zaterdag 7 januari 2023

Oorlog met Steun van Facebook


The Plan to Carve Up Russia

Je chatbericht kan niet worden verstuurd omdat het inhoud bevat die andere personen op Facebook als aanstootgevend hebben gerapporteerd.

Kan Facebook mij vertellen wie niet wil dat over The Plan to Carve Up Russia wordt gesproken? Wie zijn de mensen die dit aanstootgevend vinden? De CIA? De FBI? De Deep State? Of al die anderen die een oorlog met Azië aan het voorbereiden zijn met steun van Facebook?

An Atlanticist frenzy to stifle Europe-Asia integration

 Eurasia’s Middle Corridor: An Atlanticist frenzy to stifle Europe-Asia integration

Geopolitical interests between the Anglo-American establishment and the Sino-Russian-led axis will clash over the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.
By Matthew Ehret
January 02 2023
Photo Credit: The Cradle

On 12 December 2022, the United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID) hosted a 

conference on the future of Eurasia’s Middle 

Corridor, a transport and energy infrastructure 

development project that stretches from the 

resource-rich Caspian Sea to Europe.

At the meeting, leading Atlanticist officials paid 

particular attention to how to ‘frame’ this strategic 

global transportation hub developing outside of their 


They emphasized that the nations standing most to 

gain by the inevitable growth of the Middle Corridor 

should not characterize themselves as an east-west 

“regional hub” connecting Europe to China, but 

rather as a standalone zone of wealth – independent 

of China, and supportive of a declining EU.

The value of the Middle Corridor has increased 

significantly in the past year due to two main factors. 

First, the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, 

and second, the urgency to “decarbonizing” those 

nations still trapped within the Atlanticist sphere of 


Map of the Middle Corridor (Photo Credit: The Cradle)
Map of the Middle Corridor (Photo Credit: The Cradle)

The Middle Corridor gets its name from China’s 

Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which was launched 

in 2013. It consists of three corridors of development 

designed to promote trade and inter-civilizational 

commerce on an east-west basis. These corridors are 

the Northern Corridor, the Southern Corridor, and 

the Middle Corridor.

Map of BRI Corridors (Photo Credit: The Cradle)

The Three Arteries of the New Silk Road

The Northern Corridor: Currently the most 

developed and utilized of the 

three corridors, it consists of railways and 

pipelines that run from China to Kazakhstan, 

Russia, and Europe. Some Atlanticist geopoliticians 

would like to see this corridor shut 

down to further isolate ‘new enemy’ Russia’s 

transportation and commercial routes.

The Southern Corridor: Less developed but still 

important, this corridor involves the construction of 

continuous rail connections from China to Pakistan, 

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and 

potentially Turkey, before reaching Europe through 

ports in Lebanon and Syria, and via land-based 

connections in Turkey.

This route has the potential to promote sustainable 

peace and reconstruction in West Asian nations, and 

could possibly be extended to integrate and 

industrialize the Persian Gulf states through 

large-scale high-speed railway projects like the 

2000 km Persian Gulf-Red Sea high-speed railway

and hasten development prospects in the strategic 

Horn of Africa.

The Middle Corridor: The most complicated but no 

less essential of these arteries is the Trans-Caspian 

International Transport Route (TITR), dubbed 

“the Middle Corridor” and features multimodal rail

and sea transit of goods from China to Europe via 

Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, 

Georgia, and Turkey.

Although this path involves the shortest distance, 

complications and additional costs arise with the 

complex process of transitioning from land routes 

to sea routes via ports in the Caspian Sea.

In recent months, the nations along the Middle 

Corridor have worked to harmonize their interests 

and coordinate their efforts to tap, process, and move 

the energy resources in the Caspian Sea (which 

contains the fourth largest natural gas reserves in 

the world).

On 30 March 2022, a quadrilateral agreement was 

signed between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, 

and Georgia to advance the construction of the 

Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway system, the 

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, and the Trans 

Anatolian National Gas Pipeline (TANAP), which 

is already in operation. The TANAP is part of the 

larger Southern Gas Corridor, which involves seven 

countries and consists of 3500 km of pipelines worth 

$35 billion.

