Intel Agent Reveals How NATO Planned to Tear Russia Apart

a reply to: nwtrucker

You are probably correct, I am a little rusty but I stand by the overall gist of my statement, finite detail's aside Even though they are very important finite detail's and my hat is off to you for your knowledge of history.
I sir bow to your greater knowledge on that point and shall promptly go put my head down the khazi and pull the chain.

The US involvement had nothing to do with the break up of the Ottoman empire, I never said that but after the second world war let's just say the US did have an involvement at least at the diplomatic level in the breakup of the European Colony's, some lingered as you know for over a decade but that as well as the weakening of the old powers led to the inevitable end of that period and it was during the withdrawal of those powers from the middle east in particular that the decision to LEAVE it divided seem's to have been arrived at, the fear of a resurgent Ottoman Empire was very real.
Remember many time's they nearly took Europe only to be driven back and it was not until the rise of the Spanish after they had driven the moor's from Spain that Europe actually really started to drive them back from some lost territory.
The Ottoman were simply too powerful with too many troop's and even slave powered galley's right up to the age of steam for most individual nation's to take on and it almost always required alliances of nation's to combat them, they were the bogey man of many Europeans' nightmares.

Today we hate the NAZI's for what they did but did you know the Arab's and the Turk's did much the same.
Ever wonder why the Greek's hate the Turk's so very much that it is even in there bone marrow so deep does it run.
You have heard of the Armenian Genocide.
What about the Greek Genocide.
en.wikipedia.org...
And in a quirk of History the Middle east today may be Orthodox Christian again but the British Empire stood against the Russian's in Crimea and stopped them in there track's actually protecting the Turk's from being invaded and conquered by the Russian's, a Mistake of history if you don't mind my saying but still we got the charge of the light brigade out of it.
But the Turk's survived because of it only to later Allie with the German's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Lord love a duck. I fluked finding about Sykes-Picot. It was in a novel I read and googled it. I'm no expert on history.

I do agree with the reasoning for the break-up. I have a serious problem of what is was broken up into. I hold the Brits-with honorable mention to France- for the current mess the U.S. has been sucked into.

Isil. 'Levant'. Obama's hobby horse. Then look at England jumping to the forefront with Egypt, then France and England in Libya. In both cases, the U.S. played a support role and were not the primary movers.

I have no evidence, but it smells like Sykes-Picot never went away. A nod, nod, wink, wink amongst the good 'ol boy network even though 'officially' cancelled in 1920.


No, not free trade. French Trade. English Trade. Post WWI, the U.S. went 'isolationist'. I'm guessing not even involved. Just a guess, though.



P.S. The Turks aligning with the Germans may have been what did them in. Piss off the Brits and you'll pay for it....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Good point but for my mind I would simply call it a party they all came too, the US was just a later player and the later cold war were proxy state's were built up on the region by both the western allies and the Soviet union further complicated and inflamed the situation, add to that the formation of the state of Israel like throwing a lit match into a keg of thankfully still damp gunpowder and we are lucky it took so long to kick off.

The Iranians hate us Brit's perhaps more than they do the US due to the long history of British petroleum company's in there nation ripping them off and Iran was not even a colony.

At the risk of straying off topic, I have been asked to explain what I meant by the Trump administration surrendering economic leadership. Both Russia and China have floated competing "economic cooperation blocs." By dropping the TPP without having an alternate treaty prepared, Russia and China now have the space to develop their own economic hegemony. America's loss of influence in Asia was inevitable, the problem has always been how to create an economic environment there that will remain favorable to our interests as we withdraw from active engagement. That was what TPP was supposed to be about. [/off topic]

a reply to: DJW001

Here' my problem with your explanation of giving up economic leadership. Actually there's a few.


First , I question whether the U.S. ever had economic leadership. Production? Yes. Leadership? Not so sure. Second, the TPP was a sword
sharp on both sides. Why an organization that has more power than the interests of the U.S.? Simply put.


It could, and likely would trump U.S. interests in favor of International Corporations. We have enough competition from nations as it is, thank you very much. We certainly don't need an organization that has more economic power than we, ourselves do.

Bi-lateral agreements work far more in the U.S.'s interests than yet another international organization. We have enough of those for the WTO, the U.N., NATO, OAS, on and on.

Trump was elected to represent U.S. interests, to be the leader of the U.S.. Not business cartels that clearly do not have individual nations interest as a priority. Not surprisingly, Both Chinese and Japanese investors have responded to Trump's intended improvement in the business climate of the U.S. and has already proven, at least to an extent, that he is the first 'leader' the U.S. has had in far too long. Again, just my opinion.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The TPP was negotiated from a position of strength. As American influence fades, it is good to have working international agreements and organizations that can protect its interests; these are precisely the organizations that Russia has been attacking and attempting to undermine. Negotiating trade treaties with every nation separately is tedious, and the bilateral nature means that no other party has an interest in seeing it enforced. On the other hand, a generalized treaty has many participants who stand to suffer if one of the members cheats. This makes it easier to apply pressure against the nation violating the terms; you don't just face American sanctions, you face sanctions from Australia, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, etc.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nwtrucker

The TPP was negotiated from a position of strength. As American influence fades, it is good to have working international agreements and organizations that can protect its interests; these are precisely the organizations that Russia has been attacking and attempting to undermine. Negotiating trade treaties with every nation separately is tedious, and the bilateral nature means that no other party has an interest in seeing it enforced. On the other hand, a generalized treaty has many participants who stand to suffer if one of the members cheats. This makes it easier to apply pressure against the nation violating the terms; you don't just face American sanctions, you face sanctions from Australia, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, etc.

