
    { Israel has supplied Azerbaijan with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons. Israel – Azerbaijan. What a nice couple, huh?}

    Perfidious Israel is selling weapons to nomads of Turkbaijan knowing full well their goal of wiping out the last remaining Armenians in their homeland in Caucasus.

    [Israel Must Not Sell Arms to the Azeris]
    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.622701
    {The sale of weapons to a government committing genocide is like the sale of weapons to Nazi Germany during World War II. }

    Russia also sells weapons to Azerbaijan, but sells the same or better weapons to Armenia at cost or sometimes free.

    During a surprise invasion by Turkbaijan into Nagorno-Karabagh in April 2016 (the '4-day-war'), the largest losses on the Armenian side were due to the Israeli Harop suicide drones and Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles that Azerbaijan had bought.

    Since Harop is so new and very sophisticated, it was suspected by Armenians that the drones were in fact being controlled by Israeli technicians in Baku, and not by Azerbaijanis.

    Around every corner , a boogyman .
    Behind every boogyman ,3 Turks.
    Such is Avery’s reality……….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    You got it almost right, but not quite, anonoğlu.
    I am sure you have heard the saying: "You are not paranoid, if they are they are really out to get you".

    So, in that in mind:

    The reality is - not my reality, but the reality - that since the Turk invadonomads from Uyguristan invaded Asia Minor and Caucasus, they have been murdering, massacring, raping, stealing, committing genocide.....

    Behind every murder, rape, theft, arson, massacre, invasion, genocide,......is an UygurTürkoğlu.

    Have a nice day, and don't forget to write, ya hear?
  117. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Any of your Russophiles made the big move yet ?
    USA is going down the toilet at an alarming rate and Russia is on the ascent. I mean how can you stay in a country that is circling the drain ,and also totally controlled by Zionist Neo Cons ?? I would like to hear from all the lads who have put their money where their mouth is and have left the AngloZionist nightmare and made the move to stunning Mother Russia.

    A few facts about Russia.
    2nd highest abortion rate in the world .
    4the highest alcohol consumption rate in the world .
    14th highest suicide rate in the world ( tied with Uganda)
    #1 highest suicide rate in the world for a white country
    7th highest suicide rate in the world for men ( gives pause to all those dreaming of a blushing white nationalist wife from Russia !!!!!!!)
    Life expectancy in Russia : 70
    Male life expectancy in Russia : 64 ( uh oh most of the uNz readership would be dead by now in Russia !!!!!)

    And lets not forget the hallmark of a burgeoning paradise full of happy people being led by a hyper masculine demigod like Vlad Putin !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Rampant use of the lovely , sophisticated and totally sexy drug Krokodill !!!!!!

    Read More
  118. @Solemnity
    In case you don't know, Brzezinski has long been associated with the US - Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.

    Take a look: https://www.usacc.org/about-us/leadership/honorary-council-of-advisors.html

    Along with Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker etc. The whole gang.

    And lo and behold, Neo-con Richard Perle is a member too:
    https://www.usacc.org/about-us/leadership/board-of-trustees.html

    All these people are out for NATO expansion, oil and gas, and personal gain by allying themselves with a corrupt, sadistic regime in Azerbaijan.

    So these people have not changed one iota. By the way, Israel has supplied Azerbaijan with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons. Israel - Azerbaijan. What a nice couple, huh?

    Thanks for that info. I have a friend who is works for the EU as an interpreter and English instructor. He’s been teaching English to Azerbaijanis for some years now and thinks everything is just peachy.

    He simply will not listen to reason and it’ll be fun to see his response to that info even tho I know what he’ll say.

    Read More
  119. @Koolz
    No you need to learn
    go to the website www.tomatobubble.com

    your like this loud bubble that needs to be popped!

    Perhaps you are like the Wizard of Oz all smoke and mirrors full of Dis-info.

    or perhaps it is Oz as in the Gold Standard; Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

    Regardless you posting some serious BS.

    Instead of dealing with the allegations that you are in error you just wave your hands, shout “BS” and cite – without quoting – some wayout alternative reality website. Why don’t you deal with your errors about Russia and Ukraine? I wonder if you even knew that Ukraine was a member of the UN when Russia handed over Crimea to it under Kruschev. .

    Read More
  120. @RobinG
    “If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?”

    That was Olde Wizzer's disingenuous pretense of an analogous question, sans the relevant parts:

    1) Are the bodies of cops and protesters piled up on the National Mall?
    2) Has the U.S. gov't. been overthrown in a violent coup?
    3) Has [what's the US equivalent of Pravi Sektor?] the KKK, Bundy family, NRA, Michigan Militia, or ? taken over DNC headquarters on the Hill and installed [XXXPuppet???] an 'interim' President?

    etc. etc. A little hard to make analogies that fit. (Has the coup regime proposed banning the Inuit language? Condemned trade with Canada?)

    What a lot of waffle to disguise the fact that a perfectly simple proposition of law was being ilustrated. The vote by the people of Crimea had no more legal effect at the time than would a vote by the people of Alaska to become part of Russia. End of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    a perfectly simple proposition of law was being ilustrated
     
    Indeed. Perfectly simple, and perfectly disingenuous.

    A "proposition of law" can be made only in the context of an established, legal, structured environment. In the case of nations, this is normally provided by a constitution, and an accepted body of law founded on it.

    When Maidan went violent and forced the constitutionally mandated government to flee for their lives, the Ukraine ceased to have a legally constituted government, and as a national entity entered an extra-legal realm. The people (and I use the word in its widest sense) who seized the parliament, forcing the incumbent members to give up their credentials (or suffer beatings, or worse), were not made legitimate thereby.

    So, Robin G. made a much sounder point than your response gave him credit for. Indeed, if the situation he describes came to pass, Alaska would be well within their legal rights to vote for secession.

    In case you were not aware, Crimea was not a province/state of Ukraine. It was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea because that's the status it negotiated hard to continue beyond the USSR's breakup.
    So it had a Parliament and all the trappings of a state, without the national security and foreign affairs concerns. Two referendums in the '90s showed results similar to the 2014 version because Crimeans were clever enough to foresee that the new Ukrainian state was a hellbound train. Despite the 1st 2 referendums, the reeling Russian govt gave it away, having barely enough wits about it to demand that Crimea's autonomy stayed intact through the transition.

    When the Maidan seized power, the Crimeans adhered to all the protocols. First, their Parliament duly debated, and then duly voted on, independence. At that point, it was an independent state under the international principle of self-determination. The Parliament then voted to hold a referendum on whether Crimea should go it alone, or to apply to join the Russian Federation, again as an autonomous republic. The overwhelming decision was to go back to Russia. Even so, it only recently became part of the Russian Federation having run the entire legal gauntlet that the RF required for accession.

    Your "perfectly simple proposition of law" is too simple by half.
  121. @neutral
    "If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?"

    And what if they really did ? How many would you kill to keep them in something they do not want to belong ?

    Well that would be a way of keeping the conversation going at dinner after the boringly obvious point about the legal consequences of the vote was conceded all round. And the answer would be

    1. Oh none. If you shared all Sarah Palin’s guns around they’ld do all the necessary culling themselves, but

    2. You’ld promise them more of their potential oil revenue than they could hope to get from Russia

    Read More
  122. @RadicalCenter
    How do we know that someone claiming to be a copt isn't actually a Muslim, when they are genetically identical / look the same?

    Point 2: Coptic Egyptians are still Egyptians, and Semites and Africans do not belong in our society.