Gas pipelines from Russia and the South Caucasus 
to Europe, via Turkey (Photo Credit: The Cradle)

Some of the key projects within the Southern Gas 

Corridor include:

  1. The Shah Deniz 2 offshore gas and oil well 
  2. operations in the Caspian Sea, where Azerbaijan,
  3.  Iran, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan are 
  4. working towards finalizing a broader agreement 
  5. to resolve long-standing disputes.
  6. The expansion of natural gas processing plants 
  7. at the Sangachal Terminal in the Caspian Sea.
  8. The expansion of gas transmission networks in 
  9. Italy.
  10. The development of new connections into the 
  11. gas networks of southern and western Europe.
  12. Four major pipelines, including the South 
  13. Caucasus Pipeline (SCPX) involving Azerbaijan 
  14. and Georgia, the TANAP involving Turkey, the Trans 
  15. Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) involving Greece, Albania, 
  16. and Italy, and the Greece-Bulgaria Gas Interconnector.

The importance of the INSTC

In addition to these three east-west corridors, 

the much anticipated Russia-Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-India 

International North-South Transport Corridor 

(INSTC) has also seen significant growth in recent 

years, with an additional eastern extension now 

stretching from Russia to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, 

Kyrgyzstan, Iran, and India.

Map of INSTC (Photo Credit: The Cradle)

Once goods from Russia reach Iran via either the 

western or eastern branches of the INSTC, they can 

be delivered to markets in India, South Asia, and 

East Africa through the Ports of Chabahar and 

Bandar Abbas on the Indian Ocean.

Contrary to the claims of some Atlantic 

Council-affiliated analysts, the east-west BRI 

corridors and the north-south INSTC are highly 

synergistic and united in a grand strategic outlook 

for broad Eurasian growth and integration in a 

post-zero sum game world order.

The “Green Belt Initiative” 

After US President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 

January 2020, a new concept called “Build Back 

Better” was introduced from the corridors of 

highly paid commercial agencies. The oft-repeated 

term was ambiguously defined, but it was embraced 

by technocratic leaders of Atlanticist states, 

including Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the UK’s Boris 

Johnson, and the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen. The 

concept was later rebranded as “Build Back Better 

for the World” (B3W).

Despite its warm and fuzzy image, the Global Green 

New Deal and B3W failed to gain traction due to a 

lack of concrete action plans or details on how to 

finance and demonstrate the viability of the grand 


In March 2021, Biden and Boris Johnson unveiled 

a new program called the “Green Belt Initiative,” 

which they described as a response to China’s 

Belt and Road Initiative. When asked for details on 

how to fund the $3 trillion in investments required 

to make the “green transition” to a world dependent 

on solar panels and windmills, no specifics were 


Once again, the concept was under defined, but the 

image presented was one of a green revolution 

expected to usher in a new era of “clean zero carbon 

infrastructure” led by utopian rules-based orderistas 

of the transatlantic west.

Within the framing of the B3W branding, “Global 

Green New Deal” was often celebrated as a warm 

and fuzzy concept which former Bank of England 

Governor Mark Carney heralded as a $130 trillion 

renaissance into a post-hydrocarbon age.

In September 2021, the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen 

announced the “Global Green Gateway” as Europe’s 

response to the BRI. However, this initiative faced 

criticism for ignoring the hundreds of thousands of 

engineers trained by China in Africa over the past 

decade, and for projecting the historic predatory 

lending practices of Europe onto China.

Von der Leyen stated: “We want to create links and 

not dependencies… It does not make sense for 

Europe to build roads between a Chinese-owned 

copper mine and a Chinese-owned harbor.”

Despite this, the Global Green Gateway failed 

to propose a viable lending mechanism or staff, 

and soon faded away, similar to the Build Back 

Better and Global Green New Deals before it.

On 26 June, 2022, the global situation had changed 

dramatically as Russia’s military intervention in 

Ukraine was already four months old and the erection

of a new Iron Curtain attempting to cut Europe off 

from both Russia and China was in full swing. 

Despite these developments, the demand for nations 

to access affordable and reliable energy and food 

had risen higher than ever.

In response, the White House released its newest 

rebranding of the B3W in the form of a G7-led 

program now titled “The Partnership for Global 

Infrastructure and Investment”.

This program promised $600 billion over five years 

to recipient nations in Africa, Southwest Asia, 

Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe to 

build digital infrastructure, telecommunications, 

green energy, and soft infrastructure with a focus on 

gender equity.

