The World today : Ukraine - Syrian crisis explained

Hi,

As promised, the « article » was an answer to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it's an analysis of the Ukraine / Syrian crisis and why we have that # today. Since it's a bit long, I'll post the rest in the reply below.
I wrote this article quickly, apologies for the typos.

Small Intro and foreword

The coup in Ukraine was orchestrated by the US, the answer is yes but not only. There are many events that lead to the dramatic situation of the Middle East today.
Anglo-saxon or assimilated have always been what I like to call business people: pragmatic on the return on investment of their foreign or internal policies. So for the following of this post, please drop moral values and the reasoning of analysis of thinkers is mostly based on an ethics (philosophically speaking).
This “capitalist” thinking capability did lead to the rise of new empire that is today, fighting for its survival by any means necessary.
So I will mainly talk about the US, but by US, please understand the US and their servant bitches the EU and others.

Rogers’ Doctrine, World War II and the Cold War

We have to go back to the end of Second World War or the fall of the old powers (European continent) and the rise of a new super power (the US).
After the Second World War and the start of the cold war, the US developed a foreign policy doctrine mainly aimed at the USSR: Rogers’ doctrine.
This was an analysis on the “how to” methodology to isolate step by step a country/power. It included economic warfare (at this time, dollar was as good as gold), military, communication (propaganda), blackmailing and corruption. This doctrine also extended farther then current political vision: instead of a few years, it extended to generations.
Whatever moral values you may have, it is still, according to me a masterpiece of politics as much as the Chomsky methodology to control masses (which is applied step by step by occidental powers).

Thus NATO was created to enforce this doctrine. This doctrine mostly directed at the USSR as never been dropped: the US would never allow Russia’s rise to world power again. The proof of this simply that NATO still exists, that Russia’s influence circle as diminished since the end of the cold war (many Eastern and Baltic countries now joined the EU). Also note that the US trained and finance the Taliban (a certain Oussama Ben Laden against Russian spetnatz in the Afghan wars): the USSR lead a war on this country to gain access to the Indian Ocean as their accesses to oceans are limited up north (winter distances); and the access to the Mediterranean Sea being dependent of Turkey (who they are not best friends with since the Ottoman’s war).

Please also note that Crimea belonged to Russia / USSR until it was given to Ukraine at the fall of the USSR.

If it does not make sense now, all of the above will explain Russia’s violent reaction on the coup in Ukraine.
With this doctrine, the US has successfully maintained USSR at bay by keeping Europe under its control and was successful in bringing down the USSR symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Of course, it is roughly summarized of all those events.
Some historian indicate that Lenin and Trotsky were also sponsored by the UK and the rising US and that is the reason why Stalin tracked down Trotsky to Mexico and initiated huge purged in their Pravda.
It is also noted that the fall of the Iran Shah was largely influenced by the US for 2 reasons:
- Its close ties with the USSR
- Their will to lay hands on nuclear capabilities.

Unfortunately, at this time, the US made the same mistake at the European countries still do: they believed that their perception of the world is shared by everyone. The ayatollahs quickly turned against their sponsor with the American embassy hostage situation.
What happened to Georgia (the country not the US state), the Rose Revolution was also predictable. Already unstable and plagued with mafia, Georgia is the highway for the Caspian Sea oil. The mini-civil war that happened was already underlying between the three main regions. When NATO decided that it was time for this country to join, Russia’s reaction was violent and they immediately seized the region that was important to them (region with the pipeline). When NATO tried to show muscle, they got shot at… Not unlike the Ukraine situation… Russia only took care of the strategic region leaving the rest.

The US needed to find a new way of political control and influence in this region.

Follow up of the first part

The end of “dollar is as good as gold”

Of course, the US also had looks on the Iran oil and natural resources. Unfortunately, they were now persona non grata in Iran. With the increasing use of fossil fuels, the US stroked a deal with another local Middle Eastern power though not as advanced as Iran according to the definition western’s definition of civilization: Saudi Arabia and affiliates.