    I suppose you may be right about them being genetically the same but what is your authority for that? Their community, like that of Jews, survived the Arab conquests from the 600s on and may well preserve more of Ancient Egypt than the Muslims.

    No trouble telling them apart. You ask them
    1. To spit on a crucifix
    2. To copy an offensive cartoon of Mahomet….

    Read More
  123. @Joe Wong
    Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a true American, a die hard imperialist; she does not believe free lunch and everybody has to earn his keep, she is challenging the challengers to earn their keep. Or perhaps it is the rest of world misunderstood the American, they were hypnotized by the American's deadliest export, democracy, and ignored the true color of the American, a 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitor'.

    I take it that you’re indulging in irony.

    Read More
  124. @edNels


    I didn't quite finish ''Grand Chessboard…'' but, I thought ZB had a grand idea there, even though it didn't leave much room for good faith diplomacy because it was a blueprint for reckless empire building on steroids. That boiled down to US would foment Chaos enough to destabilize all the other players, enough so that the prize of Eurasia would fall into the lap of US.

    I think it was a pretty nifty idea, but, the execution of that plan has been terrible. Amateurs were allowed free reign! I mean… Look at what they've have done!

    Like a true Intillectual, ZB was all up in the clouds with Grand Ideas, and forgivably, didn't realize the low caliber of (collectively, concentratedly, of this generation of US world affairs operations) egomaniac low brows, who would be pushing his stuff.

    Not trying to criticize unfairly, but the diplomatic ones are so far over their heads, and the generals, seem to be unrestrained and trashing about making chaos, but not the right kind of chaos!

    No wonder Zbig is walking it back a little, maybe he can dust himself off a little and persever some semblance of dignity. If there is any There there, he will want to be well thought of in the history books.

    Leaving aside all the maniacal delusions about what was possible by way of US hegemony, ZB’s major theses were all driven by his -perhaps historically understandable – Russophobic paranoia.

    Read More
  125. @Quartermaster
    The instability around Russia is mostly of his own creation. This is particularly true in Ukraine after his theft of Crimea and his support of terrorists in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Odessa. Russia is going to be regional problem for many years to come, until he comes to the end of the Road Putin has placed the country on.

    You actually need to acquaint yourself with Russian history. Russia is not the problem; the US is the problem – globally. It is not the Russians who have turned the entire Middle East into an abbatoir, nor am I aware that they have pursued a hegemonic role anywhere in particular, in contradistinction to the US. I just wish my country (UK), could politically grow a pair and get out from under the US. I’ve said it before and it will stand repeating: Europe’s foreign policy is made in Washington and Washington’s is determined in Tel Aviv. Once one understands this, the reasons underpinning the ongoing ME debacle become clear and whilst the slaughter continues unabated, absortbing the attention of the worlds politicians and MSM, Israel continues it’s theft of what little remains to the Palestinians whilst progressing it’s programme of slow-motion genocide against them. However changes are afoot and this will not end well for either Israel or the US.

    Read More
  126. @Wizard of Oz
    I'm sure you would agree on reflection that your somewhat oversimplified account could be fleshed out with respect especially to American inconsistencies, not to say hypocrisies.
    1. The extension of Manifest Destiny externally to parts of Mexico;
    2. The opening up of Japan;
    3. Joining in the taking of Concessions in China;
    4. Puerto Rico
    5. The consequences of the Spanish-American War of 1898 including Guantanamo Bay;
    6. Pacific Islands;
    7. Acquiring a large Russian colony and its Inuit indigenes;
    6. Outsourcing depredations in Latin America on the analogy of the East India compani es.
    7. Taking bases in British Empire territories in return for Lend-Lease.

    That's all just off the top of my head.

    No doubt good PR covered up the emerging reality for quite a while after WW2 though Iranians might have woken up early.

    When my youngest son was about 14, c. 2004, I got involved with helping him with a personal school project. To cut a long story short, what we discovered was that during the period 1898-2000, the US was involved in somewhat over 130 ‘police actions’, undeclared acts of war, invasion, conquest etc. involving nations/regions that they largely never left, virtually all these activities were in contravention of international law at the time.

    Read More
  127. @DB Cooper
    "We know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire on which the Empire of the United States is modeled."

    Actually for the longest time the United States styled itself as the un-British as far as foreign policy goes. People may not know but for historic reasons the Americans resentment towards the Brits didn't end until the beginning of the first world war in the last century. After all the Americans fought against the British for their independence and the Brits burned the White House and openly supported the Confederacy in the American civil war. When Britain was trying to carve Tibet out of China Lincoln's secretary warned the British to respect China's territorial integrity. When the British was colonializing US president Woodrow Wilson called for the self-determination of the people everywhere. When the Middle East became the playground for imperial Britain the Americans didn't grab any land aside from creating the American University in Beirut. If you look at the map the US didn't have any colony aside from the Philippines when the Britain and to a lesser degree France and others all have colonies in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    After WWII the US enjoyed goodwill from people everywhere because here is a Western country that didn't behave like the other colonial powers. But as Britain retreated and after the cold war when there is no Soviet Union anymore and the US became the unchallenged Superpower it gradually began to resemble the empire of old.

    I’m not entirely sure that “we know the history and the sad lot of the world-wide British Empire etc”. I would suggest that anyone looking for a more detailed and nuanced account of the BE, it’s origins, working and undoing, read John Darwin’s “Unfinished Empire”. The picture it presents is somewhat more intriguing, rather more informative, than the cliched simplicities that usually pass for an understanding of the British Empire.

    Read More
  128. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @RobinG
    He's right about the S for South Africa. (Remember Zuma at the BRICS meeting photo-op?)

    No, South Africa was in later because Brazil insist on that.

    He is actually right but my first thought was exactly like yours.
    Initially was BRICs and it became BRICS.

    Read More
  129. @anon
    Around every corner , a boogyman .
    Behind every boogyman ,3 Turks.
    Such is Avery's reality..........

    You got it almost right, but not quite, anonoğlu.
    I am sure you have heard the saying: “You are not paranoid, if they are they are really out to get you”.

    So, in that in mind:

    The reality is – not my reality, but the reality – that since the Turk invadonomads from Uyguristan invaded Asia Minor and Caucasus, they have been murdering, massacring, raping, stealing, committing genocide…..

    Behind every murder, rape, theft, arson, massacre, invasion, genocide,……is an UygurTürkoğlu.

    Have a nice day, and don’t forget to write, ya hear?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    You got it almost right, but not quite, anonoğlu.
     
    Whoa , Ill take a lot of guff from you in good humor but I will not stand for you calling me a Turk!!!!


    Behind every murder, rape, theft, arson, massacre, invasion, genocide,……is an UygurTürkoğlu.
     
    Hey I dislike Turks about 85% as much as you do , but this is a little much. If you substituted Muslim for UygurTurkoglu it would be closer to the truth but still an exaggeration .
  130. While I’m a fan of Mike Whitney and usually agree with him, I’d like to know why he chose not to mention this?:

    “Brzezinski’s article is entitled ‘Toward a Global Realignment.’ While Whitney doesn’t cite this portion of the article from Brzezinski, I find it rather telling:

    ‘A comprehensive U.S. pullout from the Muslim world favored by domestic isolationists, could give rise to new wars (for example, Israel vs. Iran, Saudi Arabia vs. Iran, a major Egyptian intervention in Libya) and would generate an even deeper crisis of confidence in America’s globally stabilizing role.’”

