Is U.S. at war with Russia?

[JoeEllison]

It also helps that Randy Scheunemann is McCain Campaign's Chief Foreign Policy Advisor. This is the same Randy Scheunemann who, together with his partner, are registered foreign agents or lobbyists for Georgia. They received $200,000 from Georgia (cash) last April and the in the previous some few years about half a million to represent Georgia in Washington. It's no wonder the President of Georgia feels he is not getting his money's worth from the U.S. in terms of weapons and troops to defend him. What a farce.

For someone who once pledged to get rid of influence peddling lobbyists in Washington McCain never ceases to amaze.

This is enough to want to make you puke up your lunch, irregardless of who has the moral high ground in this conflict, Russia or Georgia.....and is ironic as well. The irony of McCain's criticism of one sovereign nation attacking another is obviously lost among all those lobbyist dollars cited above:

It has been suggested that Georgia was prodded to act by elements in America, with the implied promise of support. The fact that McCain has given verbal support, and he has close ties to a paid lobbyist for Georgia, and it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. McCain's approach to diplomacy is to ratchet up hostilities, and hope to bully other countries into compliance. Backing Georgia seems to have been an attempt to threaten Russia, and it backfired badly.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Good point. Was the action in Ossetia action authored in the US?

Not that I know of, I think it's a local issue. The Georgians and Russians have been playing chicken with one another there since the break up of USSR a few years back.

Bush can speak for his own nation until that nation decides he should be removed from office. He needs to realise that the USA has no mandate to speak for the world on international matters in any sphere.

Nor do you.

Given the failure of NATO in this instance perhaps it time that NATO was disbanded?

Baby out with the bathwater?

Why?

NATO didn't solve every problem in Europe yet, but is that a reason to get rid of it? A sound argument can be made that NATO has outlived its usefulness, I have taken that line frequently since I was in it as a staff officer, as its original purpose of opposing expansion of the Russian bloc, and influence in Europe, was achieved. Since it is a coalition, and since coalitions tend to last only as long as their purpose to exist lasts (see the various coalitions versus Napoleon during his wars in Europe) it will either find a new purpose, or dissolve. Recent history has shown us that the governments of the 16, then 19, and now a few more nations in NATO have found a new purpose.

I call it the creeping Belgian factor. The bureaucratic feature of NATO has replicated the "self licking ice cream cone" organizational model.

When the wall fell key actors within NATO, the OTAN being as much bureaucracy as alliance, looked about for justifications to remain. They found one with its actions in Bosnia, 1995 and beyond, and expanded upon it with the Kosovo and Serbia fracas in 1999, with strong French encouragement. So NATO has over time, under various ministerials and proclamations, formally adapted the original treaty to include out of area operations and a continued role in European polity. Bosnia was the first example.

NATO's other purpose, to keep the Greeks and Turks from starting war with one another, has been successful to date. May it remain so. (That's a bit of a NATO inside joke . . . )

Also, given the amount of bombast coming from the USA about the UN isn't it time the US left the UN and carried on plowing its own furrow?

There are plenty of Americans who agree with you. Have you been having lunch with Pat Buchanan lately? Been getting chummy with libertarians, or various White Nationalists?

While the UN sucks as a collective security organization, for the most part, it has a myriad of other uses on the humanitarian end that argue for the US remaining in it.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

One of the fundamental problems with people like McCain

Do you mean other people who have long term, debilitating injuries to their limbs due to trauma?

Joe, why do you hate the handicapped?



For those playing the game at home: The "people like" construction is a useful flag for when to stop reading.

I think McCain is very much an old Cold Warrior and refuses to see Russia as anything other than "the enemy".

I fear you are right about that. It's been a problem for two consecutive administrations, this inability to shed Cold War thinking, and given the passage of time, I think the Bush administration has made the greater mistake.

What irks me is that early in his administration, Bush and Putin had some high level talks on massive reductions in nuclear arms (before Iraq war IIRC) and were at least in public sharing their concerns on Islamist terrorists as a common problem. There has been some Russian support for the international moves vis a vis Iran's nukes, and of course some Russian moves not so much in support.

