The Russian Empire Strikes Back
hailhailkc
Posts: 582
Nice article by Robert Baer, former CIA agent, regarding Russia and Georgia.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1831857,00.html?cnn=yes
Russia's invasion of Georgia has less to do with South Ossetia and more about a Russia that never reconciled itself to losing an empire — or being treated like a second rate power all these years. Russia's resentment has only grown as oil prices have risen, turning Russia, with the five million barrels of oil it exports a day, into a first-world economic power. It was only a matter of time, then, before Russia taught the world a lesson.
Since the Soviet Union collapsed 17 years ago, Washington in particular has deluded itself into believing that it was somehow a real competitor to Russia in the southern tier of the former Soviet Union — that is, the eight states that make up the Caucasus and the former Soviet Central Asia. Washington acted as if these states were truly independent and sovereign, immune from the influence of the old metropolitan center, Moscow. Washington deliberately ignored how Russia had held on to its military bases in the southern tier, how the successor to the KGB stayed more plugged into intelligence from the area than the CIA ever hoped to, and how local leaders flew to Moscow to clear all important decisions. This was the context for Washington's push to get Georgia to join NATO.
Moscow's intentions were never secret. I can attest to that firsthand. During Tajikistan's civil war in the early 1990s, I was assigned to the embassy in Dushanbe and was evacuated out of the country by Russia's 201st Motorized Rifle Division. The Russian officers who commanded the unit were proud the Red Army had held together through the break-up of the Soviet Union and was called to come to the aid of a superpower like the United States. They had no inkling that Washington would ignore the facts on the ground and deny Russia's true influence in the region.
The picking apart of Yugoslavia, particularly the splitting off of Kosovo from Serbia, further fueled Russian resentment and humiliation. It only reminded Russia how the U.S. had undermined it in the Middle East, peeling off Egypt, South Yemen, Iraq and Syria from its sphere of influence over the decades. But more than anything, Russia would never forget that it was Washington that created the Sunni jihadist Frankenstein in Afghanistan. That was an arrow pointed straight at the heart of Russia. With Muslims making up 10% to 15% of Russia's population, the Afghan-born jihad became an existential threat to Russia proper. Indeed, it would slosh across the continent into Chechnya.
Through it all Russia bided its time — until Georgia offered up a golden opportunity last Friday. By invading its neighbor, Russia has crossed the Rubicon, demonstrating that the Caucasus sit squarely and solely in Russia's sphere of influence. Moscow's long=term objective in Georgia no doubt is to install a friendly government in Tbilisi (it has tried more than once to do that since Georgian independence), to keep Georgia out of NATO, stop the arms flow into Chechnya, and take control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the only important export route from the Caspian that does not pass through Russia. For it is oil that will give Russia all the more leverage over the southern tier.
The question now is what else Russia is prepared to do to make up for those 17 years of humiliation. One thing we should pretty much count on is that Moscow right now is casting an eye toward Iran, the most direct route to restoring its influence in the Middle East. An Iranian-Russian alliance, Moscow knows, would be an Israeli-American nightmare, not to mention a major headache for the global economy. Russia sitting on Eurasian oil exports and Iran on the Strait of Hormuz would put 22 million barrels a day under the control of a very unfriendly alliance. Will Moscow try to team-up with Tehran?
The thing about nightmare scenarios is that they rarely come true. Still, it bears watching. There are a half-dozen pending arms deals between Russia and Iran on the table, including the Russian S-300, an air defense system that would make an aerial attack on Iran very costly. If Russia, emboldened by a victory in Georgia, were to go ahead with the deal now, it would be a sign that imperial Russia is truly back on the move.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1831857,00.html?cnn=yes
Russia's invasion of Georgia has less to do with South Ossetia and more about a Russia that never reconciled itself to losing an empire — or being treated like a second rate power all these years. Russia's resentment has only grown as oil prices have risen, turning Russia, with the five million barrels of oil it exports a day, into a first-world economic power. It was only a matter of time, then, before Russia taught the world a lesson.