The deal was as follows: fossil fuel would be backed to the US dollar and the OPEP was born. This deal is important because it meant 2 things:
- Gold was not as good as oil thus energy become more important. US dollar was a good as oil and not gold.
- Iran and Saudi Arabia are not the same branch of Islam (Wahhabi VS Chiites) and it was Arabs VS Persian, marking a rise of regional power: Saudi Arabia

In exchange of this agreement, Saudi Arabia was allowed to pour in the US a large part of its oil revenues. I think today it represent about 7 or 10% of US’ GDP (to be checked).

One of the favorite methods of the US for alienation of other countries is through economic treaty (as long as the jurisdiction remains under the US Law, TAFTA etc, plus see the results today with Argentina).
The setback of those treaties is the danger of economic impact for the US in case of major conflict. Thus, with Saudi Arabia influence on the US’s economy, they became close allies: economically, military and of course, politically.
Many say that the US is waging war in the Middle East for oil. This is a false perception. The US’ influence on central and South America made them energetically independent from the Middle East. However, controlling the oil roads meant the capacity to limit growth of other growing industrial powers. As such, the second gulf war on Irak was only made to slow down China’s economic growth since Central Empire oil came mainly from Irak (80%).

It is also important to note that Saddam was also brought to power by the US in Irak in order to stand up locally to Iran new Islamic state. The Iran-Irak war for oil control was furthermore exacerbated by religion of Sunnites VS Chiites. Both countries paid the prices with the committed atrocities that have nothing to envy to what ISIS is doing today.

So by the end of this politic, we had two regional Middle East powers: Iran with a large influence in Lebanon, North Africa and some ex-USSR countries and Saudi Arabia / Qatar, allied to Western powers.
It was the time of Dragon’s rise as a major industrial economy (China) and the rise to power of the Eltsine family (today sort of hidden behind Poutine) and the exploitation of gas and oil resources.

Note on the Iran nuclear crisis:
Iran never stopped wanting nuclear power. It never really bothered other powers until the day where Ahmadinejad stated that Iran wanted to create an oil world market in euro… The horror for the US, the USD is today a power weapon since backed on energetic commodities; it is the main currency of exchange in the world.
So, since it would not pass the public opinion to threaten of war for such a reason, another one needed to be found: nuclear danger… scary… There is also a funny story on how Iran got their hands on the detonator, I’ll tell it another time. I don’t know if it true or not but it’s too improbable to not be true.

Russian resources and their clients

To further go down on the analysis, Russians’ oil and gas main consumers was Europe and ex-USSR satellites. At that time, China and Russia was not in best terms (Mao was never a big fan of Russian especially when they tried to take power in China after the rise of communism) so their best bet would be the European countries. The built pipelines together and signed very long term contracts for oil and gas.
Europe is highly dependent on Russian commodities.

And here is the issue with US foreign policy: as stated before, economical dependences create very strong ties between countries and the US cannot allow letting go of their circle of influence in Europe.
Furthermore, since 10 years, Russia is stepping up the pace to present itself as an alternative super power to the US Empire. And that where China comes in (I am not going to go in the origin of the sub prime crisis of 2005-2008 which was at the same time due to stupid derivative products and an economic warfare on China detained a vast majority of US debt: they literally possessed more US dollars then the US at this time, there is of course a reason behind this but it is here anecdotic).

So, after this crisis and the Second World War, Russians and Chinese saw past their historical grudges and decided to economically cooperate with pipeline and currency swaps to get rid of the US dollar.
Dismay of the US… With the embargo on Iran due to the “nuclear” crisis, Iran got closer to India, Russia and China more than ever: oil and gas was bartered not against dollar but gold, food and other commodities. Thus, a coalition was born of military, political and economic power, independent of US influence and intended to remain that way.
Something needed to be done… But what?

A paradigm shift was needed…If direct influence could not be achieved anymore, then the only strategy left is to divide and conquer by the strategy of chaos.

Follow up of second part

The Arab Springs

Iran may not be a world power but is an important regional power with strings tied to many different regimes: Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, some others countries like China, India, and Azerbaijan etc.

Obviously, picking on China, India or ex-USSR countries would prove very delicate with high risk. So, were left the North-African countries. As you must have read, the Arab spring mostly impacted Tunisia and Egypt. Morocco or Algeria already having close ties with the US and Saudi Arabia, when their spring started, it quickly ended in a bloodbath massively ignored by mass media.