However, the opportunities to see the common ground and build from there have been squandered. While NATO expansion from central into contiguous eastern Europe made certain sense -- would have made more if a larger effort were made to get Russia into NATO as well -- this move to get Georgia into NATO runs afoul of a sacred American principle: the Monroe Doctrine. (Look at what Russia is doing as a Black Sea version of that, and remember why Reagan went into Grenada.)

If you look at the Map, the Russians could and can in good conscience look at the American leadership and point out that their security concerns in the near abroad are a solid analogue to the American Monroe Doctrine regarding where spheres of influence lie. Putin may fancy himself a new Czar of a new Russian empire, but were he to take that line, he'd have a good point.

DR

 

[JoeEllison]

Do you mean other people who have long term, debilitating injuries to their limbs due to trauma?

Joe, why do you hate the handicapped?



For those playing the game at home: The "people like" construction is a useful flag for when to stop reading.

DR

Do you have anything to add, or are you content with taking empty potshots?

 

[JoeEllison]

Good point. Was the action in Ossetia action authored in the US?

Bush can speak for his own nation until that nation decides he should be removed from office. He needs to realise that the USA has no mandate to speak for the world on international matters in any sphere.

Given the failure of NATO in this instance perhaps it time that NATO was disbanded?

Also, given the amount of bombast coming from the USA about the UN isn't it time the US left the UN and carried on plowing its own furrow?

America didn't "author" this. Also, I doubt anyone else thinks Bush is "speaking for the world" when "the world" is doing plenty of speaking on its own.

 

[noch1Narr]

A different take

Since, as a newbie contributor to the fora (ok. forums, for you Latin-plurals-challenged folks!), I am not allowed to post a url link, I'd like to 'come in through the back door' by suggesting to those of you, who might be interested in a different take on the mess in Georgia/SO, to go to
InformationClearingHouse and look for the 8/13/08 article by Mike Whitney titled: Putin walks into a trap

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you have anything to add, or are you content with taking empty potshots?

I was making with the joke, eh?

And then I added this bit, so yes, Joe, I had something to add. The rant on why to dislike McCain didn't add much to the topic, but I like to think my offering here did.

I think McCain is very much an old Cold Warrior and refuses to see Russia as anything other than "the enemy".

I fear you are right about that. It's been a problem for two consecutive administrations, this inability to shed Cold War thinking, and given the passage of time, I think the Bush administration has made the greater mistake.

What irks me is that early in his administration, Bush and Putin had some high level talks on massive reductions in nuclear arms (before Iraq war IIRC) and were at least in public sharing their concerns on Islamist terrorists as a common problem. There has been some Russian support for the international moves vis a vis Iran's nukes, and of course some Russian moves not so much in support.

However, the opportunities to see the common ground and build from there have been squandered. While NATO expansion from central into contiguous eastern Europe made certain sense -- would have made more if a larger effort were made to get Russia into NATO as well -- this move to get Georgia into NATO runs afoul of a sacred American principle: the Monroe Doctrine. (Look at what Russia is doing as a Black Sea version of that, and remember why Reagan went into Grenada.)

If you look at the Map, the Russians could and can in good conscience look at the American leadership and point out that their security concerns in the near abroad are a solid analogue to the American Monroe Doctrine regarding where spheres of influence lie. Putin may fancy himself a new Czar of a new Russian empire, but were he to take that line, he'd have a good point.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

InformationClearingHouse and look for the 8/13/08 article by Mike Whitney titled: Putin walks into a trap

Here is a link to help our new friend, and welcome aC!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20508.htm

It's a longish piece, I'll give it a whirl and critique it anon.

DR

 

[JoeEllison]

I was making with the joke, eh?

And then I added this bit, so yes, Joe, I had something to add. The rant on why to dislike McCain didn't add much to the topic, but I like to think my offering here did.

I wasn't only specifically aimed at McCain, but also at his fellow Cold Warriors... and we seem to share the same opinion of those folks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wasn't only specifically aimed at McCain, but also at his fellow Cold Warriors... and we seem to share the same opinion of those folks.

To a large extent, yes, but let's make sure of full disclosure.

