October 31, 2015
Excerpts from the translation of the French article
made by William Blum and David N. Gibbs
Doctor Brzezinski waging war against the Russians,
Kyber Pass, Pakistan, a few kilometers from the Afghan border on February 3rd,1980.
What happened there was reported
by The Washington Post, February 4th 1980.
In August 25th 2007, the candidate Obama received the support of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, against the candidacy of Hillary Clinton on the (official) pretext that "being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president".
After two Republican mandates that he had strongly criticized, this close friend of David Rockefeller's had asserted that America needed,
In front of such a position, the former first lady who had probably taken offense of the harsh treatment of being publicly reduced to what she was in fact, a former first lady, then told that he was "naive".
You may believe, incidentally, that there had been serious debates about American foreign policy inside the Democratic Party.
But the sure thing was that there was no such thing as a good relationship between the hawkish democrat woman and the old veteran of tours and detours of modern diplomacy.
But how could she say he was naive? How could she consider a man like that as naive?
The fact is that Zbigniew Brzezinski had a good intuition regarding the results of the elections. Or was he told by his friends from the Center for a New American Security that the young Senator from Illinois would probably become president?
We'll never answer this question but, the sure thing is that even before he was elected Obama thanked Brzezinski.
During the Iraq Speech on September 9th 2007, he told that he couldn't say enough about his contribution to the United States but gave the audience a few elements of an exemplary career and an exemplary profile:
But the candidate Obama forgot to mention before the audience a key element of his idiosyncrasy: his frankness y his taste for truth.
Because we really can say that doctor Brzezinski is a very frank man and his frankness is a direct consequence of the strength of the belief that keeps him going, a belief formerly expressed with these words by the neoconservative Project for a New American Century:
The best evidence - but not the only one - of Dr. Brzezinski's frankness can be found in an interview published in the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (15/01/1998) and entitled "Yes, the CIA went to Afghanistan before the Russians" (Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes) in which the doctor confirms what the ex CIA director Robert Gates revealed in his Memoirs - the same Robert Gates who was nominated as Secretary of Defense in 2006 and remained in his seat until 2011, let's just say that almost until the end of the first Obama mandate - the fact that the American secret service went into Afghanistan long before the date exposed by the "official version of history" which pretends that the US "aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980".
According to Brzezinski, who knows what he's talking about:
Now the Russians arrived on December 24th.
After confessing this maneuver, Obama's favorite doctor in geopolitics soothes his remarks by saying:
It's not a conspiracy then, just the arrangement of an action with the aim of increasing the probability of a particular response. Then the journalist asks him, maybe half-jokingly, if he "regrets any of this today".
The pleasant professor answers :
And he concludes, in an offhand manner, like a cowboy full of common sense and inaccessible to doubt:
According to the doctor, those who claim that,
And he adds:
Then, there's no doubt about the fact that Dr. Brzezinski is a frank man.
There's also no doubt about the fact that in his opinion, the biggest enemy of America, the dead weight, the rock against which the marvellous wave of military and economic globalization is breaking, is Russia.
As far as Islamic fundamentalism is concerned, you'll judge by yourself, since everyone has the right for a personal point of view given the fact that we live in the age of opinion : most people will believe what our politicians and journalists don't stop repeating, those people we hear and see everywhere.
They serve wheeler-dealer lobbies and their main function is to confiscate our freedom of speech and make us believe fairy tales about, for example, Islamic fundamentalists.
As far as I am concerned, I've made my mind:
Because he did something and tells us what he did, because he sincerely believes in what he says, and because,
Needless to say that I don't share his belief about the role of America and I believe, contrary to him, that the American leadership is not good for the world and neither good for America.
But I tend to believe him when he's talking about facts...
November 04, 2015
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island",
that is to say Eurasia.
The geographer Halford Mackinder became famous because of this shock-phrase taken from his book Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).
But the idea had already been expressed in his article "The Geographical Pivot of History" published in 1904 in the Geographical Journal (No.4, April 1904, Vol.XXIII).
In fact, if we look at the map published
in this article the Heartland (Pivot Area) matches with today's
Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Iran.
Eurasia map divided by Zbigniew Brzezinski
in his article "A Geostrategy for Eurasia"
Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997.
In the September/October 1997 issue of
Foreign Affairs, Zbigniew
Brzezinski wrote an article entitled "A Geostrategy for Eurasia"
in which he wanted to implement the hegemonic thinking of his
But Russia must stop living in the contemplation of its golden age.
The Russian bureaucracy has had a negative effect on the development of,
Brzezinski's conclusion is final:
And then, putting his money where his mouth is, he takes the map of Russia and divides it into three equal parts, creating what he calls,
This solution, if applied one day, would allow the newly created states to engage in,
And seven years later, in a book entitled The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership (2004), he goes further pretending that a transnational effort to develop and colonize Siberia could stimulate genuine European-Russian bonding".
In his opinion, Siberia is a new "Alaska", a new "California", "an El Dorado for [Europe's] more adventurous settlers", a source of "immeasurable natural wealth", "an occasion for profitable investments".
Caught in the rapture of geopolitics, he contemplates the transformation of Siberia into,
For him, this change would have the advantage of,
You thought the good old times of colonization were gone? Then you're wrong, because they aren't.
Thanks to Dr. B., a "Drang Nach Osten for development" is on its way. Nevertheless, he points out that things won't be easy since the Russians won't accept this "geopolitical pluralism" right away.
How will this be done?
An idea that is deeply rooted in the doctor's mind since he wrote, seven years before, that,
But let's summarize the Doctor's central belief:
One can smile at the list of renunciations demanded of Russia by the optimistic Dr. Brzezinski:
That's why it's really too difficult to
remain serious before a joke so seriously expressed and directed at
readers who worry only about getting richer and more powerful,
pioneering-minded readers who view Siberia as a new Alaska, as a new
California, as the opportunity of a new gold rush, of a new Drang
nach Osten that will not be peaceful at all but will be, on the
contrary, one more plundering, a bigger one, the Technicolor
plundering of a Heartland once and for all submitted to the big
money and whose submission will mean, for those who still believe in
it, the end of History.
It seems consistent that this particular
Obama - not the one who made promises on two electoral occasions,
but the real one - shaped and brought to presidency by the powerful
group of people of whom Dr. B. is the representative, has decided to
wage a war against Russia, a war that began with a fascist coup in
Ukraine, followed with a series of sanctions against Russia and an
attempt to destabilize the Syrian ally, using the pretext of a
terrorist organization called ISIL whose actions justified - what a
divine surprise - the American interventionism in a sovereign state,
through a series of inefficient bombings and the financial and
military support given to a liberation army of "moderate Islamic
fundamentalists", maybe not as moderate as they say but very useful,
as the ones the Doctor provided with weapons back in 1979 in
Afghanistan to give the Russians their own "Vietnam War".