It is also know that the sit-ins were started by NGO sponsored by US and EU association in the name of democracy and freedom. Tunisian hating their former dictator and corruption, it did not take more than a spark to ignite violence: a young street vendor, despaired to be make a decent living sets himself on fire in protest of constant harassment by official (basically stealing revenues from his sells).

The vast majority of the protesters in Tunisia were young and educated. It did not take long before international pressure pushed the Ben Ali clan out of power and forced them to take refuge in Saudi Arabia (oh ! Irony !). Last we heard of him, he had a stroke and was between life and death…

When free election happened, to the surprise of the western world, islamists grabbed power. This was a gross miscalculation of external powers: if in the cities, people were indeed fighting for democracy and freedom, in the rural world, muftis and imams promoted an Islamic state and califat… It did not take much more than that for invisible pressure to force another election…

For Lybia, it was a bit different. Kadafhi has always been a trouble maker for western world. The Lockheed attack and many others made the world ponder what to do. Kadafhi always had the dream of uniting Africa all together (black and Arabs even with their history) in order to fight external influence. It was a right call due to the wealth of their natural resources.

Eventually, the dictator calmed down, paid the settlement for the Lockheed attack. However, he never forgot the quick bombing by the US that killed one of his sons. As such, even if he was in business with the US (yes, even during the embargo on the US dollar, a lot of business was done between US and Libya), his hate was fierce. Never the less, he was an allied of Iran…

France accepted to take the challenge because Kadhafi was threatening to prove that he financed Sarkozy’s election up to 50mios EUR. Sarkozy could not allow that. When France decided to attack and help the “moderate” rebels seize power via NATO’s acceptance (UN) and the UN passivity, many analysts warned of the dire consequences.
Right they were on several levels:

(1)First of all, a democracy is not possible in this country. It could only remain united under a bloody reign: the country is made of different war clan and tribes. It did not take long before the country broke apart. It was also Libya who was the frontier for massive immigration. When this country fell, massive immigration flooded from all Africa unto a “no frontier” Europe.

(2)Second, Kadhafi’s clan was holding at bay most of the war mongering desert tribes and people. When he fell, all his weapons were seize by those tribes (Touareg and others factions). And this how Boko Haram was born with the massacres we know today all over Africa. The US tried to stop this contamination in Mali (first in line), they failed as they did not have the cooperation of the locals. France took over as well as in Center Africa and is still there, up to its chin in ethnics and religious conflicts.

(3)Third, Islamic factions, finance by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, quickly took control of the main strategic area of the countries: industrial complex and sea shore control… As such, it should be no surprise that those factions are today under the commandant of ISIS.

This military intervention slowed downed the contagion but did not stop it.

As such everybody forgot Darfour, crisis between Chad and Soudan with its lots of massacres that was also a strong attempt by Saudis and Qatar to obtain power on this region of the world… A practice run if I dare say as the world sat by and watched…Remember the importance of Saudi Arabia’s investments in the US and the damage it could do if taken back…

As for Egypt, it is a bit of another story. Egypt always had very complex power situation between political, military and religious power. Religious power represented by the Muslim Brotherhood mainly funded by Iran. The US did not mistake the power play here as they strongly finance Egyptian Army from 1 billion USD to 3 billion USD per year.
Like for Tunisia, free elections gave power to the Muslim brotherhood and affiliates. That quickly gave to a new coup from the military who took power. Some faint international protests arose from the US and Europe but overall, everybody was happier this way as Israel was much safer with this new government than the last one.

The entire region is now plunged in chaos, but Iran allies and friends are now gone, isolating Iran a little more. This chaos is also creating mass chaos for Europe with the massive waves of immigration (it started much earlier then what the media said). There is a lot to be said about Europe’s leader and ties with the US… Did you know Merkel and Junker have both officially worked for the CIA ?

Note: Europe following blindly the embargo on Iran created a crisis in many industrial sectors, rise in oil price and rise of unemployment (for example, it brought Peugeot to its knees…Well they were already in a bad shape). The economic loss for Europe of this embargo will never be openly admitted. As European firms left the country, the US is now taking over the place (they were already negotiating deals when the embargo was still there). A little bonus!

