Wests Hypocrisy: Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War - new Armageddon in the making
Posted on Saturday, February 24 @ 14:47:13 EST by qjaved
|
|
Anonymous writes "Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War: Or, what happens when Cowboys don’t shoot straight like they used to…
The frank words of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin
to the assembled participants of the annual Munich Wehrkunde security
conference have unleashed a storm of self-righteous protest from
Western media and politicians. A visitor from another planet might have
the impression that the Russian President had abruptly decided to
launch a provocative confrontation policy with the West reminiscent of
the 1943-1991 Cold War.
***** MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND THE GLOBAL WARS *****
However, the details of the developments in NATO and
the United States military policies since 1991 are anything but ‘déjà
vu all over again’, to paraphrase the legendary New York Yankees
catcher, Yogi Berra.
This time round we are already deep in a New Cold
War, which literally threatens the future of life on this planet. The
debacle in Iraq, or the prospect of a US tactical nuclear pre-emptive
strike against Iran are ghastly enough. In comparison to what is at
play in the US global military buildup against its most formidable
remaining global rival, Russia, they loom relatively small. The US
military policies since the end of the Soviet Union and emergence of
the Republic of Russia in 1991 are in need of close examination in this
context. Only then do Putin’s frank remarks on February 10 at the
Munich Conference on Security make sense.
Some extracts from this article
"Afghanistan had historically been the heart of the
British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia
during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British
strategy was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling
Afghanistan and thereby gaining a warm water port for its navy and
threatening Britain’s imperial crown jewel, India.
Afghanistan is also seen by Pentagon planners as
highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military might could
directly threaten Russia and China as well as Iran and other oil-rich
Middle East lands. Little had changed in that respect over more than a
century of wars.
Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location,
straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan
also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil
fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, had been
in negotiations, together with Cheney’s Halliburton and with Enron, for
exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across
Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron’s huge natural gas power plant at
Dabhol near Mumbai."
READ Full article
A MUST READ FOR ALL..Some extracts from this article below.
"Afghanistan had historically been the heart of the
British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia
during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British
strategy was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling
Afghanistan and thereby gaining a warm water port for its navy and
threatening Britain’s imperial crown jewel, India.
Afghanistan is also seen by Pentagon planners as
highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military might could
directly threaten Russia and China as well as Iran and other oil-rich
Middle East lands. Little had changed in that respect over more than a
century of wars.
Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location,
straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan
also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil
fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, had been
in negotiations, together with Cheney’s Halliburton and with Enron, for
exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across
Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron’s huge natural gas power plant at
Dabhol near Mumbai."
"As part of the price of accepting him as a US ally
in the War on Terror rather than a foe, Washington extracted an
agreement from Pakistan’s military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf,
to allow the airport at Jacobabad, about 400km north of Karachi, to be
used by the US Air Force and NATO ‘to support their campaign in
Afghanistan.’ Two other US bases were built at Dalbandin and Pasni.
This all is merely a small part of the vast web of
US-controlled military bases Washington has been building globally
since the so-called end of the Cold War."
Nuclear primacy is an aggressive offensive policy.
It means that one superpower, USA, would have the possibility to launch
a full nuclear First Strike at Russia’s nuclear sites and destroy
enough targets in the first blow, that Russia would be crippled from
making any effective retaliation.
With no credible threat of retaliation, Russia had
no credible nuclear deterrent. It was at the mercy of the supreme
power. Never before in history had the prospect of such ultimate power
in the hands of one single nation seemed so near at hand.
This stealthy move by the Pentagon for Nuclear
Primacy has, up until now, been carried out in utmost secrecy,
disguised amid rhetoric of a USA-Russia ‘Partnership for Peace.’
The rogue argument was a fraud, a plausible cover story designed to
sneak the policy reversal through without debate, in the wake of the
September 11 shock.
The Russian Bear sharpens its nuclear teeth…
In December 2006, Putin told Russian journalists
that deployment of the new Russian mobile Topol-M intercontinental
ballistic missile system was crucial for Russia’s national security.
Without naming the obvious US threat, he declared, ‘Maintaining a
strategic balance will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should
be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no
matter what modern weapons systems he possesses.’
It was unmistakable whom he had in mind, and it wasn’t the Al Qaeda cave-dwellers of Tora Bora.
Putin also did not have North Korea, China, Pakistan or India in mind,
nor Great Britain with its ageing nuclear capacity, not even Israel.
The only power surrounding Russia with weapons of mass destruction was
its old Cold War foe--the United States.
A new Armageddon is in the making. The unilateral military agenda of
Washington has predictably provoked a major effort by Russia to defend
herself. The prospects of a global nuclear conflagration, by
miscalculation, increase by the day. At what point might an American
President, God forbid, decide to order a pre-emptive full-scale nuclear
attack on Russia to prevent Russia from rebuilding a state of mutual
deterrence?By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, February 20, 2007
***** MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND THE GLOBAL WARS *****
Note:
PLEASE READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN FULL TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL OBJECTIVE OF THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE NECLEAR SUPREMACY OVER RUSSIA.
Washington has a far larger grand strategy behind its seemingly irrational unilateral military moves in the Middle East.***** MUST READ *****"
|
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
|
|