I am very much a veteran Cold Warrior.

What makes me different form some of the Cold Warriors who can't let go is that once the Wall fell, my strategic focus went to the Pacific Rim, which is where the next century power struggle, be it economic, political, or what, will be engaged in. I was impressed with how the Germans of the Western part put up the dough to expedite the refusion of Germany into one nation. (Yes, our German friends will point out to us that it wasn't all sweetness and light. But for my money, they got it right.) My personal belief in the early part of the 90's was that China was a rising power, and is pursuing power and influence for its own ends. It is and was, IMO, profoundly in American interests to make friends with Russia with the long game as the justification.

What wasn't gotten right in Washington was forgetting the lesson of post WW II. This is, IMO, due to too many people making a buck in China, or seeing cash register signs in their eyes and forgetting that money isn't everything.

Culturally, the US and Russia (politics aside) share more than the US and China, or did as the Wall fell. The US fought a bloody and bitter war with Japan, and yet we became trading partners and allies. (Sure, with issues, they always arise.) The effort to do the same with our former foe, USSR and then Russia, seems to me to have been obscured by a race to make a quick buck as Russia sorted itself out after the USSR breakup. Look how beneficially the long game with Japan has turned out, at the macro scale. (Some folks in Detroit will hate me for that one.)

Those who remain trapped in the Cold War paradigm -- the US Army was full of them in the ealry 1990's, and it seems plenty of politicians and "card carrying smart guys as well" -- are doomed to not be prepared for their next struggle, be it war or other power contests, balancing, and deal making.

In that respect, we agree that not getting past the Cold War is a profound handicap in today's world, and has been since the wall fell.

Oh, wait, I now start to see why you may not like the handicapped.

DR

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't dislike the handicapped. I just don't think that blind people should drive school buses, that deaf people make really good recording engineers, or that people who are convinced that the failures of the Cold War are a good template for the 21st century should be running the country.

More important, I have the suspicion that deep down, some of these folks would feel more comfortable if we could restart the Cold War now. I'm not saying that they are intentionally conspiring to recreate the past... I'm just saying that because their worldview is geared towards that sort of "eternal" conflict, they have a blind spot that will likely lead them away from diplomacy and peaceful resolutions of conflicts.

There's the old saying that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. For a certain type of Cold Warrior, the only tools they have are the ones they've held onto from 40 years ago(even or possibly especially the strategies that failed miserably) and they react to problems in a way that might force things back into the familiar shape they are comfortable with.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here is a link to help our new friend, and welcome aC!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20508.htm

It's a longish piece, I'll give it a whirl and critique it anon.

DR

Excellent summary of the situation!

 

[Darth Rotor]

My handicapped joke in the second post was perhaps not good enough to get a laugh. No biggee.

More important, I have the suspicion that deep down, some of these folks would feel more comfortable if we could restart the Cold War now. I'm not saying that they are intentionally conspiring to recreate the past... I'm just saying that because their worldview is geared towards that sort of "eternal" conflict, they have a blind spot that will likely lead them away from diplomacy and peaceful resolutions of conflicts.

There's the old saying that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. For a certain type of Cold Warrior, the only tools they have are the ones they've held onto from 40 years ago(even or possibly especially the strategies that failed miserably) and they react to problems in a way that might force things back into the familiar shape they are comfortable with.