The goal of this program was to provide poor 

nations with an alternative to China’s alleged 

predatory lending ambitions. However, few of the 

nations offered this “life raft” have shown much 

interest so far.

The Three Seas Initiative

In Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, 

the NATO-led Three Seas Initiative (3SI) was 

founded in 2014 as an ambitious effort to thwart the 

Middle Corridor. The 3SI includes 12 Eastern 

European states within the Black Sea-Adriatic Sea-Baltic Sea region.

While many of the dozens of highways, rail, and gas 

projects featured in the 3SI are objectively beneficial 

to participating nations and all of Eurasia, the fact 

is that those NATO and Atlantic Council operatives 

promoting the grand design are only doing so from 

an anti-Eurasian geopolitical agenda.

In June 2022, Ukraine was made a partner member 

of the 3SI group, and funds were set up to 

accumulate private capital to invest in this 

trillion-dollar investment scheme to integrate 

the energy and transportation corridors of the 

region as a hub for supplying Europe with energy 

while also building a wall to cut off the broader 

New Silk Road corridors.

During a 3SI Summit that month, the foreign 

ministers of Poland and Romania released a joint 

statement saying:

“The 3SI is part of our response to the need for


developing energy, transport, and digital infrastructure


that will be more climate-friendly, fully aligned


with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the


European Green Deal.”

While the 3SI is directed towards consolidating 

controls over the Eastern European EU member 

states (plus Ukraine), once again, very little 

information has been made public regarding how 

the various infrastructure projects will be funded.

The 3SI Fund, created in 2019 to gain support 

from the private sector (which is expected to provide 

the vast majority of financing for these green new 

deal projects), is still far from achieving even a 

fraction of its goals.

Building a “Green Barrier” to Actual Development

On 7 December, 2022, the World Bank released a 

report titled “Azerbaijan: Towards Green Growth” 

in which the authors stated that the:

“Global transition towards a low-emissions


economic model offers opportunities for


Azerbaijan to be globally and regionally


competitive. To make the best of it, Azerbaijan


needs to focus on decarbonizing and diversifying


the economy, bolstering innovation, and natural


and human capital development.”

From this Green New Deal agenda, Azerbaijan 

would certainly receive funding, but in doing so, 

it would be handicapped from developing its vast 

resources or playing a positive role in either the 

Middle Corridor or the INSTC.

Five days later, the World Bank agenda was 

re-emphasized by USAID at a conference 

co-sponsored with the Azerbaijan-US Chamber of 

Commerce, the White House, and the Embassy of 


Sentiments of those wishing to cut Russia and China 

off the Middle Corridor hub could be heard in the 

words of Ian Rawlinson CCO at APM Terminals in 

Poti, Georgia who stated:

“It [Georgia] has always been considered as a


satellite region of Russia. However, the region is


very western centric. There are a lot of western companies


settled in Central Asia, and there is a strong drive for


western products… APM considers Central Asia as


the last container is able region, with the biggest potential


in terms of logistics. As it is landlocked, it is only


reachable by rail. Kazakhstan for example exports 60


million tonnes of cargo to Europe. Much of it is still


moving through Russia, but that can be changed to the


Middle Corridor. This is also true for eastbound cargo to



Efforts to intimidate, bribe, and threaten nations like 

Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey into 

abandoning the concept of the Middle Corridor as a 

hub of China-led development are both 

self-destructive and absurd.

Ignoring the fact that the Middle Corridor would 

not exist if not for China’s leadership in the first 

place, these nations are being asked to see 

themselves as the end and starting point of a 

new pro-Atlanticist exclusive hub.

The leaders of the nations along the Middle 

Corridor have made it clear that they are happy 

to do business with Europe, but not at the expense 

of their relationships with either Russia or China.

Eurasian Integration Moves Forward 

On 20 December, Russia, Iran, Turkmenistan, and 

Kazakhstan released a joint statement offering all 

public and private interests across the globe a 20 

percent discount on all freight transit costs for 

goods moving along the eastern branch of the 


This discount would apply to all goods moving 

across the Middle Corridor (involving the 

Russia-Kazakhstan-China connection), as well as 

the eastern INSTC (involving Russia, Turkmenistan, 

Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China), and also the 

South-Eastern INSTC featuring Russia, Iran, 

West Asia, East Africa, India, and South Asia.