    From LRC, The Fat Lady Sings, By Bionic Mosquito, August 29, 2016

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/bionic-mosquito/fat-lady-sings/

    America’s global stabilizing role? Gimmee a break. It appears the old fart is as delusional as ever. I doubt anything’s changed except the blather.

    Read More
  131. @attonn
    Mexicanization and Africanization of America is not a great recipe for maintaining first-world military, R&D and infrastructure.

    White non-Hispanics are dying out and hordes of incoming welfare moochers not only don't contribute, but subtract from the equation.

    Focusing on sheer numbers is a wrong way of looking at the problem, IMHO.

    Mexicanization and Africanization of America is not a great recipe for maintaining first-world military, R&D and infrastructure.

    You may want to add that neither are tattoos, piercings, and a lousy “work” ethic; deformities all too popular amongst the “vaunted” dumbass, naive ‘Merkin cracker population.

    Read More
  132. @Wizard of Oz
    What a lot of waffle to disguise the fact that a perfectly simple proposition of law was being ilustrated. The vote by the people of Crimea had no more legal effect at the time than would a vote by the people of Alaska to become part of Russia. End of.

    a perfectly simple proposition of law was being ilustrated

    Indeed. Perfectly simple, and perfectly disingenuous.

    A “proposition of law” can be made only in the context of an established, legal, structured environment. In the case of nations, this is normally provided by a constitution, and an accepted body of law founded on it.

    When Maidan went violent and forced the constitutionally mandated government to flee for their lives, the Ukraine ceased to have a legally constituted government, and as a national entity entered an extra-legal realm. The people (and I use the word in its widest sense) who seized the parliament, forcing the incumbent members to give up their credentials (or suffer beatings, or worse), were not made legitimate thereby.

    So, Robin G. made a much sounder point than your response gave him credit for. Indeed, if the situation he describes came to pass, Alaska would be well within their legal rights to vote for secession.

    In case you were not aware, Crimea was not a province/state of Ukraine. It was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea because that’s the status it negotiated hard to continue beyond the USSR’s breakup.
    So it had a Parliament and all the trappings of a state, without the national security and foreign affairs concerns. Two referendums in the ’90s showed results similar to the 2014 version because Crimeans were clever enough to foresee that the new Ukrainian state was a hellbound train. Despite the 1st 2 referendums, the reeling Russian govt gave it away, having barely enough wits about it to demand that Crimea’s autonomy stayed intact through the transition.

    When the Maidan seized power, the Crimeans adhered to all the protocols. First, their Parliament duly debated, and then duly voted on, independence. At that point, it was an independent state under the international principle of self-determination. The Parliament then voted to hold a referendum on whether Crimea should go it alone, or to apply to join the Russian Federation, again as an autonomous republic. The overwhelming decision was to go back to Russia. Even so, it only recently became part of the Russian Federation having run the entire legal gauntlet that the RF required for accession.

    Your “perfectly simple proposition of law” is too simple by half.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for a lot of interesting information for which I would be glad to have your sources.

    You may be entitled to say that you had shown that a perfectly simple proposition of law needed fleshing out to represent the true and full reality but Robin G was not so I didn't give him more than the answer I owed to him.
  133. Thank you. Excellent summary:
    “Crimea was not a province/state of Ukraine. It was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea because that’s the status it negotiated hard to continue beyond the USSR’s breakup… it had a Parliament and all the trappings of a state, without the national security and foreign affairs concerns. Two referendums in the ’90s showed results similar to the 2014 version [after Maidan coup d'etat].
    When the Maidan seized power, the Crimeans adhered to all the protocols. First, their Parliament duly debated, and then duly voted on, independence. At that point, it was an independent state under the international principle of self-determination. The Parliament then voted to hold a referendum on whether Crimea should go it alone, or to apply to join the Russian Federation, again as an autonomous republic. The overwhelming decision was to go back to Russia.”
    If only the US/UK/EU populace could read/hear this truthful account on MSM… No chance. The DC “deciders” need desperately to trumpet “Russian aggression” on some ground, the truth be damned, as always. The mysteriously ‘missing’ $6.5 trillions (TRILLIONS), which the Pentagon is not able to account, come to mind.

    Read More
  134. @Erebus

    a perfectly simple proposition of law was being ilustrated
     
    Indeed. Perfectly simple, and perfectly disingenuous.

    A "proposition of law" can be made only in the context of an established, legal, structured environment. In the case of nations, this is normally provided by a constitution, and an accepted body of law founded on it.

    When Maidan went violent and forced the constitutionally mandated government to flee for their lives, the Ukraine ceased to have a legally constituted government, and as a national entity entered an extra-legal realm. The people (and I use the word in its widest sense) who seized the parliament, forcing the incumbent members to give up their credentials (or suffer beatings, or worse), were not made legitimate thereby.

    So, Robin G. made a much sounder point than your response gave him credit for. Indeed, if the situation he describes came to pass, Alaska would be well within their legal rights to vote for secession.

    In case you were not aware, Crimea was not a province/state of Ukraine. It was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea because that's the status it negotiated hard to continue beyond the USSR's breakup.
    So it had a Parliament and all the trappings of a state, without the national security and foreign affairs concerns. Two referendums in the '90s showed results similar to the 2014 version because Crimeans were clever enough to foresee that the new Ukrainian state was a hellbound train. Despite the 1st 2 referendums, the reeling Russian govt gave it away, having barely enough wits about it to demand that Crimea's autonomy stayed intact through the transition.

    When the Maidan seized power, the Crimeans adhered to all the protocols. First, their Parliament duly debated, and then duly voted on, independence. At that point, it was an independent state under the international principle of self-determination. The Parliament then voted to hold a referendum on whether Crimea should go it alone, or to apply to join the Russian Federation, again as an autonomous republic. The overwhelming decision was to go back to Russia. Even so, it only recently became part of the Russian Federation having run the entire legal gauntlet that the RF required for accession.

    Your "perfectly simple proposition of law" is too simple by half.

    Thank you for a lot of interesting information for which I would be glad to have your sources.

    You may be entitled to say that you had shown that a perfectly simple proposition of law needed fleshing out to represent the true and full reality but Robin G was not so I didn’t give him more than the answer I owed to him.

    Read More
  135. @Verymuchalive
    I've never considered Brzezinski very acute in his understanding of politics. He was the architect of aid to Afghan mujahideen in the last year of the Carter Presidency. $4bn in military aid flowed to them. Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy.
    In 1997, as Brzezinski was presenting his idea of American Exceptionalism, Patrick Buchanan was writing his book, " The Great Betrayal, " which was published in 1998. The disastrous effects of Free Trade ( aka Globalisation ) on the American Economy; the destruction of whole industries, the massive trade deficits, the massive budget deficits were all laid bare. Mr Buchanan aptly argued that a state with a weak economy could not act as a major power, never mind a Global Hegemon. The position is very much worse now.
    Pat Buchanan was aware in the 1990s that the economic rug was being pulled from under America's feet. Indeed, total economic collapse cannot be far off. Brzezinski's partial admission that all is not well is ridiculously tardy.

    Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today’s ally might be tomorrow’s enemy.

    He was aware, his Polishness overtook his Americanism and he thought doing something to end the USSR would outweigh whatever costs there were by inciting Islamic fundamentalism. This hatred of Russia caused him to look at the world through a skewed lens. If communism was doomed to failure then trying to help it along by putting radical Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan was the wrong approach since Russians consider themselves European and always wanted to be part of Europe. Russia was always going to be western, it was just going to take time for all the old party hacks who were around during WWII to die off. Islamic fundamentalism isn’t going away nearly as quickly.

