By Nicolas Bonnal
It is not Ukraine which limits Russia's geostrategic options; it is Russia which limits whatever it does America's geostrategic options.
I already showed a few months ago how American-Polish theorist (nowadays the term rhymes with terrorist) Zbigniew Brzezinski became obsessed with the themes of the Heartland and the World-Pivot, a devilish inheritance of McKinder and Nazi geopolitics - think of Admiral Haushofer. There was another obsession too in these lines: the Ukraine.
Wrote Brzezinski in the Great Chessboard:
Ukraine's independence also deprived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea, where Odessa had served as Russia's vital gateway to trade with the Mediterranean and the world beyond. The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia's geostrategic options.
As we know, this remark is wrong. It is not Ukraine which limits Russia's geostrategic options; it is Russia which limits whatever she does America's geostrategic options.
But this is what explains the American-staged coup in Ukraine and the cruel and somewhat surreal war in the eastern parts of this unlucky land. A horrible war between two kindred people has been thus coldly devised in the corridors of Washington.
Lastly Brzezinski spoke on a panel at the Wilson Centre. It was on June 16 and the speech was titled "Mutual Security on Hold? Russia, the West, and European Security Architecture".
Despite his ninety-two years, Brzezinski is on the verge to be the mastermind of the last European war, a war 100% forged by American elites and NATO. A war without enemies, only with victims.
First, the august professor tries to demonize Russia in almost religious terms. America demonized nationalism, communism, fascism, Islamism, now it demonizes patriotism in Russia...
Our ubiquitous and very old Dr Strangelove speaks of four Russian concepts reflecting this mystical chauvinism:
The key concepts are four: first, that of "a divided people"; secondly, the theme of "protecting compatriots abroad"; third and more broadly, "the Russian world" or "Ruski Mir" in Russian; fourth, the importance of acknowledging and sustaining, embracing and promoting "the Great Russian civilization".
Any great country believes in its mission.
What should we tell indeed about the French perennial arrogance and the British Empire, what should we tell about the American crusades, about the messianic and puritan character of American civilization, what should we tell about western promotion of liberties through Hiroshima and the bombing of Vietnam or Iraq?
Of course with all originality due when it comes to Russia, Mr Brzezinski alludes to Hitler:
It leads, of course, to the concept of protecting compatriots abroad. And that has special meaning for those countries which do have Russian ethnic nationals living in their society and who border on Russia.
So the new Russian Hitler wants his Russians back? Doesn't Russia plan twenty invasions?
The nutty professor adds another term: sexuality. Another western obsession underlined in its time by Freud or Weininger is here linked to homosexuality; as you will read now, the orator plays with the words.
The notion is that the great Russian civilization stands for certain basic values, not only religious, but in terms of interpersonal relationships-for example, condemning some of the changes in the relationship between the sexes and within the sexes that are now taking place in the world. In effect, Russia protects the integrity of certain basic beliefs that have characterized Christianity, but in the Russian view, that Christianity is now betraying its fundamentals.
As we know these "changes that are taking place in the world" are imposed by the transhuman elites. They are undemocratic yet these sexual fantasies - and promotions in western embassies- are enough to justify a war against Russia and orthodoxy.
Well, and for Christianity, anyone has understood that the new pope is may be new, but that he is not a pope. In bizarre conditions he strangely replaced traditionalist Benedict and he is basically an opportunistic Jesuit puppet who eats in the hand of the global elite.
But the purpose is here a war.
Next, Brzezinski becomes less polemical and basically speaks of direct military aid to protect Ukraine from the Russian invasion he dreams of:
And we'll provide some of those weapons in advance of the very act of invasion. Because in the absence of that, the temptation to invade and to preempt may become overwhelming.
Yes: will Russia invade the rest of the world?
Honestly the Dr acknowledges that is not possible to invade Russia (why so much pessimism?). What a good job if it were easy! Yet Dr Strangelove seems out of his mind:
This is not an arming of Ukraine for some invasion of Russia. You don't invade a country as large as Russia with defensive weaponry. But if you have defensive weaponry and you have access to it and know it's arriving, you're more likely to resist.
Of course, the fantasist professor would like to set off a new war in Europe and he speaks of involving a European military presence in Baltic countries in order to threaten Russia and perhaps produce his so desired show:
I would think it would be very productive if, in addition to America, some leading European states, notably Germany, France, and Great Britain, deployed some symbolic forces in these three countries.
Yes it would be productive indeed. It would produce a war!
Make no mistake: I think this is what they want and what they need.
A new destruction of Europe would be good for a wavering dollar and for a fraying American emporium.
And let us talk of a new ambitious program: if the West could manage a pre-emptive war against Russia in order to prevent the so much feared Russian invasion of every Baltic and Carpathian country in Europe?
They plan to unclench it. Mein Fuhrer, will it walk?
But let us not joke. After all Stanley Kubrick died mysteriously during his sleep.
And an observation to our Russian friends: your enemy is really nut.