Deconstructing Brzezinski's Russia
His first statements are clearly indicative of someone living in a fantasy geopolitical environment created by neocon morality:
"The end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new age in which the major powers would no longer dictate to their neighbours how to run their affairs.
The warrior ethic of the American Imperial elite, embodied in its fullest measure by Zbigniew Brzezinski, has been rejuvenated momentarily by Russia's attack on Georgia. Reading Brzezinski's words leaves one choking on their overt hypocrisy or laughing insanely at the obvious absurdity of them. His writing technique is flawless, based on the big lie technique – tell it straight up, tell it often enough, and ignorant masses will tend to believe it. In a current TIME magazine article Brzezinski does this extremely well.
Will it continue to rely on coercion to achieve its imperial aims, or is it willing to work within the emerging international system that values cooperation and consensus? "
One has to blink several times in wonderment at these strange statements. First of all there was only one major power, looking for "full spectrum dominance" militarily in order to support their overwhelming economic consumption of the global resources, the major item being oil. They had some assistance:
"When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. "
It has been the U.S. that unilaterally abrogated, avoided, or conflicted with all international norms ranging from missile treaties, environmental treaties, through the complete range of UN rights and obligations, and the Geneva conventions. This does not even rate as a double standard as Russia
"has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians. "
While Russia's invasion beyond the limits of self defence are also against international law, (but hardly as "disproportionate"  as Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, also with U.S. backing) the U.S. is far and above the worst contender in today's world when it comes to invasions or interference in other countries to "achieve its imperial aims."
Brzezinski then asks if "the global community can demonstrate to the Kremlin that there are costs for the blatant use of force on behalf of anachronistic imperial goals."
Again I shudder in disbelief. How can Americans (Brzezinski is not unique in this, just one of the more powerful and vocal elites) not recognize the weirdness of this statement when their own troops have invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, their government has supported Israeli threats and attacks on its neighbours with billions of dollars and other military aid all for its own mini-imperial purposes while controlling millions in concentration camp conditions in Gaza, threatened Pakistan with a return to the stone ages, and built military bases throughout the world in a full out attempt to contain and destroy Russia and contain and control resources. This certainly does not fit my definition of anachronistic, but a rather contemporary example of American imperialism seeking global hegemonic control.
The article follows from that introduction with its grand flow of big lies and double standards and hypocrisy. He resorts to innuendo via psychology, saying that Georgian President Saakashvili "has seemingly become a personal obsession" with Putin, fully reminiscent of Bush's theoretical (?) obsession with getting Saddam Hussein.
The idea of a "pretext" for confrontation enters his arguments. This of course is probably a lesson learned from the U.S. and its many historical pretexts for imperial expansion ranging all the way from the Mexican (Alamo) and Spanish wars (Maine) through to Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), and Iraq (WMDs, terrorists) – although the latter hardly required a pretext under the idea of pre-emptive military action.
Georgia's action is described as "rash", most international media support the idea that it had to be supported in some way by U.S./Israeli actions of supplying and training Georgia's military. The attack is described quite clearly in the alternate media indicating that there was little intention to worry about civilian casualties:
"The Georgian offensive opened with an infantry assault against South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali...after a preparatory artillery attack...with fire support capabilities including target-oriented and concentrated fire...including a mortar barrage and launch of notoriously imprecise truck mounted GRAD multiple-barreled rocket launchers. "
1 | 2 | 3
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.