    Read More
  136. @attonn
    Personally I don't believe Hillary will be starting new wars. For 4 reasons, at least.

    First, the US fiscal position is deteriorating badly - way ahead of schedule predicted by the CBO - and snowballing entitlements will eat away at the Pentagon. US military is in a death spiral already. And it's irreversible.
    Second, the stock market is topping out, and nothing dents American morale like a bear market in equities, and the disappearance of funny money. At times like that, foreign policy moves into background. Managing domestic strife is a full-time business.
    Third, the abysmal demographic trends ( it's worse than those of a supposedly dying Russia) don't support military adventurism.
    And fourth, America is already mired in more conflicts than it can manage. The first priority will be to extricate itself from the existing boondoggles.

    Whether it's Clinton or Trump, the policy will be roughly the same, because optionality for the USA is already gone.

    US military is in a death spiral already.

    There is realistically no limit to any country’s military budget if it can print it’s own money and people will still take it. Now it’s true that one day the dollar may not be the world’s reserve currency but there isn’t anything the US needs to buy from anywhere else in the world – same for Russia and China.

    Stupid military spending wasn’t what ended the USSR and it won’t be the end of the US.

    Read More
  137. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Avery
    You got it almost right, but not quite, anonoğlu.
    I am sure you have heard the saying: "You are not paranoid, if they are they are really out to get you".

    So, in that in mind:

    The reality is - not my reality, but the reality - that since the Turk invadonomads from Uyguristan invaded Asia Minor and Caucasus, they have been murdering, massacring, raping, stealing, committing genocide.....

    Behind every murder, rape, theft, arson, massacre, invasion, genocide,......is an UygurTürkoğlu.

    Have a nice day, and don't forget to write, ya hear?

    You got it almost right, but not quite, anonoğlu.

    Whoa , Ill take a lot of guff from you in good humor but I will not stand for you calling me a Turk!!!!

    Behind every murder, rape, theft, arson, massacre, invasion, genocide,……is an UygurTürkoğlu.

    Hey I dislike Turks about 85% as much as you do , but this is a little much. If you substituted Muslim for UygurTurkoglu it would be closer to the truth but still an exaggeration .

    Read More
  138. @MarkinLA
    Brzezinski was profoundly ignorant of the fact that today’s ally might be tomorrow’s enemy.

    He was aware, his Polishness overtook his Americanism and he thought doing something to end the USSR would outweigh whatever costs there were by inciting Islamic fundamentalism. This hatred of Russia caused him to look at the world through a skewed lens. If communism was doomed to failure then trying to help it along by putting radical Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan was the wrong approach since Russians consider themselves European and always wanted to be part of Europe. Russia was always going to be western, it was just going to take time for all the old party hacks who were around during WWII to die off. Islamic fundamentalism isn't going away nearly as quickly.

    Agree

    Read More
  139. Meanwhile, the US-supported “democracy on the march” proceeds in Brazil:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-impeachment-idUSKCN114071

    The US have sided with a criminal (as always): “The impeachment process [against Rouseeff] was launched by the former lower house speaker, Eduardo Cunha, who is facing charges of corruption, including taking bribes in the Petrobras kickback scandal and having millions of dollars hidden away in Swiss bank accounts….”

    “Another US-Sponsored Coup? Brazil’s New President [Michel Temer] Was An Embassy Informant For US Intelligence:” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-13/another-us-sponsored-spnosred-coup-brazils-new-president-was-embassy-informant-us-in

    “Complete Reversal of Democracy: Glenn Greenwald on Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s Impeachment:” http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/29/complete_reversal_of_democracy_glenn_greenwald

    “Leaked Tapes Prove Nefarious Plot to Replace Dilma with Temer:”

    http://sputniknews.com/news/20160702/1042347205/brazil-dilma-temer-impeachment-corruption.html

    Read More
  140. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @rakewind
    Leaving aside all the maniacal delusions about what was possible by way of US hegemony, ZB's major theses were all driven by his -perhaps historically understandable - Russophobic paranoia.

    point taken thankyou.

    Read More
  141. What a dolt! Zbigi thought the “arc” he was drawing was an area where the US should use temporary “instability” to destroy rivals and assert hegemonic power, but the real powers behind the MIC understood the “arc of instability” to be an area where the US needed to create perpetual instability in order to sell weapons and advance the careers of military brass and hawkish pundits.

    As Keith Olbermann said a few years ago on Countdown, the purpose of the war in Iraq was to have a war in Iraq, and as Jill Stein says, US foreign policy is a marketing strategy for weapons manufacturers. jill2016.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...the US needed to create perpetual instability in order to sell weapons..."
    So true...
  142. “Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the “violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal.”

    This is the same Brzezinski who as late as 1998 was loudly defending Amerikastani support for jihadi terrorists in Afghanistan as a worthwhile price to pay to hit Russia, at the cost of only “a few stirred up Moslems.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "This is the same Brzezinski who as late as 1998 was loudly defending Amerikastani support for jihadi terrorists in Afghanistan as a worthwhile price to pay to hit Russia, at the cost of only “a few stirred up Moslems."
    The DC megamaniacal psychopaths love bringing up and then unleashing the powerful genies in order to enjoy a sight of a slaughter in the name of the US (the slaughters worldwide are very good for MIC). But the same psychopaths are always clueless about how to put a genie back to a non-fighting state. Since none of the "deciding" scoundrels has been ever put on trial or was hold accountable in any way, the nurturing of genies goes on. Cheerleading for more wars is both profitable and safe. See the comfortably aged Brzezinski.
  143. @Jacques Sheete
    I'm not so sure about this because everyone knows that the goons never say what they really think and what they say in public is meant for public consumption.:

    "...the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions."

     

    All we really know is that he's talking about a course correction in public, and I'm wondering why.

    All we really know is that he’s talking about a course correction in public, and I’m wondering why.

    Much like stock brokers who make money when stocks are bought an sold, political writers (like Brzezinski) make money by on books predicting upturns and downturns in the fortunes of nations. Rest assured that like all internationalist, he doesn’t really care which side wins.

    Read More
  144. @Rehmat
    No wonder the Israel lobby hated this Polish dude.

    America’s leading foreign policy expert and Obama’s former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech at the event organized by the National American Iranian Council (NAIC) and the Arms Control Association in Washington on November 26, 2012 claimed that US administration is lead by the nose by pro-Israel Jewish groups like a stupid mule.

    “I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy,” said Brzezinski.

    “An attack on Iran would be an act of utter irresponsibility and potentially a significant immorality if the United States participated,” he said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/11/30/brzezinski-americans-are-stupid-israeli-mules/

    While making these bold statements concerning the US following Israel’s orders, it sounds as if Brzezinski is unaware of who controls America’s credit-based financial system. “The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender.” Prov. 22:7

    Read More
  145. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JL
    So, after he's spent decades creating, enacting and inspiring the US global imperialism that now has us on the verge of a nuclear armageddon, Brzezinski finds Jesus and tells us that maybe it wasn't such a great idea after all. Except these institutions built up over decades don't just flip on a dime, they require decades of reorientation, or a major catastrophe, to change course. If ever there was a blatant example that our political leaders are absolutely clueless and untrustworthy, this is it.