Now, by isolating Iran, it is also a step closer to isolating Russia. But a lot happened not so long ago…

Note: Cuba coming back into the little paper of the US authorities is also not innocent… Do not forget the Cuban missile crisis. Politically, the US cannot be “friends” again until the death of Castro. His death will be the final step to the frontier openings.

Part 4

Ex-USSR countries and neighbors… Final steps for Ukraine and Syrian Crisis

Europe was a powerful tool for the US in the application of the Rogers doctrine. Many ex-USSR countries joined the EU or are in the process of: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Croatia, Poland etc. And those who are not in the EU, are tied with NATO: Georgia, Turkey… NATO is even in Afghanistan and they still are.
The US place in almost all European country anti-missile systems or attack weaponry. These armament policies sparked a weapon race that was almost ended after the cold war.

Russia as several time warned the US that this behavior would create intense friction in terms of military reaction. Even if not spoken about, it is of the same importance as the Cuban missile crisis to Russia.
On the western and middle front, Russia became military and almost politically isolated. However, due Russia’s natural energetic resources and past history, its influence is still significant.

With Europe depending on Russian’s gas resources, it was time to strike a wide blow the Russia’s economy but Europe would never follow: gas and oil from North Africa was too expensive to sustain a normal “priced” economy. As such, some obstacles arose:
- Europe needed a replacement for Russia’s gas
- Europe needed to find a way to break the long term contracts signed with Russian authorities
Where to turn and what to do? Well, the first step was to end the gas delivery from Russia to Europe… Ukraine did not know it yet, but its clock was ticking.

Interlude: back to the Rogers’ Doctrine

As you can see, the Baltic Sea countries, Iran, Afghanistan, and Ukraine are now either EU or NATO controlled (or strongly influenced) entities. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and Israel are allies of the US, Iran is isolated and prone to internal turmoil and likes neither Russians or the US.
On the other side, Russia is a natural enemy of Japan, who is an ally of the US. North Korea controlled by Chinese dragon, South Korea also an ally of the US, and finally, the US had almost a direct border to Russia via the Bering Detroit.
Any diplomatic defrosting between major European countries like Germany or France with Russia would be a major setback in the US’s plan of Russia’s isolation.
What remains is China, India… India is held at bay with Pakistan and their own issues and China is starting also to be locked in a power play with the US and other Asian countries.

Ukraine was about to be privatized…

Ukraine horror picture show

The western world was not at its first attempt to lay hand on Ukraine. Almost at the same time as the Georgian crisis, the Orange Revolution took place in Ukraine. If the moral winner of this Orange revolution was the opposing party, the end winner was Russia, which maneuvered swiftly enough to keep its influence on the country. The iconic Ioulia Tymochenko finished in jail until the current Ukraine crisis.

The same factions that finance the orange revolution are the same that finance the Rose revolution of Georgia and the coup tentative beginning 2000 in Belarus.

Officialy the US supported Iouchtchenko and financed him. I believe that local political factions opposing the regime were finance via the Soros foundation (like the Femen).

Funny to note that during the Ukrain Maïdan episode, sit-ins also happened in Belarus. Repression was swift… The first 2 leaders of each faction got publicly executed and everybody else went home…

If the orange revolution was a loss of political influence of Russia over Ukraine, Russia’s grip on this region remained tight as it was the sole provider of gas to this highly dependent country (its fudging cold during winter).
If Qatar was to provide cheap gas to Ukraine and to Europe that would finish putting behind bars the Russian bear: huge loss for the Russian economy and monumental loss in military strategy with the access to the Mediterranean and Caspian seas controlled by NATO and Friends.

But for that, Ukraine needed to join the ranks of the western world. By joining ranks, I mean become another bi-otch to the current US dominant system.

And even if financed by the US, Iouchtchenko was still under strong influence by the Russian politics. As such, he did not want to join NATO and for Europe, he was thinking about it depending on the money.

Small associations started to emerged, the most famous in Europe being the Femen sponsored by Soros foundation…
Little by Little, the sit-ins grew larger and larger. Local and foreign pressure forced the government to react by freeing some political opponents but it would not stop. Sit-ins grew bigger and tension arose.
Western politics accused Russia to meddle in foreign countries politics. Russian made the same accusations. Of course, both were using the same method of coercion and propaganda…

Until Russia via Belarus politics made public a conversation between the US ambassador (don’t remember her name) with her EU counterpart stating that US had spent more than 5 billion to alienate this country and that they would rather get them all killed before letting Russia take over again. Mass media slightly spoke about it. It was quickly forgotten but never denied.