Since the Soviet Union collapsed 17 years ago, Washington in particular has deluded itself into believing that it was somehow a real competitor to Russia in the southern tier of the former Soviet Union — that is, the eight states that make up the Caucasus and the former Soviet Central Asia. Washington acted as if these states were truly independent and sovereign, immune from the influence of the old metropolitan center, Moscow. Washington deliberately ignored how Russia had held on to its military bases in the southern tier, how the successor to the KGB stayed more plugged into intelligence from the area than the CIA ever hoped to, and how local leaders flew to Moscow to clear all important decisions. This was the context for Washington's push to get Georgia to join NATO.
Moscow's intentions were never secret. I can attest to that firsthand. During Tajikistan's civil war in the early 1990s, I was assigned to the embassy in Dushanbe and was evacuated out of the country by Russia's 201st Motorized Rifle Division. The Russian officers who commanded the unit were proud the Red Army had held together through the break-up of the Soviet Union and was called to come to the aid of a superpower like the United States. They had no inkling that Washington would ignore the facts on the ground and deny Russia's true influence in the region.
The picking apart of Yugoslavia, particularly the splitting off of Kosovo from Serbia, further fueled Russian resentment and humiliation. It only reminded Russia how the U.S. had undermined it in the Middle East, peeling off Egypt, South Yemen, Iraq and Syria from its sphere of influence over the decades. But more than anything, Russia would never forget that it was Washington that created the Sunni jihadist Frankenstein in Afghanistan. That was an arrow pointed straight at the heart of Russia. With Muslims making up 10% to 15% of Russia's population, the Afghan-born jihad became an existential threat to Russia proper. Indeed, it would slosh across the continent into Chechnya.
Through it all Russia bided its time — until Georgia offered up a golden opportunity last Friday. By invading its neighbor, Russia has crossed the Rubicon, demonstrating that the Caucasus sit squarely and solely in Russia's sphere of influence. Moscow's long=term objective in Georgia no doubt is to install a friendly government in Tbilisi (it has tried more than once to do that since Georgian independence), to keep Georgia out of NATO, stop the arms flow into Chechnya, and take control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the only important export route from the Caspian that does not pass through Russia. For it is oil that will give Russia all the more leverage over the southern tier.
The question now is what else Russia is prepared to do to make up for those 17 years of humiliation. One thing we should pretty much count on is that Moscow right now is casting an eye toward Iran, the most direct route to restoring its influence in the Middle East. An Iranian-Russian alliance, Moscow knows, would be an Israeli-American nightmare, not to mention a major headache for the global economy. Russia sitting on Eurasian oil exports and Iran on the Strait of Hormuz would put 22 million barrels a day under the control of a very unfriendly alliance. Will Moscow try to team-up with Tehran?
The thing about nightmare scenarios is that they rarely come true. Still, it bears watching. There are a half-dozen pending arms deals between Russia and Iran on the table, including the Russian S-300, an air defense system that would make an aerial attack on Iran very costly. If Russia, emboldened by a victory in Georgia, were to go ahead with the deal now, it would be a sign that imperial Russia is truly back on the move.
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
naděje umírá poslední
That's a good question ... What other factors do you think might be at play here?
The problem I see with dealing with Russia's incursion into Georgia is that the president has been set and we have very little moral authority left to go and denounce such actions. How can our leaders possible expect to sway Russia when we openly supported Israel, a couple of summers ago, when they ingaged in the same action. How can NATO do the same when they engaged in the same actions back in Kosovo.
I'm necessarily agreeing, or disagreeing, with Russia actions but look at it from their stand point. They see the US and it's allies increasing their scope of influence through the use of force. Why shouldn't they do the same.
I like how Bob Baer is talking here of an Iranian-Russian alliance and outlining the strategic implications it provides.
I'm starting to think like ex-cia ... lol.
Of course, we have more in common,
since Bob Baer is a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
OMFG, no!
He believes that 911 is possibly\probably an inside job.
OH NO!
DISCREDIT THIS ARTICLE PLEASE.
OFMG, NO!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Dude, all people are complex beings. Someone can make a potentially good point about Iran and still be completely baseless in their thinking about 9-11.
Cripes.
Do you have to litter every thread with 9/11 conspiracy theories.
i was just stating a fact for those that may not know.
god knows, you don't want to believe everything you read on the internet.
Fuck, if i can help save ONE person from going down the warped wormhole of self-consciousness by helping them understand that these alleged truth-speakers are nothing more than delusional conspiracy theorists, than so be it. Its worth it.
The point here is, fuck this article, its rubbish, the guy who wrote it is a crank. Just like uh ... er, that Alex Jones guy.
