Russia's plan to disrupt U.S.-European relations

Stratfor, like so many of Americas so called think tanks, is not really in the business of actually using rational, honest thought to think problems out and solve them. Stratfor, not unlike Carnegie or the NED reads from the same script written for them by the same people in Washington, and in the end, if you read between the lines, they all come to the same self serving conclusion. They dare not in any real way deviate from the bottom line of promoting Washingtons corrupt system of cronie capatalism.

Perhaps Stratfor thinks that promoting democracy in Russia can be achieved through promoting a billionaire, playboy who owns an NBA team to the presidency of the Russian Federation. But fortunatly, Moscow is not Hollywood and there will be no re-runs of the Yeltsin movie ever again. Stratfor and its ilk need to promote multi party democracy in the USA-where there is only one real party and no real opposition and certainly no independent political parties.

Well, Lauren's 'analysis' is one point of view.

The facts are these:

1) The americans promised not to expand NATO up to Russia's borders. They did.

2) The US and allies sought to contain Russia in the 1990s to keep it small, this included covert support for Chechen rebels.

3) The US still applies the Jackson-Vanick law against Russia as a direct means of leverage.

4) The US and its allies have also been using WTO negotiations as leverage against Russia.

5) The US and allies have sponsored coups, called 'Colored revolutions' in and around Russia's periphery.

6) The US and allies have been very active in seeking to further divide common interests between Russia and Europe to cement its' 'protector' status in Europe. The most obvious examples of this were the Polish/Bylorussian crisis in 2008 (?) over the representation of byelorussia's polish minority.

7) The questioned sponsorship of Saakashvili's regime Geogia and support for his criminal actions.

There are many other points that also show that the US's simple goal is to keep Russia under pressure by continual manufactured crises in the hope of keeping it weak and below the level of a regional player in Europe.

The US has failed because like the Roman Empire, it has over extended itself and still does not grasp this. It's current attempt at containment of China by building up its military alliances in Asia and send its most sophisticated weapons systems to asia, as well as its rapid building up super bases such as those on Diego Garcia and Guam to take ballistic nuclear missile submarines and nuclear armed B-2's so that it can make military strikes rapidly in asia is also set to be a spectacular failure.

In Europe, Germany is the single biggest blocking factor in the US' dreams, as Germany seeks to protect its massive economic investments in Russia and seeks to tie it close enough to the rest of Europe that military action is not an option. This means less defense spending, Germany being the biggest out of most NATO countries who do not spend the require amount of GDP on weapons that NATO membership demands.

In Asia, China is simple too economically huge to be contained. Even Australia, the US' closest ally has signed mega billion energy and mineral deals with China. In South Korea and Japan the younger generations increasingly resent US military presence on their territory. This will only grow. Shipment of goods to Europe via Russian rail are set to significantly increase in the next few years and a gas pipeline through North Korea from Russia to South Korea looks finally to be built. More overland transport of goods from asia more quickly than by sea makes shipping less economically attractive and hence its importance in global trade will diminish as well as the credibility of the US' official raison détre that their forces are need Asia to 'protect commercial shipping'.

The US aim of seeking to lock in its global hegemony has already failed, but it still seeks to spend hundreds of billions of projects like 'global strike'.

Through all this, the US still expects its allies to come aboard its military enterprise regardless of the economical costs. To whit, simply consider Turkey, key member of NATO who refused the US permission to invade Iraq using its territory as it had lost many billions in trade with Iraq though a decade of draconian sanctions (no chlorine for chlorination of water, one of several factors that lead to the death of over 500,000 iraqi children - "a price worth paying" according to Madeliene Albright). Result of non-invasion? Violence in northern Iraq extremely low, economy good.

Globalisation increasingly ties in economies where economic sanctions against one state can have significant economic impact on its neighbors, yet US allies are expected to take the hit regardless. More and more states are refusing to accept this, hence the creation in the last few years of 'smart sanctions'.