The situation was at a stalemate until that fateful day where protestors and policemen got killed by an unidentified shooter(s). Strangely, ballistics showed that the bullets came from the same gun and that the gun was not one you could find in your local armory.

Polish mercenaries were pointed out but it was never proven. What is sure is that Russia had nothing to gain from such a tactic. Violence would force external power to react and give the green light for a NATO military intervention.
Civil war followed, pro-Russian VS pro-Europe Ukrainians. Dombass, Crimea twirled in insanity with its cortege of horrors: mass murder, rape, bombing… Strangely western mass media spoke very little about it. Except for the exaction so called committed by the pro-Russian… Many of them later proved to be done by pro-Europe partisans (including lighting schools on fire with pro-Russian families inside and shooting anyone who would come out).

Russia reacted by sending their army under the cover that “they are mercenaries we have nothing to do with them”. Russia could not afford the loss of Crimea as it is at a strategic location for military and pipelines.
Reply was violent and quick: annexation of Crimea and arming pro-Russian factions.
When it was clear to the western world that Russia was taking the upper hand again, the US made a move that almost sparked a full out blown nuclear war.

The US armed Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia with long range weapons of mass destruction. Under this influence, those countries mobilized their army to the Russian and Belorussian frontiers (5 000 men). This was a casus belli for the Old Bear who mobilized in less than 48hours, 50 000 men, tanks division, and air strike capacities.
Western strategist fully knew that if conflict arose, those countries would be wiped out in less than 24 hours. But it would be the perfect excuse for NATO to intervene.

Fortunately, this situation settled: Baltic Sea countries backed down quickly. I’d like to think it’s for 2 reasons:
(1) They didn’t want to be utterly dismembered
(2) NATO European allies refused to start a war where in any case, they would lose (especially in France… If all other countries in the world are the in the weapons race, France politics have stripped the army naked)

Today, half the government is not Ukrainian, the central bank has been privatized, the country was stripped of Crimea and Dombass is in a state of insurrection. And since cash reserve of both Europe and the US are really thin, they did not back up financially Ukraine who has no more money to pay Russian gas: Russia cut the flow.

Of course, the Western world will not give money indirectly to Russia for gas: financing your big boss enemy is stupid… Ukrainian are preparing for a very cold winter…

Europe and Ukraine need a new source… This new source is Qatar, and to reach Europe, the quickest and cheapest way is via pipeline to Syria, and then by boat to the different ports of Europe.
That’s how to you make a dictator the number one enemy of the “free” world of mass consumerism.
It was Syria’s time to unwillingly enter the international game of Risk for world domination.

Rest soon to come !

There are a lot of things wrong so far, but this would make for a great documentary on RT.

a reply to: Vector99

Hi Vector99,

highly probable ! But for my personal culture and if you could spare the time, I'd really like for you to point out the wrongs or missing stuff I left on the side.

cheers

a reply to: Vector99

Ha... I didn't think it would be on the packaging.

As a matter of fact, yes I did write this quickly (writing quickly doesn't mean that it's small in size, just means I wrote the text quickly). In M. office to be transparent if this is what matters. And I didn't reread... Thus the apologies for the typos and others.

a reply to: Gogore

I guess that was a manners violation, so I apologize. It more was a credibility determination. A 5 post thread with proper bolding, spacing, paragraphing, etc... just doesn't seem written quickly.

I will start with this

originally posted by: Gogore

Unfortunately, at this time, the US made the same mistake at the European countries still do: they believed that their perception of the world is shared by everyone. The ayatollahs quickly turned against their sponsor with the American embassy hostage situation.

This is quite an over-simplification. To the public that's exactly what happened. The CIA ensured Carter wouldn't get them released and Reagan would. This was all done in cooperation with the Ayatollahs

a reply to: Gogore

Long read but much appreciated. Will re-read later.
In a world of sound bites and screen scrawls (yes, not crawls but, really, scrawls), people too often mistake brevity for the truth of a matter. "Solutions" to problems come easily when the problem is easily put.

a reply to: Gogore

Very nice post, puts in perspective a bigger picture and connects many events. I don't agree on everything, but I appreciated the read. I only have a few things that I can't verify:
- Iran backing Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
- Merkel and Junckers "officially" working with CIA
- gas and oil from North Africa was too expensive to sustain a normal “priced” economy

a reply to: Vector99

True, but otherwise it would be unreadable.

