Background
Everyone, since geopolitics was invented, has always known that  
Eurasia is the key to global supremacy. For that reason, Russia has  
been under attack by the West every time the West could get it  
together to launch an attack. Napolean had his try, and the Germans  
had a go in World War I, having been manipulated in the context of  
Britain's balance of powers strategy. Then in World War II the  
Germans attacked again, having been re-armed by Western financiers. A  
strong, healthy Russia, even if geopolitically benign, is an obstacle  
to any power who seeks hegemony in global affairs.

The Cold War, an invention of the West, embodied two primary  
objectives. First and foremost, it provided an excuse for  
interventions all over the globe on the part of the US – ostensibly  
'protecting the free world from Communism' – while in fact exploiting  
the hell out of what were deemed to be 'underdeveloped' nations.  
Secondarily, the Cold War amounted to a long-term attempt to  
destabilize the Soviet Union, which finally succeeded in 1990. The  
Cold War was perhaps the most successful of the historical series of  
attacks on Russia.

Once the Soviet Union had been destabilized, Yeltsin, a tool of the  
West, continued the attack on the Russian Republic itself, selling  
off its assets to cronies, while leaving Russia's infrastructures to  
rot. But lo, there arose in the East a great leader, along with  
surging oil prices, and Putin managed to turn Russia back into a  
contending super power. The tide had turned. The Bear had awoken and  
found its courage. The old Grand Chess Game was again afoot.

The next Western attack, following that of Yeltsin, came in the form  
of CIA-managed 'colored revolutions', in the Ukraine, Georgia, et al.  
Russia has itself to blame for the ill will toward Russia that  
lingered in these places, but in reality that old history was not  
relevant in these political events. The ill will was exploited  
successfully, but in fact these nations would fare much better in  
close cooperation with Russia than as client states of the West.

I don't want to romanticize Russia, not at all. But one must  
recognize certain things about Russian imperialism as contrasted to  
Western imperialism. Western imperialism – driven by banking elites –  
has economic exploitation as its primary objective. Russian  
imperialism – driven by national interests – has national security as  
its primary objective. While Western colonies, aka client states, are  
always poorer than the West, the Eastern European satellite nations  
typically had a higher standard of living than Russia itself during  
the Soviet era. Russia was more concerned with having a stable buffer  
against the West, than it was with robbing the satellites of their  
assets.

This is why I say that the nations surrounding Russia, now that they  
have gained their independence from Russian bureaucratic methods,  
would be better off economically by integrating themselves as peers  
into the Russian sphere of influence. Unfortunately, Russia is  
pathetic with propaganda, and with population management, as compared  
to the West, so they resorted to dictatorial methods in the Soviet  
era – and hence all the residual ill will that currently beclouds  
sound economic thinking. Any client state of the West is destined for  
economic exploitation, typically by means of enriching a local elite  
and keeping it in power as long as it plays ball with the  
international bankers – and suppresses its own people.

The current situation
Russia has turned the tide re/colored-revolutions, and is enticing  
back to the fold many of its neighbors by offering them favorable and  
profitable economic deals – not by installing suppressive client  
regimes. Russia has also out-foxed the US-UK oil cartel in the  
Caspian region and elsewhere. Russia, in concert with China, is  
beginning to eclipse the US-EU Axis in many areas, including  
manufacturing, control over energy supplies, productive economic  
activity, and monetary reserves. Only in military capability does the  
US continue to hold a #1 rating, and the actual military advantage  
slips day by day away from the Pentagon, as Russia and China develop  
their 'asymmetric' counter-measures.

This is the context in which US-NATO trained, armed, and encouraged  
Georgia to launch its brutal and illegal attack on South Ossetia,  
intentionally killing Russian citizens and peace-keepers, and  
intentionally targeting civilians generally. Nearly all of the  
casualties in the overall conflict were inflicted by Georgian forces  
at the outset of hostilities. The US and UK media refer to the total  
number of casualties, and imply that Russia is to blame for them.  
Such is the nature of our so-called 'free press'.

Clearly the US & NATO had no intention of backing up the Georgian  
forces, although Saakashvili was most likely led to believe  
otherwise. It's always dangerous to  go with a 'green light to  
attack' from America. Saddam fell into that trap and got the Gulf War  
for his reward. And way back in the 1956 Hungarian uprising, the  
Voice of America had promised the rebels that America would come to  
their aid, and then they were left out to dry, cannon fodder for Cold-
War propaganda. The Kurds have been similarly betrayed on several  
occasions. The Native American's had a phrase about the yankees,  
"White man speak with forked tongue".

Russia could not possibly have responded other than she did, on  
humanitarian grounds alone, along with national pride, and backed up  
by current international law & practice. And given the current  
geopolitical situation, Russia was probably looking for an  
opportunity to demonstrate her new-found assertiveness on the world  
stage. So the whole scenario was totally predictable by Washington,  
and the outcomes are exactly what the US wanted. Hence the one-sided  
spin in the media. The whole point of the operation was to demonize  
Russia and to reinstate the Cold War regime, an objective the US has  
been building up to for some time.

What's to come
This leads us to considering two possible future scenarios:  
armageddon, or regionalism. In the armageddon scenario – the stuff of  
Cheney's dreams – we finally have World War III, a nuclear exchange,  
and the winner takes all, if a winner remains standing. In the  
context of that scenario, the Georgian exercise would be meant to  
harden the lines, and to prepare populations to understand the 'why'  
of conflicts to come.

In the regionalism scenario, which I explored in The Post-Bush  
Regime, a Prognosis, the motivation for the Georgian exercise would  
be more along the lines of 1984 – the creation of an enemy persona,  
an essential character in propaganda drama... "The Wicked Witch of  
the East unleashes her winged monkeys on the 'innocent' Georgians" –  
that sort of thing.

In support of the armageddon scenario we have reports of a US-NATO  
naval armada converging on Iran, with the intention of a full  
blockade. Russian military ships would challenge such a blockade, and  
off we go into armageddon land.

In support of the regionalism scenario we have reports of a  
collapsing dollar, and of the Amero coming to the rescue, along with  
the North American Union. A circling of the wagons into regional self-
sufficiency, and most likely a post-capitalist, neo-feudal, world  
system.

Which will it be?

Your guess is as good as mine.

On the other hand, by means of grass-roots intervention, a whole new  
scenario could be introduced. Only time will tell.

rkm

___________________________
subscribe mailto:
cyberjournal-subscribe@googlegroups.com

websites:
http://cyberjournal.org
http://www.governourselves.org/
http://escapingthematrix.org/
http://www.wakingthephoenix.org/

recent archives:
http://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal
http://groups.google.com/group/newslog

old archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog

Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com  (comments welcome)