While many Atlanticists would love nothing more 

than to see Georgia pried out of the grip of Eurasian 

influence, it is clear that Tbilisi’s interests lie in the 


Last week it was reported that trade between 

Georgia, Russia, China, and Turkey grew 

by 32 percent (from January to September) over the 

same period in 2021, and that Georgia also enjoys 

the benefits of having signed an important free trade 

agreement with the Commonwealth of Independent 

States (CIS), which includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, 

Uzbekistan, and Turkey.

Meanwhile, Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan trade volumes 

have increased over 620 percent (from $48 million 

in 2021 to $305.5 million in 2022) with much more 

room for growth as the Caspian development 

continues to grow with flows of energy resources to 

both Europe and China increasing significantly.

If Europe wishes to survive the coming decades, 

leadership will have to emerge that shrugs off the 

imposing pressures of the Anglo-American 

establishment, which seeks to stop the potential 

Europe-Russian-Chinese economic cooperation at 

all costs, even if it means the willful murder of 

millions of European citizens under an artificial 

imposition of energy scarcity, food scarcity, and war.

Nations of Central Asia and Southwest Asia have 

felt the burn of transatlantic imperial grand strategy 

for far too long and increasingly have come to 

recognize which pathway to the future is befitting 

their true interests – that of Eurasian integration.

The Plan to Carve Up Russia

The Plan to Carve Up Russia

For decades, the idea of dismantling the Soviet Union and Russia has been constantly cultivated in Western countries. Unfortunately, at some point, the idea of using Ukraine to achieve this goal was conceived. In fact, to prevent such a development, we launched the special military operation (SMO). This is precisely what some western countries –led by the United States– strive for; to create an anti-Russian enclave and then threaten us from this direction. Preventing this from happening is our primary goal. Vladimir Putin

Here’s your geopolitical quiz for the day: What did Angela Merkel mean when she said “that the Cold War never really ended, because ultimately Russia was never pacified”?

  1. Merkel was referring to the fact that Russia has never accepted its subordinate role in the “Rules-based Order.”
  2. Merkel was referring to the fact that Russia’s economic collapse did not produce the ‘compliant state’ western elites had hoped for.
  3. Merkel is suggesting that the Cold War was never really a struggle between democracy and communism, but a 45 year-long effort to “pacify” Russia.
  4. What Merkel meant was that the western states –particularly the United States– do not want a strong, prosperous and independent Russia but a servile lackey that does as it is told.
  5. All of the above.

If you chose (5), then pat yourself on the back. That is the right answer.

Last week, Angela Merkel confirmed what many analysts have been saying for years, that Washington’s hostile relations with Russia –which date back more than a century– have nothing to do with ideology, ‘bad behavior’ or alleged “unprovoked aggression”. Russia’s primary offense is that it occupies a strategic area of the world that contains vast natural resources and which is critical to Washington’s “pivot to Asia” plan. Russia’s real crime is that its mere existence poses a threat to the globalist project to spread US military bases across Central Asia, encircle China, and become the regional hegemon in the world’s most prosperous and populous region.

So much attention has been focused on what Merkel said regarding the Minsk Treaty, that her more alarming remarks have been entirely ignored. Here is a short excerpt from a recent interview Merkel gave to an Italian magazine:

The 2014 Minsk Accords were an attempt to give Ukraine time. Ukraine used this period to become stronger, as seen today. The country of 2014/15 is not the country of today….

We all knew that it was a frozen conflict, that the problem was not solved, but this was precisely what gave Ukraine precious time.” (“Angela Merkel: Kohl took advantage of his voice and build”, Corrier Della Sera)

Merkel candidly admits that she participated in a 7 year-long fraud that was aimed at deceiving the Russian leadership into thinking that she genuinely wanted peace, but that proved not to be the case. In truth, the western powers deliberately sabotaged the treaty in order to buy-time to arm and train a Ukrainian army that would be used in a war against Russia.

But this is old news. What we find more interesting is what Merkel said following her comments on Minsk. Here’s the money-quote:

I want to talk to you about an aspect that makes me think. It’s the fact that the Cold War never really ended, because ultimately Russia was never pacified. When Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, he was excluded from the G8. In addition, NATO has deployed troops in the Baltic region, to demonstrate its readiness to intervene. And we too have decided to allocate 2% of GDP to military expenditure for defence. CDU and CSU were the only ones to have kept it in the government programme. But we too should have reacted more quickly to Russia’s aggressiveness. (“Angela Merkel: Kohl took advantage of his voice and build”, Corrier Della Sera)


This is an astonishing admission. What Merkel is saying is that ” the Cold War never ended” because the primary goal of weakening (“pacifying”) Russia –to the point that it could not defend its own vital interests or project power beyond its borders– was not achieved. Merkel is implying that the main objective of the Cold War was not to defeat communism (as we were told) but to create a compliant Russian colony that would allow the globalist project to go forward unimpeded. As we can see in Ukraine, that objective has not been achieved; and the reason it hasn’t been achieved is because Russia is powerful enough to block NATO’s eastward expansion. In short, Russia has become the greatest-single obstacle to the globalist strategy for world domination.

It’s worth noting, that Merkel never mentions Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” in Ukraine as the main problem. In fact, she makes no attempt to defend that spurious claim. The real problem according to Merkel is that Russia has not been ‘pacified’. Think about that. This suggests that the justification for the war is different than the one that is promoted by the media. What it implies is that the conflict is driven by geopolitical objectives that have been concealed behind the “invasion” smokescreen. Merkel’s comments clear the air in that regard, by identifying the real goal; pacification.

In a minute we will show that the war was triggered by “geopolitical objectives” and not Russia’s alleged “aggression”, but first we need to review the ideas that are fueling the drive to war. The main body of principles upon which America’s foreign policy rests, is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the first draft of which was presented in the Defense Planning Guidance in 1992. Here’s a short excerpt:

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

There it is in black and white: The top priority of US foreign policy “is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” This shows the importance that Washington and its allies place on the territory occupied by the Russian Federation. It also shows the determination of western leaders to prevent any sovereign state from controlling the area the US needs to implement its grand strategy.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Russia’s transformation into a strong and independent state has not only put it squarely in Washington’s crosshairs, but also greatly increased the chances of a direct confrontation. Simply put, Russia’s return to the ranks of the great powers has placed it on Washington’s ‘enemies list’ and a logical target for US aggression.

So, what does this have to do with Merkel?

Implicit in Merkel’s comments is the fact that the dissolution of the communist state and the collapse of the Russian economy was not sufficient to leave Russia “pacified”. She is, in fact, voicing her support for more extreme measures. And she knows what those measures will be; regime change followed by a violent splintering of the country.

The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined

Putin is well-aware of this malignant plan and has discussed it openly on many occasions. Take a look at this 2-minute video of a meeting Putin headed just weeks ago:

“The goal of our enemies is to weaken and break up our country. This has been the case for centuries.. They believe our country is too big and poses a threat (to them), which is why it must be weakened and divided. For our part, we always pursued a different approach; we always wanted to be a part of the so-called ‘civilized (western) world.’ And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we thought we would finally become a part of that ‘world’. But, as it turned out, we weren’t welcome despite all our efforts. Our attempts to become a part of that world were rejected. Instead, they did everything they could– including assisting terrorists in the Caucasus– to finish off Russia and break-up the Russian Federation.” Vladimir Putin 

The point we’re making is that Merkel’s views align seamlessly with those of the neocons. They also align with the those of the entire western political establishment that has unanimously thrown its support behind a confrontation with Russia. Additionally, the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the Congressional Research Service’s latest report, have all shifted their focus from the war against international terrorism to a “great power competition” with Russia and China. Not surprisingly, the documents have little to do with ‘competition’, rather, they provide an ideological justification for hostilities with Russia. In other words, the United States has laid the groundwork for a direct confrontation with the world’s biggest nuclear superpower.

Check out this brief clip from the Congressional Research Service Report titled Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress:

The U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia... is a policy choice reflecting two judgments: (1) that given the amount of people, resources, and economic activity in Eurasia, a regional hegemon in Eurasia would represent a concentration of power large enough to be able to threaten vital U.S. interests; and (2) that Eurasia is not dependably self-regulating in terms of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons, meaning that the countries of Eurasia cannot be counted on to be able to prevent, though their own actions, the emergence of regional hegemons, and may need assistance from one or more countries outside Eurasia to be able to do this dependably.”….