Before you dump on McCain, I'll take you back to the decision in early 1990's by Bush senior NOT to go into Bosnia except as support to the UN (our early role was mostly logistic for UNPROFOR) and the three year battle Clinton had with Congress over his desire to intervene to help in some way. Granted, part of his political obstacle came from the mess in Somalia, but McCain was most energetic in his opposition to half measures. The position he took contra some of the proposals, before we finally went in Big with NATO after the Dayton agreement, was get in there and go big, or don't go at all. He was right. The half arsed measures taken before NATO went in large in the winter of 1995/1996, with a significant US armed contingent, which followed on the September air attacks on Serb positions that got the French and Russians crying "foul" when Tomahawk missiles from USS Normandy were used to suppress Serb IAD, was indeed an effective use of force in support of UN aims and goals that had been outstanding for nearly four years. Thanks to the dual key RoE and failures in the UN modus operandi -- Candian General McKenzie had some insightful observations on that, and shared them widley -- the war would not stop if the peacekeepers were not allowed to operate in a Walking Tall mode. When the First Armored division crossed the Sava, walking tall commenced. IFOR and SFOR worked. McCain's arguments on "if you go, don't screw around" were on point. They were also consistent with the Weinberger Doctrine. That President Clinton had the flexibility to do what it took to get his final aim, American intervention and a cessation of the war, to become a reality, finally supported in Congress is to his credit. The best feature of that intervention, for my money, was the the Russians were invited to play, and they operated alongside the US in the sector the US had been apportioned when the Alliance put together the final plan. (Won't derail into some of the weirdness there. ) This was 1995. Our soldiers, American and Russian, were working shoulder to shoulder in an effort to apply military means, albeit peace enforcement, to a common end.

Any momentum accruing from that excellent start was lost with the 1999 Kosovo decision in NATO. For the sake of Albanians, the US screwed the pooch on building a profound relationship with the Russians, and I'll say it hasn't got any better since the Bush administration has had the wheel. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Damnit.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Excellent summary of the situation!

Nope. Too much hysteria, but some good points amid all the sound and fury. His Chicken Little bit about the naval armada once again heading to attack Iran, exercises, etc, detracted from the main points offered by citing Gorbachev's remarks. (I think Gorby's article was on point, for the most part.)

Detailed critique later.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nope. Too much hysteria, but some good points amid all the sound and fury. His Chicken Little bit about the naval armada once again heading to attack Iran, exercises, etc, detracted from the main points offered by citing Gorbachev's remarks. (I think Gorby's article was on point, for the most part.)

Detailed critique later.

DR

OK, it is later. Here is a critique of much of it. Recall, the link is to this rambling article.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle20508.htm
Note to mods: I cut out a few chunks of the article, and am pretty sure no Rule 4 foul here. It needed a point by point critique, given CE's endorsement of it as some tour de force of analysis. See this at end of article:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes

I think JREF fits that.

Mike's a bit less than coherent, though his two best sources, Putin and Gorby, make some good points. His evil puppet masters are a bit two dimensional.

Putin Walks into a Trap
By Mike Whitney

13/08/08 "ICH" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia.

There were already Russian peacekeepers on South Ossetia. Fact checking is good for your writing, Mike.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first.

Not sure how Mike knows this. Standard media conspiracy line follows, ending with

"Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon."

Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post:

Agreed, in general. See the link for more of Gorby's input.

Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations. Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington's involvement in the hostilities.

Suspicion: author is projecting.

They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called "Rose Revolution", and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.

For Fox ache, do we have a CT here? Is there any evidence?

The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies.

Oh? Evidence to support this? Cloudy Crystal Balls for fifty, Alex.

The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this "think tank" generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.

Just like we invaded in 2005, 2006, and 2007 when battlegroups sailed to the Persian Gulf. Oh, wait, we didn't.

Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.

I participated, almost annually, in war games at sea that exercised our expected war versus Soviets during the 80's and early 90's. Guess what. No war. Oh, the Sovs exercised as well. They realized that, for example, Reforger was an exercise, and did not bunch their panties. They kept an eye on folks, and doubtless got some chuckles out of some of what we were doing.

Stirling adds: "A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border....American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces... Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia...This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects." ("Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran", Earl of Stirling, Global Research)

More of the same Scare Mongering tactics from Mike.

Opening discussion of Carter/Brezinski (the new mastermind?) commentary follows.

Then this.

"The Grand Chessboard" it is the 21st century's version of the Great Game. The book begins with this revealing statement:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.....The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics."

Brezinski the puppet master arises, due to making some dough on a book. No paranoia here, folks, move along, nothing to see . . .

This is the heart-and-soul of the war on terror. The real braintrust behind "neverending conflict" was actually focussed on Central Asia. It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist "cardboard" presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America's war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war.

