Chess is Russia's Game

Kazakhistan and 911.

To most people you might as well say Borat and 911, and punctuate both phrases with a question mark. A studious 911 researcher soon comes across the name of Mike Ruppert, author of Crossing the Rubicon and Zbigniev Berzhezinski, author of The Grand Chessboard.

The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) document eventually comes up and the term "peak oil" appears sooner or later. You can file them all under "Why 911?", "Why the invasion of Iraq?", "Why the confrontation with Iran?"

911 truthers believe these areas of inquiry provide the real answers as to what caused 911 to happen, and to what is motivating the US follow-up to 911.

Well, it seems that on the other side of the world from Walker. Texas, somebody else has made those connections too.

The following is a link to a news story in which Vladimir Putin tells the US that it's war in Iraq, a war he implies is being fought to get partial control of Iraq's oil resources, is pointless.

news.yahoo.com...

In chess they call that "check".

But there are other developments. Too early to say if they constitute "checkmate", but it looks as if a lot of the neighborhood's smaller boys have gotten together to do something about the bully on the block.

www.newsvine.com...

reply to post by ipsedixit


Moscow has been pushing to establish a bloc against growing US hegemonic interests in the region for some time now.

Russia and China, together with co-signatories, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan signed a treaty in 2001 and became known as The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan have all subsequently applied for membership, although at present they, together India hold observer status. Interestingly, the US was denied observer status when it requested it.

As well as seeking to protect their local energy interests, Russia and China have also started to tread on the US's toes elsewhere in the world. Russia have done some pretty interesting deals in Algeria, one of the Africa's largest energy exporters to the US. China, meanwhile, has built a strong relationship with another key US supplier, Angola, and more interestingly, has committed to negotiating with Venezuela's Chavez. This move, claims Chavez, will give "impetus to [Venezuela’s] attempts to break [its] dependence on oil exports to the United States" and will "[strip] major US companies… of their majority stakes in heavy crude projects."

Commenting on US-China relations in late 2005, Senator Joe Lieberman said:

The U.S.-China energy engagement that I foresee could be, in one sense, the 21st Century version of what arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union were in the last century.

But we’ve got to start those discussions before the race for oil becomes as hot and dangerous as the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union did in the last century.

In the same speech, he went on to remind us:

…wars have been fought over such competitions for natural resources.

Ughh.

Thanks for the response. I think you do a lot more homework than I do. It's appears as if the window of "unilateral opportunity" for the United States is beginning to close. She might be the prettiest girl on the dance floor, but the reputation that the neocons have established for the United States around the world is of one very fickle, tricky, greedy, deceitful lady.

It sure is an eyeopener when you have an alliance of Russia and other Eurasian nations starting to look like the only hope for an end to an orgy of murder in the middle east. Makes one nostalgic for the old days of "mutually assured destruction".

Sadly, I don't think we've seen the last of US militarism.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Sadly, I don't think we've seen the last of US militarism.

Nor I. We're angling for some sort of confrontation against Iran - that's clear for all to see. Whether we can escalate to that point without another '9/11' (as suggested by Brzezinski), we'll have to wait and see.

More worryingly, perhaps, is that the US's drive east, ostensibly in the pursuit of terrorists, will inevitably lead it into Pakistan.

reply to post by coughymachine

I haven't followed Pakistani politics. How do you see Benazir Bhutto? Is she a new American Trojan Horse to replace the worn out old one, General Musharraf?

My only venture into commentary on Pakistan was the thread, "Is General Ahmad to People What WTC7 is to Buildings on 911?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that thread just dealt with secret service trickery. How do you see Pakistan on the "grand chessboard"?

reply to post by ipsedixit


I don't really know its politics well enough to offer much of an opinion I'm afraid.

I just get the feeling that the whole war on terror is moving, in geographical terms, towards Pakistan. This is where al Qaeda are now said to be based, having driven them out of Afghanistan. This would be the mainstream public face of any rationalisation in support of a drive into Pakistan.

The reality is that it drives a wedge through some of the regional political alliances and establishes what would be a new 'front' in any furture conflict with either Russia or China for control of the energy output from the newly independent littoral Caspian states.

ETA sp

ETA2 I forgot to mention add that, by taking the war on terror into Pakistan, the US quite literally cuts Iran off from its regional allies.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by coughymachine]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by coughymachine]