The Foundation of GeoPolitics: Putin's Guide to a New Cold War

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. vrDrew, Jul 27, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2016

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    Vladimir Putin was appointed Deputy Chief of the Presidential Staff by Boris Yeltsin in 1997.

    That same year, Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent political scientist, published a book that went on to become required reading for Russia's political, military, and intelligence elites: The Foundations of GeoPolitics

    The book lays out a program that Vladimir Putin has followed almost point-for-point. It lays out a program where Russian influence and domination is achieved not through conventional military or economic, through social and political means. But through

    The Foundations of GeoPolitics lays out a suggested course of action:

    Germany is to be encouraged to form the center of a European-bloc. France encouraged to join them in a firmly anti-American stance.

    Britain should be cut off from Europe. (Hello, Brexit?)

    Ukraine should be annexed by Russia:

    Donald Trump today announced he would consider recognizing Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and ending sanctions against Russia. Trump made the point of removing language in his party's political platform that supported Ukraine.

    It recommends applying "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities"

    China is to be encouraged to move "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensation" for Russian moves in Siberia elsewhere in east Asia.

    The main focus of the book regards the United States, which Dugin and the Russian elites see as their main foe. This is to be accomplished by by spreading anti-Americanism everywhere: ""the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

    Hello Wikileaks.

    Within the United States itself:
    That is the roadmap Vladimir Putin is following. We have seen too many of the landmarks on that roadmap come to pass. We have seen Russia acting to destabilize its neighbors. Militarily in Ossetia. Annexing the Crimea. Funding and supplying renegade separatists in Ukraine. We have seen Russia seek to cow and intimidate the countries of Europe through its oil industry.

    Who knows what role Putin's thugs might have played in the disastrous British vote to leave Europe. Who knows what role Russia may have had in encouraging the Chinese to expand into the South China Sea.

    And today, Donald J. Trump handed Vladimir Putin the greatest gift he could hope for: The spoken assertion that a potential future US President was willing to walk away from our country's commitments. To sell Ukraine, and America's promise, down the river.

    A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Vladimir Putin.

    Make no mistake about this. The United States might very well survive one Trump term in the White House. But I am certain that whoever follows Trump will face a world where the United States has been humiliated. Where our oldest and strongest alliance lies in tatters. And our society at home is more riven by strife and discord than ever before.

    Trump is an imbecile. Do not vote for him. He is playing into Vladimir Putin's hands. In my entire lifetime I have never imagined we would see a threat as dire as the one posed by Donald Trump dancing to the strings being pulled by Vladimir Putin.
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    Sounds like emotional George Friedman-speak, right out of the CIA playbook.

    What with the nuke band, "Hillary and the War Hawks", striving to follow the Wolfowitz Doctrine into a shooting war with Russia, I'm pretty much stuck with the Trumpster, like it or not.
     
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    If you're a neocon warmonger with a vested interest in the Military-Industrial Complex and desiring of endless Wall Street-inspired wars, by all means vote for Hillary.
     
  4. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #4
    Vote for Killary, because neocons and other lunatics believe she will stand up to that darned Putin and make the world safer by pushing the world closer to nuclear confrontation. This is your company, vrDrew. Enjoy.


    EXCLUSIVE – Neocons for Hillary: Obama “Doesn’t Want Nuclear War”

    http://mediaroots.org/exclusive-obama-doesnt-want-nuclear-war-neocons-for-hillary/

    Robbie Martin: I wanted to know what your feeling was on Hillary’s approach to Ukraine, is she going to send the weapons to the Ukrainian army?

    Robert Kagan: I mean, I’m sure, I mean the answer to that question is I don’t know. I know she cares a lot about Ukraine and certainly cares more about it than the current president does

    Robbie Martin: With arms, why do you think the president has sort of dragged his feet?

    Robert Kagan: Uh, because he said to me because he doesn’t want to get into a nuclear war with Russia.

    Robbie Martin: That’s literally what he said?

    Robert Kagan: Yeah, I don’t think…he’s not…he’s through with his agenda with Putin, I don’t think he cares about Putin anymore at all, I think he’s hopeless–uh, he thinks Putin is hopeless, but he says, he thinks Ukraine is part of Russian sphere of influence, and it means more to them than it means to us and therefore we shouldn’t escalate in a situation like that, that’s why he doesn’t want to send arms.