An odd road to get to that last sentence. I am skeptical of the powers of Buyavowel Brzezinski, Aunt Bea Albright, and Drunk in Dayton Holbrooke at present. Hmm, let's see, what do these three have in common? (wiki ref)
Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke (born April 24, 1941) to a Russian Jewish and German Jewish family in New York City
Marie Jana Korbelová IPA: was born in Prague,[1] Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) and raised as a Roman Catholic by her parents, who had converted from Judaism in order to escape persecution
Zbigniew Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1928. His family had moved from Brzeżany in Galicia.

Just asking questions about your assumptions, Mike me boy, and possible biases.

On Sunday, Brzezinski accused Russia of imperial ambitions comparing Putin to "Stalin and Hitler" in an interview with Nathan Gardels.

Dude, Godwin is the new international standard of political rhetoric.

Note how old Buyavowel is being his usual numbnuts self.

In effect, morally and strategically, Georgia is the Finland of our day.

In effect is a construction for "I am making this crap up so you think one thing is something else." And this author bought it? Not a skeptic, methinks. More tripe from Buyavowel follows.

Brzezinski takes great pride in being a disciplined and rational spokesman for US imperial projects. It is unlike him to use such hysterical rhetoric. Perhaps, the present situation is more tenuous than we know. Could it be that the financial system is closer to meltdown-phase than anyone realizes?

Buyavowel really has our author's attention, does he not? Looks like someone has been fooled, some of the time.

It should be clear by Brzezinski's comments that Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was not another incoherent exercise in neocon chest-thumping, but part of a larger strategy to drag Russia into an endless conflict that will sap its resources, decrease its prestige on the global stage, weaken its grip on regional power, strengthen frayed alliances between Europe and America, and divert attention from a larger campaign in the Gulf.

Barring the fact that betting money has Vlad Putin laughing into his vodka glass at Bush since 2004 over the mess he made in Iraq . . .

It is particularly worrisome that Brzezinski appears to be involved in the planning.

Oh Eff Me, first it's Darth Cheney, now it's Darth Bloody Buyavowel Brzezinski. Can't a real Sith Lord, me, stand tall and say: no, neither of those two pols is my apprentice Sith? You know they go in pairs, right? Won't say who mine is, but she's got a nice rack.

Brzezinski, Holbrooke and Albright form the "Imperialist A-Team"; these are not the bungling "Keystone Cops" neocons like Feith and Rumsfeld who trip over themselves getting out of bed in the morning.

No, these are the bungling maroons from the Somalia mess, and a bit of Carter diaper staining. Give Holbrooke some credit, he did decent work with Bosnia, that evil bastidge.

These are cold-blooded Machiavellian imperialists who know how to work the media and the diplomatic channels to conceal their genocidal operations behind a smokescreen of humanitarian mumbo-jumbo.

No poetic license here, folks, move along, nothing to see.

They know what they are doing and they are good at it. They're not fools

.
Yes they are. Take it from someone at the tip of their policy spear for a few years. Not the brightest knives in the kitchen drawer, that lot.

They have aligned themselves with the Obama camp and are preparing for the next big outbreak of global trouble-making. This should serve as a sobering wake-up call for voters who still think Obama represents "Change We Can Believe In".

Yeah. Sure. Albright was such a bloodthirsty wench, on her watch we had low level talks with Iran beginning to move forward. Such an evil queen Bavmorda look alike. She even admits she was a bit of a rube, herself. More wiki quoting, so maybe check the sources if you like, Mike. But I see why you think she's genocidal, Mike, since her crime of stupid rhetoric is the same as genocide.

In 1994, in her role as the United State's UN permanent representative she led efforts to deny declaring the massacres in Rwanda genocide [8]. The State Department instructed the White House press secretary to avoid using the words "genocide" and to substitute the terms "acts of genocide". She also led resistance to a new mandate to a new UN mission towards "ensuring" stability and security in the provinces of Rwanda [9].

She was also criticized for defending the sanctions of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and for answering a loaded question while doing so.[10] In 1996, she made highly controversial remarks in an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. When asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."[11] She expressed regret for this remark in her 2003 autobiography, where she wrote,

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. … As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.[12]

When asked about it in 2005 she said "I never should have made it, it was stupid," and that she still supported the concept of tailored sanctions.[13]

More of Mike's fun with words.