Negotiating with every nation separately may be tedious. Yet it would be hard to name more than one or two where those negotiations would not be from a position of strength, to wit, U.S. vs....

The same mechanism of that organizational power would work against the U.S. and it's interests equally as any others. Again, corporations do not work on the basis of any one nation's 'interest'. Strictly their own.

I believe, fully, that American influence has already changed and become a major factor, internationally,as it efforts change from appeasement to reassertion. Not to economic dominance. Rather a more equal playing field. If and when that occurs, then negotiations with multiple nations will, per force, be from a much stronger position of strength that the U.S. presently, enjoys.

Split a country into smaller parts? Isn't that what they did to the Ottoman Empire after WWI?

Isn't that the goal today with Syria, balkanization?

Is this a modus operandi of humans?

a reply to: Salander

Split a country into smaller parts? Isn't that what they did to the Ottoman Empire after WWI?

Correct. This was following a military defeat. Do you foresee Russia being defeated militarily in the near future? No?

Isn't that the goal today with Syria, balkanization?

No, but it is clearly Russia's goal in Ukraine.

Is this a modus operandi of humans?

You yourself provided two examples, although I don't think Russia is trying to Balkanize Syria. (Iran and Russia's new friend Turkey seem to be having a go, though.)

a reply to: DJW001

No, but it is clearly Russia's goal in Ukraine.

In this Ukraine, with a war against it's people, it's my goal as well. We need some capable folks willing to make Minsk reality, the Donbass was already lost as they started to shoot at people.
You're saying this wasn't the intended outcome of the Anti-Terror-Operation? Why did so many soldiers deflect the moment they've got there? And why was this escalation not a problem for the US?

Poroschenko and "his" oligarchs are a problem, not the solution. You don't see that?

a reply to: DJW001

Defeat and destruction aren't mutually inclusive.

Surviving a MAD game was a matter of not ever triggering the launch codes. That doesn't mean defeating the enemy at the game was off the table; that only launching nukes was the only way to win.

Preventing your enemy from expanding isnt the same thing as yourself holding stationary.

MAD was more towards what the military's had to LIVE by. That didnt mean there werent other ways to cheat.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The goal of the Cold War was to survive. It was a war of attrition. The United States won because it commanded more resources. This is why Putin has a pathological hatred towards the United States; it "destroyed" his beloved Soviet Union. The United States, though intact, was exhausted, which is one reason why we now lack vision and scial cohesion.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You seem to be conflating Ukraine with Syria. Ukraine was a classic Stalin era infiltration and insurrection operation by Russia. Poroshenko and the oligarchs are a problem, but the problem is that they were raised under the soviet system, during which the educational system equated capitalism with gangsterism in a literal fashion. This is exactly the same problem we see in Russia. Soviet propaganda created a generation of gangster capitalists. I expect we will see more Maidan protests as the generation that learned of liberal democracy from NGOs n the post-Soviet era express their discontent and we can expect Russia to take advantage of the turmoil by tightening its grip on Donbass.

a reply to: DJW001

Fair enough.

Soviet propaganda created a generation of gangster capitalists.

And capitalist propaganda did the same on the other side of that iron curtain. I'm not saying you're wrong, just adding to the point.

we can expect Russia to take advantage of the turmoil by tightening its grip on Donbass

And here's hope you'll revaluate the whole issue when they don't.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And capitalist propaganda did the same on the other side of that iron curtain. I'm not saying you're wrong, just adding to the point.

Venezuela is actually the perfect example of "Voice of America Socialism," isn't it?

we can expect Russia to take advantage of the turmoil by tightening its grip on Donbass

And here's hope you'll revaluate the whole issue when they don't.

Here's hoping you have your eyes open when they inevitably do. Ukraine cannot fight an insurrection without weapons, and this administration does not strike me as being likely to provide them. Eventually the Kyiv troops will fall back to the Dnieper, there will be a "referendum" and Russia will have a slightly worn out Donbass Oblast to ship the Russian speaking Ukrainian refugees to.

a reply to: DJW001

Doesn't sound that bad to me, fighting it's people in the east was a bad idea to begin with. You don't start crap you can't finish. Some genius probably thought it's possible to tempt Nato into meddling with their internal affairs, look how that worked out so far.

Venezuela is actually the perfect example of "Voice of America Socialism," isn't it?

It was somewhat close, but since someone took out Chavez things didn't turn out that well. I could blame the Russians for that, too, but why should I?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Doesn't sound that bad to me, fighting it's people in the east was a bad idea to begin with. You don't start crap you can't finish. Some genius probably thought it's possible to tempt Nato into meddling with their internal affairs, look how that worked out so far.

It is well established that "the people in the east" were under direction from Moscow. It was naive to think they could take on Russia without coming apart at the seams. It will be interesting to see how the new, leaner, meaner State Department will deal with the situation.