    Didn’t Alan Greenspan, in aid of US world financial domination, do exactly the same to the economy?

    Read More
  146. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Mike Whitney you need to correct your article in that the “I” in BRICS Bank stands for India, not Iran. Kind regards, RDM

    Read More
  147. @attonn
    Personally I don't believe Hillary will be starting new wars. For 4 reasons, at least.

    First, the US fiscal position is deteriorating badly - way ahead of schedule predicted by the CBO - and snowballing entitlements will eat away at the Pentagon. US military is in a death spiral already. And it's irreversible.
    Second, the stock market is topping out, and nothing dents American morale like a bear market in equities, and the disappearance of funny money. At times like that, foreign policy moves into background. Managing domestic strife is a full-time business.
    Third, the abysmal demographic trends ( it's worse than those of a supposedly dying Russia) don't support military adventurism.
    And fourth, America is already mired in more conflicts than it can manage. The first priority will be to extricate itself from the existing boondoggles.

    Whether it's Clinton or Trump, the policy will be roughly the same, because optionality for the USA is already gone.

    Interesting that you credit these candidate clowns with being rational. Maybe it’s the cloride or the exceptionalism, but America is a bought and paid off hit man fot the crazied.

    Read More
  148. @anti_republocrat
    What a dolt! Zbigi thought the "arc" he was drawing was an area where the US should use temporary "instability" to destroy rivals and assert hegemonic power, but the real powers behind the MIC understood the "arc of instability" to be an area where the US needed to create perpetual instability in order to sell weapons and advance the careers of military brass and hawkish pundits.

    As Keith Olbermann said a few years ago on Countdown, the purpose of the war in Iraq was to have a war in Iraq, and as Jill Stein says, US foreign policy is a marketing strategy for weapons manufacturers. jill2016.com

    “…the US needed to create perpetual instability in order to sell weapons…”
    So true…

    Read More
  149. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist
    "Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the “violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal."

    This is the same Brzezinski who as late as 1998 was loudly defending Amerikastani support for jihadi terrorists in Afghanistan as a worthwhile price to pay to hit Russia, at the cost of only "a few stirred up Moslems."

    “This is the same Brzezinski who as late as 1998 was loudly defending Amerikastani support for jihadi terrorists in Afghanistan as a worthwhile price to pay to hit Russia, at the cost of only “a few stirred up Moslems.”
    The DC megamaniacal psychopaths love bringing up and then unleashing the powerful genies in order to enjoy a sight of a slaughter in the name of the US (the slaughters worldwide are very good for MIC). But the same psychopaths are always clueless about how to put a genie back to a non-fighting state. Since none of the “deciding” scoundrels has been ever put on trial or was hold accountable in any way, the nurturing of genies goes on. Cheerleading for more wars is both profitable and safe. See the comfortably aged Brzezinski.

    Read More
  150. @Wizard of Oz
    Your advice should be taken. However....

    Your proposition about what caused the end of the British Empire would look more plausible if you could show that its going to war in 1914 was to "protect that [its lead in industrialising] advantage". Only the 1914-1918 war contributed critically to ending the British Empire and I would be interested to know why you think that had anything to do with "that advantage". Unfair perhaps because Britain had long since lost "that" advantage, was the leading free trade exponent and I suspect that you are vaguely remembering some left wing theories as to Britain's defending its trade interests.

    The British Empire was done for well before 1914 – like the Romans, it expanded past the point where there was a net benefit to the Empire as a whole, and got to the point where the aggregate costs outweighed the aggregate benefits.

    The problem for Empires is that the benefits from expansion are always captured privately (by a clique of cronies), but the costs are (mostly) borne by the tax base.

    That means that the ‘crony’ cost-benefit calculation is still strongly positive at the point at which aggregate cost-benefit calculation would require stopping the expansion.

    Plus, nobody was scared of the British after about 1850: sure, they still had a big navy.

    However they had gotten their butts kicked in 3 campaigns –
    – the American colonies;
    – Afghanistan; and
    – the Maori Wars in New Zealand (Kia Ora, ).

    I always compare those three to
    – Varus at Teutoberger Wald;
    – Crassus at Carrhae; and
    – Hadrian’s Wall in Caledonia (this was really just a pre-emptive acknowledgement of the likely military failure of any further action… that equals defeat if you’re a soi-disant superpower).

    Once you are shown to be vulnerable to an insurgency, you’re finished as a power. And all expansionist Empires are vulnerable to insurgencies because taking ground is no good unless you hold it, and holding it without genociding the indigenes is not possible.

    If your aim is resource extraction (rather than lebensraum), genocide makes no sense – because you then have to import a bunch of labour, which is costly. And if you don’t genocide, then resource extraction costs increase due to the requirement to secure the resources and the capital and labour being used for the resource extraction.

    Plus, the whole ‘Rules the waves’ schtick is now irrelevant, because you can’t administer territory from a boat.

    Before anti-shipping missiles existed, big ships were useful in wars of (near-)equals.

    Now, they are just gigantic metal coffins that dare not park inside the range of any known anti-shipping missile – which means that a CBG must park outside the range of their own carrier-based aircraft. The first exchange of any 21st century naval battle, will be an aircraft carrier being destroyed by an incoming volley of anti-shipping missiles (like the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts which I first wrote about in 2004), and the Navy will cease being relevant.

    So where are we now?

    The US has already had 4 instances where it got handed its hat – in the last 2, the opposition had no ‘great power’ backing it (I’m leaving out Somalia, because it wasn’t big enough to be a proper test)…
    – Korea
    – Viet Nam
    – Iraq and
    – Afghanistan

    There was also one big instance where its trillion-dollar security-theater apparatus got a bloody nose dealt by a bunch of people who were supposed to be primitive halfwits…
    – 9/11.

    (The US also reacted to 911 – at a national level – like a teenage girl, with self-absorbed histrionics: being shown that your sense of invulnerability is misplaced, is probably a terribly stressful thing)

    So nobody is scared of the US anymore. Only the US seems unaware of this fact – outside its own self-absorbed exceptionalist echo chamber, everyone knows that the US Empire is dead in the water.

    Some third-rate countries (e.g., Australia, England) have politicians of such low calibre that they still want to be friends with the ‘big guy’ – but that was the case for Oz pollies when the English were on the wane, too: Australia’s parasite classes never met a fading power that they wouldn’t fellate. There’s probably still high-value scraps for those vermin to scarf, too.

    However everybody now knows that the US can’t get the job done (to be fair, nobody can: information is much freer now, so everyone knows where the soft underbelly is).

    – ambush and irregular warfare beats well-drilled and equipped professionals, especially if the latter are actively ignorant of terrain and its implications for the logistical chain;
    – domestic 4G insurgency doesn’t need to outfight or outwit the invader – it just needs to outlast them while imposing low levels of casualty – which is easy (and the stress on the invaders’ soldiers will bear further fruit when it morphs into PTSD when they get home).

    The US is done as a global power. It should pull in its horns and try to trade its way out of the mess it’s made. Of course it could still do a lot of damage as it has its death throes.