Richard Holbrooke appeared on Tuesday's Jim Lerher News Hour with resident neocon Margaret Warner. Typical of Warner's "even-handed" approach, both of the interviewees were ultra-conservatives from right-wing think tanks: Richard Holbrooke, from the Council on Foreign Relations and Dmiti Simes from the Nixon Center.

It's a plot! And, he evoked the dreaded Darth Dick, aka President Nixon. A pox upon us all.

THE FIRMAMENT FALLETH UPON US ALL! TITANIUM UMBRELLAS TO BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY!! WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!

According to Holbrooke, "The Russians deliberately provoked (the fighting in South Ossetia) and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili."
Right. Is that why Putin was so shocked when he heard the news (while he was in Beijing) that he quickly boarded a plane and headed for Moscow? (after shaking his finger angrily at Bush!)

At last, I tend to see things Mike's way.

It is impossible to go over all of Holbrooke's distortions, half-truths and lies in one article

Hell, you tossed in a few of your own, Mike, why not give him equal time?

The propaganda "bullet points" have already been determined; "Putin is a menace","Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire", "Putin is an autocrat". (Unlike our "freedom loving" allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt!?!) In truth, Putin is simply enjoying Russia's newly acquired energy-wealth and would like to be left alone. But it is impossible to be left alone when the US spends 24 hours a day pestering people.

I'll buy that: stock talking points are a staple of the current administration. Mike, I'll give you a break here.

So why are Brzezinski and his backers in the foreign policy establishment demonizing Putin and threatening Russia with "ostracism, isolation and economic penalties?" What is Putin's crime? Putin's problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence.

See speech further down, an interesting piece of Putin's rhetoric. In case Mike wasn't sure, Russia was already a sovereign nation in 2006, nobody's colony. Ya know, fact checking, hyperbole, and all that.

That's when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their "enemies list" along with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Morales, Mugabe and anyone else who refuses to take orders from the Washington Mafia.

Hyperbole much, Mikey boy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html
Good speech, sez I, given Vlad's situation and his aims at Russia being back as an A Side player. Hyper use of force, Vlad? Dear me, a pol using hyperbole. What ever shall we do?

Every word Putin spoke was true which is why it was not reprinted in the western media.

Oh? Really? You are wrong, Mike my boy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html

Putin's claims are all indisputable, that is why he has entered the neocons crosshairs. He poses a direct challenge to---what Brzezinski calls---the "international system", which is shorthand for the corporate/banking cartel that is controlled by the western oligarchy of racketeers.

Indisputable? Uh, I don't think that word means what you think it means, Mike, even though Vlad gave a good speech for his side.

South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush's plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.

Holy Hollywood, Batman, the man's a loony! That Vlad is a sharp operator I won't disagree with. He's very able. No, I would not turn my back on him.

Mike seems to have an anti US bias.

Hey, E.J., is this one of your drinking chums? (Just teasing )

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

McCain Declaring(to paraphrase) "that all americans are Georgians" doesn't really help much either. Does he, or anyone in the US government understand what is going on there?

Uh, the Senator is in error. I am a Texan, as are at least Geek Goddess and Elizabeth I, Unrepentant Sinner, Marquis, TheDoLittle, Esperdome . . .

He ought to have a care.

DR

 

[Beerina]

American antagonism towards the Russians, and not much else? It seems like American foreign policy is to destabilize the world as much as possible, and this is just another example of that.

Always twisting, twisting, until you can somehow blame America.

What part of "I have here a slip of paper" don't you understand?


"God damn Churchill. Always wanting to antagonize Germany."

 

[Beerina]

Freakin' asses. Just let 'em have the Sudetenland. The Czechs are being mean to 'em anyway, who just wanna live with their own people.

F****** Churchill. F****** Czechs. Stop antagonizing Germany!

 

[Beerina]

"Now gather 'round, children, and watch as it's all explained away. See, this is new history, which is nothing like old history. No sirree!"

 

[Alex Libman]

Here's how history should remember this war:


Before:

​

After:

​