    Robbie Martin: He actually said he doesn’t want a nuclear war over Ukraine?

    Robert Kagan: He did, ‘I don’t want to have a nuclear war over Ukraine’–my response is well who do you want to have a nuclear war over? Do you want to have a nuclear war over Estonia? I’ll go down the list, Germany? If that’s your going in position, then okay, fine. Whatever nuclear countries don’t want, we won’t do.

    He proceeded to speak about the importance of the NATO alliance and how Hillary Clinton understands this better than Trump.

    Robert Kagan: I think that my instructions are to–uh, explain to you why Hillary Clinton would be better for the U.S. transatlantic European relationship than for alliances than Donald Trump, um, I’m going to operate on the assumption than all your mental faculties are intact and skip past that. I mean for me, I gotta tell you quite honestly if Donald Trump wins the election, the transatlantic relationship would be item number 10 or 20 on my list, given the threat that I think he poses to our democracy, which is fundamental, and if America is capable of electing someone like Trump and he does behave in the kind of way that I think he will behave, our ability to lead our ability to show…act as an example, our ability to–you know–have close relations with other democracies is going to be severely damaged. I’m going to operate on the second assumption, which is that Donald Trump doesn’t win the election and that Hillary Clinton does, a horrifying as it is to even have to think about that prospect.


    Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, is who has led the charge in arming and supporting neo-nazis in Ukraine to cause confrontation with Russia. She buys her agitator gear from same place as DeRay, apparently.

    1018624898.jpg
     
  5. jerwin, Jul 27, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2016

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #5
    Democrats have their own schools of foreign policy-- we don't need to crib from the Republican playbook.

    I recall a review of Hillary Clinton's June 3 speech on "foreign policy". As you may remember, it was an attack on Donald Trump's dangerously incoherent ideas.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...olicy-speech-is-almost-impossible-to-analyze/

    Mead's typologies are summarized in this book review.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/dec/16/20011216-034036-4236r/

    Hillary clinton is not a neoconservative because she's not a Republican. She doesn't have to make her views on foreign policy sound palatable to libertarians, social conservatism, and all the various factions of so-called movement conservatism. She doesn't have to justify a desire to engage with the world with a quasi-religious invocation of the Evil Empire.

    Instead, she can draw upon a democratic tradition of Wilsonian idealism. You may object to this as insufficiently isolationist for your taste. That's your right. But please don't try to conflate it with the foreign policy disasters of George W Bush.
     
  6. Jess13, Jul 27, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #6
    Killary gave George W. Bush authority to attack Iraq by voting yes, later voting to further fund the Iraq War when it was already a total disaster. She knew from the start that it was based on lies and intentionally distorted intelligence, she is part of the Bush-Clinton crime group. Killary pushed Warbama to help in the war crime attack against Libya, under the guise of “R2P” to save civilians that weren’t even endangered. Libya is destroyed, overrun with ISIS and other jihadists including al-Qaeda. Killary and CIA/State helped to arm terrorists including AL-QAEDA to overthrow Qaddafi, those terrorists of hers then perpetrated the Black Libyan Genocide. Killary with CIA and State was involved in helping then get weapons from Libya to Syria to arm other terrorists and jihadists, which has almost destroyed Syria. Countless dead; nations destroyed; arming and supporting terrorists; giving rise to ISIS. Yeah, Killary is the George W. Bush foreign policy disaster with makeup and lipstick on. It’s so disheartening to see so many so-called liberals mindlessly — or consciously — supporting Her, the worst and most evil 2016 candidate.


    cf.jpg
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    I think it's pretty funny that Republicans are now openly supporting Russia. After the Cold War that's amazing.
     
  8. Jess13, Jul 27, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    I am reading an interesting Pulitzer Prize winning book about the Cold War and U.S. vs. Soviets. Reagan usually is portrayed as very anti-Soviet but was in truth very strongly wanting peace and good relations with the Soviets, to strongly avoid nuclear confrontation and to dismantle all nuclear weapons. Hillary wants to provoke Russia into conflict, because it’s what Hillary does: Start wars and support any wars and confrontations possible.

    I recommend this book.