    Meanwhile, China’s trading its way to global supremacy without invading anybody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    In addition, the Boer War, which resulted in Britain being (initially) defeated by a rag-tag army consisting of Dutch farmers, proved that the British Empire was no longer feared and well on it's way out. WW 1 applied icing to the cake, with W 2 eating the cake.
    , @Philip Owen


    Britain only ever had a big navy. On the whole, outside Europe, the British Empire didn't rely on armies. It offered such benefits to the local rulers whether Whampanoags or the Sultans of Delhi that they collaborated and outsourced until their rule was so hollow it collapsed. Or they sided with the French and the war was lost in Europe. The Imperial desire to make relatively even sided land deals with the Native Americans was always a problem with the settlers in the North American colonies. Many rulers in places like Malaysia and West Africa signed up with the British for fear of something worse, like the Dutch or (not entirely fairly) the French or (entirely fairly) a local big boy. But it was the strength of British technology and trade not military protection that gave the local rulers the advantage not a standing army sent to defend them. The British track record trying the Spanish/Russian model of Empire by conquest and occupation is not great. American rebels, Afghans, Zulus and Sudanese wiped out regiments of red coats. Gate Pa, since you seem Australasian, was no triumph. Outside Europe, the British army was always notable for its defeats not its victories. The British Empire was more like a proto EU of more or less willing participants than the might of Imperial Rome. After the UK came off the gold standard, the Ottawa Conference in 1932 failed to establish the Commonwealth as a Free Trade area (such an idea is a fantasy of Brexiteers). So the Empire no longer paid. It had to be unloaded. The "independence" movements were usually struggles by the more highly educated members of the local elites for power post independence rather than genuine revolts.
  151. “Towards a Global Realignment” This article should have been written when he published Grand Chess Board.Any discerning person could have foreseen the economic deterioration of America by that time with national debt hovering around 5 trillion.It was later revealed that by early 90′s those in the know were resigned to the reality that America could never repay its debt but was condemned carry on with by merely servicing it. What a deception by the super power.And then came wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.America not only did not raise tax Bush jr. bombastically reduced tax and made refunds to every citizen to enjoy.Now with national debt hovering around 20 trillion the debate in Congress is about raising or curtailing the borrowing limits!! America is being carried on by virtue of the Dollar.When the Dollar crumbles and loses its reserve currency status which is unavoidable America with its national debt will be worse than a third world country.May be category called fourth world will have to be created to catogorise the then USA.
    So far only the economic side was focused . Now the other factors. More than the wars or any thing else the horrifying seen is the lose of American identity.Now it is election time.Watching it from far away India one can see what the real issue that occupies election scene.The real and only one issue.ISRAEL. Israel with all its turpitude demands and extracts bipolar or multi polar and unquestionable servility. Now America’s identity is subsumed within the identity of Israel.In Ukraine conflict or in the stand off with Russia the hidden or visible hands of Israel or the neocons are visible.Policies within or without America are predicated up on the interests of Israel often to the detriment of the American national intersts.For vanity sake one can call it the most powerfully nation. That is all. Before attempting any thing else America will have to shake off this old man(Israel) off its(America the Zinbad) shoulders.But that is very doubtful when we watch the law makers and presidential aspirants grovelling competitively before Israel and its fifth columnist agents in America. It was really amusing to see Trump mending his words when Adelson ordered.
    So for a person who is watching America dispassionately and intensely this the impression he/she gets.A nation with 20 trillion debt piling up more debts to service it while the interest rates held artificially and ridiculously low.A nation which boasted to be the most powerful losing its identity and self respect which it had surrendered before a tiny foreign country.A country which can not protect itself from sabotage within.
    Future?

    Read More
  152. @Wizard of Oz
    Obviously I shouldn't learn "what's really going on in the world" or history from you or your sources. Crimea was made part of Ukraine ratther than Russia under Kruschev and part of the legal settlement between Russia and Ukraine whereby Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on its soil was a guaramtee by Russia to respect its borders.

    What has the vote of all or some of the people of Crimea (after Russia had already taken control to the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces, or at all) got to do with it? If the people of Alaska voted to be part of Russia again would that make Alaska part of Russia?

    “. . . To the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and its forces. . .”

    Only trouble is, after the democratically elected Pres. was over thrown and a Russian hating neoNazi as a replacement. . . It’s not hard to understand why the mostly russian residents would want rescuing. Not to mention the dirty trick was meant to deprive Russia of its naval base/port. It was probably the most transparent we’ve been in a long time.
    JustSayin

    Read More
  153. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Brzezniski always knew who he hated. His intellectual analysis is just an end to support that view.

    Read More
  154. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @annamaria
    "... theft of Crimea :"
    Here is a history lesson that is feared by all Ukrainian nationalists: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/banderite-hypocrisy-vice-pm-blames.html
    The linked article contains a picture that speaks mightier than thousand words - it shows a map of Ukraine' territorial augmentation for the expense of Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia plus the territories gifted to Ukraine by Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev.
    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-08MH01zREq4/V8HXy8WLv4I/AAAAAAAAECI/D9NXDI0jRFw4CenxJJ9dVDJrdpsNhJZ-gCLcB/s1600/20140504_3602.jpg

    "...the phenomenon of the Ukrainian nation is quite young and, if we’re dealing with its Galician version, only has around 100 years under its belt... The final formation of the Ukrainian nation myth occurred under Soviet rule. The Moscow communists (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Khrushchev) transferred lands to the Ukrainian SSR which had never been a part of Hmelnitsky’s Hetmanate or the Ukrainian People’s Republic. These were the lands of Donbass, Sloboda Ukraine, and part of the territory of the Don Cossacks, Tavrida (Crimea and adjacent lands), and the Odessa region.
    Just before and after the Second World War, Ukraine received even more new lands: Western Ukraine was taken from Poland, Northern Bukovina was taken from Romania, and Transcarpathian Rus was taken from Czechoslovakia while Crimea was taken from Russia. In addition to these territorial gifts to the Ukrainian USSR, the Soviet Union created and pursued cultural and language policies of Ukrainianization. Across the entire territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and in some territories of Soviet Russia, education was held exclusively in the Ukrainian language. Nevertheless, Ukrainianization still only yielded very superficial results."

    All nations are myths. You follow a Russian nationalist one. There is much territory in Muscovite Russia that is or was Little Russian speaking (how may Little Russian speaking universities are there in Russia?). Why is Muscovy any more legitimate than they are. The Russian Orthodox Church was a state backed breakaway from the Constantinople for very similar reasons to the Church of England (Foreign influence Spanish/Turkish), King with iffy marriage/divorce plans (although Ivan locked his up in a nunnery rather than actually divorced her), seizure of Church wealth etc. What is now Ukraine was under a variety of jurisdictions at the time. None of them Muscovite but early Medieval Ukraine was the core of the Rus, the ancestor state. Why should that claim be ignored in your myth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    You mean that the concept of nationhood has anti-Ukrainian bias?
    Let's stick to a concrete time frame: Israel has been colonizing the natives' land from after the WWII. Ukraine has been created out of colonized territories after the WWI. If western Ukrainians are so sensitive to the series of plebiscites in Crimea, then perhaps they need to learn the history of Ukraine in the 20th century.
  155. @Philip Owen


    All nations are myths. You follow a Russian nationalist one. There is much territory in Muscovite Russia that is or was Little Russian speaking (how may Little Russian speaking universities are there in Russia?). Why is Muscovy any more legitimate than they are. The Russian Orthodox Church was a state backed breakaway from the Constantinople for very similar reasons to the Church of England (Foreign influence Spanish/Turkish), King with iffy marriage/divorce plans (although Ivan locked his up in a nunnery rather than actually divorced her), seizure of Church wealth etc. What is now Ukraine was under a variety of jurisdictions at the time. None of them Muscovite but early Medieval Ukraine was the core of the Rus, the ancestor state. Why should that claim be ignored in your myth?