Throw in to this BRICS who do not subscribe to the US world view and are acting in an increasingly coherent manner, rather than just words, and one has to ask, on what planet does the US think it is on?
on Iraq from 1991

EU Dude, Thanks that was well written, my perception was that the U.S. was winning the game. It appears while the U.S. was spending trillions on building her Empire pushing Eastward the rest of the world has been building the infastructure for true long term commerce. I would agree with Ron Paul, the U.S. needs to stop being the worlds policeman, and pull back and get herself in order! Happy Holidays

Tensions between the United States and Russia indeed increases. What will be next? The Book of Daniel says: "And [the king of the north = Russia] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [state atheism]; and will act [this means activity in the international arena]; and turned back to his own land [1991-1993. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Russian troops returned to their country]. At the appointed time [he] will return back." (11:28, 29a) At the appointed time Russia will return back. It also means the economic and political earthquake; the disintegration not only of the euro area, but also of the European Union and NATO. Then many countries of the former Eastern bloc will return to the Russian sphere of influence. What will happen next? "And will enter into the south [Georgia], but it will not be as the former [1921] or as the latter [2008], for the dwellers of coastlands of Kittim [the West] will come against him, and he will be dejected, and will go back." (11:29b, 30a)

Moses writes: "But ships from the direction of Kittim [US Navy], and troubling Asshur [Russia] and troubling Eber [remaining enemies]." (Numbers 24:24a)

It will be a nuclear war. (Revelation 6:4) "A great sword" = a nuclear sword. As Jesus foretold, it will be "the beginning of birth pains". (Mathew 24:7, 8)

Without getting sucked in, i'd like to create a simple statement that circumvents the whole story..
Just as Russia's citizens have dropped most of its' 90's leaders, oligarchs, and anybody with any ties to them, the U.S. must follow suit with the Clinton era politicians..

Only THEN, do i believe that Russo/US partnerships can bear any fruit.

In the meanwhile, as long as Russia doesn't look the aggressor, plays its' cards right, and marches towards an open system, i'm sure that Europe will have a better strategic partner in Russia anyways..
I also believe that this is where U.S. policy will truly get tested down the road...

Armchair warriors unite!!!

Stratfor, like so many of Americas so called think tanks, is not really in the business of actually using rational, honest thought to think problems out and solve them. Stratfor, not unlike Carnegie or the NED reads from the same script written for them by the same people in Washington, and in the end, if you read between the lines, they all come to the same self serving conclusion. They dare not in any real way deviate from the bottom line of promoting Washingtons corrupt system of cronie capatalism.

Perhaps Stratfor thinks that promoting democracy in Russia can be achieved through promoting a billionaire, playboy who owns an NBA team to the presidency of the Russian Federation. But fortunatly, Moscow is not Hollywood and there will be no re-runs of the Yeltsin movie ever again. Stratfor and its ilk need to promote multi party democracy in the USA-where there is only one real party and no real opposition and certainly no independent political parties.

Well, Lauren's 'analysis' is one point of view.

The facts are these:

1) The americans promised not to expand NATO up to Russia's borders. They did.

2) The US and allies sought to contain Russia in the 1990s to keep it small, this included covert support for Chechen rebels.

3) The US still applies the Jackson-Vanick law against Russia as a direct means of leverage.

4) The US and its allies have also been using WTO negotiations as leverage against Russia.

5) The US and allies have sponsored coups, called 'Colored revolutions' in and around Russia's periphery.

6) The US and allies have been very active in seeking to further divide common interests between Russia and Europe to cement its' 'protector' status in Europe. The most obvious examples of this were the Polish/Bylorussian crisis in 2008 (?) over the representation of byelorussia's polish minority.

7) The questioned sponsorship of Saakashvili's regime Geogia and support for his criminal actions.

There are many other points that also show that the US's simple goal is to keep Russia under pressure by continual manufactured crises in the hope of keeping it weak and below the level of a regional player in Europe.

The US has failed because like the Roman Empire, it has over extended itself and still does not grasp this. It's current attempt at containment of China by building up its military alliances in Asia and send its most sophisticated weapons systems to asia, as well as its rapid building up super bases such as those on Diego Garcia and Guam to take ballistic nuclear missile submarines and nuclear armed B-2's so that it can make military strikes rapidly in asia is also set to be a spectacular failure.