For the rest : yes you are right, everything is overly simplified. This cannot be denied.
However, I think that the new ruling parting of Iran did not follow the lead of the US on oil or nuclear topics. Otherwise, Irak and Iran would not have fought so hard and so long just for a frontier (en oil) topic.
Somewhere along the line, one could say, Iran went rogue to the planned politics.

And this cannot be blamed on their economical ties with USSR because at that time, they were not exactly the best buddies.
the only reason I see would be so that they exhaust each others

@Desert : thanks !

a reply to: Gogore

Good post OP . S&F ... It is a reasonable account of what we have been seeing and hearing . My mind kept going to Daniels description of a little horn coming up and uprooting 3 other horns .Qatar kind of fits for a little horn ,Libya,Iraq,and Syria could be the 3 uprooted . You would think that Qatar hosts the largest military base in the region and so when Turkey said they were going to build a base there ,it gave me reason to pause and think .... The attempted base in Iraq by Turkey would help strategically ....don't know ...but it's kind of interesting to follow ....

a reply to: Mastronaut


Hi Mastronaut : for Europe (especially for France), there are special contracts with north african countries : for Algeria, it was called a friend contract : France pays market price +14% for gas.

Muslim Brotherhood is a salafist movement, very far from the wahabits tradition (even if for you and me, it all looks the same). Even if the M.B Islam faith is not the same as escatologist iranian faith, they are still very close to the Hezbollah (who are backed by Iran). If today they are "allies", it indeed might not be the case tomorrow.
Shift can be very quick.. Today Hezbollah fighters are protecting churches in Syria... At the same time, they are shooting rockets from Lebannon to Isreal from christian houses (so they receive missiles in return instead of them)...

For Merkel and Junker, they don't really want this in the open. Junker it was very early when he was still in marxist movements. As for Merkel, it was on the fall of the Berlin Wall. Before that, she was an informant of the STASI making political notes on any colleagues un-respectful to the current power... Not really the story you would want to hear if you occupied today a very high administrative job. There are some biographies stating this collusion. Freedom act might get some files in the open from the CIA.

Another example, would be the french american association managed by the US embassy in France.. Half of the gvt secretaries or president belong to this association (whatever political shift you're on...). If their status promotes friendship between countries, it is also their to promote politics who are in their favor.

a reply to: Gogore
The Big picture huh?

What really happened to Libya and why. Must see…

a reply to: Vector99

I always wondered how the embassy could miss what was happening outside their door, when Iran was US CIA listening post to inside Russia (including U2 overflight control). With the regime change and its consequences, I just thought that with the rise of satellites as the new ears and eyes for spying, we could write off our loss. But, yes, there is more to the story from start to finish. And even that is a long read, but it just goes to show there indeed was US influence and how complicated things can be. ....as Gogore says, "unreadable".

a reply to: Gogore

So I will mainly talk about the US, but by US, please understand the US and their servant bitches the EU and others.

Nice way of putting it ' Comerade'
Any documentary made here would be narrated in the cyrillic alphabet, for a more balanced view you would have to include some of the chaos that was not so planned. Why no mention of the heavy handed shooting of innocents in both Ukraine and Syria by as your words stated earlier the bitches of Russia Viktor Yanukovych and Bashar al-Assad.. As for the Annexation of Crimea I am not sure that was done in a fair way either although you see to think so..

www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.news.com.au...

a reply to: skywatcher44

you are totally right ! The annexation of Crimea is neither fair nor legally ok (even with a "referendum"). I'm just saying that Russia today could not efford losing such a strategical geographical area.
As for Ukraine, they really took heavy hits during the USSR era including famine, mass executions etc.

Assad is not an angel, he's bloody dictator. There are reason behind the committed bloodbaths (its no excuse) : the Allaouites, if they loose this war, they will all be killed. The story of the rise to power of the Assad is quite interesting as they also planned their "coup" on a very long time.