    You mean that the concept of nationhood has anti-Ukrainian bias?
    Let’s stick to a concrete time frame: Israel has been colonizing the natives’ land from after the WWII. Ukraine has been created out of colonized territories after the WWI. If western Ukrainians are so sensitive to the series of plebiscites in Crimea, then perhaps they need to learn the history of Ukraine in the 20th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Let’s stick to a concrete time frame: Israel has been colonizing the natives’ land from after the WWII.
     
    Anna, I know very little about Ukraine, but, with respect, Jews began serious colonization of Palestine before the beginning of World War I.

    see Etan Bloom, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Hebrew Culture in Palestine: by 1910 Ruppin had build Tel Aviv close-by the Arab port of Joffa, with the intention of undermining Arab commerce, trade, and rents. Tel Aviv was designed to mirror the kind of town life European Jews would be accustomed to and be most comfortable in (except that insufficient land was allowed for adequately wide roads, since most builders were not willing to "waste" so much land).
    , @Philip Owen


    The nationalist debates that affect me directly focus on language, religion, customary law, shared history and at some time in the last 1000 years, some kind of statehood. Ukraine has many of those. Little Russian is spoken in an even wider area than Ukraine (although in the Muscovite state it receives no recognition whatsoever unlike numerous minority languages). Kievean Rus was a substantial state within the historical period; Orthodoxy in Ukraine has broken - Moscow's unilateral departure from the Constantinople Patriarchy cf. the Church of England was part of that but Orthodoxy in different flavours is still the core religion; Napoleon did for customary law in Eastern Europe - not an issue; as for shared history, Kievean Rus went in many directions. The Mongols took the headwaters of the Don, Novogorod survived, Belarus and the inhabitable Black Earth were part of the P-L Commonwealth, the uninhabitable wild lands and Crimea were Ottoman. Those last two points about law and early modern history do negate the nationhood of the Little Russians if they wish to declare it under whatever name is now available to them. It is not even an anachronism to apply the term Ukrainian (shut up Gerad you are an cherry picking idiot) to the rebels against the Commonwealth. Part of the territory, if not the people already carried that name.
  156. @Kratoklastes
    The British Empire was done for well before 1914 - like the Romans, it expanded past the point where there was a net benefit to the Empire as a whole, and got to the point where the aggregate costs outweighed the aggregate benefits.

    The problem for Empires is that the benefits from expansion are always captured privately (by a clique of cronies), but the costs are (mostly) borne by the tax base.

    That means that the 'crony' cost-benefit calculation is still strongly positive at the point at which aggregate cost-benefit calculation would require stopping the expansion.

    Plus, nobody was scared of the British after about 1850: sure, they still had a big navy.

    However they had gotten their butts kicked in 3 campaigns -
    -- the American colonies;
    -- Afghanistan; and
    -- the Maori Wars in New Zealand (Kia Ora, ).

    I always compare those three to
    -- Varus at Teutoberger Wald;
    -- Crassus at Carrhae; and
    -- Hadrian's Wall in Caledonia (this was really just a pre-emptive acknowledgement of the likely military failure of any further action... that equals defeat if you're a soi-disant superpower).

    Once you are shown to be vulnerable to an insurgency, you're finished as a power. And all expansionist Empires are vulnerable to insurgencies because taking ground is no good unless you hold it, and holding it without genociding the indigenes is not possible.

    If your aim is resource extraction (rather than lebensraum), genocide makes no sense - because you then have to import a bunch of labour, which is costly. And if you don't genocide, then resource extraction costs increase due to the requirement to secure the resources and the capital and labour being used for the resource extraction.

    Plus, the whole 'Rules the waves' schtick is now irrelevant, because you can't administer territory from a boat.

    Before anti-shipping missiles existed, big ships were useful in wars of (near-)equals.

    Now, they are just gigantic metal coffins that dare not park inside the range of any known anti-shipping missile - which means that a CBG must park outside the range of their own carrier-based aircraft. The first exchange of any 21st century naval battle, will be an aircraft carrier being destroyed by an incoming volley of anti-shipping missiles (like the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts which I first wrote about in 2004), and the Navy will cease being relevant.


    So where are we now?

    The US has already had 4 instances where it got handed its hat - in the last 2, the opposition had no 'great power' backing it (I'm leaving out Somalia, because it wasn't big enough to be a proper test)...
    -- Korea
    -- Viet Nam
    -- Iraq and
    -- Afghanistan

    There was also one big instance where its trillion-dollar security-theater apparatus got a bloody nose dealt by a bunch of people who were supposed to be primitive halfwits...
    -- 9/11.

    (The US also reacted to 911 - at a national level - like a teenage girl, with self-absorbed histrionics: being shown that your sense of invulnerability is misplaced, is probably a terribly stressful thing)

    So nobody is scared of the US anymore. Only the US seems unaware of this fact - outside its own self-absorbed exceptionalist echo chamber, everyone knows that the US Empire is dead in the water.

    Some third-rate countries (e.g., Australia, England) have politicians of such low calibre that they still want to be friends with the 'big guy' - but that was the case for Oz pollies when the English were on the wane, too: Australia's parasite classes never met a fading power that they wouldn't fellate. There's probably still high-value scraps for those vermin to scarf, too.

    However everybody now knows that the US can't get the job done (to be fair, nobody can: information is much freer now, so everyone knows where the soft underbelly is).

    -- ambush and irregular warfare beats well-drilled and equipped professionals, especially if the latter are actively ignorant of terrain and its implications for the logistical chain;
    -- domestic 4G insurgency doesn't need to outfight or outwit the invader - it just needs to outlast them while imposing low levels of casualty - which is easy (and the stress on the invaders' soldiers will bear further fruit when it morphs into PTSD when they get home).

    The US is done as a global power. It should pull in its horns and try to trade its way out of the mess it's made. Of course it could still do a lot of damage as it has its death throes.

    Meanwhile, China's trading its way to global supremacy without invading anybody.

    In addition, the Boer War, which resulted in Britain being (initially) defeated by a rag-tag army consisting of Dutch farmers, proved that the British Empire was no longer feared and well on it’s way out. WW 1 applied icing to the cake, with W 2 eating the cake.

    Read More
  157. @annamaria
    You mean that the concept of nationhood has anti-Ukrainian bias?
    Let's stick to a concrete time frame: Israel has been colonizing the natives' land from after the WWII. Ukraine has been created out of colonized territories after the WWI. If western Ukrainians are so sensitive to the series of plebiscites in Crimea, then perhaps they need to learn the history of Ukraine in the 20th century.

    Let’s stick to a concrete time frame: Israel has been colonizing the natives’ land from after the WWII.

    Anna, I know very little about Ukraine, but, with respect, Jews began serious colonization of Palestine before the beginning of World War I.

    see Etan Bloom, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Hebrew Culture in Palestine: by 1910 Ruppin had build Tel Aviv close-by the Arab port of Joffa, with the intention of undermining Arab commerce, trade, and rents. Tel Aviv was designed to mirror the kind of town life European Jews would be accustomed to and be most comfortable in (except that insufficient land was allowed for adequately wide roads, since most builders were not willing to “waste” so much land).

    Read More
  158. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @annamaria
    You mean that the concept of nationhood has anti-Ukrainian bias?
    Let's stick to a concrete time frame: Israel has been colonizing the natives' land from after the WWII. Ukraine has been created out of colonized territories after the WWI. If western Ukrainians are so sensitive to the series of plebiscites in Crimea, then perhaps they need to learn the history of Ukraine in the 20th century.