In Europe, Germany is the single biggest blocking factor in the US' dreams, as Germany seeks to protect its massive economic investments in Russia and seeks to tie it close enough to the rest of Europe that military action is not an option. This means less defense spending, Germany being the biggest out of most NATO countries who do not spend the require amount of GDP on weapons that NATO membership demands.

In Asia, China is simple too economically huge to be contained. Even Australia, the US' closest ally has signed mega billion energy and mineral deals with China. In South Korea and Japan the younger generations increasingly resent US military presence on their territory. This will only grow. Shipment of goods to Europe via Russian rail are set to significantly increase in the next few years and a gas pipeline through North Korea from Russia to South Korea looks finally to be built. More overland transport of goods from asia more quickly than by sea makes shipping less economically attractive and hence its importance in global trade will diminish as well as the credibility of the US' official raison détre that their forces are need Asia to 'protect commercial shipping'.

The US aim of seeking to lock in its global hegemony has already failed, but it still seeks to spend hundreds of billions of projects like 'global strike'.

Through all this, the US still expects its allies to come aboard its military enterprise regardless of the economical costs. To whit, simply consider Turkey, key member of NATO who refused the US permission to invade Iraq using its territory as it had lost many billions in trade with Iraq though a decade of draconian sanctions (no chlorine for chlorination of water, one of several factors that lead to the death of over 500,000 iraqi children - "a price worth paying" according to Madeliene Albright). Result of non-invasion? Violence in northern Iraq extremely low, economy good.

Globalisation increasingly ties in economies where economic sanctions against one state can have significant economic impact on its neighbors, yet US allies are expected to take the hit regardless. More and more states are refusing to accept this, hence the creation in the last few years of 'smart sanctions'.

Throw in to this BRICS who do not subscribe to the US world view and are acting in an increasingly coherent manner, rather than just words, and one has to ask, on what planet does the US think it is on?
on Iraq from 1991

Tensions between the United States and Russia indeed increases. What will be next? The Book of Daniel says: "And [the king of the north = Russia] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [state atheism]; and will act [this means activity in the international arena]; and turned back to his own land [1991-1993. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Russian troops returned to their country]. At the appointed time [he] will return back." (11:28, 29a) At the appointed time Russia will return back. It also means the economic and political earthquake; the disintegration not only of the euro area, but also of the European Union and NATO. Then many countries of the former Eastern bloc will return to the Russian sphere of influence. What will happen next? "And will enter into the south [Georgia], but it will not be as the former [1921] or as the latter [2008], for the dwellers of coastlands of Kittim [the West] will come against him, and he will be dejected, and will go back." (11:29b, 30a)

Moses writes: "But ships from the direction of Kittim [US Navy], and troubling Asshur [Russia] and troubling Eber [remaining enemies]." (Numbers 24:24a)

It will be a nuclear war. (Revelation 6:4) "A great sword" = a nuclear sword. As Jesus foretold, it will be "the beginning of birth pains". (Mathew 24:7, 8)

EU Dude, Thanks that was well written, my perception was that the U.S. was winning the game. It appears while the U.S. was spending trillions on building her Empire pushing Eastward the rest of the world has been building the infastructure for true long term commerce. I would agree with Ron Paul, the U.S. needs to stop being the worlds policeman, and pull back and get herself in order! Happy Holidays

Without getting sucked in, i'd like to create a simple statement that circumvents the whole story..
Just as Russia's citizens have dropped most of its' 90's leaders, oligarchs, and anybody with any ties to them, the U.S. must follow suit with the Clinton era politicians..

Only THEN, do i believe that Russo/US partnerships can bear any fruit.

In the meanwhile, as long as Russia doesn't look the aggressor, plays its' cards right, and marches towards an open system, i'm sure that Europe will have a better strategic partner in Russia anyways..
I also believe that this is where U.S. policy will truly get tested down the road...

Armchair warriors unite!!!