Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by SplitInfinity
The US does not view Russia as a threat? Where do you get your facts from?
The game is global geopolitics- the goal is to control the world. The leading player is the US that has its chips through the three main regions of
Eurasia (Europe, Central Asia, Eastasia). US has been placing its chips on the spots where the USSR lost theirs.
However, contrary to the expectations of American strategy architects, Russia built itself up much more quickly than wanted. Russia remains a serious
player in the region, hence why they have expanded into Iran and Syria after the US has dominated a lot of eastern Europe and countries like Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The American strategy for Russia is containment. Why? Because Russia is a serious threat to the US. Why? Because controlling Eurasia is a
requirement for controlling the world, and Russia happens to be the major player there (along with the EU and China).
So you can either continue crying about "Putin propaganda" or pick up any book written by Brzezinski. The grand American geopolitical strategy is
about nations, and has little room for the leaders that temporarily control them.
At one time the Soviet Union was considered a grave threat...Russia has gone way down on that list. As far as ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI....who served under
the Carter Administraton...he seems to have taken credit for alot of dealings and policies with the Afghanistan/Soviet war which we supplied Stinger
Missles to take down Russian Choppers as well as Camp David Accords and SALT II....he tends to overstate his roles in these areas as a Certain Texan
was realy the Man who forced the CIA to supply weapons to Afghanistan through Pakistan...and the advice he gave Carter was suspect at best.
There has been a Major Fundemental Shift in Weapons Capability in favor of the U.S. Military...on going for the last few years. Certain breakthroughs
have made Rusia and China much less of a threat and planning is on going. Split Infinity
No offense, but you are lacking in your understand of who Brzezinski is. I reference him a lot because he is an architect of US foreign policy, as
has been for decades. His influence fell away from the White House after the Clinton administration was replaced by Bush Jr. By this time, the
neo-conservatives had taken full reigns with most of the Bush team made up of PNAC planners. They had no room for Brzezinski's strategy of soft
power- Bush administration used hard force to take over US geopolitical interests.
Read some of Brzezinski's work and it will blow your mind. Reading
about him as just working for Carter is far from the truth. He advised
presidents constantly even until Clinton (in his book "Second Chance", he even casually talks about Clinton phoning him up for foreign policy advice
when he was at the beach)- he had this advisory position through multiple administrations because he was a true architect for the American Empire, not
just some temporary figurehead leader. His books, specifically "The Grand Chessboard", describe the US strategy for geopolitical hegemony in 1997.
His strategy for Russia back then was containment of Russia proper while drawing in ex-Soviet states into pro-American sphere of influence. He did
not view Russia as the significant power as it is today, but rather as a crippled nation.
And you can bet your ass that Brzezinski was behind CIA efforts in Afghanistan:
If you want more evidence, then here is a photo of Brzezinski showing Osama bin Laden (or CIA agent "Tim Osman" if that conspiracy rings true) how
to use a machinegun:
As for your comment on weapons capability, I disagree. The US and Russia are on the same level of weapons capability, with specific factors ahead or
behind for either power. The only difference is that Russia does not maintain such a large conventional military as the US does, but then again the
Russian military does not consume nearly the same extreme amount of resources and money that hte US war machine does (which, quite frankly, is a good
thing).
Russia does not need a military capable of striking a country on the other side of the world when they only need a military capable of fighting within
Eurasia, which they have and proven to be capable (Georgia/Chechnya/Daegestan anyone?).
And Russia and China are less of a threat? The size and extent of your military means
nothing in terms of the threat that Russia and China
pose to the US- because the threat is geopolitics, not militarily. The US has been deploying its ABM shield in Europe not to challenge Russia
militarily, but to cut off Russia's influence from spreading back into Europe.