    The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy

    https://itunes.apple.com/book/the-dead-hand/id419278388
    https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-Legacy/dp/0307387844

    WINNER OF THE PULITZER PRIZE

    The first full account of how the Cold War arms race finally came to a close, this riveting narrative history sheds new light on the people who struggled to end this era of massive overkill, and examines the legacy of the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that remain a threat today.

    Drawing on memoirs, interviews in both Russia and the US, and classified documents from deep inside the Kremlin, David E. Hoffman examines the inner motives and secret decisions of each side and details the deadly stockpiles that remained unsecured as the Soviet Union collapsed. This is the fascinating story of how Reagan, Gorbachev, and a previously unheralded collection of scientists, soldiers, diplomats, and spies changed the course of history.
    51xlEq9uopL.jpg

    I am presently in Chapter 12.

    the Dead Hand.png

    Mods: Please try to have the MacRumors quote bug fixed and I’ll happily put quotes into proper quote boxes, I just did for this comment’s Amazon content but am editing into indentation format instead because the quote bug split the quote into two pieces (again). Thanks.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    I don't think Reagan ever thought Russia was an ally.

    And Hilary isn't going to start a war with a nuclear armed power. That's literally insane.
     
  10. Jess13, Jul 28, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #10
    True, Reagan didn’t think of Russia as being an ally. But he was wanting to end any possibility of nuclear confrontation with Russia. Hillary is a warmonger and psychopath. Hillary perhaps didn’t want for ISIS to take over swaths of Libya and massacre who knows how many that have been killed, but she clearly doesn’t care that they have. Hillary perhaps didn’t want for her [other] jihadists that she helped to overthrow Qaddafi (who may have later morphed into ISIS terrorists themselves), to then perpetrate the Black Libyan Genocide. But she clearly doesn’t care that they did. She still helped to make both happen anyway, with no regard for the consequences. No apologies. She still ****ed up Libya regardless and has helped to try to **** up Syria the same: arming and supporting terrorist mercenary proxy fighters. Do I think Hillary is going to intentionally try to start a nuclear war or Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 type confrontation one step away from annihilation scenario with Russia? No. But I don’t doubt that Hillary will create that possibility of nuclear confrontation, either through her stupidity and/or already proven wanton disregard for consequences of her power lust. Hillary wants Syria destroyed and Assad gone—not just arming terrorists to do it, she wants to use Commander-in-chief position to directly bomb the Syrian government. Who cares if that means a jihadist and ISIS takeover of Syria just like what happened to swaths of Libya? Hillary doesn’t care: War crimes and destroying the lives of millions is “progressive.” Russia is guarding and fighting on the side of Syria; Hillary supports a no-fly zone to shoot down Russian planes. World War III. Hillary wants to intervene fully in Ukraine and help neo-nazis there fight the pro-Russian opposition, putting your safety in danger of hot war with Russia. Hillary doesn’t care: She would have the nuke codes, and lunatic neocons think first strike winnable nuclear war is actually possible or threatening and intimidating other nations, even nuclear nations, into backing down or submitting is possible. Even Warbama has tried to avoid causing WWIII by doing so (Read this neocon exposed piece). So hey, support Hillary all day every day, have at it. But she’s the worst person the Democrats could have nominated. The worst.
     
  11. blackfox, Jul 28, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2016

    blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #11
    I'm not sure anyone got VR's point yet. This is not about US Politics per-se, but about manipulating and exploiting it as an outside power. Shoe's on the other foot. If anyone really thinks Trump will fare better under the scenario posited than Clinton - then I just don't know.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 28, 2016 ---
    Or Actually, I'll go one more...So the US is faced with a resurgent Russia, China, (to a lesser extent India) and some of Indochina - plus Mexico. All problems, the first two (to four) not belabored by our democratic tendencies...and the solution is WikiLeaks and Trump! WTF guys, do you want to lose? As far as I remember it, there was a casual allowance of the Government/military to do somewhat undemocratic things - for the better good. It's gone on since this nation was founded - sometimes better, sometimes worse. Still, at this point armchair analysts - (Jess13 I'm looking towards you), think that because you're forced to do naughty things in the International realm to combat other people doing equally (or more) naughty things, that they are an *******. They very well might be, but they might also be the imperfect line holding back the barbarians (so to speak). The US has always had an achilles heel - their democratic process (or the appearance of one). We'll being played, and quite well...
     

Share This Page