Zbigniew Brzezinski as a mirror of American devolution (I) By Dimitri Minin
29 December 2012 — Strategic Culture Foundation
A Thirty year plan accomplished in fifteen years
The passing of 2012, among other things, was marked by a publication of fundamental importance, in terms of understanding the processes occurring in the world and the U.S., the book by Zbigniew Brzezinski «Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power» (1). Continue reading
Iran Newslinks 28-29 December 2011
29 December 2011 — williambowles.info
29 December 2011
Escalating Anti-Iranian Tensions
Mathaba News Briefing (Alerts) Today at 16:01
Whether or not anti-Iranian rhetoric, saber rattling, sanctions, other policy measures, and recent events signal war isn’t known. Growing dangers though mount, Mathaba Analyst Stephen Lendman says.
National Security Archive Update, May 25, 2011: THE DIARY OF ANATOLY CHERNYAEV, 1991
25 May 2011 — National Security Archive
Top Gorbachev Adviser Chronicles Final Year of the Soviet Union
Archive Marks Author’s 90th Birthday With Online Publication in English for the First Time
Great Power Confrontation in the Indian Ocean: The Geo-Politics of the Sri Lankan Civil War By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
23 October, 2009 — Global Research
The support and positions of various foreign governments in regards to the diabolic fighting between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan military, which cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, says a great deal about the geo-strategic interests of these foreign governments. The position of the governments of India and a group of states that can collectively be called the Periphery, such as the U.S. and Australia, were in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) or Tamil Tigers, either overtly or covertly. Many of these governments also provided this support tacitly, so as not to close any future opportunity of co-opting Sri Lanka after the fighting was over.
In contrast, the governments of a group of states that can jointly be called Eurasia as a collective entity, such as Iran and Russia, supported the Sri Lankan government. The polar nature of the support by Eurasia and the Periphery for the two different combating sides in the Sri Lankan Civil War betrays the scent or odour of a much broader struggle. This is a struugle that extends far beyond the borders of the island of Sri Lanka and its region.
Why is this so? Much of the answer to such a question has to do with the formation of a growing alliance in the Eurasian landmass against the international domination of the U.S. and its allies. This Eurasian alliance was formed on the basis of the growing cohesion between Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and their allies that has seen the animation of the Primakov Doctrine. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a security body with real military dimensions that has been called “the NATO of the East” within some foreign policy circles is a real symbol of this geo-political dynamic. In 2009, the last chapter of the Sri Lankan Civil War was very much a theatre within this process.
Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
17 October, 2009 — Global Research
Since 1947, India has not fully pledged itself to any camp or global pole during the Cold War and as a result was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (N.A.M.). Since the post-Cold War era that position has eroded. New Delhi has been gradually moving away from its traditional position, relationships, and policies in the international arena for over a decade.
India has been vied for as an ally in the “Great Game” that is underway, once again. This round of the “Great Game” is, however, being played under a far broader spectrum than the one played between Britain and Czarist Russia. In question is the Indian power relationship with two geo-political entities: the first is the “Periphery” and the second is “Eurasia.”
The Periphery and Eurasia: Vying for India on a Geo-Strategic Chessboard
Physical geography alone does not form or carve or determine geographic entities. The activity of people also is of critical importance to this process. Geographic units, from blocs and countries to regions, must be understood as a product of people interacting in socio-economic and political terms. The geographic entities that are subject herein are social constructions. In this conceptual context, Eurasia itself can be defined as a geo-political player and entity.
In a physical sense, Eurasia as a geographic landmass and spatial entity is neutral, just as are other geographic regions or units, and carries no meaning or value(s). Eurasia in socio-political terms as an active player, however, is altogether different. Herein, it is this active and politically organized Eurasia that is a product of the anti-hegemonic cooperation of Russia, China, and Iran against the status quo global order of the Periphery that is the Eurasia being addressed.
The Periphery is a collective term for those nations who are either geographically located on the margins of the Eurasian landmass or altogether geographically outside of the Eurasian landmass. This grouping or categorization of geo-political players when described are namely the U.S., the E.U., and Japan. In almost organic terms these players at the broader level strive to penetrate and consume Eurasia. This objective is so because of the socio-economic organization and political mechanisms (all of which serve elitist interests) of the Periphery. Aside from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, the Periphery includes Australia, Canada, South Korea, Singapore, and Israel.
Viktor PIROZHENKO: Soros as the Mirror of the US Politics in the Post-Soviet Space
27 February, 2009
US Vice President Joe Biden’s speech at the Munich Security Conference and a number of less notable statements made by US officials revived the discussions of the US strategy in the post-Soviet space. Recently the notorious financial megaspeculator George Soros contributed to the discourse with his articles in the Russian Vedomosti (the Russian partner of The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal) entitled ‘Global Anticrisis Policy: Create New Money’ (February 10), ‘An Alternative to Geopolitics: the Russian Problem’ (February 12), and ‘A Crisis Landscape: the Geopolitics of Cheap Oil’ (February 16).
Soros has always been a supporter of the US Democratic Party and a critic of G. Bush’s politics. His ideas may be regarded as an expression of the foreign politics objectives of B. Obama’s administration and the methods it is going to employ to pursue them. Soros suggests to Europe a dual strategy – the defense against the newly assertive and aggressive Russia and the encouragement of the strivings for democracy, open society, and international cooperation to prevail over geopolitics.