To be transparent (I'm french), our gvt are creating a huge time-bomb that will create massive chaos for Europe and middle east. This will end badly - very badly -. That is why I am more in favor in the current external politics of Russia (and allies).

I am, on the other hand, completely aware that none of them are angels of virtue or marshmallow fluffy teddy bears. But most of all, I don't think Ukrainians and Syrians deserve this in any way.

I'm not also "anti-American" and I'm not pissed at their external politics. As cruel as it may seem, they do what they need to do to remain the number 1 power of this modern world.
I'm just super pissed at my gvt whom I consider to be sold to foreign powers and committing crimes against humanity.

a reply to: Gogore

We have to go back to the end of Second World War or the fall of the old powers (European continent) and the rise of a new super power (the US).
After the Second World War and the start of the cold war, the US developed a foreign policy doctrine mainly aimed at the USSR: Rogers’ doctrine.

Rogers' Doctrine? Surely you are thinking of George Kennan's policy of containment, as articulated in the "Long Telegram."

This was an analysis on the “how to” methodology to isolate step by step a country/power. It included economic warfare (at this time, dollar was as good as gold), military, communication (propaganda), blackmailing and corruption. This doctrine also extended farther then current political vision: instead of a few years, it extended to generations.

This is a good description of what the NKVD and later, the KGB did.

Whatever moral values you may have, it is still, according to me a masterpiece of politics as much as the Chomsky methodology to control masses (which is applied step by step by occidental powers).

I don't think Chomsky would be pleased by your making him responsible for controlling the masses.

Thus NATO was created to enforce this doctrine.

NATO was not created to enforce anything; it was intended as a defensive pact to prevent Soviet expansion in Europe. This is an extension of the containment doctrine.

This doctrine mostly directed at the USSR as never been dropped: the US would never allow Russia’s rise to world power again.

Declassified documents have long since proven that Russia was never a world power. The Pentagon and intelligence community consistently exaggerated the USSR's capacities in order to justify increasing defense expenditures. The doctrine of containment was directed against Communism, not Russia. The first military confrontation of the Cold War was not with Russia, but with China, in Korea.

The proof of this simply that NATO still exists,

Bureaucratic juggernauts will continue to chug along until they fall apart. There was talk of disbanding NATO until they found an excuse to continue in Serbia. At one point, Russia was even offered membership in NATO.

that Russia’s influence circle as diminished since the end of the cold war

That is due to nationalistic navel gazing on the part of Russian leadership, who turned their backs on the world while they tried to return "order" to the chaos of the post-Soviet era. In the meantime, China eclipsed Russia in terms of industrial development and intellectual productivity and began to project its power into the available open regions of the planet. They are now major economic players in Africa and South America, while Putin has been frittering away his resources in military aggression in his Near Abroad.

(many Eastern and Baltic countries now joined the EU).

Of course, and that should tell you something. They understand that the Russian Federation has an extractive economy; it is based on exploiting natural resources, and the wealth thus created flows through the central government for redistribution. On the other hand, Europe has a more highly developed industrial and "post-industrial" economy with more possibilities for entrepreneurship. They also remember what it was like having the Red Army rolling across their country, and the traditional Kremlin-centric organization of the Russian system of governance.

Also note that the US trained and finance the Taliban (a certain Oussama Ben Laden against Russian spetnatz in the Afghan wars):

Unfortunately, the United States did support the Taliban, although not al Qaeda, which even then was a separate entity. (bin Laden was al Qaeda, not Taliban.) The Taliban was created by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in order to project their power into their "near abroad." Al Qaeda was created and supported by private Saudi money. The United States chiefly supported a Tajik rebel army in the North.

the USSR lead a war on this country to gain access to the Indian Ocean as their accesses to oceans are limited up north (winter distances); and the access to the Mediterranean Sea being dependent of Turkey (who they are not best friends with since the Ottoman’s war).

Correct. The irony is that India was very sympathetic towards the USSR, being a sort of hybrid economy. It was Pakistan's enmity of India that caused it to block the Soviets' cultivation of a friendly government in Afghanistan.

Please also note that Crimea belonged to Russia / USSR until it was given to Ukraine at the fall of the USSR.

And also note that it belonged to the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, before that. I think that's enough myth busting for now. Don't worry, I'll be back.