    The nationalist debates that affect me directly focus on language, religion, customary law, shared history and at some time in the last 1000 years, some kind of statehood. Ukraine has many of those. Little Russian is spoken in an even wider area than Ukraine (although in the Muscovite state it receives no recognition whatsoever unlike numerous minority languages). Kievean Rus was a substantial state within the historical period; Orthodoxy in Ukraine has broken – Moscow’s unilateral departure from the Constantinople Patriarchy cf. the Church of England was part of that but Orthodoxy in different flavours is still the core religion; Napoleon did for customary law in Eastern Europe – not an issue; as for shared history, Kievean Rus went in many directions. The Mongols took the headwaters of the Don, Novogorod survived, Belarus and the inhabitable Black Earth were part of the P-L Commonwealth, the uninhabitable wild lands and Crimea were Ottoman. Those last two points about law and early modern history do negate the nationhood of the Little Russians if they wish to declare it under whatever name is now available to them. It is not even an anachronism to apply the term Ukrainian (shut up Gerad you are an cherry picking idiot) to the rebels against the Commonwealth. Part of the territory, if not the people already carried that name.

    Read More
  159. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kratoklastes
    The British Empire was done for well before 1914 - like the Romans, it expanded past the point where there was a net benefit to the Empire as a whole, and got to the point where the aggregate costs outweighed the aggregate benefits.

    The problem for Empires is that the benefits from expansion are always captured privately (by a clique of cronies), but the costs are (mostly) borne by the tax base.

    That means that the 'crony' cost-benefit calculation is still strongly positive at the point at which aggregate cost-benefit calculation would require stopping the expansion.

    Plus, nobody was scared of the British after about 1850: sure, they still had a big navy.

    However they had gotten their butts kicked in 3 campaigns -
    -- the American colonies;
    -- Afghanistan; and
    -- the Maori Wars in New Zealand (Kia Ora, ).

    I always compare those three to
    -- Varus at Teutoberger Wald;
    -- Crassus at Carrhae; and
    -- Hadrian's Wall in Caledonia (this was really just a pre-emptive acknowledgement of the likely military failure of any further action... that equals defeat if you're a soi-disant superpower).

    Once you are shown to be vulnerable to an insurgency, you're finished as a power. And all expansionist Empires are vulnerable to insurgencies because taking ground is no good unless you hold it, and holding it without genociding the indigenes is not possible.

    If your aim is resource extraction (rather than lebensraum), genocide makes no sense - because you then have to import a bunch of labour, which is costly. And if you don't genocide, then resource extraction costs increase due to the requirement to secure the resources and the capital and labour being used for the resource extraction.

    Plus, the whole 'Rules the waves' schtick is now irrelevant, because you can't administer territory from a boat.

    Before anti-shipping missiles existed, big ships were useful in wars of (near-)equals.

    Now, they are just gigantic metal coffins that dare not park inside the range of any known anti-shipping missile - which means that a CBG must park outside the range of their own carrier-based aircraft. The first exchange of any 21st century naval battle, will be an aircraft carrier being destroyed by an incoming volley of anti-shipping missiles (like the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts which I first wrote about in 2004), and the Navy will cease being relevant.


    So where are we now?

    The US has already had 4 instances where it got handed its hat - in the last 2, the opposition had no 'great power' backing it (I'm leaving out Somalia, because it wasn't big enough to be a proper test)...
    -- Korea
    -- Viet Nam
    -- Iraq and
    -- Afghanistan

    There was also one big instance where its trillion-dollar security-theater apparatus got a bloody nose dealt by a bunch of people who were supposed to be primitive halfwits...
    -- 9/11.

    (The US also reacted to 911 - at a national level - like a teenage girl, with self-absorbed histrionics: being shown that your sense of invulnerability is misplaced, is probably a terribly stressful thing)

    So nobody is scared of the US anymore. Only the US seems unaware of this fact - outside its own self-absorbed exceptionalist echo chamber, everyone knows that the US Empire is dead in the water.

    Some third-rate countries (e.g., Australia, England) have politicians of such low calibre that they still want to be friends with the 'big guy' - but that was the case for Oz pollies when the English were on the wane, too: Australia's parasite classes never met a fading power that they wouldn't fellate. There's probably still high-value scraps for those vermin to scarf, too.

    However everybody now knows that the US can't get the job done (to be fair, nobody can: information is much freer now, so everyone knows where the soft underbelly is).

    -- ambush and irregular warfare beats well-drilled and equipped professionals, especially if the latter are actively ignorant of terrain and its implications for the logistical chain;
    -- domestic 4G insurgency doesn't need to outfight or outwit the invader - it just needs to outlast them while imposing low levels of casualty - which is easy (and the stress on the invaders' soldiers will bear further fruit when it morphs into PTSD when they get home).

    The US is done as a global power. It should pull in its horns and try to trade its way out of the mess it's made. Of course it could still do a lot of damage as it has its death throes.

    Meanwhile, China's trading its way to global supremacy without invading anybody.

    Britain only ever had a big navy. On the whole, outside Europe, the British Empire didn’t rely on armies. It offered such benefits to the local rulers whether Whampanoags or the Sultans of Delhi that they collaborated and outsourced until their rule was so hollow it collapsed. Or they sided with the French and the war was lost in Europe. The Imperial desire to make relatively even sided land deals with the Native Americans was always a problem with the settlers in the North American colonies. Many rulers in places like Malaysia and West Africa signed up with the British for fear of something worse, like the Dutch or (not entirely fairly) the French or (entirely fairly) a local big boy. But it was the strength of British technology and trade not military protection that gave the local rulers the advantage not a standing army sent to defend them. The British track record trying the Spanish/Russian model of Empire by conquest and occupation is not great. American rebels, Afghans, Zulus and Sudanese wiped out regiments of red coats. Gate Pa, since you seem Australasian, was no triumph. Outside Europe, the British army was always notable for its defeats not its victories. The British Empire was more like a proto EU of more or less willing participants than the might of Imperial Rome. After the UK came off the gold standard, the Ottawa Conference in 1932 failed to establish the Commonwealth as a Free Trade area (such an idea is a fantasy of Brexiteers). So the Empire no longer paid. It had to be unloaded. The “independence” movements were usually struggles by the more highly educated members of the local elites for power post independence rather than genuine revolts.

    Read More
  160. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Xerxes
    A very interesting analysis, and a minor amendment; the I in BRICs stands for India and the s denotes the plural.

    40% of the BRICS are active participants in the Commonwealth at a much deeper level than membership in the BRICS has so far reached. And Hong Kong is a very active observer in the Commonwealth, hence the present high levels of interaction between China and the UK. The Commonwealth is about to become a lot more significant than it has been for 40 years. It already shapes the international agenda on obscure but important stuff like the legal status of digital money – bit coin, in which Hong Kong is the main driving force. By the time than sort of debate gets to the UN or other international legal body, 50 odd Commonwealth countries have an established position the matter. When a Commonwealth Prime Minister talks about international action on tax evasion almost half the countries in the world are signed up. BRICS are an instrument for Anglo-Chinese rule (Saker is wrong about half the membership of the world ruling class and he picked the wrong Anglos :-) )

    Brzezinski is a typical American and underestimates Western Europe’s soft power. The chessboard was always the wrong analogy.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS