Display:
Here's the precise quote. Taken from World Socialist Web Site at this document.

As the American web site Stratfor (which has close ties with US intelligence) recognized on November 19 of last year in an article called "America Unplugged," when it comes to Russia, "the United States is playing for keeps."

"The Soviet Union was one of only three states that have ever directly threatened the United States ­the other two being the British Empire and Mexico. The Soviet Union also came as close as any power ever has to uniting Eurasia into a single integrated, continental power ­the only external development that might be able to end the United States' superpowership. These little factoids are items that policymakers neither forget nor take lightly. So while U.S. policy toward China is to delay its rise, and U.S. policy toward Venezuela is geared toward containment, U.S. policy toward Russia is as simple as it is final: dissolution."

by Sargon on Thu Dec 28th, 2006 at 05:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If Stratfor is taking that from US intelligence it is presumably from the same geniuses who regularly offer us their acute historical analysis of the Middle East in the pages of the Weekly Standard and NR - it sounds at about their level. The Soviet Union did come as close as any power did to uniting Eurasia - that is a decade plus starting after WWII to the late fifties - by that point Mao had decided he had no interest in playing second fiddle to the the Soviets and Western Europe had been consolidated into the Western Bloc under NATO. Nor does Belarus have much to do with 'breaking up' Russia - at its most cynical it can be seen as seeking to take a client state of Russia's and turn it into a client state of the US - that's no more breaking up Russia than the USSR's support of Castro was breaking up the US. The article also suffers under the bizarre delusion that the US invasion of Iraq happened last fall, so I'd be a bit wary of taking it too seriously.
by MarekNYC on Thu Dec 28th, 2006 at 06:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not trying to argue for their position - their stance on geopolitics is peculiar at best. But - these guys reflect the point of view of a significant part of the US establishment, especially its military and intelligence circles. Therefore, I hope someone behind the Kremlin walls is reading them very carefully.

For us here, Iraq debacle is just that - a debacle. For many Iraqis, it's a catastrophe as they are on the receiving end of a misguided policy. The stuff these guys write might put myself, my family and friends, and my country, into another disaster. I've lived through one, and it was one too many for me. So, I cannot help noticing similarities between Lugar's thinking and the paragraph I quoted.

by Sargon on Fri Dec 29th, 2006 at 06:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The end of the British Empire was an own goal.  Two massively expensive and destructive world wars basically drove it into bankruptcy.  
by ATinNM on Thu Dec 28th, 2006 at 11:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The second war was forced on them. The first one is debatable - the pendulum has swung back somewhat from the sixties-seventies 'it's all the Germans fault' thesis that grew of Fischer's Griff nach der Weltmacht (Germany's Aims in WWI) and Krieg der Illusionen (War of Illusions, but the consensus is still assigning the preponderance of blame to the Germans and the Austrians.
by MarekNYC on Fri Dec 29th, 2006 at 02:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder wheter the blame of WWI will shift as a consequence of 9/11 and the Afghanistan war. Many seam to see the Afghanistan war as just, and should therefore view the Austrian respons to Serbian terrorist actions as just. Except for scale of the terrorist act in question the scripts are very similar.

Small country has popular terrorist group. Terrorist group commits act against big country. Big country puts an ultimatum to small country regarding the terrorist group. Small country does not totally comply. Big country attacks.

If anything I think Afghanistan was more compliant then Serbia. Guess time will tell what history books will be written.

Britains part then, hmm. I guess if they had been hell-bent on avoiding war, they could have stayed out. In neither of the two was Britain the attacked party but brittish allies were. And I guess there is a pretty strict limit on how many allies you can leave hanging in the wind if you want to uphold a world empire.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Dec 29th, 2006 at 08:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series