Rubbish the lot of it!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well from what I see you have a couple of non 9/11 Truthers judging bob Baer on his entire body of work, not just one single aspect. I for one love reading Bob Baer, have read all his books, and generally agree with much of what he has to say.
but some how he fell off the wacky truck with regards to 911?
How do some of you folks reconcile this shit?
Yeah i think basicaly 99% of what the guy says is spot on,
but fuck, what a loonie he is regarding 9/11.
I just don't get it.
I understand selective judgement,
and evaluating your sources.
But the blanket denial that permeates to the point where only ONE conclusion out of thousands is ruled to be invalid, and to no discredit of the source ... that is ridiculous. I just don't understand it.
What makes you trust a guys judgement to say A, B and C.
and you will be like, "goddamn, he is on the money."
but then he says, "oh and D".
and you go, "what a confused poor fellow."
What information do you hold that invalidates their qualifications, with respect only to the point you hold in contention.
THAT is the disconnect i don't get.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I will address this in another thread. This one is about the Russian invasion of Georgia not 9/11 conspiracies and those who choose not to believe them. If you would like to discuss it further, start a thread and I will be more than happy to explain myself, but I'm not going to hijack HHKC's thread. Hell we can even discuss this via PM if you like.
I will participate in said thread, too ... I am curious about this apparent need to agree 100% with everything Baer says, or somehow one is a hypocrite?!
its not 100% agreement or lack there of that is the problem.
it is IRRATIONALY SELECTIVE DISAGREEMENT.
it shows an inherent flaw of logic to feel one who is a layman can dismiss the assertions of one who has high qualifications for certain analysis simply based on the personal dispositions of the layman.
what i mean is, Baer is highly qualified in intelligence in general, and regarding CIA capabilities in specific.
When someone ACCEPTS that qualification and goes so far as to say "i've read ALL of his books" and then continues by implying an agreement with the large majority of the analysis ... it FAILS TO FOLLOW how one who largely concurs then gets to the conclusion that Baer is SOLEY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY wrong on one count (9/11).
This does not follow since you have placed your faith in an authority, with tacit acknowledgement that they are privy to a better understanding or a higher knowledge base on the issues, and you subscribe to this logic. What therefore gives you the BETTER rationale for discrediting that person on only ONE specific point. What is YOUR qualification for that counter-claim?!?
THAT is the problem.
You can't subscribe to a guy based on his higher level of knowledge,
and then pretend like you yourself are the higher authority with the ability to simply write them off on ONE subject only.
unless you are explicitly claiming yourself a higher authority on that subject in sole. Which i HIGHLY doubt mammasan is attempting to claim here.
But fuck it.
back to the Georgia\Russia conflict.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"I myself have felt the pull of the conspiracy theorists — who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, somehow pulled off by the U.S. government. For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with." - Robert Baer
There ya go. Baer is not a "truther". End of that particular debate.
Here is a article written by Baer about the movement.
http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=231
Doesn't seem like much of a Truther to me.
Do people still think in terms like this?
scary shit batman...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't think that he meant the debate over what happened on 9/11. Drifting was wondering how we could agree with Bob Baer on so many things but yet disagree with his support of the 9/11 Truth movement. I pointed out that Baer is not a supporter of the movement so ends the debate we had with Drifting.
Finer lines in the fine lines of discernment....
most people like to toss a blanket...and be done with it
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
my "Credible People" thread
IT REALLY MAKES YOU WONDER.
So uh.
Whose back tracking their words?
lol.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Thanks, glad someone on here can read and make basic inferences.
If you read the article I posted by Baer he further explains that statement he made, that you quoted. He still doesn't believe that our government was behind 9/11 but states that this administration very actions, specifically the misinformation campaign to lead us into Iraq and the manner in which this administration handled the 9/11 investigation, help fuel the fires of 9/11 Truth Movement. These two points plus others can create the appearance that our government was in fact behind 9/11.
While he avidly disagrees with the 9/11 Truth Movement theories he does find it somewhat useful because the movement is bringing issues to light that no one else in government or the media is.
No ! NOOOOOOOOO! there are only two choices! Either America planned and executed 9/11 or you're a foxnews watching O'reilly lover. you must pick a side! independent thinking like that can get you in trouble around here.