From a U.S. perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world’s people, resources, and
economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of world geography, U.S. policymakers for the last several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia. Although U.S. policymakers do not often state explicitly in public the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia, U.S. military operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—appear to have been carried out in no small part in support of this goal.” (“Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress”, US Congress)

It sounds alot like the Wolfowitz Doctrine, doesn’t it? (Which suggests that Congress has moved into the neocon camp.)

There are a few things worth considering in this short excerpt:

  1. That “the U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia” has nothing to do with national defense. It is a straightforward declaration of war on any nation that successfully uses the free market to grow its economy. It is particularly unsettling that China on Washington’s target-list when US corporate outsourcing and offshoring have factored so large in China’s success. US industries moved their businesses to China to avoid paying anything above a slave wage. Is China to be blamed for that?
  2. The fact that Eurasia has more “people, resources, and economic activity” than America, does not constitute a “threat” to US national security. It only represents a threat to the ambitions of western elites who want to use the US Military to pursue their own geopolitical agenda.
  3. Finally: Notice how the author acknowledges that the government deliberately misleads the public about its real objectives in Central Asia. He says: “U.S. policymakers do not often state explicitly in public the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia, U.S. military operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—appear to have been carried out in no small part in support of this goal.” In other words, all the claptrap about “freedom and democracy” is just pablum for the masses. The real goals are “resources, economic activity” and power.

The National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy are equally explicit in identifying Russia as a de facto enemy of the United States. This is from the NSS:

Russia poses an immediate and ongoing threat to the regional security order in Europe and it is a source of disruption and instability globally…

Russia now poses an immediate and persistent threat to international peace and stability….

Russia poses an immediate threat to the free and open international system, recklessly flouting the basic laws of the international order … This decade will be decisive, in setting the terms of …managing the acute threat posed by Russia.. (“The 2022 National Security Strategy”, White House)

And lastly, The 2022 National Defense Strategy reiterates the same themes as the others; Russia and China pose an unprecedented threat to the “rules-based order”. Here’s short summary from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

The 2022 National Defense Strategy… makes clear that the United States …. sees the subjugation of Russia as a critical stepping stone toward the conflict with China.… The eruption of American imperialism… is more and more directly targeting Russia and China, which the United States sees as the principal obstacles to the untrammeled domination of the world. US strategists have long regarded the domination of the Eurasian landmass, with its vast natural resources, as the key to global domination.” (“Pentagon national strategy document targets China”, Andres Damon, World Socialist Web Site)

What these three strategic documents show is that the Washington BrainTrust had been preparing the ideological foundation for a war with Russia long before the first shot was ever fired in Ukraine. That war is now underway although the outcome is far from certain.

The strategy going forward appears to be a version of the Cheney Plan which recommended a break up of Russia itself, “so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.” Here’s more from an article by Ben Norton:

“Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power…The fact that a figure at the helm of the US government not-so-secretly sought the permanent dissolution of Russia as a country, and straightforwardly communicated this to colleagues like Robert Gates, partially explains the aggressive posturing Washington has taken toward the Russian Federation since the overthrow of the USSR.

The reality is that the US empire will simply never allow Russia to challenge its unilateral domination of Eurasia, despite the fact that the government in Moscow restored capitalism. This is why it is not surprising that Washington has utterly ignored Russia’s security concerns, breaking its promise not to expand NATO “once inch eastward” after German reunification, surrounding Moscow with militarized adversaries hell bent on destabilizing it.” (“Ex VP Dick Cheney confirmed US goal is to break up Russia, not just USSR”, Ben Norton, Multipolarista)

The carving up of Russia into several smaller statelets, has long been the dream of the neoconservatives. The difference now, is that that same dream is shared by political leaders across the West. Recent comments by Angela Merkel underscore the fact that western leaders are now committed to achieving the unrealized goals of the Cold War. They intend to use military confrontation to affect the political outcome they seek which is a significantly weakened Russia incapable of blocking Washington’s projection of power across Central Asia. A more dangerous strategy would be hard to imagine.

Voetbal Commentator stan van houcke heeft dit als repost geplaatst Marcel Van Silfh...